20040558 Ver 1_Complete File_20040408

F wA rF
0 9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary?O North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
j r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project No.: o1OOY 1?SSr S County: ?yr f(e
Applicant:
Project Name: S9 - y - ov 4-e, n rY
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: <1,/???/ soo 4'
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC.
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant; the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
1, -l/ morn y ??a Sr,.? ?} E hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans d specifications, and other sup o ing materials.
Signature: t. t ,.), Date: q p?
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
1, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized
to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permitee hereby state
that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction
such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting materials.
Signature Registration No. Date
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetfands/
V ?Q
RMEtE
14ONV88 M31VMW801S 014V SONV113M
1.D'Vnl) 831VM - 8N30
5002 f 0 100
I@Aflg-,?74
Ilk
F W A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\o?0 9pG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
0 Division of Water Quality
April 26, 2004
Burke County
DWQ Project No. 040558
NCSR 1904 (South Mountain State Park Road)
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Mr. J. J. Swain, P.E.
Division Engineer
N C Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 3279
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Dear Mr. Swain:
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
MAY 0 5 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 60 linear feet of
two (2) unnamed tributaries to Jacobs Fork (60 feet of new pipe), in order to make improvements to NCSR 1904
(South Mountain State Park Road) in Burke County. The project must be constructed in accordance with your
application dated April 6, 2004 (received April 8, 2004), including the environmental commitments made in the
application letter. Please note that Jacobs Fork and its tributaries are classified as WS-III-Trout-Outstanding
Resource Waters. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this till is covered by General Water
Quality Certification No. 3404, corresponding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Number 14. In
addition, you must acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including (but
not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval
will expire with the accompanying 404 Permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below). Should
your project change, you must notify the DWQ in writing and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total impacts
to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
water standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures must be
such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction
sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits
associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. Any reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa N. C. 28778 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Customer Service: 1-877/623-6748

Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E.
April 26, 2004
Page Two
2. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of
the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notice Application. All construction activities, including the design,
installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be
performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
3. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall
be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land Resources has
released the project.
4. Jacobs Fork and its tributaries are classified as WS-III-trout-ORW waters. NCDOT shall use Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT August 2003) and Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 413.0124 (a)-(e)].
5. The stream banks, where the existing culverts will be removed, must be stabilized using native, woody vegetation
and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques. NCDOT is encouraged to use onsite vegetation and materials
for stream bank stabilization when practicable.
6. NCDOT must submit a plan for written DWQ approval to address any head cutting or associated stream bank or
riparian area that becomes unstable, should it occur, resulting from this project. Any repair designs must be
submitted to and receive written approval from the NCDWQ before the repair work is performed.
7. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the trout-spawning
season of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout. NCDOT shall comply with any
conditions or moratoriums requested by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
8. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
9. Stormwater should be directed to vegetated buffer areas, grass lined ditches or other means appropriate to the site
for the purpose of pre-treating stormwater runoff, and must not be routed directly into streams. Mowing of
existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized for stormwater sheet flow.
10. Where multiple barrel pipes are installed, the base flow barrel should be installed in the thalweg channel.
Additional barrels should be placed on or near the active floodplain bench elevation to receive stormwater flows.
The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the base flow barrel should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Any disturbed active floodplain benches and
stream channel should be restored to natural geomorphic conditions to the extent practicable.
11. Where fish passage is present or where significant aquatic life may be present upstream (and where practicable),
culverts should be oversized and buried to prevent perched culverts. If oversized piping cannot restore aquatic life
passage by reconnecting the stream ecosystem, riprap installation should be accomplished in a manner to provide
or restore water channels downstream to help facilitate aquatic life movement.
12. Where practicable, culverts that are less than 48-inch in diameter should be buried to a depth equal to or greater
than 20% of their size to allow for aquatic life passage. Culverts that are 48-inch in diameter or larger should be
buried at least 12 inches below the stream bottom to allow natural stream bottom material to become established in
the culvert following installation and to provide aquatic life passage during periods of low flow. These
measurements must be based on natural thalweg depths. This may require increasing the size of the culvert to
meet flow conveyance requirements. If any of the existing pipes are perched, they shall be removed and replaced,
and re-installed correctly, unless demonstrated that this is topographically unfeasible. All waters must flow
through without freefalling or damming on either end of the culverts during low flow conditions, to maintain
aquatic life and/or fish passage.
13. The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream, above and below the crossing, should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the stream depth. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be restored
to natural geomorphic conditions.
14. Any riprap used must not interfere with aquatic life passage during low flow conditions.
15. If concrete is used, work must be accomplished so the wet concrete does not contact the stream water. This will
lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
16. Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
Mr. J. J. Swain, P.E.
April 26, 2004
Page Three
17. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
18. The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or other
materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate
vicinity of the culverts.
19. All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
20. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of Completion"
form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been completed. The responsible
party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality
upon completion of the project NCDOT is strongly advised to send in photographs upstream and downstream of
each structure to document correct installation.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone Mr. Mike Parker of the Asheville Regional Office at 828.296.4500.
Sincerely,
f--Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Roger Bryan, Division 13, DEO
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Wetlands/401 Unit
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office
,MSTATE4 WETLANDSiana
..., GRQUp
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WA TER QUAL I Ty SEC T101V
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY
PO BOX 3279, ASHEVILLE, NC 28802
April 6, 2004
Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers iL ` 4qJ?:}
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 0
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Subject: Nationwide Permit #14
SR 1904, South Mountain State Park Road
State Project No. 13C.0I2019(DWQ Minor Permit Fee $200)
Burke County, NC
Dear Mr. Lund:
I have enclosed a straight-line diagram with erosion control plan, a PCN application for
NWP #14, and a vicinity map relative to the proposed project on SR 1904, South
Mountain State Park Road, Burke County, NC.
South Mountain State Park Road is currently a 16-18 feet wide gravel road. Division of
Highways plans to pave the road 18 feet wide and increase the typical section. Grading
will be light.
We propose to extend two existing culverts on UT's to Jacob Fork. Total culvert
extensions will be 60 linear feet. No stream relocation will be performed for the project.
Existing channel morphology will be maintained upstream and downstream of the
culvert. The culvert will be placed below existing streambed elevation. Riparian
vegetation will be reestablished along disturbed areas associated with the culvert
extension. Stormwater will be diverted through grass-lined ditches or vegetated buffers
prior to entering streams.
No significant effect on federally listed species (threatened or endangered) or their
habitats is anticipated.
As a part of the 401 Certification process, a copy of the application will be forwarded to
the NC State Historic Preservation Office as required by Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and GS 121-12(a).
Mr. Steve Lund
Page --2 SR 1904, Burke County
April 6, 2004
By copy of this letter, we request the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Coordinator to comment directly to the Corps concerning the permit request.
By copy of this letter, we are asking Ed Ingle, Area Roadside Environmental Engineer, to
comment on the above project. Temporary encroachment into the buffer zone of Zacob
Fork will not be required for the project. The stream is classified as ORW, Trout, and
WS-III. A buffer variance will not be required.
By copy of this letter, I am forwarding seven (7) copies of the application package to
Cynthia Van der Wiele, NC Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetland Unit and an
additional copy to Mike Parker, NC DWQ Asheville Regional Office for review and
comment. Please charge the application processing fee of $200.00 to WBS element #
13C.012019. Please forward comments directly to the Corps with copy to Division 13
Environmental Officer.
Your earliest consideration for this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any
questions or information needs, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
-, 0 T-
RobTer D. Bryan
Division 13 Environmental Officer
Enclosures
cc: J.J. Swain, Jr., P.E.
D. R. McNeal, P.E.
Ed Ingle
Ron Linville
Cynthia Van der Wiele
Mike Parker
Office Use Only: Fonn Version April 2001
i'J
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Pen-nit
? Section 10 Pen-nit
X 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
IL Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3279
Asheville NC 28802
Telephone Number: 828-251-6171 Fax Number: 828-251-6394
E-mail Address: rdbryan cb
dot. state. nc.us
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.) N/A
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Pagel of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
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 fonnat;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: SR 1904 South Mountain State Park Road
2. T.I.P. or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):I3C.012019
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _ N/A
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Morganton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): SRI 904 is located off of Old NC
18 in South Mountain State Park(follow signs to park).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°35'48"N 81°36'10"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Existing secondary road
7. Property size (acres): 2.0
Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): UT's to Jacob Fork(ORW -Tr-WS
III)
9. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htth:/112o.enr.statc.11c.US'/adIn in/mat?s/.)
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: We propose to jrade, drain, base, pave and
install erosion control measures for SR 1904 (South Mtn. Park Road) from park entrance gate
to the third bridge replacement project. We propose to extend two existing culverts on two
small UT's to Jacob Fork. Total stream impacts will be 60 linear feet. The culverts will be
installed to insure aquatic life passage within the streams.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Excavator, backhoe, and
trucks.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: State park, wooded.
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 USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date pen-nits 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 pen-nits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Action ID 200030012, secondary road project 1999, Action ID 200330216-217 Bridge 136 and
184, Action ID 200331050 Bridge 198 - 2003 (3 bridges under construction with proposed road
nroiect).
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional pen-nit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No, no future plans.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to detennine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Type of Impact* Area of Located within Distance to -?
Page 3 of 8
Site Number
indicate on ma) Impact
(acres) 100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Nearest Stream
(linear feet) Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year tloodplains arc identified through the Fedcral Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps arc available through the FFMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:_iwww.tcma,brw.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
( leasespecify)
Site 1(77+50) Culvert 30 UT 1 to Jacob Fork 1 P
Site 2(95-153) Culvert 30 UT 2 to Jacob Fork 1 P

