20051136 Ver 1_Complete File_20050713

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 12, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Revised Nationwide 33 Permit Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 94 over
East Prong Hunting Creek on SR 1972, Burke County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1972(6), State Project No. 33413.1.1, TIP Project No. B4047.
Please reference the original permit application for the subject project dated June 23, 2005. As you are aware, the
NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 94 over East Prong Hunting Creek
on SR 1972. Due to cost and low ADT, the approach slab has been reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet. The new
bridge will be a two-lane structure approximately 140 feet in length and 33 feet in width. The original application
incorrectly stated that the width was 28 feet. No other changes have been made; all proposed impacts to Waters of
the United States remain the same. Please replace the appropriate drawings with the attached revised drawings.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at [phone] or
cdmanley a>.dot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Grego?Thorp e , Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
"cc" List:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Roger Byran, DEO
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. William T. Goodwin, P.E., PDEA
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
lJ
?os?TF r?W?Re
'09
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
ilk
I O? ?
I
1 14?
=a I
S
00
a
fit R?
r ? k k
9ph
I I ?_ ? ?.4?/ ? Y33NJq//IMNI ONOHd 15Y3
I j 1 91 aw
sU
N ?? I II
`II
° ° m3 I I c
I
? ? II
9 i
i
i /
o a ?
\ ? O
? `. w 1n
0

s ? as 9 ?

E (?
e

4t,-
S?'t
bi,
/^?\? 'I6P'40ZIZI-7twad-pfiy-/

i
2 ?
o a
5
ti
CWT' J
Q I ?
m ? O
Z W N
W W
W W

.al ?.
1'911'11 :,. .
:

s

ph
GR

t I
I
IIr
I E '^

6 N
n
:' m ... .. I. al l
1
I
s
'..
I
I 9a Psi /? /
1 __en;rl W

I I ?.
.11 ' W te

CIO',
..........II
I•
/ / + I

UII......-". 11

fi

?- 333

,? l.
LO

?
I
....:
r 1 ...... . .?D r
I •
L
,

g
d

L
''. `? ,.:: ._.:.li '.
b ? il" / 1
/ 6p'b0Z1ZI-1?wad-pfiy-L 4049\i cw.ls \soc?nc.,pfiy\:.I
9551 SOOZ-N11P-aZ

/

\\ ? ?`? ? it I
:
, i

9N
gg? ?b?
la ?8
o l
l oil
?
a
' $

d
4
S $ti
LL
H
m q4
f
m
r
C ,f
J +
O
? YO
1?}
O
99
n
°v
?u
a
to
aQ
O
a?
N?
OV
Q
b,
as
11
ro P.V.I r:l-hp
-, U
14
A x
as
.J?d
W
0
W
j
ti
U
j
1
n
J
'n
n
U
U
C
u
u
.?r?.iri •?fi vr+p'oo .
1651 ;OG,
:-Nill' NZ
4
A 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
`Q, lC ? ' V V
y^r ^ D
JJ 9ti0 rT ?F? .', ?f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?R
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 23, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
051136
SUBJECT: Nationwide 33 Permit Application for the replacement of Bridge
No. 94 over East Prong Hunting Creek on SR 1972, Burke County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1972(6), State Project No. 33413.1.1,
TIP Project No. B-4047.
The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 94 over
East Prong Hunting Creek on SR 1972, with new bridge on the existing alignment at a
slightly higher elevation. Bridge No. 94 is a two-lane, single span structure 30 feet long
and 19 feet wide with a timber deck on steel I-beams. The new bridge will be a two-lane
structure approximately 140 feet in length and 28 feet in width. A travel way of 22 feet
will be accommodated, with an offset of 3 feet on each side of the bridge. The approach
roadway will consist of two 11-foot travel lanes. Grass shoulder widths will be 5 feet on
each side and increased to 8 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured
off-site, along surrounding roads, during construction. Total project length will be
approximately 950 feet.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
There will be no permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands as a result of this
project. There will be temporary impacts to Waters of the United States in the form of
surface waters as a result of construction activities. A temporary rock workpad is
proposed along the west bank of the stream in order to facilitate construction of the new
bridge. The workpad will temporary fill 0.01 acre of surface waters. East Prong Hunting
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTWENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPWENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
rI
Creek is located in the Catawba River Basin, subbasin 03-08-31, DWQ classification is
WS-IV, and DWQ index of 11-36-1.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Bridge No. 94 is a single span structure that consists of a timber floor on I-beams with an
asphalt-wearing surface. The end bents are composed entirely of timber. The existing
--bridge was constructed-in-1962. The exisThng-briige wilt be removed without dropping
components into Waters of the United States. This bridge is classified as "Case 3" where
there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The new bridge will be a two span, prestressed box beam supperstructure. The
substructure will include one set of drilled piers for the single central bent. The piers will
be located outside the stream channel on the west bank. To facilitate construction of the
new bridge a temporary workpad along the west side of the creek will be constructed.
TEMPORARY WORKPAD
There will be 0.01 acres of temporary impacts in East Prong Hunting Creek from the
construction of a temporary workpad. The workpad is required for the drilling equipment
that will be used for the drilled piers. It will extend 5 feet out into the channel, using
filter fabric covered by 2 feet of Class II Rip Rap.
No permanent fill will result from the subject activity. The materials used as temporary
fill in the construction of the rock workpad, will be completely removed. The entire
workpad footprint shall be returned to the original contours and elevations after the
purpose of the workpad has been served. After the workpad is no longer needed, the
contractor will use excavating equipment to remove all materials. All workpad material
will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a
reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all materials off-site.
AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
The original project design proposed replacing Bridge No. 94 with a reinforced concrete
box culvert. The current design calls for a new longer bridge at a slightly higher elevation
that will have no permanent impacts to the stream channel and may actually allow more
room for natural channel migration under the new bridge. The bridge will be replaced at
the existing location. Piers for the new bridge will be located outside of the stream
channel. Traffic will be maintained using an off-site detour. Best management practices
(BMP's) will be utilized to minimize water quality impacts. In compliance with 15A
NCAC 0213.0104(m) we have incorporated the use of BMP's in the design of the project.
2
r ?I
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under Endangered Species Act §§7
and 9. As of January 29, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 7
federally protected species for Burke County (Table 1). The biological conclusion of "No
Effect" was reached for all 7 federally protected species for this county at this site. Initial
field investigations in-July-2000 mound- an - unknown Hexastylis sp. ri the project area: A
follow-up survey in March 2002 revealed no specimens of Hexastylis nanfflora. Another
survey conducted in May of 2005 found no specimens Hexastylis sp. and dense
herbaceous and shrub cover along most of the stream bank within the project area. The
Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" will remain valid for all endangered and threatened
species for this project. NCDOT will resurvey for any species for which the project has
habitat, before construction starts.
Tahle 1 _ Federmliv Protected Species for Macon Countv
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Clem s muhlenber ii Bo turtle T(S/A) No Effect
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T (proposed
for delistin No Effect
Hexas lis nani ora Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf T No Effect
Liatris helleri Heller's Blazing Star T No Effect
Hudsonia montana Mountain Golden Heather T No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled o onia T No Effect
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E No Effect
STATUS:
"E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" Denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due
to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary workpad will
be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access
and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
authorizing construction of the workpad.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3366 will apply to
this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records.
3

We anticipate that the Corps of Engineers will request comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to authorization. By copy of this letter
and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that
NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.orp-/plannin Upe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Manley at [phone] or cdmanley0dot.state. nc.us.
Sincerely,
f
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The "cc" List:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Roger Byran, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. William T. Goodwin, P.E., PDEA
4
TROD
IJA 4 a i.
DENR - VMTE,• „•,., t v
nc i LA" AND STORWMTER BRAN61 I
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
051136
Q N
US o.
ACE Action ID No. DW
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter Not Appucanie or -ivies .)
1. Processing
- 1. Check all- he 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 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
-- include the appropriate-USGS-Topographic -Quad-Map and NR`"° Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 94 on SR 1972 over East Prong Hunting
Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
6
B-4047
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 95 96 2 7; 95 96, 95 98; 95 96 1 3
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Morganton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): I-40 to 18 south to SR
1972
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): ON °W
Property size (acres): N/A
7.' Name of nearest receiving body of water: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at 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: Two lane paved roadway leading to two lane bridge over the
East Prong _Hunting Creek. Adjacent land use is agricultural and residential.
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
existing timber bridge will be replaced with a two span, pre-stressed box beam structure on
the existing alignment at a slightly higher elevation. The new bridge will be a two-lane
structure approximately 140 feet in length and 28 feet in width. A travel way of 22 feet will
be accommodated--with-an offsetof 3-feet-on-each -side-of-thebridge; The-approach roadway
will consist of two 11-foot travel lanes. Traffic will be detoured off-site along surrounding
roads and the old bridge will be removed. A temporary workpad on the west side of East
Prong Hunting Creek is needed to provide construction access for drilling the piers for the
new bridge. Equipment will consist of typical grading machinery such as track hoes, dozers,
dump trucks and a crane for the bridge construction and new roadway approaches.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating bridge with a new
longer bridge at a slightly higher elevation that will provide a BL eater passage of flood flows
with a reduced chance of overtopping the roadway.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
Page 7 of 13
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- o -stream- mitigation,-Iist -and -describe the-impact in-Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
0.01 acre of temporary fill in surface waters for a temporary workkpad
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 aratel 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
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
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, multi 1 length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermittent. Perennial Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
Site 1 East Prong Hunting
Creek Temporary Fill Perennial
15 feet 60 feet 0.01

Page 8 of 13
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
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.
I
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma

-Name of Waterbody -
(if applicable)
_
Type of Impact
._Type of Waterbody _
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,

ocean etc.
Area of
Impact

(acres)
Site 1 East Prong Hunting
Creek Temporary Fill in SW Stream 0.01

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): N/A
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact acres :
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
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.
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 stotmwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area:
Page 9 of 13
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The original project design proposed replacing Bridge No. 94 with a reinforced concrete box
culvert. design calls for a new-longer bridge at a-sli h?tly-ffigher elevation that will
have no permanent impacts to the stream channel and may actually allow more room for natural
channel migration under the new bridge. The bridge will be replaced at the existing location.
Piers for the new bridge will be located outside of the stream channel. Traffic will be maintained
using an off-site detour. Best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized to minimize water
quality impacts In compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we have incorporated the use of
BMP's in the design of the project.
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/newetlands/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)
Page 10 of 13
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.
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Page 11 of 13
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
(Neuse), 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.
Impact Required
Zone* Multiplier „4.*..* -*.' ,.,
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
' Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 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 213.0242 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.
Impervious area will remain about the same. NCDOT will use Best Management Practices for
erosion control during construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 12 of 13
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 analysiyin accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
23 0 5
Applicant/Agent's Signature I Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B4047 RECEIVED
WBS No. 33413.1.1
State Project No. 8.2853401
Federal Project No. BRZ-1972 (6) MAR 14 2005
UV!SI N OF Nk : WrllYS
PDWOFFIOE ?Y N AI`ul;,ti' ENVIRONMENT
Replacement of Bridge No. 94 on SR 1972 over East Prong Hunting Creek in
Burke County. Bridge No. 94 will be replaced with a 3 @ 10 feet (3 meters) x 10
feet (3 meters) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation of the existing structure. The approach
roadway will consist of two 11-foot (3.3-meter) travel lanes and shoulder widths
of at least 5 feet (1.5 meters). Shoulder widths will be increased at least 3 feet (1
meter) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site, along
surrounding roads, during construction. Total project length will be
approximately 950 feet (290 meters).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 94 has a sufficiency rating of 38.9 out of 100. The deck is only 19.2
feet (5.9 meters) wide and the structure is composed mainly of timber. For these
reasons, Bridge No. 94 needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. 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 (merges, 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.
0
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
b.
C.
f.
h.
i.
j.
k.
1.
Installing ramp metering devices
Installing lights
Adding or upgrading guardrail
Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
Installing or replacing impact attenuators
Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
Making minor roadway realignment
Channelizing traffic
Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
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)
Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
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.
Approvals for changes in access control.
8. 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.
2
f
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:
Total Construction $ 300,000
Right of Way $ 38,000
Total $ 338,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 600 vpd
Year 2025 - 1000 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot (3.3-meter) travel lanes and
shoulder widths of at least 5 feet (1.5 meters). Shoulder widths will be increased
at least 3 feet (1 meter) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
60 mph (100 kmh)
Design Exceptions:
None
Functional Classification:
SR 1972 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 13 Construction Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed
method for detouring traffic during construction.
1P
Bridge Demolition:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 94 consists of a double timber floor on I-beams
with an asphalt-wearing surface. The end bents are composed entirely of timber,
which can be removed without any falling debris. Therefore, Bridge No. 94 will
be removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States during
construction.
___..Alternatives Discuadon:__ (ncluding-Studied-Offsite Detour- F"Juatiou)---
According-to the Transportation Director for Burke County Schools, there are six school
bus crossings per day over Bridge No. 94.
Emergency Management Services states they can handle an offsite detour.
The detour route will utilize SR 1924 and NC 18 (see Figure 1). There will be 7.9 miles
of additional travel.
Only one "build" Alternative was studied. "Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the
eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation
of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
YES NO
X
a
x
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?

