20051379 Ver 1_Complete File_20060210

duo
~c~o
Co ~ ~ 1pp5
`~ 3
S~Q wP~E~~PpSE ~~GN
~j~~os N~S~O
Flo stem,
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B-4040, Replace Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison
Road), Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensatory stream mitigation for the unavoidable impacts associated with
the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's revised mitigation request letter, the
project will now impact 98 feet of stream.
This mitigation strategy letter replaces the mitigation strategy letter issued on May
31, 2005. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation up to a
2:1 ratio to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which
this project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of Agreement
between the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, and N. C. Department of Transportation (Tri-Party MOA), signed on July 22, 2003.
EEP understands the USACE will allow remaining high quality preservation assets to be utilized
as a component in the mitigation strategy at a 5:1 ratio. Therefore, EEP intends to utilize high
quality stream preservation assets in the following manner:
Hish Quality Stream Preservation (5:1) in Same Eco-Region
Mingo Creek, Caldwell County
Northern Mountains Eco-Region
Yadkin River Basin, CU 03040101
490 feet
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 1652 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 11699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceeo.net

The reminder of the required 1:1 stream mitigation will be in the form of stream
restoration. Stream restoration mitigation assets available include, but are not limited to, Pott
Creek II Full Delivery mitigation site and Southfork Full Delivery mitigation site. The subject
TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040 Revised

~- ~ o stem
.. .
PROGRAM
September 20, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4040, Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
dated April 14, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern
Mountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 98 feet
This mitigation acceptance letter replaces the mitigation acceptance letter issued on May 31,
2005. As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July
22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any- questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
. `~~ ~~
iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040 Revised
~- _- _ ~ .~ , . - ry ,~ .~ ~ . r ern
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-0416 / www.n ceep.net

~~'~Ge ~ 5l 379
o ~s sU~e
~~C~
... ~ ~~ ~ s
~ ,~~. , ~~
"tea,.,./' ~ ,q~~ Tj~th' ~/.~J6, /l/f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA oR~~q~Re. ~'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~~~.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE PROJECT:
TIP NO:
F.A. PROJECT:
CONTRACT NUMBER:
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:
SUBJECT:
P. O. Box 275, Marion, NC 28752 LYNDO TIPPETT
FEBRUARY 1, 2006 SECRETARY
33406.3.1
B-4040
BRZ-1128(5)
C201291
Burke
Grading, Drainage, Paving & Culvert on
Bridge #251 Over A Creek & Approaches
on SR-1128
Preconstruction Conference
Mr. Joe Coleman
Mountain Creek Contractors, LLC
P.O. Box D
Catawba, NC 28609
Dear Mr. Coleman:
The preconstruction conference for the above referenced project
will be held at 1:30 pm on Friday, February 10, 2006 in the Resident
Engineer's conference room at 3931 NC 226 South in Marion.
Yours trul ,
B.C. Skeens, PE
Asst. Resident Engineer
BCS/fhm
cc: E.C. Powell, Jr., PE
J.J. Swain, Jr., PE (Attn: R.A. Tipton, PE, PLS)
A.C. Cochran, PE
T.B. Adams, PE

jl ~ `.
Page 2 ~ ,' t. t':j,
.v
Mr. Joe Coleman
February 1, 2006
cc: Roger Bryan '
Ed Ingle ,
Dave Frye
Robert Haskett
Candie Auvil
Jerry Lail
J.K. Bartlett ,
Bill Graham
Mark Teague, PE
D.D. Galloway, PE
D.R. McNeal, PE
J.R. Memory
Angie Pennock, Corps of Engineers
Jake Riggsbee, PE, FHWA
Janet Boyer, PE, DEHNR
Marella Buncick, USFW,fi
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ J
Richard Hensley
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File

d • SfAT[ 4
~~~~n ~•~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~~~
s ~~~?,.
`'FT of Fp o ~~; .
~Npt. N,q ~
qNp wgr~,R ~QOS ~.
~~~~/f ~~q!/
1~,~~.
SA
~'I'Ca
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 8, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory field Office
151 Patton Avenue /Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
~3 X379
Attention: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
Subject: evasions o Nationwide 23, 33, and 12 Permit Application for the proposed
rep acement of Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek and approaches on SR 11.28
southwest of Morganton, Burke County, Federal Aid Project: BRZ-1128 (5),
State Project No. 8.2852801, WBS Element 33406.1.1, TIP B-4040
Reference: Nationwide Permit Application dated July 18, 2005
Please find enclosed a copy of the revised PCN, permit drawings, and half-size plan sheet 4 for
the above referenced project. As stated in the original application, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 251 on SR
1128 over Hall Creek (DWQ Index # 11-34-2) in Burke County. Please note however, the
original application cover letter misstated the project description and proposed impacts. The
project actually involves, replacement of the existing bridge structure with a triple barrel (3 @ 9
feet x 8 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation of the existing structure. The approach roadway will consist of one 10-foot
lane and one lane varying from 10 feet to 13 feet with shoulder widths of at least 5 feet.
Shoulder widths will be increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted.
Revised Impacts to Waters of the United States
Permanent Impacts: Due to design changes, permanent stream impacts have been reduced from
123 linear feet to a total of 98 feet of stream channel. Surface water impacts from the proposed
project will remain at 0.02 acre. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional surface water result from fill
for construction of the box culvert.
Temporarypacts: In addition to the permanent impacts to Hall Creek, temporary impacts have
increased. There will remain 0.03 acre of temporary fill in surface waters, however, 25 feet of
stream channel will be temporary impacted from construction of the proposed project.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Utility Impacts: Temporary utility impacts remain unchanged; as stated in the original
application, this will occur to 4 linear feet (0.002 ac) of Hall Creek from the installation of an fl-
inch diameter water line within the aforementioned disturbed area. Installation of the water line
will involve excavation of the bottom of the stream. Excavation will be approximately 4 feet
wide and 20 feet in length. The excavated material will be placed back in the streambed after the
proposed water line is installed.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Tyler Stanton at (919)
715- 1439 or [e-mail] if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
/~ ~ ( •~ "
[~" Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D.
p Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Mr. Mike Parker, NCDWQ
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
NCDOT TIP 8-4040 Pcrgc~ Z qF2

Office Use Only: (~ Fo2rm Vcrgsion March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. v ~ (J 7 /
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 12, NW 23, NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699- 1 548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (919)-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address: _
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of K

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4040
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Burke Nearest Town: Morganton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Morganton take I-40
west to exit 94. Take Dysartsville Road (SR 1129) south approximately 3.5 miles to
Morrison Road (SR1128) on left. Take Morrison Road to approximately 1.5 miles to the
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): UTM 17 426445E 3945145N (WGS84/NAD83~
6. Property size (acres): approximately 1.4 acres (length 768.7 x width 80 feet = 61,496 SF)
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Hall Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba River Basin (USGS Catalog Unit Number-03050102)
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area lies in a rural area in the western part of
Burke County. Surrounding land use is primarily agn-icultural land.
Page 2 of K

9. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
will consist of replacing the old bridge over Hall Creek with a 3 (c~, 9' x 8' reinforced concrete
box culvert (RCBC at approximately the same location and roadway elevation of the
existing structure. The approach roadway will consist of one 10-foot lane and one lane
varying from 10 feet to 13 feet with shoulder widths of at least 5 feet. Shoulder widths will
be increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site,
along surrounding roads, during construction. Construction equipment will consist of heaves
duty trucks, earth moving, equipment, cranes, etc.
10. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bride has a sufficiency ratio of 38.8 out of
100. The deck is 19.2 feet wide and the structure is composed mainly of timber.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photo~aphs 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.
Yage 3 of K

I. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 98 linear feet of
permanent and 25 linear feet of temporary stream impacts, in addition to 0.02 acre of
permanent fill and 0.03 acres of temporary fill in surface water, from the construction of the
culvert. There will be 0.002 acre of temporary excavation in surface waters, and impact to 4
linear feet of stream channel due to the installation of a water line.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
( es/no) linear feet)
N/A
Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, and then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Stream Width Length Impact
indicate on ma) Intermittent? Before Im act linear feet) (acres)
1 Hall Creek Perma
ll from perennial 98 0
02
culvert 20 .
Temporary
1 Hall Creek disturbance from Perennial 20 25 0.03
culvert construction
1 Hall Creek *Temporary Perennial
20 * 4 0.002
Excavation
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 123 0.052
* The waterline will be placed in an area already disturbed by the construction of the culvert.
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 4 of 8

Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.05
Wetland Im act (acres): N/A
Open Water Impact (acres): N A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.05
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 123'
' The waterline will be placed in an area already disturbed by [he construction of the culvert.
Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USAGE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stotmwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
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 topog~-t~aphy, 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. Due to the presence of surface
waters within the project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible.
Page 5 of R

VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may he required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm~ide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are willing to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 98
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of K

Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether aNEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photol,~raphs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I .
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
Page 7 of S

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss Stormwater
controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If
percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed
impervious level. NCDOT BMPs will be followed to control Stormwater runoff during construction
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This
protect involves the replacement of a bridge with a culvert. Impervious area will remain
approximately the same as current conditions.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~1--~ 9~~a ~0 5
Applicant/Agent's Signature ~ Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page R of R

NORTH CAROLINA
~,
' '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~' '~ ; ~ ~
-~
. J 11~
~! ,~ PRO~CT
~ ~ ~ ~~
--- ~• ~ ..
,- , ~
PR JE 1
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 1
i~ ~
~~
o~~~a~~
N~~®'7C
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
j~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y BURgE COUNTY
~Y Jj PROJECT:33~106.1.1 (B-~10~0)
BRIDGE N0.261 OVER
HALL CRBBS AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1128
SHEBT ~ OF ~ ~ 11 / b / O~f

1l ®~® ~~~
SCALE: 1" :2000
N~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BURgE COUNTY
PROJECT:3306.1.1 (B-~10~10>
BRIDGE N0.251 OVBR
HALL CRBB% AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1128

D
Z

5. Q Z
.
D o ~
r
~ ~
C7 + ~
r ~ ~ ~
D o o =.

w cn ~
~
~ ~ C
`
W ~
K C
C~ X
pp ~ (D

< (D

°

° (D TI
~ ~ __.
-
C7 d
N
v a ~
~
N
~
<
G .~
T

O
o N
N _
n = _~
a~ ~
y m
~ ~ z
° ~~ ~ ~
° n d
~~ m
~ ~
~
~ D
m
~' ~ ~ i
-

n.~° m '~
w a m

~
~ 3

0
o ~
m ~~~~ n>
~
~ -=i
~ ?,
a ° ~
~
`~

m D
~

~ ~~
~ -
j
~
° '~~
~° C
v, m ~
~. 3
D
~ m ° o ~, ~ ~~ T ~

m o N n
~ ~ m
o
'' ~ ~
m ~ ~
m ~

.- ~ .~ ~ ~x D
° w C ~ ~ h ~ ~ m v ~ ~ m
z $ ° ~ o
o .
,. ~
x
' o ~N~~ ~
~
° o ~.
rr^ O ~ ~ ~ S X ~
~ ~
~7 .Z7
07 -j x ~ N
~ N
~ ~. (D ~p p) ~
~ ~
' ~
N C
~ ~ ~ ~ j ~
~ N m cn ~
~
~
Q ~
O cn .Z7
z > p ~ Z
~ ~~
p
o
o m ~ ~
~v
im~

n,
z _
o~
`~ 3

66/(
o[ nc~
S~OZ-

d
~ a
$ _
g ~~
m ~~
~3
J~~~

~_ °
- ~~
~
C ~

J

-~. ~ ~
~
001 ~
v O J
o
~ ~
~
~
v ~
°' ~

~ ~
~~ ~

``~~~\~11 ~ ~ 1~,, ~
~ ~ W
~I
U
cry •~
Q ~
C ~ ~
~
~ ~
~ .~ I,
~
~ W O ~
,_ _ ,~
~ ~
z
W
Q J
o a
U
_ ~
J
O
~ ~
Z
O
N

tpS''~
~'
a O~ g
E$ Q~
a ~
b [
5
ti ~
~ ) I
i
I
~,
~~
~~?
~,
i1 ~ a say
g
~~
~ ~ \
O ~
O
S
.• `~ Q ~
Z~ ~ W
~' O F-
W
P a ~z~
t ~ ~~ ~~
~ -~
~~~ ~W ~~Q
O WU W li
~-a ~ ~
~- o
.. w~ Z
~N W
0
~~„____-
` ~"~
~~~..
0

bb/Cl/B
u6P'b02I80wad-pfi4-06 b9\l[wae \so[tnvapfiy\u
E5'00 5002-OnV-LO

V_J
U
~~
~_ f ---
Q Q W W
I- ~
W Q I-- D
D U ~ ~
~ W Q
W
-J
-~
U
~J
t/~
~.. J
~ J
Z
O _
m N
Ln
ZI Q ~

~ ~ >
V
Q
O ~ ~

I
c~
z~
m
g
ry~
V
~~
z~
~`
I.
`

` Z
~ ~
I -
I Q
~I Q
Z~ V

w
Z
O
Q
Q
x
W
z
0
X
J
J_
t/1
V
Z
O
0
Z
O
V
O
~ ~
II II
J J
VV
~N
N
~W
O>
w
V
IQL.

N
o..

V
w
~.
.-~
V
O
~t
H
w
Z
O
w
to

0
z ~
~ ~ ~~
a
a z
„_
~~~~~
~ ~~
a
~~
\\ ~ O ~ 8 Q
~ \
~ ~ C~ ~3
\ _
\ ~ aroa ai.~~ ~
,~
Q ~' \ ~ `
\ + ~YN`\ .. . ~ ~ y
~~~ ~~;
._. .,`Ya d~a,~t
ias a - ,
a ~j ~i senor ~X~ ~ =~~- _
/ {'"
%~,~ t +~~
/ / /b
~ i , ~ ~N
~^~p ~ t \\
~ '6 ~ b ,.,

I
r
~ ~ ~~
,:t~ ~
W I
a ~ 5~
$a
OFF- i i
aaww ~~
w'af-o ~~
ou~z
xwa
w
~I
J
~~ .~~
>`
Q.
E8 a~
m
~~
a
W
~~
a~~u
W 0.1
^,~
~ s~
-~$
I
~~~~
O ~ ~~
„I1~~ J
1J~f ~~ ~'
'~ + jj~~~
S
..t
~'
Y
~,
~ b,
~~
~\~,
;~ \~~
34
~~ ~~ ~
aW "~~,
S
J
J {,
I
~~
O ~ `
C ~ Ll
~ ~~ L
~ L
y- O
°o~ ~
v ~ i
~ o ~;~ ~ ~y ((~O >,
J yy t T~
_~ rg ~ i~~ -Ih ~ 3i3
o S3~ oilroaan ~,~yyvy~ v -- ~go~~„ ~ ~ ~ ~J rI Q~ ~~-
GJ~ p ~ a t ' Fy-~~'o' \ d J'~ v\ ~ I r~
~_ ro O N~ti p~~ I ~ ~ J °~ V ,
C3 p a ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ -C ~ ~
'a<3 ~ boo/ ~ ~ L~~
~ l a ~ Co ~J
O ~ F ~ ~ ~ ^t
~,~~ 4`:'3 ~' g 'Y oo Q
~ ian ys ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~
-_. ~ - g~ .~ '~ W
_ p /~ ~~ ~,
~k ~ _
_ _ _ 3
1 ~~ k ~ _
~' W k-1 ~*\ a - ~1 ~ ~
'~ Y X
~ ~ 1 ~ ~_ z
\~ s ~ x ~
~ ~
+~ ~~ , a
M
J
••
%/1C ~ W
x/.. ..
x/..
x j ..,
P
+$ ~
~g g~
~.
.. I~ ~ ~ ,,
g
o, ~ ~
//
~...
~._.i ~ ~
//:
~~
//
//
//
i,
- ~ ~

b
~~ I
`~~~
~~~ $ a
~ ~~~
a$ ~~
g ~ + Y-+~
S~Y~~