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. 11' a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
Aww_us Y. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.t Tq(o c.com,
??y?_w_rnu x ucstsom, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 60 feet.
Page 4 of 8
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation - N/A
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The existinL, secondarv road must be improved to meet current safety standards for paved
roads. The culvert extensions requested are the minimum necessary to establish an appropriate
typical section for the roadway. Riparian vegetation will be established on disturbed areas
associated with the project construction.
VIII. Mitigation - N/A
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
Pabc 5 of 8
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but 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 NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://li2o.cnr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.litml.
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.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at I Itp /Ii" o enr.state.nc._u, Nvrt)/index.Ittm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes XNo ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No X
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 (DWQ Only) - N/A
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No X If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
7one*
_ Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total - -
* Lone I extends out 30 teet perpendicular trom near hank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 7 of 8
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Xl. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The existing compacted gravel roadway acts as an impervious surface. Paving of the roadway
should eliminate sedimentation from tines associated with gravel surface treatment. The
roadway surface will be 40% of right of way acreage. Stormwater will be diverted through
settling basins or grass lined buffers prior to entering the streams.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)- N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No X
XIV. 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).
With regard to hazardous spill basins, the road is not classified as an arterial route, therefore
hazardous spill basins are not required.
Applica t/Agent's Si ature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 8 48
w

t i
! J L.
,°+. 1 tr lr ,i
~ ? t
16
_-
,,,?? \Y?: ?,t }? '`... ? j ,r' ?,=' - ? ? _ _ •,,,,,,.,""` ? fit
"J ,l?,r--,•` J ,+'" ? f Y '??fr' (. ???..,.i .,,`?„
' ? ;, ; 1•'',.,11 ? ,, ;?; ? ,. ~"_? = '" ?,.?_ - ' j'"-j \'?'• ?Y.?-?.,?,` ?, '?-? `?., / ?.",?`4
01
01
Name:CASAR
Date: 4/6/2004
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet

]t

N \..
&N,
.? i•r' (?y? ? ??? 1

'I
I ,
Location: 035° 35'38.40" N 081 ° 35'58.22" W
Caption: SR 1904, South Mountain Park Road, Burke County, NC.
Figure 1.1 SR 1904, Site 1, UT to Jacob Fork, Burke County, NC.
Figure 1.2. SR 1904, Site 2, UT 2 to Jacob Fork, Burke County, NC.
J
v
801 I 80
40111
B ? 1!
10/1

f ,
f
/
/ f
/ f
f
1 f
1 !
1 !
1 !
f !
f 1
t 1
1 !
PROPOSED.
(OCR" of gx'CMP
/
1
/
i S pUTH ?/J (:)UWTP I1`J
/ y3C.a??Qi?
??om
G RRDE , ?As?, £ ? ??
E op +J ???
i
r i
r Ii
i
7 I
j4r /lip
S T Ao 85+5
EXISTING
t r 1
421 PIPE
I r
8S ,
r
r
i
i
! 1
r
f ,
?y l
It ,
I ,
f ' f
1 ,
1 1
l
83
/ f
i
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DST
v3 a
TOI REF. N .. OR ROOM, SLD6.

FROM REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ','PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
040672
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP

APR 2 3 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
1 ,
r

JM STATE n?
y °?s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 14, 2003
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
r?. _ >
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANQS 1401 GROUP
?pR ? 9? 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Application for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 (Baptist Camp Avenue) over the
Little River, Burke County. Federal Aid Project No. BR.Z-1900(Z)
State Project No. 8.2852401, TIP No. B-3622.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 334 over the Little River (DWQ Index 11-129-2-5), a Division of Water Quality
Class "WS-III Tr ORW" Waters of the State. The project involves replacing the current
bridge with a new bridge on a new location south of the existing structure. The new
structure will be a core slab bridge, 55 feet in length with a 24-foot wide roadway length
to allow for two ten-foot travel lanes and two-foot shoulders on each side. There will be
no bents placed in the channel of the Little River. Approach work will consist of grading
and clearing the new location and installing guardrails if appropriate. Traffic will use the
existing bridge during construction.
Please find enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Report for the above
referenced project, along with a project site map, permits drawings, and PCN form.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
No impacts to Waters of the United States, in the form of wetlands or surface waters, are
anticipated as a result of project construction.
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. DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing Bridge No. 334 includes two spans totaling 34 feet in length with a depth
from crown to streambed of six feet. The bridge superstructure is composed of a timber
deck on timber joists and the substructure is timber caps, posts and sills. The bridge will
be removed without dropping any components into the water, therefore no temporary fill
will result form bridge demolition. However, substructure removal could result in some
streambed disturbance. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
comments suggest that bridge demolition and removal activities be prohibited during the
fish spawning season of May 1 through July 15 in order to protect Little River fish stocks
from this potential disturbance. NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow
appropriate NCDOT guidelines for bridge demolition and removal.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The new structure will consist of a single span 55-foot cored span bridge. A temporary
causeway will not be necessary to complete this structure.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 29 January, 2003
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists six federally protected species for Burke
County. The Biological Conclusions, as stated in the CE, remain valid for each of these
species.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, the NCDOT hereby requests WRC review. The
NCDOT requests that WRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers. During
the planning phase of this project the WRC has indicated that there is no fisheries data
available for the Little River. However, in a memo dated June 9, 2000, the WRC
requested a general moratorium on bridge demolition and removal between May I and
July 15 to limit direct impacts and prevent off-site sedimentation during the fish-
spawning season.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
• NCDOT will not incorporate deck drains in the proposed structure
• Bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish-spawning period
of May 1 to July 15, in order to protect Little River fish stocks from this potential
disturbance.

