20052186 Ver 1_Complete File_20051209

16
440 r..
STAT( ?1
? ?°? alr,? AFC .
?t s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTVENT OF TEZANSPORTAEON
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDOETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
December 7, 2005
ATTENTION: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator

SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Applications for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 57 on SR 1244 (Gwaltney Road) over Canoe Creek,
in Burke County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1244(1), State
Project No. 82852901, TIP No. B-4041, WBS Element 33407.1.1,
Division 13.
Dear Madam:
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document,.as well
as, the Pre-construction Notification, permit drawings, and %2 size plans for the above
referenced project completed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). The agency proposes to replace Bridge No. 57, slightly east of the existing
alignment, with a 160-foot, triple barrel, 12.0 x 8.0-foot reinforced concrete box culvert.
Construction of the proposed project will result in a total of 160 feet of permanent
impacts to the existing stream channel. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the
project study area.
The selected alternative will replace Bridge No. 57 with a triple-barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert on a new alignment slightly east of the existing bridge. The culvert
will be constructed in stages so that traffic can be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. If a bridge had been selected to replace the existing bridge, it would
have required adding an on-site detour which would have higher environmental impacts
to adjacent biotic communities. The total length of roadway approach work for this
alternative is approximately 747 feet. The impacted stream, Canoe Creek, contains no
trout, anadramous fish, federal or state listed species, restrictions on watershed
development or restrictions on types of discharge for this stream. In 1991 and 1992, a
benthic monitoring station was set up on Canoe Creek approximately 3.0 miles
downstream from the project area. The water quality rating was found to be "good-fair".
A culvert was selected for this particular location because of the fairly low water quality,
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER-LINCOLN BUILDING
CAPITAL BLVD
RALEIGH, NC
at least double the life expectancy of a bridge, lower maintenance costs, and lower initial
installation costs. To replace a bridge with a bridge would cost approximately $60,000
more for initial installation.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Canoe Creek is located within the upper portion of the Catawba River drainage basin, and
is approximately 12 feet wide within the project study area. The project study area is
designated as USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050101 and sub-basin 03-08-31. The NCDOT
classifies Canoe Creek as Class "C". There are no High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters occuring within 0.6 mile of
the project study area. No special restrictions are required for in-water work other than
those outlined in the NCDOT guidelines, "Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters". Canoe Creek is not designated as a National Wild and Scenic River or a
State Natural and Scenic River.
Permanent Impacts: Construction of the proposed project will permanently impact a total
of 160 feet of existing stream channel due to culvert installation.
There are no utility impacts associated with this project.
Bridge Demolition
The existing Bridge No. 57 was constructed in 1964. The overall length of the three-span
structure is 57 feet. It has a clear roadway width of 19 feet which includes two travel
lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-beams and the
substructure consists of timber caps and piles. Neither the superstructure nor the
substructure will create any temporary fill in the creek, however removal may create
some disturbance in the streambed. If the removal of the substructure does create
disturbance in the streambed, a turbidity curtain will be used to control sediment.
Because no moratoriums apply and Canoe Creek is a class "C" water, this project falls
under case 3 (no special restrictions) of the Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
Culvert Construction
Bridge No. 57 will be replaced with a triple-barrel 12.0 x 8.0-foot reinforced concrete
box culvert. The culvert will be silled on the first and third barrels to simulate normal
stream width and depth in the center barrel. The culvert will be buried one foot to allow
for the passage of aquatic life.
During construction, water will be diverted to one side or another of the existing
streambed while the culvert is built one barrel at a time. As a result, there will be no
temporary impacts due to a diversion channel.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
2
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists seven federally protected species for Burke
County.
Federallv Protected Species for Burke Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Bo turtle mob i T S/A * No Effect
Bald eagle Halia? lea hahrs T No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E No Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflnra T No Effect
Mountain olden heather Hudsava numana T No Effect
Small whorled o onia Isotria mxl&Zdes T No Effect
Heller's blazing star Liatris hdbi T No Effect
E-denotes Endangered, T- denotes 'threatened, l(5/A)-denotes Threatened due to Sniulantyot
Appearance.
* On November 4, 1997, the northern population of bog turtles (from Maryland to New YorW was
listed as threatened. The southern population was listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance
(T(S/A)).
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for all species with the exception of
the bog turtle which requires no biological conclusion. The project area contained no
suitable habitat for any of the above listed species due to disturbance and inadequate
elevation.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Avoidance and Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of the United States." The NCDOT is
committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the
project design. The use of best management practices for construction should reduce
impacts to plant communities.
• The triple barrel box culvert will be silled on the first and third barrels to simulate
normal stream width and depth in the center barrel
• The culvert will be buried one foot to allow for the passage of aquatic life
• A culvert prevents adding an on-site detour which would have higher environmental
impacts to adjacent biotic communities
• The culvert is being built in stages to avoid using a temporary diversion channel
Mitigation: Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement
Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District (MOA)", it is understood that the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP), will
assume responsibility for satisfying the Section 404 compensatory mitigation
requirements for NCDOT projects. EEP has agreed to mitigate for 160 feet of permanent
3
stream impacts to Canoe Creek within warm waters of the Catawba River Basin (see
attached confirmation letter dated May 31, 2005).
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR §
771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide
Permit 23.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to
this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Megan Willis at mswillis a,dot.state.nc.us or (919)
715-1341.
Sincerely,
?? Gregor. J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J .J. Swain, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Hghway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. Vince Rhea, PDEA Engineer
4
Office Use Only: 2 O O 5 2 FT r m March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: mswillisRdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company.Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size constriction.
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. 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4041
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Oak Hill
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 81,48,00 ON 35,47,00 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Lake James
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.cnr.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: Agricultural fields, landscaped areas, early successional
roadside, and piedmont bottomland forest.
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard bridge construction equipment will be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Replacement of a structurally deficient bridge
with a triple barrel box culvert.
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.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 160 feet of permanent impacts
to the stream channel due to the placement of a triple barrel box culvert.
Page 3 of 9
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: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 ly length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial Intermittent'? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
acres
Site 1 Canoe Creek Permanent Perennial 12 feet 160 0.059

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 160 0.059
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma Name of Waterbody

(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Page 4 of 9
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting; from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.059
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.059
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 160
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. A sill is being constructed on
two of the three barrels of the box culvert to keep up the water depth for aquatic passage.
VIII. Mitigation
Page 5 of9
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:/ih2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgidc.litm1.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will mitigate for the 160 feet of warm stream
impacts using a 2:1 ration.
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): 160
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Page 6 of 9
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
0
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/.SEP.A)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
I I Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitieation
1 I I 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
Page 7 of 9
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious levcl.Stormwater will be discharged into a veuetated
--buffer. The amount of impervious surface will not increase due to the project.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h 2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 8 of 9
?kpplicant/Agent's Signature D-Ate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
-F-Eco stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4041, Bridge 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244, Burke County;
Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the mitigation for the 160 feet of warm stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment 1 details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP intends to provide compensatory stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 flail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
Cataloging Unit 03 050101 of the Catawba River Basin. The EEP has received over
62,000 feet of stream mitigation in this CU through the Full Delivery process. The EEP
anticipates sufficient stream mitigation will be available to offset the impacts associated
with this permit. EEP anticipates the full delivery contracts will be fully executed prior
the end of the state fiscal year.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
CS?4&
Willis D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4041
r ' ax
-Eco stems.
i i
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4041, Bridge 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated April 19, 2005, the impacts are located in
CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Stream Impacts (Warm): 160 feet
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment 1 details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP agrees to accept this project and will provide compensatory stream mitigation up
to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William . Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4041
NORTH CAROLINA

JD
1245 I ? `I
I
VICINITY
MAIDS
NCD 4 Ff
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
PRGJECT:33L07.11 (B-404D
BRIDGE NO.57
ON SR 1244
OVER CANOE CREEK
PROPERTY OWNER
NAMES AND ADDRESSLS
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
92018W 55TH STREET
PARCEL NO. SONIA BRANDE
COOPER CITY, FL 33328
3595 GWALTNEY ROAD.
PARCEL NO. CORA DRAUGHON
MORGANTON, NC 28655
3695 GWALTNEY ROAD
PARCEL NO. DAVID OLLIS
MORGANTON, NC 28655
1767 NORTH GREEN STREET
PARCEL NO. JESSE PASCHALL SR.
MORGANTON, NC 28655
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
PROJECT:33407JA (B-4041)
BRIDGE NO. 57
ON SR 1244
OVER -CANOE CREEK
SHEET OF 3/17/05
z
O
?-
Q
?
O ? o C7
C
S
MM
?.?? ?
? W
I
^

U)
V) m c0 v
?y ry
O
o 00
O
p ??

o
a
14 U
MM

Q
G?
1
W
Q ?
U
z

:3 LO
r

U) C:

CL U

r
r
3
co ca
tt

0
LL

? Q7 <n C U
Z 65
O fJ ?
C C .-.
O
O
C cD c0

w u E

n.

w "-

w
U
Q

VJ C = U
d O

?`
Z o 0
w --

Q N_ cn
C
= O U

Z
U ? ? °
L
F-
U = m

?
F- U
d > ? v
X ? o
w C

Q
w Z
z w o
? °
.
c-i

w
? N

J
J

>
O U
? F co
v ? U

? X
m
(V
r7
J J
O
O ?
J
J

O
N (n
N

J
(n Z e- N
F-
7ss si sS Y?Tl1.l?sss ss
ssss s s ssssOGNSSSSS•fsssss »ss
\ \ ?'';;; 944
S? .
E n
tj j ? Q fl? ? 8? ? a
II
•: II • i-I 133
?,? I 1 q
tJ 3 in
Q
\\ Q
ao` 0\ t p ? ?
\\\ fl?

I.J b
b? T
?
1
b fl? ?y
GIs ?? n ?

?L

• f
s4
fl?,
fl? ?

cn C3
cm
Xz
no
a-i
?m
mN
mr
;D-
z
i
one
fl III ?
no Q Q
flfl .
5
Q
5

01
I
t'
?T
1
II
t
?Lu 0
V IAAJ ?
W
*a

0 -t
? t 1
: It
> :32
?rrrrrr? ? i ?
r 1 I
c; ? ? II

/ 10

„ o
f . ,:
' I:
I :x
t
. //
Q11 I I :
x Esc

J7?
x
Q
- Stn. to f,- N ?,' p
0
i rlrIIYl
Q
?-troD?
MrMr??
1
/5
iip
AF
b
Q
a
QQ
QQ
flfl

Q
?a
a?
?fl

/?G/ao

z
G1
C
Z
g ? Q
O
?ro ?s
t ff
3 !f
tfSf?GNffffffSlflSSSSfS
1 \
1
11
?s 1 I
1

-/
L
Pr ?- 16
,Y

`t 1 0 I ,
? ? imp
4 ?
\ \ Q 9
r

\o Q v
-Tot
£ 1 ? `15
C Z i ?' II
Il
i i0 1
m r ? ?
Y 8
a? eF3
77--T- I
III

1/-
Q
Q
i
?LR IIMy
:O-lrop
NINt?
r?f
l?
u9
a?
x
Q:
r b
t i? ? ^yin 9g
j %j ? tf (fj n X
/5
,p n- I..
1 '

?
4
?
•• m
T

W
0

?r ?

BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2852901
TIP NO. B-4041
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Z96?
DA gory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
7,-7104-
DATE 46?ohn F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2582901
TIP NO. B4041
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
C, A P ""N
a'•QO 4=y i?
SEAL
22032
Philip D. Edwards, P.E.
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation

Vincent J. Rhea., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ago
Date
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2852901
TIP NO. B-4041
No other special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT except for the standard Nationwide Permit #23
Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification.
Categorical Exclusion
February 2004 Page 1 of 1
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2852901
T.I.P. NO. B-4041
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge No. 57 located on SR 1244 (Gwaltney Road) over Canoe Creek is included in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program BRZ-1244(1). The location is shown in Figure 1.
No substantial impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 57 has a sufficiency rating of 48.4 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 57 is located on SR 1244 (Gwaltney Road) in rural Burke County. Refer to Figure 1 for the project
location and Figures 2 and 3 for photos of the existing project study area.
Bridge No. 57 was constructed in 1964. The bridge is currently posted to restrict weight limits to 19 tons for
single vehicles (SV) and 28 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The overall length of the three-span structure is 57 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 19.1 ft that includes two
travel lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-beams. The substructure consists
of timber caps and piles. The height from crown to streambed is 9 ft.
SR 1244 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2002 average daily
traffic volume (ADT) is estimated to be 300 vehicles per day (vpd). The percentages of truck traffic are 1 percent
TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected 2025 ADT is 3,600 vpd.
The two-lane facility measures approximately 18 ft in width and has variable 4-8 ft grassed shoulders on each
side of the roadway in the vicinity of the bridge. The horizontal alignment of SR 1244 is poor adjacent to the
bridge. There are curves on each end of the bridge and a street adjacent to the southern end of the bridge. The
vertical alignment is good within the project study area. There is no posted speed limit in the immediate vicinity of
the bridge. Therefore, the statutory speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph). Existing right-of-way is approximately
60 ft in width.
There are overhead power lines on the east side of the bridge which cross SR 1244 on the north and south sides
of the bridge. An underground phone line is also located approximately 20' downstream. Utility impacts are
expected to be low.
This section of SR 1244 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
Land use within the project study area is a mixture of cultivated land, rural residential properties, and forest land.
According to Burke County school officials, three buses cross this bridge for a total of six bus trips per day.
Crash records maintained by the NCDOT indicate there have been no crashes reported in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 57 during a recent three year period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based upon the preliminary hydraulic report, the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 57 will consist of
a triple (3) 12 ft x 8 ft reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC).
The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows, as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final design phase of
the project.
The roadway approaches will provide two 12 ft travel lanes with 8 ft grassed shoulders. The grade will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. The design speed varies for each alternative.
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below:
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a RCBC. During construction, traffic will be maintained
by an on-site detour east of SR 1244. The total length of roadway approach work for this alternative is
approximately 460 ft. Refer to Figure 4 for illustration of alternative.
The on-site detour will be located approximately 10 ft east of the proposed RCBC. The temporary structure will
consist of three 72 inch CMP's. The detour roadway approaches will provide two 10 ft travel lanes and 8 ft wide
shoulders on each side. The length of the temporary detour will be approximately 747 ft.
Alternative A was not selected as the preferred because of the higher construction costs and environmental
impacts associated with the temporary detour.
2
Alternative B (Preferred)
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge with a RCBC on new alignment east of SR 1244. During
construction, the existing bridge will be used to maintain traffic. The total length of roadway approach work for
this alternative is approximately 747 ft. Refer to Figure 5 for illustration of this alternative.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition, This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1244.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
An off-site detour was considered for this project but is not feasible due to the detour length.
D. Preferred Alternative (Alternative B)
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge with a RCBC on new alignment east of SR 1244. During
construction, the existing bridge will be used to maintain traffic. Alternative B was selected as the preferred
because it has the lowest construction costs and least environmental impacts,
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exception
The speed limit is not posted on SR 1244; therefore, a statutory speed limit of 55 mph applies. Due to the
existing road conditions, Alternative A will require a design exception for both the horizontal and vertical
alignment,
3
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for each alternative, based on current dollars, are shown below:
Table 1
Estimated Project Costs
Altetnative,A Alternative B
(preferred)
Structure Removal (Existing) $11,200 $11,200
Structure Proposed $168,000 $168,000
Detour Structure and Approaches $147,694 $0
Roadway Approaches $74,707 $141,554
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $119,537 $90,652
Engineering and Contingencies $103,862 $63,594
Right-of-Way/Easement and Utilities $53,500 $58,000
Total Project Cost $678,500 $533,000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program is
$650,000 including $100,000 spent in prior years, $50,000 for right-of-way and $500,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of existing
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
A. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information pertaining to the project
study area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project study
area include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Oak Hill 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Oak Hill 7.5-minute
quadrangle (1995).
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project study area
(1:1,200 scale).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 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).
4
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 study area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of
protected and candidate species (March 3, 2001) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, January 2001). NCNHP files were reviewed for
documented occurrences of state and federal listed species. USFWS Recovery Plans for federal listed species
were reviewed, where applicable.
A field investigation of natural resources was conducted within the project study area on July 13, 2001. Water
resources were identified and categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of
Natural 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), The Freshwater Fishes of North 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 vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing aerial
photography of the project study area. 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' March 6, 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, et al., 1979). Wetland boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the
field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey methods.
B. Physiography and Soils
Burke County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian Mountains) Physiographic Province of western North
Carolina, The county encompasses 511 square miles and is primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation from
approximately 935 ft mean sea level (msl) where the Catawba River flows into Catawba County to 4,350 ft msl.
Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 1,116 to 1,160 ft msl, with the stream bed near
the bridge lying at approximately 1,116 ft msl.
The portion of Burke County within which the project study 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:
5
• Fluvaguents-Udifluvents complex along the stream bed,
• Unison fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (UnB). This unit 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. Unison fine sandy loam is classified as a hydric soil of Burke County (USDA, 1999).
• Colvard sandy loam, 0-3 percent slopes (CvA). This is a very deep, well-drained, and occasionally flooded
soil formed in flood plains in southern Appalachian Mountains. Colvard sandy loam has a slow surface runoff
and moderately rapid permeability, 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 sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 and 15 to 25 percent slopes (FaC2, FaD2). This is a very deep, well-
drained, and eroded soil found on ridges and back slopes at 300 to 1,400 ft. Fairview sandy clay loam has a
medium to very rapid surface runoff and moderate permeability. Fairview sandy clay loam is not listed as a
hydric soil of Burke County (USDA, 1999).
• Rhodhiss sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (RhD). This is a very deep and well-drained soil found on hills
or ridges. Rhodhiss sandy loam has a low to high surface runoff and moderate permeability. Rhodhiss
sandy loam is not listed as a hydric soil of Burke County (USDA, 1999).
• Ashe-Chestnut-Buladean complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes (AbE). This is a moderately deep to deep,
moderately permeable, and well-drained soil complex found on very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue
Ridge Mountains. This complex has slow runoff on gentle slopes, medium to strong runoff on moderately
steep slopes, and high runoff on steeper slopes. None of the soils comprising this complex are listed as a
hydric soil of Burke County (USDA, 1999).
C. Water Resources
C.1. Waters Impacted
A perennial stream, Canoe Creek, comprises the single water resource within the project study area. Canoe
Creek is located within the upper portion of the Catawba River drainage basin. The Catawba River basin is the
eighth largest river basin in North Carolina, encompassing 3,279 square miles. Canoe Creek is approximately 12
ft wide within the project study area, with observed depths ranging from 0.25 to 1.5 ft 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 Canoe Creek in the project study area is comprised of sediments ranging in size from fine sand
to coarse gravel, except under the existing bridge where sediments range in size from fine sand to cobbles.
Looking upstream, the stream within the project study area makes two gentle to moderate bends to the left, The
stream channel exhibits a relatively simple trapezoidal cross-section. The stream within the project study area is
primarily run, with one distinct riffle/run complex existing at the northernmost limits of the project study area, No
sand bars or major channel meanders were observed.
The left and right stream banks (both upstream and downstream of the bridge), although steep, are well
vegetated and exhibit indicators of low erosion. Vertical bridge abutments confine the stream below the existing
bridge. Localized bank erosion was observed in the vicinity if the bridge abutments at the time of field
6
investigation. The stream banks are comprised of unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of primarily alluvial
origin and, to a lesser degree, colluvial origin.
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project study 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 study area is designated
as Subbasin 03-08-31 (the Warrior Fork, Johns River, and Rhodhiss Lake Subbasin). Canoe Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 11-33-(1).
Canoe Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C. The C designation indicates waters that are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and
other uses found suitable for Class C waters. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges in Class C waters,
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I, or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile of the project study area.
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates, No
previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on Canoe Creek within the project
study area or upstream of the project within the project study area. Catawba River Basin benthic monitoring
station "B-2" is, however, located where SR 1250 crosses Canoe Creek approximately 3.0 miles downstream of
the project study area. Sampled in 1992 and 1991, water quality ratings for Canoe Creek based on
bioclassification of station B-2 was found to be "good-fair" on both occasions (NCDENR, 1999).
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly
referred to as "point sources". No registered point source discharges are located within 1.0 mile of the project
study area,
C.2. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study 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 study area during and immediately following construction,
• Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface water
and groundwater during construction.
• Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed land
surfaces.
7
• 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 to removal of vegetation
within or overhanging the watercourse.
• Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff,
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable by limiting instream
activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
C.3. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all
potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are
presented in three NCDOT documents entitled: Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States, and Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
The superstructure for Bridge No. 57 consists of a timber floor on I-beams. The substructure is consists of timber
caps and piles. Neither the superstructure nor the substructure will create any temporary fill in the creek.
However, the removal of the substructure may create some disturbance in the streambed. If the removal of the
substructure will create disturbance in the streambed, a turbidity curtain should be used due to sediment
concerns.
Because no moratoriums apply and Canoe Creek is a Class C water, this project falls under Case 3 (no special
restrictions) of the Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals
observed within the project study area. These descriptions refer to the flora and fauna in each community and
the relationship of these biotic components. Biotic resources assessed as part of this investigation include
discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities within the
project study area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities and are 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 study area (based on published range distributions) are also discussed. Species
observed during field investigation are listed.
D.1. Plant Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the project study area,
making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Six discernable terrestrial communities are located within the
project study area, Five 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
8
communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way communities, (2) landscaped areas, (3) cropland, (4) open field,
and (5) successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities. The remaining community with in the project study
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 aquatic community associated with Canoe Creek was assessed within the project
study area.
Altered Right-of-Way Communities - These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR
1244 and several farm roads. Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession through
mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices.
No woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered rights-of-way communities
of the project study area. Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include
butterfly weed (Asclepius tuberosa), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), common plantain (Plantago major),
Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisii), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), white clover (Trifolium repens), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae).
Landscaped Areas - This community consist of cleared, landscaped, and vegetatively managed areas around
residential dwellings located in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the project study area.
Dominant plant species observed at the time of site investigation include scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), black
locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), assorted cultivars, crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), common
chickweed (Stellaria media), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), common plantain (Plantago major), and common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
Croplands -- These communities consist of a recently harvested hay field in the northeast quadrant and a
cornfield in the southwest quadrant of the project study area. These communities occur on gently to moderately
sloping land surfaces adjacent to a very narrow floodplain terrace, which separates the croplands from Canoe
Creek.
The hay field appears to have been planted with tall fescue (Festuca sp.) and possibly red clover (Trifolium
pratense). Other pioneer or opportunistic species observed in and around the edges of the croplands at the time
of field investigation include blackberry (Rubus sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), common plantain
(Plantago major), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), bitter
nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), white clover (Trifolium repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), foxtail grass
(Setaria sp.), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Open Field Community -- This community occur outside the state right-of-way on moderately to gently sloping
land surfaces underlain by moderately well-drained soils in the northwest quadrant of the project study area. No
mature trees occur within this community. The successional nature of the vegetation community suggests that
the open field was once pastureland that has lain fallow for several or more growing seasons.
Woody vegetation observed within the open field at the time of field investigation includes eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and blackberries (Rubus sp.). Herbaceous plant species observed include unidentified
9
grasses (Poaceae), curly dock (Rumex crispus), common milkweed (Asclepius syriaca), Queen Anne's lace
(Daucus carota), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), red clover
(Trifolium pratense), New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtish),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and bush clover (Lespedeza sp.).
Successional sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities -- These communities occur in the northwest and
southwest quadrants of the project study area, outside the state right-of-way and the floodplain of Canoe Creek.
The community in the northwest quadrant appears to be a succession stage of fallow pasturelands, while the
community in the southwest quadrant appears to be a highly altered remnant of a once-larger natural forested
community. These communities are underlain by moderately well-drained silty sands exhibiting relatively high
chromas.
The successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities, as mapped, support only several mature trees. Tree
species occurring within this community include black walnut (Juglans nigra), Indian cigar tree (Catalpa sp.),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), scrub pine saplings (Pinus
virginiana), tulip tree saplings (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple saplings (Acer rubrum). Shrub species
occurring within this community include winged sumac (Rhus copallina) and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include butterfly weed (Asclepius tuberosa),
common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisit), agrimonia (Agrimonia parviflora),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), asters (Aster sp.), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and unidentified
grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest -- This community occurs along the banks and floodplain of Canoe
Creek in all four quadrants of the project study area. It is estimated that 0.5 acre of this community exists within
the project study area. The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest occurs upon a gently sloping floodplain
terrace perched approximately 3.5 to 5.5 ft above the stream bed. The terrace is largely underlain by moderately
drained silty soils exhibiting relatively high chromas; however, where poorly drained conditions or semi-permanent
flooding prevail, hydric soil inclusions are observed.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of site investigation
include river birch (Betula nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), black willow (Salix nigra), black walnut
(Juglans nigra), and hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of
site investigation include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), fire cherry (Prunus
pennsylvanica), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), privet (Ligustrum sp.), and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), Curtis'
goldenrod (Solidago curtish), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), bracken
(Pteridium aquilinum), and agrimonia (Agrimonia parviflora). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site
investigation include kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), grape (Vitis sp.), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia).
10
D.2. Wildlife
Most of the communities within the project study area 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
the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), can be expected to utilize edge habitat present within the
project study area. Due to the relatively small size of the project study 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 study area.
A woodchuck (Marmota monax) was the only mammal observed in the project study area at the time of field
investigation; however, tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were
observed. Other mammals common to the project region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of
the project study area include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivore), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsyivanicus), woodland vole