(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage ?
tanks (UST's) or hazardous material sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES
(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)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
X
NO
X
X
X
5
. if, . V
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
re- ulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
utstantial iiiipacts 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
6

(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
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important _tolustory-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 Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Resaonses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided belom
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item (2) Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat
An unknown Hexastylis sp. was observed within the project area during a field
investigation on July 12, 2001, outside the flowering period for Hexastylis. The North
Carolina's Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was
reviewed in September of 2001. No populations of this species have been recorded in the
project vicinity. HSMM, Inc. conducted a survey for dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora) throughout the project area on March 20, 2002 and no individuals
were found. A biological conclusion of No Effect was rendered.
Item (8) Mountain Trout County
Burke County is listed as a mountain trout county. East Prong Hunting Creek does not
have a water resource classification involving trout and the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission does not have this creek listed as a trout stream.
7

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4047
WBS No. 33413.1.1
State Project No. .
8.2853401
Federal Project No. BRZ-1972 (6)
Project Description:
------Replaeement of Bridge-No:-94 on?SR-1-over-East-Prong-Htmting--Creek-in
Burke County. Bridge No. 94 will be replaced with a 3 @ 10 feet (3 meters) x 10
feet (3 meters) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation of the existing structure. The approach
roadway will consist of two 11-foot (3.3-meter) travel lanes and shoulder widths
of at least 5 feet (1.5 meters). Shoulder widths will be increased at least 3 feet (1
meter) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site, along
surrounding roads, during construction. Total project length will be
approximately 950 feet (290 meters).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date
Date
Date
Project Planning Unit ead, Willi . Goodwin, Jr., PE
Project Development & EnvironmeAkAl Analysis Branch
Project Development Engineer, Robin Y. Hancock
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
?7 ZZ?o3 ??.
Date 4John , F. Sullivan, III, L
Federal Highway Adrr,
Administrator
8
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch

.
RfaANTON y,.,eM 1. \ _ ? • .17?a LIl ?

Q ' ?. '' `' ....
l \ ..

22
'• `
\
/ / \ m

r \ 211 'd
?.

Im
353 lzu
1
/ 352 143 im

1
1 X
? n ._.

`
14 _
2 _ -- 1
' 033 ?• C41 'm
ne

{
25 s an
94
nu.
12m a-.m

ns S 1'\

'7

'
• '• •'
'•
? \ 1 ?
\ ?.
125E im
e.
_
OE

69/ 92
sa _t?a

C40 -

nee
`
.
299 w

\ im
i
i

au i tm \
Detour Route

_ YII?I?M?M

*Y ?Ue «,YMMSMI ? .Y:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
i DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BURKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1972
OVER EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
B-4047
Figure 1
qt y
c,.. svsrf
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
chael F. Easley, Governor
beth C. Evans, Secretary
Frey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
)trce of Archives and History
Milian, -
1I
MEMORANDUM

Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
NCDOT, Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge 94 on SR 197-9 over Creek, TIP B-4047, Burke County, ER 02-8507
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2001, regarding the above project.
Because of the location and topography of the project area, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which
may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Stroupe House, north side SR 1971-,.3 mile east of SR 1924, on State Srudv List.
An architectural historian for the Department of Transportation should inventory and evaluate this property
and any others, that are fifty years old or older and located within the area of potential effect.
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 conccming this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Marv Pope burr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
dministration 567 N. Blount St. Ralcwh. N(' 4617 'Aid Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-9653
estoration 15 N Blount St. Ralc,gh . N(' 4613 •'vlad Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4901
trvev & Planning 5 15 N Blount St. Rale,eh. N(' 461 X :`'Tall Service Center. Ralewh 27699-461 X [phone] -1115-4901

, ueral Aid #BRZ-1972 (b) TIP # B-4047 County: Burke
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 94 on SR 1972 over the East Prong of Hunting Creek in Burke County.
On July 8, 2003, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Fedee LHi way Administration
- -(FH rep - ----- -
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
® There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as (List Attached)
are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
® All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
® There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
G?t.?re- Grvc? ?[ c.? ?.. ?f . 2 0 0 3
Representative, NC DOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Adm istrator, other Federal Agency Date
01 U 7,
Representative, HPO DA e
U"1J tJ? ?
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 10, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Burke County:
Bridge No. 26, NC183, Linville River, B-4038
Bridge No. 51, SR1424, Parks Creek, B-4043
Bridge No. 251, SRI 128, Hall Creek, B-4040
Bridge No. 4, SRI 515, Smoky Creek, B-4044
Bridge No. 57, SR1244, Canoe Creek, B-4041
Bridge No. 94, SR1972, East Prong Hunting Creek, B-4047
Bridge No. 19, SRI 736, Camp Creek, B-4045
Bridge No. 91, SRI 127, Silver Creek, B-4039
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
1502
_... Memo

May 10, 2002
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally an d minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Armv
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species. NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the na111-al stream bottom when
construction is completed.

3ridge Memo
May 10, 2002
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If -corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvzn-or-pipe-invert-should-be-burie"t? -least r foot below-the natural streaQnbed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts. aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Bridge Memo
Project specific comments:
May 10.200'
1. Brid :Vo. 26, NC183, Linville River, B-4038, RED LIGHT, Significant & historic resource,
Proposed Critical Habitats, Game Lands, Trout clubs, National Park Service, Blue
Ridge Parkway, Moratoriums proposed (15 Feb. - 30 May, Walleve and White
Bass; 15 Oct- 31 March. Brown Trout.), Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa)
populations. NEW Spanning Bridge.
2. Bridge No. 51, SRI 424, Parks Creek, B-4043 -YELLOW LIGHT, Santee Chub in John's
River, No sport fish concerns indicated.
3. Bridge No. 251, SRI 128, Hall Creek, B-4040 - GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
4. Brid:.e No. 4, SR1515, Smoky Creek, B-4044 -YELLOW LIGHT, Moratorium for warm
water fish species.
5. Bridge No. 57, SR1244, Canoe Creek, B-4041 - GREEN LIGHT, No cc kerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
6. Bridge No. 94, SR1972, East Prong Hunting Creek, B-4047 - GREEN LIGHT, No concerns
indicated. Standard requirements.
7. Bridge No. 19, SRI 736, Camp Creek, B-4045 - GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
8. Bridge No. 91, SRI 127, Silver Creek, B-4039 - GREEN LIGHT, ;`Jo concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: David Cox, WRC

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Burke County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1972
Over East Prong Hunting Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1972 (6)
WBS 33413.1.1
State Project 8.2853401
TIP No. B4047
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 13 Construction, Structure Design Unit
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be
implemented. The superstructure of consists of a double timber floor on I-beams with an
asphalt-wearing surface. The end bents are composed entirely of timber, which can be
removed without any falling debris. Therefore, Bridge No. 94 will be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the United States during construction.
Division 13 Construction
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for road closure,
the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Clint Patton with Burke County EMS at (828) 433-
6609 of the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure.
In order to allow Burke County Schools time to prepare for road closure, the NCDOT
Resident Engineer will notify the Burke County School Transportation Director, Eric
Calhoun, at [phone] of the bridge removal 30 days prior to road closure.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
September 2003
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 94 ON SR 1972
OVER EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER-13-4047 -
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2853401
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
8-4047
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FEBRUARY 2002
r'
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 94 ON SR 1972
OVER EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4047
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2853401
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4047
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section E=
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................4
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................................................................................................4
2.2 Solis ....................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Water Resources ...............................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification .......................................................................................5
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters ..................................7
2.3.3 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................7
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................7
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges .....................................................8
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts .............................................................8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................................................9
3.1 Biotic Communities ..............................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities ......................................................................10
3.1.2 Landscaped Areas ................................................................................................10
3.1.3 Cropland ...............................................................................................................10
3.1.4 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities .........................................12
3.1.5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest ................................................................12
3.1.6 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area ...................................................................13
3.1.7 Aquatic Community ...............................................................................................14
3.1.7.1 Flora .........................................................................................................14
NCDOT Page 1 02/1512002