SUMMARY
It is anticipated that this action will be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number
10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate 401 General Certification number
3403 for approved Categorical Exclusions will apply to this project. 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). In accordance with 1 5A NCAC 2H
.0501 (a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone] or at
lriddickgdot. state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. F.D. Martin, Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
.1915
C: A l\ 1?K 1 ._? ? I I.
CT,,ARL- 1914
PROJE
Pleasant
Ube-
I ff
-? I / \ .
V I ?? 1912
- e/d. J J J`
l o 900
1990
o l .. ?. 11924 J? Rhoney
isll
{{
5.? ?' \ + 190
\ W 11904
910 ?, j2
190 1911 'U
907
r ? M4 I Rd ?? ' Q
r ,y 1973 `. P
r 1905 192 I •• U
PORTION OF BURKE COUNTY MAP
f1
WF -iQale imeofe A
® iI For'
11 / 127
1 B U a Ri
Plea nl A f°r , -\-
G lenwood %164) South M s Gro a
21 Dysartsvll a
I vale
228
I First
t Casar Toluca \ 27 Fleepsvillp?
Union Mills
R F 0 I. `ra 10 eelwood
Weslmmst 1 _ 1B ` 271 Lir
+ ?Sunshine 112
A < Logan [r? ' y Hollis" ltiq , Fall slun
1 'Lawndale'• 182 l Cror
W'0shburn 41 i uForest °Ikvllle 226 Che vil(;, s
v
0 0 pity Bostic IKIn own Duuble Chei _ G
o 1 Snoels Waco
PORTION OF STATE MAP
WETLAND IMPACTS
A ?W r? B
2
9 O Maiden
121

W
I De'
PROJECT
a0 L
oodsunville
I2
oger
ItY
Iron 7.

21
s+ Stall n
Lowe
High
owls Isis
S T- O 4 N
t, 0
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
82852401(8-3622)
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE N0.334 AND
APPROACHES ON SR /900 EVER THE LITTLE RIVER
SCALE AS SHGWN SHEET _ 0/

QUAD MAP OVERLAY
y
P
1
d?
WETLAND SITE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
J BURKE COUNTY
82852401(B-3622)
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO.334 AND
APPROACHES ON SR, 1900 OVER THE LITTLE RIVER
2000
SCALE M FEET
SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET Z OF
WF-'."IFLAND LEGEND
f, 11 1
TB
-- TOP OF BANK
- WE••- EDGE OF WATER
--o _ PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
--F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
--PL- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-• EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -7- -•- WATER SURFACE
x x x
x x x LIVE STAKES
x x
BOULDER
--- CCRE, FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
w SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)

GRASS SWALE
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
82852401(8-3622)
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO.334 AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1900 OVER THE (17 ILE RIVER
--,JLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
®
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
®DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
Co""L> WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
FLOW DIRECTION
SCAL(. AS SHOWN
SHEET 3 1
REMOVE EXISTING
BRIDGE
J
-1
Q3
I
11 REMI
AND
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED
EXCAVATION
?WAY FILL
FO DRAIN -
8
1
?1 111 11 O
R; 14_ , 1
1 1
t ? 1
I
II o I
1
?I o 1
r ,
1 11 c' 1
1 1
1 ?
I ?
1 ?
1
• 1 ?
• I
I ? .. Irk
?
F
C 1
TIS (CA P
(BAP A
S 1900 (BAPTIST CAMP ROAD)

CLASS II RIP RAP
GRADE TO DRAIN
CD
REMOVE ROADWAY FILL
AND GRADE TO DRAIN
PROPOSED
EXCAVATION

_F
?--?-- PDE J
sc,o wr 16o e,
O
SCALE IN 0
'S U ti0

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
828524011B-36221
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO.334 AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1900 OVER THE LITTLE RIVER
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET -?OF _' -

00 r` r- k-0 tD Ln
N N N N
N N
o ?n o L.. o L,-,
Ln
Q) zz
O O :z
Ln N NLn
II 11 II II it
Lu?cS0
N-
W
I
W
WJ
?O
?Ql)
1
6f3/V6( 371117 _ _-
v ?D O
L N N-
Q)
II II
Ln
dLI) Ln?
lr1N?WLn
0 O
CD
N
II II II II
cL Lu?j0

/ cr-
Q-
cr-
1
V)
It
/
( I \1
/ ^h
,b
o Ln o Ln O rn
00 r-- (I- tlo L-0 Lc)
N N N N N N
(ELEVATION IN FEET)
O
O
LD
O
O
to
O
O
Q
0
0
rn
O
O
N
O
O
W
J
r 0
d
W
Z
J
uj
w
J
o a
0
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
82852401(8-3622)
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO.334 AND
APPROACHES ON SR /900 OVER THE LITTLE. RIVER
SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET 5 OF
?
z

O N
0
F, o

C
f? U) o
a
¢ "'

U)
?
O zx ??

y ? f0 ]
O N

u 10
0
?
0 W
I?
zz ?0 w
p
o
U
W ?
m
?
Q O
a
W ?' x
Q
U
z

D A a)
L)

0 'a

LL C
cov

a)

0

v
K

LL

? rn

2

?
"
,x t n
a w U E

a

LL
?
Q d
?
? C o
?
W ~

Q

cn c o ? o
.a

?a o
Z
LL

N cn
N C
O U
L N 4;
?

O

F-
U cN

? U > y ? o
a X
W c
w .

a Z _?