(Microtus pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus),
house mouse (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 within the project study area provides limited but suitable habitat and forage areas for
a variety of birds. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include the ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubris), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Songs and/or calls of the
following birds were also noted within the project study area at the time of field investigation: bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus 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 study area. The open landscaped areas and the croplands within the
project study area provide probable hunting grounds for birds of prey, such as hawks and owls.
No reptiles were observed on the project study area at the time of field investigation. A variety of reptile species
may, however, use the communities located in the project study 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 clamitans) were observed along Canoe Creek.
Terrestrial insects observed in the project study area include organpipe mud daubers (Tryploxylon sp.), cloudless
sulfur butterfly (Phoebis sennae), and West Virginia white butterflies (Lycaena phlaeas).
D.3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community of the project study area consists of Canoe Creek below the ordinary high water line.
Dominant aquatic habitats within this section of Canoe Creek include cobble/boulder substrate, sticks and leaf
packs, snags, and root mats. The stream within the project study area is primarily run, with one distinct riffle/run
11
complex existing at the northernmost limits of the project study area. The riparian area is less than 20 ft wide
along both banks and eroded areas are present.
No aquatic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water line of Canoe Creek at the time of field
investigation. A narrow band (generally less than 10 ft) of hydrophytic vegetation occurs along the lower to
middle portions of the stream banks.
Aquatic or water-dependent vertebrates observed within the project study area at the time of field investigation
include the following: green frogs (Rana clamitans), numerous unidentified juvenile finfish, and a small number of
unidentified minnows (Cyprinidae). Aquatic or water-dependent invertebrates observed within the project study
area at the time of field investigation include the following: crayfish (Cambaridae), gilled snails (Pleuroceridae),
six-spotted fishing spiders (Dolomedes triton), case-making caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayfly larvae
(Heptageniidae), water striders (Gerridae), hellgrammites (Corydalidae), aquatic beetles (Coleoptera), and adult
damselflies (Zygoptera).
DA. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
DA.a. Terrestrial Communities Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the approximate area of each plant community
present within both the proposed right-of-way and the temporary construction limits of any on-site detour or
easement that falls outside the estimated permanent right-of-way limit. A summary of potential plant community
impacts is presented in Table 2. All plant community impacts are based on aerial photograph base mapping. A
portion of the permanent plant community impact amount will consist of proposed right-of-way for the road after
the bridge replacement is complete. Impervious surface and open water areas are not included in this analysis.
Table 2
Potential Impacts to Plant Communities
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PLANT Acres
COMMUNITY ALT A ALT "B
Preferred
Impacts Temp. Im acts* Impacts
Altered Right-of-Way Communities 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaped Areas 0.00 0.14 0.14
Croplands 0.00 0.25 0.25
Open Field Community 0.00 0.00 0.00
Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub 0.00 0.00 0.00
Communities
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 0.03 0.05 0.05
Total (acre) 0.03 0.05 0.05
TOTAL FOR ALT (acre) 0.0 8 0.05
* Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts that fall outside the estimated
right-of-way limit or impacts of temporary on-site detours.
12
Permanent community impacts for Alternative B represent the least amount of the two alternatives when the
potential temporary impacts are included. The plant community with the largest amount of potential permanent
and temporary impacts for all proposed alternatives is the Cropland community,
D.4.b. Aquatic Communities Impacts
The replacement of Bridge No. 57 over Canoe Creek will result in certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic
community. 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 reducing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation, 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 in seasonal 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 study 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 streambeds, as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading.
E. Special Topics
E.1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Canoe Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands subject to review under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches of the soil surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No wetlands have been mapped within the project study area under
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program.
The surface waters within Canoe Creek exhibit characteristics of a permanently flooded, lower perennial riverine
habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH). Canoe Creek is a jurisdictional surface water.
13
E.2. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Temporary and permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands are estimated based on the amount of each
jurisdictional area within the project limits. Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from
temporary construction activities outside of permanent right-of-way and/or those associated with temporary on-
site detours. Temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has been
completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the construction limits and/or the proposed right-of-
way of the new structure and approaches. Portions of those areas that are considered temporary impact areas
often end up being within the final right-of-way. Potential wetland and surface water impacts are included in
Table 3.
Table 3
Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ALT A ALT B
Preferred ,.
Impacts Temp, Impacts* Impacts
Perennial Stream Channel Impacts ft 70.0 50.0 70.0
TOTAL FOR ALT feet 120.0 70.0
*Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not included in the construction
limits for the permanent structure.
No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the project study area. The preferred alternative, Alternative B,
incurs the least amount of jurisdictional impacts when the potential temporary impacts are included. Alternative B
may impact 70 ft of perennial stream channel. Alternative A incurs the highest amount of jurisdictional impacts.
Alternative A may impact 120 ft of perennial stream channel.
E.2. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344),
a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredge or fill material in "Waters
of the United States". The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be
issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category, or categories, of activities when: those activities are
substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the
general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory control exercised by another
Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an individual permit must
be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the
proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general permit. Nationwide
Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. This permit authorizes any activities, work, and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another
federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular
14
permit. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since the proposed
project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the USACE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will
also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which
a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, on condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment
and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent exceedences of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard.
E.3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland. mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance - Mitigation by avoidance examines appropriate and practicable measures for averting impact to
waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the USACE, states that in determining appropriate and practicable measures to offset unavoidable
impacts; such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Canoe Creek; therefore, totally avoiding surface water impacts is
impossible.
Minimization - Minimization of adverse impact to waters of the United States includes examination of
appropriate and practicable measures to reduce such impacts. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Adverse impacts are typically minimized by decreasing the
proposed project footprint through reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, and/or fill slopes.
Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to waters of the United States include strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMPs for protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of
clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide management;
minimization of instream activity; and litter/debris control.
No measures are proposed for this project because there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project study
area.
Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation, including restoration, creation and enhancement of
waters of the United States, is typically not considered unless anticipated impacts to waters of the United States
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Further, it is recognized that "no net loss
of wetlands" may not be achievable in every permit action. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required for
15
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization measures have
been required.
Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required for this project. A final determination regarding mitigation
requirements rest with the USACE.
F. Protected Species
F.1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Table 4 lists the federal protected species for Burke
County (USFWS list dated February 5, 2003).
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail
with a dark brown body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and
tail until the fifth or sixth year. Fish are the primary food source, but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds,
mammals, and turtles (both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about 3.0 ft
from head to tail, weigh approximately 10.0 to 12.0 pounds and have a wingspan that can reach 7.0 ft.
Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Table 4
Federally Protected Species Listed for Burke County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological' Conclusion
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus T No Effect
Bo Turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T S/A N/A
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Hexast lis naniflora T No Effect
Heller's Blazing Star Liatris helleri T No Effect
Mountain Golden Heather Hudsonia Montana T No Effect
Small-whorled Po onia Isotria medeoloides T No Effect
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum E No Effect
Endangered - any native or once-native species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened - any native or once-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened (S/A) - a species carrying the threatened status due to having a similar appearance to another listed species.
Habitat includes quiet costal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees, Man-made reservoirs have also
provided habitat.
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 study
area was investigated on July 13, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area,
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
16
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf - The dwarf-flowered hearfleaf is a small, spicy-smelling, rhizomatous perennial herb.
The long-stalked evergreen leaves (to about 6 inches long) are leathery, heart-shaped, and mottled with white
(Kral 1983). The solitary purplish flower is jug-shaped, fleshy and firm, and has three triangular lobes. Flower
and fruits appear in April and early May, usually under leaf litter (Cooper et al. 1977).
Preferred habitat is north-facing slopes of rich deciduous forest, usually associated with mountain laurel in acidic,
sandy loam soils. Suitable soils in this region of the state are Pacolet sandy loam, Madison gravelly sandy loam,
and Musella fine sandy loam. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known from the Piedmont of North and South Carolina
(Kral 1983).
No suitable habitat was identified for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area due to extensive
clearing and maintenance of roadside areas. Limited streamside and fencerow habitat was characterized by
overgrowth of shrubs and trees. The project study area contains no boggy areas of north-facing slopes. NHP
records document no dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurrences within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Heller's Blazing Star - Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems
arising from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 1.3 ft in height and are topped by a
showy spike of lavender flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches long (Porter, 1891). Its 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 remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full
sunlight.
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 study
area was investigated on July 13, 2001. Heller's Blazing Star is reported to occur at elevations ranging from
3,500 to 6,000 ft (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,160 ft (msl) within the project study area is considered too
low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms or suitable habitat were observed within the project
study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Mountain Golden Heather - Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and
long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually grows in clumps of 4.0 to 8.0 inches across and about 6.0 inches high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 to 2.0 ft across. The plants have the general aspect of a big moss or
a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch long; and the plant is often
somewhat yellow-green in 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 1.0 inch across,
with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch stalks, and are roundish
17
with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after opening, and may be seen at any time of
the year.
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and 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.
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 study
area was investigated on July 13, 2001. Mountain Golden Heather is reported to occur at elevations ranging from
2,800 to 4,000 feet (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,160 feet (msl) within the project study area is considered
too low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms or suitable habitat were observed within the project
study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Small-whorled Pogonia - The small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10 inches in height.
Five or six drooping, pale, dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the
apex of the green or purple, hollow stem. Typically a single, yellowish-green, nearly stalkless flower is produced
just above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be present. Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach
lengths of 0.7 inch, surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 1.0 inch in length. Flower production, which occurs
from May to July, is followed by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches in length (Massey et
al. 1983). This species may remain dormant for periods up to 10 years between blooming periods (Newcomb
1977).
The small-whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern Georgia, but is very local in
distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found scattered locations in the Mountains, Piedmont, and
Sandhills (Amoroso 2002). Small-whorled pogonia is found in open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous
forest, or along stream banks. Examples of areas providing suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub layer
with a sparse herb layer) where small whorled, pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures, windthrow
areas, cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs
(Massey et al. 1983). In the Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in
association with white pine (Weakley 1993).
Habitat for small whorled pogonia is marginal within the project study area. Although open areas are common
within the project study area, these areas are generally fragmented, disturbed, and maintained. Wooded
streambanks and fencerows are densely vegetated. A thorough search of the project study area on June 11,
2003 failed to identify specimens of this orchid. NHP records document no occurrences of small-whorled pogonia
within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading Avens - Spreading avens 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
18
arise from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow 8 to 19 inches tall. Flowering occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
frasen). Heller's blazing star (Liafris Kellen) and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spifhamaea), 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).
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 study
area was investigated on July 13, 2001. Spreading avens is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 4,200 to
6,300 ft (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,160 ft (msl) within the project study area is considered too low to
serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms or suitable habitat were observed within the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
F.2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of the provisions included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. In addition to the federal program, organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on its list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists the Federal Species of Concern for Burke County, the
state status of these species, and the potential for suitable habitat in the project study area. The NCNHP
database shows no occurrences of FSC within 0.6 mile of the project study area as of January 2001.
F.3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered species.
19
Table 5
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Burke County
Common Name Scientific. Name Habitat
Present State
Status
Southern Appalachian Woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia No
Allegheny Woodrat Neotoma ma ister No --
Rafines ue's big-eared bat Co norhinus =Plecotus rafines uii Yes T
Brook Floater Alasmidonta varicosa Yes T
Edmund's Snaketail Dragonfly 0 hio omphus edmundo Yes SR
Pygmy Snaketail Dragonfly 0 hio om hus howei Yes SR
Diana Fritillary Butterfly S e eria diana Yes SR
Butternut Ju lans cinerea No ---
Sweet Pinesa Monotro sis odorata No C
Carolina saxifrage Saxifra a caroliniana No C
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii No SR
A Liverwort Ce haloziella obtusilobula No C
A Liverwort Pla iochila suliivantii var. spini era No C
A Liverwort Pla iochila suliivantii var. suliivantii No C
A Liverwort Porella watau ensis No SR
Threatened M - anv native or once-native species wh ich is likelv to become an endannered sneriPs within the fnracPPa hlP
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Candidate(C) - a species for which USFWS has enough information on file to support proposals for listing as endangered
or threatened.
Significantly Rare(SR) - species which are very rare, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, and generally reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800, Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings. This project has been coordinated with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA
procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 23, 2002, stated "We have conducted a search of our files and are
aware of no structures of historical or architectural importance located within the planning area." A copy of the
SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
20
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 23, 2002 recommended that "no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate bridges will result in safer
traffic operations.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
Replacement of Bridge No. 57 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment
with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is
expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No
relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative,
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether minority or low-income
populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a
result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low-income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle route; therefore,
no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland for all land acquisition and construction projects. The proposed
project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state
or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
21
No adverse effects to air quality are anticipated from this project. This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so
it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris
is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes after this
project is complete, Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise receptors
in the project study area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are required.
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit determined that no underground storage tanks or areas of other contamination
were present at or near the project study area.
Burke County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The project is not located within an
Approximate or Detailed Study area. Since the proposed replacement for Bridge Number 57 will be a structure
similar in waterway opening size, it is not anticipated that it will have any significant adverse impact on the
existing floodplain and floodway. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project study area is shown in
Figure 6.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impact will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 57.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement program was initiated.
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the project
development with a scoping letter.
XI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agencies have commented on the proposed bridge replacement (see letters in the Appendix). These comments
were noted and considered during the environmental and design processes.
22
FIGURES
16
able Rock
12L.)4 I?
1474,y
1241
:K"'?L243
1300
33
I
Ch.\
1228 4
/ T- B ri
Lon
Ch. _