TIP 8-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.7.2 Fauna .......................................................................................................14
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................................................15
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ....................................................................................................15
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...........................................................................................................16
-- 4.1 Waters of the United States•.... -?u?._u.,...,.....y.... ..................................._..W .16
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected .....................................17
4.1.2 Permits .................................................................................................................17
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition ....................................................................................18
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ......................................................................18
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...........................................................................................19
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species . ............................................................................19
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................20
5.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region ......................................................................6
Figure 3. Biotic Communities of the B-4047 Project Area ..........................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. - Federally Protected Species of Burke County ...........................................................................20
Table 2. - Federal Species of Concern for Burke County ...........................................................................21
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species Found in
Burke County, North Carolina ..........................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Qualifications of Principal Investigators ........................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Wetland Data Forms ........................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Wetland Rating Worksheets ......................................................................................... D-1
NCDOT Pape i1 02/152002
r'
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and
describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which have a
probability of being impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable
impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
- minimize resource- impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concerns that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 94 on SR 1972 in Burke County, North
Carolina. The proposed project crosses East Prong Hunting Creek, approximately 0.9 mile (1.5
kilometers) southeast of Morganton (Figure 1).
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Morganton South 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Morganton
South 7.5-minute quadrangle (1995).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1,200 scale).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) provisional soil survey of Burke County, North Carolina (unpublished).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR, 1999; 2000, 2001). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service list of protected and candidate species (3 March 2001) and from the North Carolina
NCDOT Page 1 021151002
TIP 8-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCDOT Pape 2 0211512002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, January
2001). NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state-listed or federal-listed species.
USFWS Recovery Plans for federal-listed species were reviewed, where applicable.
Environmental scientists on the staff of HSMM, Inc. conducted field investigation of natural
resources within the project area on 12 July 2001. Qualifications of environmental scientists who
conducted the field investigations are provided in Appendix B. Water resources were identified and
- - - - categorized, and-their-physical characteristics were tiocumented_whileln the field. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify plant
communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968). Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980), Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware (Rohde, et al., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas (Potter, et al., 1980), and Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985).
Approximate boundaries of major vegetations communities were mapped while in the field utilizing
aerial photography of the project site. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or
suspected species, incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as birdsong and
other sounds), and secondary indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and
burrows). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented utilizing a general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the
Corps' 6 March 1992 guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Values of
wetlands delineated were assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). Wetland types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, at al., 1979). Wetland
boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey
methods.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations:
Project area - denotes the area bound by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of
the project alignment.
Project vicinity -denotes an area extending 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) on all sides of the project area.
Project region - denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS
quadrangle map (i.e., 60.8 square miles or 157.5 square kilometers).
NCDOT Page 3 02/15/2002
TIP B-4047
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography can significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality
degradation`Fxce"ve_ sstiLdisiutbance resulting from construction_activities_can-potentialty-atter both. the
flow and the quality of the water resources, potentially limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Burke County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian) Mountains Physiographic Province of
western North Carolina. The county encompasses 511 square miles (1,323 square kilometers) and is
primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation from approximately 935 feet (285 meters) mean sea level
(msl) where the Catawba River flows into Catawba County to 4,350 feet (1,326 meters) msl. Elevations
within the project area range from approximately 1,070 to 1,080 feet (326 to 329 meters) msl, with the
stream bed in the vicinity of the bridge lying at approximately 1,065 feet (325 meters) msl.
East Prong Hunting Creek is located within the Catawba River basin. The headwaters of the
Catawba River and its tributaries are located within the mountain physiographic region. This river basin
originates on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge Mountains and flows towards the North Carolina - South
Carolina border near Charlotte. The basin encompasses all of Burke and Catawba Counties, as well as
portions of Alexander, Avery, Caldwell, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Union, and
Watauga Counties. Fifty-eight municipalities are located in the resource basin with several areas of the
basin being classified for water supply use. Over 45% of the land in the Catawba River basin is covered in
forests (NCDENR, 1999).
2.2 Soils
The portion of Burke County within which the project area lies (NRCS map panel C-6) has been
mapped by NRCS under the currently provisional (unpublished) soil survey. Official soil series
descriptions were also obtained by the NRCS (USDA: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd). A brief
description of unofficial soil types observed during field investigation is as follows:
unison fine sandy loam (to 8 percent slopes) (1UnB) is a very deep and well-drained soil found
on mountain footslopes and stream terraces. Unison fine sandy loam has a moderate
permeability and medium to rapid surface runoff. Lnison fine sandy loams underlie moderately
sloping land surfaces within the western portion of the project area. Unison fine sandy loam is not
listed as a hydric soil of Burke County (USDA, 1999).
Colvard sandy loam 40-8 percent clopas) (CA) is a very deep, well-drained, and occasionally
NCDOT Page 4 02/1&2002
r
TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
flooded soil formed in floodplains in southern Appalachian Mountains. Colvard sandy loam has a
slow surface runoff and moderately rapid permeability. Colvard sandy loams underlie the
floodplain of East Prong Creek and gently sloping land surfaces adjoining the floodplain within the
project area. This soil unit is not listed as a hydric soil of Burke County; however, it is listed as a
soil unit that typically contains inclusions of Hatboro hydric soils (USDA, 1999).
• Fairview candy clay loam (8 to 15 and 15 to 25 percent clopes) (FaC2 FaD ) is a very deep, well-
-- - -drained, and eroded found-mfidges-and-bask-slopes at 300-to-1,?©0-feel(91 to 42Tmeters)
Fairview sandy clay loam has a medium to very rapid surface runoff and moderate permeability.
Fairview sandy clay loams underlie moderately sloping to steep land surfaces within the eastern
portion of the project area. Fairview sandy clay loam is not listed as a hydric soil of Burke County
(USDA, 1999).
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
A perennial stream, East Prong Hunting Creek, comprises the single water resource within the
project area (Figure 2). The portion of East Prong Hunting Creek flowing through the project area is
located within the Catawba River Drainage Basin. The Catawba River watershed encompasses 3,279
square miles (8,493 square kilometers).
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050101 (the Upper Catawba drainage basin). Under the
North Carolina DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as Subbasin 03-08-31 (the Warrior Fork, Johns River, and Rhodhiss Lake Subbasin).
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ). The assigned best usage classification reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the named streams to
which they flow.
The single water resource located in the project area, East Prong Hunting Creek, is designated as
DWQ Stream Index Number 11-36-1. East Prong Hunting Creek in the project vicinity has been assigned
a primary water resource classification of "WS-IV". Class "WS-IV" refers to water supplies used for drinking
and culinary purposes. These waters are found in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
NCDOT Pape 5 02/151002
w
TIP 8-4047
NATURAL F ;OURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
CZ,
JAL
` - \ . ??1- -- -
[MORGANTON SOUTHI
? ' • e 1 I 'i .i kp 2,000• 4,000' ? • •jg,{I}1?., : •' `
•r 1 r•. 7 / .l? Wpi •\?.
?' \' /'\, } : °r •` ?s??xr • 1° SCALE: 1"-2,000' a,.??`/?-?., i • ?•. ? ? ? ' I i 21 • -..?•?? r ..? /,'N C-+?.•?.; . ••. `fie.
?'•' `?• •???? ••'•.-, • • `? /V,7r • •?.. •• .. ?? .146
.. •`. 1096 • A:.. ' i•• 1 ?• .? .• ..w . r:. .. ;,: • ' ?.
\•.O ?rL ??• ?•r°?Vrory Vrw 1r+4 ?, •• ? •? 'J !-'? •,/' 'r•?`/`'??•y? 1?..?, "t. G•
yt+ • i
-;, ? ? t • ??.? / °` • ? (/\ Qo ?+, I \ ° ":''?"""' .? ?/) (lam,/
ate
lp ` 1 \r •.
y/'?, ((,•V?\, • ) 17 •. f `i It I • X1iQemo i r i // Il/ x` t II\ r
X Q',
WATER RESOURCES AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
SR 1972 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
` OVER EAST PRONG HUNTING CREEK (TIP B-4047) FIGURE 2
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from USGS Morganton South 7.5-minute Quadrangle, 1995)
NCDOT Pape 6 02115,
i r
TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the project area. These findings are based on review of the most
recently updated state-maintained databases as made available through the date of preparation of this
report.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters
As previously discussed, East Prong Hunting Creek comprises the single water resource within
-_the- project-area-The-proposed--project-crosses-East-Pxong_Hunting Creek-on-SR 1972-approximately A9_
mile (1.5 kilometers) southeast of Morganton. East Prong Hunting Creek is approximately 15 feet (4.6
meters) wide within the project area, with observed depths ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 feet (0.2 to 0.5 meter)
at the time of field investigation. Water levels appeared to be at or near the ordinarily high water level at
the time of investigation.
The substrate of East Prong Hunting Creek in the project area is comprised of sediments ranging
in size from fine sand to cobbles. The stream within the project area is relatively straight and appears to
exhibit a relatively simple trapezoidal cross-section. No sand bars or channel meanders were observed.
A shallow scour pool (approximately 1.5 feet (0.5 meter) in depth) occurs beneath and immediately
upstream of the bridge
The left and right stream banks (both upstream and downstream of the bridge), although steep,
are fairly well vegetated and exhibit indicators of low to moderate erosion. Approximately 20 feet (6.1
meters) of the right stream bank (looking upstream) immediately south of the bridge is armored with riprap
where a 12 inch (30 centimeters) corrugated metal pipe outlets to the stream bank. The stream banks are
comprised of unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of alluvial and colluvial origin.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area. Potential sediment
loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and nonpoint sources are evaluated.
Water quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing general
watershed characteristics. This data provides insight into the value of the water resources within the
project area with respect to their ability to meet human needs and to provide suitable habitat for aquatic
organisms.
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa of intolerant groups
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera or "EPT") present and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection is also
calculated for the sample. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic
index and EPT taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
NCDOT Pape 7 0211642002

TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
No previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on East Prong
Hunting Creek within the project area or upstream of the project within the project vicinity,
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges
Point source discharge is defined-as "any-discharge.-that entem-surface_waters through a lv,:Pe,
ditch, or any other well-defined point" (NCDEHNR, 1993). The term commonly refers to discharge;
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Discharges from stormwater collection systems at industrial
sites and in large urban areas are also considered point source discharges. Point source discharges
within North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any point source discharger is required to apply for a permit.
No registered point discharges are located within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area
(EPA, 2001).
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt (NCDEHNR, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint
sources pollution in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal waste can be transported to receiving streams and waterways via runoff - potentially
elevating concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be the source of
bacterial contamination and can elevate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils can contribute to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surface waters
(NCDEHNR, 1993).
Under the NC Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) program, the Upper Catawba River
Hydrologic Unit (03050101), within which the project area is located, is classified by DWQ as a UWA
Category "if" watershed for nonpoint source pollution. Under this classification, the watershed is identified
as a watershed "meeting goals, including those needing action to sustain water quality" (NCDENR, 2000).
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream
banks, removal of riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of
revegetation operations, and installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources
are likely to result from the aforementioned construction activities:
Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project area during and immediately following construction.
Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
NCDOT Page 8 0211512002
t t
TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
vegetation removal.
Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface
water and groundwater during construction.
Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed
land surfaces.
A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum
products) from construction equipment and other vehicles.
------ ?- Changes in -and---possible destabilization -of water -temperature-regimes--due- lo-removal- of -
vegetation within or overhanging the watercourse.
Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during
the construction phase of the project (NCDOT, 1997). Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing
construction methods that will limit instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the streambed
as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading. Because
the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) trout county, the
NCWRC may require a moratorium for instream construction from November to March.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the biotic communities observed within the project area, as well as the
basic relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. Biotic resources assessed as part
of this investigation include discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities within the project area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities
and are classified in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to
inhabit or utilize biotic communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also
discussed. Species observed during field investigation are listed.
3A Biotic Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the
project area, making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Five discernable terrestrial communities
are located within the project area (Figure 3). Four of these communities have been altered to the extent
that they cannot be classified as a natural vegetation community under the Classification of Natural
Communities of North Carolina. These altered communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way
communities, (2) landscaped areas, (3) cropland, and (4) successional sapling and scrub/shrub
communities. The remaining community with in the project area retains enough of its natural
characteristics as to be classifiable under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina as a
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. In addition to the aforementioned terrestrial components, the
NCDOT Pape 9 0211512002
1? V
TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
aquatic community associated with East Prong Hunting Creek was assessed within the project area.
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities
These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR 1972 (Communities No. 1
of Figure 3). Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession through
mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices. It is estimated that 0.52 acre (0.21
hectareyof-this_co nmunity_exists.within the-project area-
No woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered rights-of-way
communities of the project area. Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation
include common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), common plantain
(Plantago major), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisil), dandelion (Taraxacum
otficinale), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), white clover (Trifolium repens), and unidentified
grasses (Poaceae).
3.1.2 Landscaped Areas
This community consists of cleared, landscaped, and vegetatively managed areas around a
residential dwelling located in the southwest quadrant of the project area (Community No. 2 of Figure 3).
These communities are underlain by well-drained Colvard sandy loams and Fairview sandy clay loams. It
is estimated that 0.65 acre (0.26 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
Dominant plant species observed at the time of site investigation include scrub pine (Pious
virginiana), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), assorted cultivars,
unidentified grasses (Poaceae), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), common plantain (Plantago major), and
common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
3.1.3 Cropland
These communities consist of a recently tilled field in the northwest quadrant of the project area
and a recently harvested hay field located in the southwest quadrant of the project area (Communities No.
3 of Figure 3). These communities occur on gently to moderately sloping land surfaces adjacent to a very
narrow tloodplain terrace, which separates the croplands from East Prong Hunting Creek. These
communities are underlain by well-drained Colvard sandy loams and Fairview sandy clay loams. It is
estimated that 0.93 acre (0.38 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
Other pioneer or opportunistic species observed in and around the edges of the cropland at the
time of field investigation include blackberry (Rubus sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), common
plantain (Plantago major), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), bitter nightshade (Solanum
dulcamara), red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus),
foxtail grass (Setarla sp.), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans).
NCDOT Page 10 0211512002
rim
m m r m w m r r r r r r r r m? r r r

TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.4 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities
This community occurs in the northwest quadrant of the project area, between the right-of-way of
SR 1972 and landscaped open areas to the north (Community No. 4 of Figure 3). The first successional
sapling and scrub/shrub community occurs along a narrow band (less than 20 feet (6.1 meters) wide), and
appears to be the remnant of a once-larger natural forested community. This community is underlain by
well-drained Colvard sandy loams exhibiting high chromas. It is estimated that 0.14 acre (0.06 hectare) of
this community exists within the project area.
The first successional sapling and scrub/shrub community, as mapped, supports only several
mature trees. Tree species occurring within this community include black walnut (Juglans nigra), silver
maple (Acer saccharinum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), black locust
saplings (Robinia pseudo-acacia), hickory saplings (Carya spp.), scrub pine saplings (Pinus virginiana),
and white oak saplings (Quercus alba). Shrub species occurring within this community include smooth
sumac (Rhus g/abra), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and blackberry
(Rebus sp.). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtish), asters (Aster sp.), Joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium fistulosum), violets (Viola sp.), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), and unidentified grasses
(Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
3.1.5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This community occurs along the banks and floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek in all four
quadrants of the project area (Communities No. 5 of Figure 3). It is estimated that 0.33 acre (0.13 hectare)
of this community exists within the project area. The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest occurs upon a
gently sloping floodplain terrace perched approximately 3.5 to 5.5 feet (1.1 to 1.7 meters) above the
stream bed. The terrace is largely underlain by well-drained Colvard sandy loams exhibiting relatively high
chromas but, where poorly drained conditions or semi-permanent flooding prevail, hydric soil inclusions
are observed. Portions of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest underlain by these hydric soils have
been mapped as wetlands and are discussed in section 4.1 of this report.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of
site investigation include black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickories (Carya
spp.), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), black willow (Sa/ix nigre), pecan
(Carya illinoensis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Dominant sapling and
shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), boxwood (Buxus sp.), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include pokeweed (Phyto/acca americana),
frost aster (Aster pilosus), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtish), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
violets (Viola sp.), creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), river oats
(Chasmanthium latifolium), dayflower (Commelina communis), galactia (Galactic volubilis), and Joe-pye-
NCDOT Page 12 02/162002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
weed (Eupatorium fistulosum). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis), Canada moonseed (Menispermum canadense), and
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
Wetlands Component: The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest contains several narrow bands
of wetlands that are generally less than 10 feet (3.0 meters) wide. These bands of wetlands occur along
the lower and middle stream banks of &.:;t Prong Hunting Creek and upon several small (several hundred
square feet each) terraces perched approximately 1.0 foot (0.3 meter) above the stream bed. These
wetlands bands are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation including box elder (Ater negundo), river birch
(Betula nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore saplings (Platanus occidentalis), silky dogwood
(Comas amomum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentafis), multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), green ash saplings (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black raspberry (Rubus sp.), dewberry
(Rubus hispidus), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), orange jewelweed
(impatiens capensis), creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum), violets (Viola sp.), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisil), dayflower (Commelina communis), sedges (Carex sp.),
clearweed (Pilea pumila), arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), dotted smartweed (Po/ygonum
punctatum), riverside grape (Vitis riparia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). The soils underlying the
wetlands are comprised of (1) a thin layer (generally less than 4.0 inches (10 centimeters)) of gleyed to
weakly mottled gravelly sands over cobbles and boulders or (2) a 6.0 to 8.0 inch (15 to 20 centimeter)
layer of weakly to moderately mottled clayey silty sands along lower stream banks. These soils were
saturated within the upper 8.0 inches (20 centimeters) at the time of investigation. The wetlands also
exhibited sediment deposits and drift lines.
3.1.6 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area
Most of the communities within the project vicinity have been altered or affected by man's
activities to varying degrees. Due to forest tract fragmentation common to the project region, species that
require large contiguous tracts of forests are not likely to utilize the site on a normal basis. Certain
opportunistic wildlife species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmots
monax), and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilegus tforidanus), can be expected to utilize edge habitat
present within the project area. Due to the relatively small size of the project area and the fact that many
wildlife species are capable of moving between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct
terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one terrestrial plant community within the project area.
No mammals were observed in the project vicinity at the time of field investigation; however tracks
of raccoon (Procyon lotor) were observed, Although not observed, other mammals common to the project
region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of the project area include: Virginia oposs +-n
(Didelphis virginians), shrews and moles (insectivore), gray squirrel (Sciurus calafinensis), beaver (Cs -r
canadensis), eastern harvest mouse (Relthrodontomys humulis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttellJ , hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern woodrat
(Neotoma florldens), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvenicus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegkus), house mouse
NCDOT Page 13 02/1552002
of TIP 6-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

(Mus musculus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus
insignis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), black bear (Ursus americanus),
long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), and bobcat (Felis rufus).
The scrub/shrub community on the project site provides limited but suitable habitat and forage
areas for a variety of birds. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migretorius), mockingbird (Mimus polygloftos), and cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis). Songs and/or calls of the following birds were also noted within the project vicinity
at the time of field investigation: eastern phoebe (Sayomis phoebe), American goldfinch (Cardnelis tristis),
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor),
and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus). A wide variety of resident and migratory songbirds can be expected
to periodically utilize forested tracts immediately to the east of the project area. The open landscaped
areas and the croplands within the project vicinity provide probable hunting grounds for birds of prey, such
as hawks and owls.
No reptiles were observed on the project site at the time of field investigation. A variety of reptile
species may, however, use the communities located in the project area. These animals include the rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus). Several adult green frogs (Rana clamftans) were observed along East Prong Hunting Creek.
Fish species are discussed in following sections. Terrestrial insects observed in the project area include
organpipe mud daubers (Tryploxylon sp.) and West Virginia white butterflies (Lycaena phlaeas).
3.1.7 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community of the project area consists of East Prong Hunting Creek below the
ordinary high water line. Dominant aquatic habitats within this section of East Prong Hunting Creek
include cobble/boulder substrate, snags, and root mats. The surveyed area contains well-defined riffle
and run habitat and a wide variety of pools. Riffles within the project area are as wide as the stream and
extend distances equivalent to at least twice the width of the stream. Several of the pools were being
used as fish breeding habitat. Embeddedness was 20 to 40 percent at the time of field investigation. The
riparian vegetation zone was 20 to 40 feet (6.0 to 12 meters) on both banks.
3.1.7.1 Flora
A single buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) was the only aquatic vegetation observed below
the ordinary high water line of East Prong Hunting Creek at the time of field investigation. A narrow band
(generally less than 10 feet (3.0 meters) wide) of hydrophytic vegetation occurs along the lower to middle
portions of the stream banks. This hydrophytic vegetation is discussed as a component of the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest of section 3.1.5.
3.1.7.2 Fauna
Aquatic or water-dependent vertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field
NCDOT Page 14 02/15/2002
w
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL RE11ORT
investigation include the following: green frogs (Rana clamitans), greenhead shiners in breerf-q colors
(Notropis chlorocephalus), numerous unidentified juvenile finfish, and unidentified minnows (( -inidae).
Aquatic or water-dependent invertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation
include the following: crayfish (Cambaridae), numerous gilled snails (Pleuroceridae), caddisfly larvae
(Hydropsychidae), abundant mayfly larvae (Heptageniidae), water striders (Gerridae), and midges
(Chironomidae).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species, thereby
diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the project area concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation, and starvation.
Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. The increased traffic noise and reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other
wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by construction
activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species. However, the increased animal density can
result in an increase in competition for the remaining resources.
Construction of the project will result in certain unavoidable impacts to biotic resources within the
project area. Following development of project alternatives, temporary and permanent impacts will be
assessed from the perspective of impact areas (the acres or hectares of affected biotic communities) and
from the perspective of resource functions and values, where possible. Impacts to the previously
identified communities will not exceed those acreages stated in their respective sections. Practicable
means to avoid or minimize impacts will be evaluated and recommended, where applicable. Temporary
impacts will be subject to restoration.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
The replacement of the bridge over East Prong Hunting Creek at SIR 1972 (TIP Number B-4047)
will result in certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic community of the creek. Probable impacts will be
associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic aquatic habitat and water column habitat
disturbances resulting from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of stream
segments can have an adverse effect on aquatic community composition by redLcing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the
following impacts to aquatic communities:
Inhibition of plant growth.
NCDOT Peps 15 02/152002

TIP B-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation, which can lead to increased
nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of
dissolved oxygen levels.
Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of feeding
structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
Increases inseasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project
area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable
guidelines pertaining to best management practices. Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing
construction methods that will limit instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the streambed
as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas and species and an assessment of
possible impacts for (1) waters of the United States and (2) rare and protected species. Waters of the
United States and rare and protected species are of particular significance when assessing impacts
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address
those measures that will be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project
construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Certain surface waters considered significant to interstate commerce and wetlands adjacent to
these waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" (as defined in codified federal
regulation 33 CFR 328.3). The discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States is
regulated by the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Regulated surface waters typically consist of standing or flowing waters that have
commercial and/or recreational value to the general public. As a category of waters of the United States,
wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions".
To determine whether wetlands exist within the project area, vegetation, soils, and hydrology were
assessed using criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical
Report Y-87-1). As specified in the Manual, wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology - all three of which must be present for an area to meet
the federal definition of a wetland.
NCDOT Page 16 02/15,2002
1
G
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL RE'P'ORT
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected
Temporarily flooded/saturated, broad-leaf deciduous, forested palustrine wetlands (PF01A of
USFWS classification) have been mapped within the project area under the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) program. These forested wetlands occur as narrow bands (generally less than 10 feet (3.0 meters)
wide) of hydrophytic vegetation along the lower to middle portions of the stream banks and on several
small terraces. This hydrophytic vegetation is associated with seasonally saturated, gleyed and/or mottled
soils, and is discussed as _a component of the successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities of section
3.1.5. It is estimated that 0.08 acre (0,03 hectare) of wetlands occurs within the project area.
Despite the fact that the stream bank wetlands are located adjacent to a perennial waterway, their
relatively steep slopes and limited extent limit certain of their values. Utilizing NCDENR's Guidance for
Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the stream bank wetlands within the project area have been
estimated to have the following ratings for values assessed. 8 of 20 for water storage, 12 of 20 for
bank/shoreline stabilization, 10 of 25 for pollutant removal, 6 of 10 for wildlife habitat, 16 of 20 for aquatic life
value, and 2 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total rating of 54.
Although not depicted as such on the NWI map for the Morganton South 7.5-minute quadrangle, the
portion of East Prong Hunting Creek flowing through the project area is a permanently flooded, upper
perennial riverine habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R3UBH of USFWS classification). Two hundred
feet (61 meters) of waters of the United States exist within the project area.
4.1.2 Permits
Fused on wetland field indicators observed at the time of field investigation, waters of the United
States, including wetlands, subject to regulation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the North
Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification program have been delineated and mapped within the proposed
project area, Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated to occur as a result of project
construction, As a result, proposed construction activities will require permits and certifications from the
various state and federal regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
Based on past experience with similar actions, if non-tidal wetland impacts at each bridge crossing
are less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) and none of the activities jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, the action would be
considered a Class 11 Action as defined under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.115(b). As a Class 11 Action,
bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion as defined
under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.117.
As a categorically excluded Class tl Action and a public linear transportation project in non-tidal
waters, bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement impacting less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of
waters of the United States at a stream crossing could be authorized under the provisions of a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide 23 Permit for Categorical Exclusions or a Nationwide 14 Permit for Linear
Transportation Projects, respectively. The proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county,
NCDOT Page 17 02/152002

