20071134 Ver 1_Application_20070815

„a SfATF o~
LTyd ~-~
ti
'tea:
~~~~. o~ i ~3~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 26, 2007
:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ,
Regulatory Field Office LIL1N 2 9 2007
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 ~ . _
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 ~ --- ~ ' - -~ --- _,
- .. ~.,.._,,. -- i
i
.~_.....
ATTN: Mr. David Baker ~~~"` .__--
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Individual Section 404 and 401 permits
For US 19/US 19E Improvements
From Future I-26 (existing US 19-23) to SR 1186
Madison and Yancey Counties ~ "'
a ~ c
NCDOT Division 13 ,~
State Project Numbers 6.869005T and 6.909001T ~
T.I.P. Project Numbers R-2518A, R-2518B, and R-2519A ~° ,~, ~
Debit $475.00 from WBS Element 34634.1.2 ~ ~ o

Dear Mr. Baker: x ~
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen US
19/US 19E from future I-26 (existing 19-23) in Madison County to SR 1186 (IJS 19) near
Micaville in Yancey County. The total length of the project is approximately 21 miles
(34 kilometers). This state funded project is identified as Project Numbers R-2518A, R-
2518B and R-2519A in the NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). These three sections were combined into one environmental document based on
an agency request during a June 1998 project meeting. TIP R-2518 extends along US
19/US 19E from I-26 to SR 1336 (Jack's Creek Road). TIP R-2519A extends along US
19E from SR 1336 (Jack's Creek Road) to SR 1186 (LTS 19) west of Micaville. The
project will upgrade the existing two and three-lane principal arterial to a multi-lane
facility with partial access control. Three typical sections are being considered for the
project, including afour-lane divided curb and gutter section to be used within Burnsville
and two shoulder sections to be used outside Burnsville.
This application package consists of: the cover letter, Erosion Control Project Special
Provisions, SHPO historical architecture concurrence letter, SHPO archaeology
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

concurrence letter, EEP mitigation acceptance letter, interagency hydraulic design review
(4b) meeting minutes, interagency permit drawing review (4c) meeting minutes and
actions taken, ENG form 4345, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment; Stream
Mitigation Plans, permit (hydraulic) drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
included, and half-size roadway plan sheets.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to increase traffic capacity on US 19/US 19E and improve
system linkage and safety. Two- and three-lane US 19 / US 19E is the most important
transportation facility between Madison, Yancey, Mitchell, and Avery Counties in
northwestern North Carolina. In addition, US 19/LTS 19E provides access between
Asheville and recreational opportunities in the Boone area. More detailed information is
available in the Environmental Assessment (EA).
Several alternatives for improving the US 19/US 19E corridor were considered and
evaluated as part of the environmental study. Alternative 2 was chosen since it best fit
the purpose and need of the project by minimizing social and environmental impacts. A
discussion of each alternative considered by NCDOT is detailed in the May 2001 EA.
Project Schedule
Table 1 gives the project limits and projected let dates for each section of the US 19/LTS
19E project.
Table 1- Project Schedule
Section Project Limits Let Date
R-2518A I-26 to SR 1421 ind Ga Road December 2007
R-2518B SR 1421 (Wind Ga Road to SR 1336 Jack's Creek Road) June 2008
R-2519A SR 1336 Jack's Creek Road to SR 1186 Old US 19 Febru 2009
Due to the schedules for the individual sections of this project, designs are in various
stages of completion. For purposes of this permit application package, final impacts will
be presented for R-2518A, based on final design plans. However, preliminary impacts
will be presented for R-2518B and R-2519A, as the designs for these projects are not
finalized. Final impact information will be presented in permit modification applications,
prior to beginning construction on subsequent sections.
Summary of Impacts
The project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas
throughout the NEPA and design process. However, construction of the proposed project
will necessitate impacts to jurisdictional waters. Table 2 shows the impacts associated
with this project.
Page 2 of 19

Tn1,ln '~_ Cnmm.~r~~ of 7mna[~tc

Section Permanent
Wetland
ac Temporary
Wetland
ac Permanent
Surface
Water Temporary
Surface
Water ac
R-2518A* 0.42 0.0 6,591 0.13
R-2518B** 0.23 0.0 2,866 0.14
R-2519A** 0.29 0.0 5,309 0.17
Totals 0.94 0.0 14 766 0.44
* =final impact calculations
** =preliminary impact calculations
Wetland impacts include fill, excavation, and mechanized clearing
Summary of Utilitypacts:
There aze no impacts to jurisdictional resources due to utility relocations on R-2518A.
As design progresses for subsequent sections, utility information will be finalized and
presented in the permit modification applications.
Summary of Miti ag tion:
This project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional azeas
throughout the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and design processes. Stream
Mitigation Plans have been developed for R-2518A and R-2518B and are included in this
submittal. R-2519A has stream relocations only due to project design, therefore, these
are depicted on the permit drawings with no sepazate mitigation plan.
T..i.lo Z nr.ai4n Mitin.~finn Cnmmarv fnr R_7S1RA_ R-251RR Ri R-2519
Stream Wetland
Total
Section On-Site On-Site On-Site Credits On-Site
Restoration Enhancement Preservation Pro osed
R-2518A 4,340 640 15,335 9,772 0.0
R-2518B 279 5,131 0 2,844 0.0
R-2519A 1,180 0 0 1,180 0.0
Totals 5 799 5 771 15,335 13 796 0.0
Compensatory mitigation for the remaining impacts includes the following:
• NCDOT proposes 15,335 lineaz feet of preservation, 5,771 linear feet of
enhancement and 5,799 linear feet of restoration/relocation, for a total of 26,906
lineaz feet of on-site mitigation.
• At the proposed credit ratios (see page 17 of this letter), 13,796 credits of
mitigation will be provided on-site for all 3 sections (R-2518A, R-2518B & R-
2519A).
Page 3 of 19

• 194 linear feet of impacts to an intermittent stream on R-2518A and 131 linear
feet on R-2518B will not require mitigation, therefore a total of 14,441 linear feet
of surface water impacts will require mitigation.
• 645 linear feet of stream impacts will be mitigated through the use of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP).
• 0.31 acre of impacts to non-riverine wetlands and 0.63 acre of impact to riverine
wetlands will be mitigated through the use of EEP.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
An EA was completed by the NCDOT in compliance with the NEPA. The document
addresses the R-2518A, R-2518B, and R-2519A portions of the project, from I-26 in
Madison County to just north of SR 1186 (Old US 19) in Yancey County. The EA
explains the purpose and need for the project, provides a description of the alternatives
considered and characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects. After the
approval of the EA (May 31, 2001) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
(December 17, 2004), copies were provided to regulatory review agencies involved in the
approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
INDEPENDENT UTILITY
R-2518A, R-2518B and R-2519A are in compliance with 23 CFR Section 771.111(f)
which lists the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) characteristics of independent
utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area; and
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonable
foreseeable transportation improvements.
RESOURCE STATUS
Waters within the project area are located in the Nolichucky River system of the French
Broad River basin. Surface waters from the Madison and Yancey County line west to I-
26 drain to Little Ivy Creek (DWQ subbasin 04-03-04 and HUC 06010105). Surface
waters from west of Burnsville to the Madison-Yancey County line drain to the Cane
River (DWQ subbasin 04-03-07 and HUC 06010108) while project area surface waters
east of Burnsville drain to the South Toe River (DWQ subbasin 04-03-06).
Page4of19

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The project will not impact any designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers included
in the list of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as amended).
303(d) LIST
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. None of the stream
segments within R-2518A, R-2518B and R-2519A appear on the 2006 Final Impaired
Waters List.
History and Identification of Jurisdictional Features
Field investigations for these projects occurred over a period of years. For R-2518,
preliminary investigations occurred in June and July of 1998 and October of 1999. For
R-2519A, preliminary field investigations occurred in June and July of 1998. This
preliminary work was documented in Natural Resources Technical Reports (August 1998,
October 1999) and a subsequent EA (May 2001). For these documents, streams were
identified and wetland delineations were performed by NCDOT biologists.
In 2003, NCDOT contracted H.W. Lochner biologists to review the project area for
previously undocumented jurisdictional features, complete USACE and NCDWQ forms,
and conduct a field verification meeting. Field assessments were completed in the
summer of 2003. At this time, several previously unrecorded jurisdictional features were
located. The features identified in 2003 were incorporated into project planning, and
minimization and avoidance of these features became part of the design process for R-
2518 and R-2519A. Table 4 shows the relationship between the jurisdictional features
located during the initial field investigation in 1998 and 1999, and those sites impacted by
the current project design, listed from south to north. Detailed descriptions of each
impact site follow Table 4.
Delineations
Guidance on the jurisdictional status of questionable areas was provided by USACE
representative Steve Lund of the USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office during a
September 11, 2003 on-site visit. During this field meeting Mr. Lund verified each
jurisdictional wetland delineation, and reviewed stream determinations for a handful of
streams. Cynthia Van der Wiele, NCDWQ representative also reviewed stream
determinations during the same on-site visit. Mitigation ratios were discussed during the
visit.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S. - R-2518A
Detailed impact data are presented for R-2518A only, since final design has been
completed for this section. Final detailed data will be presented for R-2518B and R-
2519A in future permit modification applications as these sections are finalized. The
Page 5 of 19

calculations and drawings by NCDOT Hydraulics Unit aze presented in the attached
permit drawings. A brief description of each wetland is included in the permit site
descriptions on the following pages. Additional information is presented in the EA.
Wetlands
Permanent impacts: Impacts to wetlands are proposed on 0.42 acre, comprised of 0.24
acre of fill in riverine systems and 0.16 acre of fill in non-riverine systems and 0.02 acre
of mechanized clearing in a riverine system.
Temporary impacts: There will be no temporary fill in any of the three wetland areas.
Surface Waters
Permanent impacts: Impacts to surface waters totals 6,591 lineaz feet.
Temporary impacts: Impacts will be necessary for construction of the various box
culverts, pipe installations, and for replacement of the bridge over Middle Fork Creek.
Temporary impacts associated with this project include 468 lineaz feet of channel
impacts, and 0.13 acre of temporary fill in surface waters.
The following table depicts all of the jurisdictional streams and wetlands impacted by the
final project design. Some streams were mapped by NCDOT in prepazation for the EA
and were assigned names at that time. Any stream not previously discussed in the EA
was assigned a field name in preparation for the September 2003 field review.
Tahle 4 - R-2.51 RA Tmnacts to Waters of the U.S.
Permit DWQ Stream
Drawing Feature Name in Name
assigned in Station Type of Classification Mitigation
Site
Type EA
Field
No. * Stream/
Required?
Number (2001) (2003) Wetland
200
1 S CC2 CC2 11
17 Perennial WS II -HQW yes
,
lA S MF1 MF1 14+60 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW Yes
2 S Middle Fork Middle Fork 19+70 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW yes
Creek Creek
3 S Middle Fork Middle Fork 21+26 -L- perennial WS II -HQW yes
Creek Creek
3A S Middle Fork Middle Fork 11+30 - Perennial WS II -HQW yes
Creek Creek Y2-
WS II -HQW
4 S B
an h SWS 27+18 -L- Perennial yes
r
Page6of19

SWR WS II -HQW _
5 S ___ (Bailey 31+61 -L- Perennial Yes
Branch-
USGS)
6 S Middle Fork Middle Fork 33+78 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW Yes
Creek Creek
MF3 and MF3 and WS II -HQW
7 S Middle Fork Middle Fork 37+00 -L- Perennial Yes
Creek Creek
7A S MF4 MF4 39+01 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
W -- B 39+01 -L- N/A Yes
8 S Middle Fork Middle Fork 45+38 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW Yes
Creek Creek
9 S MFS MFS 47+20 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
W --- 7 47+20 -L- N/A WS II - H W Yes
10 S --- SW 51+55 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
SWP and WS II -HQW
11 S Turkey Turkey 56+39 -L- Perennial Yes
Branch Branch
12 W 4 4 60+00 -L- N/A Yes
13 S --- SWO 65+71 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
67+50 to Internutte
13A S --- SWN 67+70 right No
of -L- nt
14 S Polly Polly 70+10 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW Yes
Branch Branch
15 S Middle Fork Middle Fork 78+00 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW Yes
Creek Creek
16 S SWT SWT 79+29 -L- N/A Yes
17 S Holland Holland g 1+50 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW yes
Creek Creek
18 S Ivy Gap Ivy Gap 82+69 -L- Perennial WS II -HQW yes
Branch Branch
19 S IGB1 IGBl 88+14 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
W __ g gg+14 -L- N/A Yes
20 S IGB2 IGB2 91+26 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
21 S IGB4 IGB4 92+89 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
22 S IGB6 IGB6 96+48 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
23 S IGB7 IGB7 98+00 -L- Perennial WS II - H W Yes
24 S Bald Creek Bald Creek 109+50 -L- Perennial C Yes
Page 7 of 19

Permit Site 1 : Perennial stream CC2 is a tributary to California Creek. The stream will be
impacted by an extenuation of the existing 1350 mm corrugated steel pipe and an addition
of a 600 mm corrugated steel pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 13 if
Temporary Impact, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 1 A: MF 1 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek It will be
impacted by the extension of a 600 mm and 400 mm corrugated steel pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1441f
Permit Site 2: Middle Fork Creek will be impacted by the extension of a triple barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 213 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: 0.01 ac
Permit Site 3: Middle Fork Creek will be impacted by the extension of a triple barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1481f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 3A: Middle Fork Creek will be temporarily impacted by fill during the
construction of a causeway to an existing bent. A replacement bridge will be constructed
over Middle Fork Creek on Y-2-, and the existing bent will be removed.