BURKE CO.
ite , 9
1470
1j
Z 1 ^? $ 7 A
ry G 14
2
i 3 8
1440
1413
118 0.1
1481 •e 1483 0
1 .; 4 13
1 621 1418
t
`
Oak tE
HIII

410 0 ?a
1440
1411 , o
1410
/ Y
SR 1244
Replace Bridge No. 57 over
Canoe Creek
Burke County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4041
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 1
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
,k
9

Looking North across Bridge No. 57
Looking South across Bridge No. 57
k'w NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1244
Replace Bridge No. 57 over
Canoe Creek
Burke County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4041
to Scale FIGURE

Looking North at Bridge No. 57
Looking West at Bridge No. 57
J'
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA

SR 1244
Replace Bridge No. 57 over
Canoe Creek
Burke County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4041
Not to Scale FIGURE 3
I. 'J!I'GI II
4
t
H
cn
Z
O
€3 .
?a
F_

Q
>
- W
Vw
g

Q o
CL
=

.J W
Q V ? yt
O

g
o
CL ?
Ctj
\1
u
40
aXl 11° ? n
d
O
SIG.
*Sg?9 0"(7
. i
-X -x_X 4 pd, ?g j p C3 a iO
air r rr r I r14 ?
SQCJ1?? I .I I .I /,
k
. I ? f ? E3 ? i
. I I I a ?„
as ? I I I
?I I
?x
03
IIG
Lx
look
vfr r r r r r '
S4oJ??? .? I
Sta 15+'3.39
a ft ?? -7- ld
(I: ti C.
I' e aa?d?u??6tla
mill;

-?nc.*?-?: -- -o o? : ? a• r ? .sue - - - • - - • : ?
lot ?d
PC ? r
I Sdo?ti??
Od
Pr Sta. al &
73
I Z
?r r"r I is W n I
sao???8 I I ?? II ?? 1
• ? Q1 ?
E3 1 4 1 ? \? \ f3
a E3 €3 a ` ?
CaW#01*6 -IW- lad 13
`
ID Q 'f
a? ?? I a) a a ` \
o I I °I o
a
r
--------------

9

14
W
LL
S
0
w
U
N
O
6
O
0
1

aH ?H
I
C3 C3
Q
C3
a
ID
0A1
W
0
m y
W
Q
Z Q
W Q
V
QO
3
z
?d
C3
C3 ?
Tp
a
5/
U
2
W
1
I
I
LX
4
I
l
C?a
a

Q \1
e3fa 0
\ X
q ?
C3 ?
\ 1 I C3? ! \??. ° cn i
-° a a 'O
I I / /
I (I? ? / /Q
r r ; '
r?
I?
I
I ? -c i- 1a
a b b N ? "````????YY
I vinu??uu
PC -L2- Sfa.14t5760
I

d
I
@3
POT -L2V?S Std-10+00A0 a
e3 ? ° I I
o I? ??e31
W o} I -A I
C3 C3 W

d
G
?D
Q
C3 \ ? ?
r /
a C3 C31

8
2.3
0

---4---------

in
C7
U-
O
0
0
Lo
w
J
a
vi
0
O
Z
1
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
BURKE COUNTY,
NORM CAROLINA
al INCORPORATM ARHAM
PANEL 100 OF 350
WE MAP INDEX ?ON ?ANELf NOT PAINTED)
?ANEL LOCATION
COMMON -PANEL NUMBER:
310034 0100 C
EFFECIIYE DALE
XNE 17, 1991
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1244
Replace Bridge No. 57 over
Canoe Creek
Burke County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4041
FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 6
APPENDIX
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone [phone] Est 237, Fax [phone]
MEMO FOR: William T. Goodwin. P.E. DATE: June 27, 2002
FROM: Marella Buncick
SUBJECT: Review of NCDOT 2005 Bridge Program
I have completed initial review of the approximately 70 proposed bridge replacements for
NCDOT Divisions 9-14 for the year 2005. I would like to commend NCDOT for
obtaining the natural resource information up front and allowing the agencies to review
the proposals and provide comments so early in the process. It was a large volume of
work for everyone involved but I feel that the input will be much more meaningful at this
early planning stage.
Attached is a spreadsheet with specific comments for each project reviewed. All of the
projects have been assigned a Green, Yellow, or Red ranking depending on the resources
affected and the need for future consultation. As you will note, the majority of the
projects received a Yellow ranking. This is due in large part to the fact that there are
unresolved issues related to listed species. Many of these projects likely will become
Green projects after further field review. However, obligations under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2)
actions are subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
I also have general comments regarding the process and reports. My general comments
follow.
Report Content and Organization
1. The reports would be more easily handled if they were not spiral or otherwise
bound.
2. Maps need to be much better. Without a significant landmark-- highway, larger
town, other feature - it sometimes took a long time to figure out the location of
the project within a county.
3. The reports were organized somewhat similarly, but more consistency would aid
in the review process. Perhaps a table that has the significant features ---stream
width, depth, DWQ class, etc.--also would help.
4. For listed species,-it often was diff dult to tell whether-field surveys had been
conducted or whether the information was limited to a database search.
5. In the future, I would appreciate having the Rosgen stream classification included
as part of the information.
Listed Species Surveys
Projects currently ranked as Yellow will need to be reviewed in the future after the stated
issues are resolved. For those reports with unresolved issues related to listed species, I
would recommend that NCDOT wait until closer to implementation time to conduct final
surveys. In general, after three to five years we need updated information regarding the
project and listed species. Additionally, when aquatic species are involved (particularly
mussels) several surveys may be required to adequately determine presence or absence.
The three projects receiving a Red ranking will need to be followed very closely. to
determine future consultation requirements. These include B-4287 (actually 2 bridge
replacements), B-4286, and B-4282. These projects were ranked as Red because of the
significance of the number of listed resources potentially affected and the river (either
main stem or tributary) involved.
I would encourage NCDOT to require consultants to at least assess habitat for the bog
turtle. While the bog turtle technically does not require Section 7 consultation, it is a
species of concern and NCDOT is actively managing mitigation sites or parts of sites for
this species. Additionally, the Wildlife Resources Commission considers this animal rare
in NC and participates actively in surveys and conservation efforts on its behalf.
Bridge Design and Construction Practices
I am assuming that FWS comments/recommendations in the past regarding bridge design,
demolition, and construction practices will be folded into each of these projects. Since
NCDOT is also working on a BMP manual that covers these practices, I think it would be
redundant to state them again. However, if any questions arise, please let me know. I
would like to emphasize that we prefer off-site detours wherever possible, to minimize
effects to resources.
Each of these projects has been assigned a log number. Please refer to these numbers in
future requests regarding the subject projects. Thank you again for the opportunity to
provide these comments. If you have questions, please let me know.
(f) " '?) (', G) - - cT -) ? •- JJ - CO .i
a7 G) u) I- Lt)
C
O
fi ? Cn CO N a) O
.
'
`"
" 1 '
r) r) J ) t ) _
') ': (") r 7 '-: -T < '.T ("%
V '
S V ! C`7 (`7 (") (7 r l
r. ^ ?) (
? .t
) (
) (
( 'J
'
<+ C'
-j
i N N N N C'J (V N CJ N N N
C O O O O N N (V N N N
O O O O O O N N N
O O O ,
C (V (?
:_.? ?) .: N
0 cV N cJ
0 0 0 , (
N C
0 C. O J .
(
C) C7 C;
- O O O O O O
N c, N N N N (V N
E N cV N N cV N CV C`1 N N N N 11.1 N N N C`, C V N N N Cpl o,
Ln N N N V V 7 V V V V V V V V ?: V C V V V V V V V V
;. C
C) V V V V V V V V V V V
Z
}
p
- J

