20080050 Ver 1_Application_20080109

e ~,.. 57n7E o-
..~ ~
-
~w,..e .,~d'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~NT OF PORTATION
MIC~3LIEL F. EASLEY
GOVE.RlVOR
December 28, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SLC~tE'1"ARY
ATTENTION: Mr. David Baker
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 26 over
the Linville River on NC 183 in Burke County, Division 13, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-0183(1), State Project No. 8.1852001, WBS Element
33404.1.1, TIP No. B-4038. $570 Debit work order 8.1852001, WBS
Element 33404.1.1.
Dear Sir:
Please see the enclosed PCN, Ecosystem Enhancement Program mitigation acceptance letter,
Jurisdictional Determination form (JD), permit drawings and design plans. A Categorical
Exclusion and Construction Consultation were completed for this project in January 2007 and
August 2007 respectively, and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon
request. NCDOT proposes to replace the existing 213 foot long Bridge No. 26 with a new bridge
approximately 30 feet to the west of the current location. The proposed new structure will span
185 feet. There will be 160 linear feet of permanent impacts and 0.15 acres of temporary impacts
incurred from the construction of this project. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF' THE UNITED STATES
General Description:
The water resources on project B-4038 include the Linville River and a UT to the Linville River.
The Linville River is located in the Catawba River Basin (Division of Water Quality (DWQ})
subbasin 03-08-30. The DWQ Index number for the Linville River and its UT is 11-29-(4.5} and
the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is 03050101.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources classifies the Linville
River as B-Tr. There are no High Quality Waters (HQW}, Water Supplies (WS-I or WSII), or
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEB$ITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW} within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The Linville
River does not appear on the North Carolina DWQ 303{d) List (updated 2006). The JD form for
the Linville River has been provided with this application, so that the USAGE can issue a
verification. There are no anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands within the project study
area.
Permanent Impacts:
There will be 160 linear feet of permanent channel impacts to an unnamed tributary to the
Linville River as depicted on the permit drawing, site 1. These impacts are associated with
installing three 66" reinforced concrete pipes. The length of the pipes is necessary due to the
angle of the UT in relation to the roadway design and bridge approach.
Temporary Impacts:
There will be 0.13 acre of temporary impacts associated with installing 3 causeways far
construction access, as depicted on the permit drawing, site 2. The two causeways installed on
either side of the river to remove the existing bridge will not be installed at the same time_ The
causeway installed to build the new bridge will not take up over 50 % of the river. Additionally,
there will be 0.02 acre of temporary impacts for the installation of the above-mentioned pipes.
Utility Impacts:
There will be no jurisdictional impacts associated with relocation of utility lines on the project
site.
Bridge Demolition
The bridge superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on concrete girders_ The bridge
has five spans and totals 213 feet in length. The end bents consist of reinforced concrete caps on
H-piles while the interior bents are reinforced posts and beams. There is potential for three spans
of the concrete deck and two of the interior bents to be dropped into the Linville River during
demolition and removal_ The maximum potential temporary fill associated with the removal of
the bridge is approximately 174 cubic yards.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project schedule calls for an April 15, 2008 let date with a review date of February 26, 2008.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E}, Threatened (T}, Proposed
Endangered (PE} and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of November 5, 2007, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS) lists six federally protected species for Burke
County (Table 1). The biological conclusion for the six listed species is No Effect. It should be
noted that the Bald Eagle was previously listed as "Threatened", however it was delisted August
8, 2007.
Nationwide 23/33 Permit Application 2 B-4038

Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Burke County.
COMMC)N
SCIENTIFIC 'NAME
STATUS:
HABITAT BIOLOGICAL
NAIYIE ~ ., CONCLUSIO N
Bog turtle Clemmys rnuhlenbergii T(S/A) No N/A
Sald eagle Hcaliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted No N/A
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E No No Effect
Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis naniflora T Yes No Effect
heartleaf
Mountain golden- Hudsonia montana T No No Effect
heather
Small-whorled Isotria medeoloides T Yes No Effect
pagonia
Heller's blazing Liatris helleri T No No Effect
star
The bald eagle has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as of August 8, 2007. It is
still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A survey was conducted in July
2001. No suitable habitat was observed.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design. The use of best management practices for construction
should reduce impacts to plant communities. The following avoidance and minimization
measures will apply to this project.
• The new bridge will span the Linville River.
• During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge.
• Water will not be directly discharged into the Linville River via deck drains.
• 2:1 slopes will be used at the culvert for minimization.
• The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water work between October 15 to April 15
for wild Brown Trout.
• The NCWRC Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented for this
project.
In addition, Best Management Practices will be followed as outlined in "NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
Compensatory Mitigation:
Mitigation for 160 linear feet of permanent impacts to an Unnamed Tributary to the Linville
River will be provided by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (see enclosed letter).
Nationwide 23/33 Permit Application 3 B-4038

REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit:
It is anticipated that the temporary causeway will be authorized under Sectian 404 Nationwide
Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering}. We are, therefore, requesting the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion". The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23.
Section 401 Permit:
We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688 will apply to this project. We
are hereby requesting a water quality certification from DWQ. The NCDOT is asking that
concurrence on the NC State Stormwater permit be included in the Section 401
Certification for TIP B-4035. We are submitting five copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for
their review and approval.
This project is located in a trout county; therefore comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of
Engineers_ By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers and the
NCDOT within 30 calendar days of receipt of this application.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Jeremy T. Learner at jtleamer cr,dot.state.nc.us or (919} 715-7726.
Sincer y,
C
Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr_ Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Div. 13 Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, Div. 13 DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E_, Program. and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Ms. Natalie Lockheart, PDEA Engineer
Nationwide 23/33 Permit Application 4 B-4038

Offlce Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "NIA".}
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval{s) requested for this project:
x Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
x 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: 23. 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: x
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1 _ Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: NC DOT - PDEA
1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: X919) 733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 5 of 13

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: N/A
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only}: B-4038
3. Property Identification Number {Tax PIN}: N/A
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Morganton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site {include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
Bride # 26 On NC 183 over the Linville River.
5_ Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
One water body:
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 1133123.5 °N 816439.4 °W
6. Property size {acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Catawba River
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at httpa/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: Bridge No. 26 is located 0.6 miles east of the junction with
SR on NC 183, near the town of Linville Falls. The bridge was constructed in 1953 and is
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 6 of 13

currentlynot posted to restrict weight limits. NC 183 is classified as a rural major collector in
the Statewide Functional Classification System.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge replacement proiect involving heavy construction equipment and manual labor.
1 1. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Public transportation improvement project.
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 NCD~T project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.LP. project, along with
construction schedules. No prior permits have been issued/ withdrawn for this project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any fiiture 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.
No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's {or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate_
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 7 of 13

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 160 linear feet of
permanent surface water impacts associated with the bride construction. Temporary access
via causeway for construction will result in 132 linear feet of surface water impacts.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact
Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year

Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest

Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact

(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Station
17+00/18+00 Linville River permanent perennial
12' 160 0.07
Station
21+70/23+55 Linville River temporary perennial
12' 132 0.13

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 292 0.20
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 8 of 13

Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.} Area of

Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative irnvact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.22
Wetland Impact (acres): N/A
Open Water Impact {acres): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) Permanent 0.07
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) Temporary 0.15
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 292
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes x No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
fnancial 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. Alternative A was not chosen
because it is a "replace in place" tactic with a lengthy 17 mile detour. NC 183 is too important as
an emergency route. Alternative B was considered but not chosen due to havin a~hi~her cost
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 9 of 13

and because of the moratorium constraints for construction. Alternate C was selected as the
preferred alternative because it allows for the existing road to remain open and has lower
associated construction costs. The "do-nothing" alternative was not considered due to it
eliminating the use of NC 183 and closing the bride. Impacts will be minimized by constructing
a bridge that spans the Linville River and surficial bridge runoff will not be directed into the
River via deck drains.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina (see DWQ website for most current
version_}.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet}
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e. g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
TBD
Updated 11 / 1 /20D5
Page 10 of 13

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
{919) 715-0476 to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http:{/www.nceep.net/pales/inlieureplace.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed,
please check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 160
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested {acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes x No ^
2_ If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA}?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes x - A Categorical Exclusion dated 3anuary 2007 has been submitted. No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes x 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. A11 proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. A11 buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
{Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No x
Updated 11/1/2005
Page 11 of 13

2_ If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
{s uare feet) Miti ation
1 3 {2 for Catawba}
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 fee# from the edge of Zone 1.
3_ If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious acreage is not expected to
significantly increase as a result of this bridge replacement protect. Deck drains will not be used.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations {required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No x
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No x
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No x
Updated I 1 / I /2005
Page 12 of 13

If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
httpa/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control}.
There is a moratorium for in-stream work for wild Brown Trout from October 15 to April 15.
F

Applica~{it/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Updated 1 111 /2005
Page 13 of 13