~;"~
~~~~
d' d 8 ~
-1" '~ I ~b
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ i' ~I .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~g
o~ ~1 ~1 III $ ~ _.. O r
W~ ~ X11 11~~ ~~` . _
m ~ --~
~ ~~ ~~\ \
~~ ~~~\
~\ .
~- - ~ ~ a\
\ ~
\, ~ ~
~~; ~ \
~ as ~ ~
~.'h ~ ~ \ ~
..~~~ ~ \
\G\ ~ \
\w ~
\~ ~
~ ~~~
~ ~
~ ~

~ "1
II
$ ~
pct ~ ~ , "' i
i NL$'"'^l ~ ~ "
Vf II II p
a Q d r It II Y 2
ti~ H
•
~~
~~

~_ i
- _ ~
u6p•Yycd-fipa-040Y

w
d~~~°~
,,,. r
M~
~0~ auw r~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 18, 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory field Office
151 Patton Avenue /Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCT)OT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
L~TIPPETT
S TARY
051379
Subject: Nationwide 23, 33, and 12 Permit Application for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek and approaches on SR 1128 southwest of
Morganton, Burke County, Federal Aid Project: BRL-1128 (5), State Project No.
8.2852801, WBS Element 33406.1.1, TIP B-4040
Please find enclosed a copy of the Pre-Construction Notification form (PCN), permit drawings,
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form, permit drawings, and half-size plan sheets for
the above referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 251 on SR 1128 over Hall Creek (DWQ Index # 11-34-
2) in Burke County. The project involves replacement of the existing bridge structure with a 3 @
8 feet x 8 feet reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation of the existing structure. The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot
travel lanes with shoulder widths of at least 5 feet. Shoulder widths will be increased by at least
3 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site, along surrounding roads,
during construction. SR 1128 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system. The total project length will be approximately 690 feet. ,
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Catawba River Basin with a Hydrologic Unit
Code of 03050102. Hall Creek originates near the Burke/Rutherford County line west of the
South Mountains Game Lands. Hall Creek flows in a northerly direction through the project
study area to its confluence with Silver Creek approximately 1.4 miles north of the project. A
best usage classification of "C" has been assigned to Hall Creek.
No jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area, however, the Natural Resource
Technical Report (February 2002) indicated palustrine wetlands did occur as narrow bands along
Hall Creek. An August 12, 2002 field meeting with the USACE determined they occurred
below bankfull, and were therefore identified as features of the stream channel.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 'I SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE.' WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
V/A'
/~i (\VA\yOn _
'~'~rq 22~o vv
s rF,Q ~S
IT~T~iL_G~._

~ ~ r
Permanent Impacts: Hall Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the
proposed project will result in a permanent impact of 0.02 acre of fill in surface water. A total of
123 feet of stream channel will be impacted. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional surface waters
result from fill for construction of the box culvert.
Temporary Impacts: There will be 0.03 acre of temporary impacts to surface waters of Hall
Creek from dewatering associated with construction of the box culvert.
Utility Impacts: Temporary impacts will occur to 4 linear feet (0.002 ac) of Hall Creek from the
installation of an 8-inch diameter water line within the aforementioned disturbed area.
Installation of the water line will involve excavation of the bottom of the stream. Excavation
will be approximately 4 feet wide and 20 feet in length. The excavated material will be placed
back in the streambed after the proposed water line is installed.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge consists of a timber floor on steel girders with an asphalt-wearing surface.
The end bents and crutch bent are composed entirely of timber, which can be removed without
any falling debris. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping components into
Waters of the United States during construction. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of
the United States. There are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in the BMPs for
Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
RESTORATION PLAN
The material excavated for the installation of the water line will be placed back in the streambed
after the proposed water line is installed and these areas will be restored to their original
contours.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a November 15, 2005 Let date with a review date of
September 27, 2005.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to "Waters of the United States". Due to the presence of surface waters and
wetlands within the project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. The NCDOT is
committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize
jurisdictional impacts. Minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design
these included:
Use of an off-site detour during construction.
Best Management Practices will also be utilized during demolition of the existing
bridge and construction of the new culvert.
Miti ation: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of Nationwide Permits is that all
impacts to perennial streams or intermittent streams that exhibit important aquatic function
require mitigation. Therefore, the remaining unavoidable impacts to 123 linear feet of stream will
be offset by compensatory mitigation.

' 4
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District" (MOA), it is
understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume responsibility for satisfying the federal
Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in
Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2, the necessary compensatory mitigation to offset
unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act will be
provided by the EEP. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets already in
existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. `The Department has avoided and minimized
impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
FEDERAL 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 February 5, 2003 the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists seven federally protected species for Burke County (see Table 1). No
species have been added to or deleted from the list since the completion of the CE (23 May
2005).
Table 1 Federally Protected Species in Burke County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Bald ea le Hczliaeetus leucoce halus Threatened* No Effect
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T S/A No Effect
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexas lis nani ora Threatened No F,ffect
Heller's blazin star Liatris helleri Threatened No Effect
Mountain olden heather Hudsonia montana Threatened No Effect
Small-whorled o onia Isotria medeoloides Threatened No Effect
S readin avens Geum radiatum Endan ered No Effect
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 it's
range."
Threatened (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.
*Proposed for delisting.
Field surveys were initially conducted in 2001 and it was determined that the project area does
not contain habitat for any of the above listed species. Therefore a biological conclusion of "No
Effect" has been given for each species.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: NCDOT requests that the installation of the 8-inch diameter ductile iron
water line be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 12. It is anticipated that the temporary impacts
will be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
the temporary dewatering. 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). It
is anticipated that the fill in Surface Waters will be authorized tinder Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 23. The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23.

Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403, 3366, and 3374 will
apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200 we are
providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. A copy of this permit will be
posted on the NCDO'T web site at http:/www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/permit.html.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Tyler Stanton at (919)
715- 1439 if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
1~---.~
~,,,,, Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., I-Iighway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. Hank Schwab, P.E., PDEA
4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
2005 f 378
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 12, NW 23, NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC D~artment of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699- 1 548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (919)-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
o~c~~adr~ o
Page 1 of9 JUL 2 2 2005
pENR; WATT. w~7ERBR~NCN

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4040
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
N/A
County: Burke Nearest Town: Morganton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Morganton take I-40
west to exit 94. Take Dysartsville Road (SR 1129) south approximately 3.5 miles to
Morrison Road (SR1128) on left. Take Morrison Road to approximately 1.5 miles to the
bride site.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): UTM 17 426445E 3945145N (WGS84lNAD83)
6. Property size (acres): approximately 1.4 acres (length 768.7 x width 80 feet = 61496 SF)
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Hall Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba River Basin (USGS Catalog Unit Number-03050102)
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area lies in a rural area in the western part of
Burke County. Surrounding land use is primaril~~ricultural land.
Page 2 of 9

9. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
will consist of replacing the old bridge over Hall Creek with a 3(~8 feet by 8 feet reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC) at approximately the same location and roadway elevation of
the existing structure. The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot travel lanes and
shoulder widths of at least 5 feet. Shoulder widths will be increased by at least 3 feet where
guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site, along surrounding roads, during
construction. Construction equipment will consist of heavy-duty trucks, earth moving,
equipment, cranes, etc.
10. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bridge has a sufficiencyratio of 38.8 out of
100. The deck is only 19.2 feet wide and the structure is composed mainly of timber.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 123 linear feet of
surface water impacts resulting in 0.02 acre of permanent fill and 0.03 acres of temporary fill
from the construction of the culvert. There will be 0.002 acre of temporary excavation in
surface waters and impact to 4 linear feet of stream channel due to the installation of a water
line.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, and then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact Stream Width Length Impact
(indicate on ma) Intermittent? Before Im act (linear feet) (acres)
1 Hall Creek permanent Fill from perennial 20 45 0.02
culvert
Temporary
1 Hall Creek disturbance from Perennial 20 78 0.03
culvert construction
1 Hall Creek *Temporary perennial 20 * 4 0.002
Excavation
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 123 0.052
* The waterline will be placed in an area already disturbed by the construction of the culvert.
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
(indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres)

N/A

'Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.02
Wetland Im act (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.02
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 123*
* The waterline will be placed in an area already disturbed by the construction of the culvert.
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A
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
Page 5 of 9

financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options wet'e 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. Due to the presence of surface
waters and wetlands within the project study area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USAGE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc. us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are willing to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
Page 6 of 9

website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 123
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federallstate) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone , ~..~~e ~ o.~ Multiplier ,~,~:+;~,,,,~~
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
Page 7 of 9

* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
NCDOT BMPs will be followed to control Stormwater runoff during construction
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project involves the replacement of a bridge with a culvert.
as identified
Page 8 of 9

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

~ l/ zlo5
Applicant/Agent's Signature date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B=4040
WBS No. 33406.1.1
State Project No. 8.2852801
Federal Project No. BRZ-1128 (5)
A.
B.
C.
Project Description:
Replacement of Bridge No. 251 on SR 1128 over Hall Creek in Burke County.
Bridge No. 251 will be replaced with a 3 @ 8 feet x 8 feet reinforced concrete
box culvert (RCBC) at approximately the same location and roadway elevation of
the existing structure. The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot travel
lanes and shoulder widths of at least 5 feet. Shoulder widths will be increased by
at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site,
along surrounding roads, during construction. Total project length will be
approximately 690 feet.
Purpose and Need•
Bridge No. 251 has a sufficiency rating of 38.8 out of 100. The deck is only 19.2
feet wide and the structure is composed mainly of timber. For these reasons,
Bridge No. 251 needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merges, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
£ Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic.operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights '
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators '
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattemng slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
~~
~ 3. J Brid
~~ ge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint) scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land aze required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks, and related street improvements) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
2

permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 350,000
Right of Way $ 3,000
Total $ 353,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 400 vpd
Year 2025 - 700 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot travel lanes and shoulder
widths of at least 5 feet. Shoulder widths will be increased by at least 3 feet
where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
55 mph
Design Exceptions:
A design exception is needed for the horizontal curve, vertical sag K factor, maximum
grade, and stopping sight distance.
Functional Classification:
SR 1128 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
system.

Division Office Comments:
The Division 13 Construction Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed
method for detouring traffic during construction.
Bridge Demolition:
The superstructure of Bridge No. 251 consists of a timber floor on steel girders
with anasphalt-wearing surface. The end bents and crutch bent are composed
entirely of timber, which can be removed without any falling debris. Therefore,
Bridge No. 251 will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the
United States during construction.
Alternatives Discussion: (including Studied Offsite Detour Evaluation)
According to the Transportation Director for Burke County Schools, there are six school
bus crossings per day over Bridge No. 251.
Emergency Management Services states they can handle a temporary offsite detour.
The studied detour route utilizes SR 1129, SR 1133, and SR 1124. These routes total 4.6
additional miles.
Two "build" Alternatives were studied: replace in place with offsite detour and new
alignment. Replace in place is the most cost effective alternate with the least amount of
impacts. "Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or

important natural resource? a
X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been

evaluated?
X ^
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
^
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely

impacted by proposed construction activities? ^
X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ^
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous material sites? ~ X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ^
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ^
resources? ~{
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
s

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ^
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ^
changes?
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or ^
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority ^
or low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traff c patterns or community cohesiveness?
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?
X

X

X
0
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6

(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ^
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ^
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are

important to history orpre-history? ^
X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? ^
X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation

Act of 1965, as amended? ^
X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and

Scenic Rivers? ^
X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item (S) Mountain Trout County
Burke County is listed as a mountain trout county. Hall Creek does not have a water
resource classification involving trout and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission states
no concerns indicated, standard requirements apply.

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B=4040
WBS No. 33406.1.1
State Project No. 8.2852801
Federal Project No. BRZ-1128 (5)
Project Description•
Replacement of Bridge No. 251 on SR 1128 over Hall Creek in Burke County. Bridge
No. 251 will be replaced with a 3 @ 8 feet x 8 feet reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) at approximately the same location and roadway elevation of the existing
structure. The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot travel lanes and shoulder
widths of at least 5 feet. Shoulder widths will be increased by at least 3 feet where
guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured off-site, along surrounding roads, during
construction. Total project length will be approximately 690 feet.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification•
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager, Teresa Hart, PE, CPM
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
r
' • i
Date Project Planning Unit Hea , W am T. Goodwin, Jr., P]
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
3-2-04 ~2 ~~/,~~~oz.`~
Date Project Development Engineer, Robin Y. Hancock
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projec~ o ly:
3130 ~~ . ~~,~-~.~
Date ~ ohn F. Sullivan, III, Division Administrator
~~ _ federal Highway Administration
8

r
----• TO aS11EVIt.LE
1e
a

z

}~' `HCh• '~ 12D7 ~ `•'ril P 1 t43 ~Ir~,~
i' 1,38 °p
' ~ 20 ~

Ii42
~' ~~
`,
1 ,~ ~
1
\
~..

37
ti „
, ~ ,. „~
»`„~It~ '

_~
w
r
•
1 ,~ 1,20
,,~ ~ ,,- _
90 ±
r
~, : 9~ ~
a
~ ,--~ `" a t»a ~ 1 ~ E ~ ~
~,~ ~~ ,~ ~ 31 ~ -,~
`
'~
----~-.. _ ~ .~ ~ t ~
~ i,32 ~ 1 1 :;IOIYE 1.q~''~`~ A '
H. ~ • - - - ~~-~ - -
r~ , 1 ~ ,
1196 . ,~.~ 27J•~1 _ , ` 1 1\ ~~
• tt30 y~~ 1 ~ .~ ~
` ~,
. ~ -~ ••~
~- , ~
~~ ,. ~ 114 __ ~ ~ t
~ "~ ~~ 251 ~,
~ 2~1 ~' ~ ,
t ~`_ C9 ~~
~ •, .., ~
.,
f ~
~ '~
' HI
t
~ ~ ICY KNOB
1
~ ~ s
' PILOT `• ~ ~ . „r'
MTN. Ca .,.r .~'`, '`
1
~ i ~~ 1 ~
~ '
ll .~
t SILVER CREEK ~" ~ ~ ~~,,, ,'., , J
~ ~N09
ti4 tis ~~ ELEV. 2.8381
~ ,
,p s ,~ 7!!'J!!"
YI
»..
I.e"w r
I.+Nk~ ~ fw..w
a~,tl' ` u
w
_ NNY
1 •• r•uu. •Rw
L ~
~,,. 1 ~• 1•.eYNw SI
J Y yy ~~.~~
.---%~ 't ~ B E
~~
~y
~<' ,
r'
~~
Detour Route -*-
~~o~ "O"TN ~~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
•~ `~\ TRANSPORTATION
'; D[VIS[ON OF HIGHWAYS
~'i ~r PROTECT DEVELOPMENT 8c
.~YA~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
~~~ 711~1~~/
BLIRKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.251 ON SR 1128
OVER HALL CREEK
B-3040
Figure I

..~ SUTr
,y~y ~o~
'~j-" f
~ ~w
~ ~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
JetTrey J. Crow. Deputy Secretary
ORice of Archives and History
Januan• 29, 2003
A~IE~iOR~~NDt`I\I
TO: William D. Giltnore,l~Ianager
NCDOT, Division of Highways
r
FROM: David Brook ~' ~~~t`.~,~ :'r'te
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge 251~on SR 1138, TIP B-4040, Burke CounnT, ER 02-8501
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 3001, regarding the above project.
~' ~~~
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an archaeologist to identift• and e~-aluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the project. Potential effects on
unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological sun ev report, as well as one cope• of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of anv
construction activities.
~~ list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at ~o•~vw.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or anv other archaeologist,
may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of historical or
architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Thomas Morrison House, north side of SR 1138, .vest of SR 1124
~n architectural historian for the Department of Transportation should inventory and evaluate this property
and any others, that are fifty )ears old or older and located within the area of potential effect.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 1UG of National Historic Preservation :pct and ,advisory
Council on Historic Prescnation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 10G codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-1•i.arlev, envixonmental review coordinator, at 919/733-47G3. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: tiian~ Pope l~urr, NCI~<)T
Matt Wilkerson, NCDO"I'
Location
~Wwinislration 5117 N. Bluunl St. Raleigh. NC
Restoration S IS N. Blount Sl. Rulciph . NC
Survey & I'lonnint; 51 S N. Blount SI. Raleigh. NC
VlnilinK Address
dM1l7 Mail Soviet ('enter. Raleigh 27h99-~1b17
4613 Moil Sen icr ('enter. Raleigh .7699--1613
dblN Mnil Sititiice('enler. Raleigh ?7699--ih18
Telephone/Fax
19191731-476] •7]3-8653
19191733-6547.715-4801
1919)733-4763 •715-48(11

Federal Aid # BR~i l28{5) TIP# B=104() County: Burke
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 251 on SR 128, Burke Countv
On July 22. 20U3 representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting '
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
^ Other
All parties present agreed
^ There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's azea of potential effects.
® There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
.historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property/ies identified as # 1 -Thomas
Morrison House• #2 -Barn is/aze considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of
it/them is/aze necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
® All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation. and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section t06 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
® There aze no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
[THE BRIDGE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1962 -NOT 50 YEARS OLDS
Signed:
~.~%~~
~~T Z~v
Re resentative, NCDOT Date
I2Zlo3
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or er Federal Agency Date
~ ~a o
Rep esentative, HPO
ate
State Historic Preservation Officer
ate
If a xurvcy report is prepurul, a final copy ol'this linen and the attached list will be included.