4 LL-
0-

tT
(n a)
UT

d. L C
C: C c
0 . 4ll [Jli (T; w 0 O E
M i 0) I w; w (n
E (o
O
tT
N
3 1
rn
a 7
a) 0 i
m
1
U)
0 C L cnn ! ? . c
O
.21 C:

Y 7 ?.
. C U 7 ;
Q, ; O
.n
6
v v' a) 0) ro UT L' (U
v. c 3
'
w 0 L Qroj ?
>
?
? wow ? ? O w ? 0 LL: C: C C ? '
.
01i,C) O O, O O O 0011 Q) U 7 C
C)7 0 0 -.
(f) N
>,. w C W
0 (D
C: _0 -0 u
C . c w
m o: o 0 o rn! UT u a)
n` is
p
ro
c a)
7 a) p
a)
_ •? '? (D O ro r O 0)
? m
" CD [T d
-0
?' C C C C a) a) C C 0
°
: 0 0 _ v .n o
C
- O E
v v v v -o -o a) t
0 •-
E is iv U) c m -
c
_0 n rn
-0
L O w. w- w N 01. 01 E a) CD 3 ro
Q1:
a) a
C Q UT LL o
U) _
O O O O 0
p D w w w w a -O (D
a) 0
L 0) w 0 U
0
J C
0 v
°)
E
3 a
v v v v
15
N
n r_
0 ro a
a1 N
m m a
a 3
U a) 3
Q v )
v
a
.O n
i u
n of u
° ( 0
o c O m
)
> m: ro ro ro o o c .? j>
v cn -
U o a
v an a?
o a)
a) a) io m m a o
O
.-. w r ro o C)
Q) CD 0 Z c
U) a) c
a) - w c
v
(a
o o
U N
?
E
w n o
° w U m w c
w w ro ro ro ro o
L L L 0 0 a
.? 3 w
0 w -0 w
0 v
ro 17 v 0 0 (u
7 7
0 N L w
L w w
o ?
0 w 7
co
' C 7 UT 0-
7 y
7 (n .-0 _0 'D
CT w C Y
ro 0
w 0
w .
O w in Q O U
a) 0 0
w C C C C C
0
) ro w o w w
w
u
0 (p 0 U

a
ro (o ro
Fn ai
w
o iv u m v
- ro
7
ro
ro
v
U)
(C U)
a
a) v U) N
U) 0
m
(D ro (o ro
7
?
v
U 0 (v 0 v 7

?
°

v w

c
o C7

a
7
>
>
0
(
a
a m IT IT _0 (D (D
i r C
C a`
ro ro °)
?
S
u
n

LL

LL

LL L
LL .? v -0
as a CL. D- (o ro
v v v v
a) (a L

c n

-C LL

(z
>•

vi vi

0) 0) v; O

v; ,
w w w w w w L L a
) -c ` j .
r v
a) L L 0 ro ro .0 A
T
0
U O O O O O L LL U- U O >>
O O O
7 - LL .p U >
ro - 0 0 U
0 _ U 0
0 0 U U n.
0 0
>. >. >. T >- _ w ro ro 0
d O 0 w 0
a aL o_ 'C a n. Q)
0-
w 3 0 0 C
Z) (n D w .
.D 0 0 -O L L
0
D D
D
7 7 w 7 7 -E ro
a) (?
0 t
v
v C
O
0
Q)

0

0 0
Y
0 7 7. 7 7 7 w w 0 cu c,
w
w w n w
w (u cu 7
L 7 t C
Y w w_ w w w > D D- 0
N 0 N N
w 0 0 o
o
E 0 0 L
w L L in
w C O w w
== 7 7
o o
w w- O w w
_ 0
.
C,.
:- L
E E =
12'E le w ?2 O.O O 12 w 12 w'? O O O T O U>, w 0 0 0 w N 0 0 0 O O Q)
(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 7 tC
O 0 0 i a) Q)
D O
7 7' 7 7 7 7 0 0 0
0 :
7 7 7 7 7 v a) a) 0 w w. 0 0 ' > N
' w > > d
w 0
.
>:UJ UT'UTi Q UT UTI>.> >-> ; Q Q'Q UT'Or > > > 7 7 > -p 7 C Y N,_, 0
Q
N 0,. Q)
? W
0
C'- 0 0101 0 0--
O
) 0 0 0 N 0
` O
i? w
O O w w
O 0 O O O
- O O
w w
-
`
p.0
to I
?
?
?
(n i w ,
[n Cn (n Cn : (
n N -0
N ?, 70
0 . N p
(
n ,.wow
?
-0
w
(n ' 0 ? 0
0
0 . 0 0 w
,
.
j
N ? U) co , U) n (n .
> C 0 0 0 > 0 C C > C 0 0 C a)
4/ : C> >>-> >> C C C C >> C C C-
Z >
L Z
7 LL 7 Z
LL Z D 7
D ;LL LL LL LL LL- LL. D D. 73 7 LL LL LL lL .L- D 7 O Z Z 7 ro L D -

N
0
w
0
Ci
(9 '
N
O
O Q) 0 0

-0

(u

(10

-0
N N C

O

O

C

C
N O
>.: E' E E 0
0. 1]
0
- .D
Y Y ro
w
C E O

(o

C
-- O
O
C C C
O
a) a)
'
v a) a) v v v
a) 3 m
(a
o o
o
w
a) v v v v
c 3 °
° °
7
? _0 _0 0 c
(n
"' C C
. >,L LIL L L C
7 7 7 7 7
t0!
O
7 7 7' 7! 7 7
7 (a N
ro

a)
L L

(o

ro (a

N 0 ro , E

. E ro ro
u
a) ;
w w: w: w w
' CO mCO mm mU'U U UUU ? 0C7'2
QQ m!mmCO CO
U.=QQ;Q m
c
O CO N (2 u2 (O N i (O r CO O
" O ? cn . d' LO (D
V V V
' r- N 0)
LO
V' u7 . O
(D (- O (D
(D r` r c)
O (O c') V
N IT u-) a0 - t`
(O «") CD (? ()O 0) O co
t? t` OO 00
-) ) M (7 r)
co (') (
C) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V
V
C) 0 0 0
0 0 .
0 0 C)
0
0 0 0

v

v v v

v v v v
n .
d:N V v;v! v v v: v v v v
' v v v v `r `r v' v v v v v IT
n v v
v
nmm v
o mm mmMm
mmmm
[n[T]m:mimmm
?= mmmmmm mam.m m m(
m m ( c
;
Un
D