~--
-~ :F.~co stem
yYROGRAM
December 10, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center '
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
~~~~l~~~
DEC ~ 4 2Q07
~'! ~ ~ll~
P13~,~-~f {~ i~Rs~
B-4038, Replace Bridge Number 26 on NC 183 over the Linville
River, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project.
Based on the information supplied by you on December 6, 2007, the impacts are located
in CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-
Region, and are as follows:
Cold Stream:
160 feet
During the review of this request, it was noted that this project did not include any
wetland or stream impacts in the 2007 Impact Projection Database; however, EEP will
provide the requested stream mitigation. Depending on the availability and projected
need of stream mitigation in this cataloging unit, additional stream mitigation may be
required that was not included in the biennial budget submitted to NCDOT on September
18, 2007.
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MBA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact
,c .~ ~-~~•t: ~i~/,.'.r/f~., .~->'' ..~3/~.n':.--`,for ~3'~1'r'a ~4.~-'w -~ a. ';'i: ..'~ n.a~ci`~.'~~ ...~ ~~~ii ~~~`'
j Id+CDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1b52 Mai! Service tenter, Raieigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
if you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
`~ _
William .Gilmore, P.E. v '
EEP Director
cc: Mr. David Baker, USACE -Asheville
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-403 S

~-
-';~~ 5~~
F G
. .
PROGRAM
December 10, 2007
Mr. David Baker
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Roam 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Baker:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4038, Replace Bridge Number 26 an NC 183 over the Linville River,
Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
{EEP) will provide the stream mitigation for the unavoidable impact associated with the above
referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation re~~uest dated December 6, 2007,
stream mitigation from EEP is required for approximately 160 feet of cold stream impacts.
Stream mitigation associated with this project will be provided in accordance with
Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the N. C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the N. C. Department of Transportation, and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers fully executed on March 8, 2007 (Tri-Party MOA). EEP
commits to implement sufficient stream mitigation up to 320 stream mitigation credits to offset
the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project is
permitted. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance
letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact 1VIs. Beth
Harmon at 919-7I5-i 929.
Sincerely,
~' ~ ~ -~-
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: 8-4038
- ~'~~-i
lYCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem EniZancement Program, 662 flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-047b / www.nceep.net

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: B-4038 (Replacement of Bridge 26 on NC 183 over the Linville River)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Burke City: Morganton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 34'53'54'° 1, Long. -82'10'51'° =!4?.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Linville River
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Linville River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050] O1
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
~], Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk} Determination. Date: 12/6/2007
Field Determination. Date(s): 8/21/2007
SECTION I1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA} jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: The Linville River is navigable and continuous from the project site to Lake James. There are regular whitewater kayak
trips that run this stretch year-round.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Ai-e "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): '
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
[, Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 900 linear feet: 12 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
__
c. Limits (boundaries) of ,jurisdiction based on: 1~tti~:Ap~pfii~abt+~
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
' Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section [II below.
z For purposes of this form, an RP W is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e. g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

SECTION HI: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TN Ws and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IILA.1 and Section IILD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IiLB below-
1. TNW
Identify TNW: Linville River.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: The Linville River is navigable and eontinious from the project site through to Lake
James. There is regular whitewater kayaking along this stretch of the river.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuaus flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial} flow, skip to Section IILD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abu#Hng an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and alt of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both.. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section IIi.B.l for
the tributary, Section IILB.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: s~~r~ Miles
Drainage area: sire >lxriles
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through 11(F=.(".rrto~~ tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are ~O ~-~°~} river miles from TNW.
Project waters are 1 ~p;l~ river miles from RPW.
,..
Project waters are ~ ~`~Fit~ aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are ~:~~ aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
' Nate that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swalcs, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

Tributary stream order, if known:
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply}:
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Vertil (1:1 or::iess).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply}:
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Relat~uel~-:sttais~#t
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Inter~zitteg~ Ctut nit: seasois~l f1Q
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year. ~~:{t-Y i~@~te>~)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is. I?~cr~te~and:c,a~f~l~ed. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: LJ~11{na~. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other} testperformed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
^ changes in the character of soil
^ shelving
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
^ sediment deposition
^ water staining
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
^ the presence of litter and debris
^ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
^ the presence of wrack line
^ sediment sorting
^ scour
^ multiple observed or predicted flow events
^ abrupt change in plant community
if factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore}
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (Hst):
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction {check all that apply):
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain t7ndings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationshiv with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intrrmittentfl+~w. Explain:
Surface flow ~s I~iisciEete;anel cainfin
__
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unkt1~?Y~n. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are 3t1-([ilk ~~ river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ~~'(~r~mhpr+~}, aerial (straight) miles from TNW_
Flow is from: WetlEaa~d tQFfro~t an~~lble v~~ters.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 50'~-r o~'~~~"~~t floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.}. Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply}:
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fishfspawn areas. Explain Endings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary {if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis ~~~(a~r ntiri
Approximately ( }acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis-

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres} Directly abuts? (Y/N} Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and ali its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to cant' pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
I. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section I1 I. D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: 900 linear feet 12 width (ftj, Or, acres.
[~ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial:
[] Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year} are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWse that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
~I Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data. supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area. (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
[, Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
~] Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with. the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
[ Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
0 Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6}, or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR 1NTRA-STATE} WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10
[~ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce-
[ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
`See Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
1° Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CI4'A Act Jurisdiction Fallowing Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: Hnear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture}, using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams}: linear feet width (ft}.
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction {check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams}: linear feet, width {ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres-
[~ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
[~ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed I'or JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
[~ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicanUconsultant.
^ Off ce concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map{s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
..............
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: {National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name 8z Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
.._.........
Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicablelsupporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

an
~~_ '~ TAS NORTH CAROLINA
e
~= -' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
..
NC 1 S3
Replace Bridge No_ 26 over
Linville River
Burke County, North Carolina
T1 P N O. 8-4038
PRCJ ECT LOCATION MAP
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~ of ~7
Not to Scale Figure 1
A ~w iM. w~ ~ ww~ff~AM

TIP B-4038 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT -"
'\~- l ~; ~` r`I ., `' ~ •~~ ( i ` ~ i ~--, \•,\j , ~, (~ • ,cam _ _ .
r~.f I ~.~ ~^i ' -\•~ .~''1 t 1 ~~`! ~ ` ~ t i ~I a`~-~ ~ ~`~ .~/. ~.t '` { r^.. 4~r~7~'.I., ~~ ~ =a"~$~ =' _ '~
~,• +~,` ~ Mfr ~l~.ti t-, '~, Jir I fI ~ J _- ~4-t ; ,-~ ~. - - i ~,r'v r,) ' /.
i~ •~~ •'' ~ v j~! / ~' c~~ 0 ~'f~~ ~s~©~,/ ti rv~ ~ t.-~ r~ , 7 !~4f11 ~7 }•f ~~ J
' : ~/ :\ ~`~ ` ~• -•~'~ ~« •~~ ~ /~ ~ .~'~./~1-.~' S ~ ~' = 2•©~~ _~~ ~ - i ~~ _ `• `i qty iy ._ t,
~, -Lr ~ `-~ 1.~"' 1' •-.I_i/rte ~'. _ r r /i!' ~~ ~ ~ r - 1 'f - ti •' ~ i i I' 1 .: u L
"' ~`~1 f ~. ~~`•. y~~ ~~ ~ ~-~;'. •~ /•1 ter' ! ~ ! +( ~ i 't \ ~ ( •~,e;,., t~','-...
_~--A~^ ~• ,''_~.3~0~.'1 t '- >~ . - - : "` r - `fir 1 /-` I'1J ~ r~• ,) t .•_ _` - • ~= ~ _ - ~?
;sue, I 1 i ~ ~ ~_~ . ~~~y'~, I ~ _ ~ _. ' q ,_ r _ t 3 5~~. '-i'`•' -
pq`.-~-~„~ /: ~ ski ~:' \~ _ /-~ i ~"" i ~ 3 ~ ~ j /' J. r`_ _ /rl •'I-`~` - ~~' -~_
1 / M ~ ~~ \`~M ~~ t!~ • ' ! `~``' L ~' ~ ~ ~ l`, e .1' J ~'~ ) r r ~ ~ r ~r/ ~^"-.1 . /! ` ` ~ 1...-% err ~ •_
- _ ~-rte a'~ 2'! j,~./ ~\\~ r~.^ /'~~J~ ` Ii~ /r J/.'/, ';; ,.,,~~ ^~rt~~.-''/ -' l! l
\j • / ~ •J
`1 ~ ~ .
•`~ . J + r [.',,,/~~~. ,\!~Y J` ! ! ~ f•'~, _=~ fur /~'.'r ~ `~ ' f 1
V~ • ~ ~\ 1J ~- ~;•1,_ J- ~ t ~ ~. J,~;~:. •_~]4..;•~.,'~ ~ i • ~ ••-t~~.~ ;../ J ~' j i~~f ,! ~// !, • >`t /r
~ ~J I - r-`t~ I 1 lr f '~' /i _ 1 . J ~ - / 111fff
J~~`'•.~1 ~~~ ~.r~~D'~t- _ -~~`~ ~i1, •a,s) ~ S !~ { ~ 1 ~ f~fi=i/•.1. ~~/•'%!i. _ _ ,, {~ •i "( 7
,~ !~ ("C ._ _tj - ~, ~ ,'a-=., _ '~:' .~ ;~ /i. k~~1 {. ~ ''3665 1 ?Q' : !
,-- -°• ~ ~t~~~~-Z~`~~- `` ~ J "?r ~• ,' • '-~,~ t, ~''l~ rT.' _ •f-.'•<T_"'~•~~t \\l; •.~i: rr~~' ~' / i,~$,•
'' '-~k ~.-1~...'J.1 ti -il _ / ' ~ ~I,t - ~ ~.Lt -_! '--~< l~r~ I~~~ { :F ~ t.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `'`u
.-^. f~~ ~ "~ :~ Z .~ ~~ ,~! r~ l } :.1n ! ' ~' R,ssa' ~i.~//•'i i! /~r~' ~/ ! ~ r _ ~i ~-':
• ~ r~7 : `r7l ~ I ,'~ ' t: ~ /1,~ / i { t ~. ri 7 ~(; J ' - `, i i/' ; ~i/>>1 !'',r% v~ -" i S' '~ _~_ -~ - _ _ ~-
= l `r1p L_.`.:\ ~1 ~ ~ ~ "~, `' ~t ~ r / ,' ~ ~~~ ~ r _~~%i/fl'J //~ Jr \t ~ I /r,~/ {! '•~ _ / /f ~/
-~; )V ~l~ ~'~ v~~ l_ -~~ ~ F /~ ~ 0 ( i,,~~ / r ,=-~ .-~ - ~ - _.~~ ter,. j1f r J j i / r ,~' i~ ~ '! F? t r •- ~, ?'~ i _
j -_1/ ~. ~~~1 t III ~ Il/~_ ( ^ L ~ d ~-t.!" ~~' I~ -1 f _ ~',' J~~ • - 'i~j• ~ ~ 'r
4 `x~~~~ ~_ .c ~ ~ ~ .\~v. t E . ~" 4` `~~ ~ ...~' ~'~ =\• '' ~ ~S!`' { .' / / __ __ `fie ~~j•(- -
~-- .JJI I.`1r.`~`_a~ ~ ~1r ,~y,` '•\/rlti 1Jjr} ~ \ ,/~Y \ _ ~_ ---`~ ti=_~_J ~"•`•`.~ ~.^ "'oe. , l q '-r+'~ss
J.~ ~ ~.'_~.~\~- ~,~ C -`• r P J 1. T\\ rf i f ,Irn'r\ ~ r `~`~'`.y~ 1~=~- ` 1•, `'` . ~ . ' ',` '^ ~4~ ..
-i ~\\; r~.,•\ ~~~~`1 ~~`'~r .)~l t` ~ i 1~ 1 flV/'I lr ~~J~ ' i '~ - _- x -`""~~~~~,'._ ~ /~~'+• l.t-- ^.~ ~~,
='-~-~ ~=-~1~ ~` r i,` ~'~ .t. •1~~ `• `--" ~" ;'';lam "`~,`~ ' '. i '. ~ '~.; =- -.. `_ -, -'--'- J ~/,r '.~Y~ -p~'•~. ~ -- .~ ~~
- : ~_'~~_-_ ~ ~ J,}• '\L:~1, ==att.. ~ . ~J i' , : ~` -- .• 4ieeti.~ _. %v..rJ1!'"' ,-_J~:. _.~~• -
FMS ~ WATER RESOURCES AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
`~; NC 183 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
* OVER THE LINVILLE RIVER (TIP B-4038) FIGURE 2
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
{Excerpted from USGS Linville Falls 7.5-minute Quadrangle, 1995)
f

s
NCDOT Page fi 02/15/2002
~SRt1c1~- !~~sli rL' __ '
~ I
~~ ~_ ~ _,...__r..._

___---"~
_ _ - .~ '~ - ~ 'y ~
- SITE ~} <
-~ ,26
~+EE 1 Nr,~ET ~
- ' _ eEtow ~/
_~~,
-__ ~
,,J '
BuRKE COlJ[VTY ~' ~'
BEGII~I
PR OJE
~ too `i
WETLAND H.C. DBPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
I1rIPACTS DIVISION OF HIQIiWAYS
PBrt'~T1~ ~~~~~ BURKB COUNTY
35heet_„_,,,,~„ti~ .~ IaRO.IBCTs31~0~.t.t tB-~38~
NC 183 BRIDQB NQ 26
OVER LlNYILLB RIVBR
SHBBT 3 OF ~ ~ / ~•'~
`V ~
~ti ~~ •.~ J

WORKPAD DETAIL
(NOT TO SCALE)
pgnanccn oo~nrc nrw
WORKPAD
' I' , CLASSA RIP RAP1

~~
~~
~~
~~

~!
QUANTITIES OF ESTIMATES
VOLUME OF CLASS II RIP RAP: 815 yds 3
AREA OF CLASS II RIP RAP: 0,126 oc
Esfiimote 1150 Tons Closs II Rip Rap

2:1 slopes used at culvert far minimization,

Revised 6-11-07. Impact at 3@66"pipe inlet changed
from temporary impact to permanent impact.

TN Revised 3f31l05 N '~

~`-~ ~
~

«~

~
~~~

NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIV1sION of I~IGHwAYs

BURKE COUNTY
WBS - 33404.1.1 (B-4038)

SHEET ~ 2007
- WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
W~TLANU IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IM PACTS

Site
No.

1

Station
(FromlTo)

17

Structure
Size 1 Type

"
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp,
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp,
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
+00118+50 3 @ 66
RCP 0
07 0
02
, , 160
2 21+70123+55 Causeway 0.13 132

TOTALS: 0,07 0.15 160 132

c~~-
BURKE couNTY
BRIDGE N0.26 ON NC 183
OVER LINVILLE RIVER
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-0183(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.'1852001
TIP NO. B-4038
CATEGORICAL ExCLUS10N
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
~ ~~
D E Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
:3 ~ ~,~-
A E John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
~~ Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

r
~~
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.26 ON NC 183
OVER LINVILLE RIVER
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-0183(1}
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1852001
TIP NO. 8-4038
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
~@o~eaoeoaeoooo
00 s
0
4 a~ y9f
a..
g
SEAL
~~ o3oa~ ~
o'
~ ~,yGii~lE~~` / Z/; `rte/U ~
St en C. Greene, P.E. ~' Date
R mey Kemp ~ Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Vincent J. Rh , P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

r
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 28 ON NC 183
OVER LINVILLE RIVER
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-0183(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1852001
TIP NO. B-4038
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, 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:
NCDOT Division 73
The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water work between October 15 to April 15 tar Wild Brown Trout.
NCDOT Right of Way Branch
The NCDOT will complete negotiations for a Highway Easement Deed with the National Parlc Service prior to
commencing the Construction phase of the project.
Categorical Exclusion
January, 200 Page 1 of 1

BRIDGE N0.2fi ON NC 183
OVER LINVILLE RIVER
FE©ERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-Q183(i)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.9 852x01
T.I.P. NO. B-4a38
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge No. 26, located on NC 183 over the Linville River, in Burke County, is included in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
8-4038 and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRSTP-0.183(1)). The location is shown in Figure
1.
No substantial impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal `Categorical ExclusionA.
t. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCD4T Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 26 has a suffrciency rating of 49.4 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 26 is located approximately 0.6 miles east of the junction with SR 1270 on NC 183, near the town of
Linville Falls in Burke County. Refer to Figure 1 for the project location and Figures 2 thm 4a for photos of the
existing project area.
Bridge No. 26 was constructed in 1953. The bridge is not currently posted to restrict weight limits.
The overall length of the 5-span structure is 213 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 24.2 ft that )ncludes two travel
lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on reinforced concrete girders.
The end bents are reinforced concrete on H-piles. The interior bents are reinforced concrete on post and beam
bents. The height from crown to streambed is 24 ft. -
NC 183 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2008
average daily traffic volume (ADT) is estimated #o be 831 vehicles per day (vpd). The percen#ages of truck traffic
are 1 percent TTST vehicles and 3 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected 2028 ADT is 1,265 vpd.
The twalane facility measures approximately 20 ft in width and has variable 3 ft grass shoulders on each side of
the roadway. The horizontal alignment of NC 183 is curved on each end of the bridge and the vertical alignment
is generally flat within the project area. The speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is posted at 55
miles per hour (mph). Existing right-of-way is approximately 100 ft in width.
There are overhead power and underground telephone lines in the vicinity of the bridge. There are no other
apparent utilities. Utility impacts are expected to be minimal.

This section of NC 183 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
Land use within the project area consists primarily of wooded areas. There are no buildings within close
proximity of the bridge, although there are scattered residences on both sides of the bridge within the. project
vicinity. There is a spur from the Blue Ridge Parkway running parallel to NC 183 on the east side to a visitors
center located upstream from the bridge location. To the south of the bridge, there are markers denoting National
Park Service property.
Two school buses cross Bridge No. 2fi two times per day, for a total of four bus trips per day.
There has been 1 crash reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 26 during a recent three year period. !n the one
reported crash, a single passenger car ran off the road and struck the east bridge rail.
tll. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based upon the pretirninary hydraulic report, the proposed replacement structure will be approximately 225 ft long
with a 34 ft clear roadway width. The structure will provide two 11 ft travel lanes with 6 ft of lateral clearance on
each side of the bridge.
The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peals flows as detem~ined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be perfom~ed during the final design phase of
the bridge.
The roadway approaches will provide two 11 ft travel lanes with 5 ft grassed shoulders. The grade will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. The design speed is 40 mph.
B. Build Alternatives
Three build alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 26 are described below:
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction. traffic would be
maintained by using an off-site detour. The total length of permanent roadway approach work for this alternative
is approximately 604 ft. This alternative would meet a 35 mph design speed due to the existing horizontal
alignment of the current roadway. Refer to Figure 5 far illustration of this alternative.
Existing traffic will be detoured via US 221 and NC 181. The detour length is estimated to be 16.5 miles. Re#er
to Figure 1 for illustration of the temporary off-site detour route.
Alternative A was not selected because of the length of the detour and the importance of NC 183 as an
emergency route.
2

e
Alternative B
Altemative B consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, traffic would be
maintained by using an on-site detour east of NC 183. The total length of de#our roadway approach work for this
altemative is approximately 930 ft. The detour for this altemative would meet a 40 mph design speed due to the
existing horizontal alignment of the current roadway. Refer to Fgure 6 for illustration of this altemative.
The on-site detour will be located approximately 30 feet east of the existing road. The temporary structure would
consist of a 90 foot bridge. The detour roadway approaches would consist of two 11 foot travel lanes and 5 foot
wide shoulders on each side. The length df the temporary detour would be approximately 1020 feet.
Altemative B was not selected because of the higher cost associated with it and because of the moratorium
constraints for construction.
Alternative C (Preferred)
Altemative C consists of replacing the bridge on new location with a new bridge 30 feet to the west of the existing
bridge. During construction, traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge. The #otal length of roadway
approach work for this altemative is approximately 1225 feet. The altemative would meet a 45 mph design speed
due to the existing horizontal alignment of the current roadway. Refer to Figure 7 for illustration of this
altemative.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The °Do-Nothing" altemative would eventually necessitate dosure of the bridge due to its poor condition. This is
not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 183.
invesfigafion of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
old bridge is not feasible- due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative {Alternative C)
Altemative C was selected as the preferred because it allows for the existing road to remain open during the
construction and has lower cost associated with it than Altemative B.
The Division Engineer concurs with Altemative C as the Preferred Altemative.
E. Anticipated Design Exception(s)
The posted speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is 55 mph. Due to the new horizontal alignment, a
design exception will be required for the design speed for the preferred altemative.
3

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for each alternative, based on current dollars, are shown below:
Table 1
Estimated Project Gosts
Alternatve A Alternative B Alternative C
(Preferred)
Structure Removal Existin $66,768 $66,768 $66,768
Structure Pro sed $660,150 $739,500 $510,000
Detour Structure and A roaches $0 $165,750 $0
Roadwa A roaches $115,868 $217,504 $408,832
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $197,214 $285,478 $278,650
En ineerin and Conlin encies $160,000 $225,000 $220,000
Right-of-WaylEasement and Utilities $0 $ 7 6,000 $41,000
Total Project Cost $1,200,000 $1,716,000 $1,479,000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program is
$1,100,000 including $0 spent in prior years, $100,000 for right-of way and $'I,000,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: '!) an assessment of existing
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 3J a preliminary determination of permit needs.
A. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information pertaining to the project
was collected and reviewed. Information sources used to prepare this report include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS} Linville Falls 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Linville Falls 7.5-
minute quadrangle (1995).
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCD~T) aerial photographs of the project area (1:1,200
scale).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natura! Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Sail Conservation
Service) provisional soil survey of Burke County, North Carolina (unpublished).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR, '1999; 2001). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of protected and candidate

species (March 3, 2001) and fn~m the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program {NCNHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats (NCNHP, January 2001}. NCNHP fifes were reviewed for documented occurrences
of state and federally listed species. USFWS Recovery Plans for federal-4isted species were reviewed, where
applicable.
A lick! investigation of natural resources within the project area was conducted on July 26, 2001. Water
resoun:xs were identified and categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of
Natural Communifies of North Carolina, Third Approximation {Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify
plant communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968}. Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980}, Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and
t7elaware (Rohde, et a1., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas {Potter, et a1., 1980}, and Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985}.
Approximate boundaries of major vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing aerial
photography of the project site. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or suspected species,
incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as Birdsong and other sounds}, and secondary
indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and burrows}. Predictions regarding wildlife
community composition were supplemented utilizing a general qualitative habitaf assessmen# based an existing
vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section
1 D of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods prescribed in the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands t?elineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the Gores' March 6, 9992
guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Values of wetlands delineated were
assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina {NCDEHNR, 1995}. Wetfand
types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classificafion of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the
field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey methods.
g. Physiography and Soifs
Burke County lies in the Southern Appalachian Mountains Physiographic Province of western North Carolina.
The county encompasses 511 square miles and is primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation from
approximately 935 ft mean sea level {msl) where the Catawba River flows into Catawba County to 4,350 ft rnsl.
Elevations within the project area range from approxirnatety 3,180 to 3,32D ft msl, with the stream bed near the
bridge lying at approximately 3,180 ft msl.
The portion of Burke County within the project area {NRCS map panel A-1) has been mapped by NRCS under
the currently provisional (unpublished} soil survey. Official soil series descriptions were also obtained by the
NRCS (USDA: httpa/www.statlab.iastate.edulsoilslosd~. A brief description of unofficial soi! types mapped by
NRCS andlor observed during field investigation is as follows:
• Fluvaguents-Udifluvents comylex along the stream bed (unmapped by NRCS but abserved during field
investigation).

• Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex {30 to 95 percent slopes), extremely bouldery. This map unit consists
mainly of shallow to moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained, Ache and Cleveland sandy looms and
similar soils interspersed with boulders on very steep ridges and side scopes. The surface layer is typically
very dark brown to very dark grayish brown sandy loam up to 5.0 inches thick.. Permeability is moderately
rapid and surface runofF is moderate to very high. In the project area, the Ashe-Cleveland-rock complex
occurs on steep slopes in the northern and central portions of the project area. These soils are classified as
non-hydric {USDA, 1999).
• Whiteoak fine sandy loam f8 to 15 ner~cent slopes ,stoney. This map unit consists mainly of very deep, well-
drained, Whiteoak cobbly foams and similar soils on benches, fans, and toe slopes. The surface layer is
typically very dark grayish brown cobbiy foam up to 9.0 inches thick. Permeability is moderate and surface
runoff is medium. In the project area, the Whiteoak cobbly loam occurs on benches and terraces along the
Linville River. These soils are classified as non-hydric {USDA, 1999).
C. Water Resources
C.'I. Waters Impacted
A perennial stream, the Linville River, comprises the single water resource within the project area. The Linville
River is located within-the Catawba River drainage basin. The Catawba River watershed is the eighth largest
river basin in North Carolina, encompassing 3,285 square miles. The Linville River is approximately 12 ft wide
within the project study area, with depths ranging from .25 to 1.5 ft. Wat®r levels appeared to be at or near the
ordinarily high water level at the time of investigation.
The substrate of the Linville River in the project area is comprised of sediments ranging in size from fine sand to
coarse gravel, except under the existing bridge, where sediments range in size from fine sand to cobbles.
Looking upstream, the river within the. project area makes two gentle to moderate bends to the left. The river
channel exhibits a relatively simple trapezoidal cross-section. The river within the project area is primarily run,
with one distinct riftfe/rUn complex existing at the northernmost limits of the project area No sand bars or major
channel meanders are present.
The !eft and right stream banks (both upstream and downstream of the bridge), although steep, are fairly well
vegetated and, as a result, exhibit indicators of low erosion. Vertical bridge abutments laterally confine the river
below the existing bridge. Localized bank erosion was observed in the vicinity if the bridge abutments at the time
of field investigation. The riverbanks are comprised of unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of primarily alluvial
origin and, to a terser degree, colluvial origin.
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project area is
designated as USGS hydrologic unit 03050101, (the Upper Catawba River drainage basin). Under the North
Carolina DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project area is
designated as Subbasin 03-08-30, {the Catawba River Headwaters Subbasin). The Linville River has been
assigned Stream Index Number {SIN) 11-29-(4.5).
The Linville River has been assigned a best usage classification of B Tr. The B designation indicates waters that
are used for primary recreational uses such as swimming and water skiing as well as other Class "C° secondary
recreational uses. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body contact with water on an infrequent

or incidental basis. The surface water classification of Tr is a "supplemental classification intended to protect
freshwaters fior natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout." As stated in the s#andards, this
designation affects wastewa#er quality but not the type of discharges, and there are no watershed development
restrictions except stream buffer gone requirements of the North Carolina Division of Land Resources.
No surface waters classfied as High Qual'~ty Water (HQlfli), Water Supplies {WS-1 or Y11S-tl). or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile of the project area.
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates. No
previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on the t_inville River within the
project area or within the project vicinity.
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly
referred to as "-point sources.° No registered point discharges one located within the project vicinity {i.e., within a
O.fi mile). Jonas Ridge Nursing -Home (NPDES Permit Number NCOa60224), the NC DENR Corpening Training
Center (NPDES Permi# Number N00040339), and the Town of Crossnore - WWTP (N00026654) are registered
point discharge sources located upstream of the project area, but outside the project vicinity. No violations appear
on record for any of the aforementioned sites (EPA, 2001).
C.3. Antici<pated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream banks, removal of
riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of revegetation operations, and
installa#ion of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
aforementioned construction activities:
• Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion po#ential in the project area during and immediately following construction.
• Short-term changes in incident light levels and .turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface water and
groundwater during construction.
• Short-temp increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed land
surfaces.
• A short-terra increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum products)
from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of vegetation
within or overhanging the watercourse.
• Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project area, NCDOT's Best
Managemenf Practices for the Profecfion of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable by limiting instream
activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
7

C.4. Impacts Related to Bridge E?emolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all
contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal, These guidelines are prBSented
in three NCDOT documents entitled: Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal, Policy;
Bridge Demofiffvn and Rerr~ovaf in 'Water of the United States, and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Den~rolition and Removal.
The superstructure ofi Bridge No. 26 consists of a reinforced concrete deck on concrete girders. The bridge has 5
spans and totals 213 ft in length. The end bents consist of reinfon.,ed concrete caps on H-piles while the interior
bents are reinforced posts and beams. There is potential for three spans of the concrete deck and two of the
interior bents to be dropped into the Linville River during demolition and removal. The maximum potential
temporary fill assocated with the removal of the bridge is approximately 173.75 cubic yards.
The North Carolina 1Mrldlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests a moratorium on in-water work between
February 15 and May 30 for Walleye and White Bass and between October 15 and March 31 for Brown Trout.
Because the moratorium applies, this project falls under Case 2 {allowing no in-water work during moratorium
periods) of the Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Q. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals
observed within the project area. These descriptions refier to the flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Biotic resources assessed as part of this investigation include
discernable temestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities within the
study area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities and are Gass'rfied
in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation (Schafale
and Weakley, 9990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to inhabit or utilize biotic
communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also discussed. Species observed
during field investigation are listed. -
t3.'I. Plant Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the project area, making
boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Six discernable terrestrial communities ate located within the project
area. Three of these communities have been al#ered to the extent that they cannot be classified as a natural
vegetation community under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina. These altered
communities consist of: {1) altered right-o# way communities, (2) landscaped areas, and (3) scrub-shrub
communities. The remaining three communities within the project area retain enough of their natural
characteristics as to be classifiable under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Caro-ina. These
natural communities consist of {1} Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, (2} PiedmontlMountain Semi-
permanent Impoundment, and (3) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest. In addition to the aforementioned terrestrial
components, the aquatic community associated with the Linville River was assessed within the project area.
8

Altered Right-of--Way Communities -These communities are Located along the rights~f--way bordering on NC
183 and along an~unpaved private road traversing the southwest quadrant of the project area. Vegetation within
these areas has been maintained in early succession through mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation
management practices. It is estimated that 0.9 acre of this community exists within the project area.
No mature trees are established within this community; however, saplings and seedlings of the fo4lowing woody
species were observed at the time of field investigation: yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), witch-hazel {Namamelis
virginiana}, pale rfiododendron (Rhododendron maximum}, reel maple (Aeer rub-vm), black cherry (Pnmus
serotina), tulip tree {Lirivdencron fulipifera}, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), sourwo~l (Oxydendrum arbor~eum),
black locust (Robfnia pseudo-acacia}, highland doghobble (Leueothae axillaris var. editorvm), smooth sumac
{Rhus glabra), and blackberry (Rebus sp.). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site
investigation include Joe-pye-weed (Eupaforium fistulosum), Christmas fern (Polystichurn acros#ichoides}, orange
jewelweed (lmpafiens capensis), aster (Aster sp.}, tick-trefoil {Desmodium nudiflorum}, Queen Anne's lace
(Daucus carofa}, henbit (Lamium amplexicaufe), common milkweed {AsClepias syriaca), bush clover (Lespedeza
sp.}, bee balm (Monarch didyma), bedstraw (Galium sp.), violets (Viola sp.), doll's eyes (Actaea pachypoda),
beggar ticks {Widens sp.}, evening primrose (Oenothera biennis}, Solomon's seal (Polygonatum sp.), white wood
aster (Aster divaricatus), daisy fleabane (Engeron annuus}, red-stemmed plantain (Plantago rugeli-], and tall
meadow rue (Thalictrum polygamum). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include
common greenbrier (Smilax rofundifolia}, riverside grape (Vifis riparia}, and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia).
Landscaped Areas -This community consists of cleared, landscaped, and vegetatively managed areas within
the nor#hemmos# portion of the project area. Dominant plant species of this community were not noted. It is
estimated that 0.8 acre of this community exists within the project area.
Scrub/Shrub Communities -These communities consist of scrub/shrub vegetation located in an o!d field in the
southwest portion of the project area, around asemi-permanent impoundment in the northern portion of the
project area, and within an abandoned roadbed in the northern portion of the project area. The slopes within
these communities are somewhat gently sloping. As mapped by NRCS, these areas are underlain by well-
drained Whiteoak cobbiy foams. It is estimated that 1.1 acres of this community exist within the project area.
No mature trees have yet- become established within areas comprising this community. Saplings and seedlings
of woody species observed at the time of field investigation include tag alder (Alms serrulata), multiflora rose
(Rosa mulfiflora}, black cherry (Prunes serotina), red maple (Ater rubrum), white pine {Pines strobes), and
smooth sumac (Rhus glabra). The white pine is largely restricted to roadside edges. Dominant herbaceous
species observed at the time of site investigation include goldenrod (Solidago sp.}, Curtis' goldenrod {Salidago
curtisir~, orange jewelweed (lmpafiens capensis}, bush clover {Lespedeza sp.), common milkweed (Asclepias
syriaca), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Vine species observed at the time of site investigation include
common greenbrier (Smilax rofundifolia) and blackberry (Rubes sp.).
PiedmontlMountain Bottomtand Forest -- This community occurs along the banks of the Linville River and an
unnamed tributary that flows through the southern portion of the project area. It is estimated that 6.1 acres of this
community exis# within the project area. The PiedmontlMountain Bottomland Forest occurs upon a gently sloping
fioodplain terrace perched approximately 0.5 to 8.0 ft above the stream bed. As mapped by NRCS, these areas
are underlain by well-drained Whiteoak cobbly foams. Field investigation confirmed that the terrace is largely
9