TIP 8.4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
therefore, authorization of the project by the COE under the provisions of a nationwide or individual permit is
conditional on concurrence of the NCWRC.
If the proposed work cumulatively impacts more that one-half acre of non-tidal waters of the United
States, an Individual Permit may be required at the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unless
authorization is granted under the provisions of Department of the Army General Permit Number 198200031
(for NCDOT bridge crossings). If the proposed work involves greater than 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare) of wetland
impacts, the Corps could not make a discretionary determination regarding Nationwide Permit applicability
nor could the General Permit option be exercised and, therefore, an Individual Permit would be mandatory.
In addition to the aforementioned permit requirements, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will
be required for the project prior to issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit. Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification
allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
disturbance. A DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuance of a
Section 404 Individual Permit.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The bridge addressed under TIP Number B-4047 is located on SR 1972 over East Prong Hunting
Creek in Burke County. The possibility exists that demolition materials (such as asphalt, concrete rubble,
portions of the deck timbers, etc.) could be inadvertently dropped into waters of the United States during
bridge demolition. Should this occur, such materials would be removed from waters of the United States
as soon as possible, where conditions allow. The resulting temporary fill associated with bridge demolition
will be determined later.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The 14 December 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Department of
the Army on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sets forth the policy and procedures to be
used in the determination of the type and level of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the MOA is to Implement the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including wetlands. As
part of the MOA, a project assessment procedure is set forth requiring a sequential assessment of (1)
impact avoidance, (2) impact minimization, and (3) compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Adherence to sequencing during project planning and design stages is intended to assist in attaining a
goal of no net overall loss of wetland functions and values.
The impact avoidance stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all appropriate
and practicable alternatives for avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. Cost, existing technology,
significant adverse environmental consequences to other resources, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes are considered in identifying "appropriate and practicable" avoidance alternatives.
NCDOT Page 18 0211 d?2002
R
„ r
TIP 6-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
The impact minimization stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all
measures that would minimize unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States to the fullest degree
practicable. The final determination regarding the availability of practicable minimization measures lies
with the reviewing regulatory agencies and, if it is determined that additional minimization measures are
available, such measures will be required through project modifications and/or permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time that it has been
demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable measures for
minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design. Compensatory mitigation
includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation. Where possible,
mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed as near to the impacted area as conditions
allow. Compensatory mitigation is conventionally required for projects authorized under individual Permits
or certain Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) of all
wetlands and/or 150 feet (46 meters) of streams within or adjacent to tidal waters. Under the nationwide
permit program, the District Engineer must be notified if proposed discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.1
acre (0.04 hectare), Discharges to wetlands exceeding 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare), for which authorization
under a Nationwide Permit 14 is being sought, require submittal of compensatory mitigation plan as part of
the Notification.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely
affect a species listed as a federally protected threatened or endangered species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species (such as state-listed threatened or
endangered species) may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the USFWS lists 6
federally protected species for Burke County (Table 1). Brief descriptions of the characteristics and
habitat requirements for these species are provided in Appendix A. A review the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats indicates no occurrences of
federally protected species in the project area. An unknown Hexastylis sp. was observed within the
project area during the field investigation, but. the field investigation was performed outside the flowering
period for Hexastylis. Consequently, the biological conclusion for Hexastylis naniflore is "Unresolved".
NCDOT Page 19 0211512002
Y ,
TIP 8.4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1 able 1. t-eaerally vrotecteo bpecleS Tor t5urKe L ounty
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Threatened
Lietris helleri Heller's Blazing Star Threatened
Hudsonia montane Mountain Golden Heather Threatened
lsotria medeoloides Small-whorled Pogonia Threatened
Note:
. "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
. "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. ?y
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 12 federal species of concern in Burke County (Table 2). Federal species of concern are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of the provisions included
in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The status of these
species is subject to change, so their status should be periodically monitored prior to project construction
if individuals or suitable habitat is present within the project area. In addition to the federal program,
organisms that are listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program on its list of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979.
Table 2 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. This species list is provided for
information purposes, as the protection status of these species may change in the future.
The NCNHP database of rare and unique habitat (as updated through January 2001) was
reviewed. The database shows no occurrences of federal species of concern (FSC) within 0.6 mile (1.0
kilometer) of the project area. Determinations regarding the presence of suitable FSC habitat, as
indicated in Table 2, were based on site conditions observed at the time of field investigation and search
of published literature.
NCDOT Page 20 0211512002
f
TIP B-4047
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Burke County
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Scientific Name
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Neotoma magister
Alasmidonta varicosa
Ophiogomphus edmundo
Ophiogomphus howei
Speyeria diana
Juglans cinerea
Monotropis odorata
Saxifraga caroliniana
Cephaloziella obtusilobula
Plagiochila sullivandi var. spinigera
Common Name NC Habitat
Present
_5.1?
4tS
Southern Appalachian Woodrat _
_
.
--- No
Allegheny Woodrat --- No
Brook Floater T Yes
Edmund's Snaketail Dragonfly SR Yes
Pygmy Snaketail Dragonfly SR Yes
Diana Fritillary Butterfly SR Yes
Butternut --- No
Sweet Pinesap C No
Carolina saxifrage C. No
a Liverwort C. No
a Liverwort Cr No
Notes:
E An "Endangered " species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's
flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
T A "Threatened" species is any native or once native species that is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act.
C A'"Candidate" is any species that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
SR A "Significantly Rare" species is not listed as "E", "T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
NCDOT Page 21 02/152002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
264pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide
Planning Program. December 1999. Catawba River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Accessed September 2001.
hip'l!}j o nr_state.n?- Iba?jXiwid .;c t b? , manag m n3 olan_htm,
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. Raleigh, North Carolina. (as updated through 2 February
2000).
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information
Management System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: Catawba River. Accessed 10
September 2001.
http-1jh o-enr.state nc. ,/himsirepp[tsLbas'nsandwaterbo?jeglLjydrol .ataw df,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management 1993. Classifications of Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins,
Raleigh, North Carolimna.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth
Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of surface
Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999, Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Element Occurrence Search Report: Burke County,
North Carolina. . Updated July 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G.Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
NCDOT Pape 22 02115/2002
w
TIP B-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Prod: am, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, Memo to USACE
district from Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., 6 March 1992, signed
by MG Arthur E. Williams, Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. 1996. NRCS National Hydric Soils List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Hydric Soils, Burke
County, North Carolina. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2. June 1999.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Updated through July 2001. Soil
Survey of Burke County, North Carolina. (unpublished).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(OSD). http,//wwA,atatia ,'astate.ediilsoilslosd. Accessed 21 September 2001.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Morganton South 7.5-minute
Quadrangle, North Carolina,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services, 2001.
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Burke County. Updated 22 March 2001.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Morganton South, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute
series).
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
NCDOT Pape 23 02/1Y2002
TIP 8-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A
Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in Burke County, North Carolina
NCOOT OZIM2002
TIP 8-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: Endangered, 1967; Threatened, 1995
Characteristics:
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail with a dark brown
body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the majestic white head and tail until the
fifth or sixth year. Fish are the primary food source but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and
turtles (both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about three feet from head to tail,
weigh approximately 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) and have a wingspread that can reach 7.0 feet (2.1
meters). Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Distribution:
Breeds primarily in eastern third of Texas (mostly east of 1-35); winters wherever open water occurs.
Habitat:
Quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees. Man-made reservoirs have provided excellent habitat
Bald Eagles In North Carolina:
In 1982, there were zero bald eagle nests in North Carolina. In 1998, there were 17 nests; in 2000, there were 34
nests. Several new nests have been located so far during the 2001 nesting season. The Bald Eagle's recovery has
lead to a proposal for de-listing the bald eagle from the EndangeredfThreatened Species List.
Threats to Species:
The decline of the Bald Eagle coincided with the introduction of the pesticide DDT in 1947. Birds of prey at the top of the
food chain, such as eagles, ingested relatively high levels of the pesticide, which was concentrated in the fatty tissues of
their prey. Eagles contaminated with DDT failed to lay eggs or produced thin eggshells that broke during Incubation. In
1972, DDT was banned in the United States, and a slow recovery for the Bald Eagle began. Loss of nesting habitat due
to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways also has resulted in decreasing numbers of Said
Eagles.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) adults have white heads and tails, a dark brownish black body, with yellow
bill, eyes and feet. Immature species are variable in plumage but generally have dark brown blotchy head tail and
bodies, brownish bill, yellow feet and pale yellow-gray eyes. They are normally found near water, but during
migration may occur in any part of the state. Their size is approximately 3 feet (0.9 meter). long with a 7 feet (2.1
meters). wingspan.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 12 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Page A-1 021151002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Spreading Avens (Geum radiatum) Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Characteristics:
Spreading avons is a perennial herb. Spreading avens is topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright yellow
flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise from horizontal
rhizomes. Plant stems grow 7.9 to 19.7 inches (20.0 to 50.0 centimeters) tall. Floworing occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
Distribution:
The species is restricted to a few, scattered mountaintops in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Spreading evens was originally known from 16 sites, and 11 of these sites still support populations. Three of the
remaining spreading evens populations are in Ashe County, North Carolina. Two others are situated on the Mitchell
County, North Carollna/Carter County, Tennessee line; and on the Avery/Watauga County line in North Carolina.
One population each remains in Avery, Transylvania, Watauga, Burke, and Yancey Counties, North Carolina. Seven
of these 11 evens sites have less than 50 plants each. In fact, three of the seven sites support less than 10
individuals.
Habitat:
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
/rased). Heller's blazing star (l_ietris belled) and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithemaea), both federally-listed
as threatened species, are also present at some sites. The substrate at all the population sites is composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks (Massey, et al., 1980; Morgan, 1980; Kral, 1983;
Department of the Interior, 1990).
Threat to Species:
The species is being seriously impacted by recreational and residential development. Their population sites occur on
open mountain summits, which are prime areas for recreational facilities. The construction of trails, parking lots,
roads, buildings, observation platforms, and other facilities, combined with the increased foot traffic from sightseers,
has already severely decreased populations. Eight of the remaining 11 spreading avens populations face increasing
impacts from soil compaction, soil erosion, and trampling. In addition, the spruce/fir forests surrounding these
species' populations are suffering from airborne pollution and an exotic insect pest, the balsam woody aphid. It is not
known as yet how the decline of these forests will affect the species. Scientists speculate that the moist habitat
required by both species may become drier. It's already known that spreading evens individuals located on dry sites
usually fail to produce seeds. Also, because of the plants' low numbers and the scarcity of their habitat, there may be
little genetic adaptability within populations. The species also faces threats from collection, natural succession
(becoming over-shaded and crowded by other woody species), and natural events such as rockslides.
References:
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 5, 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Determination of Endangered Status for Geum radiatum and Hedyotis purpurea var, montane.
Federal Register, 55:66:12793-12797.
Kral, Robert. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest- Related Vascular Plants of the
South. USDA Forest Service Tech. Publication. R8-TP2. 600-603 and 1074-1077.
Massey, J.P. Whitson, and T. Atkinson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Survey of 12 Species In the
Eastern Part of Region IV. USFWS Contract 14-160004-78-108. Report.
Morgan, S. 1980. Species Status Summary for Geum radiatum Michaux: Species General Information System:
Species, Population, Habitat, and Threat Inventory.
Terrell, E. 1978. Taxonomic Notes on Houstonle purpurea var. montane (Rubiaceae). Castanea. 43.25-29.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Spreading evens (Geum radiatum), of the rose family, is the clerized by stems < 20 inches tall (2 to 5
decimeters tall) and an Indefinite cyme of large bright yellow flowers. Leaves are most t -isal, with large terminal
lobes and small laterals arise from horizontal rhizomes. The flowers occur from June to .?eptember. They are found
in the Southern Blue Ride Mountains on (1) high elevations cliffs, rock crevices, and steep slopes in full sunlight with
soil composed of thin gravelly soils or (2) grassy balds near summit outcrops on high elevations from 4,200 to 6,300
feet (1,280 to 1,920 meters) and In the vicinity adjacent to sprucetfir forest (red spruce [Picea rubens) and Fraser fir
[Abies fraserfj).
NCDOT Page A-2 02/152002
TIP B-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 12 July 2001. Spreading avens is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 4,200 to 6,300 feet
(1,280 to 1,920 meters). The maximum elevation of 1,080 feet (329 meters) within the project area is considered too
low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations. or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Pepe A-3 0211612002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCE'S TECHNICAL REPORT
Dwarf Flower Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: April 14, 1989
Characteristics:
This species has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexastylis. The flowers of most
individuals are less than 0.4 inch (1 centimeter) long, and their sepal tubes are narrow, never more than 0,2 to 0.3
inch (0.6 to 0.7 centimeter) wide even in flower, Flower color usually ranges from beige to dark brown; sometimes it
is greenish or purplish. The flowers are jug-shaped, and the plant's dark green leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen,
and leathery, Plant stalks are long and thin, originating from an underground root. Another name for this species is
dwarf-flowered wild ginger.
Distribution:
Found in the upper piedmont regions of South Carolina and North Carolina.
Habitat:
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent
to creekheads and streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the most important habitat
requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and
survive. Provided the soil type is right, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For maximum
flowering, the plant needs sunlight in early spring. Creekheads where shrubs are rare and bluffs with light gaps are
the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is lowest in bluff populations
with a lot of shade.
Threats to Species:
Timber harvesting, urbanization, conversion from woodlands to pasture, reservoir construction, pond construction,
trash, and insecticide use are threatening the remaining populations. The eight populations in Greenville, South
Carolina are all endangered by residential, industrial, and commercial expansion. The largest population in South
Carolina (1,400 plants) once contained over 4,000 plants, but this population was reduced by reservoir construction
in Spartanburg. Any use of insecticides in or around plant populations could reduce flies, thrips, and ants, thus
reducing the plant's reproductive capacity.
References:
Blomquist, H.L. 1957. A Revision of Hexastylis of North America. Brittonia 8255-281.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 71. April 14, 1989. Pp,
14964-14967.
Gaddy, L.L. 1980. Status Report on Hexastylis naniflora Blomquist. Unpublished Report Prepared Under Contract to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1981. The Status of Hexastylis naniflora Blomquist in North Carolina. Unpublished Report Prepared
Under Contract to the Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 63 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1987. "A Review of the Taxonomy and Biogeography of Hexastylis (Aristolochiaceae)". Castanea
52(3)186-196. September 1987,
Otte, D.K.S. 1977. The Pollination Ecology Hexastylis arifolia and Hexastylis minor in the Area of Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. M.A. Thesis 79 pp.
Rayner, D.A. at al. 1979, Native Vascular Plants Endangered, Threatened, or Otherwise in Jeopardy in South
Carolina. S.C. Museum Commission Bulletin No. 4. Columbia, S.C,
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Dwarf flower heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) is a member of the birthwort family (Aristolochiaceae). They have
leathery evergreen leaves, which are dark green and heart shaped; and long, thin stalks that originate from an
underground stem. Flowers are jug-shaped, beige to dark brown, and 0.4 Inch (1 centimeter) long, with narrow sepal
tubes around 0.3 inch (0.7 centimeter) wide (flower is sometimes greenish or purplish). It flowers from mid March to
early June. They are found in acidic sandy loam soils; along bluffs and nearby slopes, hillsides, and ravines; and In
boggy areas adjacent to creek heads and streams. The soil types are Pacolet, Madison, or Musella. They need
sunlight for maximum seed production.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
NCOOT Page A-4 02/152002
TIP B-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
investigated on 12 July 2001. An unknown Hexastylis sp. was observed within the project area during the field
investigation. The field investigation was performed outside the flowering period for Hexastylis. Consequently, the
biological conclusion for Hexastylis nani/lora is "Unresolved".
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
NCDOT Page A-5 02/15,2002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Mountain Golden Heather (Hudsonia montane) Threatened
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually
grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches (10.2 to 20.3 centimeters) across and about 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) across. The plants have the general aspect of a
big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch (0.6 centimeter) long;
and the plant is often somewhat yellow-green In color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years appear
scale-like and persist on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow, nearly 1 inch
(2.5 centimeters) across, with 5 blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch (13
centimeters) stalks, and are roundish with 3 projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after opening, and
may be seen at any time of the year.
Distribution:
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to
1,219 meters). Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, Mountain golden heather has since been
found at several other sites in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites are on public land within the Pisgah
National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from several localities within its range with the total number of
plants possibly numbering 2,000 to 2,500. Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic.
Habitat:
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Leiophyllum
dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some time in the partial shade of pines,
but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
Critical Habitat:
Burke County. The area bounded by the following: on the west by the 2,200-foot contour; on the east by the Linville
Gorge Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2,200-foot contour and the Short Off Mountain Trail to
where it intersects the 3,400-foot contour at the "Chimneys", then follow the 3,400-foot contour north until it re-
intersects with the Wilderness Boundary, then follow the Wilderness Boundary again northward until it intersects the
3200-foot contour extending west from its intersection with the Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south, at
this point the Boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2,200-foot contour. (The Woods Mountain sites were
unknown at the time Critical Habitat was designated.)
Threats to Species:
Fire suppression and trampling. Recreational use by hikers and campers has resulted in a loss of plants due to
trampling and soil compaction. Competition with other shrubs has also reduced size and vigor of populations. The
small size and number of populations increases the plant's vulnerability to extinction through both natural and man-
made factors.
References:
Morse, Larry E. 1979. Report on the Conservation Status of Hudsonia montane, A Candidate Endangered Species.
Prepared by the Cooperative Parks Study Unit of the New York Botanical Garden. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Mountain Golden Heather Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlanta, Georgia. 26 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montane) is a member of the rockrose family (Cistaceae) that is characterized
as a small needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers nearly 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) across and long-staked fruit
capsules. It is usually growing in clumps 4 to 8 inches (10.2 to 20.3 centimeters) across and 6 inches (15.2
centimeters) high. The flowers are made up of 5 blunt tipped petals, and flowering occurs from mid-June to July.
Non-flowering plants resemble large moss or small juniper with leaves about 0.25 Inch (0.6 centimeter) long and
somewhat yellow-green in color. Fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks that are roundish with three
projecting points at the Ups. They are found in exposed quartzite ledges at elevations from 2,200 to 3,400 feet (671
to 1,036 meters), between bare rock and sand myrtle-dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The
plant can persist for some time in the partial shade of pines to open areas.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed In
NCDOT Pape A-6 02/152002
TIP 8-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 12 July 2001. Mountain Golden Heather is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 2,800 to
4,000 feet (853 to 1,219 meters). The maximum elevation of 1,080 feet (329 meters) within the project area is
considered too low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were
observed within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Pape A-7 02/1&2002
TIP 0-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: October 6, 1994
Characteristics:
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem 3.7 to 9.8 inches (9.5 to
25 centimeters) tall terminating in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and
measure up to 3.1 by 1.6 inches (8 by 4 centimeters). A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of
the stem. Small whorled pogonia's nearest relative is 1. verticillate, which looks similar but can be distinguished by its
purplish stem and by differences in the flower structure, 1. verficillata is much more common and widespread than
the small whorled pogonia. When not in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeole virginiana) also
resemble small whorled pogonia. However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus Medeola,
which has a solid, more slender stem.
Flowering occurs from about mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or
so. Also, this plant doesn't necessarily flower annually. Usually only one flower is produced per plant. If pollination
occurs, a capsule may be formed which can contain several thousand minute seeds. No evidence of insect
pollination has been observed. This plant is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes. The flower
lacks both nectar guides and fragrance. There is no evidence for asexual reproduction. Individual plants may not
flower every year; and extended dormancy, although not scientifically documented, is purported to occur under
certain conditions.
Distribution:
This plant formerly occurred in 48 counties in 16 eastern states and Canada, but when listed as endangered in 1982
it was known to exist in only 16 counties in 10 states, and one county in Ontario, Canada. By 1991, a total of 86 sites
in 15 states were known, and by 1993, there were a known total of 104 sites in 15 states. Most populations are
centered in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in New England and northern coastal Massachusetts, The 23
populations in the Southeast Region occur in North Carolina (five populations); South Carolina (four populations),
Georgia (13 populations); and Tennessee (one population). Most southeastern populations number less than 25
plants. South Carolina has one population of over 25 plants, and Georgia has two populations numbering about 100
plants. Small whorled pogonia is also known from Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,
Illinois, and Ontario, Canada.
This plant was reclassified from endangered to threatened because the number of known populations increased
from 34 in 1985 to 104 in 1993. Also, the species' 1992 revised recovery plan stipulates that at least 25 percent of
the plant's self-sustaining populations were protected through public ownership or private landowner management
agreement. According to the October 6, 1994 Federal Register notice, which officially down-listed the species, a total
of 46 small whorled pogonia sites are currently protected rangewide, 24 of which have self-sustaining populations. In
the southeast, North Carolina has two protected sites, both of which are viable; South Carolina has four protected
sites, two of which are viable; and Georgia has seven protected sites, four of which are viable.
Habitat:
This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where there is
relatively high shrub coverage or where high sapling density flowering appears to be inhibited.
Threat to Species:
The current status of small whorled pogonia is attributed to loss of habitat and aver-utilization for scientific and
private collections. However, some populations observed for a number of years have also declined for unknown
reasons.
References:
Correll, D.S. 1950. Native Orchids of North America. Chronica Botanica Co., Massachusetts. 399 pp.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. October 6, 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Final Rule to Reclassify the Plant Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia) From Endangered
to Threatened. Federal Register 59:193. p. 50852.50857.
Luer, C.A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada. New York Botanical Garden. W.S. Cowell
Ltd., Ipswich, England. 361 pp.
Mehrhoff, L.A. 1980. Abstracts of Papers to be Presented at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 12-16
July 1980. Botanical Society of America. Miscellaneous Series Publ. 158 pp.
NCDOT Peke A-8 02/952002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan First Revision.
Prepared by Susanna L. von Oettingen for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
75 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Small Whorled Pogonia Recovery Plan. Prepared by Peter G. Poulos for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 45 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) of the Orchidaceae family is characterized by its hollow stern that is 3.7
to 9.8 inches (9.5 to 25 centimeters) tall and its whorl of five to six light green elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed and measure 3.1 by 1.6 inches (8 by 4 centimeters). Flowering from May to June, the flower is yellowish
green and is produced on top of the stem. When not in bloom, the plant resembles the Indian cucumber-root (stem
not hollow). The plant is found in open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soils of third growth upland forest. The
areas are generally flat to moderately sloped to the northern or eastern direction, in habitat of relatively high shrub
cover or high sapling density with flecks of sunlight play on the forest floor throughout the day. Soils are acidic
sandy loams with low to very low nutrient contents.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 12 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Pape A-9 0211512002
TIP B-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris Hellei)i) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Characteristics:
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb that has 1 or more erect or arching stems arising from a tuft of narrow pate
green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 1.3 feet (0.4 meter) in height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender
flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches (7 to 20 centimeters) long (Porter, 1891). Its flowering season lasts from July
through September, and its fruits are present from September through October (Kral, 1983; Radford et al., 1964).
This plant is differentiated from other similar high altitude Liatris species by a much shorter pappus, ciliate petioles,
internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit (Cronquist, 1980; Gaiser, 1946). Work is being conducted
on populations in two locations, which may result in their being reclassified as a new taxon (Sutter, in preparation). If
so, these plants will still remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Distribution:
Heller's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Although nine populations
were originally reported, only seven still exist. A former population in Watauga County is thought to have been
destroyed by residential development, and one in Mitchell County apparently succumbed to intensive recreational
use. Four of the seven remaining populations are In Avery County with one population each remaining in Caldwell,
Ashe, and Burke Counties.
Habitat:
The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full sunlight.
Threats to Species:
Commercial and recreational developments pose the greatest threats. Heller's blazing star is threatened not only by
the construction of buildings, roads, and other facilities, but also by the associated habitat disturbances such as soil
erosion and compaction. Unintentional trampling by hikers is another danger, Of the seven remaining populations,
five occur on privately-owned land, one on Forest Service land, and one on National Park Service land. Four of the
sites in private ownership are recreational facilities. The two sites in public ownership also undergo heavy
recreational use. Potential threats to the latter two sites include the use of aerially-applied fire retardants, road
construction, and the issue of permits for mineral exploration. Only the site owned by The Nature Conservancy
receives full protection from human disturbance; three of the seven sites receive partial protection. In future years,
woody vegetation may overcrowd and overshade the plant making it impossible for the species to survive unless this
threat is mitigated by proper habitat management and planning. The species' small numbers, possible lack of
genetic variability, natural rockslides, and severe storms or droughts are also threats.
References:
Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern U.S., Vol. 1 (Asteraceae). UNC Press, Chapel Hill. P. 204.
Gasser, L.O. 1946. The Genus Liatris. Rhodora 48:572-576.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South. Tech. Publ. R-8-TP-2. USDA Forest Service. Pp. 1191-1194.
Massey, J., P. Whitson, and T. Atkinson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Survey of 12 Species in the
Eastern Part of Region 4. Report Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Under
Contract 14-16-004-78.108.
Porter, T.C. 1981. A New Liatris from North Carolina. Rhodora 18:147-148.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. UNC Press,
Chapel Hill, Pp. 1048-1051.
Sutter, R. In Preparation. Taxonomic Analysis of Liatris helleri, a North Carolina Endemic.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened
Status for Liatris HelJeri. Federal Register, 52(223):44397-44401.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Recovery Plan for Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleri Porter). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 24 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri) is of the aster family (Asteraceae), and is characterized by lavender spiked
flowers with one or more erect stems with a maximum height of 16 inches (40.6 centimeters). The flowers arise from
a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. It differs from other Liatris by Its much shorter pappus (half the length of
corolla tube or less), ciliated petioles, internally pilose corolla tubes, and lower, stockier habit. They are found in
NCDOT Pape A-10 02/15/2002

