20071837 Ver 1_Application_20071031

e..s STAl[ o ~ L~ 'a.'" 5'e.,..
~ j `~
~~
~'os iii ~ ~ ~ l>~ ~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Atin ~%v '` ~~
Rq~y;, ,
DEPARTIV~NT OF 'I~~ANSPORTATION
MIQ-~AEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 26, 2007
~~ U
~3
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
~ ~ i:egulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 fl 7
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
O
Q. ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Baker
J NCDOT Coordinator
~ SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Applications for the proposed
~, Replacement of Bridges 109 & 110 over East Fork Big Crabtree
_ Creek On SR 1002 (Crabtree Creek Rd. in Mitchell County.
S Federal Project No BRZ-1002(9), State Project No. 8.2880701,
~ TIl' No. B-4202.
v
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Pre-Construction Notification, permit drawings,
andl/2 size plans for the above referenced project. A Categorical Exclusion was
completed for the project on June 25, 2004. A Construction Consultation was completed
on September 11, 2007 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available
upon request. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridges No. 109 and No. 110 on the same alignments with new 75 and 80 feet
long single span bridges, respectively. There will be 80 linear feet of permanent impacts
to surface waters. Traffic will be maintained via two onsite temporary detours to the east
of the existing bridges.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The water resource impacted for project B-4202 is East Fork Big
Crabtree Creek [Index # 7-2-48-2], and is classified as "C Tr" by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). The project is located in the French Broad River
Basin, Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 06010108. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1545 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORCa RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of project
study azea. East Fork Big Crabtree Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or
Scenic River, or as a national Wild and Scenic River. East Fork Big Crabtree Creek is not
listed as a 2006 303(d) impaired water nor are any listed within one mile of the project
area.
Permanent Impacts: The construction of the new bridges will result in 45 linear feet of
impacts to surface waters for the replacement of Bridge No. 110 (Site 1) and 20 linear
feet of impacts to surface waters for the replacement of Bridge No. 109 (Site 3) for bank
stabilization. Outfall protection for a drainage ditch entering East Fork Big Crabtree
Creek between the two bridges will result in 15 linear feet of fill in surface waters (Site
2).
Temporary Impacts: Temporary impervious dikes will be utilized for the removal of
existing vertical abutments and installation of new abutments resulting in <0.02 acre of
temporary impacts to surface waters for the replacement of Bridge No. 110 (Site 1) and
<0.01 acre of temporary impacts to surface waters for the replacement of Bridge No. 109
(Site 3).
Utilities: There are no impacts to jurisdictional resources due to utilities for this project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 109 is a single span structure with an overall length of 41
feet, and a clear roadway width of 19.3 feet. Bridge No. 110 is a single span structure
with an overall length of 42 feet, and a clear roadway width of 19.2 feet. Both bridges
were constructed in 1952 and consist of a timber deck with an asphalt surface on a steel I-
beams. Bridge Nos. 109 and 110 are structurally deficient and according to federal
guidelines are considered to be functionally obsolete. Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented; however, there is potential for
bridge components to drop into Waters of the United States during demolition. Any
bridge components that fall into the water during demolition will be removed according
to Best Management Practices.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), aze protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May
10, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists eleven federally
protected species for Mitchell County (Table 1). The Bog Turtle and Roan Mountain
Bluet were added to the Mitchell County list since the publication of the CE document.
The biological conclusion for both is "No Effect" due to lack of suitable habitat.
T~hln 1 FPrlPrally Prntecterl Cneciec of Mitchell (".nuntV_
Federal Habitat Biological
Scientific Name Common Name Status Conclusion
Clemm s muhlenber ii Bo Turtle T (S/A) No Not Re uired
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern flying E No No Effect
coloratus s uirrel
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E No No Effect
2

Alasmidonta raveneliana A alachian elktoe E No No Effect
Microhexura montiva a S ruce-fir moss s ider E No No Effect
Geum radiatum S readin avens E No No Effect
Liatris helleri Heller's blazin star T No No Effect
Solida o s ithamaea Blue Ride oldenrod T No No Effect
S iraea vir iniana Vir 'nia s iraea T No No Effect
G mnoderma lineare Rock ome lichen E No No Effect
Hedyotis purpurea var.
montana Roan Mountain Bluet E No No Effect
MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization: NCDOT has minimized impacts to the fullest extent
possible.
• The proposed bridge replacements will mostly span East Fork Big Crabtree Creek
• The proposed bridge replacements will use the existing footers from the vertical
abutments; therefore, avoiding new permanent surface water impacts from the bridge
construction.
A September 28, 2007 correspondence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) listed a trout moratorium for this project from January 1 to April
15. The Greensheet from the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document stated that there is a
Sunfish and Rock Bass Moratorium from May 1 to July 15. Neither of these species is
offered federal protection in North Carolina, nor will the inwater construction of the
proposed project significantly affect the sunfish and bass. Conversely, imposing an
unwarranted moratorium for these species could result in a longer overall construction
period. Therefore, NCDOT will only honor the trout moratorium.
Cornpensator~Miti ag_tion: Construction for this project will impose temporary impacts
and minimal permanent impacts to jurisdictional waters. There are no HQWs on the
project and no loss of Waters of the US from bank stabilization therefore, no mitigation is
proposed for this project.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project is currently scheduled for review on April 29, 2008 and to Let on June 17,
2008 with construction scheduled to begin shortly thereafter.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of East Fork Big
Crabtree Creek be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing the temporary dewatering of East Fork Big Crabtree
Creek. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion". The NCDOT requests that these activities
be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23.
3

Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all Water Quality Certification general
conditions, therefore, we are not requesting written concurrence. We are providing two
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
We anticipate that comments from the NCWRC will be requested prior to authorization
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). By copy of this letter and attachment,
NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their
comments to the USAGE and NCDOT within 30 days of receipt of this application.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. A copy of this permit application will be posted on the
NCDOT Website at http://207.4.62.65/PDEA/PermApps/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Jeff Hemphill at [phone].
Sincerely
~, ,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Mazella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Hazold Draper, TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Vincent Rhea, P.E., PDEA Planning Engineer
4

Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
2 0 0 7 1 8 3 7
U5ACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to ttus project, please enter "Not appncatiie" or ..NiA~~.)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWPs 23 & 33
3. If this notificatiori is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: (9192733-3141
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:- [phone]
Fax Number:
Page I of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Brides No. 9 & No. 10 on SR 1002 (Crabtree Creek Rd)
over East Fork Big Crabtree Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4202
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Mitchell Nearest Town: Little Switzerland
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 west to Exit 86
in Marion and turn right on NC 226. Proceed north on NC 226 for approximately seventeen
miles to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Head west on the Parkway for three and a half miles to SR
1002 Crabtree Road) and turn right. Proceed approximately two and a half miles to the
bridge sites.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36° 8.55' °N 82° 1.33' °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: East Fork Big Crabtree Creek
8. River Basin: French Broad River
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is located in a rural section of Mitchell County. The
Page 2 of 9

site is primarily surrounded by mixed hardwoods, bottomland forest and by maintained/
disturbed land.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
NCDOT.proposes to replace Bridges No. 109 (41 feet long) and No. 110 (42 feet long) on
the same alignments with new 75 and 80 feet long single span bridges, respectively. Outfall
protection for a drainage ditch entering East Fork Big Crabtree Creek between the two
bridges will result in permanent impacts to surface water. Traffic will be maintained via two
onsite temporary detours to the east of the existing bridges. Construction equipment will
consist of heave trucks, earth moving equipment, cranes, etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing brides are structurally deficient and
according~to federal guidelines are considered functionally obsolete. The replacement of
these bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable}. If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
Page 3 of 9

wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 65 linear feet of permanent
impacts to surface waters resulting from bank stabilization at both bridges and 15 linear feet for
outfall protection at a drainage ditch entering East Fork Big Crabtree Creek between the two
bridges. Temporary impervious dikes will be utilized for the removal of existing vertical
abutments and installation of new abutments on the existing footers resulting in <0.03 acre of
temporaryconstruction impacts.
1. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acre
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on
ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
Gear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres
)
Bridge 109 E. Fk. Big Crabtree Cr. Permanent Perennial 27 feet 45 <0.03
Bridge 109 E. Fk. Big Crabtree Cr. Temporary Perennial 27 feet 110 <0.02
Between Bridges E. Fk. Big Crabtree Cr. Permanent Perennial 27 feet 15 <0.01
Bridge 110 E. Fk. Big Crabtree Cr. Permanent Perennial 27 feet 20 <0.01
Bridge 110 E. Fk. Big Crabtree Cr. Temporary Perennial 27 feet 30 <0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 220 <0.08
Page 4 of 9

4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
N!A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the ro'ect:
Stream Impact (acres): <0.05
Wetland Irri act (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) <0.05
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 80
6. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
7. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
Page 5 of 9

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

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

Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (rton-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No ^
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Page 8 of 9

XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~.1U--~ 10.E
Applicant/
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

~ J, ~
~~
~ / ~ 80
.---~ ~
~,,
1--'
~--- \ -
_ ~~`~..~
~~u~nty
`~ _ti~,\
-``,f ~ ,
~~~~~
~_ ~- ~/ so
NORTH CAROLINA
,9
E
_~ - ,
goo
~-- ~rv
f~ ~ 1 2 5
' C
S
~~" _ -
~~ __i-' ~
S
N
Obi
f ~-
_~ ~~ ~
r- ~__ ---
~~ ~ ~~ 2

-_ / __ _~ - ~ - ~ wi¢enan
_~~ \ ~ -- ~
Qi ~ isg h za
~~ N I n
Foxes

i'0
3~ --~ ~oun~j~
__
P~~,-.
~ational
~ ~Fc~est ~ i
1
~- -~ '~
~~
~ ~,
._
~~h~~
o ~~n~,-
~'
_- .
,- '~
,,,_
Pis ah
Natio
--€o es `,
~\ 221
~'
~'~~
221
-~ /~
WETLAII tD PERMIT DRA WI11lG
VICI11tITY MAP
B-4202
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MITCHELL COUNTY
PROJECT.• 33549.1.1 (B~202)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0.109
AND NO.110 OVER CRABTREE
CREEK ON SR 1002
&92007
aW 1(Ira
L. . _r f -

(r ~ ~ ~ _ 1 ~ 1 v~ II I I ~ ~. `l~'IOUlltdlr~ i ~ ~ - 4 + I r ' _ w~ ' - - \J _ -
11 ~
i
age,~Rock ~ `` j \ I _~ ' ~ '- - • T\ ~f J ~ /,-„ '---7.
r t \ ~ ~ ~ ~-
' ~I [(~/i
+{1 _ _~r 1 %i t J1 ~ 1 `h l ' +'. ~ i1l /p~l1,,~ `r' J~ r ,
.. I 1t ~ ; ~ - - -. 1er ( F`~~~ ~+'t _'~L 1 t~"' rP~ r~/j'/~U
~. _ ` F ~ 11~ ^r ~ _
(=u ~ ~ t,1 ~ ~+ ..~I~j v. r r 1 ~1~~ it/, / I ~I~ttt
,, ~ ~ ~ 1 , ;i ~ ;~
t i '"' ~I ~! I ' ~~ t `E ~ - l./\-~-.j ?;~~ I I V~~V/71 ~/;~'7 ~ •j.CoHi~(~e}n~,.
it ij •~\ ,1 l~ l r-` ~/~ r; rF_ ,. r r7 ~-t "~' 1~ J ,1 r/ ~. A~ `, IT ;1
r} '~ ~.} ` ~ ~~ ~\~ ~ ,,~ \~ _ it r +~~ i_; ~% k 1 ((f ~ /,~~~;. _`y^-=,` )~.i~
I /J •` ~-- .\ j,l ( l (..i" ~. `. ~ / I ( ''~~\ SJr t __ r`^.- , ~/~ \ , J7 ~r. •-~_7 \'s
~ 1 3
(f , ~/^' . ~'~ a4wieW ~Cecn~ ~ ~ ~/ l) 1 j t , -r l / ~~ J ~ J ~ ~ ~!/ ' ~ "`' P9 iq`'' ~ cT ~ 3JS~9 . ~ . ~ g~' ~{ZOL ~r.B~
1 ' _
7 ( ~
} I J7 ` r ~
1 ~ O 7 ! ~~ (% ~ `i iii /~~~ VA\. it t .~// \ _' i r t ~ -
° ~ ` IZEPtkGEM~NT of ~-O~al[+ n3O.
r t. I ~', '\ - / I I f ~\. ~`\~~\\ \\~ °1 ' ly 1~' '~\~\ ~ ~ \ \ ~,\~i l ~tU t; f.
4 -~`r _` fl+ ! 1 \ `~ I~ 1\ `: '~'~l 1 I/ . ~ r _ tl O aNL> ~JO. ICa1 Ov~fL WWW
~!P r ~ A~~ it II f'.'! I \ ~ ~JJ~ ~ ~~ ~~( >~ ~ 7 1 t~ ~ J~ ~:~ _
_ t l t C l ~ ` ) ~ .l '<` 1 ` , , l , I GRR[tsT7EE ~[LfctlL U.J S(L. IooL
~'~~, {1 ~. ~ , tj~ 7~~ r ~ ~ ~/ ~r~~ , l~%~ (. ~ ~~ ~ ~:~ ~ I~ ~/~ITth1E1.~, GC•
~ // ~ ~ t ~ `~ ~\~` 7 \_'ta~ 1 ~'~ i ~i ~! ~ r , 1 J ` h I i ` ~,,I^ 1~7 fjt J7 % ~ j (.~~."'~? ~ `` ~ 7 ~ ~~ ~~
t' `fit ~ : _ r ~ ~ \,.i_ 1~~;~4 r ; 4c ?,, ~~, r '~ ); ; ` ~-~ '~~ ~ 'i , - ~`
1 ti',,~ `-_ iJ~~r \ .~\~=~'~O ~ { JIiJ ,41}/1~;~~ ~'\C~\ ~ •I ~~ `s~rypmfle: ~~ ti ~~ l ^~ ~t, ,
~,{ ~~` ~JtrJ ~ \ 1 I/r '1~ ~ %} 1~~)"1 11 '~ ~ ,'( {-- ~ ~ ~[ ~(v) / 1 1~ ~
~~i, lr. ~r ~j'' t_~s x29 i,~~ - "'/ /'~'\f t Q f~~ `rI`'~~'}~~ ~+1\. / j ~'u
3•_ -, ~ ` •\ i t ~ '~.} l\ / `t t t t'\ _. ~ E -^r 3 ~ r J 1 , ( ~ ( ~~-- / ~ p - ~ .