Temporary Impacts, Stream: 0.02 ac
Permit Site 4: This perennial unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek was incorrectly
labeled Bailey Branch in the EA. It will be impacted by relocation of a 1350mm
corrugated steel pipe. Detailed descriptions of existing conditions, the reference reach,
and restoration techniques used can be found in the attached "Stream Mitigation Plan".
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 851f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: 0.03 ac
Permit Site 5: Bailey Branch will be impacted by extension of an existing single barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 171 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 6: Middle Fork Creek will be impacted by extension of atriple-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Irnpacts, Stream: 1481f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: 0.01 ac
Permit Site 7: MF3 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek. This stream
will be impacted by roadway fill. Middle Fork Creek will be impacted by extension of a
Page 8 of 19

triple-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert and roadway fill. Detailed descriptions of
existing conditions, the reference reach, and restoration techniques used can be found in
the attached "Stream Mitigation Plan".
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1,1681f _
Temporary Impacts, Stream: 0.01 ac.
Permit Site 7A: MF 4 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek and will be
impacted by roadway fill. A 1200 mm reinforced concrete pipe will be repositioned to
convey the water from the north to the south side of US 19E. In addition, a 0.01 ac
riverine wetland (Wetland B) will be impacted by roadway fill at this site. The Cowardin
classification for this wetland is PFO1B.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 151 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permanent Impacts, Riverine Wetland: 0.01 ac
Permit Site 8: Middle Fork Creek will be impacted by extension of atriple-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1541f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 9: MFS is a perennial unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek and will be
impacted by extension of a 1200 mm corrugated steel pipe. Adjacent Wetland 7 sill be
impacted by roadway fill and mechanized clearing. The Cowardin classification for this
riverine wetland is PFO 1 C
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 891f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permanent Impacts, Riverine Wetland: 0.17 ac
Permit Site 10: Perennial stream SWQ is an unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek and
will be impacted by extension of a 1200 mm corrugated steel pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 39 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 11: Perennial stream SWP is a tributary to Turkey Branch and will be
impacted by roadway fill. Turkey Branch will be impacted by the installation of a single
reinforced concrete box culvert and channel relocation. Detailed descriptions of existing
conditions, the reference reach, and restoration techniques used can be found in the
attached "Stream Mitigation Plan".
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1,071 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 12: Non-riverine Wetland 4 will be impacted by roadway fill. The Cowardin
classification for this wetland is PEM1B.
Permanent Impacts, Non-RiverineWetland: 0.16 ac
Page9of19

Permit Site 13: Perennial stream SWO is an unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek.
This stream will be impacted by relocation of a 900 mm reinforced concrete pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 79 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 13A: Stream SWN is an intermittent and biologically unimportant unnamed
tributary to Middle Fork Creek and will be impacted by roadway excavation. During the
field verification meeting on September 11, 2003 both USACE and NCDWQ
representatives agreed that no mitigation would be required for impacts to this stream.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1941f
Permit Site 14: Polly Branch will be impacted by roadway fill and the extension of a
single-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 171 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac.
Permit Site 15: Middle Fork Creek will be impacted by extension of atriple-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 4761f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: 0.01 ac
Permit Site 16: SWT is a perennial unnamed tributary to Middle Fork Creek will be
impacted by extension of a 900 mm reinforced concrete pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 951f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 17: Holland Branch will be impacted by extension of adouble-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert, roadway fill, and channel relocation. Detailed
descriptions of existing conditions, the reference reach, and restoration techniques used
can be found in the attached "Stream Mitigation Plan".
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 3051f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 18: Ivy Gap Branch will be impacted by installation of adouble-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert, roadway fill, and channel relocation. Detailed
descriptions of existing conditions, the reference reach, and restoration techniques used
can be found in the attached "Stream Mitigation Plan".
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 6371f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 19: Stream IGB1 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Ivy Gap Branch. It will
be impacted by extension of a 1200 mm reinforced concrete pipe. Riverine Wetland 8
will be impacted in its entirety by roadway fill. The Cowardin classification for this
wetland is PFO1B and PSS1A.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1281f
Page 10 of 19

Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permanent Impacts, Riverine Wetland: 0.06 ac
Permit Site 20: Stream IGB2 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Ivy Gap Branch. It will
be impacted by extension of a 900 mm reinforced concrete pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 111 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 21: Streams IGB3 and IGB4 are a perennial unnamed tributaries to Ivy Gap
Branch. IGB4 will be impacted by extension of a 1000 mm reinforced concrete pipe and
IGB3 will be impacted by roadway fill.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 3251f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 22: Stream IGB6 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Ivy Gap Branch. It will
be impacted by extension of a 800 mm reinforced concrete pipe.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 1481f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 23: Stream IGB7 is a perennial unnamed tributary to Ivy Gap Branch. It will
be impacted by extension of a 1200 mm reinforced concrete pipe.
Permanent Irnpacts, Stream: 981f
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
Permit Site 24: Bald Creek will be impacted by extension and relocation of a double-
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
Permanent Impacts, Stream: 230 if
Temporary Impacts, Stream: <0.01 ac
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with a Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of May 10, 2007, the federally protected species listed by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Madison and Yancey Counties has
changed slightly since the completion of the EA. Table 5 lists the species currently listed
as Threatened or Endangered by USFWS, their federal status, and the county in which
they are listed.
Page 11 of 19

Table 5. Federally Protected Suecies Listed for Madison and Yancey Counties, NC
Federal Biological
Common Name Scientific Name County
Status Conclusion
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) Not Required Madison/
Yance
Carolina northern Glaucomys sabrinus

fl ' s uirrel
coloratus E No Effect Yancey
Eastern cougaz Puma concolor E No Effect Yancey
cou ar
Gra bat M otis isescens E No Effect Madison
Corynorhinus
Virginia big-eazed bat (=Plecotus) townsendii E No Effect Yancey
vir 'nianus
S otfin chub H bo sis monacha T No Effect Madison
Invertebrates
Oyster mussel Epioblasma E MANLAA' Madison
ca sae ormis
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta E MALAAz Yancey
raveneliana
Spruce-fir moss Microhexura E No Effect Yancey
s ider montiva a
Vascular Plants
Houstonia montana
Roan Mountain bluet (=Hedyotis purpurea E No Effect Yancey
var, montana
S readin avens Geum radiatum E No Effect Yance
Vir ' 'a s iraea S iraea vir 'niana T MANLAA' Yance
Nonvascular Plants
Rock ome lichen G mnoderma lineare E No Effect Yance
'May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
ZMay Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Initial surveys for federally protected species were completed by NCDOT biologists on
June 16 and 17, 1998, July 13 and 14, 1998, and October 6 and 7, 1999. Additional
surveys for Virginia spiraea were completed by Lochner biologists during June 2005 and
by NCDOT biologists in June 2006.
Appalachian elktoe aze known to exist in close proximity to the bridges over the South
Toe River and the Cane River. Furthermore, the project is expected to facilitate
development in the area, resulting in impacts to water quality. The R-2518A portion of
the project occurs largely within the Little Ivy Creek drainage, and will largely have no
effect on the elktoe, however, the project as a whole will be May Affect, Likely to
Adversely Affect the mussel. Although informal consultation with the USFWS has been
ongoing, the Biological Assessment of Appalachian elktoe has not yet been submitted for
Page 12 of 19

review. It is anticipated that this document will be submitted for review by mid-July
2007 and a Biological Opinion will be rendered within a few months.
TROUT WATERS AND MORATORIUMS
In a correspondence dated February 2, 2007, Marla Chambers of the North Cazolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) said, "I've checked with our fisheries
biologists for that azea and it appears that all streams in the project area support trout
populations, except Bald Creek neaz the Madison/Yancey Co. line. Plan for a trout
moratorium for these projects, the standard dates aze from Oct. 15 to Apr. 15. If certain
streams are found to only contain rainbow trout, the short trout moratorium, Jan 1 to Apr.
15, might apply to those streams".
The project will take place in a mountain trout county. Thus we anticipate that comments
from the NCWRC will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By
copy of this letter and attachments, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT
requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days
of receipt of this application.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeology
1. Archaeological Survey: A survey was conducted to locate existing
archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project area and to
determine if any of these sites were potentially affected by the project. No
additional archaeological investigations for these sites will be required.
2. Properties Identified: During the course of these surveys, several potential
archaeological sites were identified; however, four of these sites were
determined to meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. The N.C. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has
. concurred with these findings in a letter dated January 11, 2007. A copy
of this letter is attached with this application package.
Historic Architecture
3. Based on architectural surveys, there aze no historic properties within the
project's azea of potential effect (APE) that are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The state historic preservation office (HPO)
agreed to a finding of no adverse effect for the Wilkes Hensley House if
NCDOT installs a tubular steel rail, square in section, dark in color for a
bridge and guazdrail neaz the property. A copy of this letter is attached
with this application package.
Page 13 of 19

UTILITY IMPACTS
No utility relocations will result in additional impacts to wetlands or streams on R-2518A
and R-2518B. Utility information for R-2519A will be submitted with subsequent permit
modification applications.
FEMA COMPLIANCE
Madison and Yancey Counties are currently participating in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. R-2518A, R-2518B and R-2519A includes the crossings of the Cane
River and Bald Creek that are designated flood hazard zones and are included in the
detailed flood study, having an established 100-year floodplain and floodway with
corresponding regulatory water surface elevations. Most of the floodplain areas. at the
major stream crossings are rural and development within the floodplain along Middle
Fork Creek and Bald Creek. There may be numerous buildings along the project with
floor elevations below the 100-year flood level.
Existing flood hazards along adjacent properties at all stream crossings will be evaluated
in detail in final hydraulics design to ensure measures are taken to the extent practicable
to minimize flooding problems to upstream properties and to ensure that the proposed
roadway widening and associated drainage accommodations will not have an adverse
affect on the existing floodplain area, nor on the associated flood hazards. The NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
local Authorities in the final design stage to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain
ordinances. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision has been sent for R-2518A to North
Carolina Floodplain Mapping and is in the process of review.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
The Indirect and Cumulative Effects report was completed in February 2004. Potential
indirect and cumulative impacts within the Growth Impact Study Area (GISA) can be
found in the attached report.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation
of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were
implemented during the design phase to include the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts from the project.
Avoidance and Minimization for R-2518A: This project has been designed using
asymmetrical widening. Using this method, the Department has avoided or reduced
Page 14 of 19

impacts to jurisdictional areas to the greatest extent practicable. Other examples of
avoidance and minimization measures include:
• No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed in wetlands or near surface waters.
• Aquatic Life Movement: The project was designed to avoid or minimize disturbance
to aquatic life movements.
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented to minimize
erosion/sedimentation loss during construction phase.
Avoidance on R-2518A
1. Proposed rock fill and retaining wall adjacent to Ivy Gap Branch (Sheets 30-31,
Stations 100+00 to 104+60 left). This retaining wall will avoid fill to Ivy Gap
Branch and will allow fora 25-foot buffer adjacent to the stream where natural
vegetation will be undisturbed.
2. Crooked Creek (Sheet 14, Station -Y8-) and MF6 (Sheet 16, Station 51+55 left of
-L-) are both perennial streams listed in the 2001 EA, however impacts to these
features were avoided during project design.
Minimization on R-2518A
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts. General minimization techniques implemented include the following:
• Slopes: Fill slopes in wetlands are at a 2:1 ratio.