Z W a d
m
E
g 3 3

W
N
C ?
.?cu. UN O
LL. N
ma
2 d
_
? CN
O
?
O

J

H

Burke County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 (Baptist Camp Avenue)
over the Little River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1900(2)
State Project No. 8.2852401
TIP No. B-3622
4 ?'.J6 72
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
G z ??
DATE William D. Gilmo , PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
6 l?/Oz-
DATE
46,--"qicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
Burke County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 (Baptist Camp Avenue)
over the Little River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1900(2)
State Project No. 8.2852401
TIP No. B-3622
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 2002
Documentation Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting
r\ t
Paul R. Koch, PE Date
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
- - 5LU11 6 NAAt'L-
Stacy B. Harri PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Burke County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 (Baptist Camp Avenue)
Over the Little River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1900(2)
State Project No. 8.2852401
TIP No. B-3622
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the Nationwide Permit No. 23 conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, 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 for Certification, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Highway Design
It was later found that hazardous spill catch basins will NOT be required due to the fact that
Baptist Camp Avenue is a dead end road with less than 300 vehicles per day.
No deck drains will be incorporated in the proposed structure.
Division
Bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning period of
May 1 to July 15.
Green Sheet Page 1 of 1
Categorical Exclusion
June 2003
Burke County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 (Baptist Camp Avenue)
over the Little River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1900(2)
State Project No. 8.2852401
TIP No. B-3622
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 334 is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in
the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Exhibit 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 334 has a sufficiency rating
of 45.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
and structurally deficient. Replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more
efficient traffic operations.
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1900 is classified as a rural local. Land immediately adjacent to the existing bridge is heavily
forested. There are scattered residences both east and west of the project area.
Bridge No. 334 was built in 1958. The structure includes two spans totaling 34 feet (10.4
meters) in length. The depth from crown to stream bed is six feet (1.8 meters). The
superstructure is composed of a timber deck on timber joists. The substructure is timber caps,
posts and sills. The posted weight limit is SV 9 / TTST 16 tons (8/14 metric tons).
The drainage area at Bridge No. 334 is 2.23 square miles (5.78 square kilometers).
The eastbound approach is on a short tangent and the westbound approach is an extremely sharp
[less than a 260-foot (79-meter) radius] curve. The existing cross section is two nine-foot (2.7-
meter) travel lanes with four-foot (1.2-meter) unpaved shoulders. The existing structure is on
tangent. There is no posted speed limit in or near the project area. Therefore, the statutory speed
limit is 55 miles per hour (mph) [90 km/h].
The 2001 estimated average daily traffic volume (ADT) is 200 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 300 vpd by the design year 2025.
There are no utilities carried by the existing structure. There are aerial power lines to the south
and east.
There were no accidents reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from October 1,
1996 to November 30, 1999.
Two Burke County school buses cross Bridge No. 334 twice each day.
This section of SR 1900 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as
needing bicycle accommodations.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The approach roadway will consist of two ten-foot (3.0-meter) travel lanes with two-foot (0.6-
meter) grassed shoulders. Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure will have
a length of approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters). The proposed structure will provide a 24-foot
(7.2-meter) clear roadway width to allow for two ten-foot (3.0-meter) travel lanes and two-foot
(0.6- meter) shoulders on each side.
The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure. The
length and opening size of the bridge may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis, to be performed during the
final design phase of the project.
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives for replacing the existing bridge are described below:
Alternative A (Preferred) replaces the bridge on new alignment to the south (downstream) of
the existing bridge. The westbound approach will be on a 477-foot (145-meter) radius curve and
the eastbound approach will be on tangent. During construction, traffic will be maintained on
the existing structure. The roadway approach work will extend from approximately 230 feet
(70.1 meters) west to 290 feet (88.4 meters) east of the existing bridge.
Alternative B replaces the bridge on new alignment to the south (downstream) of the existing
bridge. The approaches will both be on tangent. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing structure. The roadway approach work will extend from approximately 320 feet
(97.5 meters) west to 450 feet (137.2 meters) east of the existing bridge.
This alternative was not selected because it requires more right-of-way, encroaches on the
power-line easement, and has greater impacts to the natural environment than Alternative A.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the service provided by Bridge Number 334.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A, replacement on new location to the south (downstream) of the existing bridge,
was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it requires less right-of-way, does not encroach
on the power-line easement, and has lower impacts on the natural environment. Alternative A
also has a lower cost than Alternative B.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
The existing speed limit through the project area is 55 mph (90 km/h). This is statutory because
no speed limits are posted in or near the project area. The roadway both east and west of the
proposed project has existing curves with radii less than 286 feet (87 meters) which are well
below a 60 mph (100 km/h) design speed.
Based on these existing conditions, a 40 mph (70km/h) design speed is recommended.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs based on current prices are listed in Table 1.
The estimated cost of the project listed in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), is $475,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way and $350,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Casar
quadrangle map (1956); Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) general soil map and
soil sheets of Burke County (Draft); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COSTS
Wetlands Inventory Map (Casar 1994); USFWS list of protected and candidate species (February
26, 2001); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats (July 1, 2000); NCDOT aerial photography of the project. area; and North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) water resource data. Research using these resources
was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on June 5, 2000. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, nests and burrows).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using 100-foot (30-meter) right of
way limits (minus the existing right of way), the width and length of the replacement structure,
the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual
construction impacts should be less as the worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project site lies within the western Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography of
the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping banks along
the major streams. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 1,280 to 1,400
feet (390 to 427 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project area is
approximately 1,280 feet (390 meters) above msl.
According to the general soil map for Burke County (Draft), the project area is found within the
Pacolet-Cecil soil association. Soils in this association are generally found on gently sloping to
very steep piedmont upland ridges and side slopes. The soils are described as very deep, well-
drained soils that have clayey subsoils. Burke County does not have a published soil survey;
however, field sheets were available for review. Field conditions generally conform to the soil
survey maps. Soil series found within the project area are described below.
Colvard sandy loam, zero to three percent slopes, occasionally flooded is located along the Little
River in the project area. The Colvard series consists of very deep, well-drained soils that
formed in loamy alluvium on flood plains. Permeability is moderately rapid and runoff is slow.
Colvard sandy loam has hydric inclusions of Hatboro in depressions.
Fairview sandy clay loam, eight to 15 percent slopes, eroded is mapped in the rest of the project
area adjacent to the Colvard sandy loam. Fairview soils are very deep, well drained soils that are
found on uplands. Surface runoff is medium to rapid and permeability is moderate. Fairview
soils are not listed as hydric.
4
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the Catawba River Basin, with a subbasin designation of 03-
08-35. Waters within the project study area include the Little River.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The Little River is a tributary of Jacob Fork and flows southeast through the proposed project
area with a width of approximately 20.0 feet (6.0 meters). The drainage area at Bridge No. 334
is 2.23 square miles (5.78 square kilometers). The flow was moderate to swift on the day of the
field investigation. The substrate consisted of sand with gravel, cobbles, and some boulders. The
water was clear upstream of the bridge and turbid downstream at the time of the site visit. The
depth of the water ranged from 0.3 to 2.0 feet (0.1 to 0.6 meters).
Within the project area, Little River is classified as "WS-III Tr ORW " by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). "WS-III" waters are protected
as water supplies and are generally located in low to moderately developed watersheds. The
supplemental classification of "Tr" indicates Trout Waters which are freshwaters protected for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The supplemental classification "ORW"
(Outstanding Resource Waters) is intended to protect unique and special waters having excellent
water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance.
The classification date and index number for this portion of the river is 8/3/92, 11-129-2-5.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within one mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project revealed no NPDES permitted dischargers.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. Stormwater runoff from SR 1900 may cause water quality
degradation through the addition of oil or gas residuals, particulate rubber, or other sources of
contamination.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data
as a tool to monitor water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out several years
ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol. Each river basin in the state
is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling stations has been increased within
each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical, and physical data.
The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality in basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) initially proposed by Kan (1981) and Karr, et al. (1986). The
method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure
5
and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information about species richness and
composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes
the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy
source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
According to the information obtained from the Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
(1999), the DWQ does not have a sampling station on the Little River in the project area. The
nearest sampling station is located on Jacob Fork approximately two miles (3.2 kilometers)
downstream from the project area. This station was sampled in 1990 and received a rating of
Excellent.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) General Impacts - Neither High Quality Waters (HWQ) nor Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watershed, or WS-H: predominately undeveloped watersheds) occur within one
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area. However, within the project area the Little River
is classified as Outstanding Resource Waters.
Impacts to water resources will result due to the placement of support structures in the creek
channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will increase sediment
loads. Sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a decrease in oxygen levels. The removal
of trees that provide shade along stream banks could result in an increase in water temperature
and a decrease in oxygen levels as well.
The NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal best management practices (BMPs) for the protection of
surface waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the
project;
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in the creek;
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings;
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along the creek.
In addition, hazardous spill catch basins will be required at this location and no deck drains will
be incorporated in the proposed structure.
b) 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
6
Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal". Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters.
The superstructure of Bridge No. 334 is composed of a timber deck on timber joists. The
substructure is timber caps, posts and sills. Since the bridge can be removed without dropping
any components into the water, 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. Conditions in the stream will not raise sediment concerns since the
substrate consists of sand with gravel, cobbles, and boulders.
According to comments received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning
season of May 1 through July 15. Because a moratorium applies, this project falls under Case 2
(allowing no in-water work during moratorium periods) of the Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a
system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). If a community is modified or
otherwise disturbed such that it does not fit into an NCNHP classification, it is given a name that
best describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found
in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field
guides and other documentation (Conant, 1958; Fan-and, 1993; Robbins et al., 1966; and
Whitaker, 1980).
1. Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are maintained/disturbed
and mesic mixed hardwood forest communities. Dominant faunal components associated with
these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to
the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but may not be mentioned
separately in each community description.
a) Maintained/Disturbed Community - The maintained/disturbed community includes the power
line easements and the road shoulders. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed areas.
The dominant species within the regularly maintained road shoulders include fescue (Festuca
spp. ), ryegrass (Lolium spp. ), clover (Trifolium spp. ), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), daisy
fleabane (Erigeron annuus), narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia), panic grass (Panicum
7
spp.), and plantain (Plantago spp.). The irregularly maintained utility easements contain the
before mentioned species as well as tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), blackberry (Rubus
spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).
b) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community - This community is found bordering the
maintained/disturbed community. Pine trees are dominant in the eastern portion of the project
area, which may be an indication of past disturbance. The canopy layer is dominated by Eastern
white pine (Pinus strobus), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Ater rubrum), water oak (Quercus nigra), and red oak (Quercus rubra).
The understory consists of American holly (Ilex opaca), red bud (Cercis canadensis), dogwood
(Cornus Florida), Eastern hophombeam (Ostrya virginiana), and saplings of the above
mentioned canopy trees. The woody vines layer includes common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and
honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.).
2. Wildlife
The animal species present in the maintained/disturbed community are opportunistic and capable
of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. A Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), field
sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and the carcass of a Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) were
observed during the site visit in these areas. Other species such as white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) are often attracted to these disturbed
habitats.
On the day of the site visit, a tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) and Eastern wood-pewee (Contopus
vixens) were observed in the mesic mixed hardwood forest community. Other species which may
reside or forage in these areas include downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens), common
flicker (Colaptes auratus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe), American toad (Bufo americanus), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina
carolina), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes).
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area includes the Little River. The river flows southeast
through the proposed project area with a width of approximately 20.0 feet (6.0 meters). The
flow was moderate to swift on the day of the field investigation. The substrate consisted of sand
with gravel, cobbles, and some boulders. The water was clear upstream of the bridge and turbid
downstream at the time of the site visit. The depth of the water ranged from 0.3 to 2.0 feet (0.1
to 0.6 meters).
Vegetation along the banks includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), sweetgum, red maple, sassafras (Sassafras albidum),
blackberry, poison ivy, and greenbrier. The banks were well vegetated with no signs of erosion.
8