fal vt• ~ 1 jil ' \\t ~' , `~ ~ 1 l; l ~ -t3factt"f+lo~urita n ~htu
w t~ ~~~ ! ~ ` ~'111''~\ ^~~ ~ ~ ~/` ~~ _.1/ r f s i _f ! : `~fe^n Ch \ 1 ~~3200 + "gyp --~ • 4~
~, .. ~ - ~~ ~\ ~`=.~~ ~ ~,-- ~ 'f' l ~ - ~ `~ }~ J /ji_ ~~'-~t ~r } - ' }~ ~ ~~ / - 'rte
~J~~'>!/>;/^~1\/\I} 1 t' ' ~ "I"(-~ lpp I f,,f )/, l ,I;F,I/,f.~'~ ~,) l , ~r~ l ' Ol~~'~i~--y---'~ ~y.
'/ ~~- \, /( /J14\ .,t` r ~ j~ \ c3 ~I' lr_.~11 r f~`. f~ \~ r ~ ~-~ ~ ,
_ ~ 1 ~ ~ } N~,,_
_ i r L`Rwt„(cs.=d,"x[14,//~t `J~ J' ~,/ `,\\`j` 'C ~ 7~~ ~ `\ . ~ ~~ { JJ` /~'~~\`~ t ,'`. ~~ , y o-w.
~ -, ,
J, ~ ~ !_\~ ~ 11 ~ ~ r f _~~f~` `~ ±~ '~=~~ t\`~~~.~ ~-._..f~~>< (ji.)~ ~ N! I ~ ~ \
iii; .~ i \~, ' r ~~ ~ , ' ,~iJ t - :~ ~ 1~~`\
(l~~~~-' I ~ ? ~7 .'\ `~('/rte ~}.~ ~ ,~ o
t I \ ~ ~r t .. ~ C \; r' j I! \ \
,\ / f \ /
'~---t`,~% (jjr\\til~~ o r I , 1` ' _ ~ \\\.1~~> ~ i~~`JJ'J ~ *I((~}1~'j - ~.:_ ~.:. ~ \1 \q\~ \
L~~Jj (j1 t', \` fj ~ _ `i )~~ff! ~i~~~~~~ ~'} t1,1 -~ ~ f~~.J 5 ~~ ti_
:ame: CELO Location: 035° 51' 02.0" N 082° 08' 03.0" W
)ate: 12/13/2006 Caption: Project: 33549.1.1 (B-4202)
icale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Replacement of Bridge No. 109
and No. 110 over Crabtree Creek on SR 1002
!'nnvrinhi (('.) 10Q7 f,Aantarh Inn _ , '7

Uf ~
` Q
Iw
O m
~.
jr

NC DEPARTMENT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MITCHELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 33549.1.1 (B-4202)
9/18/2007
ATN Revised 3131/05
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp,
(ft
Natural
Stream
Design
ft)
1 -L- STA 12+91 Dike 1 <0.01 60
1 -L- STA 13+02 Dike 2 <0.01 50
-L- STA 19+94 Dike 4 <0.01 30
1 -L- Sta 12+59 LT Ri Ra at Embankment <0.01 15
1 -L- Sta 12+94 LT Ri Ra at Embankment <0.01 15
1 -L- Sta 12+94 RT Ri Ra at Embankment <0.01 15
-L- Sta 20+05 LT Ri Ra at Embankment <0.01 20
-L- Sta 15+75 RT Ri Ra Outfall Protection <0.01 15

TOTALS: <0.05 <0.03 80 140

OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS

O
Emerald Village, lnc. PO Box 361
Little Switzerland, NC 28749

O
Robert D. Armstrong Vl PO Box 2520Q
Gallows Boy.Virgin Islands
O Lillian Sparks 129 Crabtree Road
pruce Pine. NC 28777
O Morel Enterprises
Limited Enterprises 5292 Boca Marina Clrcle South
Boca Raton,FL 33487
O Marsha L. Styles Sp~~ e Pi~erNC 2877

9
O
Francis Boyd 3304 Crabtree Road
Spruce Pine. NC 28777

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MITCHELL COUNTY
PROPERTY 4W11tER
11lAME A111D ADDRESS
B-4202
0
N
N
m
PROJECT: 33549.1.1 (B-202)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0.109
AND NO.I10 OVER CRABTREE
CREEK ON SR 1002
8271007

MITCHELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NOS. 109 & 110 ON SR 1002 (CRABTREE CREEK ROAD)
OVER CRABTREE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1002(9)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2880701
TIP N0. B-4202
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
23 ~
D TE ~s~Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
-~ ,f' ! /
,~ F / r
p ~° F_. P
u ~ ~- i
DATE -.~;: ,.John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

r
MITCHELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NOS. 109 & 110 ON SR 1002 (CRABTREE CREEK ROAD)
OVER CRABTREE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1002(9)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2880701
TIP N0. B-4202
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
(~-2-
Date
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
r
Vincent J. Rhe~~E., Project Development Engineer
Project Develop ent and Environmental Analysis Branch
Montell W. Irvin, P.E., P.T.O.E..
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
MITCHELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NOS. 109 & 110 ON SR 1002 (CRABTREE CREEK ROAD)
OVER CRABTREE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1002(9)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2880701
TIP N0. B-4202
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section
404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division Construction
The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water work between May 1 to July 15 to protect fish spawning.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
June 2004

MITCHELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NOS. 109 & 110 ON SR 1002 (CRABTREE CREEK ROAD)
OVER CRABTREE CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1002(9)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2880701
T.I.P. N0. B-4202
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge Nos. 109 & 110 located on SR 1002 (Crabtree Creek Road) over Crabtree Creek are
included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRZ-1002(9)). The location is shown in
Figure 1.
No substantial impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge Nos. 109 & 110 have sufficiency ratings of 45.6
and 25.9, respectively, out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridges are considered structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete, The replacement of these inadequate structures will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge Nos. 109 and 110 are located on SR 1002 (Crabtree Creek Road) in rural Mitchell County. Refer to Figure
1 for the project location and Figures 2 and 3 for photos of the existing project study area.
Bridge No. 109 was constructed in 1952. The bridge is currently posted to restrict weight limits to 15 tons for
single vehicles (SV) and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST). The overall length of the single-span
structure is 41 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 19.3 ft that includes two travel lanes over the bridge. The
superstructure consists of a timber deck on I-beams. The substructure consists of abutments made of yount
masonry. The height from crown to streambed is 9 ft.
Bridge No. 110 was constructed in 1952. The bridge is currently posted to restrict weight limits to 11 tons for
single vehicles (SV) and 15 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST). The overall length of the single-span
structure is 42 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 19.2 ft that includes two travel lanes over the bridge, The
superstructure consists of a timber deck on I-beams. The substructure consists of abutments made of yount
masonry. The height from crown to streambed is 9 ft.