• Ditching: It is the policy of NCDOT to eliminate lateral ditching in wetlands as
much as possible, thus preserving the hydrology of adjacent wetlands. There are
no ditches in wetlands on this project.
• Pipe Culvert Design: Pipe culvert and box culvert inverts are to be buried 20% of
the pipe diameter, up to 1 foot deep. All pipe culverts and box culverts will
maintain the normal stream flow and channel characteristics. The design will
allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
• Erosion Control: Project special provisions for erosion control will be
implemented in environmentally sensitive areas. The project special provisions
are attached to this letter.
Site specific minimization efforts that have been employed on R-2518A
include:
Site 3 (Sheet 7, Station 21+26): Preformed scour hole added at the end of the pipe to
attenuate and disperse concentrated flow before it enters the stream.
• Site 3A Sheet 7, Station 11+30 -Y2-): Existing bridge will be replaced with a
new bridge that will not have any bents in the water.
Page 15 of 19

• Site 6 (Sheet 11, Station 56+39): Preformed scour hole added at the end of the
pipe to attenuate and disperse concentrated flow before it enters the stream.
Another preformed scour hole added at the end of the pipe to attenuate and
disperse concentrated flow before it enters the floodplain.
• Site 7 (Sheet 12, Station 37+60 (Left): Preformed scour hole added at the end of
the pipe to attenuate and disperse concentrated flow before it enters the stream.
• Sheet 13, Station 40+50): Preformed scour hole added at the end of the pipe to
attenuate and disperse concentrated flow before it enters the floodplain.
• Site 8 (Sheet 14, Station 70+10): Preformed scour hole added at the end of the
pipe to attenuate and disperse concentrated flow before it enters the floodplain.
• Site 9 Sheet 15, Station 47+20): Fill slopes in wetlands are at a 2:1 ratio.
• Sheet 17, Station 54+20: Preformed scour hole added at the end of the pipe to
attenuate and disperse concentrated flow before it enters the stream.
• Site 13 Sheet 20, 21, Station 65+71): Natural rock energy dissipater installed at
the pipe outlet at Station 65+75 (Left) and energy dissipater box added at Station
68+00 (Left) to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Site 14 (Sheet 21, Station 70+10): The bottom of the culvert extension will be
lined with natural bed materials
• Site 15 (Sheet 23, Station 78+00): Natural bed material will be used to line the
bottom of the culvert extension, and an energy dissipater box will bed added to
reduce pipe outlet velocity.
• Site 17 (Sheet 25, Station 81+52): Sills will be installed in the culvert extensions
to help keep bed materials in place.
• Sheet 26, Station 85+60: Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the pipe outlet
to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Site 20 (Sheet 27, Station 91+26): Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the
pipe outlet to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Site 21 (Sheet 28, Station 92+89): Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the
pipe outlet to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Site 22 (Sheet 29, Station 96+48): Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the
pipe outlet to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Site 23 (Sheet 29, Station 98+00): Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the
pipe outlet to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Sheet 31. Station 105+50: Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the pipe
outlet to diffuse outlet velocities.
• Sheet 34, Station 115+00: Natural rock energy dissipater installed at the pipe
outlet to diffuse outlet velocities.
Compensation for R-2518A
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
Page 16 of 19

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. 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. The remaining, unavoidable impacts to 0.42 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP
program.
Table 2 on page 3 of this letter provides a summary of permanent impacts associated with
the R-2518A project. Compensatory mitigation for this project consists of the following:
Compensatory Wetland Miti ation: Wetland impacts total 0.42 acre, with 0.26 acre of
impact to riverine wetlands, and the remaining 0.16 acre of impact to non-riverine
wetlands. Compensatory mitigation will be acquired through the use of EEP for 0.42 acre
of wetland impacts.
Compensatory Stream Miti atg ion: Stream impacts total 6,591 lineaz feet of impacts to
perennial and intermittent streams. During the September 11, 2003 field inspection, one
stream (SWN) was determined to be intermittent within the R-2518A project area.
USACE and NCDWQ agency representatives determined this stream to be biologically
unimportant. It was decided that impacts to this feature would not require mitigation.
1941ineaz feet of impact to an intermittent stream will not require mitigation. Therefore,
impacts requiring mitigation actually total 6,3971ineaz feet.
NCDOT proposes 15,335 lineaz feet of preservation, 640 lineaz feet of enhancement and
4,340 linear feet of restoration/relocation, for a total of 20,315 linear feet of on-site
mitigation. NCDOT proposes the following credit ratios:
RestorationlRelocation 1:1
Enhancement 2:1
Preservation 3:1
Using these ratios would yield 9,772 linear feet of credit, therefore no additional offsite
mitigation will be necessary. Furthermore, at a Mazch 21, 2007 R-2519A Permit
Drawing Review (4C) meeting, resource agency representatives agreed that "leftover" on-
site mitigation from the R-2518A section of this project could be used as compensatory
mitigation for impacts associated with other sections of the project. Table 6 provides
information about the on-site mitigation associated with each site: More detailed
information is provided in the attached "Stream Mitigation Plan".
Page 17 of 19

Table 6. On-site Stream Mitigation for R-2518A

Site
Name

Miti ation T e
Length
Buffer
ft Acres in
Mitigation
Area
A restoration 239 80 0.88
A enhancement 476 80 1.75
A reservation 479 80 1.76
B restoration 184 80 0.68
C restoration 259 53 0.63
D restoration 262 48 0.58
E reservation 820 50 1.91
E restoration 833 50 1.91
F restoration 226 50 0.52
G reservation 1066 31 1.52
H reservation 1362 48 3.00
I restoration 787 75 2.71
J restoration 692 31 0.98
K reservation 4266 46 9.00
L reservation 525 33 0.80
M restoration 276 82 1.04
N reservation 148 49 0.33
N restoration 581 49 1.31
O enhancement 164 60 0.45
O reservation 2378 60 6.55
P reservation 164 69 0.52
Q reservation 2297 51 5.38
R reservation 1831 48 4.03
Total: 20,315 48.23
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Individual 404 Permit as
required for the above-described activities. We are also hereby requesting a 401 Water
Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality. This permit application is a
"phased application". The NCDOT anticipates Section 404 and 401 permits will only
authorized construction to begin on R-2518A. As R-2518B and R-2519A designs are
finalized, NCDOT will apply for permit modifications for these sections prior to
construction. In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC, we will provide
$475.00 to act as payment for processing the Section 401 permit application previously
noted in this application (see Subject line). We are providing five copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Page 18 of 19

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Jeff Hemphill, at
[phone]. A copy of this application will also be posted at
www.ncdot.org_ldoh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
Sincerely,
~~.
Gr Grego .Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Ms. Mazella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Mazla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA-Whitter, NC
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA -Atlanta, GA
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Mr. Clazence W. Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics.
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mazk Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
cc w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. Steve Brown, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Cazl Goode, PE, Human Environment Unit Head
Page 19 of 19

1 of 3
11/14/06
X-XI~~ Project Special Provisions xxxx County
Erosion Control
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
This project is located in an "Environmentally Sensitive Area". This designation requires
special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream crossings, and
grading operations within the area identified on the plans. This also requires special
procedures to be used for seeding and mulching and staged seeding within the project.
Clearing and Grubbing:
In areas identified on the erosion control plans as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", the
Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations as described in Section 200, Article
200-1, in the Standard Specifications. The "Environmentally Sensitive Area" shall be
defined as a 50 foot (16 meter) buffer zone on both sides of the stream (or depression),
measured from top of streambank, (or center of depression). Only clearing operations
(not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed immediately following the
clearing operation.
Grading:
Once grading operations begin in identified "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", work
will progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas
must progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is complete and areas
permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase. Failure on the part of the
Contractor to complete any phase of construction in a continuous manner in
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as specified will be just cause for the Engineer to
direct the suspension of work in accordance with Section 108-7 of the Standard
Specifications.
Temporary Stream Crossings:
Any crossing of streams within the limits of this project must be accomplished in
accordance with Section 107-13(b) of the Standard Specifications.
Seeding and Mulching:
Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with Section 1660 of the
Standard Specifications and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be
installed immediately following grade establishment.
Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction
immediately following final grade establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into

2 of 3
11/14/06
the contract time without stabilization of slopes, ditches and other areas within the
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as indicated on the E.C. Plans.
Stage Seeding:
The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a vegetative cover
on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. Seeding and mulching shall be done in
stages on cut and fill slopes which are greater than 20 feet (6 meters) in height or greater
than 2 acres (0.8 hectares) in area. Each stage shall not exceed the limits stated above.
All work described above will be paid for at the contract unit prices established in the
contract for the work involved. Additional payments will not be made for the
requirements of this section.as the cost for this work should be included in the contract
unit prices for the work involved.
High Quality Waters:
The _(H Q W) has been identified as high quality waters. This designation
requires special procedures to be used for clearing and grubbing, temporary stream
crossings, and grading operations within the "Environmentally Sensitive Areas"
identified on the plans. This also requires special procedures to be used for seeding and
mulching and staged seeding.
Seeding and Mulching:
Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with Section 1660 of the
Standard Specifications and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be
installed immediately following grade establishment.
Seeding and mulching shall be performed on the areas disturbed by construction
immediately following final grade establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into
the contract time without stabilization of slopes, ditches and other areas within the "High
Quality Water Zone(s)" as indicated on the E.C. Plans.
Stage Seeding:
The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a vegetative cover
on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. Seeding and mulching shall be done in
stages on cut and fill slopes which are greater than 20 feet (6 meters) in height or greater
than 2 acres (0.8 hectares) in area. Each stage shall not exceed the limits stated above.
All work described above will be paid for at the contract unit prices established in the
contract for the work involved. Additional payments will not be made for the
requirements of this section as the cost for this work should be included in the contract
unit prices for the work involved.

3 of 3
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
Clearing and Grubbing:
11/14/06
In areas identified on the erosion control plans as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas", the
Contractor may perform clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until
immediately prior to beginning grading operations as described in Section 200,
Article Z00-1, in the Standard Specifications. The "Environmentally Sensitive Area"
shall be defined as a 50 foot (16 meter) buffer zone on both sides of the stream, measured
from top of streambank. Only clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this
buffer zone until immediately prior to beginning grading operations. Erosion control
devices shall be installed immediately following the clearing operation.
Grading:
Once grading operations begin in identified "Environmentally Sensitive Area", work will
progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas must
progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is complete and areas permanently
stabilized prior to beginning of next phase. Failure on the part of the Contractor to
complete any phase of construction in a continuous manner in "Environmentally
Sensitive Areas" as specified will be just cause for the Engineer to direct the suspension
of work in accordance with Section 108-7 of the Standard Specifications.
Temporary Stream Crossings:
Any crossing of streams within the limits of this project must be accomplished in
accordance with Section 107-13(b) of the Standard Specifications.

aye 'f .
State Project # 6.909001T TIP # R-2519A County: Yancey
~~oe ~ CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
y %.
e ,~ Project Description: Widen US 19 from SR 1336 to SR 1186
,,
On 12/13/2001, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
(~ /Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Cazolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
~e.~ . 13 . Zao I
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
1Z
Representative, HPO
_ I~
State Historic Preservation Officer

t~
State Project # 6.869005T TIP # R-2518 County: Madison
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Widen US 19 from future I-26 in Madison County to the Yancey County
tine ~ r~~/i SZd_ for ~~a-+~S dD~#-Co~ \7.~13~ZL»I
On 12/13/2001, 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 and agreed
There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area. of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-.listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
.the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
Q~ ~_ -Dec . r3 zoo t
Representati , N DOT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO Da e
~~~ ~ Z' I~jni
State Historic Preservation Officer