The banks were well defined and averaged two feet (0.6 meters) in height above the top of the
creek. Minnows and crayfish were observed in the creek on the day of the site investigation.
Species such as gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and green frog (Rana clamitans) may reside or
forage within this aquatic community or along the waters edge. Macroinvertebrates such as
larvae of the mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) would
be expected to be found within the snag habitats and within the riffle areas in the creek. On the
day of the site investigation, stonefly were collected by dipnetting in the creek.
Fish species that are likely to be found in the vicinity include creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), shiner (Notropis spp.), northern hog
sucker (Hypentehum nigricaus), redhorse (Moxostoma spp.), green sunfish (lepomis cyanellus),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare).
According to the NCWRC, no fisheries data is available for the river. NCWRC stated that no
endangered species or species of special concern are found within the area of the proposed
bridge replacement.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Communities - The mesic mixed hardwood forest and the maintained/disturbed
communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. Removal of plants and
other construction related activities will result in the displacement and mortality of faunal species
in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals from construction
machinery used during clearing activities.
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL AND AOUATIC COMMUNITIES

Alternative A 0.41 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.004 26 7.9 0.54 0.22
Alternative B 0.51 0.21 0.54 0.22 0.01 0.004 26 7.9 1.06 0.43
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on a 100-foot (30 meters) right of way (minus the existing right of way of
SR 1900) for each alternative.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above; calculations
were based on the worst-case scenario.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
9
present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Alternative B will result in the greatest
amount of impacts to the terrestrial communities.
h) Wetland Communities - No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the study area.
c) Aquatic Communities - The replacement of Bridge No. 334 over the river will result in up to
0.01 acres (0.004 hectares) of aquatic impacts. This figure is obtained by measuring the width of
the bridge over water times the length of the bridge over water.
Activities such as the removal of trees, as well as the construction of the bridge and approach
work will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in
dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of
toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The combination of
these factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of
invertebrates which inhabit these areas.
Aquatic life that is not very mobile could be harmed when components of the bridge enter the
water. Species which filter feed, as well as those species that feed upon them, could be
negatively impacted by increased sedimentation.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. No jurisdictional wetlands were
found within the project area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
The river boundaries were flagged and surveyed and up to 26 linear feet (7.9 meters) of
jurisdictional surface waters may be impacted by this project.
2. Permits
a) 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 USACOE for projects of this type for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States". The USACOE 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 a minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or
10

when the general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication or 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 permit.
b) 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,
one condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be
utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in
streams and rivers not designated as trout by DWQ and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
3. Mitigation
The USACOE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, 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 - Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACOE, 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 the Little River; therefore, totally avoiding surface water
impacts is impossible.
Minimization - Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing

the footprint of the proposed project through 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 area.
Compensatory Mitigation Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" fimctions and values may not be achieved
in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required
for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
waters of the United States.
Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required for this project. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to factors
such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human related impacts such as
destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species listed for Burke County and any likely impacts
to these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the following
sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally protected species for
Burke County as of the February 26, 2001 listing (Table 3).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) T
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 2/14/78
Adult bald eagles have white heads and tails, a brownish body, and yellow bills, eyes and feet.
12
The juvenile birds have a dark brown body, tail, and head irregularly blotched with white. The
overall length of the bald eagle ranges from 34 to 43 inches (86 to 110 centimeters), and the
wing span averages approximately 21 inches (53 centimeters). Bald eagles usually lay eggs
between mid-January and mid-March. The bluish-white eggs are laid two to a clutch and
incubation lasts approximately 36 days.
The bald eagle forages along the coast, along rivers, and large lakes. Nests are located in the
forks of tall trees and are usually remote from human activity. Nesting sites are usually less than
one mile (1.6 kilometers) from feeding areas and are located adjacent to a clear flight path and
open view of the surrounding area. The bald eagle typically feeds on fish; however, waterfowl,
muskrats, rabbits, and squirrels are not uncommon items of their diet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat is present for the eagle; large trees are present in the vicinity (which may
provide possible nest sites), and the surrounding area is fairly undeveloped so there would be
little human disturbance. However, the banks of the river and the vicinity are heavily forested
(approximately 80% canopy cover and dense understory) which does not provide a clear flight
path or an open view of the surrounding the area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Due to the heavy forest cover,
which prohibits a clear flight path and view of the area, it is unlikely the bald eagle would be
found in the project area. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will
not impact the bald eagle.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BURKE COUNTY
Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
(bald eagle)
Geum radiatum E
(Spreading avers)
Hexastylis naniflora T
(Dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
Hudsonia montana T
(Mountain golden heather)
Isotria medeoloides T
(Small-whorled pogonia)
Liatris helleri T
(Heller's blazing star)
NUTES:
T Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
13
Geum radiatum (Spreading avens) E
Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Spreading avens is a perennial herb topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright, yellow
flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise
from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow eight to 20 inches (20 to 51 centimeters) tall.
Flowering occurs from June to September, and the fruits are produced from August to October.
Spreading avers inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes which are exposed to
full sun. It is also found in thin, gravelly soils or grassy balds near summit outcrops. The
adjacent spruce/fir forests [generally found above 5,500 feet (1,675 meters) in elevation] are
dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir. The substrate at all the population sites is composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat (high elevation cliffs and outcrops) does not exist in the project study area for this
species; the project area is approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters) above msl, which is well below
the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction
of the proposed project will not impact spreading avens.
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: April 14, 1989
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus
Hexastylis. The flowers are less than 0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter) long, and their sepal tubes are
never more than 0.4 inches (1.0 centimeter) wide. Flower color ranges from beige to dark
brown, sometimes it is greenish or purplish. The flowers are jug-shaped and the dark-green
leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, and leathery. Plant stalks are long and thin, originating from
an underground root. Flowering occurs from mid-March to early June.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in
boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines.
Soil type is the most important habitat requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison
gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam to grow and survive. Provided the soil type is
right, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For maximum flowering,
the plant needs sunlight in early spring. Creekheads where shrubs are rare and bluffs with light
gaps are the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is
lowest in bluff populations with a lot of shade.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat exits in the project area; this plant is found along streams, so the area along the
river may provide habitat. However, soil type is the most important habitat requirement, and
14
neither Pacolet, Madison, nor Musella soils are found in the project area. A survey for dwarf-
flowered heartleaf within the project study area was conducted on June 5, 2000. No specimens
were found within the project area. A search of the NCNBP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction
of the proposed project will not impact dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Hudsonia montana (Mountain golden heather) T
Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked
fruit capsules. It usually grows in clumps of four to eight inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across
and about six inches (15 centimeters) high, and sometimes is seen in larger patches of a foot or
two across. This plant has the general feature of a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching
is more open, their leaves are approximately one-quarter of an inch long, and the plant is often
somewhat yellow-green in color (especially in shade). Flowering occurs in early or mid-June.
The flowers are yellow, nearly an inch across, with five blunt-tipped petals.
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and
sand-myrtle dominated heath balds which 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. This plant
is found only in Burke and McDowell counties at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (855 to 1,220
meters).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Potential habitat (exposed quartzite ledges) does not exist in the project study area for this
species; the project area is located at approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters) above msl, which is
well below the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNB? database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
construction of the proposed project will not impact mountain golden heather.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) T
Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: October 6, 1994
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem
four to ten inches tall terminating in a whorl of five to six light green, elliptical leaves that are
somewhat pointed and measure up to 3.0 by 1.5 inches (7.6 by 3.8 centimeters). One flower
(occasionally two flowers) is produced at the top of the stem. Flowering occurs from mid-May
to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or so. This plant does
not necessarily flower every year. If pollination occurs, a capsule may be formed which can
contain several thousand minute seeds. No evidence of insect pollination has been observed.
This plant is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes.
15
Small whorled pogonia is generally found in open, dry, deciduous woods with acidic soil. If it
occurs in habitat where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density, flowering
appears to be inhibited.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat (open, dry deciduous woods) does not exist in the project study area for this species; the
woods in the area had dense herbaceous and shrub layers. A search of the NCNHP database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that the construction of the proposed project will not impact small-whorled pogonia.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) T
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb with one or more erect or arching stems which arise
from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 16 inches (41 centimeters) in
height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender flowers, three to eight inches (8 to 20
centimeters) long, which are present from July through September. Fruits are present from
September through October.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains where it occurs on high
elevation ledges of rock outcrops and cliffs. It grows in shallow, acidic soils which are exposed
to full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project area is located approximately 1,300 feet (396 meters) above msl; no suitable habitat
(high elevation rock outcrops or cliffs) is located within the area. A search of the NCNHP
database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact Heller's blazing star.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 includes listed FSC species for Burke County and their state classifications (July 1,
2000).
16
The NCNHP database shows no recorded occurrences of FSCs within the project area.
TABLE 4
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
BURKE COUNTY
a _ We
Alasmidonta varicosa
(Brook floater) T Yes
Cephaloziella obtusilobula*
(A liverwort) W No
Juglans cinerea
(Butternut) W No
Monotropsis odorata
(Sweet pinesap) C No
Neotoma magister
(Alleghany woodrat) SC No
Ophiogomphus edmundo *
(Edmund's snaketail dragonfly) SR Yes
Ophiogomphus howei
(Pygmy snaketail dragonfly) SR Yes
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
(A liverwort) C No
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
(A liverwort) C No
Sax faga caroliniana
(Carolina saxifrage) C No
Speyeria dana
(Diana fritillary butterfly) SR No
NOTES:
C Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
E Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
W Watch list (any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in
the state but not warranting active monitoring at this time)
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
(USFWS)
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Marginal habitat exits in the project area for the dwarf-flowered
along streams, so the area along the river may provide habitat.
important habitat requirement, and neither Pacolet, Madison, nor
heartleaf, this plant is found
However, soil type is the most
Musella soils are found in the
17
project area. A survey for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area was conducted
on June 5, 2000. No specimens were found within the project area. No habitat is present for any
other federally protected species. Habitat is present for several FSC species. According to the
NCNHP database, there have been no reported occurrences of any protected species in the
project area.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for
federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on January 11, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated April 19, 2000, the HPO concurred that
there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated October 29, 2001,
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 an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement 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.
18
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.
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.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and
construction projects. This project impacts approximately 1.4 acres (0.6 hectares) of prime or
locally important farmland. However, the land is not currently being farmed and is bounded by a
power-line easement and the existing roadway. In addition, the average farm size for Burke
County is 83 acres (34 hectares). Therefore, a substantial impact to prime or locally important
farmland is not anticipated.
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.
This project is located in Burke County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
Based on field reconnaissance and public records review conducted by the NCDOT Geotechnical
Unit, no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites are known to be present in the study
area.
Burke County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Bridge No. 334
is not located within the 100-year floodplain.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
Based on the above statements, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts
will result from implementation of the project.
19
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A Public workshop was held on March 19, 2002 in the Forest Hills Elementary School Cafeteria
in Morganton. A newsletter was also mailed two weeks in advance of the workshop. No
citizens attended the workshop and no written comments were submitted as a result of either the
workshop or the newsletter.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency comments are summarized below. Letters from the commenting agencies are included
in the appendix.
United States Fish and Wildlife Serpice (USFWS)- USFWS noted that there is a record for a
species of Federal concern, the sweet pinesap (Monotropis odorata), from a location near the
project area.
USFWS recommends that temporary fill be minimized, that no heavy equipment operates in the
stream channel, and removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks be avoided to the
extent possible. USFWS also recommends removing any fill in the floodplain associated with
the existing structures to restore the natural floodplain elevation and function.
USFWS recommends that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge and the design should
include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer. Bridge
design should not alter natural stream form or morphology or impede fish passage and piers or
bents should be placed outside the bankfull width. Bridge and approaches should be designed to
avoid damming the channel or floodplain. USFWS recommends erosion and sedimentation
controls to be in place prior to construction. No wet concrete should come into contact with the
stream.
Response: The NCNHP database shows no occurrences of the sweet pinesap within the
project area. In order to minimize construction impacts, the construction will be conducted
in accordance with "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters", "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".
Because the Little River, in the vicinity of Bridge No. 334, is classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters, no deck drains will be constructed on the bridge. Hazardous spill catch
basins will also be necessary at this location.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) - NCWRC stated that bridge
demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning season of May 1
through July 15. The NCWRC commented that heavy equipment should be operated from the
bank and kept out of the channel to minimize both sedimentation and the introduction of
pollutants. NCWRC also stated that stringent erosion control measures should be used
throughout the construction duration. NCWRC encourages the use of onsite vegetation and
materials for streambank stabilization rather than riprap and nursery stock.
20
Response: The prohibition of bridge demolition and removal activities has been incorporated
in the Project Commitments. In order to minimize construction impacts, the construction
will be conducted in accordance with "Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters", "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".
Burke County Schools - The Burke County school system commented that this bridge
replacement will have a major impact on the County's school bus routing on SR 1900. There are
no detours available and bus riders that attend both the elementary and high school reside on
both sides of the bridge. The County needs to continue having a bridge in place to transport all
bus riders on SR 1900. The bridge carries one elementary and one high school bus.
Response: During construction, the existing bridge will be kept open to maintain traffic.
Once construction is complete, traffic will be shifted to the new bridge. Therefore, a bridge
will remain open at this location at all times.
21
_r \\r
I Al
?j
fr Pi
7: "Y
?'???\? i' ? `?1{'?'i-11 `Y ?. ? 1 i?/ r 1?1 _: °7 J/ ?,' ? I j?(/ff ~'IO / t ? ?? r •I ` 1
?Yi""?3 .? --sue 1\ ', ?r - (4 I I • i `' , I C r ?'
-•• `%??v ?f'
/? r /'/r 421 r_. ? \
"e.. North Carolina
I Department of Transportation
SR 1900
Replace Bridge No. 334 over
little River
Burke County, North Carolina
B-3622
Project Vicinity
Not to Scale Exhibit 1
+2 FT (0.6 M) WITHOUT GR
7 FT (2.1 M) WITH GR
ORIGI
GROL
I
22 FT
(6.6M)
CLEAR R OADWAY