SR 1002 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2001 average daily
traffic volume (ADT) is estimated to be 300 vehicles per day (vpd). The percentages of truck traffic are 1 percent
TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected 2025 ADT is 600 vpd.
1

V
The two-lane facility measures approximately 16 ft in width and has 2 ft grassed shoulders on each side of the
roadway in the vicinity of the bridges. The horizontal alignment of SR 1002 is poor adjacent to the bridges. There
are numerous curves on either side of the bridges. The vertical alignment is generally flat within the project study
area. There is no posted speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the bridges. Therefore, the statutory speed limit
is 55 miles per hour (mph). Existing right-of-way is approximately 60 ft in width.
There are aerial electrical and telephone services in the vicinity of the bridges. There are no utilities attached to
either bridge. Utility impacts are expected to be minimal.
This section of SR 1002 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
Land use within the project area is a mixture of undeveloped land, rural residential properties, and forest land.
There is a large commercial gem mining operation at the intersection of SR 1002 and SR 1100 about one mile
south of the project.
According to Mitchell County school officials, two buses cross these bridges in the morning and three buses cross
them in the afternoon for a total of five trips per day.
Crash records maintained by the NCDOT indicate there have been no crashes reported in the vicinity of Bridge
Nos. 109 and 110 during a recent three year period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based upon the preliminary hydraulic reports, the proposed replacement structures for Bridge Nos. 109 and 110
will consist of a 75 ft bridge and an 80 ft bridge, respectively. The structures will provide two 11 ft travel lanes
with 3 ft of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge.
The length and opening size of the proposed structures may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows, as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final design phase of
the project.
The roadway approaches will provide two 11 ft travel lanes with 5 ft grassed shoulders. The grade will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. The design speed will vary for each alternative.
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridges are described below:
Alternative A
Alternative A consists of replacing the bridges in-place with new bridges. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by on-site detours east of the existing bridges. The total length of roadway approach work for this
alternative is approximately 760 ft. Refer to Figures 4 thru 6 for illustration of this alternative.
2

The on-site detours will be located 30 to 50 ft east of the proposed bridges. The temporary structures will consist
of two 84 inch CMP's for Bridge No. 110 and three 84 inch CMP's for Bridge No. 109. The detour roadway
approaches for Bridge No. 110 will provide one 14 ft signalized travel lane and 3 ft wide shoulders on each side.
The detour roadway approaches for Bridge No. 109 will provide two 9 ft travel lanes and 3 ft wide shoulders on
each side. The length of the temporary detours will be approximately 260 ft for Bridge No. 110 and 428 ft for
Bridge No 109.
Alternative B
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridges with new bridges on new alignment east of SR 1002. During
construction, the existing bridges will be used to maintain traffic. The total length of roadway approach work for
this alternative is approximately 1665 ft. Refer to Figures 7 and 8 for illustration of the alternative.
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative because of the higher environmental impacts
associated with the new location alignment.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridges due to their poor condition. This is
not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1002.
Investigation of the existing structures by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
old bridges is not feasible due to their deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative (Alternative A)
Alternative A consists of replacing the bridges in-place with new bridges. Alternative A was selected as the
preferred because it has the least environmental impacts and the lowest construction costs.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exception
The speed limit is not posted on SR 1002; therefore, a statutory speed limit of 55 mph applies. Due to the
existing road conditions a design exception will be required for the horizontal alignment for Alternative A.
J

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for each alternative, based on current dollars, are shown below:
Table 1
Estimated Project Costs
Alternative A (Preferred) Alternative B
Structure Removal existin $16,400 $16,400
Structure Proposed $347,200 $347,200
Detour Structure and Approaches $166,618 $0
Roadwa A roaches $87,477 $470,766
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $169,305 $266,634
En ineerin and Contin encies $113,000 $199,000
Right-of-Way/Easement and Utilities $92,000 $113,000
Total Project Cost $992,000 $1,300,000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program is
$760,000 including $100,000 spent in prior years, $60,000 for right-of--way and $600,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of existing
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
A. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information pertaining to the project
area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Celo and Little Switzerland 7.5-minute quadrangle maps.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Celo and Little
Switzerland 7.5-minute quadrangles.
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project study area
(Scale: 1:1200 scale).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation
Service) provisional Soil Survey of Mitchell County, North Carolina (unpublished).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources (NCDENR, 2000a, 2000b, 2001). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species in the project study area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of
protected and candidate species (March 3, 2001) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
4

(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, 2001). NCNHP files were reviewed for
documented occurrences of state and federally listed species. USFWS Recovery Plans for federal listed species
were reviewed, where applicable.
A field investigation of natural resources within the project study area was conducted on July 25, 2001. Water
resources were identified and categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of
Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify
plant communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968). Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980), Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and
Delaware (Rohde, et al., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas (Potter, et al., 1980), and Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985).
Approximate boundaries of major vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing aerial
photography of the project study area. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or suspected
species, incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as Birdsong and other sounds), and
secondary indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and burrows). Predictions
regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented utilizing a general qualitative habitat assessment
based on existing vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods prescribed in the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the Corps' March 6, 1992
guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Values of wetlands delineated were
assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). Wetland
types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the
field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey methods.
B. Physiography and Soils
Mitchell County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian) Mountains Physiographic Province of western
North Carolina. The county encompasses 220 square miles and is primarily rural. The county ranges in
elevation from approximately 1,900 ft mean sea level (msl) where the Nolichucky River flows into Tennessee to
over 5,800 ft in the Roan Mountain area msl. Elevations within the project study area range from approximately
2,940 to 3,000 ft msl, with the stream bed near the bridge lying at approximately 2,940 ft msl.
The portion of Mitchell County within the project study area (NRCS. map panels 1-11) has been mapped by NRCS
under the current provisional soil survey. Official soil series descriptions were also obtained by the NRCS
(USDA: http:/lwww.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd). A brief description of soil types mapped by NRCS and/or
observed during field investigation is as follows:
• Sandy cobbly fluvaguents along the stream bed (unmapped by NRCS but observed during field
investigation).
5

Bandana sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. This soil unit consists of very deep,
somewhat poorly drained sandy loamy that are found on floodplains of small streams in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. The A horizon of Bandana sandy loamy typically consists of up to 8.0 inches of
yellowish brown (10YR5/4) dry, friable, slightly acidic sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid and
runoff is negligible to very low. Bandana sandy loamy underlie the East Fork Big Crabtree Creek
floodplain in the northern portion of the project study area. This soil is classified as non-hydric (USDA,
1996).
• Dellwood-Reddies complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. This map unit is comprised of
50 to 60 percent Dellwood soils and 40 to 50 percent Reddies soils. These soils are moderately well-
drained and occur on floodplains. The surface layer typically consists of a thick, dark colored, loamy to
sandy layer. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and rapid in the subsoil. The seasonal
high water table ranges from 2.0 to 4.0 ft below the surface. These soils underlie the East Fork Big
Crabtree Creek floodplain in the southern portion of the project study area. These soils are classified as
non-hydric (USDA, 1996).