State Project # 6.869005T TIP # R-2518 County: Madison
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
$r + qqs douse. LpE~ Fo>' ptaxx d~.a~4.d
.,.
iz-'1301 `:.
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Wr 1k..~S ~e~nsl~y I~ouse_ ~CD~ - No a.d~t~S e_ e ~~e.c.-~ wl
~'he er~.v i ro r~ rn~~ a~ Comm i }~ mJ~.r~- That' N~DOT
w i i I ~ ~rov i d.e. s ~a ~ d.e.si ,ns ~. ~ro,r
1~_ l~ r~ 3 cjua~..dra.l ~ s ~o r 5 Pa ~ rev i~
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).

Initialed: NCDOT µ~~ FHWA I3P0 ~-~

a~ AA~ q
"S~~ yaraw~
u
•~~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ~ p,r P~-~

SUBJECT: Archaeological Testing Report, US 19, from US 23 to SR 1336 at
Cane River, R-2518, Madison and Yancey Counties, GS 97-0075
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
~cf~---.
~._ ,
~~1~. ~~;
r ,f J i
/~ ~.
We have reviewed the archaeological testing report of four sites by your staff for the above-mentioned project
and offer the following comments.
Based on recommendations resulting from a 1999 survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the
proposed project, Paul Mohler, Gerold Glover, Megan O'Connell and Brian Overton of the NC Department
of Transportation conducted test excavations at four archaeological sites, 31MD351&351**, 31MD355,
31MD359 and 31MD360. The shovel tests, soil cores and test units excavated at each of the sites indicated no
intact cultural deposits and few temporally diagnostic artifacts. Due to soil erosion and deflation, none of the
sites retain sufficient integrity to yield information important to prehistory or history and we concur with your
recommendation that none of the sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. No additional
archaeological investigation is recommended.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Location Mailing Address TelephonelFa:
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service C®ter, Raleigh NC 27699617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION S i5 N. Blo~mt Siree~ Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699617 [phone]!/151801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Curter, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone](115-4801

o stem
E a ement
PROGRAM
June 26, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
R-2518 A and B and R-2519A, Improvements to US 19, Madison
and Yancey Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory wetland and stream mitigation for the
subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on June 25, 2007, the impacts
are located in the French Broad River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-
Region, and are as follows:
French Broad 06010105 Riparian Wetlands: 0.26 acre
Non-Riparian Wetlands: 0.16 acre •
. ~U•~`~
French Broad 06010108 Riparian Wetlands: 0.37 acre
Non-Riparian Wetlands: 0.15 acre '
Stream: 645 feet
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory wetland and stream
mitigation 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 Amendment No. 2
to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above
referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no
longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
~~
RP~StO{~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. PYDt"2C,t7.GL9 OGGY lt"A,t"P~ ~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service tenter, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
~-
D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: ~ Mr. David Baker, USACE -Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: R-2518A/B/R-2519A

Subject: Minutes of the Interagency Hydraulic Design Review (4b) Meeting
on December 18, 2003 for R-2518A, Madison and Yancey Counties
Participants: Team Members:
Randy Henegar, NCDOT Hydraulics (present)
Steve Lund, USACE (present)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ (present)
Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT PD&EA (not present)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC (present)
Marella Buncick, USFWS (present)
Chris Militscher, EPA (present)
Brenda Moore, NCDOT Roadway (present)
Harold Draper, TVA (present)
Other Attendees
Art McMillan, NCDOT Roadway
Thad Duncan, NCDOT Roadway
Jeff Harris, NCDOT Structures
Quang Nguyen, NCDOT Structures
Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT PD&EA
Chris Underwood, NCDOT ONE
Phillip Todd, NCDOT PD&EA
Jerry Snead, NCDOT Hydraulics
Amanda Jones, USACE Asheville
Jennifer Seaboch, NCDOT REU
David Moore, NCDOT Div S Cnstr.
R. J. Downes, NCDOT Div 5 Cnstr.
Stephen Daniel, Barnhill Contracting
Jonathan Henderson, HDR Engineering
James Rice, HDR Engineering
Grant Ginn, HSMM
Sean NlcGary, HSMM
David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics
Heather Renninger, H.W. Lochner
Randy Henegar opened with a brief description of the project, then asked Bryan Kluchar to update everyone on
the history of the project development. Brenda Moore discussed the typical section used for the proposed
roadway design. Randy Henegar commented on the hydraulic design, pointing out that throughout the project
every effort has been made to protect water quality through best management practices, including discharging
outfalls as far away from live streams as practicable, and specifying grassed swales and preformed scour holes
wherever these can be effectively utilized. Mr. Henegar also noted that in locations where high velocities
could not be avoided at storm drainage outfalls, a new riprap energy dissipator design will be specified which
utilizes across-vane downstream of the outfall to create a backwater pool to dissipate flow energy and
velocity. Natural or shot rock will be utilized in the dissipator. No objections were raised with regard to the
incorporation of these measures in the hydraulic design. Mr. Henegar also introduced Mr. Grant Ginn of
HSMM, who has been studying this project to determine all the possible opportunities for mitigation, stream
restoration and enhancement, etc. Following the project introduction, Randy Henegar then proceeded to go
through the plans sheet by sheet addressing each impacted stream or wetland site, with Mr. Ginn commenting
on potential mitigation opportunities available as the meeting proceeded.
Items discussed are summarized as follows:
1. Discussion on tyin~ 750 mm pipe into proposed culvert extension (Plan Sheet 7 /Station 21+40j - Marella
Buncick and Chris Militscher expressed concern that velocity of discharge from the 750 mm pipe may
erode the substrate in the culvert. Randy said that the slope of the pipe could be set to control the velocity

