20080812 Ver 1_Application_20080513

'1 V
V
11
v
V3
J

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 28, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. David Baker
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
080812
Subject: Clean Water Act Nationwide Permits 13 and 23 application for
replacement of Bridge No. 12 on SR 1329 (Warlick Road) over Boylston
Creek, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1329(4), State Project No. 8.2952801,
Henderson County, Division 14, TIP No. B-4148. WBS Element No.
33497.1.1.
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification, permit drawings, design plans and
Rapanos jurisdictional determination form for the subject project. A Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE) was completed in July 2006 for this project and distributed
shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 31-foot Bridge No. 12
with a single span cored slab bridge of approximately 55 feet in length. The new structure
will be built on the same alignment as the existing bridge. During construction, traffic
will be routed to an offsite detour. There will be a total of 26 feet of permanent impacts to
Boylston Creek and 0.02 acre of permanent impact due to fill in two linear wetlands.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: There is one impacted jurisdictional stream on the project site:
Boylston Creek. This water resource is located in the French Broad River Basin
(subbasin 04-03-03, Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 06010105). The North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) index number for the Boylston Creek is 6-52-(6.5).
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CEkTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
I
Boylston Creek is classified by the Division of Water Quality as a WS-IV water body.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) nor waters listed on the 303 (d) list occur in the project area or
within 1.0 mile downstream of waters in the project area. The average baseflow width of
Boylston Creek is approximately 20 feet. Average depth is approximately 1-2 feet.
Permanent Impacts: There will be a total of 26 feet of permanent impacts to Boylston
Creek at Site 3. There impacts encompass two ditches that will have Class 1 rip rap
placed where they enter Boylston Creek. Rip rap will be used along the bank, to control
erosion at these sites. An additional 0.02 acres of permanent impact will occur due to fill
in two linear wetlands (Site 1, Site 2). These wetlands are the current ditches on the
southeastern portion of SR 1329. Because of highway design standards, these ditches
will be filled and relocated away from the roadway.
Temporary Impacts: There will be no temporary impacts associated with this project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 12 is constructed of timber and steel. Therefore, it is
unlikely that there will be any temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition.
Utility Impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional waters due to utilities.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 31, 2008
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list 7 species under federal
protection for Henderson County (Table 1). The oyster mussel has been removed from
the list since the PCE was completed. A survey for Appalachian elktoe and oyster mussel
was conducted on April 29, 2004. The survey results indicated that freshwater mussels
were not present in the surveyed reach of Boylston Creek and were unlikely to occur due
to the heavy sediment loading. A survey for the protected plant species was conducted in
2004 and found that no suitable habitat existed within the study area. The NC Natural
Heritage database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in March 2008.
There is no documentation of federally listed species or unique habitats occurring within
1 mile of the project area.
Page 2 of 4
Table 1. Species Under Federal Protection in Henderson County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Bog turtle Clemm s muhlenbuer ii T (S/A) No Not required
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E No No Effect
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E No No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher
plant Sarracenia jonesii E No No Effect
Small-whorled o onia Isotria medioloides T No No Effect
Swam ink Helonias bullata T No No Effect
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E No No Effect
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 impacts, and to
provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional
impacts; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
• Best Management Practices will be followed for this project as outlined in "NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
• Best Management Practices will be used during demolition of the existing bridge.
• Use of a single span structure.
• There will be no deck drains allowed to discharge directing into Boylston Creek.
• Use of offsite detour.
In Section D/Other Agency Comments of the PCE it was stated that sediment and erosion
control measures should adhere to design standards for sensitive watersheds. There
measures will not be used for this project because Boylston Creek carries no special
aquatic classifications.
Mitigation:
Permanent impacts for this project are 26 feet due to bank stabilization and 0.02 acre of
permanent fill in two linear wetlands. Because the minimal impacts associated with this
project and no special aquatic classifications, no mitigation is proposed. No loss of
"Waters of the United States" will occur with this project.
SCHEDULE
The project schedule calls for a January 20, 2009 Let date with a date of availability on
March 2, 2009. The review date for the project is December 2, 2008.
Page 3 of 4
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that impacts relating to use of rip rap for bank
stabilization will be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 13 (Bank
Stabilization). Permanent fill to the two linear wetlands is anticipated to be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusion). We
therefore request the issuance of Nationwide Permits 13 and 23 for these activities.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification Nos. 3689 and 3701 will
apply to this project. All general WQC conditions will be adhered to during project
construction. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1, Section .0500(a) and 15A
NCAC 213.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
records.
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 Jason Dilday at jldilday a,dot.state.nc.us or (919)
715-5535. The application will be posted at http://207.4.62.65/PDEA/PennApps/.
Sincerel ,
Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
CC:
W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
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. B. Setzer, P.E. (Div. 14), Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis (Div. 14), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Natalie Lockhart, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Page 4 of 4
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
2
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 0 0 8 0 8 1 2
(it any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 13 & 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number:_ [phone] Fax Number:_ [phone]
E-mail Address: ildildayadot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9
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: Bridge 12 over Boylston Creek on SR 1329 (Warlick Road)
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4148
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Henderson Nearest Town: Etowah
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): SR 1329, Warlick Road
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35'21'55" ON -82'34'50" °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Boylston Creek
8. River Basin: French Broad River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Agriculture and minor forested communities.
Page 2. of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 12 will be replaced with a single span cored slab bridge approximately 55 feet in
length using standard bridge demolition and construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: In 1998, when the timber bridge was
programmed the bridge had a sufficiency rating of 38.8 out of 100 and was both structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete. Since that time, temporary crutch work and repairs have
been done which resulted in the current rating of 70.2 out of 100. Because the crutch work is
temporary the bridge is still structurally deficient as well as functionally obsolete.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. 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.
Page 3 of 9
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 26 feet of permanent impacts to
Boylston Creek due to the placement of class 1 riprap at two ditches where they enter the
creek (Site 3). 0.02 acres of permanent impact due to fill in two linear wetlands (Site 1 Site
22.
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,
se arately list impacts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
(yes/no) Fan Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 Permanent fill Herbaceous Yes 0 0.01
Site 2 Permanent fill Herbaceous Yes 0 0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.02
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.08 acre
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 map)
Stream Name
Type of
Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet) ( ) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 3 Boylston Creek Perm Perennial 20 ft 26 <0.01

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 26 <0.01
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.
Page 4 of 9
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)
No Impacts

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): <0.01 (permanent)
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.02
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.02 (permanent)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 26 (permanent)
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.Traffic will be placed on a
temporarv offsite detour. NCDOT Best Management Practices will be implemented during all
phases of construction and demolition. Replacement bridge will be a spanning structure.
Page 5 of 9
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, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
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.
There is 26 feet of permanent stream impact to Boylston Creek due to bank stabilization
and not considered a loss of "Waters of the U.S." 0.02 acre of permanent impact will occur
to an adjacent wetland. Mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the minimal
impacts and no special aquatic classification for this system.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
Page 6 of 9
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX.
X.
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
*
Zone Impact
(square feet)
Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1
F 3 (2 for Catawba)
Page 7 of 9
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
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. Stormwater will be controlled from the structure
and adiacent road.
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
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://b2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project is limited to a bridge replacement No indirect or cumulative impacts are
anticipated.
Page 8 of 9
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).
N/A
?,??? Y• ZS•c?,
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
601Is-40m C(ret
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should he completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: B4148 (Replacement of Bridge No. 12 on SR 1329)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish/borough: Henderson City: Etowah
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.37° N, Long. -82.58° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Boylston Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105
® Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
? Check if other sites (e.g., otlsite 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:
? Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "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:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "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): t
? 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: 600 linear feet: 8-20 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.08 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual
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 Ill below.
Z For purposes of this fonn, an RPW 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 III.F.
SECTION 111: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 continuous 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 III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section I II.D.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 waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting 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 all 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.1 for
the tributary, Section IIF.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section Il1.B.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: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW5:
Tributary stream order, if known:
4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
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.
(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: Pick List.
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: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
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):
E] Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
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 (list):
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
me 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 OH W M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH WM 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 findings:
? 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 Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiaceney 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 TN W
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List 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:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? 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: Pick List
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 all 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 carry 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:
1. 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 111.D:
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 111.D:
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 III.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: linear feet width (ft), 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: Boylston Creek and its UT have NCDWQ stream rating scores greater than 30.
? 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 III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 600 linear feet 8-20 width (ft).
? Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
? 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 III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands drain directly into Boylston Creek.
? Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.08 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
? 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 INTRA-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.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section I I I. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 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 CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
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:
? Wetlands: acres.
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 forjurisdiction (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 for 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 applicant/consultant.
? Office 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.
0 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 & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
? Applicable/supporting case law:
? Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
? Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
.
???? rev 24F
? 25 %
%
% 280 SITE SEE INMT _ 64
BELO N /
•1 176 1
1
1 ?
25 225. 1
1 ..4d ?J
1 ?+ HENDERSON COUN
I %? ? '? tLyx??T-* \ + , t./ .J ,` ..11 _ • ?_ °? 1``,, ! a..•`?? ,t: _;??.yy: ' ? ? ! = `t•' t/t--?5 ? {?' ? } Lt.•J
?L`- , +` 'f, 1, J• , 't J '• 1 I? ??s. •' / QNin]}i, r!'1•/,?f/IS ' .;r..
/yJ ?•?-) ? ,r.• ; f ,?f(" a:, '- Jf/j????• •? ??;s'?t7 ' ,?a ??-!_ ?";?? {Y' ?'?-.?
,•??.?' ' C 1? ?+?? ? f ! ~?.1?••? Jam./ - t,, .. ?rr(]? f I S ? "'_'• ? - ? ?`
1 l JI J
1P/'iFls,Ftiwr Crh
J ll?.l'. !• t'1<y?';'!,t?.! . V; nn•' `? `. ?? 5 JA • I `' ' 1^V`'?',• MN-yr`,IaZ .v?j?.fj ???`y
•-s-1• - _ _ L
:? Q?: i \ i? // jr, 7`I ° Jf r,?`''r'^,''°,? r` (Y •9I
....? ?f? ?i?'/?r?••? /?,Q ` • ?`r ? l1 !: ` i I.! ? 1 +y 1'? 1 _ ! • `?.?? II `O;
• ~ ` 'fie !
?, ?!1\ ? / V •\•,.J?'? t / 1 . 1I i?4`rL°i ` ?. - -'-e f+`? l ?a? ? ' L • L ? 4 ,(^I . "? ? a'ti
NIP
? ?; =? - ; •? ? fir/ _ J ? IC ? ?,?:: - ? : •.
tit
fall/ I ` V,• ' ? Jf°? ? ?/i/?' ? '? -"'? f% .f'^\' i ?, ` ? Ur-?f t _ i,?'-:
1, /),'I ? ! ..r' I,• t ,,` - i ue // J? ?} "?i ? 1? ji ? `
I Il t ti ?,.• 'r1 ? ;.,,v y 1? ?• `? Ij '?l,(, ``?U l/? i ±?'a?,, ?^+-L?? --: ? } `
?i .? t ! "'?`?`"'t`,K? \ r . ,,?,,,,ft;;+' -'fill ?r,•.?.Y2'lo•;?,e ..,H(,.•?'?- /i ?_.?
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WETLAND IMPACTS HENDERSON COUNTY
VICINITY MAP PROJECT: 33497.1.1 (B-4148)
BRIDGE NO. 12 OVER
BOYLSTON CREEK ON SR 1329
(WARLICK ROAD)
SHEET -L OF 1 3-14-08
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
2 ROBERT CONROY P.O. BOX 549
HORSE SHOE, NC 28742
3 BAYNARD HICKS 1015 MISSOURI BREAKS LANE
THERMOPOLIIS, WY 82443
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33497.1.1 (B-4148)
BRIDGE NO. 12 OVER
BOYLSTON CREEK ON SR 1329
(WARLICK ROAD)
SHEET Z OF O 3-14-08
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

1

Station
(From/To)

16+79117+22 -L- LT

Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
0.01
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)

SW
[impacts emp.
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
2 16+06/17+74
L
RT
-
- 0.01
3 15+63/16+00 -L- LT & RT E
b
m
ankment Rip Rap < 01 26

TOTALS: 0.02 <.01 26
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 333498.1.1 (B-4148)
ATN Revised 3/31105 SHEET 3 'W80
D 3/14/2008
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4148
State Project No. 8.2952801
W.B.S. No. 33497.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1329(4)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Henderson County Bridge No. 12 on
SR 1329 (Warlick Road) over Boylston Creek. Bridge No. 12 is 31 feet long.
The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 60 feet long providing a
minimum 30 feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 12-foot lanes and
3-foot offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 420 feet from the northwest end
of the new bridge and 270 feet from the southeast end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 24-foot pavement width providing two
12-foot lanes. Five-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (8-foot
shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural
Local Route with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
In 1998, when the timber bridge was programmed, the bridge had a sufficiency
rating of 38.8 out of 100 and was both structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete. Since that time, temporary crutch work and repairs have been done
which resulted in the current rating of 70.2 out of 100. Because the crutch work is
temporary, the bridge is still structurally deficient as well as functionally obsolete
and therefore still eligible for FHWA's Bridge Replacement Program. The 45-
year-old timber bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
J. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Structure $ 189,000
Roadway Approaches $ 150,420
Detour Structure and Approaches -0-
Structure Removal $ 13,020
Misc. & Mob. $ 98,560
En g. & Contingencies $ 74,000
Total Construction Cost $525,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 73,000
Total Project Cost $598,0001
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 700 vpd
Year 2025 - 1300 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found three accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. None were
associated with the geometry of the bridge or its approach roadways.
Design Exceptions: A horizontal design exception is required. The existing
curve located on the southeast end of the bridge has a design speed of 30 mph.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 12 is constructed entirely of timber and steel and
should be possible to remove with no resulting debris in the water based on
standard demolition practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1329.
Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1961 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour - Bridge No. 12 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
for Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR 1314 (Ladson Rd.), SR 1331 (Banner Farm Rd.), SR 1426
(School House Rd.), NC 280, SR 1316 (Ray Hill Rd.) and SR 1328
(Turnpike Rd.) This detour was chosen because Bridge No. 182 located
on Turnpike Road just north of the intersection with Warlick Road has a
posting of 19 tons single vehicle and 26 tons TTST and Bridge No. 9
located on SR 1316 has a posting of 24 tons. The detour for the average
road user would result in 6.0 minutes additional travel time (3.3 miles
additional travel). Up to a twelve-month duration of construction is
expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that the preference of
an offsite detour but with now stronger evaluation of other project
variables. In this case, the Henderson County Fire Marshal's Office along
with Henderson County Schools Transportation has indicated that an
offsite detour is acceptable and that services can be adequately re-routed
during construction. The NCDOT Division 14 concurs in these
recommendations.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment - Given that the alignment for SR 1329 is acceptable, a
new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in standardized letters provided a request that
they prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning structure.
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission stated that Boylston Creek is
classified as WS-IV. Several federal and state listed species have been reported in
adjacent watersheds. Surveys, including a mussel survey in Boylston Creek, are
recommended. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds.
Response: A mussel survey was performed on April 29, 2004. The survey
results indicate that freshwater mussels are not present in the surveyed reach of
Boylston Creek. It is unlikely that the oyster mussel or the Appalachian elktoe
occur in the project area, mostly due to the heavy sediment loading in this stretch
of the creek.
The Division of Water Quality stated that there are 30-foot vegetated buffer
requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm
water runoff and maximize use of BMP's.
Response: 30-foot vegetated buffers will be included in the project
commitments.
Tennessee Valley Authority requested to be on the distribution list for meeting
minutes and have the opportunity to comment on the project as it develops. If the
level of review is elevated to an Environmental Assessment, please include TVA
as a Cooperating Agency in the Federal Highway Administration's NEPA review.
TVA needs to be contacted if a formal consultation under the Endangered Species
Act or memoranda of agreement under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act is required. This project may require Section 26a approval.
Response: A Section 26a permit is not anticipated on this project. TVA will
review final plans to verify this determination.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
accepted consulting party status for this project. The EBCI THPO feels there is
little to no probability of encountering tribal resources of concern with this
5
project. However, to be certain they requested quad maps of the site area and any
cultural resources reports generated for this project.
Response: There were no cultural resources reports required.
The Army Corps of Engineers had no special concerns for this project.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X*
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
7
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel

changes? ?
X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO

(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned

growth or land use for the area? ?
X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or

low-income population? ?
X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic

volumes? ?
X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? ? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ?
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ? X
8
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: The project area was surveyed for the oyster mussel and the
Appalachian elktoe April 29, 2004. The survey results indicate
that freshwater mussels are not present in the surveyed reach of
Boylston Creek. It is unlikely that the oyster mussel or the
Appalachian elktoe occur in the project area, mostly due to the
heavy sediment loading in this stretch of the creek. It was
concluded that project construction would have "No Effect" on
these two species.
Response to Question 8: While this project is in a designated trout county, the stream
does not support trout. There should be no bents or fill in the
stream.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-4148
8.2952801
33497.1.1
BRZ-1329(4)
The purpose of this project is to replace Henderson County Bridge No. 12 on
SR 1329 (Warlick Road) over Boylston Creek. Bridge No. 12 is 31 feet long. The
replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 60 feet long providing a
minimum 30 feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-
foot offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same
as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 420 feet from the northwest end of
the new bridge and 270 feet from the southeast end of the new bridge. The approaches
will be widened to include an 24-foot pavement width providing two 12-foot lanes.
Five-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (8-foot shoulders where
guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local Route with a 60
mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
1 1,4 o
Dat rige Project evelopment Engi
Pr t Development ment & Environm ntal Analysis Branch
bli-Wal, 4;
Date rot r
Project Development Environmental Analysis Branch
*RA to Pl
i
E
i
roj
ec
ann
ng
ng
neer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
7A - - 10 /?7''
Date John . Sullivan, III, E, " A ministrator
Federal Highway Administration
10
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 12
on SR 1329 (Warlick Road) over Boylston Creek
Henderson County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1329(4)
State Project No. 8.2952801
T.I.P. No. B-4148
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Structure Design / TVA Permit
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land
Management District. If the bridge is replaced along existing alignment, as proposed, an
approval under Section 26a of the TVA Act will not be needed. However, TVA will
review final bridge design plans to confirm this determination.
Division Fourteen Construction, Resident Engineer's Office - Offsite Detour
In order to allow Henderson County Emergency Services time to prepare for road
closure, the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Henderson County EMS at
[phone] of the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure.
In order to allow Henderson County Schools time to prepare for road closure, the
NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify the School Transportation Director at
[phone] of the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure.
PDEA Natural Environment Unit - Bridge Demolition
The entire bridge is constructed of timber and steel. Therefore, it is unlikely that
there will be any temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
June 2006
STUDIED DETOUR
?oF 11O"T?+ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
4 TRANSPORTATION
j DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
OF TR
HENDERSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 12 ON SR 1329
OVER BOYLSTON CREEK
B-4148
Figure I
s.+. sTnn: o

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 4, 2004
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
CI I i4Ef1 PiiRTIL1PATi0N
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM
MAR 10 2004
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Brar+?"._
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook . cuta
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 12 on SR 1329 over Boylston Cre
Henderson County, ER03-0942
Thank you for your letter of February 3, 2004, concerning the above project
We have reviewed the additional materials you have submitted to us and find that there are no
historic properties located in the project area. Therefore, we have no further comment on this
project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Robin Hancock, NCDOT
www.hpo.dcrstate.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
October 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM
?o
:e .9la,4YsIBRw?ca.
Division of Historical Resources
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook &?? u-tasAj-
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 12 on SR 1329 over Boylston Creek, B-4148,
Henderson County, ER03-0942
On September 4, 2003, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects
met with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of
the minds concerning the above project. We reported on our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. DOT
provided aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we
offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located
within the areas of potential effect. However, we are unable to make a recommendation until
we receive photographs of any structures over fifty years old located within the project area.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
www.h1Do.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 7154801
I . A .
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 12
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek
Henderson County, North Carolina
(B-4148)
(State Project No. 8.2952801)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1329[4])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
March 2003
t• j'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 12 (TIP No. B-4148) on the SR 1329 (Warlick
Road) crossing Boylston Creek in Henderson County, NC.
INTRODUCTION
The project proposes replacement of Bridge No. 12 on SR 1329 (Warlick Road) over
Boylston Creek. The project area is approximately 30.2 acres (12.2 hectares) in size and
includes sections of Boylston Creek, Sweetwater Branch, and two unnamed tributaries to
Boylston Creek. Land use consists of agricultural land, undeveloped forest land, and some
residential areas. The project is within the Broad Basin ecoregion of the Blue Ridge
physiographic province, approximately 2120.0 to 2200.0 feet (646.2 to 670.6 meters) NGVD.
Approximately 3.4 acres (1.4 hectares) (10 percent) of the project area is underlain by hydric
Toxaway soils. Codorus soils make up approximately 16.8 acres (6.8 hectares) (50 percent) of
the project area. Codorus soils nre not on the hydric soils list for Henderson County, but they
do contain inclusions of Toxaway soils in depressions (SCS 1980, USDA 1996).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project area is located within N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) sub-basin
04-03-03 of the French Broad River Basin (DWQ 2000A). This area is part of USGS accounting
unit 06010105 of the Tennessee Region. The section of Boylston Creek crossed by the subject
bridge has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-52-(6.5) by DWQ, and Sweetwater Branch
has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-52-11 by DWQ (1998). The unnamed tributaries to
Boylston Creek have not been assigned an index number by DWQ.
The Best Usage Classification for Boylston Creek and Sweetwater Branch is WS-IV
(DWQ 2000A). No watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
project area. No Watershed Critical Areas or water resources classified as High Quality
Waters, Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are located
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. Boylston Creek and Sweetwater Branch are
not listed as impaired on the DWQ Draft 2000 303(d) list (DWQ 2000B).
Biotic Resources
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), and
maintained/disturbed land. A summary of plant community areas is presented in the following
table.
r" I.
Plant community coverage within the project area.
Plant Community Area
Acres (Hectares
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 2.2 (0.9)
Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 8.9 (3.6)
Maintained/disturbed land 19.0 (7.7)
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Boylston Creek and Sweetwater Branch are considered jurisdictional surface waters
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Based on field investigations, the project area also
contains other jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands. Areas of these systems within the
project area are summarized in the following table.

Jurisdictional Type Cowardin
Classification Linear
Distance
Area
DWQ Rating
Boylston Creek R3UB1/2 440.6 (134.3) - -
Sweetwater Branch R3UB1/2 421.2 (128.4) - -
UT to Boylston Creek No. 1 R3UB2/3 205.7 (62.7) - -
UT to Boylston Creek No. 2 R3UB1/2 679.0 (207.0) - -
Wetland No. 1 PSS1F - 0.29 (0.12) 49
Wetland No. 2 PF01 H - 0.02 (0.01) 43
Wetland No. 3 PF01 H - 0.03 (0.01) 43
Wetland No. 4 PEM 1 F - 0.27 (0.11) 35
Farm Pond PUB2/3h - 0.38 (0.15) 22
Total 1746.5 (532.3) 0.99 (0.40)
During project construction, Bridge No. 12 will be dismantled without dropping portions
of the structure into Boylston Creek. Therefore, no temporary fill from bridge demolition is
expected to be placed in waters of the United States. This project is located in a N.C Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) trout county; therefore, WRC may require a moratorium for
instream construction from October 15 to April 15. This project may be classified as Case 2,
where in-water work moratoriums or restrictions are required beyond those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Permits
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23
for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. expected with bridge construction. NWP
T 1•
33 may be used for temporary access and dewatering within waters of the United States.
However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through the use of these permits will
require written notice to DWQ. DWQ has made available General 401 Water Quality
Certifications for these NWPs. In the event that NWPs will not suffice, impacts attributed to
bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may qualify under General Bridge
Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. DWQ has made available a General
401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031. Notification to the Washington COE office is
required if this general permit is utilized.
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land
Management District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is required for all
construction or development involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage
basin.
Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed
for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Eight federally protected species are listed for Henderson County
(February 24, 2003 FWS list). These are presented in the following table.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle* Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A)
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Oyster mussel** Epioblasma capsaeformis E
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii E
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E
* Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance: resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species. The bog turtle
has this listing due to similarity of appearance to the northern bog turtle, which is listed as federally threatened.
** Historic occurrence in county - last seen in Henderson County more than 50 years ago.
Bog Turtle
The bog turtle is listed as T(S/A) due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species
listed for protection. T (S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological
conclusion for this species is not required. The project area contains no suitable habitat for bog
turtle.
T. .s
Appalachian elktoe
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
There is potential habitat for the Appalachian elktoe within the project area. Both Boylston
Creek and Sweetwater Branch, as well as one unnamed tributary, have well-oxygenated riffle
areas with sand and gravel substrate among cobbles and boulders as well as moderate flow
and clear water. Therefore, a survey for this species is recommended.
Oyster mussel
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
There is potential habitat for the oyster mussel within the project area. Boylston Creek and
Sweetwater Branch, as well as one of the unnamed tributaries, have well-oxygenated riffle
areas with sand and gravel substrate among cobbles and boulders as well as moderate flow.
Therefore, a survey for this species is recommended.
Swamp pink
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
There are three wetlands in the project area, two of which are seeps that may provide habitat for
swamp pink. The edges of the streams, unnamed tributaries and ditches that are constantly
saturated may also provide habitat for the species. Based on the habitat types within the project
area, surveys should be completed for swamp pink during the optimal survey window (April to
May).
Small-whorled pogonia
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The project area contains mixed pine-deciduous forest along stream banks. There are also
several wooded slopes, some of which have a large amount of white pine, a species commonly
associated with small-whorled pogonia. Based on the habitat types within the project area,
surveys should be completed for the small whorled pogonia during the optimal survey window
(mid May to early July).
Bunched arrowhead
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The project contains three wetland areas with shallow water. These may provide habitat for
bunched arrowhead. A survey for this species is recommended. Based on the habitat types
within the project area, surveys should be completed for bunched arrowhead during the optimal
survey window (mid May to July).
T. I.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The project contains three wetland areas with shallow water. These may provide habitat for
mountain sweet pitcher plant. A survey for this species is recommended. Based on the habitat
types within the project area, surveys should be completed for mountain sweet pitcher plant
during the optimal survey window (April to October).
White irisette
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The project area contains a southwest-facing slope with disturbed areas caused by
maintenance for SR 1328 (Old Turnpike Road) and for driveways. These areas may provide
habitat for white irisette. A survey for this species is recommended.
CONCLUSIONS
The project area contains 1.55 acres (0.63 hectares) of jurisdictional areas that could
potentially be impacted by the proposed project. Permits likely to be required for this project
area include a Section 404 NWP No. 23 and No. 33 along with their corresponding Section 401
Water Quality Certifications.
Since the project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a
nationwide permit by the COE is conditional upon the concurrence of the WRC. The proposed
project is located in the TVA Land Management District; therefore, a permit pursuant to Section
26a of the TVA Act is required for all construction or development involving streams or
floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin.
Construction of a replacement bridge within the footprint of the existing Bridge No. 12 is
recommended to minimize impacts to wetlands, plant communities, and fisheries resources.
}
NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 12
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek
Henderson County, North Carolina
(B-4148)
(State Project No. 8.2952801)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1329[4])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
March 2003
T • I ?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Methods ................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Qualifications ........................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology ............................................................................ 5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Physiography and Soils ......................................................................................... 5
2.2 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.1 Plant communities ..................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Faunal Communities .................................................................................. 10
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................................................................................ 11
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................... 11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .............................................................................................. 12
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................................................................. 12
4.2 Permit Issues ........................................................................................................ 14
4.2.1 Permits ...................................................................................................... 14
4.2.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Protected Species ................................................................................................. 15
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Area Site Map .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Project Area Plant Communities and Jurisdictional Areas ............................................ 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Area Plant Communities .....................................................................................12
Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas .......................................................................................................13
Table 3. Federally Protected Species ...........................................................................................16
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern ...........................................................................................23
i
Replacement of Bridge No. 12
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek
Henderson County, North Carolina
(B-4148)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 12
located on North Carolina State Road 1329 (Warlick Road) over Boylston Creek in Henderson
County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
The project area is located in Henderson County at the intersection of SR 1328 (Old Turnpike
Road) and SR 1329 (Warlick Road), approximately 7.6 miles (12.2 kilometers) northwest of
Hendersonville, NC (Figure 1). The project area (Figure 2) extends 1) along SR 1328
approximately 600.0 feet (182.8 meters) northeast and 700.0 feet (213.4 meters) southwest of
the intersection and 2) along SR 1329 approximately 2100.0 feet (640.1 meters) southeast of
the intersection. Width of the project area ranges from approximately 350.0 feet (106.7 meters)
along SR 1328 to 1000.0 feet (304.8 meters) along SR 1329.
Bridge No. 12 is located along SR 1329 at Boylston Creek. The project area includes the
channel, floodplains, slopes, and uplands adjacent to Boylston Creek as well as Sweetwater
Branch and two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Boylston Creek (Figure 2). On the east and west
banks of Boylston Creek, a broad, flat floodplain rises gradually to surrounding uplands. Land
use within the project area includes Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest, and maintained/disturbed land
Bridge No. 12 is a two-lane structure with an approximate overall length of 30.0 feet
(9.2 meters) and a deck width of approximately 20.0 feet (6.1 meters). The deck is
approximately 6.0 feet (1.8 meters) above the streambed. The superstructure is composed of a
timber deck on 1-beams and the substructure consists of end bents with timber caps and piles.
There are no bents in the stream. Bridge No. 12 will be dismantled without dropping portions of
the structure into Boylston Creek. Therefore, no temporary fill from bridge demolition is
expected to be placed in waters of the United States.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the immediate
area of potential project impact (project area). Specifically, the tasks performed for this study
include 1) an assessment of biological features within the project area including descriptions of
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water quality; and 2) a delineation of
Section 404 jurisdictional areas and subsequent survey of jurisdictional boundaries utilizing
Trimble XRS Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) technology with reported sub-meter
accuracy.
1
T. 10
SHELL KNOB' + Befit Creek / 7 -
IZ
_