•''TNF o
~~ rr~1 ~.
~~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Gtrvernor
I.isbeth C. Evaaa, Saaetary
Jo>$ey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 2, 2004
MEMORANDUM
To: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeological Supervisor
Division of Highways
Department of T ortation
FROM: David Brook :~~ 5
SUBJECT: Bridge 251 on SR 1128, B-4040, Burke County, ER02-8501
O>$ce of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resour+xw
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of October 22, 2003 transmitting the archaeological survey report by Gerold
Glover for the above project.
During the course of the survey, no sites were located within the project area. Dr. Glover has recommended
that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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 pour 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 ate the above-referenced tracking number.
ec; ~IJ;~ ~}~.t.,~k
~~
ADMIIYLS'1'RATfON 507 N. Hlouet Street, Raleigh NC
RESTORATION Mailing Atidteu
4617 Mail Service Curter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephona/Fai
(919)733763/733-8653
Sl S N. Blount Strxt, Raleigh NC
SURVEY & PLANNING S IS N
Blount Street
Ralei
h NC 4617 Mul Semce Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
46 (919)7336547/715-0801
.
,
g 17 Mul Swice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-461 B (919)7336545/713-3801

~ `~
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program lam.
DATE: May 10, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Burke County:
Bridge No. 26, NC183, Linville River, B-4038
Bridge No. 51, SR1424, Parks Creek, B-4043
Bridge No. 251, SR1128, Hall Creek, B-4044
Bridge No. 4, SR1515, Smoky Creek, B-4044
Bridge No. 57, SR1244, Canoe Creek, B-4041
Bridge No. 94, SR1972, East Prong Hunting Creek, B-4047
Bridge No. 19, SR1736, Camp Creek, B-4045
Bridge No. 91, SR1127, Silver Creek, B-4039
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.

Bridge Nlemo ? Nlav 1 U, 2002
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
~. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A cleaz bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fzsh, the NCDOT official policy entitled
`'Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regulazly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a drv work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.

Bridge Memo
Mav 10, 2002
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels aze required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or neaz stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similaz to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts aze longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. 12iprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the a}~proaah fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be~stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject projector
other projects in the watershed.

Bridge Memo ~ 4 May lU, 2002
Project specific comments:
1. Bridge No. 36, NC183,. Linville River, B-4038, RED LIGHT, Significant & historic resource,
Proposed Critical Habitats, Game Lands, Trout clubs, National Park Service. Blue
Ridge Parkway, Nloratoriums proposed (1 ~ Feb. - 30 May, Walleye and White
$ass; 15 Oct - 31 March, Brown Trout ), Brook tloater (~llasmidonta varicosa)
populations. NEW Spanning Bridge.
2. Bridge No. ~ 1, SR1424, Parks Creek, B-4043 -YELLOW LIGHT, Santee Chub in John's
River, No sport fish concerns indicated.
3. Bridge No. 251, SRl 128, Hall Creek, B-4040 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
4. Bridge No. 4, SR1515, Smoky Creek, B-4044 -YELLOW LIGHT, Moratoridm for warm
water fish species.
~. Bridge No. ~7, SR1244, Canoe Creek, B-4041 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standazd requirements.
6. Bridge No. 94, SR1972, East Prong Hunting Creek, B-4047 -GREEN LIGHT. No concerns
indicated. Standard requirements.
7. Bridge No. 19, SR1736, Camp Creek, B-4045 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standazd requirements.
8. Bridge No. 91, SR1127, Silver Creek. B-4039 -GREEN LIGHT, No concerns indicated.
Standard requirements.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed tloodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at (336) 769-945;. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: David Cox, WRC

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Burke County .
Bridge No. 251 on SR 1128
Over Hall Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1128 (5)
WBS 33406.1.1
State Project 8:2852801
TIP No. B-4040
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division l3 Construction, Structure Design Unit
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be
implemented. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on steel girders with anasphalt-
wearing surface. The end bents and crutch bent are composed entirely of timber, which can
be removed without any falling debris. Therefore, Bridge No. 251 will be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the United States during construction.
Division 13 Construction
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for road closure,
the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Clint Patton with Burke County EMS at (828) 433-
6609 of the bridge remova130 days prior to road closure.
In order to allow Burke County Schools time to prepare for road closure, the NCDOT
Resident Engineer will notify the Transportation Director at [phone] of the bridge
remova130 days prior to road closure.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page I of 1
Mazch 2004

NORTH CARO~fNA
a
~~
~ ~
~ i, ~ ~ .
J `~
lli4
d? `~ PRC+JJ:CT
~ ~, ~'"~
,-
BE IN
PR JE )
1
~; r~ ~\
~~ ~
/~ ~--r\
1
p~wr ro ~
OFf SfTE DETOUR ROUTE
N~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BURgE COUNTY
PROJECT:33~106.1.1 (8-~10~10)
BRIDGE N0.2b1 OVER
HALL CREES AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1128
SHEET ~ OF ~ ~ 11 / b / 0~(

~- ~ 1 -,
,o
~;.: , u. ,.~-,
i
.; ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ - ap
a > 'r~ ~• ~
iJ/-
_ ~~ a
()~~ -~ / ~ Z \D- x/170 ~ 1\\ ~~~ ~ m IZOO ~o'~ (i/
128 u ~ ~ ~ ~, s
0 / ,1 774 ,a
a q p
e
„ 1
~ ~~ 11 ~ ' N
/200 ~ ~ / / ~~ p \ `'~.ya O
N I ~ ti ~ C7.
1 0 , ~ •~ ''',,,///
~•J ~ 11~ .~ /. ~a
r ~•• i
1
n O v ~ / • ~ '. / 9
i ` ~e. VVV ~ ~ • 12
~' r: a 1. ! .~~ ~ 1124 Il!
1~ ~ . t
r~ h ~ I 1215
-- - .. -~
N~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
• BURgE COUNTY
~° ®~D ® ~ ~ ~ PROJ ECT: 3306.1.1 (B-~10~10)
BRIDGE N0.251 OVER
SCALE: 1" :2000' HALL CRBBg AND
APPROACHES ON SR 1128
SHEET ~ OF ~ ~ 11 / 5 / O~I ,

J
O
d
W
Z
~-U
W
O
z
dl
..,
O~
c
O
~ ~_
b ~
~~
'~ 4>
~ •~
b-(n
~ O~
C
C ~Q.
~O 4.
N ~
U
'~ b
W ~
C ~
~~
~ ~
Ot~
k v
w
O_ V
N
O J
~ a
1--
Z
O
N_
O ~
O
2
r
c~
a ~
a w
H-
-w a a
~Q ~Z3
~3
~-U
a
~a w ~
0
~ ~
ocn w
0
-_ ~~P'6021B0w'd-Pn4'0b0f9\ti'w"
6

~~
~~
a
¢ ~
C
.~
o
~O
.~
b 0
~~
.j .~
d-(n
~ b,
C D.
0 Q
~(j
U
~~
~ C
C ~
b'b
~ ~
O ~-
~~

~Y
,~`
- ~
0/ 0 ~ ~
s
O
~L.
I
J
O
~~4'- o o ~
1
---.-- Q
8
_---~ ~.
'~ a ~
y c~ II •. 11
'! ~
'/ O
~.1-~
O J
O a
- U
N
O J
~ a
t-
z
a
N
O ~
<7
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ o a
~ ~~ ~a ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
i
o .,
d~ ^~ z N
____ ~r-~
0

a

SCALE
0 50' t00' .~
O
~ ISON
IRENE MORR
DB 354 PG i49
UNDER CREEK TIO 8.
80' L.fi, DI

/ice ~..
`INE EO
HERS OF
~RRISON
PG 149
. DZ w ~c r
EXISTING R/ItL
_ - - T- =~
-L- I
MORRISDN RD SR ll28 !75' BST
WOODS
.T~-•
/ .. ~~
~\ ~.
IRENE M0RRIS4N •.
DB 354 PG 149
O
~~ ~ o
k CH STER J. KELLOG AND WIFE
SUSAN KELLOG
u D.B. 1287 PG 209-211
k PB 23 PG 164-165
X
SO/L
X
~~i i
~f ~\5C~
~/
~~ + O
ROEL BRIDGES
k DB 244 PG 49
k
k
Lx X X3S ELECTRIC
X-----_X--~
_ ~ ,nom,n,/~ ~k .r •`\
tom' ~'~` x--~-k_
QS!
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BURKE COUNTY
WBS 33406.I.t
B-4040 UTILITY
BRIDGE 251OYER HAIL CREEK ON SR 1128
48

NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 ROY 8c IRENE MORRISON ~66~ Morrl/On Rd.
Mor;snbon, NC 28655
2 CHESTER gELLOGG 72 PrenEice Raed
WorEhin`Eon, MA 01098
3 ROEL P. BRIDGES 4465 Dewroe Drive
Morasnton, NC 28655

z
d
x

~
~ ~ ~~
h
=i
~ p •." C
~ Z ~
O o
~
o~ p
_~
p
~A ~n ~~
~o x.~
o ~
~~ ~~

~
a
~o
..z ~~
`~
~^ ~
a
~~ o

z
-~
z~
o
~
N

J
~
r a~
~ ~
'

W
n "~
~ ~
~ ~
~~
0 o v ~ --
a~
N
7 ~

O
O _ (D
N ~ ~
Z
~~
~ v
°'
v m

~~
~ ~
_~
O ~, ~g a ~
O ~d
., ~ ~
' °
~
~ N D
' n
~ ~ `° c
O O m ~ w ~
~ ~. ~
'
_ ~ R
~ a ~
.

?1
=
o
N c
~ m
v

~ ~_
~>>
~- a fn
~ C
D
n

0

0 ~
m
~ m
~
°w c°a ~ ~ ~•° '~

v ~ ~ D

W
~
> ~
~'
w ~
>
a~~
~~d
O O ~ y
. N
~~~~

1s
1 ~
~C
O
M
dU~
U~
~ ~
~~
~®
®®
rr``ll
k~
a
0
U
ro
ti ~
~\
~~_
~~_
_~.
~~ y~/~y~ ~ ~~ _
~ ~ ~~'•~~~ ~~1
~`
~ ~ __~~~~
a ~ ~I~
~~
J
Er W l
N
(~ °v~, Ee pyN
°a
~~
°~
rA
V
4 ~ i ~
~^ ~~' ~ O~
~ ~ ~ ~ W~
'~ ,~ a W i ~
~ W
O 2W ~~
O ~J ~
~' m~
w
N
E
s
i
W ` 1
~ 1
J \+
_- .-
.- _ ---
~ ~~
i ~
/ /
Q
4 ~
O
~ ~~
m 0O
W
Z~
~~
o=
~ j
~~
ti~
W
o~
`~-j
ll.l
V ~ V1
0
V
o2S
. ~,
~~
~~
;~
j
~ O
~~
O Z
j ~
O
v
0
~ j
Z
1
r^~
v I
~ I . ,
~ ,'CW
7
Q
t
e
~~
~~~
~o~
N
O~
o°
M
^~

_~
0
o ~

O
~~

r
§ ~
~ ~ ~
~~$~~~~
x n n u n n
~~~o~,
N H Q
r ~-
~
y
V H
~
T~
G
~ ~
o
C oo
off
N
7
0

oto~ ~s~~loua ais I6ZIOZ~ ~.z~r~arsxo~~

1

ao
e : ~
Q
in c0 ~
N
V
Q
,1
o
W

r
o
~ ~.

~ ~
M
o
~ ~
~
o
o V

.~
d
W ~ C

86/9Z/0I

O N ~ 0
~ ~ F
O ~ ~ p
Jet
z~ z ~ ~ N z~
~ z °~ ° ~? i o ~a
~d ~ h ~ ~ ~ z o^~
~ I ~. d ~.
~ ~ ~ ~' ~ J i O ~~Z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
~ W ~ ~ ~ a~8
W y Z o ~ ~-._~ ~ Q~ V
z d w I z*'`d
a. o~ W ~ ~ I ~ zd~
N o i ~ ~~~
~ ,-- ~.. ,
W
N LLJ
~ ~
~O
yy
v
7
ui
0
N
~J
N
JJ

u6p•dfi~
i
~
N
~ ~ ~
a~
F- r W

W

W
~o v
~o
J <
0 s ~
W
r ~
m
0 ~ ~' ~'
~ a
~

U N
m VI
~~'
~m
U N V N J
M ~ M ~ ~

~l~'
'
~ f
~~
Z Z
c ~
~
CW
G ,`f t o {W
~
,~ a J ,< z
W
'
~
~ W
!a
~
Q ~~
~
~ o~
~
~ o
~~ oC
FW.,
a
~
°l a s ~
°d < x °d < ~ ~z

v
~ W
ZZ
p
Q W

pp .
.
N
ppp,,
Z p,
C
2 p,, ~
a a ~
O a` W
r-
U N
(~ ~-
W
H
~

~ . ` ~ J
:. ;
~• ~ • ~
..~ ~
~ ~ : ~ 4.~
}
~ ~ ~ . c..:. d $ o ~+- ~ ~ oral
~ •.
~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~ r~ ~~, ~ x~ Q
O ~ ~ 5770d lYpddl ~~~ oz4 ~ ~ N ~J
.~~ --- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Ise ~
~ M ae~ .tea ~ ~ ~~ s~
_ _ ~ Yd d~N.-L 8 4
_~ mosa~~ _-- .-r ~ gi
~ ~ . h
~~yy / ~ F
4^.l" i ~ / / ~ t. O.
~. 'i ~ ~ ~ 4 P ~ ~ J9 yY1 pt 1 }• J p~h v l
' ~ ~ j,M~
• / JIb1J311 ! l_
• d ~ ~' + ~
~~ t.:
~` a +
Q I ~ ~4~ \ b \ ,~,
W T~ ~ h ~ ~ O ~3
W ~ +
~~ \ \ $ s ~ d
~~
"' ~ ~ +O~
~SBM
. S \ ~ ~ m
~ ~ ~ 8 +~
~~~~ ~
5~ 0 ~ g~ ~ ~
u
F M
P ~ ~w .,1 = ~1 ~ ~ ~Q 4
_ "' ~, a
0 4,
+~ ~~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ni u u n u W~
~14 ~ ~ ~, 1 ~ aQO.ih~v~
~J~ + ~ O
1 '
.a d
(rye .'~' e c " ~ ~
~~ ~ J ~ C
b ~ N +g ~a
o ~
,~~~ + g -Q~ xx~ ~ ~ w I
N0779'I~ R ~ ~+ W ` I
~t it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~C~~~ F
~ ~ ~ ~ '€~ :
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~, ~1 ~
°J c ~ per,. ~ -- ° === - - _ --`-
L b ~ - - - -
adN b ~~
~o -r-~
L. -C w
~ /
/~
C C ~ ' ~.
~-a
O ~ ~ /
QO i ~
i~
. / 1*-
C ~ '~ ~ ~
~'
'~ q~j - - ~ • G,~
O Q - 'e,.
I~ k ~ ~
'r~
•
bb/L1/8 u6p•