of flow. Randy also stated that Hydraulics will investigate the possibility of utilizing a grass swale at this
location instead.
2. Recommendation to buildup the downstream channel at culvert outlet (Plan Sheet 10 /Station 31+35) -
Randy Henegar showed photos depicting the fact that there is about a 1 m (3 ft.) drop from the outlet invert
of the existing culvert to the existing stream bed. To correct this, Randy recommended that the
downstream channel be built up with grade control devices. He also indicated that grade controls would be
needed upstream as well. No objections were raised to this recommendation.
3. Concern with reduction in length of lame stream meander by proposed culvert extension (Plan Sheet 11 /
Station 33+75) - Marella Buncick stated that upstream channel work may be needed to adjust for this
reduction. Randy Henegar stated that a vane may be needed upstream to protect against erosion in the
bend, and also agreed to investigate the need for any additional channel work upstream.
4. Remove proposed special cut ditch depicted through wetland (Plan Sheet 15 /Station 47+20 rim - This
ditch will be corrected to stop short of the wetland. Mr. Ginn commented that this would be a good
location to create more wetlands upstream as a mitigation site. Cardinal wildflowers from the wetland
impacted at 60+00 right could be transplanted at this location (see item 8).
Recommendation to move the_375 mm pipe outfall further away from the receiving stream (Plan Sheet 16
/Station 51+80 rt.) -This concern was raised by Chris Militscher. Randy Henegar said Hydraulics would
investigate. Art McMillan commented that the wide driveway over the 375 mm could probably be
narrowed to accommodate this. Randy also stated that Hydraulics would consider the possiblity of
extending the downstream 1200 mm pipe further, connecting to the 375 mm pipe with a junction box and
setting the slope of the 375 mm pipe to prevent erosive flow velocity at the juncture.
6. Discussion about "daylishtin~" opportunity at flea market property (Plan Sheet 17 /Station 55+40~ -
Randy Henegar and Grant Guui pointed out that the west (downstream) side of US 19 has been developed
since the base mapping for the roadway plans was created, and that the downstream channel shown in the
plans is now carried in a pipe underneath the parking lot for a flea market. Grant recommended that
consideration be given to negotiating with the property owner to reopen the downstream channel. Randy
Henegar agreed that this would be to the property owner's benefit, as the current parking lot pipe is
undersized and would likely result in flooding of buildings on the property in a major rainfall event.
Further consideration will be given to this matter.
7. Discussion of whether to leave yap between -L- and -Yl 1-culverts (Plan Sheet 17 /Station 55 + 40) -
Marella Buncick at first expressed concern that the opening between the culverts was too short and would
present instability problems such that no mitigation credit could be justified for it. Randy Henegar
indicated that, if that were the case and there were no environmental benefit, it would be hydraulically
preferable to connect the two culverts as one structure. However, after Grant Ginn pointed out that the
upstream~relocation of Turkey Branch would need to be designed as a natural stream system, Marella
decided that, as part of a designed stream system, it would be worthwhile to retain the opening between the
culverts. Randy Henegar stated that Hydraulics would investigate designing these culverts with low flow
sills to meander the normal low flow through the culverts.
8. Transplanting cardinal wildflowers from wetland taking (Plan Sheet 18 /Station 60+00 right) -Concern
was expressed that this wetland contains cardinal wildflowers, and that any mitigation plan should specify
that these be transplanted in a mitigation site, such as the potential site discussed at 47+20 right (see item
4).

9. Discussion concerning pond (Plan sheets 18 & 19 /Stations 60+60 to 62+00 left) -Randy Henegar pointed
out that the long storm drain system proposed in this area was designed in such a way as to avoid discharge
of highway runoff into the pond. This brought up a discussion in which Grant Ginn made the case for
consideration of a mitigation proposal to drain the pond and perform stream restoration at this location. He
noted that the existing dike is compromised and could likely fail in the future, which could result in
considerable damage to downstream properties. Art McMillan commented that, from public hearing
comments, the property owner would be strongly opposed to this, which would likely preclude this
mitigation proposal.
10. Proposal to replace culvert with bride to be reviewed (Plan sheet 25 /Station 82+50) -Randy Henegar
stated that the proposal to replace the existing culvert with a bridge was based upon a commitment made
in earlier interagency consultations. Chris Militscher questioned the need for a bridge at this location,
stating that he was not aware of any specific criteria warranting a bridge at this location. Marella Buncick
commented that she thought the original decision was based on the quality of this stream and the need to
improve the stream alignment, since there is a 90° bend in the stream at the existing culvert entrance. She
further commented that she had requested that more biological information be collected at this stream, but
did not recall receiving any reports of this information, and she wants to follow up on that. It was generally
agreed that, given what we know at this time, there is not sufficient justification to warrant the expense of
the proposed 33.5 m (110 ft.) bridge. Randy Henegar and Grant Ginn pointed out that whether we replace
with a bridge or just extend the existing culvert, a stream relocation (by natural stream design methods)
upstream will be required. It was generally agreed that the decision to replace this culvert with a bridge
should be reconsidered, and that better biological and water quality information is needed. Randy Henegar
stated that we would investigate other alternatives, such as replacing the culvert with a bottomless span-
arch type of structure (pending geotechnical assessment) or replacing the existing culvert with one
designed with low-flow sills to create meanders through the structure to support fish passage and habitat.
11. Check proposed 2-yr and 10-yr discharge velocity at outlet of existing_pipe (Sheet 28 /Station 91+30~ -
Chris Militscher requested that the stated flow velocities be checked to ensure protection of the
downstream channel from erosion. Randy Henegar said this would be handled in the final hydraulic
design.
12. Pro osed rock fill and retainin wall adjacent to I Ga Branch Sheets 30-31 /Stations 100+00 to
104+601eft) -Randy Henegar explained that the proposed retaining wall is needed to avoid filling Ivy Gap
Branch and that it was not feasible to shift the roadway alignment away from the creek because of a
cemetery which would be impacted. Mr. Henegar noted that the wall will be designed to allow for a
minimum 25 ft. (7.6 m) buffer adjacent to Ivy Gap Branch in which the natural vegetation adj acent to the
stream will be left undisturbed in order to protect the water quality. Some concern was expressed with
regard to the long storm drain system proposed which would outfall through grip-rap energy dissipator at
98+40 rt. Randy Henegar explained that this is not unusual in mountainous terrain, citing a similar
situation on the A-0010 project in which a storm drain system which was over a mile long. Marella
Buncick commented that there is not enough historical data on these to be confident of their adequacy.
However, there were no objections raised with respect to the proposed retaining wall and the fact that, in
order to avoid conflict with the proposed wall, it was necessary to design a lengthy storm drain system as
was depicted in the plans.
13. Replacement of double barrel box culvert at Bald Creek (Sheet 33 /Station 109+50~ - Randy Henegar
stated that due to evidence of structural inadquacies in the existing culvert, the decision has been made that
this structure will be completely replaced, and that there would not be a bend in the structure as would have

been the case if it had been extended only (as was currently depicted on the plans). The proposed culvert
will be designed with low-flow sills and filled with stockpiled native bed material or shot rock. No
objections were raised. -
14. Onsite meeting recommended to reviews ecific mitigation sites. - Mr. Steve Lund recommended
scheduling an onsite meeting to review specific mitigation sites (as identified by Grant Ginn of HSMM)
prior to commencing mitigation design work. It was agreed that such a review is needed, and it was
decided that NCDOT PDEA would schedule and arrange for a mitigation review meeting in February 2004
(noting that the project is scheduled to go to Right-of--Way in May 2004. Marella Buncick stated that she
wanted to first review data from a recent basinwide survey in Yancey. County prior to reviewing any
mitigation sites in that county; however, this would not matter for the Madison County portion of the
project.

Site 24/Plan Sheet 33: This intersection may be re-designed to align -Y- lines. Add a cross vane downstream of
the box culvert outlet (-L- Sta. 109+70, Rt.) Show this on both Roadway and Mitigation Plans. Look at
extending the right-of--way from -L- Sta. 110+00 (Rt.) to Sta. 115+00 (Rt.) to obtain more
Preservation/Enhancement credit.
Action taken: Intersection and box culvert will be re-designed. Other items done.
In lieu of attending this meeting, Brian Wrenn with the NCDWQ submitted a letter with his agency's comments.
These comments are summarized below, with the corresponding NCDOT response.
DWQ requests that multi-barrel boxes have sills to maintain low flow channel conditions.
Action taken: This was done wherever practicable.
DWQ requests that hazardous spill basins be installed at crossings where feasible.
Action taken: No hazardous spill basins designed since project does not meet current criteria for such.
Sheet 12: Locate the preformed scour hole (PSH) at -L- Sta. 37+60 (Lt.) on the top of bank.
Action taken: Done.
Sheet 17: How will the UT at -Yl 1- Sta. 10+65 be conveyed to the 450 mm CMP crossing -D7-?
Action taken: Ditch to be cut between -Y11- Sta. 10+40 (Rt.) and Sta. 10+65 (Rt.)
Sheet 25: Install baffles inside double barrel box culvert at Site 18.
Action taken: Done.

Action taken: Alignment of Natural Stream Design adjusted. Classifications clarified and Summary
Sheets updated.
Site 5 /Plan Sheet 10• Change "PDE" to "Right-of--Way" both upstream and downstream of the culvert.
Terminate proposed Right-of--Way around stream at -Y4- crossing. SR number is incorrect.
Action taken: Corrections made.
Site 8/Plan Sheet 14: Install natural bed material in the downstream extension of this culvert.
Action taken; Done.
Site 13/Plan Sheet 20 & 21 ~ Look at possible methods to diffuse the outlet velocity at pipe outlets at -L- Sta.
65+75 (Lt.) and Sta. 68+00 (Lt.).
Action taken: Use Natural Rock Energy Dissipater at -L- Sta. 65+75 (Lt.) and Energy Dissipater Box
at -L- Sta. 68+00 (Lt.) Box Detail was added to the plans.
Site 14/Plan Sheet 21- The bottom of the culvert extension will be lined with natural bed materials.
Action taken:. None needed.
Site 15/Plan Sheet 23 • The box culvert alignment may be re-designed since construction would be difficult on the
current skew. Natural bed material will be used to line the bottom of the culvert extension. Look at possible
methods to diffuse pipe outlet velocity at -L- Sta. 75+40 (Lt.)
Action taken: Box culvert will not be re-aligned. Hydraulics will reduce the amount of rip rap
currently shown. Energy Dissipater Box added to plans at -L- Sta. 75+40 (Lt.)
Site 17/Plan sheet 25 • Sills will be installed in the culvert extensions to help keep bed materials in place. These
culvert extensions are on a steep grade.
Action taken: No additional action needed.
Site 18/Plan Sheet 25 • This double barrel box culvert will provide animal passage in the western box and a low
flow channel in the eastern box.
Action taken: No additional action needed.
Site 19/Plan Sheet 27• Grant Ginn will look at the possibility of obtaining Preservation/Enhancement credit
upstream of the 1200 mm pipe.
Action taken: Waiting for Site review by HSMM.
Site 211 Plan Sheet 28~ Grant Ginn will look at the possibility of doing Natural Stream Design on the short sectior.
of stream relocation between -L- Sta. 93+15 (Rt.) and Sta. 93+60 (Rt.)
Action taken: Waiting for Site review by HSMM.