••
,? PIE trp.f j+y EONEYVILLE NO.
I

.•.:`\ .. J !,9

I '?J.c, CHESTNUT Aiu+W

16 Yr
BLWNEY 4TN.

• - I I.
_'
•
?, \ TOP
• V
\
BALD
v\ ? ELEV. 3,069
/ ?'?. /••••

•

.
Ns,pe C-1,
DOUBLE ? ' ` ? ? ? ; r
\ ARDENT

- - 1319
KNOB +
\
'
•
• 1119
C171
`?'
.. ?
/IwsW `
(
_
'
v
' ,
•
/ CANE. 11TH. \
\ ?
. ?
P'
1
S,1 G ":k F{ ? N A T' 1 N A L e
270 ' -•./a.\
"
, ,
' wILMff MANAWA" :s:
,Pf31? 3 ' °
1316
y 16 \
BLACK 1361
?glp?? MT).
?
? ??
1
AREA 4 135!
\ YELLOW
mlo uli
CWAP
s
`

126 Iwo .
301
KNOB
\ r 1
F O R E S T
.
321 186
ERM
BUT IL
NT
12
? NOM!
163 (?
+ \ "rem
9
1R1
Is"I
KININIC-4 25
•
+ 'TARKIN ' ' t

• MTIL 317 1? ?•
\ •1 1st ? , /
1!1000' >y?i0
`
9 . T5
' !-ao66olaulE j 7 /
2w

?:
k4OFtSESHO
r 4TN

,or.7,747 I

\
.
22
/ •\ , 1
'•\_ 1
t .\
1.1 41 i 6i
64

• . \ 87.• Wm I=
pal. W4
P? fIIFNGI `" ??
E \ 1 ?T 4? l
1 i
T
E-
!
? 1
?
!
85 3
1l3t
,
+ r r ;
HIGH PEAK / >? /•
\ 1
88

i
I

• -• `
/ ?
BELL
MTN. '- - / /
1 i l

V
1\
NORTH .
l°F d4\ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
•iI DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
\ €!! PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
??OPTp-
HENDERSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 12 ON SR 1329
OVER BOYLSTON CREEK
B-4148
Figure I
{ A.
1.3 Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Horse
Shoe, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1974), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, and recent aerial photography (scale: 1:2500) furnished by
NCDOT.
Bridge No. 12 was visited on January 9, 2003. The project area was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of field surveys, the project area has been
defined by the NCDOT (Figure 2). Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential
habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in Boylston Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names generally
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968), with adjustments made to reflect more
current nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-
parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines
(DOA 1987). Wetland jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification
scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and A Field Guide To North Carolina Wetlands
(DEM 1996). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected
population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available
habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof et al.
1980, Rohde et a/. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Water quality
information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2000A,
DWQ 20008). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of federally protected species with
ranges which extend into Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS list) is included in this
report. In addition, NHP records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species
were consulted before commencing the field investigation. Significant Aquatic Endangered
Species Habitats proposed by the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) (June 13, 1995
listing) were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic
species.
1.4 Qualifications
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) biologists Cord Faquin, Ben Brazell, Shay Garriock, and Carol
Aron conducted the fieldwork for this investigation. Ms. Faquin is a Project Scientist with three
years of experience in the environmental field. Ms. Faquin has a bachelor's degree in natural
resources, ecosystem assessment and a bachelor's degree in biological sciences from North
Carolina State University. Professional expertise includes wetland and stream mitigation
searches, jurisdictional area delineations, plant and wildlife identification, community mapping,
protected species surveys, environmental permitting, and environmental document preparation.
4
r• 1.
Mr. Brazell is a Project Scientist with three years of experience in the environmental field. Mr.
Brazell has a bachelor's degree in natural resources (ecosystem assessment) from North
Carolina State University, and has conducted field research for forest health assessments,
habitat suitability indices for various wildlife species, and watershed and wetland delineation.
Professional expertise includes wetland and stream mitigation, jurisdictional area delineations,
stream and riparian buffer determinations, plant and wildlife identification and community
mapping, protected species surveys, and environmental document preparation.
Mr. Garriock is a Project Scientist with six years of experience in the environmental field. Mr.
Garriock has a bachelor's degree in wildlife biology from Virginia Polytechnic and State
University, and has conducted field research and species inventories involving small mammals,
songbirds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, freshwater mussels, and aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates. Professional expertise includes jurisdictional area delineations, stream and
riparian buffer determinations, plant and wildlife identification and community mapping,
protected species surveys, and environmental document preparation.
Ms. Aron is a Project Scientist with three years of experience in the environmental field. Ms.
Aron has a bachelor's degree in biological sciences from Mount Holyoke College and a master's
degree in applied ecology from Indiana University. Research experience includes work on dark-
eyed juncos, black-capped chickadees, and European honeybees. Professional expertise
includes wetland delineations, stream determinations, community identification and mapping,
protected species surveys, and environmental document preparation.
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology
Definitions for descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Area generally denotes
the area bounded by proposed construction limits; however, since alternatives have not yet
been selected, the Project Area describes the area encompassing approximately 30.0 acres
(12.2 hectares) along SR 1328 and SR 1329; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5
mile (0.8 kilometer) on all sides of the project area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area
represented by a 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle map with the project occupying the
central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Physiography and Soils
The project area is located in the Broad Basin ecoregion of the Blue Ridge region. This region
is characterized by intermountain basins with low mountains, rolling foothills, and moderately
broad mountain valleys. Surficial material and bedrock is primarily Quaternary to Tertiary
sandy, silty, and clayey saprolite with some rock outcrops and joint-block boulders. Other
materials include quartz-rich saprolite, Precambrian gneiss, schist, amphibolite, and quartzite.
In the southwest, metasandstone, metasiltstone, schist, metaconglomerate, quartzite, and slate
are common. The Blue Ridge region tends to have less bouldery colluvium and more saprolite
than nearby regions. The Broad Basin ecoregion has less moisture, lower elevations, and less
5
I . i.
relief than the nearby ecoregions. Soils tend to be deep, well-drained, and loamy to clayey
Ultisols (Griffith et al. 2002).
The project area is located within and adjacent to the floodplain of Boylston Creek. Within the
project area, the floodplain is flat and approximately 1000.0 feet (304.8 meters) in width.
Elevations in the project area range from approximately 2050.0 to 2200.0 feet (624.8 to
670.6 meters) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS Horse Shoe, NC quadrangle,
1974).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), indicates that Toxaway silt loam (Cumulic Humaquepts), Codorus loam (Fluvaquentic
Dystrochrepts), Delanco loam (Aquic Hapludults), and Talladega silt loam (Ruptic-Lithic-Entic
Hapludults) occur within the project area (SCS 1980).
The Toxaway series consists of very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils formed in
alluvial deposits. This series occurs on portions of the Boylston Creek floodplain within the
project area. Toxaway soils are considered to be hydric in Henderson County (USDA 1996).
The Codorus series consists of moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils formed in alluvium containing medium to large amounts of mica.
This series occurs within the project area on the floodplains of Boylston Creek and the unnamed
tributaries to Boylston Creek. Codorus soils in Henderson County are non hydric but may have
inclusions of the hydric Toxaway soils in depressions (USDA 1996).
The Delanco series consists of moderately well drained, moderately permeable soils formed in
alluvium containing medium to large amounts of mica. This series occurs on portions of the
Boylston Creek floodplain within the project area. This series is considered to be non hydric in
Henderson County (USDA 1996).
The Talladega series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils formed in material
weathered mostly from schist. This series occurs on side slopes the Boylston Creek floodplain
within the project area. Talladega soils are considered to be non hydric in Henderson County
(USDA 1996).
2.2 Water Resources
The project area is located within N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) sub-basin 04-03-03 of
the French Broad River Basin (DWQ 2000A). This area is part of USGS accounting unit
06010105 of the Tennessee Region. The section of Boylston Creek crossed by the subject
bridge has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-52-(6.5) by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ 1998). The section of Sweetwater Branch within the project area has been
assigned Stream Index Number 6-52-11 by the DWQ (1998).
On the day of the site visit, Boylston Creek (Figure 2) was approximately 20.0 feet (6.1 meters)
wide and 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) deep at Bridge No. 12. The water was relatively clear
with moderate flow. The substrate was primarily cobble-boulder with some areas of sand. The
6
Y 1 Y
ordinary high water mark (the line on the shore indicating the normal fluctuations of water) was
approximately 25.0 feet (7.6 meters) wide. The banks were steep and approximately 2.0 feet
(0.6 meter) above the water level.
Sweetwater Branch (Figure 2) crosses the northeastern arm of the project area prior to joining
Boylston Creek. Sweetwater Branch was approximately 4.0 to 5.0 feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) wide,
and from 0.5 to 1.0 foot (0.2 to 0.3 meter) deep on the day of the site visit. The stream was
clear with moderate flow and the substrate was primarily gravel and sand with some silt. There
was a small floodplain associated with this stream with an ordinary high water mark
approximately 15.0 feet (4.6 meters) wide. The banks were steep and approximately 4.5 feet
(1.4 meters) above the water level.
Unnamed Tributary (UT) No. 1 (Figure 2) to Boylston Creek is located north of Bridge No. 12.
UT No. 1 is an intermittent to perennial stream with a riffle-pool system with poor sinuosity that
is fed by a vegetated drainage ditch through agricultural land (Figure 2, Wetland No. 4). The
channel appears to have been dredged in the past. UT No. 1 was approximately 5.5 feet (1.5
meters) wide and from 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) deep on the day of the site visit. The
water was relatively clear, with moderate flow. The substrate was primarily sand and gravel
with some areas of silt. The ordinary high water mark was approximately 7.0 feet (2.1 meters)
wide. The banks were approximately 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) above the water level and undercut.
Unnamed Tributary No. 2 (Figure 2) to Boylston Creek is located near the southern edge of the
project area. The tributary varied from approximately 2.0 to 3.0 feet (0.6 to 0.9 meter) wide in
the project area with a depth of 0.5 to 1.0 foot (0.2 to 0.3 meter) on the day of the site visit. The
water was slightly cloudy with moderate flow. The substrate was primarily composed of silt and
gravel. The ordinary high water mark was approximately 8.0 feet (2.4 meters) wide. The banks
were steep and approximately 4.0 feet (1.2 meters) above the water surface. UT No. 2 is
impounded within the project area, forming a man-made pond.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of WS-IV has been assigned to this section of Boylston Creek and the entire reach
of Sweetwater Branch. This classification also applies to UTs in the project area. This
classification is for water supplies that are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds. Class WS-IV uses include waters used as sources of water supply for drinking,
culinary, or food processing purposes. No designated High Quality Waters (HOW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within
1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. No watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area (DWQ 1998).
The DWQ (previously known as the Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality
Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. Water quality samples taken in 1997 indicated Good-Fair water
quality based on benthic macroinvertebrate samples conducted on Boylston Creek
approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) downstream of the project area. Boylston Creek has a
use support rating of Fully Supporting in the vicinity of the project area. Sweetwater Branch
7