underlain by well-drained rocky, sandy foams exhibiting relatively high chromas; however, where pooriy drained
conditions prevail, hydric soil inclusions are observed. Portions of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
underlain by these hydric soils have been mapped as forested wetlands.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of site investigation
include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), Fraser magnolia (Magnolia frasen}, white pine (Pines stro6us), yellow
buckeye (Aesculus flava), silver maple {Ater saccharinum), red maple (Ater rubrum), black cherry (Prunes
serotina), chestnut oak (Quer+cus prinus), northern red oak (Querccrs rubs), black oak (Quercus veiutina), river
birch (Betula nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), Canada hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), yellow birch (Befula lutes}, .and white oak (Quen~s albs). Dominant sapling and shrub species
observed at the time of site investigation include sourwood (Oxydendrum arborreum), chinquapin (Castanea
pumyla), witch-haael (Namamelis vinginiana), pale fiododendron (Rhododendron maximum), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), (towering dogwood
(Comes Honda), black willow (Salix nigra), black locust (Robins pseudo-acacia), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.},
highland doghobbie (Leucothoe axiflaris var. editorum), smooth sumac (Rhos glabra), blackberry {Rebus sp.),
hawthorn (Crafaegus sp.), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum},
Indian cucumber (Medeola virginiana), partridgebeny (Mitchella repens}, lady fem (Athyrium frlix-femina var.
asplenioides}, Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), orange
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), aster (Aster sp.), Indian pipe (Manotropa
uniflora}, rattlesnake plantain {Goodyera r+spens var. ophioides), tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum), Queen
Anne's lace (Daucus carota), henbit (Lamium amplexicaufe), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), bush clover
(Lespedeza sp.), bee balm {Monarch didyma), bedstraw (Galium sp.), hay-scented fem (Dennstaedtia
punctilobula}, violets (Viola sp.), doll's eyes (Actaea pachypoda), beggar ticks (Bidens sp.), evening primrose
(Oenothera biennis}, monkey flower (Mimulus ringens), selfheal (PruneJla vulgaris), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum
sp.), white wood aster (Aster divaricatus}, wild bergamot (Monarch frstulosa}, daisy fleabane (Engeron annuus},
lettuce (Lactuca sp.}, red-stemmed plantain (Plantago rugelii), and tali meadow rue (Thalicfrum polygamum}.
Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include riverside grape (Vitis riparia), common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), summer grape (Vitis aes#ivalis), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia).
Wetlands Component. The PiedmontlMountain Bottomland Forest contains a narrow (generally 5.0 ft wide)
discontinuous band of wetlands along the lowermos# stream banks of the Linville River. These wetland bands
support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. Vegetation observed at the time of field investigation includes
tag alder (Alnus semulata}, smooth sumac (Rhos glabra), black cherry (Prunes sero#ina}, #alse nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), clearweed (Piles pumila), soft rush (Juncos effuses), pennywort (Hydrocotyle sp.), creeping grass
(Microsteguim vimineum), marsh marigold (Caltha pa/ustris), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), boneset
(Eupatorium perfoliatum}, dotted smartweed (Polygonum puncfatum), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), blue flag (Iris
virginica), primrose willow (Jussiaea repens}, grape fem (Botrychium sp.}, ginseng (Panax quinquefolium}, ovens
(Geum canadense), orange jewelweed (impatiens capensis), and wood sorrel (Oxalis europaea). Portions of
areas mapped as wetlands are underlain by course rocky, gravelly sands (fiuvaquents) that were saturated in the
upper 12 inches at the time of field investigation. Other portions of wetlands are underlain by up to 10 inches of
dark brown (10YR3f3 to 2.5Y312} sandy foams overlying dark to light brown (10YR311 to 10YR4/3) gravelly
foams, which exhibited saturated conditions at the time of si#e investigation. These areas likely represent hydric
10

soil inclusions within the Whiteoak fine sandy loam map unit. In places, the wetlands also exhibited sediment
deposits and drift lines.
Canada Hemlock Forest with Montane Oak-Hickory Forest Association -Canada Hemlock Forests with
Montane yak-Hickory Forest associations occur an modem#e to steep slopes upgradient of the gentler sloping
terraces along the Linville River within the project area. Soils within this community are relatively thin, and
scattered rock outcrops are present. As mapped by NRCS, these areas are underlain by somewhat excessively
drained Ashe and Cleveland sandy looms interspersed with rocks. It is estimated that 8.2 acres of this
community exist within the protect area.
Dominant tn~e species observed within these communities at the time of site investigation include Canada
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), southern red oak (G?uercus rubs}, hickory {Carya sp.), white pine (Pious strobes},
black cherry (Pvunus serotina}, Fraser magnolia (Magnolia Eraser}, yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), tulip tree
(Liriodendron fulipifera), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboneum), silver maple, (Acer saccharinum), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), chestnut oak (QuerCUS prinus), persimmon (Diospyrns vivginiana), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Dominant saprng and shrub species observed at the time of site
investigation include pale rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), ironwood (Carpinus carnliniana), American
holly seedlings (Ilex opaca), Chinese privet {Ligusfrum sinense), sassafras {Sassafras albidum), witch-hazel
{Namamelis virginiana), chinquapin (Castanea pumila), blueberry {Vaccinium constablaev), hop-hornbeam {4strya
virginiana), highland doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris var. editorum), and flowering dogwood (Comas Florida}.
Dominant hertaceous species observed at the #ime of site investigation include heartleaf (Hexasty(is sp.),
bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), violets (Viola sp.), tack in-the-pulpit {Arrsaema triphyllum}, fndian cucumber root
(Medeola virginiana), partridgeberry (Mitchella rapers), Christmas fem. (Polystichum acrr~stichoides}, Indian pipe
(Monotropa uniffora}, and rattlesnake plantain {Goodyera rapers var. ophioides). Dominant vine species
observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), grape (Vitis sp.), common
greenbrier (Smilax rofundifolia), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia}.
PiedmontlMountain Semi-Pen~ranent Impoundmen# - A Piedmont/Mvuntain Semi-Permanent Impoundment
occurs adjacent to the floodplain of the Linville River in the northern portion the project area. This community
consists of a small, shallow, man-made impoundment with an associated emergent wetland plant community
around its perimeter. The vegetation community appears to be strongly influenced by periodic or seasonal
ponding ol` surface water. Recent rain events appear to have flooded the impoundment to the point that
emergent herbaceous vegetation was submerged under approximately 6.0 inches of surface water. It is
estimated that 0.3 acre of community subtype 6a and 0.8 acre o€ community subtype 6b exist within the project
area.
At the time of field investigation, the impoundment was dominated by hydrophytic vegetation inc#uding tag alder
(Alnus serrulafa) along the outside edges, cattail (Typha lafifolia), soft rush (Juncos ef!'usus), wool grass (Scirpus
cypevinus), false nettle {Baehmeria cylindnca), sedges {Carex spp.}, orange jewelweed (Impatiens canadensis),
Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), bugleweed (Lycopus virginicus), spike-rush (Eleocharis
sp.), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema friphyllurn), boneset {Eupatorium perfoliatum}, cardinal flower (Lobelia
cardinalis), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Solis observed in soil probes conducted as part of this
investigation consisted of up to 3.0 inches of dark brown (10YR3f1 to 10YR3/2) clayey loam overlying .lighter
colored (10YR3/4 to 10YR4/4} sandy gravels that exhibited saturated conditions at the time of site investigation.
d.2. Wildlife
17

The communities within the proj~t vianity have been alters or affected by man's activities to varying degrees.
Due to the relatively small size of the project area and the fact tha# many wildlife species are capable of moving
between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one
ten~estrial plant community within the project area.
A whi#e•-tailed deer (Odocnileus virginianus) and an eastern chipmunk (Tamias striates) werae the only mammals
observed in the project vicinity at the time of field investigation; however, raccoon (Procyon lator} tracks were
observed. Although not observed, other mammals comrtmn to the project region which can be expected to
periodically utilize habita# of the project area include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana}, shrews- and moles
(lnsectivora), eastern cottontail rabbi# (Syfvilagus flondanus), woodchuck (Mannota manax}, gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), beaver (Casfor canadensis), eas#em harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microfus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole (Microtus
pineforum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus}, black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rifles norveg~rs), house mouse
(Mus musculus}, meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis),
red fox (Vulpes vulpes}, gray fox (Urocyon cinerieoargenteus), black bear (Ursus amevicanus), long-tailed weasel
(Musfela frenata), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Fells
vufus).
Forest tracts on the project site provide suitable habitat and forage areas for a wide variety of birds. Eastern
towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) and common crow (Carves brachyvfiynchos) were observed at the time of
investigation. A variety of resident and migra#ory songbirds typical to the region can be expected to periodically
utilize habitat present in the project area. More open portions of the project area (i.e., the successional sapling
and scrub/shrub communities) and nearby open fields provide probable hunting grounds for birds of prey, such as
hawks and owls.
No reptiles were observed on the project site at the time of field investigation. Several adult green frogs (Rana
clamitans) were observed in the impounded water along the eas# side of the river. Audibles of spring peepers
(Hyla crucifer) originating from the project area were heard at the time of site investigation. Additionally, a variety
of reptile and amphibian species may use the communities located in the project area. These animals include the
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene caro/ina),-five-lined skink (E'umec~es fasciatus), two-
lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), pickerel frog {Rana palustris), and American toad (8ufo americanus).
D.3. Aquatic Cornmunifies
The aquatic community consists of the Linville River below the ordinary high water line. The dominant aquatic
habitat within this section of the Linville River is cobblelboulder substrate. The Linville River within the protect
area contains a series of frequent, well defined, rifiies and runs that were Tess than 20 percent embedded at the
time of freki investigation. Pools are infrequen# (comprising less than 30 percent of the river segment}, but are
present in a variety of sizes. Pools forming on the sides of the channel adjacent to snags and boulders serve as
good fish habitat. The riparian vegetation zone is wider than fi4 ft along both banks. Eroded areas are present
adjacent to the bridge.
No aqua#ic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water Line of the Linville River at the time of field
investigation. A narrow band of hydrophytic vegetation occurs along the lower to middle portions of the river
banks, as previously discussed.
~2