~ /

.~rynu n~o iauo-ir
bly/f 2/0 unp•j-jdx-npr00069~°ax~nonpoo~~ra
01'11 5002-21Y11-ZZ

u6p•t

~ M

0
u
d
8
0
0

N y .~ G
'b ..fin y a~ w
o~ ~~.~°~
a.''» +r
~~ ~~~
F. o
U
~.
~ ~, ~ d o
w o d ~ ~
~ o.
~
~
V~
~
'$a~$o
~, ~ :. ^.
co
~db~~
aOvi
~
8 w
a
a
~ ~ ~
~
a

aQ~d
c4
d d
as
~ V ~ ~
H
~ ~ o a
q ~ ~ ~ N
W~U ~~~
q
b0
~ C
i
w~V ~~
~
~.
~ ~
Q u u~ y
a '~ i ~ w
N
o
w=3~Q o
~w~
>~~
~a ~
A
a
w
°o~
~~
`
q a '
+
~z

N ~
~+ ~
at C
3 0
o ~
~ a
°' ,~
v~
~~
v
00 ~
~ '~
a.•~
o ,k
a~
~ ,o
o a'bi
o ~
~~
3
a'
o~
~.
~~
N fd
~ x
w ~
o ~c
6
~~
'~
O
u
o °`~'
k
~ pp
td
.9 ~
o
~~
.~
~x
a
~~
8~
ao
.~
~~
~W
~;
.5
u
.y
.~

. .
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~1orth Carolina Departme~ of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RECEIVED
JUN ~ 2005
DNtSION OF ti~hWAYS
PDEA•OffiCE Of NATl14Al ENVIRONMENT
~;
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
May 31, 2005
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
5-0040, Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
,dated April 14, 2005, the iffipacts are located in CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern
fl1+Iountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts:
..-
o stem ~.
,~~. ~. e~le~.~
PROGRAM
123 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the NorEh Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this
agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Il
Wil ' D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
+cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
_, ,
.~`es~or'uu~... ~~c-~i~,~u~i~t,c~... ~~'o~-v~~i;t'L~~ ~c~ ~. ~~ t-~,t~ cum
North farolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, N(21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

;~~~,co stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B-4040, Replace Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Road),
Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NMP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 123 feet of warm stream
impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Mingo Tract (Caldwell County) 1,230 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~•
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
y ~ 'e~i~i
J i; ~
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

co stem
~z
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B-4040, Replace Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Road),
Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NMP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 123 feet of warm stream
impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Mingo Tract (Caldwell County) 1,230 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~• I
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
_. _ .. .. ._ NCD~1
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27b99-1652 / 919-115-041b / www.nceep.net

COS_ ~StC111
'~ a + y„
PROGRAM
IViay 31, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Eirvironmental Analysis Branch
I\lorth Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
Bd040, Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
dated April 14, 2005, the iffipacts are located in CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern
1~Iountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 123 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
.Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this
agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
~, ,~~
Wil ' D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
~cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy,. Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
.. .. NCDEN~t
North farolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, IbS2 Mail Service Lenter, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-115-0476 / www.nceep.net

REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 251 ON SR 1128
OVER HALL CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4040
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2852801
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4040
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FEBRUARY 2002

.
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
TIP 8-4040
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 251 ON SR 1128
OVER HALL CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER 8-4040
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2852801
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
8-4040
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sactlnn PTae
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .....................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................4
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................................................................................................4
2.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Water Resources ....................................................................................:..........................5
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification .......................................................................................5
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surtace Waters ..................................7
2.3.3 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................7
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................8
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges .....................................................8
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts .............................................................9
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................10
3.1 Biotic Communities ......................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-W ay Communities ...................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Cropland ............................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Pastureland ........................................................................................................... 12
3.1.4 Scrub/Shrub Communities Interspersed with Open Fields ................................... 12
3.1.5 PiedmonUMountain Bottomland Forest ................................................................ 13
3.1.6 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area ................................................................... 14
3.1.7 Aquatic Community ............................................................................................... 15
3.1.7.1 Flora ......................................................................................................... 15
NCDOT
Pape 1
02/18/2002

. 4
TIP B-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.7.2 Fauna .......................................................................................................15
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ...........................................15
3.2.1 Terrestrial impacts ................................................................................................16
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ....................................................................................................16
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...........................................................................................................17
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................17
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected .....................................17
4.1.2 Permits .................................................................................................................18
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition ....................................................................................19
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation.....,~ ................................................................19
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...........................................................................................20
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................20
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................21
5.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................:...............23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region ......................................................................6
Figure 3. Biotic Communities of the 8-4040 Project Area ..........................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. -Federally Protected Species of Burke County ...........................................................................21
Table 2. -Federal Species of Concern for Burke County ...........................................................................22
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in Burke County, North Carolina ...........................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Qualifications of Principal Investigators ........................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Wetland Data Forms ........................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets ..................................................................................D-1
NCDOT Page I! 02/19/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and
describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which have a
probability of being impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable
impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concerns that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 251 on SR 1128 in Burke County, North
Carolina. The proposed project crosses Hall Creek approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 kilometers) north of the
community of Brindletown (Figure 1).
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Glen Alpine 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Glen Alpine
7.5-minute quadrangle (1995).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1,200 scale).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service provisional soil survey of
Burke County, North Carolina (unpublished).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR, 1999; 2000, 2001). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service list of protected and candidate species (3 March 2001) and from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats .(NCNHP, 2001).
NCDOT Pape i 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
,.7
1 34
.1
~a
~~
~\,~ .
•',
1129
~~
h 129 ~~
!-" B~4040
%~3
N ~
J ~~ r- ~
,~,
0 4,000' a,ooo~ '-
SCALE: 1" - 4,000
A

0~ ,i
`•.
~rindletown eEFRj
pG~ `,
~~,
.., ;... -
~•, '•,
'~' •''~ .
,, .
SITE VICINITY MAP
b~ SR 1128 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
OVER HALL CREEK (TIP B-4040) FIGURE 1
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from NCDOT County Highway Map, 2000)
~~
.` j
~'•, i i
'y i J
~~~ •,~~~
1124 .5 118
i
~.. ~. A t
_.,.`
~~~ MT. •2 2128' 1126
OLIVE 1.4 ~,~~.
', i CH. .g ~ ._
'~- ..,
1 N ; •,'
i ~~~ i {
1 ! ~ l
4 ~ ~ •.
1 •Z _ •~.
. ~ 1 65 ~ti ~•~:, i,125~
1 i ., y
'; . i ice. ~
11 4 ~~~,
•~.. ~~,
1149
~'.
~~.
,t 4]
j
.~
NCDOT Page 2 02H8/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state-listed or federal-listed species. USFWS
Recovery Plans for federal-listed species were reviewed, where applicable.
Environmental scientists on the staff of HSMM, Inc. conducted a field investigation of natural
resources within the project area on 18 July 2001. Qualifications of environmental scientists who
conducted the field investigations are provided in Appendix B. Water resources were identified and
categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify plant
communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of fhe Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968). Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980), Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware (Rohde, et al., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas (Potter, et al., 1980), and Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985).
Approximate boundaries of major vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing
aerial photography of the project area. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or
suspected species, incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as Birdsong and
other sounds), and secondary indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and
burrows). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented utilizing a general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineat/on Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the
Corps' 6 March 1992 guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Values of
wetlands delineated were assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rafing the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). Wetland types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classitrcafion of Wetlands and Deepwafer Habitats of fhe United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland
boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the geld using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey
methods.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations:
Project area -denotes the area bound by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of
the project alignment.
Project vicinity -denotes an area extending 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) on all sides of the project
area.
Project region -denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS
quadrangle map (i.e., 60.8 square miles or 157.5 square kilometers).
NCDOT Page 3 02H8/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental .concerns. Soil properties and site topography can significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources' within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality
degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the
flow and the quality of the water resources, potentially limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Burke County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian Mountains) Physiographic Province of
western North Carolina. The county encompasses 511 square miles (1,324 square kilometers) and is
primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation from approximately 935 feet (285 meters) mean sea level
(msl) where the Catawba River flows into Catawba County to 4,350 feet (1,326 meters) msl. Elevations
within the project area range from approximately 1,140 to 1,180 feet (347 to 360 meters) msl, with the
stream bed near the bridge lying at approximately 1,140 feet (347 meters) msl.
Hall Creek is located within the upper portion of the Catawba River drainage basin. The
headwaters of the Catawba River and its tributaries are located within the mountain physiographic region.
This river basin originates on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge Mountains and flows towards the North
Carolina -South Carolina border near Charlotte, North Carolina. The Catawba River basin, along with the
adjoining Broad River basin, forms the headwaters of the Santee-Cooper River system, which flows
through South Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean. The Catawba River basin encompasses all of Burke and
Catawba Counties, as well as portions of Alexander, Avery, Caldwell, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell,
Mecklenburg, Union, and Watauga Counties. There are 58 municipalities located in the Catawba River
basin, with several areas of the basin being classified for water supply use. Over 45 percent of the land in
the Catawba River basin is covered in forest (NCDENR, 1999, 2001).
2.2 Soils
The portion of Burke County within the project area (NRCS map panel B-9) has been mapped by
NRCS under the currently provisional (unpublished) soil survey. Official soil series descriptions were also
obtained by the NRCS (USDA: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd). A brief description of unofficial
soil types mapped by MRCS and/or observed during field investigation is as follows:
Fluvaq gents- tdifl ~vent~ .om~ along the stream bed (unmapped by NRCS but observed during
field investigation).
• Unison fine sand, loam (~ to 8 and 8 to 15 percent slnn~~(UnB, L1nGl. This unit is a very deep and
NCDOT Page 4 02/i8/2002

T1P 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
well-drained soil. It occurs on mountain footslopes, alluvial fans, or stream terraces. The permeability
of Unison soils is moderate and the rate of runoff is moderate to rapid. The A horizon of Unison soils
consists of up to 9.0 inches (23 centimeters) of brown (7.5YR4/4) friable loam with moderate acidity.
Unison fine sandy loam underlies steeper slopes within the easternmost and westernmost portions of
the project area. This soil unit is classified as non-hydric (USDA, 1996, 1999).
Arkaqua loam (0 t~_nercent sloes) (~aAl. This unit is somewhat poorly drained and exhibits
moderate permeability. Runoff is slow. Arkaqua soils occur on nearly level floodplains along creeks
and rivers in the Appalachian, Blue Ridge, and Great Smokey Mountains. They formed in alluvial
sediments washed largely from soils formed in residuum from granite, gneiss, schist, phyllite, and
other metamorphic and crystalline rocks. The A horizon of Arkaqua soils consists of up to 9.0 inches
(23 centimeters) of dark brown (10YR4/3) friable loam with medium acidity. Arkaqua loam underlies
the floodplain along Hall Creek and adjoining gently sloping land surfaces. This soil unit is not listed as
a hydric soil of Burke County; however, it is listed as a soil unit that typically contains inGusions of
Hatboro hydric soils (USDA, 1996, 1999).
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
A perennial stream, Hall Creek, comprises the single water resource within the project area
(Figure 2). Hall Creek is located within the Catawba River drainage basin. The Catawba River basin is the
eighth largest river basin in North Carolina, encompassing 3,279 square miles (8,493 square kilometers).
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050101 (the Upper Catawba drainage basin). Under the
North Carolina DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as Subbasin 03-OS-31 (the Warrior Fork, Johns River, and Rhodhiss Lake Subbasin).
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ). The assigned best usage classification reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the named streams to
which they flow.
The single water resource located in the project area, Hall Creek, is designated as DWQ Stream
Index Number 11-34-2. Hall Creek in the project vicinity has been assigned a primary water resource
classification of "C". Class "C" refers to waters that are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife,
fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses found suitable for Class "C" waters.
NCDOT Page 5 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
.• - ~ ` ~ ~
f fir' / ~-'~*„~`; ~, _o ~ 1~ ~~ _ i' ,~1
~ t (~
~~-•• l ~ ~ ° t `6 ~ ~ ~ r1 ( ONE ~ ~ `'~w'~%:
'~ ~~~/ ~' ..,• ..- ~ ~•, _ ,zee j-• ~, _• ~j ..._
,.
~ / i •.
I, i ~'~ ,~~ ' ~t 1 ~'"? J f, `' ~ ~ i ~J' ~ ~"' ~ ~ ~ •- -;may.
~ ,~
• r• • i i J
WATER RESOURCES AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
SR 1128 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
"'~ OVER HALL CREEK (TIP B-4040) FIGURE 2
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from USGS Glen Alpine 7.5-minute Quadrangle, 1995)
NCDOT Page 6 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water
where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions
on watershed development or types of discharges in Class "C" waters.
No surface waters classified as High duality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the project area. These
findings are based on review of the most recently updated state-maintained databases as made available
through the date of preparation of this report.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters
As previously discussed, Hall Creek comprises the single water resource within the project area.
The proposed project crosses Hall Creek on SR 1128 approximately 1.8 miles (2.9 kilometers) north of the
community of Brindletown. Hall Creek ranges in width from approximately 10 feet (3.0 meters) to 15 feet
(4.6 meters) within the project area. Observed depths at the time of field investigation ranged from several
inches (several centimeters) in weakly defined riffles to approximately 2.0 feet (0.6 meters) in pools. The
average water depth of the creek was estimated at 0.8 foot (0.2 meter). Water levels appeared to be at or
near the ordinarily high water level at the time of investigation.
The substrate of Hall Creek in the project area is comprised of sediments ranging in size from fine
sand to cobbles. The portion of Hall Creek downstream of the existing bridge is relatively straight and
featureless. Looking upstream, the portion of Hall Creek approximately 50 feet (15 meters) upstream of
the bridge makes a relatively gentle meander to the right. This portion of the stream exhibits a shallow
scour-pool that appears to be the result of stream pumping for irrigation of nearby fields. A plastic 2.0 inch
(5.1 centimeters) pipe was observed extending into the scour pool at the time of field investigation. The
stream channel exhibits steep banks and is comprised largely of runs. Where present, the weakly defined
riffles are not as wide as the stream and their length is less than twice the width of the stream. No sand
bars or major channel meanders are present.
The stream banks, although relatively steep, are well-vegetated with a diverse assemblage of
trees, shrubs, and herbs and, as a result, they exhibit indicators of low erosion. The riparian vegetation
zone ranges from 20 to 40 feet (6.1 to 12 meters) in width throughout most of the project area; however,
breaks are present along the left bank just downstream of the bridge and where the stream flows through
the right-of-way. Vertical bridge abutments laterally confine the stream below the existing bridge. Localized
bank erosion was observed in the vicinity of the bridge abutments at the time of field investigation. The
stream banks are comprised of unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of primarily alluvial origin and, to
a lesser degree, colluvial origin.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area. Potential sediment
loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water
quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing general watershed
characteristics. This data provides insight into the value of the water resources within the project area with
NCDOT Page 7 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
respect to their ability to meet human needs and to provide suitable habitat for aquatic organisms
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa of intolerant groups
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera or "EPT') present and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection is also
calculated for the sample. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic
index and EPT taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
No previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on Hall Creek
within the project area or upstream of the project within the project vicinity.
2.3.3.2 Point and ~Nonpoint Source Discharges
Point source discharge is defined as "any discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe,
ditch, or any other well-defined point" (NCDEHNR, 1993). The term commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Discharges from stormwater collection systems at industrial
sites and in large urban areas are also considered point source discharges. Point source discharges
within North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any point source discharger is required to apply for a permit.
No registered point discharges are located within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area
(EPA, 2001). The City of Morganton WTP (NPDES Permit Number N00060194) and Case Farms - B&L
(NPDES Permit Number NCG060115) are registered point discharge sources located on the Catawba
River approximately 7.2 miles (12 kilometers) upstream and northeast of the project area. The City of
Morganton WTP facility is identified as a minor and non-municipal process water treatment plant. The
industry class applied to the discharge is identified as "X" (an industry that has not been categorized under
EPA's Effluent Limitation Guidelines). Case Farms - B&L is identified as a private prepared animal feed
facility. The industry class applied to the discharge is identified as "R" (an industry that has been
categorized under EPA's Effluent Limitation Guidelines, but is not considered a primary industry). No
violations appear on record for either facility (EPA, 2001).
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt (NCDEHNR, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint
sources pollution in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal waste can be transported to receiving streams and waterways via runoff -potentially
elevating concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be the source of
NCDOT Pape 8 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
bacterial contamination and can elevate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils can contribute to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surtace waters
(NCDEHNR, 1993).
Under the NC Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) program, the Upper Catawba River
Hydrologic Unit (03050101), within which the project area is located, is classified by DWQ as a UWA
Category "II" watershed for nonpoint source pollution. Under this classification, the watershed is identified
as a watershed "meeting goals, including those needing action to sustain water quality" (NCDENR, 2000).
Currently, Lower Creek Is the only 303(d) waters (high priority restoration waters) listed within Subbasin
03-08-31 (NCDENR, 1999, 2000). Lower Creek is located approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers)
downstream of the project area.
2.4 Summary of Mticipated Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream
banks, removal of riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of
revegetation operations, and installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources
are likely to result from the aforementioned construction activities:
Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project area during and immediately following construction.
Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface
water and groundwater during construction.
Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed
land surtaces.
A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum
products) from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of
vegetation within or overhanging the watercourse.
Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project area,
NCDOT's 1997 Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Means to minimize impacts will include (1)
utilizing construction methods that will limit instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the
stream bed as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of
grading. Because the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
trout county, the NCWRC may require a moratorium for instream construction from November to March.
NCDOT Pape 9 02ha12002