has not been tested for water quality or use support rating. French Broad River subbasin 04-03-
03 supports no major and eight minor dischargers. Permitted flow is 0.023 million gallons per
day (11.7 million liters per day) for the minor dischargers. Minor discharges originate from
agricultural and forestry operations and a growing component of small towns. No major
dischargers are located on Boylston Creek or Sweetwater Branch upstream of the project area
(DWQ 2000A).
The 303(d) list comes out every even year with a listing of all known impaired waterbodies in
North Carolina. Boylston Creek and Sweetwater Branch are not listed as impaired on the DWQ
Draft 2000 303(d) list (DWQ 2000B).
Boylston Creek is located in a WRC trout county; therefore, the WRC may require a moratorium
for instream construction from October 15 to April 15. Tall fescue is not suitable for erosion
controls along stream banks and within 25.0 feet (7.6 meters) of trout buffers.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures
include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff;
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Boylston Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. In order to minimize impacts
to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. Due to the composition of the
Boylston Creek streambed, sediment curtains should be utilized when feasible to minimize
potential water quality degradation as a result of bridge replacement.
During project construction, Bridge No. 12 will be dismantled without dropping portions of the
structure into Boylston Creek. The superstructure is composed of a timber deck on 1-beams
and the substructure consists of end bents with timber caps and piles. There are no bents in
the stream. Bridge No. 12 will be dismantled without dropping portions of the structure into
Boylston Creek. Therefore, no temporary fill from bridge demolition is expected to be placed in
waters of the United States. NCDOT will coordinate with various resource agencies during
project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
8
I .
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
3.1.1 Plant communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest, Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest (Piedmont subtype), and
maintained/disturbed land. These plant communities are described below, beginning at the
Boylston Creek channel and progressing to the uplands.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - Within the project area, a Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, similar to that described in Schafale and Weakley (1990), occurs along the
streams and some of the ditches in an approximately 10.0-foot (3.1-meter) wide swath. These
areas have a fairly well-developed canopy and very dense shrub and herb layers. This
community shows evidence of disturbance, with relatively small tree diameters and a large
number of exotic species in the shrub and vine layers. The area has probably been logged
within the last 30 to 50 years. The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest canopy includes
black willow (Salix nigra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and river birch (Betula nigra). The sub-
canopy/shrub layer consists of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) saplings. The herb layer consists of Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), with Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) making up the vine
layer.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest includes two small, hillside seepage wetlands (Figure 2,
Wetland No. 2 and 3) occurring at the base of side slopes. These wetlands receive
groundwater flow from the adjacent side slope and are semi-permanently to permanently
inundated. Vegetation includes spicebush (Lindera benzoin), possum-haw viburnum (Viburnum
nudum), tag alder, and smartweed (Polygonum sp.)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) - A mesic mixed hardwood forest occurs
on fairly steep slopes at the northern and southern ends of the project area. This community is
similar to the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) described in Schafale and
Weakley (1990), although the presence of early successional trees such as white pine (Pinus
strobus) and fairly diverse exotic shrub, herb, and vine layers suggest disturbance within the last
50 to 75 years. Disturbance may have been more recent on the south-facing slope, as white
pine and other exotics are more prevalent there. Both slopes have a closed canopy, but the
south-facing slope has a less-developed understory. On the north-facing slope, the understory
largely consists of mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), which are absent on the south-facing slope.
The canopy layer includes white pine, tag alder, hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), white oak (Quercus
alba), southern red oak (Q. falcata), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), tulip poplar, Chinese privet,
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Understory
9
trees include Virginia pine, eastern hemlock, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida), and Chinese privet. The shrub layer consists of American holly (Ilex
opaca), multiflora rose, blackberry (Rubus sp.), mountain laurel, rhododendron, and dog hobble
(Leucothoe fontanesiana). The herb layer consists of Christmas fern, club moss (Lycopodium
sp.), and dog hobble. The vine layer was primarily composed of common greenbrier.
Maintained/disturbed land - Most of the project area is maintained/disturbed habitat, with a
large amount of the land in agricultural use, most recently planted in corn. There is also a
maintained/disturbed community along road shoulders and field borders. No canopy trees
occur in this community, but sapling and shrub species include red maple (Acer rubrum),
winged sumac (Rhus copallina), multiflora rose, and blackberry. The herb layer consists of
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), common mullein
(Verbascum blattaria), and a number of grass species. The field edges are probably mowed or
otherwise maintained every few years, allowing a thick shrub, herb and vine layer, but halting
the development of a mature forest community.
Vegetated wetlands (Figure 2, Wetland No. 1 and 4) occurring in agricultural lands of the
Boylston Creek floodplain are semi-permanently to permanently flooded and maintained
regularly. Wetland No. 1 is a small, wet meadow adjacent to an agricultural ditch; Wetland No.
4 includes ditches through row crop land and along SR 1329. These wetlands support
emergent herbaceous vegetation in the channel as well as mesic herbaceous and shrub
species on the banks. Associated species are soft rush (Juncus effusus), cattail (Typha
latifolia), seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), goldenrods, sedges (Carex spp.), smartweed
(Polygonum sp.), mallow (Hibiscus sp.), black willow, and tag alder.
3.1.2 Faunal Communities
During the field survey, evidence of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and eastern cotton-tail (Sylvilagus
floridanus) were observed within the project area. Bird species that were identified during the
field survey include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Pocile carolinensis), blue
jay (Cyanocitta cristata), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottas), and gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis). No reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, or arthropods were observed.
Hardwood forested woodlands within the project area have a closed and stratified canopy
providing food and nesting habitat for southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus
calendula), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), and
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). The forest floor supports a duff layer that provides moisture
and cover for small mammals and amphibian species such as white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), hairy-tailed mole (Parascalops brewen), American toad (Bufo americana) and slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus).
10
The project area's woodland-agricultural land matrix is expected to support a diversity of wildlife
species associated with woodland edges and adjacent open lands. Mammal species common
to these areas are Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), least shrew (Cryptotis parva),
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), and red fox
(Vulpes vulpes). Bird species associated with open lands and old fields are American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), purple finch (Carpodacus
purpureus), and eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). Agricultural fields and early
successional areas also provide habitat for a number of reptilian species such as eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), black rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Forested riparian corridor such as that along Boylston Creek is selected by a variety of wildlife
including mink (Mustela vision), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), racoon, opossum,
yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), orchard oriole (Icterus spurius), belted kingfisher (Ceryle
alcyon), northern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), and Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Boylston Creek and Sweetwater Branch provide suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic
reptiles including river cooter (Pseudemys concinna), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), eastern
musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma), northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon), and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata). Typical amphibian
species for this habitat include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), green frog (Rana
clamitans), southern leopard frog (R. sphenocephala), and southeastern chorus frog
(Pseudacris feriarum).
No sampling was undertaken in Boylston Creek to determine fishery potential. Species which
may be present within Boylston Creek include eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius),
golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white catfish
(Ameiurus catus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), and black crappie (Pomoxis
nigromaculatus).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Plant community areas (Figure 2) are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the project area. A summary of plant communities within the project area is
presented in Table 1.
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
11
movement patterns. Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from
bridge replacement will be minimized through the use of sediment curtains and the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
Table 1. Project area plant communities. Areas are given in acres (hectares)
Plant Community Area
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 2.2 (0.9)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 8.9 (3.6)
Maintained / disturbed land 19.0 (7.7)
Total 30.0 (12.2)
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Boylston Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR section 328.3). Jurisdictional areas delineated in support of this project are quantified in
Table 2.
Based on NWI mapping, Boylston Creek is a permanently flooded, upper perennial stream with
an unknown bottom (R30WH). During the field visit, Boylston Creek was determined to be an
upper perennial stream system with an unconsolidated bottom of cobble,.gravel, and sand and
permanently flooded (R3UB1/2).
Sweetwater Branch is not characterized on NWI mapping; however, during the field visit
Sweetwater Branch was determined to be a permanently flooded, upper perennial, riverine
system with unconsolidated bottom of cobble, gravel, and sand (R3UB1/2).
The UT No. 1 to Boylston Creek (Figure 2) is not characterized on NWI mapping; however,
during the field UT No. 1 was determined to be a permanently flooded, upper perennial stream
with an unconsolidated bottom of sand and mud (R3UB2/3).
The UT No. 2 to Boylston Creek (Figure 2) is not characterized on NWI mapping; however,
during the field UT No. 2 was determined to be a permanently flooded, upper perennial stream
with an unconsolidated bottom of cobble, gravel, and sand (R31.161/2).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Vegetated wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional
surface waters are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Section 328.3). Five jurisdictional wetlands
12
(agricultural drainage ditches, hillside seepage, wet meadow, and a manmade pond) were
found in the project area. No wetlands are shown on the NWI mapping for the area, but
Cowardin et a/. (1979) listings were assigned to wetlands during the field visit.
Table 2. Linear distance or area of jurisdictional areas within the project area. Linear distance
is expressed in feet (meters) and area is expressed in acres (hectares). Stream and wetland
numbers refer to Fiaure 2.

Jurisdictional Type Cowardin
Classification Linear
Distance
Area
DWQ Rating
Boylston Creek R3UB1/2 440.6 (134.3) - -
Sweetwater Branch R3UB1/2 421.2 (128.4) - -
UT to Boylston Creek No. 1 R3UB2/3 205.7 (62.7) - -
UT to Boylston Creek No. 2 R3UB1/2 679.0 (207.0) - -
Wetland No. 1 PSS1 F - 0.29 (0.12) 49
Wetland No. 2 PF01 H - 0.02 (0.01) 43
Wetland No. 3 PF01 H - 0.03 (0.01) 43
Wetland No. 4 PEM1F - 0.27 (0.11) 35
Farm Pond PUB2/3h - 0.38 (0.15) 22
Total 1746.5 (532.3) 0.99 (0.40)
The largest wetland (Figure 2, Wetland No. 1) was found in the eastern side of the project and is
characterized as a maintained, wet meadow dominated by herbs and grasses with fringing
shrubs. Hydrophytic vegetation in the area includes black willow, soft rush, and some sedge
species (Carex spp.). Wetland No. 1 occurs on Talladega soils with a low chroma, indicating
long periods of inundation. Also, the wetland had areas of standing water on the day of the site
visit and appeared to be semi-permanently flooded. This wetland is not depicted on NWI
mapping, but during the field visit was characterized as a palustrine, shrub-scrub, broad-leaved
deciduous, semi-permanently flooded wetland (PSS1 F).
Two small wetlands (Figure 2, Wetland No. 2 and 3) are located in seeps of the UT No. 2 to
Boylston Creek. Both wetlands occur on Toxaway soils and support hydrophytic vegetation
including smartweed, spicebush, tag alder, and mosses. Other wetland indicators include low-
chroma soils and areas of standing water. These wetlands are not depicted on NWI mapping,
but during the field visit were characterized as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
permanently flooded wetlands (PF01 H).
Man-made drainage ditches adjacent to SR 1329 and southwest of Bridge No. 12 were
determined to be jurisdictional wetlands (Figure 2, Wetland No. 4). These features occur on
Codorus soils and exhibit hydric soils, hydrophytic wetland vegetation, and evidence of wetland
hydrology. The ditches were inundated on the day of the site visit and supported cattails, black
willow, tag alder, and soft rush. These ditches are not depicted on NWI mapping, but during the
field visit were determined to be palustrine, emergent, permanently flooded wetlands with
persistent vegetation (PEM1 H).
13
A portion of a farm pond is located within the southern end of the project area (Figure 2). The
pond, which drains into the UT No. 2 to Boylston Creek, can be characterized by an
unconsolidated bottom of sand and mud. The pond is not depicted on NWI mapping, but during
the field visit was determined to be an impounded, palustrine system with an unconsolidated
bottom of sand/mud (PUB2/3h).
This project is located in a N.C Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) trout county; therefore,
WRC may require a moratorium for instream construction from October 15 to April 15.
Therefore, this project may be classified as Case 2, where in-water work moratoriums or
restrictions will be required beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection
of Surface Waters.
4.2 Permit Issues
4.2.1 Permits
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23
for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. expected with bridge construction. NWP
33 may be used for temporary access and dewatering within waters of the United States.
However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through the use of these permits will
require written notice to DWQ. DWQ has made available General 401 Water Quality
Certifications for these NWPs. In the event that NWPs will not suffice, impacts attributed to
bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may qualify under General Bridge
Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. DWQ has made available a General
401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031. Notification to the Washington COE office is
required if this general permit is utilized.
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land Management
District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is required for all construction or
development involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin.
4.2.2 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 wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the EPA and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to
14
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 project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts
to surface waters.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), NCDWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater to or equal than 1.0 ac (0.45 ha) of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear ft (46 linear m) of total perennial
stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the
USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the
aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of proposed project impact and function
and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability
of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States.
Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation opportunities exist within the project area. Most of the Boylston Creek floodplain is
currently in agricultural use in areas that were likely to have been converted from wetlands.
Ditches throughout the Boylston Creek floodplain in the project area are actively draining ground
hydrology from surrounding agricultural fields where hydric soils are mapped to occur, and thus
potential for wetland restoration/creation are apparent. Mitigation opportunities also exist as
vegetative buffer enhancement along Boylston Creek, Sweetwater Branch, and the two
unnamed tributaries to Boylston Creek.
4.3 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance (T [S/Al), or officially Proposed for such listing are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened,"
but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally
15
protected species listed for Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS list) are presented in
Table 3.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species listed for Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS
list)
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Oyster mussel* Epioblasma capsaeformis E
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii E
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E
* Historic record - last seen in Henderson County more than 50 years ago
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Threatened due to similarity of appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: May 1, 1997
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3.0 to 4.0 inches (7.6 to
10.2 centimeters). This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence
of a bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980). The
bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection
and habitat alteration. As a result, the FWS officially proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal
Register (62 FR 4229) to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range,
and within the southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina. The bog turtle is
now listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance (T S/A) to the northern population. The
listing would allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from
otherwise lawful activity. The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures,
usually in association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over
soft bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous
distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT APPLICABLE
NHP records document the nearest occurrence of the bog turtle in Alexander County,
approximately 1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) north of the project area in the Mills River drainage.
There is no suitable habitat for this species within the project area. T (S/A) species are not
subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required.
16

Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: November 23, 1994
Appalachian elktoe is a small, subovate- to kidney-shaped freshwater mussel that grows to
approximately 3.1 inches (8.0 centimeters) in length, 1.4 inches (3.5 centimeters) in height, and
1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) in width (Clarke 1981). The shell is thin, but not fragile, and exhibits
slight inflation along the posterior ridge near the center of the shell. Beaks project only slightly
above the hinge line. Lateral teeth are absent; however, the hinge plate of both valves is
thickened. Small, pyramidal, compressed pseudocardinal teeth are present, and an interdental
projection is present in the left valve. Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the periostracum (outer
shell surface) is thicker and dark brown in adults. Individuals may be variably marked with
prominent to obscure greenish rays. The nacre (shell interior) is shiny, blue to bluish white with
salmon, pink, or brown coloring in the central portion of the shell and beak cavity.
Appalachian elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee including the French Broad River Basin. In
North Carolina, this species may now be restricted to the Little Tennessee and Nolichucky
drainages (LeGrand and Hall 2001). Recent WRC surveys have documented this species in the
Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties, Cane River in Yancey County, Nolichucky
and North Toe Rivers in Yancey and Mitchell Counties. A new population has recently been
found in the Little River near the Henderson-Transylvania County line (personal communication,
Mark Cantrell, FWS, July 11, 2001). The Pigeon River once supported a population of this
mussel, but now is reported to be severely polluted and no longer likely to support the species
(TSCFTM 1990). Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe consists of well-oxygenated riffle
areas with sand and gravel substrate among cobbles and boulders. Current is usually moderate
to swift and depth is no more than 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Within the project area, Boylston Creek and Sweetwater Branch are medium-sized creeks with
a riffle/pool structure, and moderate flow over a cobble/boulder/sand substrate. Therefore,
suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe does potentially exist within the project area. NHP
records do not document the occurrence of Appalachian elktoe within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the project area. The nearest known population occurs in the French Broad River
approximately 7.5 miles (12.0 kilometers) southwest of the study area. Based on habitat types
within the project area, this project could potentially affect Appalachian elktoe, and surveys for
this species may be required. BMPs for the protection of surface waters and HQW guidelines
(Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) should be strictly enforced during the life of the
project.
17
.. i i
Epioblasma capsaeformis (Oyster mussel)
Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: January 10, 1997
The oyster mussel is a small, freshwater mussel reaching approximately 2.1 inches (7.0
centimeters) in length. The shell is dull to sub-shiny and yellowish to green with numerous dark
green rays. The nacre (inside shell surface) is white to blue in color. Shells of females are
slightly inflated and thinner toward the posterior margin. Oyster mussels inhabit small to
medium-sized rivers with sand/gravel substrate, in shallow riffles and fast water less than 3.0
feet (0.9 meter) deep (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). This species is sometimes associated with
water willow (Justicia americana) and is found in gravel pockets between bedrock and swift
currents. Four species of fish have been identified as hosts including spotted darter
(Etheostoma maculatum), redline darter (E. rufilineatum), dusky darter (Percina sciera), and
banded sculpin (Cottus carollinae) (FWS 2000).
The oyster mussel is endemic to the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages in Alabama,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Within North Carolina, the species was
known to have been abundant in the early 1900s in the upper Tennessee River system of the
mountains of western North Carolina and Tennessee. Currently the oyster mussel survives in
nine tributaries of the Tennessee and Cumberland River systems in Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Virginia. This species is now considered to have been "formerly reported" from the French
Broad River (LeGrand and Hall 2001). Much of the historic range of this species has been
impounded by projects of the TVA and the COE. Other populations have probably been lost
due to pollution and siltation. All known populations are small and vulnerable to disturbance.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Within the project area, Boylston Creek is a medium-sized stream with relatively shallow water,
a riffle/pool structure and moderate flow over a cobble/boulder/sand substrate. Therefore,
suitable habitat for oyster mussel does potentially exist within the project area. Oyster mussels
have been documented within the French Broad River basin historically. NHP does not
document the occurrence of oyster mussel within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area.
Based on habitat types within the project area, this project could potentially affect oyster mussel,
and surveys for this species may be required. BMPs for the protection of surface waters and
HQW guidelines (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) should be strictly enforced during
the life of the project.
Helonias bullata (Swamp pink)
Threatened
Family: Liliaceae
Date Listed: September 9, 1998
Swamp pink is a perennial, hydrophytic herb in the lily family with simple leaves in a basal
rosette. Small scale-like leaves or bracts are found on a hollow flowering stem which may be
16.0 inches (40.6 centimeters) tall in flower and 24.0 inches (61.0 centimeters) tall in fruit. The
18
inflorescence consists of pink to lavender flowers borne on a raceme without bracts. Fruits
consist of three-lobed papery capsules. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April
and persist through September. Flowering occurs in April and May, with fruits present from May
through July (Massey et al. 1983).
In North Carolina, swamp pink is found in mountain swamps and bogs. Swamp pink occurs
along small watercourses in permanently saturated, acidic, organic soils or black muck which is
mostly sphagnous (Porter and Wieboldt 1991). Swamp pink does not tolerate prolonged
inundation, but can survive infrequent and brief flooding. In North Carolina, the current
distribution is restricted to Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania Counties (Amoroso 2002).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Wetland areas within the project area provide suitable habitat for swamp pink. Swamp pink is
not detectable during the dormant winter season when the site visit was undertaken. NHP
records do not document swamp pink within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. The
nearest known population occurs in the French Broad River approximately 3.6 miles (5.8
kilometers) southwest of the study area. Based on the habitat types within the project area,
surveys should be completed for the swamp pink during the optimal survey window (April to
May).
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia)
Threatened
Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: September 10, 1982
Small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10.0 inches (25.4 centimeters)
high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips are
arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a single,
yellowish green, nearly stalkless flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower
rarely may be present. Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of 0.7 inch (1.7
centimeters), surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) in length.
Flower production occurs from May to July and is followed by the formation of an erect
ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches (1.7 to 3.0 centimeters) in length (Massey et al. 1983). This
species may remain dormant for periods up to 10 years between blooming periods (Newcomb
1977).
Populations of small-whorled pogonia are sparse and widely distributed. The species is found
in open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest and along stream banks. Examples of
suitable habitat conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small-
whorled pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures, windthrow areas, cutover forests,
old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs
(Massey et al. 1983). Suitable forest is generally of second- or third-growth. Soils are often
sandy or stony, acid, nutrient poor soils overlain by leaf litter. Beyond the common
characteristics of soils, sparse ground cover and open canopy with persistent breaks, myriad
exceptions and local variations occur (FWS 1992). In the mountains and Piedmont of North
19
Carolina, this species is usually found in association with white pine (Weakley 1993), or at
scattered locations in the mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills (Amoroso 2002), including
wooded slopes and streamsides (Radford et al. 1968).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The project area contains areas of white pine trees as well as edge communities along roads
and streams. NHP records do not document small-whorled pogonia within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of the project area. The nearest documented population of small-whorled
pogonia is located approximately 9.0 miles (14.5 kilometers) southeast of the project area.
Based on the habitat types within the project area, surveys should be completed for the small
whorled pogonia during the optimal survey window (mid May to early July).
Sagittaria fasciculata (Bunched arrowhead)
Endangered
Family: Alismataceae
Date Listed: July 25, 1979
Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 14.0 inches (35.6
centimeters) in height with simple, basal leaves. Two leaf forms are produced: phyllodes
(blade-less) early in the season, and progressively longer, broader leaves later in the season
(Kral 1983). The phyllodes are linear, distinctively flattened, spongy-tissued, and are up to 4.0
inches (10.2 centimeters) long and 0.8 inch (2.0 centimeters) wide. Later leaves may be spoon-
shaped or narrowly oblanceolate and strap-like, growing to lengths of 14.0 inches
(35.6 centimeters) and widths of 1.6 inches (4.0 centimeters). Unisexual flowers are borne on
an erect, flowering stem in two to four whorls, with each whorl subtended by three bracts fused
at the base. Fruits consist of a round aggregate of large, distinctively crested achenes.
Flowering has been reported to occur from May to July, with fruits present from May through
September. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist through
September (Massey et al. 1983, Kral 1983).
Bunched arrowhead is found rooted in shallow water in or along shallow, sluggish streams
flowing through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983). Typical substrate is reported to be
siliceous and micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content (Kral 1983). The current
distribution is restricted to Buncombe and Henderson Counties in the mountains of North
Carolina (Amoroso 2002) and Greenville County in the upper Piedmont of South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Agricultural drainage ditches within the project area contain slow moving water and emergent
vegetation. Therefore, suitable habitat for swamp pink does exist within the proposed project
area. Bunched arrowhead is not detectable during the dormant winter season, when the site
visit was undertaken. NHP records do not document bunched arrowhead within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project area. The nearest documented population of bunched arrowhead is
located approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 kilometers) southeast of the project area. Based on the
20
habitat types within the project area, surveys should be completed for the bunched arrowhead
during the optimal survey window (mid May to July).
Sarracenia jonesii (Mountain sweet pitcher plant)
Endangered
Family: Sarraceniaceae
Date Listed: March 10, 1988
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial, hydrophytic herb growing to 30.0
inches (76.2 centimeters) in height with hollow, trumpet-shaped leaves. The pitcher chamber is
narrow but expands sharply along the upper quarter of the length. An ascending, cordate-
shaped hood is held high over the exposed pitcher chamber orifice. Solitary flowers are
produced on erect flowering stems. Petals are dark red to maroon on the outside, with the inner
surface often yellow-green tinged with red. Flowering has been reported from April to June with
fruits formed by August. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist
through August (Massey et al. 1983). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is treated as a subspecies
of the more common sweet pitcher plant (S. rubra). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in
mountain bogs and along streams on granite rock faces. The current distribution is restricted to
Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties in the mountains of North Carolina
(Amoroso 2002) and Greenville and Pickens Counties in western South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Wetland areas within the project area may provide suitable habitat for mountain sweet pitcher
plant. NHP records do not document mountain sweet pitcher plant within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project area. The nearest documented population of mountain sweet pitcher
plant is located approximately 3.7 miles (5.9 kilometers) south of the project area. Based on
habitat types within the project area, surveys should be completed for the mountain sweet
pitcher plant during the optimal survey window (April to October).
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (White irisette)
Endangered
Family: Iridaceae
Date Listed: October 28, 1991
White irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family that grows to 16.0 inches (40.6 centimeters)
tall. Stem leaves are at least as wide as the winged stem and may reach 5.5 inches (14.0
centimeters) long and 0.2 inch (0.5 centimeter) wide. Basal leaves reach one-third to one-half
the height of the plant and may be up to 7.5 inches (19.0 centimeters) long and 0.14 inch (0.4
centimeter) wide. White irisette differs from other blue-eyed grasses by having three to five
nodes with successively shorter internodes between dichotomous branches (FWS 1995). Four
to six flowers with white, recurved perianth units are borne per spathe. Flowering occurs from
late May through July. White irisette is found in dry to mesic, open oak-hickory forest on mid-
elevation mountain slopes at elevations from 1300.0 to 3300.0 feet (396.2 to 1005.9 meters)
with aspects ranging primarily from southeast to southwest (FWS 1995). White irisette grows in
shallow, circumneutral soils, especially over weathered amphibolite. White irisette is reported to
21
grow best on regularly disturbed sites, such as power lines, roadsides, and woodland edges,
which mimic suppressed natural disturbances and maintain open habitat (FWS 1995). The
current distribution is restricted to Forsyth, Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford Counties in North
Carolina (Amoroso 2002) and Greenville County in western South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The study area contains southeastern facing slopes with oak species. Therefore, there may be
appropriate habitat for white irisette. NHP records do not document white irisette within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of the project area. The nearest documented population of white irisette is
located approximately 17 miles (27.4 kilometers) east of the project area. Based on the habitat
types within the project area, surveys should be completed for the white irisette during the
optimal survey window (late May to July).
Federal Species of Concern - The February 24, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in Henderson County. A species
with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for species
listed. NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC species within 4.0 miles (6.4
kilometers) of the project area. None of the species listed as FSC were observed during the site
visit. A list of FSC species occurring in Henderson County is given in Table 4.
Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by WRC (June 13, 1995 listing)
were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
The project region contains no Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat. The nearest
Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat within the French Broad River Basin occurs
approximately 30.0 miles (48.3 kilometers) northeast of the project area.
22
I r_
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern listed for Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS
list).

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Green salamander Aneides aeneus No E
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No SC
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii Yes SC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia Yes SC
French Broad crayfish** Cambarus reburrus Yes W2
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia No E
Diana fritillary butterfly** Speyeria diana Yes SR
Schweinitz's sedge Carex schweinitzii Yes E
Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta Yes E
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis Yes SR-L
Butternut Juglans cinerea Yes W5
Rough rush Juncus caesariensis Yes E
Gray's lily Lilium grayi Yes T-SC
Fraser's loosestrife*** Lysimachia fraseri Yes E
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons** Marshallia grandiflora Yes SR-T
Sweet pinesap** Monotropsis odorata Yes SR-T
Bog asphodel** Narthecium americanum Yes E
White fringeless orchid P/antantherea integrilabia Yes E
Divided-leaf ragwort** Packera millefolium No T
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata Yes SR-T
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare (SR-T = rare through out range;
SR-L: range limited to North Carolina and adjacent states); C = Candidate; W2 = NC Plant Watch List: rare, but
taxonomically questionable; W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline (Amoroso 2002; LeGrand
and Hall 2001).
** Historic occurrence in county - last seen more than 50 years ago
Obscure record date and/or location of observation is uncertain
23
, " .
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Clarke, A.H. 1991. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Department of Environmental Management (DEM). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
129 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ ). 2000A. French Broad Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 20008. 2000 303(d) List (Final Draft). Website
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqs/. Accessed January 6, 2003.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, MA. 75 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. White Irisette Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 22 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Endangered and Threatened Mussels in North
Carolina. Oyster Mussels in North Carolina. http://nc-es.fws.gov/mussel/
oystermuss.html (10-23-00).
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B., 2002, Ecoregions of North
Carolina and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables,
and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Surgery (map scale 1:1,500,000).
24
k . , P.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands. Biota of north America Program.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular
Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H. E. and S. P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
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, NC. 264
pp-
Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and Illustrated
Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Plants of the Mountains of North Carolina and
Virginia. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, MA.
490 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 328 pp.
Porter, D.M. and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular Plants. Pp.51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.),
Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
25

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Boylston Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A report on
the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan
Fauna.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1980. Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1996. Hydric Soils: Henderson County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A 2.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
26
The
Catena
Grou 410-B Millstone Drive
p Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek
TIP B-4148
Henderson County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA - Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
May 4, 2004

W. Savidge
INTRODUCTION
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 12 over Boylston
Creek on SR 1329 in Henderson County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-4148 (Figure 1).
Two federally endangered freshwater mussel species: the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) and the oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis) are listed by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring in Henderson County. The oyster mussel
is historically known from the mainstem of the French Broad River in Henderson and
Buncombe County (Ortman 1918). The Appalachian elktoe was recently reported from
the Mills River in Henderson County (T. Savidge, pers. observ. 2003) whose confluence
with the French Broad is approximately 1.5 river miles downstream of the confluence of
Boylston Creek with the French Broad. In addition to the Appalachian elktoe and oyster
mussel, there are several other rare freshwater mussel species known to occur in the
French Broad River Basin in Henderson County. These include the Tennessee
heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis), and the
creeper (Strophitus undulatus). The Tennessee heelsplitter is Federal Species of Concern
and is considered Endangered in North Carolina. The slippershell mussel is also
considered Endangered in North Carolina, while the creeper is considered Threatened in
North Carolina. It is important to note that while the Tennessee heelsplitter has been
recorded from the Mills River, this identification is uncertain and awaits taxonomic
verification.
WATERS IMPACTED: Boylston Creek
The proposed project will impact Boylston Creek, which arises approximately 7.5
miles southwest of the crossing and generally flows east into the French Broad River
approximately 3 miles downstream of the project crossing.
The stream channel in the survey reach is approximately 7 meters (23.0 feet) wide
with 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) high streambanks. These clay stream banks are unstable
throughout the surveyed reach, as active agricultural fields with little to no riparian buffer
border them. The substrate within the downstream reach is predominately
unconsolidated sand with occasional gravel in run areas, and heavy silt deposits in pooled
areas. The water level was moderately deep with good clarity throughout the survey
reach.
SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) (Lea 1834)
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: September-03-1993
TCG-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek, Henderson County, NC
Characteristics
Isaac Lea (1834) described the Appalachian elktoe (AE) from the French Broad
River system in North Carolina. Its shell is thin but not fragile, oblong and somewhat
kidney-shaped, with a sharply rounded anterior margin and a broadly rounded posterior
margin. Parmelee and Bogan (1998) site a maximum length of 80 mm. However,
recently observed individuals from the Little River (French Broad River Basin) in
Transylvania County and West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River Basin) in
Haywood County measured in excess of 100 mm in length (personal observations). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while
juveniles have a yellowish-brown color. Rays may be prominent in some individuals,
usually on the posterior slope, and nearly obscure in other specimens. The nacre (inside
shell surface) is a shiny bluish white, changing to salmon color in the beak cavity portion
of the shell. A detailed description of the shell characteristics is contained in Clarke
(1981). Ortmann (1921) provides descriptions of the soft anatomy.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the Appalachian elktoe;
however nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which
involves a larval stage (glochidium), which becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a
fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts that must be present to complete their
life cycle. Based upon laboratory infestation experiments, Watters (1994) identified the
banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) as the potential fish host for the AE, however the
banded sculpin does not occur in much of the range of the AE (including the Little
Tennessee River). Obviously another fish species serves as a host species in these areas.
The closely related mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) is a likely candidate. Pennak (1989)
should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
At the time of listing, two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe existed in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its tributaries of the Cane River and the
North Toe River), and the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. Since listing, the AE
has been found in additional areas. These "new" occurrences include extensions of the
known ranges in the Nolichucky (South Toe River) and Little Tennessee (Tuckasegee
and Cheoah rivers) rivers as well as a rediscovery in the French Broad River Basin
(Pigeon and Little rivers). Most of these newly discovered populations are small in size
and range and may be represented by very few (<5) individuals observed. The
Appalachian elk-toe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobble and
boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates (USFWS
1996).
Threats to Species
The decline of the AE throughout its range has been attributed to a variety of
factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point source pollution, and habitat
modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.).
TCG-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek, Henderson County, NC
points of chlorinated sewage effluent. Most of the waterbodies where the AE still exists,
have relatively few point source discharges within the watershed, and have been rated as
having excellent water quality (USFWS 1996).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973). Concern has been raised over
competitive interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels,
possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). Because of its
restricted distribution, the AE "may not be able to withstand vigorous competition"
(USFWS 1996).
The zebra mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral
Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the
1980s. Since its introduction, this species has rapidly expanded its range into the
surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and
MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space with native
mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20 freshwater mussel
species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS
1996). The zebra mussel is not currently known from any river supporting AE
populations.
Oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis) (Lea 1834)
Status: Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Listed: January 10,1997
Characteristics:
The oyster mussel has a dull to sub-shiny yellowish green shell with numerous
narrow dark green rays. The shells of females are obovate, with an inflated and quite
thin-shelled marsupial swelling toward the posterior margin, which is usually a darker
color than the rest of the shell. Shells of males are elliptical, with the ventral margin
slightly curved. The dorsal margin is straight, and the hinge ligament is short. The inside
of the shell is whitish to bluish white in color (Johnson 1978, Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
Distribution and Habitat:
. This species historically occurred throughout much of the Cumberland region of
the Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Virginia. This species is not found in small streams. Preferred habitat consists of
shallow riffles over course sand/gravel/cobble substrate in medium sized fast-flowing
streams and rivers less than three feet deep (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The recent
addition of the oyster mussel to the county species list for counties in North Carolina is
based on historic records from the French Broad River in the early 1900s (Ortman 1918).
TCG-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek, Henderson County, NC
Discussion
The survey results indicate that freshwater mussels are not present in the surveyed
reach of Boylston Creek. It is unlikely that the oyster mussel or the Appalachian elktoe
occur in the project area, mostly due to the heavy sediment loading in this stretch of the
creek. It can therefore be concluded that project construction has "No Effect" ese two
species.
REFERENCES
Alderman, J.M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community.
Unpublished report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the future. UMRCC. Rock Island II.
Augspurger, T. 1992. Environmental contaminant impacts of highway runoff on
freshwater mussels, Swift Creek, Nash County, North Carolina. Draft. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Ecological Services, Raleigh Field Office, NC.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (326), 101 pp.
Code of Federal Registar 1997. Final Rule for Determination of Endangered Status for
the Cumberland Elktoe, Oyster Mussel, Cumberlandian Combshell, Purple Bean, and
Rough Rabbitsfoot. Federal Register: January 10, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 7), Page
1647-1658.
Conrad, T. A. 1837. Monography of the family Unionidae. No. 8:65.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2): 59.
Fuller, S.L.H., 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalva). Pages 215-273 in: C.W.
Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates.
Academic Press, N. Y.
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final
Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Harman, W.N. 1974. The effects of reservoir construction and channelization on the
mollusks of the upper Delaware watershed. Bull. Am. Malac. Union 1973:12-14.
TCG-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek, Henderson County, NC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. 1,070
PP.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Special report on the status of freshwater mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery Plan for the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) Lea. Atlanta GA. 32 pp.
TCG-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek, Henderson County, NC