° U) s s g (n Un U) ? n
n. fY ? UY m UY W o ? U) o (n o ? n ° n
LO
O
0
N

0
CL
Q)
m
-o
L
N
iz:T
O
O
N
N
C
a)
E
E
'S
LL
U)
D
co CD 19
NIM N ti: Cn :C--? o co to co I, cf) to 1t-1" M NraO O) 0
10.'!,1' co I r' r N ?N} N IN fir}, (O fD? CD SO co (O ' t0 CO (D (O ? N N {I?"?fM?? f? h I` (D M 1) O' O: c
M M M M
MM?I 'IS?' '('7.' ?M M MIM' M I?C
I I M M I -T •i'I
!? N
d N N N N NININ N N N (VIN (V.N:N IN N N I NIN' N N'N NIN1CN N N C
C 0 0 O.OIO..IO Oi0 pIOIOj IO O,O19.0 0 0,0!0;0 OjI I I I , I .. I I , I I N I,A : I I I 99,
L O 01414 0 0 C) 910
N N N N NININ N N N NIN,IN.NI(V NIN .jcN N CIiIA N N;N;NINI(V N?INIc
1 41444 / , Y I I t I I 11 1 1 , , 1 1 1 1
V . V V' v1V•'v v'v Vivly v v v v v v V'
cm i
3 I!? I II !? i Ii
I f I ' I+ I I
I I I I
coI f !?, I I I I I
i ! I? Q ! . ice.
a, I
jai I I ! .?i ICjo)I ?o !ol a
ro I U! Ih l,C! c C 6
I ?
O-I ?' C ! Q) I.0 I Q) ! Q)
L O Ir- r Imo- ro `I` c c I`
rolrolro i I?I?'O)Irn: rnj -m
l a
i w •Ul I ?. i ?... Q) I
o)I LL. j 1 Q) _N I N! ' -? ro 101,
poi to I I a) ;rolrolro nI?I?IvI-o c
I IO, IW I ILi.C L OI?IO10'071c (0 I?I C! IoIO
p)I W I I N
-; L'L,L,VIO 0IDi•OIUt
I 01 ZI ! 010,`-(0IpIL!C:` u11 ?InIO
•w-.Iw..V .niL 3
I }I mim;a)'mla,!Olc L,L INI N10!75
> ro Z'Z'Z ro!rol'3:3 C,
Q)I a) c!m
rni ?; 'n'rn'a'31o! a)
:E m aI OIE'?
_0 C. j a) a) m
.L] L L ; .t-• a : U : 0)i pi, a) a) C (n U O I -O
O o 0,0 o 010;0 0 0 o U) ?
ui I Z j c c: c c -0 1.0 c C -o L. u_. m 1 (1)
T' ro ro m co O 0
Z, ail N NI 12 _0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 ro
01 Ej E E' if
o ? I ro rot N (/) v? cn U) > ro ro. ro ro l n
O' n `1a)Im; ? N,?,= 7 mivOi ac) Q);? > a) a),? ?;?
O . 0 I CU I CU a) c . E : a) N E L1.LL LL 0
E -0! -O I-00 -0 'S C c 2 U0i m coo ~65 m: m ro o Z
r- i c: v) O O ?' 7 _D 0
c LL (D LL LL L r, n ro m c m O. O" O-' U,
U) O Q) U) U L L L L Q)
-0 70
Q) I U) •ro I CU N ro, (6 co fII CU
ro ro .O j N O rn
jn i C, C! U) C C C C C C C (D C C N
a) a) L L L L
?' O I O. O; N 0 0 0 0-0 O O m i E 0 0 (q to
N -D 1 o); 0)1 _+ oY O) M 0). 0) O) o) -01 07 Q d Q. > O O O 0 ' a)
O' o 1 0 1 C o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 En U) a) (D (n O I nl n,--: n. n. O_ n. n. n. n.
C; -0 0 0 LL Q) Q) Q) a) a-
-01.0 i 3 O D -0 -0-0 -0 ?o ca , c vi v; 0 O) m cm M. m
(n i N Q) I L a) Q) al Q) Cl) Q) a) j3: ca Ql N a) a) 'O ;'a o -L7 (n
O O O: O, O O O O. O O c: Q) LL LL U '0 0 0 .n . L .L) .O
fO : (D (0 I - co I (D ca - (U !LL , L . L ;U) l
L ' ..C L L : L _C L - c _ a) a) Q) N
c; c C C ?: 3 3' 3 3 3 313.3 3 ` m (d 0- n 0- 0- o! o o, o LL.
IO.OOIO.OiOOj pi-l 0 i 1ro:C'C v) v) N U)O
i o)I O): O I O) I O) i o
O) o c). Q)
I o); 0: (II I cu Y ! Q) . ro CU (9 ro ro -Fu. .-Fu 0 O N Q_0 _0 ) Q) o N Om -0 -O -
O; O 0!010* O: O >. 1 'OI o) ", p
nin alnin n;nlwl EiE. E:E E E E E E0 0
i j m , cn ? cn I cn ! u) cn l U, l cn l U) I Z cn U) N (n I U) cn : U) ._ f U • n n a)
• CD i a) ' Q) ' (D W a) : a) I 0 0101 n 0, 0 O O' O 0. 0 o'! 0 0 0 o O O
U) N : V) I U) U) , U) U) I "-' . 4-. Q) ...- ..? •.- w- . a- Q) I Q) U) ' U) . 0 U) !-
'-o I U) U)I N N W , u7t v) 'O I'D I a !-o a '0 I -a -p 'a a -O -o 'o -a -o -o t cna)I a) a) a)
ro I ro ro I ro ro ro I () 1 j I > I -0 ! Q) Q) Q) a) CD, Q) c w 1 Q) I Q) a) a) a) a) a) U) , O , 7 7 7 ' a)
O; 0; 010 Oi0'O!? >
i- -- c,) o o c.olo 0 010016 >.i -;- o'0 0 o Ei4:( 2 0
•C7 I 'O I U "O I 'O a rn I to I I (n I h U) O I U) : U) ! U) Q) I In . cn ' to 0 U, U, ,n
a) o ! Q) Q) o l 0 : 0 > I Q) I a) N • 0 1 (L) ! `) a) ! a) m m a) m , U) ' C/) U) In I
O O'O O O'O'O C CIC'roICIC:C C:C'C C? C'C;C C C C CIQ)I>I?
l-l.
Z,Z;ZjZ Z!Z;Z > >!OiE.oiO O Z3;5,5 Z) O > > O O O!c;LL:u tL :IL,?
j ZI !
I I ! i ! I ; I I
Q.I !
ol cu 1!
> (a , ro
a) Q) ;Z 1Z 1 Q) I Q) Q) .0I ro
O. O O O O, O cu
313131313:3 3:17-5 c t >` t C!t t't," 0) i 0); mj >
O!O!O;O 0;0 O L ro'(1); (1): (1) (1), CD (D Q) O'er. C.C U), NIO :3' -:3 a)
I0!C)'C) Y Y L t C L c t t,Y ? '? '? c c: C CoIYII ro,Y! V
0 oIOIc?!vjo vl= ololaj? O> >to'O o t,- a O 3 3 (a colc`ol(a '(U m
D- a-:C'I? I? ? ? (r C/) co (1) U) f` f= f- S! >
Y
C
(O
c
O
U
(N V U) ; (o ! c- 00 Q) N O I O ([') CO M O . V Ln (D O N Q- (n ,:D (- 00 O (D f? a0
Im 10?;?I,O)'.O .O) O M t.(n u) (D O.O !I;D (D :w-'00,00,00 co co cc) D7 ? N O
::'- .-- N!c•')
04 N N N N N N?c'7 c7 Cl) cl;ch
CL V V V V V V V V V I V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V d V V V
F- m CO CD t7] 147 1) 07 ^C0? CO I co m._ co m CCD CO co _m co C (n m . m T) m m co
ITl CO co- M CO
LtJ >- S S D U
a C-) ) C). IC)C) ' (/) (/) cY 11 cn IY D- E? U) U 2 (? Er cn co
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimack, Director
June 3, 2002
099F,A
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dome
NC DivisioTfWat Q ality
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Green Light" Projects: B-4040, B-4041, B-4043.
In future reports, an Executive Summary Paragraph would be helpful. This should include a
brief description of the work intended (i.e., replace bridge with another bridge or with a culvert),
the amount of impact to wetlands and streams, and types of possible permits needed.
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream.
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 150 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification
For permitting, any project that falls under the Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits 23 or 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality. Notification and
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps, including mitigation plans, are required. For
projects that fall under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 31, the formal 401 application process will be required including appropriate fees and
mitigation plans.
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Wetlands/401 Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd Suite 250 Ralewh, North Carolina 27604
't'elephone 919-733- 1756 FAX N 733-6893
Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
extensions.
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally,
ve,yetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary.
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.
\J' V
® 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, SRI 424, 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, SRI 244, Canoe Creek, B-4041
Bridge No. 94, SRI 972, 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.
May 10, 200:
Bridge Memo
4
5.
Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the earn.
If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed completion should be of the project.. removed b h d
original ground elevations immediately upon t
ten ld
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the so If possible, when susing pecies
be planted with a spacing of not more than the area with en rary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing ch. sturni saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized pand minimizes theisturbed ? uid
root mat intact, allows the =-rea to revegeta e naturally
8. In streams that contain tht
Savidge should be notifiec
required. NCDOT shoulc
information on requireme
ened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr.
special measures to protect these sensitive species m
;o contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the prc
inadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
s for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" shot
I
he
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wt fe Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army % eral `404' permits. We have the option o
Corps of Engineers nationv and gen
and we can
otct trout and trout end individual `404'permit.
requesting additional measi require
recommend that the pro?c quir
6. A clear bank (riprap free) of at least 10 feet should remain on each stcle or >.
steam underneath the brid
9. In streams that are used
"Stream Crossing Guide
be followed.
10. In areas with significan
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and ero:
must be implemented I.
maintained regularly, t
12. Temporary or penman,
within 15 days of grot
13. All work in or adjacet
Sandbags, rock berm:.
where possible to pre,
14. Heavy equipment sho
order to minimize sed,
pollutants into stream:
15. Only clean, sediment
should be removed wi
construction is compl(
heries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resource
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should
-;ially following rainfall events.
.erbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
;isturbing activities to provide long-term erosion contro.
stream w otr should be s should be used
?ferdams,
-xcavation in flowing water.
-)e operated from the bank rather than in stream channels
ntation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
ut excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom wl1<.
Bridge Memo
May 10, 2002
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to 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 4 May 10, 2002
Project specific comments:
1. Bridge No. 26, NC 183, 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, Walleye and White
Bass; 15 Oct - 31 March, Brown Trout ), Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa)
populations. NEW Spanning Bridge.
2. Bridge No. 51, SR1424, Parks Creek, B-4043 - YELLOW LIGHT, Santee Chub in John's
River, No sport fish concerns indicated.
3. Bridge No. 251, SRI 128, Hall Creek, B-4040 - GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
4. Bridge No. 4, SRI 515, Smoky Creek, B-4044 - YELLOW LIGHT, Moratorium for warm
water fish species.
5. Bridge No. 57, SRI 244, Canoe Creek, B-4041 - GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
6. Bridge No. 94, SRI 972, 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, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and 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
`Orl y?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
January 23, 2002
MEMORANDU1\1
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ? ??-r '•.?

SUBJECT Replace Bridge No. 57 on SR 12212E over Canoe Creek, 34)41, Burke Countt-, ER 02-8502
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2001, concerning the above project.
\Ve have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our present knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that am archaeological resources which may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected b?- the project construction. We. therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservadon 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-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: Marv Pope Fun, NCDOT
Mart Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
%dministration 507 N Blount St, Rulcigh. NC 4o1 7 Mail Service Center, Raleigh '7699-3617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N Blown St. R.iletgh . ?( 4(11 3 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 2 7609-16 1 3 [phone] •7154801
Surcec & Planning S 15 \. Bl nutt St. R.11601. N(' 4h 1K Mail Scn ice ('enter. Raleigh 2-699-361 S (91'>) 733 4763 •71511801
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
?s
?o r- I
?
a
K
U d
0?
P
PT4
CG]
F
L ?
(- l
Q ;
v?
Al
?x
?a
a?
98?Z900Z
a
0
U

N
O V
0
a
a ?w
a
? r Aw
h V
O ?
? o
N
I-S ?,
tot
z
0
San
IL
Z93
of
ofr
1
O
n
ao V O
? a
, X43
07
S N
IT ,
P
b o
-? z
0

•
•
q?

v? ? l ??y
? =393
O fI! m?
u <<
p Z V?o?t
A ?"
m "
cr
m
E E
O,
? II II II
r
F F i
a 3 F
o
z o
0 9? 0,
N
0 C4 in c
0% C4 in cq
u u u u n u
88
C4 C4
8-
C4
y ? CA
a I
0 0 o
o

N?
tit it
aim
I
I
gs SO
? j
e I
I
o
.o
?y7 h
,C J ? Z
h ? ? z Z
p OOOLLL
J ? ~
m?
o? b
W
ob 21
?gp ^ N
ru 1-5
_ N O
c z
S Z ^ Z
•? p n Z
o I ^ Z?, ZO h rO
' W
H
W
r ru C.
moo, CL
>?
b
? n
IIN ?7dSo r
p d'
O$ 1098,+0 +O O
O G U- v O
°
C4 +
O Ip
z z
O Z
00 ?O?, h O O
og 9$'+a 8
Way a
o???
z U.
4
u6p•dfi1-5P-1404 \ I£°bl\SOOpv?JV\-SI

G n t3 ? L7 ? ? ;
N
o
n
d
Z
H
J
r
A ?I
Z
V)i _1 Z
v O
W : N
1Q
ru 0 A
J W93
V
r
S
$ o$
O p d?
Fi $ z
y +
+ S
LL! W
D
i
zU.r
u6p•dfi;-Rpa-14077, \ PQO-'\ a
" 900... -51

?s

M e3° a
fl'
X

?Q W t

?3 a
W Q I
J
? n
? do

u
s
P
H I
FK X
a ? i
? N in
J
I
•
.
? '
I
W J
o ? I Y ? I
?X

?311

?

SI
I
? I
d I

v) 11 , M , R ??

a i
? Is

W
?i??Qp' ? fEa"` w .
yy. Q
(
??I(1?
U
?
/ J
w
`
(? ? II 11 11 h
QOJI-?
it CZ'
m ?
1 ?'

I ? ' t? 1

/

O

??? _ w
DA RY ROAD SP 1241
O
tea{
? • .. i

yaaQ.
h ?

f ?5
M P
(•l m Nll
J ?I -In a- 1.11 1
Y ,
Ol ' 00'00+d roJS -7- d
S I I
I ? 1
g
Y
a a Q ?,
A X-X
alp ?
a d
I b ??
I °
I ?
I? I n a
BLY8f9/'v/S -7_ ld
$?
11
1 ?.. ?QOJI-? b?
-l- Sly -14W
d4
165
J
W
? =ee
r?
r -
n
Jp t. i1!
a l a
n r j a
1 OOI J'i ?01?
1 1 1 ? ??b
b N