Subject: Final Minutes of the Interagency Permit Drawings Review (4c)
Meeting on January 26., 2005 for R-2518A, Madison/Yancey Counties
Participants: Team Members:
Randy Henegar, NCDOT, Hydraulics (present)
Angie Pennock, USACE (present)
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (not present)
Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT, PD&EA (not present)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC (present)
Marella Buncick, USFWS (present)
Chris Militscher, USEPA (present)
Brenda Moore, NCDOT, Roadway (present)
Harold Draper, TVA (present)
Other Attendees:
Thad Duncan, NCDOT, Roadway
Paul Garrett, NCDOT, Structures
Paul Fisher, NCDOT, Hydraulics
Shawn Harris, NCDOT, Hydraulics
Randy Griffin, NCDOT, ONE
Chris Underwood, NCDOT, ONE
Jame Lancaster, NCDOT, ONE
Marissa Rodman, NCDOT, ONE
Linwood Stone, NCDOT, PD&EA
Bryan Kluchar, NCDOT, PD&EA
Grant Ginn, HSMM
Roger Bryan, NCDOT Div. 13, DEO
Rick Tipton, NCDOT Div. 13, Constr.
Randy McKinney, Div. 13, Res. Engr.
Denise Moldenhauer, USFWS
Jennifer Parish, NCDOT, REU
This meeting commenced at approximately 8:30 A.M. Randy Henegar led the attendees in reviewing the plan
sheets and permit drawings (sheet by sheet). Comments were as follows:
The Title Blocks for all Permit Drawings should have the correct Project Number. Also, add the WBS number to
each sheet. An English version of the Summary Sheets will be required with the final submittal.
Action taken: Title blocks for all Permit Drawings were checked and appropriate changes were made.
An English version of the Summary Sheet was generated and added to the Permit
Package.
Site 2 /Plan Sheet 6~ Check right-of--way limits versus the final Mitigation Plan to ensure all improvements are
within the proposed right-of--way.
Action taken: This has been checked for this site and all sites where applicable.
Site 3 /Plan Sheet 7~ Determine the fate of the downstream bridge and coordinate the stream design with all
parties. Sills will not be incorporated into the culvert extension design.
Action taken: Bridge will be replaced with new bridge that will not have any bents in the water.
Site 4 /Plan Sheet 9~ Align natural stream design to the outlet of the proposed 1350 mm pipe. Determine the
proper classification of channel impacts and adjust the Summary Sheet accordingly.

Memo To: Phil Hams (Attn: Gail Beaman)
Natural Environment Unit
From: Quang Nguyen, P.E.
Structure Design Unit
Date: 11/21/06
Subject: R-2518A Structure Impact
This project consists of 1 bridge and 13 culverts.
For the bridge, there will be no permanent impact due to the proposed substructure.
Besides the temporary rock causeway, no other temporary impact is anticipated for the
removal of the existing structure.
All structure impact information is included in the permit package prepared by
Hydraulics Unit. Should you have any question, please call me at 250-4077.

Subject:
Team Members:
Meeting Minutes from Interagency Hydraulic Design Review
Meeting on December 18, 2003 for R-2518B in Yancey County
Steve Lund-USAGE
Amanda Jones-USAGE
Cynthia Van Der Wiele -NCDWQ
Marla Chambers-NCWRC
Marella Buncick-USFWS
Chris Militscher-EPA
Chris Underwood-PDEA
Phillip Todd-PDEA
Bryan Kluchar-PDEA
Linwood Stone-PDEA
Harold Draper-TVA
General•
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
(present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Galen Cail, NCDOT Hydraulics
Gus Saparilas, TGS Engineers
Bill Stephens, TGS Engineers
Doug Taylor, NCDOT Design Services
Quang Nguyen, NCDOT Structure Design
Jennifer Seaboch, NCDOT Roadside Env.
Investigate options to reduce outlet velocities at pipe outlets (proposed and existing) in
perennial streams. Look at using preformed scour holes(PSH)/energy dissipaters, JB's to
drop grade, larger rip rap, etc.
The question of mitigation was brought up. Phillip said there is no project mitigation to
date.
Sheet 5:
Chris M. questioned whether the 2 @ 1700 CSP were perched. Bill stated that to his
recollection the pipes were not perched. Bill also stated most pipes throughout the project
were silted and were not perched.
Sheet 7:
Chris M. and Marella were concerned about the outlet stability of the existing 800 CSP
Sta 126+55, since it outlets at the bank of Bald Creek. Gus said there was existing Class
B rip rap at the outlet. Need to investigate whether Class I rip rap (or other measures)
should be applied due to the increase in discharge.
Sheet 9:
Marla questioned the stability/condition of the Bald Creek crossing. Bill stated the
crossing looked stable.

Chris M. questioned if the existing concrete ditch parallel to SR 1202 (Rt) could be
removed to acquire some treatment. It was stated that the concrete ditch is used due to
the steep slope. If the ditch is removed then rip rap would still have to be used. Also,
once the flow goes under SR 1202 in the 450 CSP it will travel about another 60m (200')
in a grassed swale. It was decided to leave as is since there would not be a significant
improvement beyond what is there presently.
Sheet 15:
There were stability/erosion concerns due to the proximity of the outlet culvert extension
along Lickskillet Branch and it's confluence with Bald Creek. The culvert outlet velocity
is 2.1 m/s (6.9 ft/s). With the use of Class I rip rap outlet protection along the banks of
Lickskillet Branch and considering the ease of the transition angle of the outlet with Bald
Creek it is believed the banks around the confluence should be stable.
Marla questioned whether a bridge had been considered. It was stated a bridge was not
considered. The drainage area for the crossing is 2.4 mil and justifies a box culvert. This
site was not included as one of the sites to investigate to bridge from the 2/28/01 field
meeting (See comments for Sheet 21). Also, since the existing fill depth is shallow, in
order to construct a bridge at this location would likely require the grade to be raised.
Any grade increase would likely relocate the toe of fill and impact Bald Creek from Sta
155+20 to 156+85 Rt. There is minimal area to relocate Bald Creek due to the proximity
of property along SR 1135. Also, impacts to -Y8- (SR 1393) and -Y9- (SR 1134) would
have to be investigated with any grade increase as well as safety of phasing existing traffic.
Steve recommended investigating the use of culvert baffles for passage improvement.
Based on hydraulics, typically it is not recommended to place baffles in existing
structures since this would reduce the amount of conveyance area and would thus
increase the amount of backwater from what the boz culvert was originally designed to
convey. However, the acceptability of baffles will be investigated along with other -
options such as an inlet and outlet "rock bench ", inlet and outlet rock vanes, etc.
There were no further questions on the box culvert with anticipation to proceed with the
proposed extension while investigating modifications (i.e. baffles) to the existing box
culvert.
Sheet 21:
This is the downstream Bald Creek site where it was recommended at the 2/28/01 on-site
agency meeting to replace the existing 4 @ 4.6mx3.lm (15'x10') with a bridge. Abridge
is proposed.
Sheet 22:

It was questioned where the perennial stream(s) is located. The stream verification report
lists a perennial stream at Sta 179+40, yet the crossing of the 1200 CSP Sta 178+65
would seem to be perennial. Steve clarified that both are perennial. The 1200 CSP
crossing at the time of the verification seemed to be outside the project limits and was not
listed. However, the stream maybe impacted due to -Y14- realignment. Minimize and
account for any impacts to this perennial stream.
Sheet 23:
Chris M. questioned why the alignment could not be shifted North to eliminate the impacts
to the three wetland pockets at approximate Sta 185+00, 185+30 and 185+60 Rt. It was
stated that if the alignment was shifted any to the North the fill section would be shifted
North also and would impact three properties including two houses. The existing toe of
fill is just at the driveway entrance to the properties now and any shift in the fill would
potentially require the condemnation and purchase of the effected property owners houses.
Presently, the total impacts to the three wetland pockets is approximately 0.054 Ha (0.13
ac).
Sheet 25:
It was stated the Price Creek crossing will include retaining the existing bridge and
constructing a dual bridge on the South side.
Sheet 28:
Steve stated that he had another perennial stream shown from approximate Sta 200+80 to
201+90 Rt, which was not listed on the verification report. He will investigate and verify.
If indeed perennial, need to investigate practicality of relocating stream.
Sheet 32:
It was verified that the stream at Sta 216+20 Lt was ephemeral.
Sheet 34:
There was discussion over the bridge at the Cane River. It was stated the existing bridge
will be retained and a dual bridge will be constructed on the South side.
Marella questioned whether deck drains would be used. It was stated there would be not
direct discharge into the river. She had concerns even dropping deck drains out in the
overbank areas since it may cause erosion. She stated there were mussels located in this
area and wanted a bridge system to be investigated. It was stated the use of a bridge
system would be investigated on the proposed and existing bridges although it may be
difficult to retrofit the existing structure.

Also, it was questioned whether hazardous spill basins had been investigated. It was
stated they had not been investigated since they were not required based on the guideline
criteria for spill basins. However, due to the high truck traffic and the proximity to the
Cane River, it is agreed this is a good location to have some form of stormwater
management. It is recommended that detention basins be investigated versus hazardous
spill basins. Detention basins would still provide protection against hazardous spills
while at the same time providing some stormwater treatment (provided hazardous spill
basin criteria is met). As far as location, the only practical location for basins seems to be
in the NE and SW quadrants of the bridge. There is a business in the NE quad but is likely
to be condemned. The NW quad does not have preferable topo and the SE quad has a
perennial stream that would be impacted. This is the only site on the project where spill
basins were recommended.
It was questioned whether piers would be placed in the river. It was stated that one set of
piers for the existing bridge were located at the edge of the river while the other set were
on the overbank. It was also stated that the proposed bridge would likely be a
continuation of the existing piers and would therefore have one set of piers in the edge of
the river. It was questioned whether the existing bridge could be replaced with a structure
that would eliminate any piers in the river. It was stated the existing bridge consists of 45"
girders, which are maximized at the present 68'. In order to span the river a deeper girder
would likely be required. This, in turn, would require the grade to be raised since the
existing crossing is in a FEMA detailed study and the existing 100 year water surface
cannot be raised. To not raise the 100 year water surface it would be necessary to provide
at least the same area of conveyance now provided. A deeper girder would reduce this
area and therefore the grade would have to be raised to offset. If the grade is raised the
toe of fill may extend to where it would impact the existing stream from Sta 223+70 to
225+40 Rt. Also, Quang stated the existing bridge was constructed in 1984, has a
sufficiency rating of 84% and has a remaining service life of 45 years. However, the
option to replace the existing bridge will be further investigated and the recommendations
documented.