(0.6M) (2.7M) (2.7M) 0.6M)
LANE LANE
GRADE

l
.02 POINT
.02
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
Design Data
ADT 2001 215 _ LOS B
ADT 2003 _ 225y LOS _ B
ADT 2025 300 LOS c
DUAL 2%
TTST 1%
DESIGN SPEED _4o m'Lh70 Km/h)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Rural Local
MIN RADIUS (Se = _08) _465 L1 7L
MAX GRADE
MIN DES. K FACTORS SAG _ 64-L2L_
CREST _ 4471_
(English (Metric)
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
t to Scale
SR 1900
ORIGINAL
GROUND
Exhibit 4
Replace Bridge No. 334 over
little River
Burke County, North Carolina
B-3622
Typical Sections
n Carolina
of Transportation
SR 1900
Replace Bridge No. 334
Little River
Burke County, North Carolina
of to Scale Exhibit
Looking North
Westbound Approach
Eastbound Approach
r
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 i illicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 23801
August 9, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
According to your letter of June 7, 2000, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is
proposing 12 bridge replacement projects in Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison
Counties, North Carolina. These are Group XXXII Bridge Replacement Projects, listed as
follows:
Buncombe County
1. B-3614, Replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creek
2. B-3616, Replace Bridge No. 740 on SR 1319 over Mill Creek
3. B-3619, Replace Bridge No. 56 on SR 3439 over Bill Moore Creek
Burke County
1. B-3620, Replace Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over the Henry Fork River
2. B-3621, Replace Bridge No. 148 on SR 1547 over Micol Creek
3. B-3622, Replace Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 over an unnamed creek
Haywood County
1. B-3470, Replace Bridge No. 163 on US 276 over the Pigeon River Overflow
2. B-3656, Replace Bridge No. 419 on US 19-23 over the Pigeon River
3. B-3659, Replace Bridge No. 112 on SR 1147 over Allens Creek
4. B-3661, Replace Bridge No. 36 on SR 1503 over Crabtree Creek
Jackson County
1. B-3667, Replace Bridge No. 47 on SR 1131 over Trout Creek
/'-
Madison County
1. B-3869, Replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 1151 over Big Pine Creek
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed projects and are providing the following comments
in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e). The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or its designated
non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway
Administration. In addition to general comments applicable to all of the projects, specific
concerns for listed species are provided with the individual bridge description.
Enclosed is a list of species from Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties
that are on the Federal List of Endangered and. Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as species
of Federal concern. Although our records indicate no known locations of these species in the
project areas for Buncombe County projects B-3614, B-3616, and B-3619; Haywood County
projects B-3659 and B-3661; Jackson County project B-3667; and Madison County project
B-386, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for these species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts occur to these species.
Our records for Burke County indicate there is a known location of the federally threatened
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near projects B-3620 and B-3621. If this species
occurs in the area of either of these projects, additional consultation will be required.
Additionally, there is a record for a species of Federal concern--sweet pinesap (Monotropis
odorata)--from a site near project B-3622. The project'areas for these bridges should be
surveyed for these species to ensure they are protected from impacts.
Our records for Haywood County indicate that there are known locations for the federally
endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta raveneliana) near projects B-3470 and
B-3656. The effects to the Appalachian elktoe must be assessed prior to implementation of these
projects.
Species of Federal concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance notification and
to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the vicinity of these projects.
The information that accompanied your letter concerning these projects related only to the
removal of the existing bridges. According to this information, there will be temporary fill
associated with several of the projects. We recommend that this fill be minimized, to the extent
possible, and that no heavy equipment be operated in the stream channel. To maintain bank
stability, any cutting or removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks should be avoided
to the maximum extent possible. We also recommend removing any fill in the flood plain
associated with the existing structures in order to restore the natural elevation of the flood plain
and its function. This will minimize the potential for stream-bank and channel scouring that may
occur during storm flows as a result of any constriction of the flood plain or stream channel
associated with the existing structures.
As stated above, the information you provided addressed only the removal of the existing
bridges; no information was provided concerning the types of structures that will replace the
existing bridges or what measures will be implemented to minimize the potential effects
associated with the new structures and their construction. We recommend that the existing
structures be replaced with bridges and that each new bridge design include provisions for the
roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected
stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from the run-off of
stone water and pollutants. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and
stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed outside
the bank-full width of the streams. The bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any
fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the
flood plain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the
approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce
high velocities of flood waters within the affected areas. We recommend that erosion- and
sedimentation-control measures be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet
concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the stream.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. Please
reference our Log Number 4-2-00-280 in any future correspondence concerning these projects.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Mark Davis, Environmental Compliance Officer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 37, Sylva, NC 28779
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN BUNCOMBE, BURKE, HAYWOOD,
JACKSON, AND MADISON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed
and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete
list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Cerulean warbler
Eastern cougar
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Spotfin chub
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Gray bat
Eastern small-footed myotis
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Longhead darter
Paddlefish
Southern water shrew
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Dendroica cerulea
Felis concolor couguar
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Hybopsis monacha
Loxia curvirostra
Myotis grisescens
Myotis leibii
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Parus atricapillus practicus
Percina macrocephala
Polyodon spathula
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis
Thryomanes bewickii altus
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Cambarus reburrus
FSC
FSC*
T(S/A)'
FSC*
FSC
FSC
Endangered*
Endangered
Threatened*
FSC
Endangered***
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC*
FSC
FSC
FSC*
Endangered
FSC
June 16, 2000 Page I of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Oyster mussel
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
Glade spurge
Spreading avens
Mountain heartleaf
French Broad heartleaf
Butternut
Gray's lily
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Pinnate-lobed black-eyed Susan
Bunched arrowhead
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchfly
Virginia spiraea
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen
BURKE COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Phycoides batesii FSC*
Speyeria dana FSC*
Abies fraseri FSC
Buckleya.distichophylla FSC
Calamagrostis cainii FSC
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Geum radiatum Endangered
Hexastylis contracta FSC
Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lilium grayi FSC
Lysimachia fraseri FSC*
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatoloba PSC
Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered*
Sarracema jonesii Endangered*
Sazifraga caraliniana FSC
Senecio millefolium FSC
Silene ovata FSC
Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
Mountain golden heather, Hudsonia montana - The area bounded by the following: on
the west by the 2200' contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north
from the intersection of the 2200' contour and the Shortoff Mountain Trail to where it
intersects the 3400' contour at "The Chimneys"--then follow the 3400' contour north until
it reintersects the Wilderness Boundary--then follow the Wilderness Boundary again
northward until it intersects the 3200' contour extending west from its intersection with the
Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south--at this point the Boundary extends due
east until it intersects the 2200' contour.
Vertebrates
Bald eagle
Alleghany woodrat
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Neotoma magister
Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
FSC
Invertebrates
Brook floater
Edmund's snaketail dragonfly
Alasmidonta varicosa
Ophiogomphus edmundo
FSC
FSC*
June 16, 2000 Page 2 of 6