Aquatic vertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigafion include unidentified minnows
(Cyprinidae), an unidentified species of trout, and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer. Aquatic invertebrates observed
within the project area at the time of field investigation include mayfly larvae (Heptageniidae), beetle larvae
(Psephenidae), net-spinning caddisfly larvae (Hydropsychidae), adult stonefly (Plecoptera), snail (Pleuroceridae),
and water strider (Gerridae). Heptageniidae, Hydropsychidae, Pleurocendae, and Gerridae were abundant
throughout the project area at the time of field invesflgation. High quality riffles and substrate with low
embeddedness indicate the presence of sui#able freshwater mussel habitat,
D.4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
D.4.a. Terrestrial Communities Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the approximate area of each plant community
present within both the proposed right-of--way and the temporary construction limits of any on-site detour or
easement that falls outside the estimated permanent right-of way limit. A summary of potentia! plant community
impacts is presented in Table 2. All plant community impacts are based on aerial photograph base mapping. A
portion of the permanent plant community impact amount wilt consist of proposed right-of--way for the road after
the bridge replacement is complete. Impervious surface and open water areas are not included in this analysis.
Table 2
Potential Im cts to Plant Communities
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PLANT acres
COMMUNITY ALT A ALT B ALT C
im acts ~m acts Tem . Im acts Im sets
Altered Right-of--Way Communities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaped Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Scrub/Shrub Communities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 0.00 0.00 0.44 ~ 0.70
Canada Hemlock Forest 0.00 0.00 0,05 0.15
Piedmont/Mountain Semi-Permanent Impoundment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
TOTAL FOR ALT acre 0.00 0.00 0.49 ©.~
* Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts that fall outside the estimated
right-of-way limit or impacts of temporary on-site detours.
Permanent community impacts for Alternafive A represent the least amount of the three alternatives when the
potential temporary impacts are included. The highes# amount of permanent plant community impacts result from
Alternative C, which calls for bridge replacement on new location. The plant communities with the largest amount
of potential permanent and temporary impacts for al[ proposed alternatives is the Coastal Plain Bottomland
hardwood forest and mixed hardwood forest communities.
13

D.4.b. Aquatic Communl#ies Impacts
The replacement of the Bridge No. 2fi over the Linville River will result in certain unavoidable impacts to the
aquatic community. Probable impacts will be associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic habitat and
water column disturbances resulting from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of
stream segments can have an adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can Lead th increased nutrient
loading. Nutrient loading can, in tum, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of dissolved oxygen
levels.
• Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in ium, lead to clogging of feeding structures of
fil#er-feeding organisms and the gills of frsh.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
• Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream hanks and snags.
• Increases in seasons! water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
• Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project area will be
minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters {NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable guidelines pertaining to best management
practices. Means to minimize impacts will include {1) utilizing construction methods that will limit instream
activities as much as practicable, {2) restoring the stream bed as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading.
E. Special Topics
E.1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of the Linville River are subject to jurisdictional considera#ion under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" {33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands subject to review
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344} are defined by the presence of three primary criteria:
hydric soils, hydrophy#ic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches of the soil surface for a portion
(12.5 percent) of the growing season DOA 1957).. Based on this three-parameter approach, jurisd'~ctional
wetlands do occur within the project study area in the form of Piedmontdllloun#ain Semi-Permanent Impoundment.
Wetlands associated with this impoundment consist of a dikedrmpounded, permanently flooded, palustrine
habitat with and unconsolidated bottom (PUBHh) and an associated dikeditmpounded, seasonally flooded,
persistent, emergent wetland (PEM1 Ch).
The surface waters within the Linville River exhibit characteristics of a permanently flooded, lower perennial,
riverine habita# with an unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH). The Linville River is a jurisdictional surface water.
E.2. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
14

Temporary and permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands are estimated based on the amount of each
jurisdictional area within the project limits. Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from
temporary construction activities outside of permanent right-flfi way andlor those associated with temporary on-
site .detours. Temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has been
completed. Permanent.impacts are those areas that will be in the construction limits and/ar the proposed right-of-
way of the new structure and approaches. Porrti~ons of those areas that are considered temporary impact areas
often end up being within the final right-of--way. Potential wetland and surface water impacts are included in
Table 3.
Table 3
Anticipated [mpacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
JURISDiCTIONALAREAS ALT A` ALT B ALT C
!m acts Im'' acts -
. ._ Im acts
__
R2U BH
PUBHh
PEIVI 1 Ch 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
-0.00
TOTAL FOR ALT (acres): 0.00 0.00 0.00
impacts Temp.
!m acts Impacts Temp.
Im acts Impacts Temp.
im acts
Perennial Stream Channel Impacts
feet 0 230 0 270 0 250
TOTAL FOR ALT feet meters 23 0 27 0 250
l~2UBH - riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded
PUBHh - diked~mpounded, permanently flooded, patustrine habitat, unconsolidated bottom
l'EM1 Ch - diked~mpounded, seasonally flooded, persistent, emergent
*Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not included in the construction
limits for the permanent structure.
There are no anticipated impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands that were found within the project study area. The
preferred alternative, Alternative C, will have temporary impact on 250 feet of Perennial Stream Channel.
E.2. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - !n accordance with Section 404 ofi the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1340,
a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredge or fill material in °WI/aters
of the United States.' The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be
issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category, or categories, of activities when: those activities are
substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the
general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory control exercised by another
Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. if a general permit is not appropriate for a particular ac#ivity, then an individual permit must
be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a speci#ic project involving the
proposed discharges.
15

A Nationwide 33 Permit may be regained for any temporary de-wa#ering activity or impact for the project. This
may include, but not limited to, the removal of the existing footings, dropping of any structure components into
Waters of the US, temporary construction access, temporary work pads, and the installation or extension of
existing or new pipes or culverts
It is anticipated that this project wiH fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general pemlit. Nationwide
Permit 23 is relevant #o approved Ca#egorical Exclusions. This permi# authorizes any activities, work, and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another
federal agency and that the activity is °categorically excludedA from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a signifyant effect on the
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all teens and conditions of the particular
permit. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since the proposed
project is located in a designated "Trou#° county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the USACE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.
Section 4#31 Water Quality Cettifcation - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the IaWQ, will
also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may resul# in a discharge into waters for which
a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, on condition of the permit is that the appropriate sedimen#
and erosion control practices must be u#ifized to prevent exceedences of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard.
E.4. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of °no net loss of wetlandsA and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over #ime, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance -Mitigation by avoidance examines appropriate and practicable measures for averting impac# to
Waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
{EPA) end the USACE, states that in determining appropriate and practicable measures #o offset unavoidable
impacts; such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall projec# purposes.
The project purpose necessitates traversing the Linville River, therefore, totally avoiding surface water impacts is
impossible.
Minimization _ Minimization of adverse impact to Waters of the United States includes examination of
appropriate and practicable measures to reduce such impacts. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Adverse impacts are typically minimized by decreasing the
proposed project footprint through reduction of median widths, right-0f-way widths, andlor fil{ slopes.
16

Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to waters of the United States include strict enforcement of
sedlmentaiion control BMPs for protection of surface wagers during the entire life of the project; reduction of
clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide management;
minimization of instream activity; and litter/debris contrgl.
No measures are proposed for this project because there are no anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
within the project study area.
Compertsatvry Mi-dgalyon -Compensatory mitigation, including restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States is typically not considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Further, it is recognized "that no net loss
of we#ands° may not be achievable in every permit action. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization measures have
been required.
Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required for this project. A final determination regarding mitigation
r~equir~ements rest with the USACE.
F. Protected Species
F.'l. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered {E), Threatened (T}, Proposed Endangered (PE}, and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed far
Burke County (USFWS list dated March, 22, 2001 }:
Table d
Federally Protected Species Listed for Burke County
Commons Name Scientific Name Status Biological `Conclusion
Bald Ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus T No Effect
B Turtle Clemm s Muhlenbe ii T S/A No Effect
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Hexas is naniflora T No Effec#
Heller's Blazin Star ~ Liatris helleri T No Effect
Mountain Golden Heather Hudsonia Montana T No Effect
Small-whorled P or~ia Isotrra medeoloides T No Effect
S readn Avens Geum radiatum E No Effect
Endangered -any native or once-native species in danger of extinci3on throughout a!l or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened -any native or once-native species which is likely ba beaarr~e an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a signficant portion of its range.
T(S1A) -Threatened, due to similarity of appearance
Bald Eagle -The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail
with a dark brown body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and
tail until the fifth or sixth year. Fish are the primary food source, but bald eagles wil! also take a variety of birds,
17

mammals, and turtles (both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about 3.0 ft
from head to tail, weigh approximately 10.0 to 12.0 pounds and have a wingspan that can reach 7.0 ft.
Generally, female bald eagles are somewha# larger than the males.
Habitat includes quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshorjes with Large, tall trees. Man-made reservoirs have also
provided habitat.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database ofi rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September, 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area
was inves#igated on July 26, 2(}01. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habita# were observed
within the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf -This species, which is found in the Upper Piedmont regions of South Carolina and
North Carolina, has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexas#ylis. The flowers of most
individuals are less than 0.4 inch long, and their sepal tubes are narrow, never more than 0.2 to 0.3 inches wide
even in flower. Flower color usually ranges from beige to dark brown; sometimes it is greenish or purplish. The
flowers are jug-shaped, and the plant's dark green leaves .are heart shaped, evergreen, and leathery. Plant stalks
are long and thin, originating from an underground root. Another name for this species is dwarf-flowered wild
ginger.
Dwarf-flowered heartleafi grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes; in boggy areas
adjacent to creekheads and streams; and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the most
important habitat requirement. The species needs P~olet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy
loam sails to grow and survive. Provided the soil type requirement exists, the plant can survive in either dry or
moderately moist habitat. For maximum flowering, the plant needs sunlight in early spring. Creel<heads where
shrubs are rare, and bluffs with light gaps are the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed
production. Seed output is lowest in bluff populations with a lot of shade.
Habitat in the form of acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creek
heads and streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines was present in the project area. However, a
plant-by-plant survey of the project area revealed na individual plants. A September 17, 2002 review of the
Natural Heritage Programs database for rare speaes and unique habitats revealed no known populations within
1.0 mile of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
HeNer's Blazing Star - Heller's blazing star is a ,perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems
arising from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. t#s stems reach up to 1.3 ft in height and are topped by a
showy spike of lavender flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches long (Porter, 1891). Its #lowering season lasts from
July #hrough September, and its fruits are present from September through 4c#ober (Kral, 1983; Rad#ord et al.,
19fi4). This planf is differentiated from other similar high altitude Liatris species by a much shorter pappus, ciliate
petioles, internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit (Cronquist, 1980; Gaiser, 1946). Work is being
conducted on populations in two locations, which may result in their being reclassified as a new taxon (Sutter, in
preparation). If so, these plants will remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
18