Saunook-Thunder complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes, stony. This map unit is comprised of 50 to 60
percent Saunook soils and 40 to 50 percent Thunder soils. These soils are very deep and well-drained
and occur on benches, fans, and toe slopes in coves. The surface layer is typically a thick, dark loamy
layer. Numerous stones are scattered across the surface, especially along drainageways. Permeability
is moderate in Saunook soils and is moderate to moderately rapid in Thunder soils. The seasonal high
water table is greater than 6.0 ft below the surface. Seeps and springs are common. These soils
underlie moderately sloping land surfaces west of the East Fork Big Crabtree Creek floodplain in the
southwestern portion of the project study area. These soils are classified as non-hydric (USDA, 1996).
Chandler-Micaville complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes, stony. This map unit is comprised of Chandler
loamy and Micaville sandy loams. These soils are very deep and somewhat excessively drained. They
occur on upland ridges and side slopes. The surface layer is loamy and numerous stones are scattered
across the surface. Permeability is moderately rapid. The seasonal high water table is greater than 6.0 ft
below the surface. These soils underlie moderately to steeply sloping land surfaces east of the East Fork
Big Crabtree Creek floodplain in the southeastern portion of the project study area. These soils are
classified as non-hydric (USDA, 1996).
C. Water Resources
C.1. Waters Impacted
A perennial stream, Crabtree Creek, comprises the single water resource within the project study area. Crabtree
Creek is located within the Nolichucky River subbasin of the French Broad River Drainage Basin. The French
Broad River Basin is the ninth largest watershed in North Carolina, encompassing 2,842 square miles. Crabtree
Creek is approximately 15 ft wide within the project study area. The average stream depth observed at the time
of the field investigation was 0.5 to 2.5 ft. The field investigation occurred during a rain event and, as a result,
surface waters were turbid. Water levels appeared to be slightly above the ordinarily high water level at the time
of the field investigation.
a

C.2. Waters Resource Characteristics
The substrate of Crabtree Creek in the project study area is comprised of sediments ranging in size from sand to
boulders. The stream within the project study area is relatively straight and exhibits a relatively simple trapezoidal
cross-section. No sand bars or channel meanders were observed.
The stream banks are confined by vertical retaining walls beneath and adjacent to the existing bridge. A portion
of the left stream bank upstream of the bridge has been armored with riprap to protect the road embankment.
The left stream bank downstream of the bridge is well vegetated with a 40 to 60 ft wide zone of healthy trees,
shrubs, and grass with good root systems. The left stream bank upstream of the bridge parallels the right-of-way
of SR 1002 and, as a result, is less densely vegetated. The right stream bank throughout the project study area
is vegetated with a zone of few small trees and shrubs that is less than 20 ft wide and which appears generally
healthy. The stream banks are comprised of unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of alluvial and colluvial
origin, with several intervening riprap segments.
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project study area is
designated as USGS hydrologic unit 06010108 (the Nolichucky River drainage basin). Under the North Carolina
DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project study area is designated
as Subbasin 04-03-06 (the North and South Toe Rivers and Nolichucky River subbasin). Crabtree Creek has
been assigned Stream Index Number 7-2-48-2.
Crabtree Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C Tr. The C designation indicates waters that
are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture,
and other uses found suitable for Class "C" waters. Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body
contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis. The surface water classification Tr is a supplemental
classification intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. As stated
in the standards, this designation affects wastewater quality but not the type of discharges, and there are no
watershed development restrictions except stream buffer zone requirements of the North Carolina Division of
Land Resources.
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile of the project study area.
Crabtree Creek does not appear on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 303d list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses.
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates. There
are no benthic monitoring stations on Crabtree Creek within the project study area.
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are broadly
referred to as "point sources". No registered point source discharges are located within the Crabtree Creek
watershed or the project study area (EPA, 2001).
C.3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream banks, removal of
"/

riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of revegetation operations, and
installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
aforementioned construction activities:
• Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project study area during and immediately following construction.
• Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface water and
groundwater during construction.
• Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed land
surfaces.
• A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum products)
from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of vegetation
within or overhanging the watercourse.
• Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project study area, NCDOT's Besf
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Wafers (NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable by limiting instream
activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
C.4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all
contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented
in three NCDOT documents entitled: Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal, Policy:
Bridge Demolition and Removal in Water of the United Slates, and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
The superstructure for Bridge Nos. 109 and 110 are composed of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure is composed of yount masonry abutments. Neither the superstructure nor the substructure will
create any temporary fill in the creek. However, the removal of the substructure may create some disturbance of
the streambed. If removal of the substructure will create disturbance in the streambed, a turbidity curtain should
be used due to sediment concerns.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) requests a moratorium on in-water work between
May 1 and July 15 to prevent off-site sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry downstream of the site.
Because a moratorium applies and Crabtree Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C Tr, this
project falls under Case 2 (allowing no in-water work during moratorium periods) of the Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
8

D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals
observed within the project study area. These descriptions refer to the flora and fauna in each community and
the relationship of these biotic components. Biotic resources assessed as part of this investigation include
discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities within the
project study area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities and are classified
in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation (Schafale
and Weakley, 1990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to inhabit or utilize biotic
communities of the project study area (based on published range distributions) are also discussed. Species
observed during field investigation are listed.
D.1. Plant Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the project study area,
making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Five discernable terrestrial communities are located within
the project study area. Of these communities, four have been altered to the extent that they cannot be classified
as a natural vegetation community under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina. These
altered communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way communities, (2) landscaped areas, (3) fallow
pastureland, and (4) cropland. The remaining community within the project study area retains enough of its
natural characteristics to be classified under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina. This
natural community consists of Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. In addition to the aforementioned
terrestrial components, the aquatic community associated with East Fork Big Crabtree Creek was assessed
within the project study area.
Altered Right-of-Way Communities -- These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR
1002. Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession through mechanical and
possibly chemical vegetation management practices.
No mature woody were observed at the time of site investigation within altered rights-of-way of the project study
area; however, saplings and seedlings observed include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), witch-hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), river birch (Betula nigra), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), and multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include orange
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), jack-in-the-
pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), creeping grass (Microsteguim vimineum), common plantain (Plantago major), turk's
cap lily (Cilium superbum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisii), joint
head (Arthraxon hispidus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), thimbleweed (Anemone riparia), bee balm (Monarda
didyma), ginseng (Panax quinquefolium), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum).
Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and riverside grape (Vitis riparia).
9

Landscaped Areas -- This community consists of cleared, landscaped, and vegetatively managed areas around
several nearby residential dwellings.
Dominant plant species observed at the time of site investigation include assorted cultivars, crab grass (Digitaria
sanguinalis), common plantain (Plantago major), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae).
Fallow Pastureland -- This community is dominated by pioneer and opportunistic plant species and is located in
the northern portion of the project study area. The slopes within this community are gently sloping to nearly level.
The successional nature of the vegetation community suggests that the area was cleared of native vegetation
and that the vegetation has been managed for several or more growing seasons.