TIP B-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the biotic communities observed within the project area, as well as the
basic relationships between flora and fauna within these communities. Biotic resources assessed as part
of this investigation include discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities within the project area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities
and are classified in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of Norfh Carolina: Third
Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to
inhabit or utilize biotic communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also
discussed. Species observed during field investigation are listed.
3.1 Blotlc Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the
project area, making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Five discernable terrestrial communities
are located within the project area (Figure 3). Four of these communities have been altered to the extent
that they cannot be classified as a natural vegetation community under the Classification of Nafural
Communities of North Carolina. These altered communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way
communities, (2) cropland, (3) pastureland, and (4) successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities
interspersed with open fields. One community within the project area retains enough of its natural
characteristics to be classified under the Classification of Nafural Communities of North Carolina. This
natural community consists of a Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest along Hall Creek. In addition to the
aforementioned terrestrial components, the aquatic community associated with Hall Creek was assessed
within the project area.
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities
These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR 1128 and SR 1124
(Communities No. 1 of Figure 3). Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early
succession through mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices. It is estimated
that 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
No woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered rights-of--way
communities of the project area. Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation
include common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), man-root (Ipomoea pandurata), bitter nightshade
(Solanum dulcamara), common plantain (P/anfago major), common chickweed (Stellaria media),
dandelion (Taraxacum o~cina/e), red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), crab
grass (Digitaria sangulnalis), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), goldenrod (So/idago sp.), aster (Aster
sp.), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species
observed at the time of site investigation include tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum) and trumpet creeper
(Camps/s radicans).
NCDOT Page 10 02/18/2002

',t.

I:IJ
L
L1J
f~
I.J,I ~.
C~
~,' ~.
~ ~ ,~
~ 1~,,.1 '~ ~"
I~~.m , ,
m
~ ',, ,j l„~~ I ~ I~J,y~
y:,~ ^i ~, ~ y .",r
,•.t `
J} •~ ,,1~, . t, ,~,,
~ ",~;,
,.'l,
~ ,i4
P ,:~
~at ~,~

•;;~ 1. (., rz 1 s •a t t t~ F
I~ • ~ ~I~ ~'~1~ YPy i K ~ /~ ~Ji ~ a,l'. 'vk~'" ~6WU1~.~ -Ty q P ~„';,1
~j"~ i ~~ t ~n'L I~tA~j.'''
Y''~~^ ~ "K ~.aT- ~ - ri ~' r try.
T l t' J~J~yt~ ~
~~ Wes' .~, P i ~Y { b` .~P- ~ ~~ Al
~~rn Q,,; ~ ''R' _ r 1 r ;~ 1
r~ t, ~A ,
~ • .4, '~~ , .'ice"; •v'~
' ~ ` , ~ ' ,.
i'~' } '
;..~~:ylt a ~h t~,t .
y`'N'j'~7~ ~ t.l~
,, 1M

'~ '~

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.2 Cropland
These communities consist of a recently harvested hay field in the northwest quadrant, a fallow
hay field in the northeast quadrant, and a small recently tilled field in the southeast quadrant of the project
area (Communities No. 2 of Figure 3). These communities occur on gently to moderately sloping land
surfaces and are largely underlain by Arkaqua loams adjacent to a relatively narrow floodplain terrace,
which separates the croplands from Hall Creek. It is estimated that 1.8 acres (0.7 hectare) of this
community type exist within the project area.
The hay field appears to have been planted with tall fescue (Festuca sp.) and possibly some red
clover (Trifolium pratense). Other pioneer or opportunistic species observed in and around the edges of
the cropland at the time of field Investigation include blackberry (Rubus sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus
carofa), frost aster (Aster pilosus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), bitter nightshade (So/anum dulcamara),
thistle (Carduus alt/ssimus), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), redtop (Agrostis sto/onifera), wild
onion (Allium canadense), daisy fleabane (Erigeron annuus), man-root (Ipomoea pandurata), pokeweed
(Phyto/acca americans), unidentifed grasses (Poaceae), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
3.1.3 Pastureland
This community occurs as an active pasture in the southeast quadrant of the project area
(Community No. 3 of Figure 3). It is estimated that 2.3 acres (0.9 hectare) of this community exist within
the project area.
At the time of field investigation, horses were grazing in the pasture. Species observed in the
active pasture at the time of field investigation include blackberry (Rubus sp.), knotweed (Polygonum
persicaria), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), buttercups (Ranunculus abortivus), frost aster (Aster
pilosus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), bitter nightshade (Solanum du/camara), thistle (Carduus altiss/mus),
common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), redtop (Agrostis stolonifera), wild onion (A/lium canadense), daisy
fleabane (Erigeron annuus), man-root (Ipomoea pandurata), pokeweed (Phytolacca amerlcana),
unidentified grasses (Poaceae), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
3.1.4 Scrub/Shrub Communities Interspersed With Open Fields
These communities occur in the northwest and southwest quadrants of the project area, outside
the state right-of-way and the floodplain of Hall Creek (Communities No. 4 of Figure 3). The community in
the southwest quadrant appears to be highly altered remnants of aonce-larger natural forested
community. Well-drained Unison fine sandy loams exhibiting relatively high chromas and less well-drained
Arkaqua loams exhibiting relatively high chromas underlie of these communities. It is estimated that 0.9
acre (0.4 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
The scrub/shrub communities, as mapped, support only several mature trees. Dominant tree and
sapling species observed at the time of site investigation include red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalls), black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tullplfera), river birch (Betula
NCDOT Page 12 02/182002

TIP B-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
nigra), scrub pine (Pious virginiana), sweetgum saplings (Llquidambar styraciflua), ash saplings (Fraxinus
sp.), yellow buckeye saplings (Aesculus flava), black willow (Salix nigra), and black cherry (Prunus
serotina). Dominant shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include smooth sumac (Rhus
glabra), blackberry (Rebus allegheniensis), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include giant cane
(Arundlnarla gigantea), red clover (Trifolium pratense), violets (Viola sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus
carota), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisi~), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), aster (Aster sp.), common
milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium
flstulosum), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site
investigation include tick-trefoil (Desmodlum nudiflorum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and riverside grape (Vitis
riparia).
3.1.5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
These communities (Communities No. 5 of Figure 3) occur along the banks and floodplain of Hall
Creek in all quadrants. It is estimated that 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of this community exists within the project
area. The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest occurs upon a gently sloping floodplain terrace perched
approximately 2.5 to 4.5 feet (0.8 to 1.4 meters) above the stream bed. The terrace is largely underlain by
somewhat poorly drained Arkaqua loams exhibiting relatively high chromas. However, where poorly drained
conditions or semi-permanent flooding prevail, hydric soil inclusions (possible Hatboro inclusions) are
observed. Portions of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest underlain by these hydric soils have been .,,,
mapped as wetlands and are discussed below and in section 4.1 of this report.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of
site investigation include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betels nigra), sweetgum
(Llquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), black walnut (Juglans nigra), hickory saplings (Carya
sp.), and Indian cigar tree (Catalpa sp.). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of site
investigation include fire cherry (Prunus pensylvanica), tag alder (Alms serru/ata), spicebush (Cinders
benzoin), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), flowering dogwood (Corms florida), and blackberry (Rebus
sp.). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), agrimony (Agrimonia parviflora), violets (Viola sp.), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago
curtisil), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium
fistulosum). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), riverside grape (Vltis riparia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), tick-
trefoil (Desmodlum nudlflorum), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundlfolia).
Wetlands Component: The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest contains several narrow bands
of wetlands that are generally less than 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) wide within the project area. These bands of
wetlands occur along the lower and middle stream banks of Hall Creek. These wetland bands are
dominated by hydrophytic vegetation including black willow saplings (Salix nigra), sandbar willow (Salix
exigua), river birch saplings (8etula nigra), tag alder (Alms serrulata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), creeping grass
NCDOT Pape 13 02/19/2002

T!P 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
(Microstegium vimineum), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), boneset
(Eupaforium pertoliafum), dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), bur-reed (Sparganium
americanum), clearweed (Piles pumila), riverside grape (Vdis riparia), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The soils within the wetland areas are comprised of low-chroma
fine sandy loams that were saturated within the upper 12 inches (30 centimeters) at the time of field
investigation. The wetlands also exhibited sediment deposits, water-stained leaf litter, and drift lines.
3.1.6 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area
Most of the communities within the project vicinity have been altered or affected by man's
activities to varying degrees. Due to forest tract fragmentation common to the project region, species that
require large contiguous tracts of forests are not likely to utilize the site on a normal basis. Certain
opportunistic wildlife species, such as woodchuck (Marmots monax) can be expected to utilize edge
habitat present within the project area. Due to the relatively small size of the project area and the fact that
many wildlife species are capable of moving between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct
terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one terrestrial plant community within the project area.
The eastem cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus) and the eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis) were the only mammals observed in the project vicinity at the time of field
investigation. However, sign for the following mammals were observed: tracks of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), and tracks and scat of raccoon (Procyon /otor). Although not observed, other
mammals common to the project region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of the project
area include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivora), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana),
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus),
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus Insignis), red fox
(Vulpes vu/pes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), black bear (Ursus americanus), long-tailed weasel
(Mustela frenata), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and
bobcat (Fells rufus).
The communities within the project area provide limited but suitable habitat and forage areas for a
variety of birds. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Songs and/or calls of the following birds were also noted within
the project vicinity at the time of field investigation: eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Carolina
chickadee (Pares carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor), and bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). A wide
variety of resident and migratory songbirds can be expected to periodically utilize forested tracts
immediately to the south of the project area. The open landscaped areas and the croplands within the
project vicinity provide probable hunting grounds for birds of prey, such as hawks and owls.
No reptiles or amphibians were observed within the project area at the time of field investigation.
A variety of reptile and amphibian species may, however, use the communities located in the project area.
NCDOT Pape 14 OZ/iAl1002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
These animals include the rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and
American toad (Bufo americanus). Fish species are discussed in following sections. Terrestrial insects
observed in the project area include organpipe mud daubers (Tryploxy/on sp.), wolf spiders (Lycosidae),
June beetles (Phyllophaga fervida), bumblebees (Bombini), honeybees (Apini), and West Virginia white
butterflies (Lycaena phlaeas).
3.1.7 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community of the project area consists of Hall Creek below the ordinary high water
line. As previously discussed, Hall Creek ranges in width from approximately 10 to 15 feet (3.0 to 4.6
meters) within the project area. Dominant aquatic habitats within this section of Hall Creek include
cobble/boulder substrate and snags. The stream within the project area is characterized by a weakly
defined riffle and run sequence. The riffles are not as wide as the stream and their length is less than
twice the width of the stream. Gravel and cobble substrate was 20 to 40 percent embedded on the day of
investigation. Pools are infrequent (comprising less than 30 percent of the project area stream bed) and
are present in a variety of sizes. A forested riparian zone 20 to 40 feet (6.0 to 12 meters) wide is present
within all portions' of the project area, except in the northeast quadrant, where croplands extend within
several feet of the stream bank. Breaks in the riparian vegetation zone exist at the bridge and localized
eroded areas are present.
3.1.7.1 Flora
With the exception of several bur-reed plants immediately upstream of the existing bridge, no
aquatic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water line of Hall Creek at the time of field
investigation. A narrow band (generally less than 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) wide) of hydrophytic vegetation
occurs along the lower to middle portions of the stream banks. This hydrophytic vegetation is discussed as
a component of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest of section 3.1.5.
3.1.7.2 Fauna
Aquatic vertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation consist of a
small number of unidentified juvenile finfish and several unidentified minnows (Cyprinidae). Aquatic
invertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation include the following:
crayfish (Cambaridae), snail (Pleuroceridae), snail (Physidae), caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera), abundant
mayfly larvae (Heptageniidae), stonefly larvae (Perlidae), water strider (Gerridae), and blue dasher
damselfly (Pachydiplax longipennis). Brown algal mats, iron-reducing bacteria, and snails (Physidae) are
present throughout most of the project area and are particularly abundant upstream of the bridge where
the stream nears the active pasture.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
NCDOT Page 15 02/19/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.2.1 Terrestriallmpacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species, thereby
diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the project area concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation, and starvation.
Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. The increased traffic noise and reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other
wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by construction
activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species. However, the increased animal density can
result in an increase in competition for the remaining resources.
Construction of the project will result in certain unavoidable impacts to biotic resources within the
project area. Following development of project alternatives, temporary and permanent impacts will be
assessed from the perspective of impact areas (the acreage or square footage of affected biotic
communities) and from the perspective of resource functions and values, where possible. Impacts to the
previously identified communities will not exceed those acreages stated in their respective sections.
Practicable means to avoid or minimize impacts were evaluated and recommended, where applicable.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
The replacement of the bridge over Hall Creek at SR 1128 (TIP Number B-4040) will result in
certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic community of the creek. Probable impacts will be associated
with the physical disturbance of the benthic habitat and water column disturbances resulting from changes
in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of stream segments can have an adverse effect on
aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats.
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
Inhibition of plant growth.
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to increased
nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of
dissolved oxygen levels.
Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of feeding
structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project
NCDOT Pepe 18 02/19/2002