The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full
sunlight.
Habitat in the form of high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, exposed to full sunlight was not
pnesent in the project area. A September 17, 2002 review of the Natural Heritage Programs database for rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known populations within 1.0 mile of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Mountain Golden Heather -Mountain golden heather is a mow, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and
long-stalked frdit capsules. it usually grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches across and about 6.0 inches high and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 #0 2.0 ft across. The plants have the general aspect of a big moss or
a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch long; and the plant is often
somewhat yellow-green in Dolor, especially in Shade. The (eaves from .previous years appear scale-like and
persist on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow, nearly 1.0 inch across,
with five blunt-#ipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch stalks, and are roundish
with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after opening, and may be seen at any time of
the year.
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Lelophyllum
dominated heath bolds that merge into pineloak forest. The plant persists for some time in the partial shade of
pines, but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
Habitat in the form ofi exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Leiophyllum dominated
heath bolds that merge into pineloak forest was not present in the project area. A September 17, 2002 review of
the Natural Heritage Programs database for rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations
within 1.0 mile of the project area
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Small whorled Pogonia -Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow
stem 3.7 to 9.8 inches tall terminating in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed and measure up to 3.1 by 1.6 inches. A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of the
stem. Small whorled pogonia's nearest relative is I. verticillata, which looks similar but can be distinguished by its
purplish stem and by differences in the flower structure.. I. verticillata is much more common and widespread than
the small whorled pogonia. When not in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root {Medeola virginiana) also
resemble small whorled pogonia. However, the hollow stout stem of Iso#ria will separate it from the genus
Medeola, which has a solid, more slender stem.
Flowering occurs from about mid-May to mid-.tune, with the flowers appanentiy lasting only a few days to a week
or so. In addition, this plant doesn't necessarily flower annually. Usually only one flower is produced per plant. If
pollination occurs, a capsule may be formed which can contain several thousand minute seeds. No evidence of
insec# pollination has been observed. This plan# is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes. The
flower lacks both nectar guides and fragrance. There is no evidence for asexual reproduction. Individual plants
19

may not flower every year; and extended dormancy, although not s~cientificaNy documen#ed, is purported to occur
under certain conditions.
This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where there is
relatively high shrub or sapling coverage.
Habitat in the form of open, dry, deciduous woods with aid soil was present in the project area. However, a
plant-by-plant survey of the project area revealed no individual plants. A September 17, 2002 review of the
National Heritage Programs database for rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations within
1.0 mile of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading Avens -Spreading avens is a perennial herb. Spreading avens is tapped with an indefinite cyme of
large, bright yellow flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they
arise from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow 8 to 19 inches tall. Flowering occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
fraseri). Heller's blazing star (Liatris helieri) and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea), both federally-
listed as threatened species, are also present at some sites. The substrate at all the population sites is
composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks (Massey et af, 1980; Morgan, 1980;
Kral, 19$3; Department of the Interior, 1990).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September, 2001. Na populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on July 2fi, 2001. No individual organisms, papulations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area. Elevations within the project area range from approximately 3,180 to 3,320 ft mst, which are below
the range of 5,000 to 5,800 ft msl for known populations.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
F.2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of the provisions included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. In addition to the federal program, organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on its list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists the Federal Skies of Concern for Burke County, the
state status of these species, and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. The NCNHP database
shows no occurrences of FSC within 0.6 mile of the project study area as of January 2001.
20

Table 5
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Burke County
Common Name Scientific Name Po#entiai
Habitat State
Status
Southern A alachian Woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia Yes SC
All hen Woodrat Neotoma ma ister Yes SC
Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa Yes T
American Eel An uilfa Rostrata Yes -
Rafines ue's Bi -eared Bat Co norhinus Raftnes uii Yes T
Red Crossbill Southern A alachian Loxia Curvirostra Yes SC
Cherokee Clubtail Gom hus Consan uis Yes -
Ma arita River Skimmer Macromia Ma arrta Yes -
Cuthbert Turtlehead Chelone Cuthbertii No -
Edmund's Snaketail Dra onfl O hi om hus edmundo Yes SR
P m Snaketail Dra onfl D hi om hus howei Yes SR
Diana Fritilla Butterfl S e eria diana Yes SR
Butternut Ju lams cinerea Yes
Sweet Pinesa Monotro sis odorata Yes C
Carolina saxifra a Saxifra a caroliniana Yes C
A Liverwort Porella Watau ensis No -
A Liverwort Ce haloziella obtusilobula Yes C
A Liverwort PIa iochila sullivantii var. s ini era No C
A Liverwort Pla iochila sullivantii var. sullivantii No C
~ nreazenea t r ~ -any mauve or once-mauve species wn~cn is uKery to become an endangered species within the toreseeabie
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) -any species which requires monitoring but which may be elected and sold under specfic regviatfons.
Candidate(C) - a species for which USUSFWS has enough information on file to support proposals for listing as endangered
or threatened.
Signiflcan#iy Rare(5R) -species which are very rare, generally with 7 -2t) populations in the state, and generally reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction.
f.3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered species.
VL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 19fi6, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 1 D6, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federa! agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
27

the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity #o comment on such undertakings. This project has been coordinated with tl~e North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated January 24, 2082 the HPO stated there are no structures of historical or architectural
importance within the APE, and no surveys were recommended by HPO. A copy of the memorandum is included
in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The HPO, in a memorandum dated Febn~ary 7, 2~6 concurred "that no further. archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.p A copy of the HPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VIII. EN1/iRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate bridges will result in safer
traffic operations.
The project is considered a Federal °Categorical Exclusion° due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
Replacement of Bridge No. 26 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment
with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in Land use is
expected to result from the construction of the projec#.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be limited. No
relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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 and environmental impacts as a
result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low-income populations.
The s#udied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor. is it a designated bicycle route; therefore,
no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
This project- has been cocxdinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conserva#ion Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime fam~iand for all land acquisition and construction projects. Alternative A,
22

Alternative B, and Alternative C would impact 0 acres of Prime and Unique Farmland. Alternative C is the
preferred alternative and therefore impacts to prime or locally important farmlands are minimized.
A portion ofi the Blue Ridge National Parkway will be impacted by the project. No other publicly owned parks or
recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state or local significance in the
immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will require a permanent highway easement deed for impacted land in the Biue Ridge
National Parkway that is protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
No adverse effects to air quality are anticipated from this project. This project is an air quality °neutral° project, so
it is not required to be included m the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris
is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 26 by constructing a new structure. This project will not result
in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any other factor that
would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build alternative. As such, FHWA has
determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has
not-been kiked with any special MSAT concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.
EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSATs to decline significantly over the next 20
years. FHWA predicts MSATs will decline in the range of 57 percent to 87 percent, from 2000 to 2020, based on
regulations now in effect, even with a projected t34 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (YMT). Therefore,
both the background level of MSATs and the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from this project will be
reduced.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes after this
project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise receptors in
the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are required.
The NCDaT Geotechnical Unit determined that no underground storage tanks or areas of other contamination
were present at or near the project study area
Burke County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is within art
approximate study area. The new structure should be designed to match or lower the existing 1 DO-year store
elevation upstream of the roadway. The replacement structure is proposed as an in-kind replacement and in the
absence of historical problems, increased flood impacts associated with this bridge replacement are not
anticipated. The FEMA flood map which covers the study area is shown in Figure S. Since the proposed
23

replacement for Bridge No. 26 will be a structure similar in waterway opening size, it is not anticipated that it will
have any significant impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained
to the extent practicable and groundwater resoun~es will not be affected. The bridge is located below
headwaters. The existing bridge site is no# located in a Water Supply Wa#ershed Area.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impact will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 26.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on July 21, 2003 at the Jonas Ridge Fire Department. There were
approximately 40 people in attendance at the workshop. A majority of the citizens expressed concern at any
alternative that would close the road and use an off-site detour during construction. The Burke County Board of
Commissioners submitted a letter opposing any alternative that would close NC 183 for the construction of the
bridge.
XI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency comments are summarized below. Letters from the commenting agencies are included in the appendix.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC): Proposes moratoriums from February 15 to May
30 for Walleye and White Bass and from October 15 to April 15 for Wild Brown Trout.
Response: The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water between October 15 to Apri! 15. The
Walleye and White Bass are not afforded legal protection and NCDOT does not honor their moratorium.
XI1. REFERENCES
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifcation of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife-Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide Planning
Program. December 1999. Catawba River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
http:l/h2o.enr.state.nc.uslbasinwide/catawba wg management plan.htm.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000. Watershed
Restoration Action Strategy. (as revised through 2 February 2000) Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information Management
System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: Catawba River. Accessed 10 Sep#ernber 2001.
httpa/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bimslreports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydro/catawba.pdf.
24

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natura! Resources. 1993. Classifications and Water
Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins. Division of Environmental Management. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth
Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program Lis# of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program_ 20(}1. Element Occurrence Search Report: Burke County, North
Carolina. http:!lwww.ncsparlcs.net/nhp/search.html. Updated Juiy 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P Teulings. 19$0. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H_E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina
25

FIGURES

~,.
~`w
NORTH CAROLINA
}' ~ `DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NC 1 S3
Replace Bridge No. 26 over
Linville River
Burke County, North Carolina
TIP N O. 8,4038
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Nat to Scale Figure 1

~~
if

APPENDIX

~,-
~... b'r,vL e
~r ~/~_`\~j`~
~/ \t:-1
'°~ 4...~ .s ~ ~ -. 12- I
k ~ ~ '~~r
~•
Forth Carolina bepartment of Cul~urat Re4ourr~s ~~cc~ivE
State Hestorfc Preger-ti•ation Office
Yctar L3 Snndbcck. Adntiniatr.~!pr
A-Sichitc! f- CaQ:cyfGnuct,ic~r :7i1i~.-~ nt'J+,-t:F:i•:~ grid i-iicrr,;~~
Li~brth C Evnnv, _.ccmnrv ~;t ~ air, ur Y:ist:+n~~al R~`~vu1-.~es
Jcl~~rcy 1_ Cmw, Dci qty Scc'tr:n;}' Da•:pd Nmp&, UirRtnr
Fehruail+ ~'. 1UUC
~~1 E ~~i. C7 R <~ It D t. ; l~•i
-1~~. R1~tt Wilkerson, ;1 t.cl,ncc~lo~*y 5upcrvist~r
l~ivisic~n cat- i-li~hwa~~s
i~epartzncn[ c.f -1-ranspc~rtatlon
i'1LC7h'f ~ Peter Sandbeck ~ ~~ ~A.xR~f+~
St'13j 1~C`1': L~ridge Na. 2Cf on NC ] f3.3, TiP I3-4(13 ti, Burke Coun;y-, ]iii ()?.-8499
"I'h:lnk you foc yC~ttr Jett~r of Decenzbcr 29, 2(1U5, rsansn-urti~i~ the :trchaeolo~*ical ;;t~r-~.•L~' rt`pc;,rt: by 'Tracy ~ _
hTa<rrin, .j"}ZC Garrn,7~- r~sse~ciarcti, for the above project. "ll-le repc~-t mecl~ti ui[r office's ~zaid~lines and thc~~~ r.~F
the Secrcta ry o E ['he l t~ terior.
DunnK rhr course of the 4us-nc}~, c3nr :[rchaeolo~~cal site vs-as locstr.~d .~~irl~~n the project :~re:l, i~7s. jlrlartin has
recom.mendcd th:>,t no further ;c:-ehacnlo~ical uz•"esrigacion he cnnductec~ in c<>Inn~~tint~ ~~-irh this project. ~'e
Concclr with tlzi:~ rccc~~~,tnenc:lation since the project will nc~r sn~olvz SigliiEicanr archaeolc>K-ieal re,c>urce5_
7-he al~ot-e cvTnmcnts are madc (~uT:9uant to Sccrion lOG ~f the 1\at.iona: I~.isrorTC l're,~i~•:~uo~~ ~1ct an,-i the
,Ac3visc>r`- Coul~cil on I-llstoric 1're~c_rvation's Rcgv)ations for Cc~mpli.~t»cc ~vitli ~ccrir~n 1(-)C, cc,ditled at 3G CF1?
Part r3f_?(-T.
1~Zank }'ou tc,r }'our. Caoj~erar~r~rZ :-ni] consideration. J f you h:«rc questions concecnln~ nc~ :[btu;-e c~~!ii:»ent,
please contlet Rc;t~e~ Gledhill-3=.arse}~, environmental retieu~ cooro.inat~~r., ar. 919/733-47{~3, ln,~i[ titture
comrnwlic:-riol~ concernir~~ ti~TV pmjcct, please cite the above refcrcncc<l cracki.l~g numb~r_
cc. 1"rncy ~~ts:,rriti ali~~ ~~atll tiCiebl~, -!'1ZC Garro~v Ilssociatc~
Ai7Ml^+TS t RA'1-1/jN
IZ1~CTl7RAT1C1 V
1_r.catl~~
~U7 N 11Mtn+f titrrct IisJci~lt !~C
I! N L~icvnl Strcc~, Fii.icif111 NC
~ 15 N Hlavnt Street Ite.Ieiyh_ NC
!4f'NInR ArlJrp~r
ah17 ASuil Scrvico Ccn~cr ILntc igl, NC ~7 ,ov..aF1~
a6f :Atoll Sete ice Cu.>e+ ]e ra~•fg!, NC :7~?'~~I+i?
~6I7 Mail Scrvicc Crntcr, Ri.k>igl, NC X7699-a<,t^,
Tclcpfton,i:=na
!L lyl7~t-f, S47r? I to fi Cll
{4tv)71t_r,4rtt: i iS-ti~:Gl