Subject: , Meeting Minutes from Interagency Permit Review Meeting on
January 26, 2005 for R-2518B in Yancey County
Team Members:
Angie Pennock-USAGE (present)
Charles Militscher-USAGE (present)
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ **(absent)
Marla Chambers-NCWRC (present)
Marella Buncick-USFWS (present)
Denise Moldenhauer-USFWS (present)
Chris Underwood-PDEA-ONE (present)
Bryan Kluchar-PDEA (present)
Harold Draper-TVA (present)
Participants:
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulics
Galen Cail, NCDOT Hydraulics
Bill Stephens, TGS Engineers
Jennifer Parish, NCDOT Roadside Env.
Roger Bryan, NCDOT Div 13 DEO
Randy McKinney, NCDOT Div 13
Rick Tipton, NCDOT Div 13
Paul Garrett, NCDOT Structures
** Written comments from Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
General Comments:
Several impacts sites have multiple barrel box culverts. DWQ requests that when
multiple barrel box culverts are proposed at least one barrel should have a sill to
maintain low flow channel conditions.
See response to General: comments below.
R-2518B
Sheet 8
Was a bridge considered at Site 9?
It has been discussed, but there are site issues that would not make this
crossing practical for a bridge. The proximity of -YS- (SR 1451) and
-Y6- (SR 1133) would require the intersection to be relocated. This
may present additional impact issues due to the proximity of Bald Creek to
the -Y- lines.
Sheet 21
It is unclear from the drawing provided what the proposed impacts are at Site 24.
These impacts will be shown more clearly.
Sheet 22
Is the feature at -L- 201 +90 to 200+80 a perennial stream?
No. This was not listed on the jurisdictional report. This is a proposed
roadside ditch.
Sheet 23
Outlet protection should be provided for the 1 S00 mm CMP at 205+85 It where
the UT enters the larger UT (name?).
There is no outlet protection proposed since no work will take place at this

outlet. However, the need for outlet protection will be assessed.
General•
Investigate outlet velocities at pipe outlets and ditches (proposed and existing). Look at
the need for preformed scour holes(PSH)/energy dissipaters, rip rap, permanent soil
reinforcement mat (PSRM), etc. Investigate the need for embankment rip rap at
ditch stream confluences.
The question of proposed mitigation was discussed. Chris U. will investigate if mitigation
is presently proposed.
At jurisdictional streams, note on plans, "Rip Rap on Banks Only". Revise plan views to
show rip rap as such.
Review stream crossing sites for the application of in-stream structures like rock benches,
rock vanes, etc. Consider rock benches at inlets where culverts are wider than stream.
Consider rock vanes where there are high outlet velocities and bank stability concerns.
It is the Hydraulic Unit's preference to investigate the use of the in-stream
structures versus the application of sills and/or baffles. Typically, we do not want
to reduce the conveyance capability of an existing structure. It is our opinion the
in-stream structures will produce the same results as that of sills. That is,
adequate low flow conrveyance for fish passage and reduction in sedimentation.
Where box culverts are to be extended, note to "Backfill with Bed Material".
Permit Sheet 5/5A:
Eliminate proposed fill from -Y1- (Shepherds Branch Road) into Shepherd's Branch.
Permit Sheet 7/7A:
For stream relocation Sta 133+40 -L- to Bald Creek Lt, need to consider rock vanes, coir
mat (instead of PSRM) and more extensive morphological analysis. Provide with stream
data and details.
Permit Sheet 12/12A:
Place Class I rip rap at 600 outlet Sta 154+30 -L- Rt.
Permit Sheet 13/13A:
Use correct wetland file. Two are showing up in wetland Lt.
Consider wetland mitigation within existing R/W.

Permit Sheet 20/20A:
There was discussion on the type of proposed footing. The Geotech recommendation has
not be submitted to date, but if drilled shafts are proposed, there will be temporary
impacts to Bald Creek.
Permit Sheet 24/24A:
For stream relocation Sta 207+70 to 208+25 -L- Rt, need to consider rock vanes, coir
mat (instead of PSR1Vn and more extensive morphological analysis. Provide with stream
data and details.
Permit Sheet 25/25A:
Elevate riser in Hazardous Spill Basins to get some detention.

Final Minutes for Hydraulic Design Review Meeting With
Actions Taken Since the Meeting
R-2519A
State Project 35609
US 19 FROM EAST OF SR 1336 (JACKS CREEK ROAD) TO SR 1186
(OLD US 19), YANCEY COUNTY, DIVISION 13
A hydraulic Design Review Meeting was held on Wednesday, January
21, 2004 in the Location and Surveys conference room at the NCDOT
Century Center Complez, Raleigh.
Team Members: Andrew Nottingham-NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)
Steve Lund-USAGE (Present)
Cynthia Van Der Wiele- NCDWQ (Present)
Marla Chambers-NCWRC (Present)
Marella Buncick-USFWS (Absent)
Chris Militscher-EPA (Present)
Brenda Moore- NCDOT Roadway Design (Present)
Lindsey Riddick-PDEA (Absent)
Harold Draper- TVA (Present)
Participants: Marc Shown-NCDOT Hydraulics
Rekha Patel-NCDOT Roadway Design
Linwood Stone-PDEA
Bryan Kluchar-PDEA
Note: Actions taken since 4B meeting are shown in bold.
The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. with introductions and NCDOT Hydraulics giving a brief
description of the project. The following items were discussed:
Sheet No. 5
228 + 20 -L- Rt. Tributary to the Cane River. The possibility for reestablishing fish
passage through the existing 1004 (42 inch) cmp needs to be evaluated as the outlet
end is perched approximately 4 feet above the outlet. If DOT replaces the pipe
mitigation credit maybe received. DOT will investigate alternatives.
A 19 feet high cut would be required to replace the pipe. The pipe is presently on a
10% grade, which is not practical for fish passage. Since the pipe is in good shape
and only a 42 inch, NCDOT proposes to retain the pipe using a Junction boz at the