T1P B-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable
guidelines pertaining to best management practices. Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing
construction methods that will limit instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed
as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas and species and an assessment of
possible impacts for (1) waters of the United States and (2) rare and protected species. Waters of the
United States and rare and protected species are of particular significance when assessing impacts
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address those
measures that will be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project
construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Certain surface waters considered significant to interstate commerce and wetlands adjacent to
these waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" (as defined in codified federal
regulation 33 CFR 328.3). The discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States is
regulated by the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Regulated surface waters typically consist of standing or flowing waters that have
commercial and/or recreational value to the general public. As a category of waters of the United States,
wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions".
To determine whether wetlands exist within the project area, vegetation, soils, and hydrology are
assessed using criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical
Report Y-87-1 ). As specified in the Manual, wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology -all three of which must be present for an area to meet
the federal definition of a wetland.
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for the Glen Alpine 7.5-minute quadrangle indicates
that temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, scrub-shrub, palustrine wetlands (PSS1A of USFWS
classification) occur northward along Hall Creek from a point approximately 100 feet (31 meters) north of the
existing bridge. Under the NWI program, no wetlands have been mapped south of the existing bridge within
the project area.
Although wetlands south of the existing bridge have not been mapped under the NWI program
(because of their limited extent), field studies conducted as part of this investigation indicate that
temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, scrub-shrub, palustrine wetlands (PSS1A of USFWS
NCDOT Page 17 02/!9/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
classification) occur as narrow bands (averaging 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) wide) along Hall Creek both north and
south of the existing bridge. These wetlands are located upon small terraces that are elevated approximately
12 to 20 inches (31 to 51 centimeters) above the stream bed. The PSS1As are transitional communities
encountered between "waters of the United States" (i.e., the aquatic habitat of Hall Creek) and adjoining
upland plant communities (i.e., the bottomiand forest). The soils within the wetland areas are comprised of
fine sandy loams that were saturated within the upper 12 inches (31 centimeters) at the time of field
investigation. As encountered in soil probes conducted as part of this investigation, the soils are comprised of
up to 6.0 inches (15 centimeters) of light brown (10YR4/3 to 7.5YR3/3) sandy loam overlying 6.0 to 12 inches
(15 to 31 centimeters) of dark gray (10YR4/1 to 2.5Y3/0) sandy loam. These wetlands are discussed as a
component of the bottomland forest community of section 3.1.5. It is estimated that 0.04 acre (0.02 hectare)
of wetlands exists within the project area.
Despite the fact that the stream bank wetlands are located adjacent to a perennial waterway, their
relatively steep slopes, limited extent, and proximity to cleared and landscaped areas limit certain of their
values. Utilizing NCDENR's Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the stream bank
wetlands within the project area have been estimated to have the following ratings for values assessed: 4 of
20 for water storage, 8 of 20 for bank/shoreline stabilization, 5 of 25 for pollutant removal, 4 of 10 for wildlife
habitat, 16 of 20 for aquatic life value, and 1 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total rating of 38.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map for the Glen Alpine 7.5-minute quadrangle also indicates
that permanently flooded, tower perennial, riverine habitat with unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH of USFWS
_. classification) occurs southward along Hall Creek from a point approximately 100.0 feet (30.5 meters)
downstream (north) of the existing bridge. The R2UBH within the project area is comprised of shallow water
riverine habitat that, other than areas along the immediate stream bank edge, was devoid of persistent
emergent vegetation at the time of field investigation. It is estimated that 400 feet (122 meters) of waters of
the United States exist within the project area.
4.1.2 Permits
Based on wetland field indicators observed at the time of field investigation, waters of the United
States, including wetlands, subject to regulation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the North
Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification program have been delineated and mapped within the proposed
project area. Impacts to jurisdictional surtace waters are anticipated to occur as a result of project
construction. As a result, proposed construction activities will require permits and certifications from the
various state and federal regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
Based on past experience with similar actions, if non-tidal wetland impacts at each bridge crossing
are less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) and none of the activities jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, the action would be
considered a Class II Action as defined under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.115(b). As a Class II Action,
bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion as defined
under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.117.
NCDOT Pafle 78 02/!9/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
As a categorically excluded Class II Action and a public linear transportation project in non-tidal
waters, bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement impacting less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of
waters of the United States at a stream crossing could be authorized under the provisions of a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide 23 Permit for Categorical Exclusions or a Nationwide 14 Permit for Linear
Transportation Projects, respectively. The proposed project is located in a designated 'Trout' county;
therefore, authorization of the project by the Corps of Engineers under the provisions of a nationwide permit
is conditional on concurrence of the NCWRC.
If the proposed work cumulatively impacts more than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of non-tidal waters of the
United States, an Individual Permit may be required at the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
unless authorization is granted under the provisions of Department of the Army General Permit Number
198200031 (for NCDOT bridge crossings). If the proposed work involves greater than 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare)
of wetland impacts, the Corps could not make a discretionary determination regarding Nationwide Permit
applicability nor could the General Permit option be exercised and, therefore, an Individual Permit would be
mandatory.
In addition to the aforementioned permit requirements, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will be
required for the project prior to issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401 Cert~cation allows surface waters
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land disturbance. The issuance of a
401 Certification from DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The bridge addressed under TIP Number B-4040 is located on SR 1128 over Hall Creek in Burke
County. The possibility exists that demolition materials (such as asphalt, concrete rubble, portions of deck
timbers, etc.) could be inadvertently dropped into waters of the United States during bridge demolition.
Should this occur, such materials would be removed from waters of the United States as soon as
possible, where conditions allow. The resulting temporary fill associated with bridge demolition will be
determined later.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The 14 December 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Department of
the Army on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sets forth the policy and procedures to be
used in the determination of the type and level of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the MOA is to implement the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including wetlands. As
part of the MOA, a project assessment procedure is set forth requiring a sequential assessment of (1)
impact avoidance, (2) impact minimization, and (3) compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Adherence to sequencing during project planning and design stages is intended to assist in attaining a
goal of no net overall loss of wetland functions and values.
NCDOT Page 19 02/19/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
The impact avoidance stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all appropriate
and practicable alternatives for avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. Cost, existing technology,
significant adverse environmental consequences to other resources, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes are considered in identifying "appropriate and practicable" avoidance alternatives.
The impact minimization stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all
measures that would minimize unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States to the fullest degree
practicable. The final .determination regarding the availability of practicable minimization measures lies
with the reviewing regulatory agencies and, if it is determined that additional minimization measures are
available, such measures will be required through project modifications and/or permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time .that it has been
demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable measures for
minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design. Compensatory mitigation
includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation. Where possible,
mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed as near to the impacted area as conditions
allow. Compensatory mitigation is conventionally required for projects authorized under Individual Permits
or certain Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.10 acre (0.04 hectare) of all
wetlands and/or 150 feet (46 meters) of streams within or adjacent to tidal waters. Under the nationwide
permit program, the District Engineer must be notified if proposed discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.10
acre (0.04 hectare). Discharges to wetlands exceeding 0.10 acre (0.04 hectare), for which authorization
under a Nationwide Permit 14 is being sought, require submittal of a compensatory mitigation plan as part
of the Notification.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely
affect a species listed as a federally protected threatened or endangered species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species (such as state-listed threatened or
endangered species) may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the USFWS lists
six federally protected species for Burke County (Table 1). Brief descriptions of the characteristics and
habitat requirements for these species are provided in Appendix A. A review of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats indicates no occurrences of
federally protected species in the project area. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat for
any of the species listed in Table 1 were observed within the project area at the time of site investigation.
NCDOT Page 20 02N8/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
~ ao~e ~. reaeraiiy rrotectea Species for Burke County
_ "SCIarItlflC'NamA ~ rCnmmnn Name ~ Q1af.~e
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Hexastylis nanlflora
Llatris helleri
Hudsonia montane
Bald Eagle
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf
Holler's Blazing Star
Mountain Golden Heather
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Isotria medeololdes
Small-whorled Pogonia
Threatened.
Threatened
Note:
. "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of Its range.
. "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing
for which there is~~nsufficient information to support listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 12 federal species of concern in Burke County (Table 2). Federal species of concern are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of the provisions included
in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The status of these
species is subject to change so their status should be periodically monitored prior to project construction if
individuals or suitable habitat is present within the project area. In addition to the federal program,
organisms that are listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concem (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program on its List of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979.
Table 2 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. This species list is provided for
information purposes, as the protection status of these species may change in the future.
The NCNHP database of rare and unique habitat (as updated through January 2001) was
reviewed. The database shows no occurrences of federal species of concern (FSC) within 0.6 mile (1.0
kilometer) of the project area. Determinations regarding the presence of suitable FSC habitat, as indicated
in Table 2, were based on site conditions observed at the time of field investigation and search of
published literature.
NCDOT Page 21 02/1 tt/2002

T1P 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
I able L. F'@Ge~el 5p@Ci@s of GOr1C@rr1 fOr BurK@ COUrIty

`Sclentiflc Name ''~ ..
_, Common.Name NC
, ; Status Habitat
` - Presen .~'
Neotoma lloridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian Woodrat - No
Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat - No
Alasmldonta varicose Brook Floater T Yes
Ophlogomphus edmundo Edmund's Snaketail Dragonfly SR Yes
Ophiogomphus howe! Pygmy Snaketail Dragonfly SR Yes
Speyeria dlana Diana Fritillary Butterfly SR Yes
Juglans cinerea Butternut - No
Monotropsls odorata Sweet Pinesap C No
Saxifrage caroliniana Carolina saxifrage C No
Cephaloziella obtusilobula A Liverwort C No
Plaglochlla sullivent!! var. splnlgera A Livewwort C No
Notes:
T A "Threatened" species is any native or once native species that is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
C A "Candidate" is any species that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced fn numbers. by habitat destruction.
SR A "Sign~icantly Rare" species is not listed as "E", "T', or "SC", but which exists in the state in small
numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
NCDOT Pape 22 02/1 ~/Z002

T1P 8-4040
5.0 REFERENCES
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2t4pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide
Planning Program. December 1999. Catawba River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/Basinwide/catawba_wq_management_nlan htm.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information
Management System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: Catawba River. Accessed 10
September 2001.
httc:!/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basincand~~s~at .rbodi .s/hydro/Gata~~~ba,~.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993. Classifications and
Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins. Division of Environmental Management.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina, Fourth Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Element Occurrence Search Report: Burke County, North
Carolina. http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html. Updated July 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1.Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
NCDOT Pape 23 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memo to
USACE districts from Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 6 Mar 1992,
signed by MG Arthur E. Williams, Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. 1996. NRCS National Hydric Soils List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Hydric Soils, Burke
County, North Carolina. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2. June 1999.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Updated through July 2001. Soil
Survey of Burke County, North Carolina. (unpublished).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Glen Alpine 7.5-minute Quadrangle,
North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2001.
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Burke County. Updated 22 March 2001.
http~Nnc-es_fws.gov/es/count r html
U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Glen Alpine, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
NCDOT Page 24 02/i~/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A
Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in Burke County North Carolina
NCDOT 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Bald Eagle (Hallaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: Endangered, 1967; Threatened, 1995
Characteristics:
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail with a dark brown
body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and tail until the fifth or
sixth year. Fish are the primary food source, but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles
(both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) from head to
tail, weigh approximately 10.0 to 12.0 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) and have a wingspan that can reach 7.0 feet
(2.1 meters). Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Distribution:
Bald eagles breed primarily in the eastern third of Texas (mostly east of I-35) and winter wherever open water
occurs.
Habitat:
Habitat Includes quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees. Man-made reservoirs have also
provided habitat.
Bald Eagles in North Carolina:
In 1982, there were no bald eagle nests in North Carolina. In 1998, there were 17 nests, and in 2000 there were 34
nests. Several new•nests have been located so far during the 2001 nesting season. The bald eagle's recovery has
led to a proposal for de-listing the bald eagle from the Endangered/Threatened Species List.
Threats to Species:
The decline of the Bald Eagle coincided with the introduction of the pesticide DDT in 1947. Birds of prey at the top of the
food chain, such as eagles, Ingested relatively high levels of the pesticide, which was concentrated in the fatty tissues of
their prey. Eagles contaminated with DDT failed to lay eggs or produced thin eggshells that broke during incubation. In
1972, DDT was banned in the United States, and a slow recovery for the Bald Eagle began. Loss of nesting habitat due
to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways also has resulted in decreasing numbers of bald
eagles.
Dlstingufshing Characteristics:
Bald eagle (Heliaeetus leucocephalus) adults have white heads and tails, a dark brownish black body, with yellow
bill, eyes, and feet. Immature species are variable in plumage but generally have a dark brown, blotchy head, tall
and bodies; brownish bill, yellow feet, and pale yellow-gray eyes. They are normally found near water, but during
migration may occur In any part of the state. Their size is approximately 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) long with a 7.0 feet (2.1
meters) wingspan.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
Investigated on 18 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-1 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Spreading Avens (Geum radlatum) Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Characteristics:
Spreading ovens is a perennial herb. Spreading ovens is topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright yellow
flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise from horizontal
rhizomes. Plant stems grow 7.9 to 20 inches (20 to 50 centimeters) tall. Flowering occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
Distribution:
The species is restricted to a few, scattered mountaintops in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Spreading evens was originally known from 16 sites, and 11 of these sites still support populations. Three of the
remaining spreading ovens populations are in Ashe County, North Carolina. Two others are situated on the Mitchell
County, North Carolina/Carter County, Tennessee line; and on the Avery/Watauga County line in North Carolina.
One population each remains in Avery, Transylvania, Watauga, Buncombe, and Yancey Counties, North Carolina.
Seven of these 11 ovens sites have less than 50 plants each. In fact, three of the seven sites support less than 10
individuals.
Habitat:
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce~r forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
fraser!). Holler's blazing star (Llatrls heller~ and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea), both federally-listed
as threatened species, are also present at some sites. The substrate at ali the population sites is composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks (Massey et al, 1980; Morgan, 1980; Kral, 1983;
Department of_the Interior, 1990).
Threats to Species:
The species is being seriously impacted by recreational and residential development. Their population sites occur on
open mountain summits, which are prime areas for recreational facilities. The construction of trails, parking lots,
roads, buildings, observation platforms, and other facilities, combined with the Increased foot traffic from sightseers,
has already severely decreased populations. Eight of the remaining 11 spreading ovens populations face increasing
impacts from soil compaction, soil erosion, and trampling. In addition, the spruce/fir forests surrounding these
species' populations are suffering from airborne pollution and an exotic insect pest, the balsam woody aphid. It is not
known as yet how the decline of these forests will affect the species. Scientists speculate that the moist habitat
required by both species may become drier. It's already known that spreading ovens individuals located on dry sites
usually fail to produce seeds. Also, because of the plants' low numbers and the scarcity of their habitat, there may be
little genetic adaptability within populations. The species also faces threats from collection, natural succession
(becoming over-shaded and crowded by other woody species), and natural events such as rockslides.
References:
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 5, 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Determination of Endangered Status for Geum radiatum and Hedyofis purpurea var. montane.
Federal Register, 55:66:12793-12797.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest- Related Vascular Plants of the South.
USDA Forest Service Tech. Publication. RS-TP2.600-603 and 1074-1077.
Massey, J.P. Whitson, and T. Atkinson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Survey of 12 Species In the
Eastern Part of Region IV. USFWS Contract 14-160004-78-108. Report.
Morgan, S. 1980. Species Status Summary for Geum radiatum Michaux: Species General Information System:
Species, Population, Habitat, and Threat Inventory.
Terrell, E. 1978. Taxonomic Notes on Houstonia purpurea var, montane (Rubiaceae). Castanea. 43:25-29.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Spreading evens (Geum radiatum), of the rose family, is characterized by stems 8.0 to 20.0 inches (20.3 to 50.8
centimeters) tall and an indefinite cyme of large bright yellow flowers. Leaves are mostly basal, with large terminal
lobes and small laterals arising from horizontal rhizomes. The flowers occur from June to September. They are found
in the Southern Blue Rlde Mountains on (1) high elevations cliffs, rock crevices, and steep slopes in full sunlight with
soil composed of thin gravelly soils or (2) grassy bolds near summit outcrops on high elevations ftom 4,200 to 6,300
feet (1280 to 1920 meters) and in the vicinity adjacent to spruce/fir forest (red spruce (Picea rubens) and Fraser fir
(Abies frasen~.
NCDOT A-2 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 18 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area. Elevations within the project area range from approximately 1,140 to 1,180 feet (347 to 360
meters) msl, with the stream bed in the vicinity of the bridge lying at approximately 1,140 feet (347 meters)
msl. The elevation required by spreading avens is approximately 5,000 to 5,800 feet (1,524 to 1,768 meters) msl
(based on known populations).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A.3 oy~svzooz