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 S. New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Underwood
FROM: Gail Tyner
DATE: August 20, 2004
RE: T& E Updates for B-4263, B-3697, B-4145, B-4148, B-3659, and B-3868
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) was asked to perform specific Threatened and Endangered Species Updates
for the following bridge projects:
• B-4263 Rutherford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 41 on SR 1549 over Cathey's Creek
o Small whorled pogonia, white irisette
• B-3697 Rutherford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 270 on SR 1155 over Broad River
o Small whorled pogonia
• B-4145 Henderson County, Replacement Bridge No. 56 on SR 1006 over Dunn Creek.
o Swamp pink, bunched arrowhead, mountain sweet pitcher plant, small whorled pogonia,
white irisette
• B-4148 Henderson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 12 on SR 1329 over Boylston Creek
o Swamp pink, bunched arrowhead, mountain sweet pitcher plant, small whorled pogonia,
white irisette
• B-3659 Haywood County, Replacement of Bridge No. 112 on SR 1147 over Aliens Creek
o Small whorled pogonia
• B-3868 Macon County, Replacement of Bridge No. 172 on SR 1456 over Little Tennessee River
o Small whorled pogonia, Virginia spiraea
ESI surveyed each project study area for the specific species requested by NCDOT. No individuals of
Threatened and Endangered status were observed during field investigations.
1
TELEPHONE [phone]
In order to verify vegetative status ESI biologists visited populations of white irisette (off of Sugarloaf
Mountain Road in Rutherford and Henderson County) and Virginia spiraea [on the Little Tennessee River
Greenway in Franklin, NC (Macon County)] as recommended by Carolyn Wells of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Carolyn Wells noted in a telephone conversation with ESI that the small whorled pogonia populations in NC
are on the decline and the species appears to be in bad health this year. The one accessible population is on US
Forest Service land and they have requested that it not be used as a reference population.
The biologists conducting the surveys, Gail Tyner and Matt Simon, had recently attended a rare plant
workshop on May 12-13 2004, sponsored by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which provided specific
training on the identification of swamp pink, bunched arrowhead, dwarf-flowered heartleaf, white irisette, and
mountain sweet pitcher plant. Ms. Tyner is a senior scientist with more than 6 years of experience with natural
resource investigations including Threatened and Endangered Species surveys. Mr. Simon is a project scientist
with more than two years of experience with mountain botany.
The following update reports include a site description, species description, and an updated Biological
Conclusion based on the field investigation performed by ESI. If you have any questions or concerns please
contact me or Kevin Markham at 212-1760.
2
TELEPHONE [phone]

Threatened & Endangered Species Update
Small Whorled Pogonia, White Irisette, Swamp Pink,
Bunched Arrowhead, and Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
SR 1329 over Boylston Creek
Henderson County
B-4148
The following serves as an update for evaluating potential impacts to small whorled pogonia
(Isotria medeoloides), white irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), swamp pink (Helonias bullata),
bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata), and mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia
jonesii) for the proposed bridge replacement on SR 1329 over Boylston Creek in Henderson
County (B-4148).
Site Description
The project study area consists of agricultural fields, roadsides, and streambanks. All four
quadrants of the project study area are agricultural fields that support corn (Zea mays) production.
There is an approximately 20-foot riparian buffer adjacent to Bolyston Creek. The riparian buffer
is densely vegetated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra),
greenbrier (Smilax spp.), rose (Rosa multiora), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and grape (Vitis spp.).
The tallest vegetation is only 10 to 15 feet in height and includes black walnut (Juglans nigra),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), and Chinese privet. The herbaceous layer is dominated by
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia). The roadside is
frequently maintained and is dominated by clover (Trifolium spp.).
Species Descriptions and Biological Conclusions
Small whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10 inches high. Five or six
drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the
apex of the green or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a single, yellowish green, nearly stalkless
flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be present. Flowers consist
of three petals, which may reach lengths of 0.7 inch, surrounded by 3 narrow sepals up to 1 inch
in length. Flower production, which occurs from May to July, is followed by the formation of an
erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches in length (Massey et al. 1983). This species has been
known to flower infrequently and may remain dormant for extended periods (Porter and Wieboldt
1991).
The small whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern Georgia,
but is very local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found in scattered locations in
the Mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills (Amoroso 2002). Small whorled pogonia is found in
open, dry, deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forests, or along streambanks. Examples of areas
providing suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small
whorled pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures, windthrow areas, cutover forests,
B-4148 August 2004

old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey
et al. 1983). In the southern part of its range small whorled pogonia is typically associated with
canopy species such as white pine (Pinus strobus), white oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer
rubrum), rock chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) (USFWS
1992a). Typical ground layer species associated with small whorled pogonia include Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), catbrier (Smilax glauca), and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) (USFWS 1992a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of small whorled pogonia have been documented within 1.0 mile
of the project study area (NCNHP records review June 2004). Due to the disturbed
nature of the agricultural portion of the project study area and the dense nature of the
vegetation along the streambanks, potentially suitable habitat does not exist in this
portion of the project study area. No impacts to this species are expected as a result of
this project due to the absence of suitable habitat within the project study area.
White Irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family that grows up to 16 inches tall. Stem leaves
are at least as wide as the winged stem and may reach 5.5 inches long and 0.20 inch wide. Leaf-
blades at the base of the plant are a bluish-green and reach one-third to one-half the height of the
plant and may be up to 7.5 inches long and 0.14 inch wide. White irisette differs from other blue-
eyed grasses by having three to five nodes with successively shorter intemodes between
dichotomous branches (USFWS 1995a). Four to six tiny flowers with white, recurved perianth
units are borne per spathe. Flowering occurs from late May to July. The fruit is a pale to medium
brown capsule containing three to six rounded black seeds (Russo 2000).
The white irisette typically occurs on rich, basic soils in dry to mesic woodlands and forests
clearings, and near the edges of upland woods where the canopy cover is thin (Weakley 2002,
Bunch 2004). It occurs on mid-elevation mountain slopes at elevations from 1300 to 3300 feet
with aspects ranging primarily from southeast to southwest (USFWS 1995a). It is also found on
dry rocky slopes in near-neutral soil, from weathered mafic rocks (such as Amphibolite), and on
chestnut/hickory ridges in the above elevation range (Weakley 2002). It is often found in places
where the humus or mineral soil layers have been exposed by downslope runoff, which has
removed the litter layer from the soil's surface. Most populations are in artificially disturbed
areas, such as power line and road rights-of-way (NatureServe 2004). This species is prevalent in
disturbed sites such as roadbeds. The current distribution is restricted to Forsyth, Henderson,
Polk, and Rutherford Counties in North Carolina (Amoroso 2002) and Greenville County in
western South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of white insette have been documented within 1.0 mile of the
project study area (NCNHP records review June 2004). Due to the disturbed nature of
the agricultural portion of the project study area and the dense nature of the vegetation
B-4148
2
August 2004

along the streambanks, potentially suitable habitat does not exist in this portion of the
project study area. No impacts to this species are expected as a result of this project due
to the absence of suitable habitat within the project study area.
Swamp pink is a perennial herb in the lily family, and a monotypic genus. Forming an
evergreen, light green basal rosette, the lance-shaped parallel veined leaves have a pointed tip and
are typically 4 to 12 inches long and 0.8-1.6 inches wide. Arising from the rosette is a thick
hollow stalk growing 1 to 2 feet high in flower and up to 4 to 5 feet in fruit. The stalk has many
small, scale-like leaves 0.2 to 0.8 inch long. Thirty to fifty small pink, fragrant flowers are
clustered at the tip of the stem in a 1 to 3 inches long bottlebrush shape (Russo 2000, Weakley
2002, Massey et al. 1983). Swamp pink flowers April-May and fruits June to July (Weakley
2002).
Usually growing in colonies, Swamp pink occurs in swamps, bogs, and spring seepage areas as
well as along small streams and meadows (Russo 2000). It is often found under dense shrubs in
peaty soils (Weakley 2002). Swamp pink relies on a constant water supply and therefore occurs
in a variety of wetland habitats but rarely in areas inundated by floodwaters.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of swamp pink have been documented within 1.0 mile of the
project study area (NCNHP records review June 2004). Potentially suitable habitat does-
not exist in the project study area, as the vegetation along the stream banks is too dense
with no openings and suitable soil and hydrology conditions are not present. No impacts
to this species are expected as a result of this project due to the absence of suitable habitat
within the project study area.
Bunched arrowhead is an herbaceous aquatic plant that grows 6 to 16 inches tall. This is the
only Sagittaria in the Southern Appalachians without arrow-shaped leaves. The spatulate to
lance-shaped emergent leaves are up to 12 inches long and 1 inch wide. A few primary parallel
veins converging apically and numerous parallel transverse veins form a subtle netted venation.
White 3-petaled flowers are on a long petiole and arranged in 2 to 4 whorls on an erect spike.
Typically 3 flowers occur in a whorl and petals are 0.2 to 0.7 inch long. Bunched arrowhead
flowers in mid-May through July and fruits mature a few weeks after flowering.
Bunched arrowhead is typically found in swamps and bogs, ditches adjacent to drained bogs and
wooded seepage areas (Weakley 2002). Favorable site conditions include saturated to flooded
soils, just below the origin of slow, clean, continuous seeps on gently sloping terrain in deciduous
woodlands (USFWS 1995b). Soils are often sandy loams covered with 10 to 24 inches of
spongy, mucky sphagnum. Habitat is specifically restricted to the narrow band at the bluff-
floodplain ecotone that is refreshed by slow continuous seepage of cool clear water (Nature Serve
2004). Bunched arrowhead rarely occurs in stagnant water.
B-4148 3 August 2004

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of.bunched arrowhead have been documented within 1.0 mile of
the project study area (NCNHP records review June 2004). Potentially suitable habitat
does not exist in the project study area, as the vegetation along the streambanks is too
dense with no openings and suitable soil and hydrology conditions are not present. No
impacts to this species are expected as a result of this project due to the absence of
suitable habitat within the project study area.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, rhizomatous perennial herb endemic to the
Blue Ridge Mountains of northwestern South Carolina and southwestern North Carolina (Massey
et al. 1983). Tall hollow pitcher-shaped leaves and red-sweet smelling flowers characterize this
species. The leaves are trumpet-shaped and tubular averaging 15 to 20 inches long and rarely
over 0.4 inch in diameter (Weakley 2002, NatureServe 2004) and display a distinct netted
venation that covers both the inside and outside of the narrow tube. The tube expands sharply in
the upper quarter to form a hood about 0.8 to 2.1 inches wide. Flowering plants can reach a
height of 29 inches (USFWS 1995c) and each flower is supported on a singular stalk that usually
exceeds the leaves. Most often there are five distinct petals, 1 to 2 inches long and 1 inch wide.
This species flowers from April to June and fruits in August, with vegetative portions present
April through August (Massey et al. 1983).
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is a very narrow endemic known from only three North Carolina
counties and one South Carolina county (Russo 2000, USFWS 1995c). It is most often sited as
occurring in seepage-fed mountain bogs and flat to gently sloping valley bottoms that are not
subjected to flooding. Preferential soils are high in organic matter, acidic, deep, and composed of
poorly drained loam/sand/silt. According to Nature Serve (2004), the pitcher plants grow
preferentially in the wettest areas of the bogs. It is also cited as occurring in level depressions
associated with floodplains, along streams, waterfall edges, and granite rockfaces along the Blue
Ridge Divide (Russo 2000).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
No known occurrences of mountain sweet pitcher plant have been documented within 1.0
mile of the project study area (NCNHP records review June 2004). Potentially suitable
habitat does not exist in the project study area, as the vegetation along the streambanks is
too dense with no openings and suitable soils and hydrology conditions are not present.
No impacts to this species are expected as a result of this project due to the absence of
suitable habitat within the project study area.
B-4148
4 August 2004

REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.). 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation;
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh. 107 pp.
Bunch (Speaker). 2004. Rare Plant Identification Workshop. South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources.
Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and Illustrated Guide to
the Threatened and Endangered Plants of the Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia.
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
NatureServe Explorer. (2004 June). Sisyrinchium dichotomum; Sagittaria fasciculata; Sarracenia
jonesii. Retrieved July 4, 2004, from <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/serviet/NatureServe>
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular Plants. Pp. 51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing
Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Russo M. 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of North Carolina: A Guide to Assist
with Forestry Activities. The Nature Conservancy and International Paper Company, Raleigh,
North Carolina. 183pp.
Weakley, A.S. 2002. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of March 29, 2002.
NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina. 909p.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Virginia Spiraea (Spiraea virginiana Britton)
Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 47 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. White Irisette Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 22 pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Bunched Arrowhead, Endangered Species
Information. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office. 2pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995c. Mountain Sweet Picture Plant, Endangered Species
Information. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office. 2pp
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
? 1 1
1 BI
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
II I
II
I I.
II
II
II
?I
II
(? ? I I
r Rulnsl I I
I F ,I
u II
I,
II
,I
II
II
II
. I
I ,
II
i
II
II
I..
I,
I I .
? .I
I I
I?
., I I
I,
\` 1 ?\
r11
1
1
1
1
I ?,
1

Z
?o
uj -eW
?44a
,iaZ
}iax
N*w
io*Ln
*ea64
"1*
V4.
,34*
rrr
V
C?
V
W
O
l?
E0 i
U
O
U
9 BEGIN
•y END PROJECT
i
?l r
w,
VICINITY MAP
s ?-s DETOUR ROUTE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
LOCATION. BRIDGE NO. 12 OVER BOYLSTON CREEK
ON SR 1329 (WARLICK ROAD)
TYPE OF WORK.• GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
n•n esen rawer aeroacs xu ?'
C• 8-4148 1
rr?n raa.Na r.AVmrxu oucw?nnx
33497.1.1 BRZ-1329 4 P.E.
33497.2.1 BRZ-1329 4 PAN

I I
P R
\\ CP 0
II ii n
1
III II v c
I
SITE I
SITE 3 ??,
N I
BEGIN BRIDGE Q
-L- STA 15+43.00 Z EN BRIDGE j END TIP PROJECT B-4148
-L- STA. 15+98.00 1 -L- STA. 17+90.00
BEGIN APPR SLAB
-L- SR 1329 -L- STA. 15+28.97 \ ?DSTA. P 6+12.00 1j
I,
fWARLICK ROAD
I'
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4148
-L- STA. 13+60.00 \\ `.1
II II ?`.
SITE 2 II I
II
R II II
III
/ II
it
110
I
I Ile
I IA
II
II1' _
IQ
1:9
1,0
0
Clearing on this project shall be performed to the limits established by method II.
Permk Drawing
Sh"t_ 4 of
WETLAND/ STREAM
IMPACTS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOa CON9TNVCr1ON
See Sheet 1-A for Index of Sleets
TYPE 111 TYPE III

a ®DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND W:»+a

1? '
o W.e
_ . PROJECT BRE4 N NO. SHEET NO.
® DENOTES IMPACTS (D
SURFACE WATER
2
.. _
ea„
????ro A I'll°? %N MEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
U ENGINEER ENGINEER

WWWAi D ' W0005
n

III ME III

TYPE
SKETCH SHOWING RELATIONSHIP Of

rAWWN WIDTH TO BRIDGE WIDTH

U OI A

NELSON SOUTHER

NA RUTH SOUTHER OOD

CULTIVATED CLASS FIELD ,I, OP RAP _ ROBERT W. CONROY

COURTNEY S. CONROY
S T E

BRIDGE DESCRIPTION

BST SURFACE WOODS l

C
1
TBUIns I I
I I LI I '
11
L?