\ gas

?W \

`3 1 J

FO
ED \ \
\ 1\ p?W?\\\?\ \\\
V

Y,
AI

a Ana a ° \pn
o \ \
U-j
SI - - - .mac- / \ 1
I ? ? ? n ? ? ? ?? 11111
\
I .. 6 .2 ry \ \
I -?" T N6'? \ \
I \ \
! I

t i

c
0 s??4?
•! q- /'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
44*,Q
?_ S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 19, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244 in
Burke County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1244(1), State Project No.
8.2852901, WBS Element: 33407.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-4041.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory
mitigation for the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed July 22, 2003 by the USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to remove and replace Bridge
Number 57 carrying SR 1244 (Gwalthey Road) over Canoe Creek in Burke County. A
160-foot triple barrel 12 x 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert will be replaced at the
same location.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest
extent possible. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the jurisdictional
stream impacts by using the EEP program. We estimate that there will be impacts to 160
feet of Canoe Creek. There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The project is
located in the Catawba River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03050101, DWQ
Index # 11-33-(1), and is classified as Warm water.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
SECRETARY
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA RIPARIAN BUFFER PROGRAM
As this project is in the Catawba River Basin, but not located on the mainstem, no
regulated buffer impacts are anticipated.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Michael Turchy
at maturchy@dot. state.nc.us or (919) 715 - 1468.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
?,lrian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Angie Pennock, USACE
Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment
Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management
60
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
qA ?o
Nos, 2 C?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 19, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244 in
Burke County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1244(1), State Project No.
8.285290 1, WBS Element: 33407.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-4041.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory
mitigation for the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed July 22, 2003 by the USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to remove and replace Bridge
Number 57 carrying SR 1244 (Gwalthey Road) over Canoe Creek in Burke County. A
160-foot triple barrel 12 x 8-foot reinforced concrete box culvert will be replaced at the
same location.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest
extent possible. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the jurisdictional
stream impacts by using the EEP program. We estimate that there will be impacts to 160
feet of Canoe Creek. There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The project is
located in the Catawba River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03050101, DWQ
Index # 11-33-(1), and is classified as Warm water.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA RIPARIAN BUFFER PROGRAM
As this project is in the Catawba River Basin, but not located on the mainstem, no
regulated buffer impacts are anticipated.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Michael Turchy
at [e-mail] or (919) 715 - 1468.
Sincerely, 00
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
ohn Hennessy, NCDWQ
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Angie Pennock, USACE
Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Office of Natural Environment
Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
4%5
B-4041, Bridge 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244, Burke County;
Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the mitigation for the 160 feet of warm stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment 1 details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP intends to provide compensatory stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in
EN
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin. The EEP has received over
62,000 feet of stream mitigation in this CU through the Full Delivery process. The EEP
anticipates sufficient stream mitigation will be available to offset the impacts associated
with this permit. EEP anticipates the full delivery contracts will be fully executed prior
the end of the state fiscal year.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
Wilha D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4041
cos stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4041, Bridge 57 over Canoe Creek on SR 1244, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated April 19, 2005, the impacts are located in
CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Stream Impacts (Warm): 160 feet
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The EEP is only committed to provide the
mitigation needs for projects listed on Exhibit 2 during the first two years of the program;
however Amendment 1 details how non-Exhibit 2 projects may be swapped for an
appropriate project included on the Exhibit 2 list. Specifically, Amendment 1 states that:
"Exhibit 2 may be modified if requested jointly by NCDENR and NCDOT, and
approved in writing by the USACE. In no event may the total projected impacts
of projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 exceed the total projected impacts of
projects per cataloging unit on Exhibit 2 as it existed at the time of the original
execution of the MOA, July, 2003."
In this case, the NCDOT has not proposed to swap this project for an appropriate
project included on the Exhibit 2 list. However, EEP currently has surplus riverine
AF
NCDEN?Z
North (arolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1651 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, N( 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
wetland and stream mitigation with sufficient assets to cover this years projected
mitigation requirements plus the mitigation for the above referenced project. Therefore,
the EEP agrees to accept this project and will provide compensatory stream mitigation up
to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William - . Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4041
C? S zi _S Co
I
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 24, 2006
Ms. Angie Pennock
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
1?lr
-?SSLteco
O V?
Subject: Nationwide Permit 23 Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 57 over Canoe Creek
on SR 1244, Burke County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-4041)
We have reviewed the Nationwide Permit Application and Categorical Exclusion for the subject
bridge replacement project and are providing the following comments in accordance with the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Fish and Wildlife Resources - For roadway crossings, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
generally prefers the use of clear-spanning structures that are designed, at a minimum, to
accommodate the active channel width. According to the Categorical Exclusion, the existing bridge
will be replaced with a 12- by 8-foot triple-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). We are
very concerned about the decision to replace an existing bridge with such a large RCBC. The permit
application provides the following reasoning for replacing the bridge with a culvert:
The culvert will be constructed in stages so that traffic can be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. If a bridge had been selected to replace the
existing bridge, it would have required adding an on-site detour which would have
higher environmental impacts to adjacent biotic communities.
There are construction and design techniques that can be implemented to minimize the adverse
impacts associated with detours for bridge replacement projects; accordingly, we do not believe this
is justification for replacing a bridge with a culvert. Furthermore, the long-term effects associated
with a culvert on stream function and habitat should be much greater than any short-term effects
associated with constructing a detour.
It is our experience with other consultations that box culverts the size of the subject culvert are
similar in cost to that of replacing a culvert with a bridge. The Categorical Exclusion considers only
I
the following as feasible alternatives for replacing the existing bridge: (1) replacing the existing
bridge with a triple-barrel RCBC, (2) no action, and (3) rehabilitating the existing bridge. There was
no detailed cost comparison for replacing Bridge No. 57 with a bridge instead of a culvert nor was
there an analysis and comparison of the environmental effects associated with how a culvert would
function at this site compared to a bridge.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) regularly replaces existing functionally
obsolete and structurally deficient bridges with a bridge; we believe this demonstrates that the
replacement of an existing bridge with a bridge is generally a reasonable and feasible alternative.
Under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
implementing regulations, unlike a list of categorically excluded actions that do not require the
applicant to seek approval by the FHWA before implementing the project, bridge replacement
projects are listed as actions that require the applicant to provide documentation to the FHWA that
significant environmental effects will not result from the action before it can be considered a
categorically excluded action. We do not believe the document we reviewed supports a conclusion
that replacing the existing bridge with a 12- by 8-foot triple-barrel RCBC will not result in significant
environmental effects. Unlike culverts, spanning structures usually can be constructed with minimal
in-stream impacts, do not require stream-channel realignment, retain the natural streambed
conditions, ensure the natural functions of the floodplain, maintain fish passage (especially during
low flows), accommodate the movement of debris and bed material, and provide for wildlife passage
beneath the structure.
To be authorized under NWP 23, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) must concur with the
determination made by the federal agency that is conducting the action (the permittee) that the
project meets the requirements of a categorically excluded action under NEPA. Specifically,
NWP 23 conditions state that activities which are authorized under NWP 23 are:
Activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole
or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulation for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.), that the activity, work, or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is included
within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers
(ATTN: CECW-OR) has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
As stated previously, we do not believe the Categorical Exclusion supports a conclusion that
replacing the existing bridge with a 12- by 8-foot triple-barrel RCBC will not result in significant
effects; therefore, we do not believe the proposed action meets the FHWA definition of a
categorically excluded action. During its review of the Categorical Exclusion, we recommend that
the Corps consider our position that the Categorical Exclusion does not provide sufficient
justification for determining that the action should be categorically excluded.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), requires consultation with the Service and the state
fish and wildlife agency when the "waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or
authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted ... or otherwise controlled or modified"
2
by any agency under a federal permit or license. The purpose of the consultation and the FWCA is to
assure that fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration with other values during the
project planning process. Although the recommendations of the Service and the state wildlife agency
are not binding, the federal agency must give them full consideration. Under the FWCA we
recommend that the Corps reanalyze the environmental effects of replacing the existing bridge with a
culvert compared with replacing the existing bridge with a bridge. We recommend that an
alternative be chosen that causes the least environmental effect or that an Environmental Assessment
be conducted if the Corps determines that the chosen alternative does not meet the standards required
for a Categorical Exclusion.
If the appropriate environmental analysis is conducted and it is determined that a culvert will be used
to replace the bridge, the culvert design should allow for the passage of fish and other aquatic life and
should be designed to accommodate the movement of debris and bed material within a channel.
Multiple barrels are not recommended within the active channel because of their tendency to trap
large woody debris, resulting in debris blockages and subsequent road failure. However, if multiple
barrels are used, barrels other than the base-flow barrel should be placed on or near stream bank-full
width or floodplain bench elevation in order to accommodate floodwaters within the stream corridor.
These should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
using sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base-flow barrel. Sufficient water
depth should be maintained in the base-flow barrel during low flows to accommodate fish movement.
In essence, the base-flow barrel should provide a continuum of water depth and channel width
without substantial modifications of velocity. The stream channel underneath the existing bridge
should be restored to a gradient, width, floodplain, and configuration similar to the existing natural
channel upstream or downstream of the crossing. The stream banks underneath the existing bridge
should also be restored.
When reseeding/revegetating disturbed areas, we strongly recommend that only native plant species
be used or, if an adequate seed source cannot be found, that noninvasive species (such as annual rye)
be used until native plants can reestablish themselves. While many of the exotic plant species
typically used in erosion-control and reclamation efforts have proven beneficial to some wildlife
species, we now know that the invasive nature of these species outweighs any short-term
erosion-control or wildlife benefits they may provide. Exotic species, including tall fescue (native to
Eurasia), Korean and Sericea lespedeza (eastern Asia species), redtop (a Eurasian species), Sudan
grass and Bermuda grass (native to Africa), and Kentucky bluegrass (native to Eurasia and northern
Canada), choke out native vegetation and often result in monocultures that prove to be of little
benefit to wildlife and can be very detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing,
possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle), their eggs,
parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid
impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of the bridge and any other
migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting season from
March through September. If migratory birds are discovered nesting in the project impact area,
including on the existing bridge, the NCDOT should avoid impacting the nests during the migratory
bird nesting season (March through September). If birds are discovered nesting on the bridge during
years prior to the proposed construction date, the NCDOT, in consultation with us, should develop
measures to discourage birds from establishing nests on the bridge by means that will not result in the
take of the birds or eggs, or the NCDOT should avoid construction and demolition activities during
the nesting period.
Federally Listed Species - The information provided states that no suitable habitat exists within the
project area for the threatened mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana), spreading avens (Geum
radiatum), or Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri). Since these species occur above 2,800 feet and
this project is at approximately 1,200 feet, we agree with this detenmination. Given the disturbed
vegetative community that is present within the project area, we also agree with the negative survey
results and determination that there is no suitable habitat for the threatened small whorled pogonia
(Isotria medeoloides) or dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Ilexastylis naniora). Therefore, we believe the
requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If we can be of assistance or if you have any questions about these comments, please contact
Ms. Denise Moldenhauer of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-02-382.
Sincerely,
nan P. Cole
;'B
Field Supervisor
cc:
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1548
Mr. Brian Wrenn, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Central Office, 2321 Crabtree Blvd.,
Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
Electronic copy:
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road, Suite M, Charlotte, NC 28227
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2852901
TIP NO. B-4041
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DA j?regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
-7104- 0_6'tz? 1,1/
DATE Lpj_t?ohn F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2582901
TIP NO. B4041
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Q ? ? ES?I;'J?' ?? s
SEAL
22032
Di?
Philip D. Edwards, P.E. k?kdCf10t6ust"i°
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation

Vincent J. Rhea., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
a 7Z3 o
Date
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2852901
TIP NO. B-4041
No other special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT except for the standard Nationwide Permit #23
Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification.
Categorical Exclusion
February 2004 Page 1 of 1
BURKE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 57 ON SR 1244 (GWALTNEY ROAD)
OVER CANOE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1244(1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2852901
T.I.P. NO. B-4041
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge No. 57 located on SR 1244 (Gwaltney Road) over Canoe Creek is included in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program BRZ-1244(1). The location is shown in Figure 1.
No substantial impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 57 has a sufficiency rating of 48.4 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 57 is located on SR 1244 (Gwaltney Road) in rural Burke County. Refer to Figure 1 for the project
location and Figures 2 and 3 for photos of the existing project study area.
Bridge No. 57 was constructed in 1964. The bridge is currently posted to restrict weight limits to 19 tons for
single vehicles (SV) and 28 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The overall length of the three-span structure is 57 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 19.1 ft that includes two
travel lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-beams. The substructure consists
of timber caps and piles. The height from crown to streambed is 9 ft.
SR 1244 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2002 average daily
traffic volume (ADT) is estimated to be 300 vehicles per day (vpd). The percentages of truck traffic are 1 percent
TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected 2025 ADT is 3,600 vpd.
The two-lane facility measures approximately 18 ft in width and has variable 4-8 ft grassed shoulders on each
side of the roadway in the vicinity of the bridge. The horizontal alignment of SR 1244 is poor adjacent to the
bridge. There are curves on each end of the bridge and a street adjacent to the southern end of the bridge. The
vertical alignment is good within the project study area. There is no posted speed limit in the immediate vicinity of
the bridge. Therefore, the statutory speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph). Existing right-of-way is approximately
60 ft in width.
Alternative B (Preferred)
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge with a RCBC on new alignment east of SR 1244. During
construction, the existing bridge will be used to maintain traffic. The total length of roadway approach work for
this alternative is approximately 747 ft. Refer to Figure 5 for illustration of this alternative.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1244.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
An off-site detour was considered for this project but is not feasible due to the detour length.
D. Preferred Alternative (Alternative B)
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge with a RCBC on new alignment east of SR 1244. During
construction, the existing bridge will be used to maintain traffic. Alternative B was selected as the preferred
because it has the lowest construction costs and least environmental impacts.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative B as the Preferred Alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exception
The speed limit is not posted on SR 1244; therefore, a statutory speed limit of 55 mph applies. Due to the
existing road conditions, Alternative A will require a design exception for both the horizontal and vertical
alignment.
3
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 study area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of
protected and candidate species (March 3, 2001) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, January 2001). NCNHP files were reviewed for
documented occurrences of state and federal listed species. USFWS Recovery Plans for federal listed species
were reviewed, where applicable.
A field investigation of natural resources was conducted within the project study area on July 13, 2001. Water
resources were identified and categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of
Natural 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), The Freshwater Fishes of North 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 vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing aerial
photography of the project study area. 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' March 6, 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, et al., 1979). Wetland boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the
field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey methods.
B. Physiography and Soils
Burke County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian Mountains) Physiographic Province of western North
Carolina. The county encompasses 511 square miles and is primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation from
approximately 935 ft mean sea level (msl) where the Catawba River flows into Catawba County to 4,350 ft msl.
Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 1,116 to 1,160 ft msl, with the stream bed near
the bridge lying at approximately 1,116 ft msl.
The portion of Burke County within which the project study 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:
5
investigation. The stream banks are comprised of unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of primarily alluvial
origin and, to a lesser degree, colluvial origin.
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project study 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 study area is designated
as Subbasin 03-08-31 (the Warrior Fork, Johns River, and Rhodhiss Lake Subbasin). Canoe Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 11-33-(1).
Canoe Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C. The C designation indicates waters that are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and
other uses found suitable for Class C waters. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges in Class C waters.
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I, or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile of the project study area.
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates. No
previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on Canoe Creek within the project
study area or upstream of the project within the project study area. Catawba River Basin benthic monitoring
station "B-2" is, however, located where SR 1250 crosses Canoe Creek approximately 3.0 miles downstream of
the project study area. Sampled in 1992 and 1991, water quality ratings for Canoe Creek based on
bioclassification of station B-2 was found to be "good-fair" on both occasions (NCDENR, 1999).
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly
referred to as "point sources". No registered point source discharges are located within 1.0 mile of the project
study area.
C.2. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study 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 study area during and immediately following construction.
• Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface water
and groundwater during construction.
• Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed land
surfaces.
communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way communities, (2) landscaped areas, (3) cropland, (4) open field,
and (5) successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities. The remaining community with in the project study
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 aquatic community associated with Canoe Creek was assessed within the project
study area.
Altered Right-of-Way Communities - These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR
1244 and several farm roads. Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession through
mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices.
No woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered rights-of-way communities
of the project study area. Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include
butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), common plantain (Plantago major),
Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisir), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), white clover (Trifolium repens), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae).
Landscaped Areas - This community consist of cleared, landscaped, and vegetatively managed areas around
residential dwellings located in the southeast and southwest quadrants of the project study area.
Dominant plant species observed at the time of site investigation include scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), black
locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), assorted cultivars, crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), common
chickweed (Stellaria media), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), common plantain (Plantago major), and common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
Croplands -- These communities consist of a recently harvested hay field in the northeast quadrant and a
cornfield in the southwest quadrant of the project study area. These communities occur on gently to moderately
sloping land surfaces adjacent to a very narrow floodplain terrace, which separates the croplands from Canoe
Creek.
The hay field appears to have been planted with tall fescue (Festuca sp.) and possibly red clover (Trifolium
pratense). Other pioneer or opportunistic species observed in and around the edges of the croplands at the time
of field investigation include blackberry (Rubus sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), common plantain
(Plantago major), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), bitter
nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), white clover (Trifolium repens), curly dock (Rumex crispus), foxtail grass
(Setaria sp.), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Open Field Community -- This community occur outside the state right-of-way on moderately to gently sloping
land surfaces underlain by moderately well-drained soils in the northwest quadrant of the project study area. No
mature trees occur within this community. The successional nature of the vegetation community suggests that
the open field was once pastureland that has lain fallow for several or more growing seasons.
Woody vegetation observed within the open field at the time of field investigation includes eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and blackberries (Rubus sp.). Herbaceous plant species observed include unidentified
9
D.2. Wildlife
Most of the communities within the project study area 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
the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), can be expected to utilize edge habitat present within the
project study area. Due to the relatively small size of the project study 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 study area.
A woodchuck (Marmota monax) was the only mammal observed in the project study area at the time of field
investigation; however, tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were
observed. Other mammals common to the project region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of
the project study area include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivore), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole
(Microtus pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus),
house mouse (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 within the project study area provides limited but suitable habitat and forage areas for
a variety of birds. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include the ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubris), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Songs and/or calls of the
following birds were also noted within the project study area at the time of field investigation: bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus 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 study area. The open landscaped areas and the croplands within the
project study area provide probable hunting grounds for birds of prey, such as hawks and owls.
No reptiles were observed on the project study area at the time of field investigation. A variety of reptile species
may, however, use the communities located in the project study 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 clamitans) were observed along Canoe Creek.
Terrestrial insects observed in the project study area include organpipe mud daubers (Tryploxylon sp.), cloudless
sulfur butterfly (Phoebis sennae), and West Virginia white butterflies (Lycaena phlaeas).
D.3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community of the project study area consists of Canoe Creek below the ordinary high water line.
Dominant aquatic habitats within this section of Canoe Creek include cobble/boulder substrate, sticks and leaf
packs, snags, and root mats. The stream within the project study area is primarily run, with one distinct riffle/run
11
Permanent community impacts for Alternative B represent the least amount of the two alternatives when the
potential temporary impacts are included. The plant community with the largest amount of potential permanent
and temporary impacts for all proposed alternatives is the Cropland community.
DA.b. Aquatic Communities Impacts
The replacement of Bridge No. 57 over Canoe Creek will result in certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic
community. 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 reducing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation, 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 in seasonal 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 study 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 streambeds, as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading.
E. Special Topics
E.1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Canoe Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands subject to review under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches of the soil surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No wetlands have been mapped within the project study area under
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program.
The surface waters within Canoe Creek exhibit characteristics of a permanently flooded, lower perennial riverine
habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH). Canoe Creek is a jurisdictional surface water.
13
permit. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since the proposed
project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the USACE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will
also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which
a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, on condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment
and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent exceedences of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard.
E.3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland. mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance - Mitigation by avoidance examines appropriate and practicable measures for averting impact to
waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the USACE, states that in determining appropriate and practicable measures to offset unavoidable
impacts; such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Canoe Creek; therefore, totally avoiding surface water impacts is
impossible.
Minimization - Minimization of adverse impact to waters of the United States includes examination of
appropriate and practicable measures to reduce such impacts. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Adverse impacts are typically minimized by decreasing the
proposed project footprint through reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, and/or fill slopes.
Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to waters of the United States include strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMPs for protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of
clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide management;
minimization of instream activity; and litter/debris control.
No measures are proposed for this project because there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project study
area.
Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation, including restoration, creation and enhancement of
waters of the United States, is typically not considered unless anticipated impacts to waters of the United States
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Further, it is recognized that "no net loss
of wetlands" may not be achievable in every permit action. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required for
15
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf - The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a small, spicy-smelling, rhizomatous perennial herb.
The long-stalked evergreen leaves (to about 6 inches long) are leathery, heart-shaped, and mottled with white
(Kral 1983). The solitary purplish flower is jug-shaped, fleshy and firm, and has three triangular lobes. Flower
and fruits appear in April and early May, usually under leaf litter (Cooper et al. 1977).
Preferred habitat is north-facing slopes of rich deciduous forest, usually associated with mountain laurel in acidic,
sandy loam soils. Suitable soils in this region of the state are Pacolet sandy loam, Madison gravelly sandy loam,
and Musella fine sandy loam. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known from the Piedmont of North and South Carolina
(Kral 1983).
No suitable habitat was identified for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area due to extensive
clearing and maintenance of roadside areas. Limited streamside and fencerow habitat was characterized by
overgrowth of shrubs and trees. The project study area contains no boggy areas of north-facing slopes. NHP
records document no dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurrences within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Heller's Blazing Star - Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems
arising from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 1.3 ft in height and are topped by a
showy spike of lavender flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches long (Porter, 1891). Its 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 remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full
sunlight.
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 study
area was investigated on July 13, 2001. Heller's Blazing Star is reported to occur at elevations ranging from
3,500 to 6,000 ft (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,160 ft (msl) within the project study area is considered too
low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms or suitable habitat were observed within the project
study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Mountain Golden Heather - Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and
long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually grows in clumps of 4.0 to 8.0 inches across and about 6.0 inches high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 to 2.0 ft across. The plants have the general aspect of a big moss or
a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch long; and the plant is often
somewhat yellow-green in 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 1.0 inch across,
with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch stalks, and are roundish
17
arise from horizontal rhizomes. . Plant stems grow 8 to 19 inches tall. Flowering occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
frasen). Heller's blazing star (Liafris Kellen) and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spifhamaea), 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).
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 study
area was investigated on July 13, 2001. Spreading avens is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 4,200 to
6,300 ft (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,160 ft (msl) within the project study area is considered too low to
serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms or suitable habitat were observed within the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
F.2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of the provisions included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. In addition to the federal program, organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on its list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists the Federal Species of Concern for Burke County, the
state status of these species, and the potential for suitable habitat in the project study area. The NCNHP
database shows no occurrences of FSC within 0.6 mile of the project study area as of January 2001.
F.3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered species.
19
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 23, 2002 recommended that "no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate bridges will result in safer
traffic operations.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
Replacement of Bridge No. 57 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment
with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is
expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No
relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether minority or low-income
populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts as a
result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low-income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle route; therefore,
no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland for all land acquisition and construction projects. The proposed
project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state
or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
21
FIGURES
0
1219
Crack 1 B
1258
able Rode
1474,
?o 1241
4
1240
b
154 .5
e IA Y?
Ch.
1
1259
1243
1300
.1
,228
A °- \
?" s
,228 .t
?n
BURKE CO.
' B g--
yq
Site ~
Zion 143,
- 1423
ct,
1439 1J
1410

r 1408
v 1 04 9
1
1440
?
L411
a
'
1i
r
1487 1410 e
148
? 44 1470
147
?
1253 Z 2 ,t $ .7 b
ry Got 1482
1293
1440
v
1413
1316 80.1
1461 314f3 '

C 12T 1 d 4 13 a
1419

,
W T 7Hi11
`

NORTH CAROLINA
.•?" DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1244
Replace Bridge No. 57 over
Canoe Creek
Burke County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4041
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 1