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Dwarf Flower Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Threatened ,
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: April 14, 1989
Characterlstics:
This species has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexastylis. The flowers of most
individuals are less than 0.4 inch (1.0 centimeter) long, and their sepal tubes are narrow, never more than 0.2 to 0.3
inch (0.6 to 0.7 centimeter) wide even in flower. Flower color usually ranges from beige to dark brown; sometimes it
is greenish or purplish. The flowers are jug-shaped, and the plant's dark green leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen,
and leathery. Plant stalks are long and thin, originating from an underground root. Another name for this species is
dwarf-flowered wild ginger.
Distribution:
This species is found in the Upper Piedmont regions of South Carolina and North Carolina.
Habitat:
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes; in boggy areas adjacent
to creekheads and streams; and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the most important habitat
requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and
survive. Provided the soil type requirement exists, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For
maximum flowering, the plant needs sunlight in early spring. creekheads where shrubs are rare and bluffs with light
gaps are the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is lowest In bluff
populations with a lot of shade.
Threats to Species:
Timber harvesting, urbanization, conversion from woodlands to pasture, reservoir construction, pond construction,
trash, and insecticide use are threatening the remaining populations. The eight populations in Greenville, South
Carolina are all endangered by residential, industrial, and commercial expansion. The largest population in South
Carolina (1,400 plants) once contained over 4,000 plants, but this population was reduced by reservoir construction
in Spartanburg. Any use of insecticides in or around plant populations could reduce flies, thrips, and ants, thus
decreasing the likelihood of plant pollination.
References:
Blomquist, H.L. 1957. A Revision of Hexastylis of North America. Brittonic 8255-281.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 71. April 14, 1989. Pp.
14964-14967.
Gaddy, L.L. 1980. Status Report on Hexastylis naniflora Blomquist. Unpublished Report Prepared Under Contract to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1981. The Status of Hexastylis naniflora Blomquist in North Carolina. Unpublished Report Prepared
Under Contract to the Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 63 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1987. "A Review of the Taxonomy and Biogeography of Hexasty/is (Aristolochiaceae)". Castanea
52(3)186-196. September 1987.
Otte, D.K.S. 1977. The Pollination Ecology Hexastylis arifolia and Hexastylis minor in the Area of Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. M.A. Thesis 79 pp.
Rayner, D.A, et al.. 1979. Native Vascular Plants Endangered, Threatened, or Otherwise in Jeopardy in South
Carolina. S.C. Museum Commission Bulletin No. 4. Columbia, S.C.
Dlstinguishing Characterlstics:
Dwarf flower heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) is a member of the birthwort family (Aristolochiaceae). They have
leathery evergreen leaves, which are dark green and heart shaped; and long, thin stalks that originate from an
underground stem. Flowers are jug-shaped, beige to dark brown, and 0.4 inch (1.0 centimeter) long, with narrow
sepal tubes around 0.3 inch (0.7 centimeter) wide (flower is sometimes greenish or purplish). It flowers from mid
March to early June. They are found in acidic sandy loam soils; along bluffs and nearby slopes, hillsides, and
ravines; and in boggy areas adjacent to creek heads and streams. The soil types are Pacolet, Madison, or Musella.
They need sunlight for maximum seed production.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
NCDOT A-4 02/18/2002

T1P 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
investigated on 18 July 2001. No Hexastylis spp. or suitable habitat were observed within the project area.
Consequently, the biological conclusion for Hexastylis naniflora is "No Effect".
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-5 02/1i9/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Mountain Golden Heather (Hudsonia monfana) Threatened ,
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually
grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and about 6 inches (15 centimeters) high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) across. The plants have the general aspect
of a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter)
long; and the plant is often somewhat yellow-green in color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years
appear scale-like and persist on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow, nearly
1.0 Inch (2.5 centimeters) across, with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5
inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks, and are roundish with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after
opening, and may be seen at any time of the year.
Distribution:
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to
1,219 meters). Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, mountain golden heather has since been
found at several other sites in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites are on public land within the Pisgah
National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from several localities within Its range with the total number of
plants possibly numbering 2,000 to 2,500. Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic.
Habitat: ,.
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Leiophyllum
dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some time in the partial shade of pines,
but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
Critical Habitat:
Critical habitat includes the area in Burke County bounded by the following: on the west by the 2,200-foot (671-
meter) contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2,200-foot
(671-meter) contour and the Short Off Mountain Trail to where it intersects the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour at
the "Chimneys"; then follow the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour north until it re-Intersects with the Wildemess
Boundary; then follow the Wildemess Boundary again, northward until it intersects the 3,200-foot (975-meter) contour
extending west from Its intersection with the Wildemess Boundary until it begins to turn south. At this point the
boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2,200 foot (671-meter) contour. (The Woods Mountain sites were
unknown at the time Critical Habitat was designated.)
Threats to Species:
Threats to the species include fire suppression and recreational activities such as hiking that result in a loss of plants
due to trampling and soil compaction. Competition with other shrubs has also reduced size and vigor of populations.
The small size and number of populations increases the plant's vulnerability to extinction through both natural and
man-made factors.
References:
Morse, L. E. 1979. Report on the Conservation Status of Hudsonia monfana, A Candidate Endangered Species.
Prepared by the Cooperative Parks Study Unit of the New York Botanical Garden. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Mountain Golden Heather Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlanta, Georgia. 26 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montane) Is a member of the rockrose family (Cistaceae) that is characterized
as a small needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers nearly 1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) across and long-staked fruit
capsules. It is usually growing in clumps 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and 6 inches (15 centimeters)
high. The flowers are made up of five blunt tipped petals, and flowering occurs from mid-June to July. Non-flowering
plants resemble large moss or small juniper with leaves about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter) long and somewhat
yellow-green in color. Fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks that are roundish with three projecting
points at the tips. They are found in exposed quartzite ledges at elevations from 2,200 to 3,400 feet (671 to 1,036
meters), between bare rock and sand myrtle-dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant can
persist for some time in the partial shade of pines to open areas.
NCDOT A-6 02N8/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 18 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area. Elevations within the project area range from approximately 1,140 to 1,180 feet (347 to 360 meters)
msl. The elevation range for known populations is 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to 1,219 meters) msl. Consequently, the
biological conclusion for Hudsonla montane is "No Effect".
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-7 02/1 SY2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: October 6, 1994
Characteristics:
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem 3.7 to 9.8 inches (9.5 to
25 centimeters) tall terminating in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and
measure up to 3.1 by 1.6 inches (8.0 by 4.0 centimeters). A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the
top of the stem. Small whorled pogonia's nearest relative is 1. verticillata, which looks similar but can be distinguished
by its purplish stem and by differences in the flower structure. 1. vertlclllata is much more common and widespread
than the small whorled pogonia. When not in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeola vlrginlana) also
resemble small whorled pogonia. However, the hollow stout stem of isotrta will separate It from the genus Medeola,
which has a solid, more slender stem.
Flowering occurs from about mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or
so. In addition, this plant doesn't necessarily flower annually. Usually only one flower is produced per plant. If
pollination occurs, a capsule may be formed which can contain several thousand minute seeds. No evidence of
insect pollination has been observed. This plant is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes. The
flower lacks both nectar guides and fragrance. There is no evidence for asexual reproduction. Individual plants may
not flower every year; and extended dormancy, although not scientifically documented, is purported to occur under
certain conditions.
Dlatributlon:
This plant formerly occurred in 48 counties in 16 eastern states and Canada, but when listed as endangered in 1982
it was known to exist in only 16 counties in 10 states, and one county in Ontario, Canada. By 1991, 86 sites in 15
states were known, and by 1993, there were a known total of 104 sites in 15 states. Most populations are centered in
the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in New England and northern coastal Massachusetts. The 23 populations
in the Southeast Region occur in North Carolina (5 populations); South Carolina (4 populations); Georgia (13
populations); and Tennessee (1 population). Most southeastern populations number less than 25 plants. South
Carolina has one population of over 25 plants, and Georgia has 2 populations numbering about 100 plants. Small
whorled pogonia fs also known from Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and
Ontario, Canada.
This plant was reclassifled from endangered to threatened because the number of known populations increased
from 34 in 1985 to 104 in 1993. In addition, the species' 1992 revised recovery plan stipulates that at least 25
percent of the plant's self-sustaining populations were protected through public ownership or private landowner
management agreement. According to the October 6, 1994 Federal Register notice, which officially down-listed the
species, a total of 46 small whorled pogonia sites are currently protected rangewide, 24 of which have self-sustaining
populations. In the southeast, North Carolina has two protected sites, both of which are viable; South Carolina has
four protected sites, two of which are viable; and Georgia has seven protected sites, four of which are viable.
Habitat:
This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where there is
not relatively high shrub or sapling coverage.
Threats to Species:
The current status of small whorled pogonia is attributed to loss of habitat and over-utilization for scientific and
private collections. However, some populations observed for a number of years have also declined for unknown
reasons.
References:
Correll, D.S. 1950. Native Orchids of North America. Chronica Botanica Co., Massachusetts. 399 pp.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. October 6, 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlffe and
Plants: Final Rule to Reclassify the Plant Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia) From Endangered
to Threatened. Federal Register 59:193. p. 50852-50857.
Luer, C.A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada. New York Botanical Garden. W.S. Cowell
Ltd., Ipswich, England. 361 pp.
Mehrhoff, LA. 1980. Abstracts of Papers to be Presented at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 12-16
July 1980. Botanical Society of America. Miscellaneous Series Publ. 158 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlffe Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan First Revision.
NCDOT A-8 02/19/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Prepared by Susanna L. von Oettingen for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts.
75 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Small Whorled Pogonia Recovery Plan. Prepared by Peter G. Poulos for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts. 45 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) of the Orchidaceae family is characterized by its hollow stem that is 3.7
to 9.8 inches (9.5 to 25 centimeters) tall and its whorl of 5 to 6 Tight green elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed
and measure 3.1 by 1.6 inches (8 by 4 centimeters). Flowering from May to June, the flower is yellowish green and is
produced on top of the stem. When not in bloom, the plant resembles the Indian cucumber-root (stem not hollow).
The plant is found in open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soils of third growth upland forest. The areas are
generally flat to moderately sloped to the northern or eastern direction, in habitat of relatively high shrub cover or
high sapling density with flecks of sunlight play on the forest floor throughout the day. Soils are acidic sandy looms
with low to very low nutrient contents.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 18 July 2001. No Individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-9 02/!9/2002

TIP 8-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Holler's Blazing Star (Llatrls hellen~ Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Characteristics:
Holler's blazing star is a perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems arising from a tuft of narrow pale
green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 1.3 feet (0.4 meter) in height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender
flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches (7.0 to 20 centimeters) long (Porter, 1891). Its flowering season lasts from July
through September, and Its fruits are present from September through October (Kral, 1983; Radford et al., 1964).
This plant is differentiated from other similar high altitude Llatris species by a much shorter pappus, ciliate petioles,
internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit (Cronquist, 1980; Gaiser, 1946). Work is being conducted
on populations in,two locations, which may result in their being reclassified as a new taxon (Sutter, in preparation). If
so, these plants will st(11 remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Distribution:
Holler's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Although nine populations
were originally reported, only seven still exist. A former population in Watauga County was allegedly destroyed by
residential development, and one in Mitchell County apparently succumbed to intensive recreationai use. Four of the
seven remaining populations are in Avery County with one population each remaining 1n Caldwell, Ashe, and Burke
Counties.
Habitat:
The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full sunlight.
Threats to Species:
Commercial and recreational developments pose the greatest threats. Holler's blazing star is threatened not only by
the construction of buildings, roads, and other facilities, but also by the associated habitat disturbances such as soil
erosion and compaction. Unintentional trampling by hikers is another danger. Of the seven remaining populations,
five occur on privately-owned land, one on Forest Service land, and one on National Park Service land. Four of the
sites in private ownership are recreational facilities. The two sites in public ownership also undergo heavy
recreationai use. Potential threats to the latter two sites include the use of aerially-applied fire retardants, road
construction, and the Issue of permits for mineral exploration. Only the site owned by The Nature Conservancy
receives full protection from human disturbance; three of the seven sites receive partial protection. In future years,
woody vegetation may overcrowd and overshade the plant making It impossible for the species to survive unless this
threat is mitigated by proper habitat management and planning. The species' small numbers, possible lack of
genetic variability, natural rockslides, and severe storms or droughts are also threats.
References:
Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern U.S., Vol. 1 (Asteraceae). UNC Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. P. 204.
Gaiser, L.O. 1946. The Genus Llatrls. Rhodos 48:572-576.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South.
Tech. Publ. R-B-TP-2. USDA Forest Service. Pp. 1191-1194.
Massey, J., P. Whitson, and T. Atkinson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Survey of 12 Species in the
Eastern Part of Region 4. Report Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Under
Contract 14-16-004-78-108.
Porter, T.C. 1981. A New LlatrJs from North Carolina. Rhodos 18:147-148.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Beli.1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. UNC
Press, Chapel HIII, North Carolina. Pp. 1048-1051.
Sutter, R. In Preparation. Taxonomic Analysis of Llatris holler!, a North Carolina Endemic.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened
Status for Llatds helleri. Federal Register, 52(223):44397-44401.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Recovery Plan for Holler's Blazing Star (Llatris hellerl Porter). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, AUanta, Georgia. 24 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Holler's blazing star (LiaMs holler!) is of the aster family (Asteraceae), and is characterized by lavender spiked
flowers with one or more erect stems with a maximum height of 16 inches (41 centimeters). The flowers arise from a
NCDOT A-10 02/19/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. it differs from other Liatris by Its much shorter pappus (half the length of
corolla tube or less), ciliated petioles, internally pllose corolla tubes, and lower, stockier habit. They are found in high
elevations along ledges of rock outcropping and cliffs in shallow acid Bolls in full sunlight. Flowering occurs from July
to August.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 18 July 2001. No individual organisms or suitable habitat were observed within the project area.
Elevations within the project area range from approximately 1,140 to 1,180 feet (347 to 360 meters) msl. Known
populations of this plant occur at elevations of 3,500 to 6,000 feet (1,067 to 1,829 meters). Consequently, the
biological conclusion for Liattrts hellerl is "No EffecY'.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-11 02/19/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX B
Qualifications of Principal Investigators
NCDOT 02/18/2002

T1P B-4040 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigator: Martin L. Mitchell
Education: B.U.S. (double major in Geology and Biology); University of New Mexico
M.A, in Marine Science, College of William and Mary
Certification: Professional Geologist
Virginia License Number 001351 (1997)
Experience: Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, HSMM, tnc. 1988 to present.
Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, The BSC Group, 1986 to 1988.
Wetlands Ecologist /Coastal Geologist, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Wetlands and Waterways Division, 1984 to 1986.
Geologist, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1981 to 1983.
Expertise: Wetland delineations, wetland function and value assessments, wetland mitigation and
stream restoration, biotic community inventories and mapping, threatened and
endangered species investigations, environmental regulatory permit processing.
Investigator: Anne L. Timm
Education: B.A. Biology, Luther College
Wtaster of Environmental Science, Indiana University
Certification: Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols Certification through NCDWQ
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., 2000 to present
Intern, Fallwood Nature Center, 2000.
Data Management Assistant, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Watershed Management, 1997 to 1998.
Science and Biology Teacher, U.S. Peace Corps, 1994 to 1996.
Aquatic Biology Research Assistant, PEW Research Fellowship,
Luther College, 1993.
Expertise: Aquatic and wetland habitat assessments, biotic community inventories and mapping,
rapid bioassessment, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and identification, wetland
delineation, wetland function and value assessments, wetland habitat restoration, GPS
surveys.
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda
Education: B.S. Biology, Old Dominion University
Certification: N/A
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., January 2001 to present.
Environmental Scientist, TAF Group, June 1993 to 2001.
Environmental Scientist, James R. Reed and Associates, May 1988 to 1993.
Environmental Scientist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1987 to 1988.
Expertise: Wetland delineations, permit processing, wetland mitigation, threatened and endangered
species investigations, biotic community inventories and mapping, GPS surveys.
NCDOT Pape B-1 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX C
Wetland Data Forms
NCDOT 02/18/2002

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wllda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? rb Ptot ID: NE1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Salix niora S/S OBL 9.
2. Soliaado cassia ver. curtisii Herb FACU 10.
3. Euoatorium fistulosum Herb FAC+ 11.
4.Juncus effuses Herb FACW 12.
5. Clematis viroiniana HPrh FAC+ 13.
6. Impatiens caoensis Herb FACW 14.