No mature trees or shrubs have yet become established within the fallow pastureland. Dominant woody species
observed at the time of site investigation include witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), river birch (Betula nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the
lime of site investigation include jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), creeping grass (Microsteguim vimineum), common
plantain (Plantago major), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisii), joint
head (Arthraxon hispidus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), thimbleweed (Anemone riparia), bee balm (Monarda
didyma), ginseng (Panax quinquefolium), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), and
unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include tick-
trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
common greenbrier (Smilax iotundifolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), riverside grape (Vitis riparia), and
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Cropland -- This community consists of recently cultivated cropland located in the northernmost portion of the
project area. This community is located on gently sloping land surfaces adjacent to SR 1002 and the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, which separates the cropland from Crabtree Creek.
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest -- This community type occurs along the banks of East Fork Big
Crabtree Creek in all quadrants of the project study area. The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest occurs
upon a nearly level to gently sloping floodplain terrace perched approximately 3.5 to 4.5 ft above the stream bed.
The terrace is largely underlain by moderately well-drained fluvaquents exhibiting relatively high chromas but,
where poorly drained conditions prevail, hydric soil inclusions are observed.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of site investigation
include red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), Fraser magnolia (Magnolia fraseri), black cherry (Prunus serotina), black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and white pine
(Pinus strobus). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include witch-
hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), yellow buckeye saplings (Aesculus flava), river
birch (Betula nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), southern arrowwood
(Viburnum dentatum), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time
of site investigation include orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Queen
10

Anne's lace (Daucus carota), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), creeping grass (Microsteguim vimineum),
common plantain (Plantago major), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), turks cap lily (Cilium superbum),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisii), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), thimbleweed (Anemone riparia), bee balm (Monarda didyma), ginseng (Panax
quinquefolium), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum). Dominant vine species
observed at the time of site investigation include tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), riverside grape (Vitis riparia), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
D.2. Wildlife
All of the communities within the project study area have been significantly altered or affected by man's activities.
Due to forest tract fragmentation common to the project region, species that require large contiguous tracts of
forests are not likely to utilize the site on a normal basis. Certain opportunistic wildlife species, such as white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus) can be expected to periodically utilize edge habitat present within the project study area. Due to the
relatively small size of the project study area and the fact that many wildlife species are capable of moving
between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one
terrestrial plant community within the project study area.
No mammals were observed in the project study area at the time of field investigation. Although not observed,
mammals common to the project region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of the project study
area include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivore), beaver (Castor
canadensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse
(Mus musculus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), black bear (Ursus americanus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela
frenata), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Fells rufus).
The open fields and shrub stands on the project study area provide suitable forage areas for a variety of birds. A
wide variety of resident and migratory songbirds can be expected to periodically utilize habitat present in the
project study area. The open fields on and near the project study area provide probable hunting grounds for birds
of prey, such as hawks and owls.
No reptiles or amphibians were observed in the project study area at the time of field investigation. A variety of
reptile and amphibian species may use the communities located in the project study area. These animals include
the rat snake (Elaphe obsolete), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus),
two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
D.3. Aquatic Communities
No aquatic or water-dependent vertebrates were observed within the project study area at the time of field
investigation. Aquatic orwater-dependent invertebrates observed within the project study area at the time of field
investigation include crayfish (Cambaridae), gilled snails (Pleuroceridae), mayfly larva (Heptageniidae), aquatic
11

beetle larvae (Psephenidae), case-making caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera), net-spinning caddisfly larvae
(Hydropsychidae), and water striders (Gerridae).
D.4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
D.4.a. Terrestrial Communities Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the approximate area of each plant community
present within both the proposed right-of-way and the temporary construction limits of any on-site detour or
easement that falls outside the estimated permanent right-of-way limit. A summary of potential plant community
impacts is presented in Table 2. All plant community impacts are based on aerial photograph base mapping. A
portion of the permanent plant community impact amount will consist of proposed right-of-way for the road after
the bridge replacement is complete. Impervious surface and open water areas are not included in this analysis.
Table 2
Potential Impacts to Plant Communities
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PLANT acres
COMMUNITY ALT A (Preferred) ALT B
Im acts Tem . Im acts* Im acts
Altered Right-of-Way Communities 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaped Areas 0.00 0.38 0.38
Fallow Pastureland 0.00 0.16 0.41
Cropland 0.00 0.25 0.06
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 0.00 1.46 2.27
Total (acre) 0.00 2.25 3.12
TOTAL FOR ALT acre 2.25 3.12
* Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts that fall outside the estimated
right-of-way limit or impacts of temporary on-site detours.
The highest amount of permanent plant community impacts result from Alternative B, which calls for bridge
replacement on new location. The plant community with the largest amount of potential permanent and
temporary impacts for all proposed alternatives is the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest community.
D.4.b. Aquatic Communities Impacts
The replacement of Bridge Nos. 109 and 110 over Crabtree Creek will result in certain unavoidable impacts to the
aquatic community. Probable impacts will be associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic habitat and
water column disturbances resulting from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of
stream segments can have an adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities:
Inhibition of plant growth.
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to increased nutrient
12

loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of dissolved oxygen
levels.
• Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of feeding structures of
filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
• Loss of benthic macroinverfebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
• Loss offish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
• Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
• Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project area will
be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Sun`ace Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable guidelines pertaining to best
management practices. Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing construction methods that will limit
instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed as needed, and (3). revegetating stream
banks immediately following the completion of grading.
E. Special Topics
E.1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of the Crabtree Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Wetlands subject to review
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria;
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches of the soil surface for a portion
(12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No wetlands have been mapped within the project study area
under the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program.
The surface waters within Crabtree Creek exhibit characteristics of a permanently flooded, upper perennial,
riverine habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R3UBH). Crabtree Creek is a jurisdictional surface water.
E.2. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Temporary and permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands are estimated based on the amount of each
jurisdictional area within the project limits. Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from
temporary construction activities outside of permanent right-of-way and/or those associated with temporary on-
site detours. Temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has been
completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the construction limits and/or the right-of-way of
the new structure and approaches. Portions of those areas that are considered temporary impact areas often
end up being within the final right-of-way. Potential wetland and surface water impacts are included in Table 3.
13

Table 3
Anticipated Impacts to Surface Waters
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ALT A (Preferred) ALT B
Impacts Tem . Im acts* lm acts
Perennial Stream Channel Impacts ft 0.0 100 0.0
TOTAL FOR ALT ft 100 0.0
*Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not included in the construction
limits for the permanent structure.
No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the project study area. The preferred alternative, Alternative A, may
temporarily impact 100 ft of perennial stream channel while the detour structures are in place.
E.2. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344),
a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredge or fill material in "Waters
of the United States." The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be
issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category, or categories, of activities when: those activities are
substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the
general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory control exercised by another
Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an individual permit must
be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the
proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general permit. Nationwide
Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. This permit authorizes any activities, work, and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another
federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular
permit. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since the proposed
project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the USACE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will
also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which
a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, one condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment
and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent exceedences of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) -The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA)
Land Management District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is also required for all construction
or development involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin.
14

E.3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance -Mitigation by avoidance examines appropriate and practicable measures for averting impact to
waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the USACE, states that in determining appropriate and practicable measures to offset unavoidable
impacts; such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Crabtree Creek; therefore, totally avoiding surface water impacts is
impossible.
Minimization -Minimization of adverse impact to waters of the United States includes examination of
appropriate and practicable measures to reduce such impacts. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Adverse impacts are typically minimized by decreasing the
proposed project footprint through reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, and/or fill slopes.
Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to waters of the United States include strict enforcement o1
sedimentation control BMPs for protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction o1
clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide management;
minimization of instream activity; and litter/debris control.
No measures are proposed for this project because there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project study
area.
Compensatory Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation, including restoration, creation and enhancement of
waters of the United States, is typically not considered unless anticipated impacts to waters of the United States
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Further, it is recognized that "no net loss
of wetlands" may not be achievable in every permit action. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization measures have
been required.
Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required for this project. A final determination regarding mitigation
requirements rest with the USACE.
15

F. Protected Species
F.1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Table 4 lists the federal protected species for Mitchell
County (USFWS list dated February 24, 2003);
Table 4
Federally Protected Species Listed for Mitchell County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Carolina Northern FI in S uirrel Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus E No Effect
Indiana Bat M otis sodalist E No Effect
alachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E No Effect
S ruce-Fir Moss S ider Microhexura monfiva a E No Effect
S readin Avens Geum radiatum E No Effect
Heller's Blazin Star Liafris helleri T No Effect
Blue Rid a Goldenrod Solids o spithamaea T No Effect
Vir inia Spiraea S iraea vir iniana T No Effect
Rock Gnome Lichen G mnoderma lineare E No Effect
~nunnyCiCU - any iiauve ur un~e-iiauve species m ganger or extincnon tnrougnout au or a signmcant pornon of its range.
Threatened -any native oronce-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel -The northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal some 10 to
12 inches in total length and 3 to 5 ounces in weight. It possesses a long, broad, flattened tail (80 percent of
head and body length), prominent eyes, and dense, silky fur. The broad tail and folds of skin between the wrist
and ankle form the aerodynamic surface used for gliding. Adults are gray with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash
on the back, and grayish white or huffy white ventrally. Juveniles have uniform dark, slate-gray backs, and off-
white undersides. The northern flying squirrel can be distinguished from the southern flying squirrel by its larger
size; the gray base of its ventral hairs as opposed to a white base in the southern species; the relatively longer
upper tooth row; and the short, stout baculum (penis bone) of the males.
According to Professor Peter D. Weigl of Wake Forest University (1977, and pers. comm., March 2, 1984), the
northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in the ecotone, or vegetation transition zone, between the coniferous and
northern hardwood forests. Both forest types are used in the search for food, while the hardwood areas are
needed for nesting sites. Because of the flying squirrel's small size, the climatic severity of its habitat, and the
abundance of avian and mammalian predators, nesting sites represent critical resources. During the cooler
months, squirrels commonly occupy tree cavities and woodpecker holes (Jackson, 1961; Baker, 1983), but may
also construct and use leaf nests -especially in the summer (Weigl and Osgood, 1974). The interior of both
types of nests is lined with lichens, moss, or finely chewed bark. Preliminary results from a study presently
underway in West Virginia indicate that these squirrels sometimes enter burrows in the ground, although the
extent of their use is not yet known (Urban, pers. comm.).
16

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 27, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Indiana Bat -The Indiana bat is a medium-sized myotis, closely resembling the little brown bay (Myotis
lucifugus), but differing in coloration. Its fur is a dull grayfish chestnut rather than bronze, with the basal portion of
the hairs of the back dull lead colored. This bat's underparts are pinkish to cinnamon and its hind feet smaller
and more delicate than in M. lucifugus. The calcar (heel of the foot) is strongly keeled.
Little is known of this bat's. diet beyond the fact that it consists of insects. Females and juveniles forage in the
airspace near the foliage of riparian and floodplain trees. Males forage the densely wooded area at tree top
height (Laval et al., 1976, 1977).
This bat has a definite breeding period that usually occurs during the first ten days of October. Mating takes
place at night on the ceilings of large rooms near cave entrances. Limited mating may also occur in the spring
before the hibemating colonies disperse.
Hibernating colonies disperse in late March and most of the bats migrate to more northern habitat for the
summer. However, some males remain in the hibernating area during this period and form active bands, which
wander from cave to cave.
Limited observations indicate that birth and development occur in very small, widely scattered colonies consisting
of 25 or so females and their young. Birth usually takes place during June with each female bearing a single
offspring. About 25 to 37 days are required for development to the flying stage and the beginning of independent
feeding.
Migration to the wintering caves usually begins in August. Fat reserves depleted during migration are replenished
largely during the month of September. Feeding continues at a diminishing rate until by late November the
population has entered a definite state of hibernation.
The hibernating bats characteristically form large, tight, compact clusters. Each individual hangs by its feet from
the ceiling. Every eight to ten days hibernating individuals awaken to spend an hour or more flying about or to
join a small cluster of active bats elsewhere in the cave before returning to hibernation.
Limestone caves are used for winter hibernation. The preferred caves have a temperature. averaging 37 to 43
degrees Fahrenheit in midwinter, and a relative humidity averaging 87 percent. Summer records are rather
scarce. A few individuals have been found under bridges and in old buildings, and several maternity colonies
have been found under loose bark and in the hollows of trees. Summer foraging by females and juveniles is
limited to riparian and floodplain areas. Creeks are apparently not used if riparian trees have been removed.
Males forage over floodplain ridges and hillside forests and usually roost in caves. Foraging areas average 11.2
acres per animal in midsummer.
17

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 25, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area. The USFWS has determined that a survey for Myotis sodalist is not required.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Appalachian Elktoe -The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped shell, reaching up to
about 3.2 inches in length, 1.4 inches in height, and 1.0 inch in width (Clarke, 1981). Juveniles generally have a
yellowish-brown periostracum (outer shell surface) while the periostracum of the adults is usually dark brown to
greenish-black in color. Although rays are prominent on some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the
shelf, many individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The shell nacre (inside shell surface) is shiny, often
white to bluish-white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of
the shell; some specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches (adapted from Clarke, 1981). A
detailed description of the species' shell, with illustrations, is contained in Clarke (1981). Ortmann (1921)
discussed soft parts.
The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-
oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing
pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or
bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the species is seldom
found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or cobble. Individuals that have been
encountered in these areas are believed to have been scoured out of upstream areas during periods of heavy
rain, and have not been found on subsequent surveys (C. McGrath, personal communication, 1996; J.A. Fridell,
personal observation, 1995, 1996, 1999).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity; however,
populations have been reported in the South Toe River Basin. Suitable habitat for the species was observed
within portions of the project study area during the initial field investigation. The project study area was visited on
August 19, 2002 by NCDOT biologists for habitat evaluation. Crabtree Creek is a high gradient stream which is
not typical habitat of the Appalachian elktoe. A mussel survey at this project is not required.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spruce-fir Moss Spider -The spruce-fir moss spider was originally described by Crosby and Bishop (1925)
based on collections made from a mountain peak in western North Carolina in 1923 (Coyle 1981). It is one of the
smallest members of the primitive suborder of spiders that are often popularly referred to as "tarantulas" (Harp
1991, 1992). Adults of this species measure only 0.10 to 0.15 of an inch (about the size of a BB) (Coyle 1981).