?
V LI

ELIMIN UNARY PLANS
W
AT
EN96 JKME T M WOODEN WINCWALLS CULTIVATED FIELD
WOODEN RAILS I
I I
I W NOl' USE PO CONSTRUCTION
O IS

SEE DETAIL 1 N
WOODEN ENOWALLS
5 STEEL BEANS i
I
1
?C' CUSS I RIP RAP HIGH WATER MARK

205470
I I.
WOODS
I
c' CULTIVATED FIELD

t?
??1 1 I

• x
1
EST 45 T
(STRUCTURAL PAY ITFM) `1
0005
CL OS ITOP RAP
STRUC UM
PAY ITEIA) LAT. 2' BASE DITCH
15+fi7 TO 17+00 -L-LT
SEE DETAIL(
I'

ETAIL I
LATERot BAS1.1 DITCH
b

1
'i

'

e III
N r Slope
Crowe 2y
•? r/Ft.
n
a a l O
b o

m
I ' +60.00
25
R U Min. D= LOFT.
B= 2.OFt.
\ W0o05 '
3550' I I DOE = 137 CY b= 5.OFi.
-
I m ?` ,..- EsOixG ww E E Er -
----_ I IP FROM STA 15+67 TO STA 17+00-1-LT.
I _---
- -

y / --- a
Tclstwc Rn
- - - - - __
. "I.-BEGIN
WARfX.'K fl AO SR 1329 f
Q?II
I o

III

° `o \ P E {; .}
my ???? ??? 1 i
DETAIL 2
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I Not to Scdel
9we
crow
E
cLASS
+60.00 E E
PWEAPB
25.00 1 TONS

- c\
h
PAP
tr

a \ \ \\ \.,= i
\ ;?` \
iVi
\ \?

s

m y a p/pr,

MIn.O= I.OFt.
b= 5.OFt.
DDE = 108 CY
° 35.00' S SY FF l
2 TON
S
SY FF V ,
ti 4, N
• FROM STA
16+00 TO STA
16+75 -L- RT

1§
SBG 15+12 -L- TO
BEGIN BRIDGE Ri

SBG FROM
\ \
V ' r

\\ \?i \ \
``
l1
\
e
q
ti A W
2eO @ .
.
.

DE LAI
3

,

x

ITE 3
CULTIVATED FIELD

CLASS 'I' RIP PAP

0 \
'
END BRIDGE TO
??\
16+38 -L- 0.T SPECIAL CUT V D
ITCH \ \ '
@ T N' DITCH 16+75 TO 17+50 -L- RT e\ \
+00 TO SEE DETAIL 3 \\ \ '
'
• SP

TCH
D
C Not to
T
DI
Front
Norure A•1 sioae
10
CULTIVATED FIE

I l LD w•
I

h1 AT EMBANKMENT

16+00 1- KT

NELSON SOUTHER SEE DETAIL4 • 1 +75 -L-
=
RT
O
DETAIL 2
0 3
m •
s
I

\ \ \•-

\\ ` BC

r
D

\ :/ O
Ground
Min. O= I.OFt.
-L- CURVE DATA 4
a
• WNA RUTH SOUTHER SITE 2
,
RAYNARD HICKS MAIN \ A

`?555'
II \\// M00pS L
p7'E
BO, FROM STA 16+75 TO STA.. 77+50 1- RT.

PI SIG 12+9892 PI Sta 16+60.66

PI Sta 18+97.89 m
,
KATHRYN HICKS ROBERT W. CONROY
x 1 '. COURTNEY S.CONROY
y?
I

DETAIL 4
B
NKMENT
RIP RAF A
A = 2'49'11
!"ILTI 4 = 9' 16' 48
4" (RT) A = 72'37'49
4"(RT) 1 ??rusB? I
to s
(Not
.
.
D = 1'54'35.5' D = 8'48' 53.0" .
D = 23' 52' 23.7" ?
A roY
D0.
L= 147.64' L= 10528' L= 30423'
CULTIVATED FIELD
(
I •5p a It n
D
B'
itch
T = 7384' T = 52.76' T = 176.40'
I I
W F Ip. /
D
-dii
R = 3,000.00 R = 650.00 R = 240.00' ; GN EXCEPTION REQUIRED
DESI
m
I I
'
r o
B•
SE=NC SE = 0.06 SE = 0.06 FOR SAG/CREST K VALUES AND \
I ?
st
B To- Each
RO=N/A RO = 144 RO = 144 ! VERTICAL CURVE SSD II ` 4 .
Type or Liner- Class IRIp-Rop
woODS II sox* y
STA. 15+67 -L- IT
II STA. 16+00 -L- RT.
L-
2
100 CL
1@55' TA 15+70.
ORED SI A 50
% (21q
, EX ST. BRIDGE KEW=70' END RIDGE
PI = 14+ 0.00 T BE REM ED =2091.17' -L- TA15+98. 0
PI
7+200
B IN GRID
EL.=
90.98'
'
-L- STA13+6 .00 VC . /0 0' E =2091.13 VC = 140'
EL= 08859' END GRADE
K = 70 57 K 72 -L- TA17+90
' ,-?
2
090 1+119 EL= 087.93' -
, -- - --
-
--
O 5000% --- -?
CLASS I ?-
P RAP
(-)(
750-007-.1/

--

-

---- -
(STRU PAY ITEM)
2
085 D.50% 0.52% 2,085
, CLASS P RAPS 1 ..
50%
0 0.50% -6.5o%
IXCA I
ATE AREA TO UCTURAL PA
WS ITEM)
=2083.6 .

2
080 ELEY
STREA

AT
AS ON 2085 AT
M TO 2087.0

A?Nr

I = 15

0.00 o
h

N o
-

o

o

0

2
poso
,
=2
EL
"
+ cc
00
CO .
STRUCTURE HYDRAUL IC DATA • vc = 140a0' N N C 174 it
1"1
1 «n

DESIGN DISCHARGE
= 1000 CFS
K =
2
heet g
2
075 DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS 1075
.
DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 2089.1_ FT
BASE DISCHARGE = 1400 CFS
BASE FREQUENCY = 100 YRS
2,070 BASE HW ELEVATION = 2089.4 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 430 CFS BM #1 BM #2 BM #3
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 2 YRS N 607442.1390 E 932174.5560 N 607056.9790 E 932745 .1440 N 606700.7330 E 932945.4400
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 2_0_8_8_._0 FT ELEV. 2106.75' ELEV. 2089.74' ELEV. 2102.15'
2,065 OUTSIDE OF CHAIN -BL- -BL- STA 11+48.89 79.80' RIGHT -BL- STA 16+03.75 64.51' LEFT 2,065
2,060 2-060
- ]
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
a
a
w
w
a
z
w?
awx
wax
wax
www
?i
+aa
uwlz
aa¢
wA?.
wau
waw
wwx
Site
-lW

o --
2 c c *-o
Ila
R RAP
2 TONS--W
SY FF
.l
SBG FROM
S ite 2 " ,?
" ? ?
a4i4u_Hya_prm wet_psnU4.agn 3/24/200B 10:19:22 AM
a
b
O
W
R ?
Permit Drawing
%pet 6 of 99
a'
TYPE I

ti
DENOW SLANLL IN
D
n ra. PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SWEET NO.

B-4148 4
m
Z4 ~

L ® DEN ES IMPACTS jN?
SURF E WATER
2
gNri?eI1N ?rol MY SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
N
C7 - 0 U ?
? ua?..? ? ENGINEER ENGINEER
~ o? 005 i _
I O r` ROBERT W. CONR Y W 5 I
'
Y
COURTNEY S. CON

I
II

SKETC SHOWING NSHIP OF
WIDTH TO BRIDGE WIDTH

ELSON SOUTHER
LUNA RUTH SOUTHER 0
CULTIVATED FIELD
SITE

sI
BRDCE DESCRIPTION
I I

'

LI
Plq
1 CLASS'I'RIP BST SURFACE
I J I :
1 Q (?? AT 115EMBAN +6EPLT
SEE DETAIL 4 WOODEN WNGWALLS CULTIV TED FIELD
WOKEN RAILS I'1
WOODEN MWALL5 I
5 STEEL BEAUS
I DO WOI U9a CO1251RVCTlON
CLASS IRIF RAP
EST 45 TONS HGH WATER MARK
OB970 L '
'I WOOD
S
'Pilo CULTIVATED FIELD
d STRUCTURAL PAY REM) 111
I ? CLASS IRIF RAP
EST 50 TONSL
'
y

i S
E (STRUCTURAL
PAY ITEM( LAT. 2' BASE DrrC

15+67 TO 17+ -1- LT I .

i DETAIL

LATERAL BASE DITCH

I .AL '. SE. D
sff DETAIL 1
F
1
/
n I i
1
$
"I .' ` I ?
\I 'i I' x
croun° y O qd
11F1.
a
j g 1 +60.00 8 Min. D=
- 2 E =

I ?
35.00'
I i 11
EWSIxn nir E , DOE = 137 CY
FROM STA15+67 TO 1B

? --
---_
---
PI- METAN --- -

-

° n•R
DETAIL 2

I ?
?

---

!??T-- WARlICK ROAp SR 13E9
-- --- \

2 .? .

;
I / LATERAL
V T
N°t ..DI
I

i

L
+60.00 R SS \ hry , j

\ I
I
Min
O= I

25.00, .00' 5 SY NS
35

2 Ns_ w

@I

A, 'rfo,
? .
.
DOE = 108 CY 0- S.OFY.

R SBG 15+12 -L- T

BEGIN BRIDGE Y FF \
\ a
' a
titi W °r
tioo .?
FROM STA. 16+00 TO STA. 16+75 -L- RT.
1

ITE 3
TIVATED FIEL SRG FROM
.r
END BRIDGE TO '
16+38 1- RT SPECIAL M V DITCH
\ DETAIL 3

SP IET E-MIT-(ITCH
(Not 1. S-1.1
1 CUL
D \
16
7
T
' °nr
1
1 1 TIVaiFD FIELD O CLASS P RAP
AT +
O 17+50 i- RT
5
T
VDRCH
SEE DETAIL 3
+DO
TO
+75 -lr RT N°tury pa°1teT Siope
Grnrm y W

1

DATA
-L C RVE

15 D AILR%
NELSON SOUTHER
LUNA RUTH SOUTHER
\
IL 2
DETAIL
_ 1
n 3 1
SITE 2 r3 uN

\
D
Min. D= IAFt.
. FROM STA. 16+75 TO STA 17+50 -L- BT.
BAYNARD HICKS
KATHRYN HICKS 1 ONROY
12+ St 1 0.6 PI Si0 1B+97.89 CONROY DETAIL 4
49'1 TI p = 'I '48.4'(RT)
n
' A = 72'37'49.4"(RT) RIP RAP A EEMMTANRMENT
(Not to Seciel
54
D = 53 " D = 2352'23.7" 1 VIII'
L 1 5 8' L =
3
T 2.
00. R = 50.0 '
T 1776.406.40'
R = 240.00'
Dfj IG EXCEPTION REQUIRED CULTIVATED FIELD

1 ch
E = 0.0 SE = 0.05 FAq SAG/CRES>• K VALUES AND
C I I 2 F
E
t
B T
R 0 = 44 RO = 144 CAL CURVE SSD
VE s
.
o
/ *rcW a

L
2100 CL A 15+70 50
EX IST. BRIDGE KEW=70' END RIDGE
PI = 14+ 0.00 T BE REM ED =2091.11 -L- TA15+98 0
PI
7+20
B GIN BRID
EL=
90.98'
.
-
,
-L- STA13+ .00 VC = /01 Y E =2091J3'
'
EL.= 08859' VC = 140 END GRADE
K = 70
5%
Y
K
72 -L- TA/7+90 ,-?
2,090 (+119 y2 EL= 08793' 2
090
--- ----
-
--
----
---
(

)0.5000% --- -_
---- ?_?