. ~ 4 ~ `~
~ "
-~ ~~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
- State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J_ Olsoq Director
]efl-rey 1. Crow, Depu[y Secretary
Office of Archives and History
~anuary 24, 20n2
~IEit~lORjlivD~?h•I
" ~ TO_ William D. Gilmore, ~~anager
Project Development and 1/nvtronrnental l~nah-sis Branch
Dim ision o f Highway s
- Department of Transportation -
FROtii_ David Brook r+~. n r. '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~F :-; ~~.-:
ct-BJECT. Bridge?G on i~1C 1-{33 Replacement, B-038, Burke Counn-, ER 0?-5499
Thank ~-au for your letter of September ?S, ?001, concerning the above -project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the project area. If the reply"cement is to be located along
the etisang alignment, it is unlikel~• that signiEcant archaeological .resources will be affected and no
ins-estigations recommended. If, l-iowe~-er,- the replacement is~ to be in a new location, please forward a map
to this office~uidicating the [ovation of the nez~- alignment so ~e mar ei aIuate the potential effects of.the
replaceri-~ent upon archaeological resources. ~}G'e hage conducted a search of our 51es and are atzare of.no
structures of historical or architectural importance located within -the. planning area_
t~'e hatre conducted a search of our .files and arc aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G of the National Historic Presen-ation 'pct and the
~d~-icon- Couricil on Historic Preser~~ation's Regulations for Compliance ~ti-ith Section 10G codified at 36
- CFR Part 800_
Thank t-ou for i-our cooperation and consideration.- If E-ou ham e duestions .concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-l;arley, ens-ironmentai ret-few coordinator, at 919/733-763_ In all future
corrimunication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking. number.
Location i4iailing Address TelephvnefFax
Administration 5(17 N-.Bl+.unt St. Ftaluigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh 27b99-1617 (919) 733763 •733-Sb53
Restoration -S I ~ N" Blrunt St,~ Ralui~h " NC =t(~ 13 Mail Scrvicc Ccntcr_ Raleigh 27fiU9-Jf~ 13 j919) 733-6547 •71 5-x801
Survey Sc Piannint; ~ I ~ N_ 13h+unt St, Rakich, NC -i/, (.4 Mail Scrviur Ccntcr_ Ralcieh 27(199-4f~ IS .[phone] •715-4801

' ~f~r~ f
~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
SI2 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina Z76~4-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles. R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO. William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit-Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Habitat Conservation Coordinator -, .
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 10, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Burke County:
Bridge No. 26, NC183, Linville River; ,$-4Q~R
Bridge No. 51, ~R1424, Parks Creek, B-4043
Bridge No_ 251, SRl 12$, Hall Creek, B-4040
Bridge No_ 4, SR1515, Smoky Creek, B-4044
Bridge No_ 57, SR1244, Canoe Creek, B-4041
Bridge No_ 94, SR1972, East Prong Hunting Creek, B-4047
Bridge No_ 19, SR1736, Camp Creek, B-4045
Bridge No. 91, SR1127, Silver Creek, B-4039
Biologists with the N: C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC} have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. 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).
Our standard recommendations for- bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually-do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realigrunent. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges a-Mows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2_ Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.

,~ ~
Bridge Mem o
2 May i 0, 2002
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream_
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream_
5. if temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free} area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the.N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits_ We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
.information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project_
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadrornous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. in areas with significant f sheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
reconunended.
1 1. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities_ Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within I S days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13_ All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rack berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in .flowing water.
14_ Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the Iikelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
l 5. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill {causeways}, and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.

-4 !
Bridge Memo
May 10, 2002
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
{measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsf~eld design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s)_ Silted barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during-low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aqua#ic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flaw barrel{s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or'box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the irilet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure_ If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks_ If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCD~T should restore the
area to wetlands_ If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.

..i ~
Bridge Memo 4 May 10, 2002
Project specific comments:
1 . Bridge No. 26, NC183, Linville River, B-4038, RED LIGHT, Significant 8c historic resource,
Proposed Critical Habitats, Game Lands, Trout clubs, National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway, Moratoriums proposed { 15 Feb. - 30 May, Walleye and White
Bass; 15 Oct - 31 March, Brown Trout ), Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa)
populations. NEW Spanning Bridge.
2. Bridge No. 51, SR1424, Parks Creek, B-4043 -YELLOW LIGHT, Santee Chub in John's
River, No sport fish concerns indicated.
3. Bridge No. 251, SR1 128, Hall Creek, B-4040 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
4. Bridge No. 4, SR1515, Smoky Creek, B-4044 -YELLOW LIGHT, Moratorium for warm
water f sh species_
5_ Bridge No. 57, SR1244, Canoe Greek, B-4041 -GREEN LIGHT; No concerns indicated_
Standard requirements_
6. Bridge No. 94, SR1972, East Prong Hunting Creek, B-4047 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns
indicated_ Standard requirements_
7. Bridge No. 19, SR1736, Camp Creek, B-4045 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
8_ Bridge No. 91, SR1127, Silver Creek, B-4039 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shailowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]_ Thank you for the opportunity to review and
com ent on these projects_
Cc: David Cox, WRC

~I ~~ State of North Carolina
" Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
~ ~ •
NORTH CARQLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 3, 2002
Memorandum To: William T_ Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~ ~'
Through: John Dorne,
NC Division f Wat r Q iality, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings
/~~`
NC Division of Water Quality, 401 Un
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for badge
replacement projects scheduled far construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B-2988, B-4032, B-403$. B-4039,
B-4044, B-4045, B-4180, B-4179, B-4161, B-4144, B-4123,
B-4067, B-4047.
in future reports, an Executive Summary Paragraph would be helpful_ This should include brief
description of the work intended (i_e_, rep}ace badge with another bridge or with a culvert), the
amount of impact to wetlands and streams, and types of possible permits needed.
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed_ Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed 'in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream_ Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B _0024) must be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream
aquatic resources_ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation must be planted on all bare
soil within 1 ~ days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control_
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and i50 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ
realizes [hat 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_
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i_e_ the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Wctfands/401 Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd_ Suite 250 Raleieh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] FAX #s T3-6893

Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
extensions.
For permitting, any project that falls under the Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits 23 or 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality_ Notification grid
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps, including mitigation plans, are required_ For
projects that fall under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 31, the formal 401 application process will be required including appropriate fees and
mitigation plans.
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary_ Additionally,
vegetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary_
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization must be minimized; rather, native vegetation should be
planted when practical_ If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water_
Rules regarding stormwater as described in (ISA NCAC 2b_0216 (3} (G)) shall be followed for
these projects. These activities shall minimize built-upon surface area, divert runoff away from
surface waters and maximize utilization of BMPs_ Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed
in order to allow it to be most effectively utilized for storm water sheet flow.
.Special Note on project B-4144: these waters are classified as 303(d) waters_ Special measures
for sediment control will be needed.
Also note that projects B-2988, B-4Q32, B-4038, B-4180, B-4179, B-4161, B-4144, B-4123, and
B-4067 occur in Trout waters_ Any trout-specific conditions that would be determined by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Cornmission, to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from
sedimentation during construction, would be required on any 401 certifications.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certifcation requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.

_ ~~ ~ R
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1 GO Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone 828-?~~-399 Ext 2~7, Fa1 82.8-?~8->;30
MEMO F~~: William T. Goodwin, P_E_ DATE: June ?7, 2002
FROM: vlarella Buncick
SUBJECT: Review of NCDOT ?005 Bridge Program
I have completed initial review of the approximately 70 proposed bridge replacements for
NCDOT Divisions 9-14 for the year 2005. I would like to commend NCDOT for
obtaining the natural resource information up front and allowing the agencies to review
the proposals and provide comments so early in the process_ It was a large volume of
work for everyone involved but I feel .that the input will be much more meaningful at this
early planning Stage.
Attached is a spreadsheet with specific conlrnents _for each project reviewed. All of the
projects have been assigned a Green, Yellow, or Red ranking depending on the resources
affected and the need for future consultation. As you will note, the majority of the
projects received a Yellow ranking. This is due in large part to the fact that there are
unresolved issues related to listed species. Many of these projects likely will become
Green projects after further Feld review. However, obligations under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2)
actions are subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or
(~j a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action_
I also have general continents regarding the process and reports. My general comments
follow.
Report Content and organization
1 _ The reports would be more easily handled if they were not spiral or otherwise
bound.
2_ Maps need to be much better_ Without a significant landmark-- highway, larger
totivn, other feature - it sometimes took a long time to figure out the location of
the project within a county_
3_ The reports were organized somewhat similarly, but more consistency would aid
in the review process. Perhaps a table that has the significant features ---stream
width, depth, DWQ class, etc.--also would heIp_