TtP B-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
high elevations along ledges of rock outcropping and cliffs in shallow acid soils in full sunlight. Flowering occurs from
July to August.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 12 July 2001. Known populations of this plant occur at elevations of 3,500 to 6,000 feet (1,067 to
1,829 meters). The maximum elevation of 1,080 feet (329 meters) within the project area is considered too low to
serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the project
area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT
Page A-11
02/1,2002
A
TIP B-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX B
Qualifications of Principal Investigators
NCDOT 021152002
TIP 11-4047 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigator: Martin L. Mitchell
Education: B.U.S. (double major in Geology and Biology), University of New Mexico
M.A. in Marine Science, College of William and Mary
Certification: Professional Geologist
Virginia License Number 001351 (1997)
Experience: Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc. 1988 to present.
Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, The BSC Group, 1986 to 1988.
Wetlands Ecologist / Coastal Geologist, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Wetlands and Waterways Division, 1984 to 1986.
Geologist, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1981 to 1983.
Expertise: Wetland delineations, wetland function and value assessments, wetland mitigation and
stream restoration, biotic community inventories and mapping, threatened and
endangered species investigations, environmental regulatory permit processing.
Investigator: Anne L. Timm
' Education: B.A. Biology, Luther College
Master of Environmental Science, Indiana University
Certification: Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols Certification through NCDWQ
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., 2000 to present
Intern, Fallwood Nature Center, 2000_
t Data Management Assistant, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Watershed Management, 1997 to 1998.
Science and Biology Teacher, U.S. Peace Corps, 1994 to 1996.
Aquatic Biology Research Assistant, PEW Research Fellowship,
Luther College, 1993.
Expertise: Aquatic and wetland habitat assessments, biotic community inventories and mapping,
' rapid bioassessment, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and identification, wetland
delineation, wetland function and value assessments, wetland habitat restoration, GPS
surveys.
NCDOT Pape 8-1 02/152002
TIP 8-4047
APPENDIX C
Wetland Data Forms
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCDOT C-1 02/152002
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4047 Bridge Reolacement NRTR
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM. Inc.) Date: July 12. 2001
Co. /City: Burke County
State: North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID: NE11U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
u1=f:FTATInN
Dominant Plant -Species-_._. . Stratum indicator Dominant FIant_Species.__.,._Stratum Indicator
1..11jalans niarn Tree UPL 9.Samas_is radicaos Vine FAC
2. Nvssa svlvatica Tree FAC 10.
3, Solioado caesia var. curtish Herb FACU 11.
4. Rhus alabra Herb NL 12.
5. Vitis daaria Herb FACW 13.
6. Eunatonum fistulosum Herb FAC± 14.
7. Rase multiflora sis UPL 15.
g. Farthenocissus auimauefolin Vim FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-)' 55%
Remarks:
wvnpni my
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