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Pygmy snaketail dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Mountain golden heather Hudsonia montana Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered*
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elk-toe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 3 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
mwmwm?
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Pir-atebush Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. 1 FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
(winter records)
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC
Whitewater crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere prinsi FSC
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii maconensis FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Southem Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
June 16, 2000 Page 4 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's Ioosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens FSC*
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafnesquii FSC*
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha Threatened*
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula FSC
Invertebrates
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered*
Sculpted supercoil Paravitrea ternaria FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 5 of 6
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
June 16, 2000 Page 6 of 6

T North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission =i
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Stacy Harris, P. E., NCDOT
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: r4oe Mick4y for Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 9, 2000
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) bridge demolition and
removal for three (3) bridges in Burke Co.
1. B-3620, replace bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over Henry Fork River
2. B-3621, replace bridge No. 148 on SR 1547 over Nicol Creek
3. B-3622, replace bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 over unnamed creek
This is in response to your request for our input regarding the above referenced bridge
demolition and removal projects. These comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; NCAC
25). The NCDOT proposes to replace an existing bridge with a new curved bridge structure.
The NCDOT is requesting a permit modification for a temporary causeway that will be utilized
for a work pad to drill shafts.
Removal of the existing bridges should be accomplished in a manner that will not impact
waters or fisheries. We do not object to the project providing the following conditions are
implemented:
1. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel
in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
2. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and
maintained until project completion.

We encourage NCDOT to utilize onsite vegetation and materials for streambank
stabilization when practicable instead of utilizing riprap and purchasing nursery stock.
4. Bridge demolition and removal activities are prohibited during the fish spawning
season of May 1 through July 15 to limit direct impacts and prevent off-site
sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry.
While no mention is made on how the bridges will be replaced, we recommend that the
bridges be replaced with some type of spanning structure rather than a pipe or multi-cell concrete
box culvert.
Please note that on the Project Vicinity map for SR 1900, the county lines are shown as
Haywood and Buncombe. These county lines should be Burke and Catawba.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early
planning stages. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ron
Linville at 336/769-9453 or Joe Mickey at 336/527-1547.
i ?.
d..SU7t f'1 v7 l ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 29, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, %Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT', Division of Highways -- nn//
From: David Brook ?a l? ?
j
Re: Replace Bridge No. 148, SR 1547 over Micol Creek, B-3621, Burke County, ER 00-10 121
Replace Bridge No. 334, SR 1900 over Little River, B-3622, Burke County, ER 00-10122
Thank you for your letter of September 10, 2001, concerning the above projec_
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that anv archaeological resources which may be eligible for conclusior-
in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore,
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleieh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleieh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center
Survev & Plannin; 515 N. Blount St. Raleieh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center
Raleieh 27699-4617
Raleigh 27699-4613
Raleieh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] 9715-4801
[phone] •715-4801
F--:,rai.1 is =BRZ- 1900 2) TIP =B-3ti Coon v: Burke
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Proiecr Descrrwion: Replace Bridize No. 331-1 on SR 1900 over creek
On March 37. '000, representatives of the
4 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(I North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
/Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review sessioniconsultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the proiect's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty vears old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary. v
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:

Representative. CDO Date
J
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Aeency Date

Representative. SHPO i? Date

State His oric Preservation Officer Date
Subject: Fonvarded
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:01:05 -0400 l
From: Postmaster <postmaster@dot. state. nc. us>
I,
To: Stacy Harris <[e-mail]. nc.us>?`
This message is forwarded to you from the NCDOT postmaster. It was
trapped by the automated SPAM filter. This filter was created to
prevent incoming viruses and unsolicited email.
Subject: Group XYXI1 Bridge Replacement Projects in Burke Co
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:19:28 -0400
From: "Eric Calhoun" <ecalhoun cr burke.kl2.nc.us>
Organization: Burke County Public Schools
To: <[e-mail]>
Here are the affects of the three bridge replacements on Burke County's School Transportation.
Supervisor Doug Setzer asked that I relay this information to you.
Replacent of Bridge #292(SR 1001., Mineral Springs Mountain Rd) and replacement of Bridge # 148(SR
1547, Refour Rd, NE, & Gardiol Av, NE) will cause minimal impact on the routing of our buses and
both can be easily detoured around. Each will affect one elementary and one high school bus.
Replacement of Bridge #334(SR 1900, Baptist Camp Rd) will have a major impact on our bus routing
on SR 1900, Baptist Camp Rd. There are no detours available and bus riders that attend both the
elementary and high school reside on both sides of the bridge. We will need to continue having a bridge
in a place to transport ALL bus riders on SR 1900, Baptist Camp Rd.
Again, one elementary and one high school bus are involved here.
Thant: you,
Eric Calhoun
TIMS Data Manager
Burke Co Public Schools
[phone]
[phone] Fax
1 of 1 7/18/00 11:10 M

\ .
David L. Campbell. Chairman
Larry A. Huffman. Sr., Vice Chairman
Mary C. Pittillo, Commissioner
Jesse Howard Searcy, Commissioner
Trossie W. Wall, Jr.. Commissioner
?? ,,vtzFq rp ,
Burke County
June 29, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
NC Department of Transport: tion
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Ron George, 'Vlanager
Francis McKinney, Clerk
v d Dill, Attorney
JUL 5 2000

Thank you for your letter regarding bridge replacement projects B-3620, 3621 and
3622 in Burke County. y
We are not aware of any potential adverse impacts which appear likely to occur as
a result of these projects.
Sincerely yours,
Ron George
County Manager
P. O. 13ux 219 Morganton, N.C. 28680 Tel. [phone]
FAY 828/438-2782 - Toll Free 1-8110-287-2494
V V- `-^ - ?
?? v+r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 7, 2000
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: sDirector
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900
Over Creek,
Burke County, TIP Project No. B-3622
This memo is to respond to your request for comments on the subject bridge replacement
project.
This section of SR 1900 in Burke County is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it
listed in the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. Our office has no indication that there
are an unusual number of bicyclists using this roadway.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject project. If there is a need for
additional information, please contact Tom Norman, Facilities Program Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/tpn
MAILING ADDRESS:
DIVISION OF BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
1552 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1552
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE WWW.DOT. STATE. NC.US/TRANSIT/BICYCLE/
EMAIL. CBYATES@DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREEI
Room 304
RALEIGH NC