7. 5olidaoo so. Herb ~-- 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 83%
Remarks; g3% is for those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.1 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in,)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Fleld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Dec_c tinny
Depth Matrix Color
(jnche~ Horizon (M me -IPA I Moiytl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Mun_cell Moie_tl Ab mdan .e/ .ontract_
0-6 Al 10YR 3/4 SANDY LOAM
6-12 A2 5YR 4/4 SANDY SILT
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histlc F~ipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
_ Aqulc Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuap
Project/Site: B-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? rb Plot ID: NE1W
(ff needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indica or Dominant Plant Species Stra um Indica or
1. Salix exioua S!S OBL 9.
2.Imoatiens caoensis Herb FACW 10.
3. Euoatorium oerfoliatum Herb FACW+ 11.
4.Polvaonum ounctatum Herb FACW 12•
5.Microsteaium vimineum Herh ~C+ 13.
6. Sambucus canadensis Herb FACW- 14.
7. Leersia orvzoides Herb OBL 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100~/a
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarksl: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

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

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Froflle ^eccri tp inn
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(1aGt1ES~ Horizon (flQlmcell Moi_St) rMunsell Moic_tl Ah~ndancelGantra_ct_
0-4 Al 10YR 3/4 SILTY SAND
4-12 A2 10YR 4/1 SANDY CLAY
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Eoipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Arkaqua map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineatign Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR _ Date: July 18, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situationl? No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? rb Plot ID: Nw1u
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indica or Dominant Plant Species S a um Indica or
1. Betula niora Tree FACW 9• Pilea oumila Herb FACW
2. Platanus occidentalls Tree FACW- 10. Lonicera iaoonica Vlne FAC-
3. Prunus serotina Tree FACU 11 •Toxicodendron radicans Vine F_AC~'___
4.Alnus serrulate S/S FACW 12•
5. Comus amomum S/S FACW+ 13.
6. Rosa multitlora S/S UPL 14•
7. Lonicera iaoonica er FAC- 15.
B. Arthraxon hisoidus H~rh_ FACU+ 16•
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-); 55%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile ~ec_cri to i°n•
Depth Matrix Color
(jnahe~ Horizon (Munc_ell Moistl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
rM rncell Moictl Ah mdan . J .ontract_ Structures, etc.
0-2 Al 10YR 3/3 ORGANIC SANDY LOAM
2-12 A2 7.5YR 3/4 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Resent? YES
Wetland Hydrology Resent? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Resent? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT NRTR Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? N5 Plot ID: NW1W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species S ra um Indicator

1. Microstec/um vimineum Herb FAC+ 9•
2. Toxicodendron radicans Herb FAC 10.
3. Piles oumiia Herb FACW 1 1.
4. Lonicere iaoonica Herb FAC- 12•
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarksl: Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
' XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

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

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (Occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile l]escri tp ion•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
linche~_ Hnriinn (M~ncell Moistl (M~ncell Mnic_tl Ah mdanc ./ .ontra~t_
0-1 A 7.5YR 3/4 ORGANIC SANDY LOAM
1-8 B 7.5YR 3/3 SANDY LOAM
8-12 C 2.5Y 3/1 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Arkaqua map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YF.S Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Slte: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
AppllCant/Owner: NCDOT CO./City: Burke County
InvestlgatOr: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: sE1u
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Snecies
1. Betula niara ~112ILLn tI1dlCat~L
Tree FACW Dominant Plant Snecies Stratum fpdjratp[
9.J~pnicera iaoonica Vine FAC-
2. Salix niara Tree OBL 10.
3. Platanus accidentalls Tree FACW- 11.
4. Rosa multiflora S/S UPL 12.
5, Salix niara S/S OBL 13.
6. Solioado caesla var. curtisii Herb FACU 14.
7. Euoaforium Rstu/osum Herb FAC+ 15.
8, Pilea oumila Herb FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 67%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tlde Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
xx Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Fit: {in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

surface Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil:
(ln.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAGNeutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combinatlon with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Prefile Descri tp long
Depth Matrix Color
(IQGheS~_ 1=1pL'IZpIl_ (M~nsell Meictl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture; Concretions,
(Mansell Meistl A6~ndance/Cnntrast_ Str~ct~reS,Ptr.
0-6 Al 10YR 4/3 SANDY LOAM
6-12 A2 10YR4/4 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soll Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aqulc Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Presentl NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Areal rb Plot ID: SE1W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indica or
1 • Salix niora Tree OBL 9.
2.Alnus serrulata S/S FACW 10.
3. Rosa multiflora S/S UPL 1 1
4. Euoatorium fistulosum Herb FAC+ 12.

5. Soaroanium amerlcanum HPrh p~ 13.
6. Microsteaium vimineum Herb FAC+ 14.
7. Betule niora Herb FACW 15.
8. Lonicera iaoonica vim FAC- 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-1: 75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

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

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile C~ tion•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
finches Horimn fMunsell MoistlMoistl (Munsell Moistl AhundancelContrast_ Structures, etc_
0-8 Ai 10YR 4/3 ORGANIC SANDY LOAM
8-12 A2 10YR 4/1 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Arkaqua map units or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProfeCt/Site: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
AppllCant/OW ner: NCDOT CO./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (FiSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: swlu
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
ruminant Rant ~ipPries $tlHtlliri
1. Alnus serrulata S/S Ipd1Gai~L
FACW nnminant Plant Srar•.iPS $tlatLp1 )[1dlCatflL
9.
2. Rosa multiflora S/S UPL 10.
3. Clematis virniniana Vince FAC+ 1 1.
4. Arfhraxon hisoidus Herb FACU+ 12.
5, Euoatorium flstulosum Herb FAC+ 13.
6. 14.
7. Grass so. Herb """ 15.
g, Solidaoo so. barb "-" 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 63%
Remarks: 63% of those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (6cplain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally floolded) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile ^ec_criptian•
Depth Matrix Color
finrhP~ Hord fM~nc_ell Moictl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(M me~I Moistl Ahundance/Contrast- 5tr~ct~rP~, Pty
0-12 A 7.5YR 3/4 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuaq
Project/Site: 8-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 18, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Areal rb Plot ID: SW1W
(ff needed, e~lain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stra um Indicator
1. Microsteaium vimineum Herb FAC+ 9.
2. Polvoonum ounctatum Herb FACW 10.
3. Leersia orvzoides Herb B~_ 1 1.
4. Vitis rioaria Herb FACW 12.
5.Lonicere iaoonica HPrh FAC- 13•
6. 14.
7. 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-1: g0%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX 5aturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

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

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Deccd tp fon•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Inr~- Hori2on fMunsell Moistl (Munc_ell Moistl Abundance/Contrast_ Stns .tiire!c, A~
0-2 A 10YR 3/3 ORGANIC SANDY LOAM
2-8 B 2.5Y 4/3 SANDY LOAM
8-12 _~ 10YR 3/1 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
~ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Arkaqua map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETL~ININATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YFS
Hydric Soils Present? YE5
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

. ~
T1P 8-4040
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX D
NCDOT
DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets
ov~sizoos

~ " ~~ ~
,;,~WE7'I,AND'RA1}ING W~RKSHI~ET Fourth Ve3~sion -
Project Name NCDOT B-4040 Bridge Replacement NRTR Nearest Road SR1128
County Burke Wetland Area < 2 acres Wetland Width 3 feet
Name of evaluator Greg Wilda, Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) Date 7/18/01
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
x on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
-within interstream divide
other
Dominant vegetation
Soil Series Arkaaua loam ~ (1) Salix niQra
predominantly organic -humus, muck, or
peat
x predominantly mineral -non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic Factors
x steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within'/~ mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
x forested/natural vegetation 30
x agriculture, urban/suburban 65
x impervious surface 2
(2) Betula nigra
(3) Alnus serrulata
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
x intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
x Bottomland hardwood forest
~ _ Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
* the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R Water storage
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization
T Pollutant removal
I Wildlife habitat
N Aquatic life value
G Recreation/Education
weight Wetland
1 x 4.00 = ~ Rating
2 x4.00= 8.
1 x5.00=
.
2 x 2.00 = ~._ 4'~; ~ ~ ~ :38 ~
~
~°
4 x 4.00 = ~ ~,~ ~1~6.,. ; ~ ~~
1 x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within'/~ mile
upstream, upslope, or radius.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.,)y ~ ~_~
N d r/' ~o~
.~ ~. ~,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~~
~~~.~;.
,sF~
~~
~,~~oagN~ ~ jar ~ l
~~SOTF~ ~~5 ~%
~e~9
ticy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 7, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Director
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
S~•:caE rnRv
Subject: Revision to Prior Request of Mitigation for the proposed replacement of Bridge No.
251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Rd), in Burke County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1128(5), State Project No. 8.2852801, TIP No. B-4040.
Please reference our previous request for compensatory mitigation dated April 14, 2005 and the EEP
Acceptance Letter dated May 31, 2005. Due to a change in desigm, the NCDOT has reduced permanent
impacts from the 123 feet of stream impacts previously requested, to 98 feet. Please provide NCDOT
confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the 98 feet of impacts to Hall
Creek [Catawba River Basin, HUC 03050102, a warm water stream] in accordance with the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the USACF,, NCDF,NR, and NCDOT.
Please send the revised letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USAGE Coordinator) at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 28, Asheville,
NC 28801-5006. Ms. Pennock's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is
November 15, 2005, for which the let review date is September 27, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested
by NCDOT. The NCUOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of
NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGR NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at
tstanton a)dot.state.nc.us or [phone].

Cc:
Sincerely, ~

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
/l~Ir. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Ms. Angie Pennock, USAGE
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
1VIr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File B-4040

~~ ,E;co stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B-4040, Replace Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Road),
Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NMP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 123 feet of warm stream
impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10.11 in Same Eco-Region
Mingo Tract (Caldwell County) 1,230 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~. ~~~ ~ f
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
... ,. ern
.. , :' , , .. NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0416 / www.nceep.net

.~
~. srntEo~
yd /°~°M
h
.,~,~,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0~
~~ n,,
,SFp ~i/~
c~l~y OFN I ~ ~Sv
OSgN k'qT 1~~ " ~J
OS FR ,S
~~ ~~~
RB~N
cy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVF,RNOR
September 7, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Director
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Revision to Prior Request of Mitigation for the proposed replacement of Bridge No.
251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Rd), in Burke County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1128(5), State Project No. 8.2852801, TIP No. B-4040.
Please reference our previous request for compensatory mitigation dated April 14, 2005 and the EEP
Acceptance Letter dated May 31, 2005. Due to a change in design, the NCDOT has reduced permanent
impacts from the 123 feet of stream impacts previously requested, to 98 feet. Please provide NCDOT
confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the 98 feet of impacts to Hall
Creek [Catawba River Basin, HUC 03050102, a warm water stream] in accordance with the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the USACE, NCDENR, and NCDOT.
Please send the revised letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 28, Asheville,
NC 28801-5006. Ms. Pennock's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is
November 15, 2005, for which the let review date is September 27, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested
by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of
NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at
tstanton(crJdot.state.nc.us or [phone].

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
~PvIr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File B-4040
Sincerely, ~

-,F~co stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
B-4040, Replace Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Road),
Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NMP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 123 feet of warm stream
impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Mingo Tract (Caldwell County)
1,230 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~~ ~~~
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
.. , - ern
_ .... _ NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Lenter, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-0416 / www.nceep.net

~~
~~
d~ Smolt V 0
~r ~, IyFT~ OF q~n2
ti~c~ ~' j ~
.~ ~ ~ 'l'O ~gTF~9 l/rJs,
q~R~-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION cy
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 14, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Rd), in
Burke County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1128(5), State Project No. 8.2852801, TIP
No. B-4040.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
grant confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the project in accordance
with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the USACE, the NCDENR and the
NCDOT.
NCDOT proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek (DWQ Index # 11-34-2, Class
"C"), a warm water stream, on SR 1128 in Burke County. The project involves replacing the bridge at the
existing location using an off-site detour.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as
described in the permit application. The remaining impacts to jurisdictional resources will be
compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We estimate that permanent stream
impacts associated with the replacement bridge approach work will be 123 linear feet from the
installation of atriple-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
The project is located in the Mountain Physiographic Province (Northern Mountains EEP Ecoregion) in
Burke County, in the Catawba River basin, Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03050101. We propose to
provide compensatory mitigation for the stream impacts by using the EEP for the 123 feet of impacts.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 28, Asheville, NC 28801-
5006. Ms. Pennock's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is November
15, 2005 for which the let review date is September 27, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested

by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of
NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
~~~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: ~ohn Hennessy, NCDWQ
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Smith, Laurie P. CPA, NCDOT, Program Management

a„aSW~ p~
zap
3
.~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 14, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Director
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
~l~/_~
qo ~v0
~'~tio~~Y 'p~
sqy ~~ ~ ~O V
~sr ~~o ~S
~~~YCC~~,,
LYNbO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Rd), in
Burke County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1128(5), State Project No. 8.2852801, TIP
No. B-4040.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
grant confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the project in accordance
with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the USACE, the NCDENR and the
NCDOT.
NCDOT proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 251 over Hall Creek (DWQ Index # 11-34-2, Class
"C"), a warm water stream, on SR 1128 in Burke County. The project involves replacing the bridge at the
existing location using an off-site detour.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as
described in the permit application. The remaining impacts to jurisdictional resources will be
compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We estimate that permanent stream
impacts associated with the replacement bridge approach work will be 123 linear feet from the
installation of atriple-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
The project is located in the Mountain Physiographic Province (Northern Mountains EEP Ecoregion) in
Burke County, in the Catawba River basin, Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03050101. We propose to
provide compensatory mitigation for the stream impacts by using the EEP for the 123 feet of impacts.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 28, Asheville, NC 28801-
5006. Ms. Pennock's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the project is November
15, 2005 for which the let review date is September 27, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires a
formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested

by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of
NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
- ~"~~
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: John Hennessy, NCDWQ
/$rian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Smith, Laurie P. CPA, NCDOT, Program Management

o stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear IV1s. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
~~ ~o
~ ~ f
s ~ row
~~~
B-4040, Replace Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128 (Morrison Road),
Burke County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101);
Northern Mountains (NMP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 123 feet of warm stream
impacts associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Mingo Tract (Caldwell County)
1,230 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
~ . , ~
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

a os~stem
PROGRAM
May 31, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental l~lanagemeRt Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B~4040, Bridge 251 over Hall Creek on SR 1128, Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
dated April 14, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Northern
Mountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts:
123 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this
agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
~~ ~ IV
Wil ' D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4040
North farolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net