Drift Lines
Field Observations:
-Sediment Deposks
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
i
Depth to Saturated Soil (in.) Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
Dry
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Colvard sandy loam (14A)
Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Prof ile_Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) _ Horizon_..x (MunsellMoist) (Munse ll.Moist) Abundance/Contrast- Structures, etc.
A 10YR 5/4 SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_. Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor r Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_.. Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Date: July 12, 2001
Co. /City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM Inc-) State: North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Transect ID:
Plot ID: NE2W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
V Fr;FTATION
Dominant Rant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Stratum Indicator
1. Arer neaundo Tree FACW 9. Platsann.c occidentralis - Tree FACW-
2. Saltx niarn `I _ OBL 10,ComuS ramomum S/S FACW+
3, Rosn multiflora S IS UPL 11.Mirmsteai im vimineum Herb FAC+
4. Chasmanthium latifolium Herb FAC- 12. Toxicodendron radirans Vine PAC
5, Arthraxon hisnidus Harb NL 13. Viola sn. Herb
6, Imnatiens ranensts Herb FACW 14. Pubus hisnidus Herb FACW
7. CenhaOinthus occidentalis Sts OBL 15. C.amnsis redirans Vine FAG
g. Vitis sn Hgtb _ 16 Lonicern irinonica Vine PAC-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or PAC (excluding PAC-): 62%
Remarks:
NynRni_nGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks). Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations: XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Rt: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soii 10 (In-) -Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Colvard sandy loam (14A)
(Series and Phase)
Drainage Class: well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Rofile-Descriptiom
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches).. Horizon. (Munsell_Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast- Structures-etc.
A 10YR 4/2 5YR 4/6 10% SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _._ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Colvard map units, or fluvaquents.
WFTLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydre Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date' July 12, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM. Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NW1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant-Plant _Species_......._- Stratum Indicator Dorninant- Plant, Species Stratum Indicat-or.
1, duolrans niora Tree UPL 9. Lioustrum sineQRQ S/S FAG
2, Ptatanus occidentalis Tree FACW- 10.Qhasmenthium latlfolirim Herb FAC-
3, Carva illinoensTs Tree FAC+ 11.
4. Viola so Herb 12.
5, Microsteomm vimineum Herb FAC+ 13.
6. Solinndo coesia var. curtisii Herl_ FACU 14.
7, Oxalis sn. Herb 15.
8, Parthenocissrrs nuinnuefolia L{Prt FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding PAC-): 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in,) Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 16 (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
- FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase); Coivard sandy loam (14A),
Drainage Class Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile _Description.,
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon _ (MunselLMoist) (Munsell-Moist) Abundance/Contrast- Structures, etc.
A 7.5yr 4/6 SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions , Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks.
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO

Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
11 Project/Site: B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Date: July 12. 2001
Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc,) State: North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Transect ID:
Plot ID: NW2W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
v;:nFTOTI()N
Dominant-Plant-Species _ Stratum indicator Dominant. Plant.Species.____...._._ Stratum Indicator.
1. Alms serrrrlata S/S FACW 9.
2, Rnsn multiflora s/s UPL 10.
3, Fraxinus nennsvlvanira S/S FACW 11.
4. Cornus amomUrn S/S FACW+ 12.-
5. Otis rinaria Vjne FACW 13.
6. 14.
15.
8 16.
.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 80%
Remarks.
wvnRni rnrv
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary lndicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations: XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Fit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 3 (in.) - Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC•Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Colvard sandy loam (14A)
Drainage Class: Well drained
Reld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
(inches)Horizon _ (Munsell.Moist) (Munsell.MoisU Abundance/Contrast- Structures-etc.
A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _
.. High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions __ ._ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Colvard map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 12; 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co. /City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SE41.1
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant.. Plant_.Species..._____._ ... _ Stratum Indicator Dominant.Plant_Species-____ Stfatum indicator
1. Cnrva sn. Tree 9.
2, Rhos alabra SIS NL 10.
3, Vitis rinaria Herb FACW 11.
4. Lonicera innonica Herb FAC- 12.
5. Liriodendron hdinifera S/ FACU 13.
6. Juolans niorn S/S FACU 14.-
7. Aster sn Herb 15.
g, PhOolacca americana Herb FACU+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 13%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundated
`Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surf ace Water: (in.) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 32 (?n•) - Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Colvard sandy loam (74A)
Drainage Class: Weu drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udiftuvents Conf:,med Mapped Type? Yes
f-toflle..Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
410cheS1- Horizon.., tedunsell.Maist) (M.unseLMoisk) Abundance/Contrast_ Structures._etc.
A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol - Concretions
Histic Spipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime - Usted on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -_. . Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydnc.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/``Site: B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 12 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT CO./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State". North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SE4W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant_PantSpecies,. .._._._" Stratum Indicator Dominant.OantSpecies.._ Stratum Indicator
1. Frnxinus nennsvlvanian Tree FACW 9. Poivaonum pransv1vanm1 m Herb FACW
2. Acer neaundo S/S FACW 1 oPnlvoonum pundatum Herb FACW
3, Lonicera innonicrr Herb FAC- 11.Comus asnerifolia S/S FACW-
4. Impatiens canensis Herb FACW 12.
5. Vitis rinana Vine FACW 13.
6. Pilen numi7a H_ro FACW 14.
7, Viola sn. Herb _ 15.
8, Mirmsteoium vimineum Herb FAC+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI-. FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 82%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) -_-- Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Solt: 2 (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
i?
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE V,'etlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Coward sandy loam (14A)
(Series and Phase): y
Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
l2roffle-Descriptk=
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(tnches)_,. Horiza - (M.unsell-Mom (M.unsell-Moist) AdundanoW.Gontrast_ Structures.....etc.
A 1OYR 412 5YR 4/6 10% SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
....... Histosol Concretions
-,._. Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
___. Sulfidie Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime ..W.,. Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion which USDA reports to occur within Colvard map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Approved by HOUSACE 3192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (FISMM. Inc.) Date: July 12, 2001
Co./City: Burke County
State: North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Transect ID:
Plot ID: SW3U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant-Rant.Species ...,..,,_ _ . _ _. Stratum Indicator Dominant PlantSpecies__ ___ ..... W. Stratum Indicator
1 _ Platanus occidentalis S!S FACW- 9. 5D&A Q j Var curtisii Herb FACU
2. Arer naaundo 5/,5 FACW 10, 6iY
wS;3..._. mar ? Sts OBL
3. Carva i!linoensis SIS FAC+ 11.Lonicern innonice Vine FAC-
4. Vitis rinar(a Vine FACW 12.
5. Menisnermum canadense Vine FACU 13,
6, Rosa multiflorn SIS UPL 14.
7. COWO SO, Sts 15.
8. Commelina communis }fib FAC 16.Boxwood
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG)' 58%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) Inundated
i Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

-Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil 16 (?n•) Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
X
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Calvard sandy loam (14A)
Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy '(Subgroup) Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type?" Yes
Profile Description.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches)- - Hodzori _ (Muasell_Moist) (MunseiLM.oist) AbundancetContrast- Structurm _etc_
_ A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric,
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Approved by HOUSACE 3192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
7Applicant/Owner: te: 8-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR
NCDOT
or: Martin Mitchell (HSMM. Inc , Date: July 12. 2001
Co./City: Burke County
State: North Carolina

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Transect ID:
Plot ID: sW3W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
V Fr,PTATION
Dominant Plant-Species _ Stratum Indicator Dominant Rant Species __. _..... Stratum Indicator
1 Setuln morn S/S FACW 9. Ar'braxon hrsnidus Herb NL
2. Pletnnus accidentalis S/S FACW- 10.Ct mmehria commtmis Herb FAC
3, Microsteaium virnineum Herb FAC+ 1 1.Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
4. Acer neoundo SIS FACW 12. Lonicern ienonica Vine FAC-
5, Corms nsnerifolie '91S_ FACW- 13.-
6. Rebus sn S/S 14.
7, Pil- n+mrita Herb FACW 15.
8, Toxirodendrort radirans Vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 75%
Remarks:
WVnRrn ncaY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators.
-Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations: XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surf ace Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in,)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase); Colvard sandy loam (14A)
Drainage Class: Well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Rofi?e_Descrittt,ion;
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches).__. Horizon_ (Munsel1l%oist) (Munse ll..MoisU Abundance/Contrast- Structures,. etc.
A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _. ._ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Colvard map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Approved by HQUSACE 3192
A
TIP H-4047
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX D
Wetland Rating Worksheets
I
NCOOT D-1 02/1&2002

WI TLAND`RATING WORKSliEE,r Fourth Version,
Project Name NCDOT B-4047 Bridge Replacement NRTR Nearest Road SR 1972 County Burke Wetland Area 2 ? acres Wetland Width < 10 icet
Name of evaluator Martin Mitchell HSMM, Inc. Date 7/1.2101 _
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
x on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Soil Series Colvard sandv loam
- predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
predominantly mineral -- non-sandy
x predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
x_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within % mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
x-- forested/natural vegetation 49 `%O
x agriculture, urban/suburban 49 °10
x impervious surface • 2 Flo
Dominant vegetation
(1) __Acer negundo
(2) C'ornus amomum
(3) Arthraxon hispidus
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
x intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surf-ace water
Wetland type (select one)*
x Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
:Headwater forest Y_ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other _
* the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
weight Wetland
R Water storage 2 x 4.00 = Rating
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 x 4.00 = A2
?-
T Pollutant removal 2 x 5.00 .= 10-
1 Wildlife habitat 3 x 2.00 = .- :. 54
N Aquatic life value 4 x 4.00 = x'16 .
G Recreation/Education 2 x 1.00 = 2
*Add I point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %z mile
u stream, upslope, or radius.