No energy dissipator needed. Existing outlets stable.
• 243+30 -L-Bailey Branch. Existing 2100 (84 inch) cmp does not need to be
extended and will be retained. WRC inquired if existing pipes could be retrofitted
with baffles. DOT will investigate.
Existing pipe already has bed material in it, no need to retrofit.
Sheet No. 11
• 249 + 50 -L- Lt. Tributary to Pine Swamp Branch. There may be a need to outlet the
roadway drainage in this area into the 1500 (60 inch) pipe extension with a junction
box to aid with energy dissipation.
Roadway drainage outleted into the 1500 (60 inch) pipe extension with a junction
box to aid with energy dissipation.
Sheet No. 12
• 253 + 00 -L- to 253+70 -L- Rt. DOT will investigate the opportunity for additional
stormwater treatment in this area. .
Grass lined ditch added to aid in treatment.
Sheet No. 13
• 256 + 20 -L- Rt. WRC stated that if the proposed pipe arch under the drive at this
site was relatively short and on a flat slope burying the pipe would be sufficient and
no baffles would be needed.
• 257 + 40 -L- Rt. Some type of energy dissipater should be used at the outlet of the
1800 rcp under -Y10-. DOT suggested the use of cross vane rock weirs. DOT will
also investigate the use of a natural rock energy dissipater pool also.
~~
~ ` ~ "~ ~ Rock energy dissipator pool added.
~~~
~~ ~ • 257+30 -L-. Pine Swamp Branch. Existing double barrel culvert will be extended up
~~, ~ r 41.c~ and down stream. Up stream the culvert will be extended in two directions. One
~ , ~ ' barrel will extend up along Y 10- to about Sta. 10+00 Y 10- and one barrel will
_ extend underneath Y10- at Sta. 10+55 and then parallel the -L- line from Y10- to
+/- Sta. 258+60 -L-.
• 257+00 -L- Rt. Retaining wall will be used to avoid encroachment into Pine Swamp
Branch.

279+90 -L-. Tributary to Little Crabtree Creek. Existing single barrel culvert will be
extended up and down stream.
Sheet No. 22
• 285+00 -L-. Little Crabtree Creek. Existing double barrel culvert will be extended up
and down stream..
This crossing is located in a regulated FEMA special flood hazard area. After
further design analysis NCDOT determined that additional hydraulic conveyance is
required at this crossing. The existing 2 @ 8'x 7' RCBC will be replaced with a 2 @
12' x 8' RCBC buried 1 foot below the stream bed with low flow diversion to divert
the low flow through one of the culvert barrels.
It was also determined that additional hydraulic conveyance is required just
upstream of this crossing under the driveways left of stations 284+23 -L- and
284+52 -L-. The existing 2 @ 12' x 7.6' coruugated steel pipe arches located under
each of these driveways will be replaced with 2 @ 11' x 9' RCBCs at each driveway
crossing. The culverts will be buried 1 foot below the stream bed with a low flow
diversion to divert the low flow through one of the culvert barrels.
f ~~'~ ~(;~ ~J The channel banks of Little Crabtree Creek from station 284+00 +/- -L- to station
~ ~'~ ~ 285+00 +/- -L- will have to be lined with class I rip rap.
F~~ ~~
• 285 + 60 -L- Lt. DOT will investigate the potential for stormwater
~ ~ (9L ~ treatment/detention where Y19- is being realigned resulting in an area of excess
right of way.
Grass swales used in this area.
• 10 + 40 -Y20- Lt. It was suggested to shift the outlet of the drainage structure at this
site to outside of the wetland boundary. USACOE indicated that the wetland
.,
boundary had been reduced and that the proposed outlet was no longer in the wetland.
Sheet No. 23
• 289+80 -L-. Ray Creek. Existing double barrel culvert will be ex#ended up and down
stream. Pipes up stream will be connected to culvert with a large junction box.
• 290 + 20 -L- Rt. A preformed scour hole will be used at the outlet of the 600 rcp in
this area.
Preformed scour hole added.
290 + 20 to 293 + 50 -L- Rt. A retaining wall is being proposed in this area in order
to minimize a lateral roadway encroachment into the floodplain of Little Crabtree
Creek.

Stream along -Y- 26 will be piped from intersection north along -Y-26 and outleted
into rip rap lined channel approximately 100 feet before entering Little Crabtree
Creek as shown on plans.
Sheet No. 30
• 312+60 -L-. George Fork. The existing bottomless culvert will be extended up and
downstream. If a bottomless structure can not be used for the extensions, baffles and
a low flow sill or diversion will be incorporated into the design.
Culvert design as a bottomless culvert.
• 313+40 -L- Lt. The need for a preformed scour hole will be investigated at the pipe
outlet on the north side of the roadway adjacent to George Fork.
Drainage outleted to the south side of the road into a grass swale.
• Stream relocation will be required on George Fork from Sta. 314 + 00 to 315 + 80 -
L- Lt.
Stream relocation designed as noted above.
314+40 -L-. Tributary to George Fork. Proposed 1500 rcp will be buried one foot.
Sheet No. 31
• 316 + 60 -L- Little Crabtree Creek. Extend existing box culvert up and downstream.
A low flow diversion maybe required upstream of this box culvert to keep the low
flow width of stream comparable to that of the upstream section.
This crossing is located in a regulated FEMA special flood hazard area. After
further design analysis NCDOT determined that additional hydraulic conveyance is
required at this crossing. An additional barrel will be added to the existing 3 @ 10'
z 8' RCBC on the east side. Low flow diversions will be used on the outer barrels to
divert the low flow through the inner culvert barrels. Bed material and flow depth is
being maintained in the culvert.
• 317 + 35 -L- Rt. DOT will investigate the need for a preformed scour hole or energy
dissipater at the outlet of the 450 rcp.
Preformed scour hole can not be used due to invert of pipe being below natural
ground. Standard rip rap outlet protection with a tail ditch will be used.
• 318+20 -L-. Shoal Creek. Extend existing box culvert upstream. In lieu of a
retaining wall along -Y30- upstream of the culvert, DOT proposes a stream relocation
due to the retaining wall encroaching on the creek.

Culvert on -Y- 33 designed with low flow channel and baffles. Stream relocation
designed upstream of culvert as noted above. Down stream the culvert will be
connected to the culvert extension at Sta. 327+90 -L- as there was not room for a
stream relocation. _
• -Y-33- Tributary to Plum Branch. This stream will likely be relocated along the west
side of -Y33-.
Stream relocation designed as shown the plans.
Sheet No. 35
• 331 + 00 -L- Rt. Stormwater treatment needs to be evaluated at the outlet of the 750
rcp
Roadway ditches will help treat stormwater.
Sheet No. 36
• 333+20 -L-. Tributary to Little Crabtree Creek. Extend existing pipe and culvert up
and down stream. The potential replacement of this pipe should be evaluated as well
as the need for some type of energy dissipation. Relocate stream from Sta. 333+60 -
L- Rt. To Sta. 333+20 -L- Rt.
Pipe in good shape.
• 10+50 Y34-. Little Crabtree Creek. Extend existing culvert up and down stream. A
low flow diversion may be required upstream of this box culvert to keep the low flow
width of stream comparable to that of the upstream section.
This crossing is located in a regulated FEMA special flood hazard area. Low flow
diversion added to divert the low flow through two of the culvert barrels. Baffles
not used in extensions since existing culvert is retaining bed material.
Sheet No. 37
• 337+25 -L-. Tributary to Little Crabtree Creek. Extend existing 1350 (54 inch) cmp
on the upstream end. The potential replacement of this pipe should be evaluated as
well as the need for some type of energy dissipation.
Pipe in good shape. Outlet buried and stable.
• 339+40 -L- Rt. Retaining wall being used to avoid encroachment on Little Crabtree
Creek.

Final Minutes for Permit Drawing Review Meeting
R-2519A
State Project 35609
US 19 FROM EAST OF SR 1336 (JACKS CREEK ROAD) TO SR 1186
(OLD US 19), YANCEY COUNTY, DIVISION 13
A Permit Drawing Review Meeting was held on Wednesday, March 21,
2007 in the Hydraulics conference room at the NCDOT Century Center
Complez, Raleigh.
Team Members: Andrew Nottingham-NCDOT Hydraulics (Present)
David Baker-USAGE (Present)
John Hennessy for Brian Wrenn- NCDWQ (Present)
Marla Chambers-NCWRC (Present)
Marella Buncick-USFWS (Present)
Chris Militscher-EPA (Absent)
Kathy Matthews-EPA (Present)
Harold Draper-TVA (Absent)
Ricky Tipton- NCDOT Division 13 (Present)
Brenda Moore- NCDOT Roadway Design (Present)
Carla Dagnino- NCDOT NEU (Present)
Neb Bullock-NCDOT Structure Design (Present)
Mark Staley for David Hams- NCDOT REU (Present)
Donnie Brew-FHWA (Present)
Steve Brown for Linwood Stone-NCDOT PDEA (Present)
Participants: Karen Gulledge-NCDOT Hydraulics
Rekha Patel-NCDOT Roadway Design
Jeff Hemphill- NCDOT NEU
Randy Griffin- NCDOT NEU
Jamie Lancaster- NCDOT NEU
Marissa Rodman- NCDOT NEU
Jeff Walston- NCDOT REU
Heather Renninger- NCDOT NEU
The meeting began at 1:05 p.m. with introductions and NCDOT Hydraulics giving a brief
description of the project. Prior to reviewing the permit drawings the following
comments were provided:
NCWRC noted that there were no bridges on this project and that they have concerns
about large mammal crossings (especially bears) for this project. It was noted that bears

Site 12: No changes recommended. EPA had previously questioned in the Hydraulic
Design review meeting if NCDOT had a policy on utilities in culverts. Hydraulics noted
that per discussions with the NCDOT Utilities section that the utility owner must get an
encroachment agreement with NCDOT. NCDOT will make a decision as to whether or
not to allow it depending on the situation and factors involved (type of material used,
how it will be connected, impedance on hydraulic flow etc.).
Site 13: No changes recommended. NCWRC asked if a new culvert could be used at this
location to facilitate fish passage. After discussion it was determined that the grade and
length of structure that would be required at this location would not make it practicable.
Site 14: Temporary stream impact will be changed to permanent stream impact where
riprap is place below normal water level. It was noted that the existing riprap had
naturalized at this location over time.
Site 15: No changes recommended.
Site 16: No changes recommended.
Site 17: NCDOT will investigate the wetland boundary and see if the drainage can be
discharged outside of wetland. If it can not they will ensure that it will discharge into
wetland at non-erosive velocities. After review it was determined to leave the pipe as
shown . The 10 year outlet velocity is non-erosive (V10=0.57ft/sec) and is shown on
the permit drawing.
Site 18: No changes recommended.
Site 19: No changes recommended.
Site 20: No changes recommended.
Site 21: No changes recommended.
Site 22: No changes recommended.
Site 23: No changes recommended.
Site 24: No changes recommended.
Site 25P: No changes recommended.
Site 25: No changes recommended.
Site 26: EPA had concerns that some of the variables in the morphological table were
differing and wanted to make sure the stream was stable. NCDWQ also expressed some
concerns about some of the numbers. NCDWQ noted that other reference reaches should

In closing, NCDOT noted that they plan to use extra mitigation credits from project R- .
2518A&B for R-2519A and there were no objections from the agencies.

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 3Z5/ Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is sestimated to average 10 hours per response, ahhough the majorhy of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and -
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Reaponderrts should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person shall be subject to any penalty for fazing to comply with a collection of information if it doss not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Reese DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be wbmitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection ,Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form wdl be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permk application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location end character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
annlir~tinn IsaA ~eamnla draurinns and inatruetinnsl and ba submitted to the Dlstrict-Enainae ft-OYSFihe IOCatiOn of the DfODOSed
activity. An application that is not completed in futl will be returned. ' ~ 1 1 ~, ~^~ ~-~ ' ; > T"' ~
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO B E ~Fl *- =B '~"
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE ~TE RECEIVED j

'~ JUN 292007 ~~ .S'DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
~~
~~t'
/TEMS BELOW TO BED /L ~ BY APPL/C ~ ""
5. APPLICANT'S NAME ~ 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAM AND l'ITLE rsneaenrsnorrsauiredl
NCDOT-PD&EA ~ A4x' ph; l Harri G ~ p.E. NCDOT, ONE
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
a. Residence ~ a. Residence
b. Business 919 - 7 3 3 - 3141 ~ b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to set in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE rase:rsuuaions,
Improvements to US 19/US-19E from I-26/US 19/US 23) in Madison County to SR 1186 (Old US
19)in Yancey County (TIP Nos. R-2518/R-2519A)
13. NAME OF WATERBODY. IF KNOWN rif annllrAhrsl 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS /ii sppMrabisl
Many.See permit drawings and cover letter
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT ~
Madison and Yancey North Carolina
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, rseeinsVUCYioral
Multi-lane facility with partial access control
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See vicinity map provided with attached permit drawings.
R 4 7 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE. (Proponent: CECW-0R)

18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include er/tenrrresl
Multi-lane road facility
19. Pfo feet Purpose (De+crrbe the reason or purpose o! me F.%cr, see insrrucrro„sl
The purpose of the project is to add traffic capacity to US 19/US 19E. Other factors
contributing to the need of the project are system linkage and safety.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR Fill MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reasonls) for Discharge
Roadway fill (in wetlands and surface water), pipe/culvert construction, bridge construction
(temporary impacts only), stream relocation.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Twe in Cubic Yards
Roadway fill
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled Iseeinsrnrctionsl
See impact summary table in the attached permit drawings
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ~ No " IF YES. DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adpining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (lf more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See property owner list in attached permit drawings
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning. building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify tfiat the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
d authorized agent of the applicant.
< <• t'1 0
IGNATURE OF APPLICANT DAT SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 hss been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall bs fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

R-2518B Mod., US 19E
~~ ~!s~,~
Subject: R-2518B Mad., US 19E Ay
From: "marla chambers" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:00:12 -0500
To: "'Baker, David K."' <[e-mail]>, "'Wrenn, Brian"'
<[e-mail]>
The only comment I have regarding the minor revisions, is I want to make
sure that the bridge crossings, including the Cane River, have a clear bank
(riprap free) area of at least 10 feet wide on each side of the stream
underneath the bridge for terrestrial animal passage. (This is a standard
request listed in all bridge replacement scoping letters & a safety
concern.)
Marla Chambers
Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Rd.
Oakboro, NC 28129
[e-mail]
phone (cell): 704-984-1070
1 of 1 3/28/2008 10:40 AM