----

--- - -,_- -- ,
CLASS I P RAP (- 50007.
(STRU PAY ITEM(
0.50% 0.52% 2
085
cuss RAP 1 ------
50% 5D%
0 0.50°k ,
IXCA R
ATE AREA TO ntUCTURAL PA
WS ITFA1)
=2083.6 \/ 0. .
~y. z N

2
080 ELEY
STREA ON 2085 AT
IA TO 2087.0

l = /5-

70
00
10
O

c
U7

o

O
0
, AT
LIT MENY
.
o
n o c
pq
EL = 2 9194' C 3 + i i
?
STRUCTURE HYDRAU LIC DATA ? O
n ? N N n
VC
=
140
C
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 1000 CFS K = 2
2
.075 DESIGN FREQUENCY 2
0 7
. DESIGN HW ELEVATION = 25 YRS
= 2089.1 FT ..
BASE DISCHARGE
BASE FREQUENCY = 1400 CFS
1
0
R eet of
=
0
Y
S
2
070 BASE HW ELEVATION = 2089
4 FT 2
070
, OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE .
= 430 CFS BM #1 BM #2 BM #3 ,
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 2 YRS N 607442.1390 E 932174.5560 N 607056.9790 E 932745 .1440 N 606700.7330 E 932945.4400
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 2088,0 FT ELEV. 2106.75' ELEV. 2089.74' ELEV. 2102.15'
2,065 OUTSIDE OF CHAIN -BL- -BL- STA 11+48.89 79.80' RIGHT -BL- STA 16+03.75 64.51' LEFT
2.,060 - 060
2
,
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 l
»
w
»
»
»
z
w?
w°u
wwe
»we
w
wwu
?w2
?w<
utw-
Nwo
Utwl,
wwu
ww=
wwu
ww«
w
w
w

w
w
z
w°
a°ww
www
www
ww
www
?wE
rwa
inwZ
>a¢
?nww
wwN
ww]
waw
0 2.5 5 PROJ. REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
n
m
fg
B-4148
X-2
75 70 65 6 0 5 0 A 5 3 5 3 0 2 5 2 0 > 1 3 i > 1 5 2 D 2 5 3 0 5 A O A 5 5 0 6 0 5 0 7 5

?ngn

POH5 --
---
---- -
--
--
208
°89 -- ---- --- ---- --- -- -- ---- --- --
18 00
END TIP PR OJECT 148
ongn
?- 2e\ 2_ 0.0 800
--- --- ??? 08 8,14
,
208E .00
17- 50

WID NED
SHO LDER
90
5.01 sou
208 3.46
---
--

2085.06 2084.7
17 00
FILL I
SITE 1
WET
ND FILL IN
SITE
2
WETL AND
WID E ED W DENED
SH LDER S OULD R
Pnqn 0.040 0 0.0 175 Pnqn

208 .42 ?, 2
• --- --- --
,

208 .80 16 50 08450
net of

M
S UENED
HOULD F
R
WID
ENED
0-040 0 0°0 00 SH ULDER
Pnqo \
---
---
- -?
Pogo
\ ?,
09
2
°25
- -

al
'
// ?
16 00 PnRq
2084.55 2084 25 ?-- --
END RIDGE
men - - - STA 5+98. 0 ?nRn
5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 3 5 2 1 1? --j -
1
1
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
0 1
5
(A
51
z
Z
W?tl
4*<
>(bp

sae Shed I A For Index of Suers STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L".
•C B-4148 1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS dvmr

SIR
- -:
33497.1.1
BRZ--1329 4 P.E.
fa 33497.2.1 BRZ-1329 4 Pow
rRoxcr
HENDERSON COUNTY

LOCATION. BRIDGE NO 12 OVER BOYLST ON CREEK
ON SR 1329 (WARLICK ROAD)

00 ?.
VENTY MAP
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGA PAVING AND STRUCTURE
r
v +-.-+- DETOUR ROUTE
Gl
^1

My m
o
qq
G+
'( BEGIN BRIDGE
x
Z END BRIDGE
END TIP PROJECT 84148
-L- STA. 15+43.00
BEGIN APPR. SLAB -I- STA. 15+98.00 -L- STA. 17+90.00
r 4- SM 15+28.97 END APPR. SLAB
-L- SR 1329 -L- STA. 16+12.00 '
(WARLICK ROAD)

BEGIN nP PROJECT 8-4148
A- STA. 13+60,00

rI0
PRItLD[INARY PLANS
Clearing on iMa p uOd shall be whrmed to Nro limb alubadied by motbod B. m Nor USE cm+L,xurnoN

GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH Avged In ih w"m 08
VAUGHN & AWZTON RVDMEWCS JOIIGQIBM DIMION OF J2TCAYS
STAM OF NORM CAROLINA

50 25 q 50 1.00 ADT 2009 700
ADT 2030 = 1400
LENGTH
ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-1148 = 0.071 MI 13ZS-P PArrox AVE.
THE MOM ASHEVILLE MC, NZSZC ?
? NA OIStLW OF NIIBAIAI $
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-1148 = 0.010 MI zm ST
PLANS DHV - 10% TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 8-4148 = 0.081 MI REECE SCHULER, PE ra
=
50 25 50 1 D 60%

0 10 T = 3% px ms + x awusl
RIGHT OF WAY JJA2I-7

JANUARY 18, 2008

pAojmK7r

AARON CARVER PE

OADWAY DESIGN

EAMWEM
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 50 MPH muacr DB=r mwwm
FUNCr. CLASS = RURAL LOCAL
2.5 10
LSJTING I)k{TEr
• DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED
FIN! SAGCREST K VALUE AND JANUARY 20, 2009 AIcnoT AaR PE
DO rAn
AR R[
PROFILE MRIICA4 VERTICAL CURVE SSD -"4dOWAT aver
:xirr AMWW" DUAM MMUZIM
Now Not to Scale
*S.U.E = Sxbsrsrfe" Utility EagiaeeriAr
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
Stale Line _
County Line -`
Township Line -
City Line -
Reservation line -
Property Line -
Edsfing Iron Pin
Properly Comer
Properly Monument
Porcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence line -x
Proposed Woven Wire Fence -
Proposed Chain Link Fence -
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence -
Existing Wetland Boundary
- - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary
-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
-
Exdding Endangered Plant Boundary
--
BUILDINGS AND OTIIF.R CULTE"..•
Gas Pump Vent or UG Tank Cap
Sign
well
Small Mine
Foundation
Area Outline C
Cemetery
Building
School
Church
Darn -
BYDROLOGY.-
Stream or Body of Water
011' NOWTUI CAROLINA
1)1VIS110N 0 HIGHW.- VS
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
0
s
--------- U
0
-x-z-
0
g
r&I
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r- - --?
Jurisdictional Skean -?-... _
Buffer Zone 1 -a x -
Buffer Zone 2 -eT 2-
Flow Arrow

Disappearing Stream
Spring
Swamp Marsh
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Heed Ditch _
False Sump
RAIIROADS.-
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
Switch O
RR Abandoned - -
RR Dismantled -----
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point .
Editing Right of Way Marker ?
Existing Right of Way Line -
Proposed Right of Way line --?-
Proposed Right of Way Line with A
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Access - -
Proposed Control of Access . ...??
Existing Easement Line --E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - -E
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -Tm-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement - -rm--
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -rre-
ROADS AND RF"TED MTURES•
Existing Edge of Pavement -----
Existing Curb
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut ---?---
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill --- F---
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp -
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guider ill e n e
Proposed Cable Guderorl e n e n
Equality Symbol 0
Pavement Removal
YEGETATION.•
Single Tree Q
Single Shrub a
Hedge
Woods line
Orchard 0 0 0 9
Vineyard v«»,?,
EXISTING STRUCTURBS.•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert ?.?
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - cONc e
MINOR:
Hood and End Wall /'MEW-\
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB Qp
Payed Ditch Gutter -----
Storm Sewer Manhole M
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES-
POWER
Existing Power Pole 4
Proposed Power Pole b
Existing Joint Use Pole ?-
Proposed Joint Use Pole •?•
Power Manhole m
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer 0
UG Power Coble Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole s-a
Recorded UG Power Una
Designated UG Power Line (S.U.E.*) ----?----
TELEPHONE:
Editing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole -0-
Telephone Manhole
Telephone Booth pr
Telephone Pedestal M
Telephone Cell Tower A
UG Telephone Cable Hand Hole 19
Recorded LIG Telephone Cable

Designated UG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*)- ----*----
Recorded UG Telephone Conduit
x

Designated UG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*)- ----n----
Recorded UG Fiber Optics Cable
Designated UG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.1- ----«---
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant
Recorded UG Water Line
Designated UG Water Line (S.U.E."F--- - - - - -?- - _ -
Above Ground Water Line
TV:
TV Satellite Dish
TV Pedestal
TV Tower

UG TV Cable Hand Hole
Recorded UG TV Cable _
Designated UG TV Cable (S.U.E.*)---- - ----„?---
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable r
Designated UG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.*)- ----- ---
GAS:
Gas Valve 0
Gas Meter
Recorded UG Gas Line
Designated UG Gas Line (S.U.E.*) ----- ----e----
Above Ground Gas Line VC
SANITARY SEWER.
Sanitary Sewer Manhole ----
Sanitary Sewer Cleonout - 19
UG Sanitary Sewer Una -- a
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer A r s.,,,
s
Recorded SS Forced Main Une
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.*)
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
0
Utility Pole with Base 0
Utility Located Object
0
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown LIG Line

UG Tank. Water, Gas, oil
AEG Tank, Wafer, Gas, Oil a
UG Test Hole (S.U.E.*)
Abandoned According to Utility Records - AATUR
End of Information E.O.I.
MEMN
4-
ORIGINAL GROUND
1 t

? POINT
V
._XARIES VARIES ,
7.5"W U U W 7.5

GRADE TO THIS UNE

TYPICAL. SECTION NO.1

1 I '
DUES VARIES ,
.5'
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
rt. k
1
27=10'
4" Q C BEARING j
4' @ T, BEARING
/C2 GRADE ?
0.04 F6fr 0.04 FDFT
00100100100700 00100100100100
Detail of Asphalt Wearing Surface on Bridge
TYPICAL SECTION NO.3
u
v
u
ORIGINAL GROUND
4:1
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.1
a.- STA. 13+60 TO STA. 14 +40
-L- STA. 16+30 TO STA. 17+90
Wedging Detail
C SIRDE7
MIN. a 3• 1.
ORIGINAL GROUND art
Detail Showing Method of Wedging
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
4- STA. 14+40 TO STA. 15+43.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE)
4-STA. 15+98.00 (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 16+30
4' Q I, BEARING
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.3
STA. 15+43.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE) TO
-1.- STA. 15+98.00 (END BRIDGE)
C1 PROP. APPROX. 114" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A
,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LOB. PER B0. YD.
Cl PROP. APPROX. 214" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SFG.5A
,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBO. PER 30. YD. IN EACH OF T10 LAYERS.

C3 PROP. VAR, DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE SF9.5A.
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LOS. PER $0. YD. PER 1I DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 114" IN DEPTH.
E1 PROP. APPROX. 5" ASPHALT CONCRETE RASE COURSE, TYPE 025.08
,
AT AM AVERAGE RATE OF 570 LBS. PER S0. Yp.
EZ PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.05
,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LOB. PER SO. YD. PER 1" DEPTH.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT.

w VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT
(SEE WEBBING DETAIL FOR RESURFACING).
•?•?. .^._-?•• --?- ????=o M? ,., UNLtBG SXOMN OTHERMISE
p ! d uy d I i ,? c
C,4 c9t
+
"
61
a +
iaa I I s
t3 ti
# c 4 -
1
?" pia 1
G { E
I
++
6 i I r I j. i
I I
" g I
I ? ? I 9
lol__ 1 _ , -- a - - s -
r e • ? ? ? ! ? ! Y ? t I _? I d I?? j
w
9
1 c
1 _ u
?V
??N I ? 11 i, ? 4. j - #
€ N
z I
I
.
GA
? ? p I I 1
+ _-
.._ rl
i
P r^ b 7
. ,
8 $ s Q 4. --i _ i _. ?
a lay
1 ?" 4 o
«
r 00 90-1 :. 1.. _
Sims
M' r
4 64
Q 4L OL', O
?n?` 1 1 i 1 I? O
114 INV
1
6( +a
??RR yt ?
R II V.?r
mull 11, 09 L'j
w
O
8 ?$ r o ilo 9Z' bt'
04 I+Ot
i < iYL II ! II `.?. i W €
i_ _ _ i ? ? n n ?? - -- ? `-'- - - •?-- - --- - - -- - ? r ? ;'t+-arc--i - , ? - -- ? ± ?_ '-- - § a-
N h F Q 4$
r h W 1 T +.. .. _
I 9 1
vs i'd
W Z
r ,
__. .._.,..s.
-
(( 1
Y{ t
[ ? r yy
i y 1
j 9 ? ? y 1 ? I ?- O
I ,
? r 1
1
.. i
p 1rr rrrr _ __t?
r
. 1 1 S4a?l.??g , i ? ? k
o
coo
r 1 I - € ? I
is {
10 goo
dl 04 OI I I hE I

Jr
TA {1c' aTn - ?5
,? I ?..?.?.?..... _I ? - ID I I
:
I •
1 ,
------------ -
I ;
,
1 i
1 f I
I L
i
,
1
(
i
t f i
( 1 i
:
c
r
i
y
3 r t L -- i _
4I0
, i
0.0 0
i .-
I
1
I
i E,
-5 I L. ?.. .._ .. ! 1 _
©- -
s
J.5 3.
,
( ? i
It
NE WIDENED
1 _.:. S .
HOUL ER Skl UL_DEJ4 ._
:
r_
f?4 N 0
I ? .040 1
1 f ?
i
I
I ? ? I
+ f I
! t t I i I? ?,
I s ? •
00
I
A a 1 _7 I ? p' :
i
WIDEt D
ULUMM
SH f ULDER
,
3 r ?
3 3 I R-Q -
,
?, .? ` ! _
--- --- ------
t 1 I I ': E I ?• ? ,. ?_ 1 .:..._...«........,:. _...,._ ...._.,-i ? .i.-. {I .- _ ! .. , 1 _. ..- i_ ,, i.___. V-... f . ,1..._ .m? ,.y_, - ?p?
t
1 I ?
L _
I r
I
I
s I i ? , P ? ! f ~ I
t E ! I ( [ I I t 1 1 ,
t 9 s
4 3
i
f _.. .r .r . ter. F _,{.••.. w i ~, k
1
_a
?GC ? 1
EGI ?R P 0 8
F •L ? .wit.. T TTI-'?---
1 PRELDUNA -1 PLANS
Gb DC 1
i
I
,? xA
i'
,
F ? ? 1 t
i Y i 6p 55 5? 45 W 30 aY MS 20 ! 1IS ? ? ? Nl ? Y Y ? T' 70
I
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDCNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
a ? I .
I I { t Y_
1 I ? } ,
{. i h
z ? t `-
I ppp _ _j _
S ,
I f 1 I I 1 ? 1 {
5 I F I
II ,
TIN
! t ! ? ? I I i i F I ? ? -f
f
f I 3 r I ' 4 r I ? j i I
I i G I
m,.
- -+` -A - - - - j
I
,
I I ? I ,
I y s r
ry r
1 Y ? y ,
I I ? .. .i. _.._.. .,_,__..L....._.?._:._._-'" 'D.,... .,,,.??-,, . ,.. .,... ?_,_,. j.._...,...' ,,. .,..?.?__._i-•. ____,f .?..,_..___ ?? ? _f._.,.. ._ I , - _. ; / i _. ? i ' -.. i - ? t.__ r i _,..,'K_ _ _'_
r iy (`?tjJ' i i ! v I R I , I IS ? l' I ? ? F I'
60
__ ?? - - -- - - - - 1 ?`?
I s , ? i u I ? ? I ? I
?? I I
E 1 --w
' R1 , Q j 1 m ? I? ?
I ,
i
a6i
-
j-?a --
gg s ?1 o f I
W I
l I i
` ? I , r , I 1 I I ' I '
I
orr"
i 1
4 7 I tl ? ; I 7 ? I I I 1? I f
' I WWW ,
I I ;! I c I ? j I ? I f y ?
I `
X
P
ti
.
A
I "r : , 4 I ?, V ? I I
? ? I s I? 3 I ? I ? e e{. .?m { I? t
? ? I ? I I I
I I.m L.,
I
r 3
I g i I I I II I I
i,t {, ? I ? ? ? r I II E ? I t
f p I? i I Ii I? i I ?? j,
I I a
f I ? ,
? I ? I f i r
V
f I
y , '_ ? + 1 I I , L
47,
i ._
I f ; T
9 _
' I -
F F ? o
I
6m MEN=