!
G
t
E(?t
O
M
N

t
t•-a U?
0 0
o
a
0
U
t/9
1.
a
a
,x
?p
a?
a
WSJ
ti
ti
a
c?
? a
O
o A ?
O
a
N
cn cn
c»
?3 t
ap?0 ffi ? ?
I?
I'
i '
!r
t
h
.rte. q w o
Up
o
Q ? q
a
h
cu
+0
a
ta
W
n
f-
1u
O
0
UJI
z_
to
G '
z p
G?
z
ryw O
r z
5
o
x
?a
h

1014
h
4.
M?
Q
a;

N N Ld
Z x
n
^1 z
q

K cp 0
4a
Tr
? °
N I WW°
, i-i CNI
Y .
. ?
H
A
? II.I
°in ? LLd
t
y N
a
N
w
1, tt
o ? n
h
G °
4
? G
? G
w o
a oM
C' p
A in
O in '.h 'o
i? It p 1 11 H 11 ? ?4 s
A NNE u?
t- W
z•
a
u.

-
a..i
p
ty

h in vv

?

a
,
?V„ ? T
a- C>

in 0
0.
Y1 rt1? ?..
ao--ff ?sa?Co ara ars :sa vfr,jVvo9
u00'dowaih`USl "[ CrOh4\liu?.re???so??na.?D?H?
SV90 YOOZ-J30-
>2
• fi
a
r •
w
a ? b f.
4
N
O ~
yg'1 0
3 y
3 a
4a?,
Ovf°?
u U15
Off" "
?-b
,I<
mob. {
12.
s/ 10

Y?
3
a?
W
R ..
Jv 4el-I
E '
t ?
0 0 0 ?
r
EL
r /
J r,e
r r
/ /
°
? W ? yr
\ ? C
` ? r-t? _.._ ?KV a
? ? ? ccWJY'J'?)S '_ MM
0 ? ti ? r

?R
A

I

ZpE-' u
3
gy
s?
D
47-
w

0
k? 9
?4
?f_n(
i O
?pG
O
ua
..??'\.
'amp
of R

=4

i4wo l
C/ pti

! 4
F-41 { % ??•
71A 4 44
.? F.
o a? I
I
Y
Q
c
t
x
fEU19(S"?'W.d'pfi,, LblShf4tltoua:E.,£-:•?1-c.:,'ry?;.n?
.r
e F
. i
V_ J 1
N ?t `.
a?
?0
1G
? ,. 4 d5
.,
?1 }R?
$ .,.
ns
_ ___. h
sic% :
? t
ti \y
4 ,

L° Z
crn ..
r
i
' t ?? ?. Jut! ? `. ........
v `
1
y ! \ to I 2
i ,
42
ty r d
f• g ' t
aIJa ?$
?3 i RR
- - ------------
Nis
Vic,
? to
f' ? 1
8 la`s ? ? / ??` 9 y? E'
r? ?'? tf
1 $ ?
fF
l ?
4y a

? W MMV y?
?
,`
mMy R .?. Y
«
g
a.

T i - ?
I X

I /
r
I
I

/£I /a
d0 .I.HaHS
MT US JNO'IV
'IHHU3 ONI.LNf)H 9J102Id .LSV3
?ICAO WON 3OG1119
utot-8) IT66M-139fOUd
AXNf)OO a- X)If)fi
SAVMHOIH??do NOISIAIQ
0 0?
M03.3
ON
SNOT HI = *M'H'O M0139 dVd d1d ,11, SSVIO SNOT '.I.SJ
•OV 10.0 = •M'H•0 M030 dVJ M 1II, SSVIJ JO V38V
01), ZIZ = •M•Fi•0 M0139 JVJ dQJ 1II, `:,svi- jo jm]OA
S]IIIiNdnc) J0 _JIVALL_S]
OIIaHS ISSO UD
0z 0 01 0(7 0
0IHGVJ d31lIJ
? ?lo=
ON
dV8 did 1II, SSVIOi- ---_ ) U DU
(7 0 I} .3 of °
C? C
5 M N
n, .I

--dVd dire J. SSVID)
aVd :Pjom
,5 - K
0 L;
ONI
t0 / £I /it d0 LHHHS
LL6I US ONO'IV
x382I3 ONI•LNf)H JNONd LSVH
NHAO t6 'ON a'IOQ12Ifl
(00-9) I'I'66tt4:J JSfOUd
A.LNJ100 ax2If1fI
SAVMHOIH CIO NOI;SIAIQ
L 2?A -
? ? ? c?3Nil r
NIVrJp i
7,?? yk r
NOI1dJ0"1
' ? •xc?rJddv
?I XNV1
1 1 011 d35 - J*4 AAA;
(l` SNOT 09l ' a
3 11v13 r9 S
S -INII --1N a
' N,vrlo dl)1I1
1
?a
v
1V?`-'
05 0 O
71
3GI1
y.
rnt7. ? H71Vh.
HV8OdN31 3310N30 .
I-
--7---
Miss was
(:)Iwssvj ?gllij 2
dvs d12? .ii, ssvl:) Allwo
add YNoM AdVNOdw;
i?
oar
?i
rr
4-

1". T__.._
`-- a Ifyi3a 39S
V"Sd/M H:)1J0 3WG L 'CIJ.S
SQOO,q
SNOT V '1S3
dVS dFU II •1O ?-
r
-I- b£+51 •V1S ? X030
39089 03SOdOJd
I to t oBed
c , ,c ; ON uotue6ioN 4om4O poontijoa8 l t t
Mt ; ON uotue6,oyy peon pooMXoo,g L t l
W-LU099
C l 96 96

SZ9 001
96 S6 '96 96
95;1 ON uolue6jo4Y 4ojn4:)poomMooj© 1,,Z M P I Z L Z 96 So
i I <!
ssaappd s 3sud i n(I xe
_ 37i21(lfi :Sjuno") sum Iopmz'8 ?# j,)afoaci Lt?Oh fl ?#dLI,
lisirl Xpadoaj
bo07M L/zt
(LVOV
SAV/
NOI.LVJ,NOdl,,
dllolt '.i 1"w),11,11
saatsn?-I. tlaant(;) l??ad??El E'?,cati?yuta?f3 {
O

u)
u6ised
uieojlS
IBmjeN
p
IOUU943

Ipj

ms Ul lPj

ms Ul 11Y

6uijeelo

U01leABOX].

lpq 'dwal.

Ul IPA

einjonils

Uollels

allF,
J

_u
I ?. J
O
1
y?
5 U e
r?a V
?i

N
z
c
S
a
?c
u
L
L pat--ff "Olog o ui als zszzoza -*10 Vffs
a%9
eor axe
UoP•us4-gyp +-tror?b?geipa.c?V po'it
Glbl bOr)7-'17(1-

l v < I
Ig u rr, Is'
0 0

Z
O

n
11
S
O
tn tn
S' It Z` C m
' O
T 11 O `'' p O
8 W9
s, 11
11 W
? W
N ? + +
r K1

8
i
ci
w
V Us on
? a T
8 s
O _

? tL1
J ?
II
O

'O N
o ?
O

?MIt
O
Y
N
Z Q
z
02 y
02
Nil
0 CL
wf
T
W
aG
W f-
0 V?
p
10 o
t? Q

My
a W

??t t
O J
r.
?tl
p
O
C1 C)
Ill
m i-
tv .o
a
zoo
o?
0
50
W
N
Q ?
VV o
o t$i
3 G
I I
J

4
3
?? 8

i

4
jy
Z
W
OZ
V.
c4 u ? ? ¢
;t '? 1n i u. 4
N
ti r ? IQ p
? J GM
N NN {`=
4
1 }
f
1)
Nr
c S? ? d6 }
. J ---
.o r
N
t
40
a N
6qi
?/ r 1 r r }
r111r? _-__?i ? ?"
b C' } v
? gg
*p $'!Q
N M M ? f -°
# LGLI
'JiYj,Y .f r? ' \
01
b--
?f \ .,? x to n
i p

? i

y. m

1 a+
'?3 r?rt`t1? •
__ 4

a i
W
i K t
m'
T ,
Z.... a ffi
t
d jj,
f?rx L 's'Yt't' r.

U
4
S G
7

Y
rr?
?? h#1N
l+ t '
r ? L r ?

G
1
4

Iti U

64 '.

11 2QQ
f'ff1 rI

I
M,11'vx-

1,
, ? k
,,
f O
i ca
}
,• t !!!^^^???,iiilll

rl ?

44
44

p ?A

1
k
41
U,

?a

s
r?>
{
2 f. l

li

i

i v
i
}
?J
a
2
U,
li
1
to
U
<f
l) ?U
n vxr
u >aj
r
tr:+r?a r
k
a
i?
I?
i '
W
p JJJ O?
44
U
9^
a
R +
N k1
Q
E;
? V
IL J
N
L
RK
W
r
V
.- N
r
ILL,
O tH
O
Z 0
W v
N
let O?tz
Till 4 .!',
°t I Ica

N N p N
ti
"d'

?t
. tl
rNxg

I j?If N
} f#f
?.?. r
r
0

-c>p ' _
°ra

r , t" J 91
l htii?ti?+ i,..
.ww?.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
TIP #:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:
SUBJECT:
P.O. Box 275, Marion, North Carolina 28752
NOVEMBER 16, 2005
33413.3.1
BRZ-1972(6)
C201292
G?
110k 9
osroR? A,r?',?;
LYNM TiPPETT
SECRETARY
B-4047 _
Burke
Grading, Drainage, Paving & Structure
Bridge #94 Over a Creek and Approaches on SR-1972
Preconstruction Conference
Clark Ledbetter Grading & Hauling
1806 Gaffney Road
Shelby, NC 28152
Gentlemen:
The preconstruction conference for the above referenced project will be held at
1:00 pm on Monday, November 21, 2005 in the Resident Engineer's conference room at
3931 NC 226 South in Marion.
Y T aMoody
R.C. Resienngineer
BCS/fhm
cc: E.C. Powell, Jr., PE
J.J. Swain, Jr., PE (Attn
A.C. Cochran, PE
T.B. Adams, PE
Roger Bryan
Ed Ingle
Dave Frye
RobertHaskett
Candie Auvil
Jerry Lail
R.A. Tipton, PE,PLS)
Page 2
Clark Ledbetter Grading & Hauling
November 16, 2005
cc: N.W. Graham
J.K. Bartlett
J.M. Watkins
J.M. Teague, PE
D.D. Galloway, PE
D.R. McNeal, PE
J.R. Memory
Angie Pennock, Corps of Engineers
Jake Riggsbee, PE, FHWA
Regional Engineer, DEHNR
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Richard Hensley
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File