Coloration of the spruce-fir moss spider ranges from light brown to yellow-brown to a darker reddish brown, and
there are no markings on its abdomen (Harp, 1991, 1992). The most reliable field identification characteristics for
the spruce-fir moss spider are chelicerae that project forward well beyond the anterior edge of the carapace, a
pair of very long posterior spinnerets, antl the presence of a second pair of book lungs, which appear as light
patches posterior to the genital furrow (Harp, 1992).
18

The spruce-fir moss spider is known only from Fraser fir and red spruce forest communities of the highest
elevations of the southern Appalachian Mountains in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee (Coyle,
1981, 1997, 1999; Harp, 1991, 1992). The typical habitat of this spider is found in damp, but well drained, moss
mats growing on rock outcrops and boulders in well-shaded situations within these forests (Coyle, 1981, 1997,
1999; Harp, 1992). The moss mats cannot be too dry (the species is very sensitive to desiccation) or too wet
(large drops of water can also. pose a threat to the spider). The spider constructs tube-shaped webs in the
interface between the moss mat and rock surface. There is no record of prey having been found in the webs of
the spruce-fir moss spider, nor has the species been observed taking prey in the wild, but the abundant
springtails (collembolans) in the moss mats provide the most likely source of food for the spider (Coyle, 1981;
Harp, 1992).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 27, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area. Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 2,940 to 3,000 ft.
All known populations occur at elevations at and above 5,400 ft in elevation.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading Avens -Spreading avens is a perennial herb. Spreading avens is topped with an indefinite cyme of
large, bright yellow flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they
arise from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow 7.9 to 19.7 inches tall. Flowering occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
fraseri). Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellen) and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea), both federally-
listed as threatened species, are also present at some sites. The substrate at all the population sites is
composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks (Massey, et al., 1980; Morgan, 1980;
Kral, 1983; Department of the Interior, 1990).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 27, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area. Elevations within the project study area range from 2,850 to 2,880 ff msl. These
elevations are below the range of 4,200 to 6,300 ft for known populations.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Heller's Blazing Star - Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems
arising from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 1.3 ft in height and are topped by a
showy spike of lavender flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches long (Porter, 1891). Its flowering season lasts from
July through September, and its fruits are present from September through October (Kral, 1983; Radford et al.,
1964). This plant is differentiated from other similar high altitude Liatris species by a much shorter pappus, ciliate
19

petioles, internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit (Cronquist, 1980; Gaiser, 1946). Work is being
conducted on populations in two locations, which may result in their being reclassified as a new taxon (Sutter, in
preparation). If so, these plants will remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full
sunlight.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 25, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area. Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 2,940 to 3,000 ft
msl. These elevations are below the range of 3,500 to 6,000 ft for known populations. Consequently, the
biological conclusion for Liatris helleri is "No Effect".
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Blue Ridge Goldenrod - An erect perennial herb with stems 4 to 16 inches tall arising from a short, stout
rhizome. The yellow flowers are borne in heads arranged into a corymbiform inflorescence. Flowering occurs
during July and August.
Blue Ridge goldenrod habitat is found at elevations above 4,600 ft. The plant is considered an early pioneer
species and is found growing in full sun in the crevices of granite outcrops.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 25, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area. Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 2,940 to 3,000 ft
msl. Blue Ridge goldenrod habitat is found at elevations above 4,600 ft. Consequently, the biological conclusion
for Solidago spithamaea is "No Effect".
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Virginia Spiraea -Virginia spiraea bears cream-colored flowers on branched and flat-topped axles. This shrubby
plant grows from 2.0 to 10.0 ft tall and has arching, upright stems. Its alternative leaves are of different sizes and
shapes. Spiraea spreads clonally and forms dense clumps, which spread in rock crevices and around boulders.
Flowering occurs in June and July.
Virginia spiraea is unique because it occurs along rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks in gorges or canyons.
Although it is an unusual requirement, flood scouring is essential to this plant's survival because it eliminates
taller woody competitors and creates riverwash deposits and early successional habitats. These conditions are
apparently essential for this plant's colonization of new sites (Rawinski, 1988). Spiraea is found in thickets.
Common woody vine associates include fox grape; summer grape; riverbank grape; winter grape; graybark or
pigeon grape; possum grape; sand grape; and muscadine or scuppernong. Other plant associates include royal
fern, yellow ironweed or wing-stem; ninebark; smooth alder or brookside alder; silky cornet or kinnikinnik; and
shrubby yellow root (Parkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, personal communication, 1990). The bedrock surrounding
20

spiraea habitat is primarily sandstone and soils are acidic and moist. Spiraea grows best in full sun, but it can
tolerate some shade (Technical Bulletin, 1990). One population in West Virginia inhabits a disturbed wetland
habitat near a road (Rawinski, 1988).
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 27, 2001 and June 12, 2003. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable
habitat were observed within the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Rock Gnome Lichen -Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This species is
the only member of its genus occurring in North America. It occurs in rather dense colonies of narrow straps
(squamules). The only similar lichens are the squamulose lichens of the genus Cladonia. Rock gnome lichen
has terminal portions of the strap like individual lobes that are blue-gray on the upper surface and generally
shiny-white on the lower surface; near the base they grade to black (unlike squmulose Cladonia, which are never
blackened toward the base). The squamules are about 0.04 inch across near the tip, tapering to the blackened
base, sparingly and subdichotomously branched, and generally about 0.4 to 0.8 inch long, although they can vary
somewhat in length, depending upon environmental factors.
The squamules are nearly parallel to the rock surface, but the tips curl away from the rock, approaching or
reaching a perpendicular orientation to the rock surface. The fruiting bodies (apothecia) are borne at the tips of
the squamules and are black (contrasting to the brown or red apothecia of Cladonia species). The apothecia are
borne singly or in clusters, usually at the tips of the squamules but occasionally along the sides; these have been
found from July through September. The apothecia are either sessile or borne on short podetia 0.04 to 0.08 inch
with most being much smaller. The apothecia are cylindrical in shape and radial in symmetry. The primary
means of propagation of this lichen appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally.
Rock gnome lichen occurs only in areas of high humidity, either at high elevations, where it is frequently bathed in
fog, or in deep river gorges at lower elevations. It is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage water
from forest soils above the cliffs flows at (and only at) very wet times. Most populations occur above an elevation
of 5,000 ft.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project study
area was investigated on July 27, 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed
within the project study area. Elevations within the project study area range from 2,850 to 2,880 ft msl. Most
known populations are above 5,000 ft.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
F.2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of the provisions included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. In addition to the federal program, organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
2?

or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on its list of Rare Plants and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists Federal Species of Concern for Mitchell County, the state
status of these species, and the potential for suitable habitat in the project study area. The NCNHP database
shows no occurrences of FSC within 0.6 mile of the project study area as of January 2001.
22

Table 5
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Mitchell County
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status
Alle hen Woodrat Neofoma ma isfer No SC
A palachian Cottontail S Ivila us obscurus Yes ---
Blotched Chub Erim stax insi nis Yes SR
Southern A palachian Saw-whet Owl Ae olius acadicus No SC
Olive-sided FI catcher Contopus borealis No SC
Shat head Darter Etheosfoma acuticeps Yes T
Southern A palachian Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra No SR
S. A alachian Black-ca ed Ckickadee Parus atrica ullus pracficus Yes SC
S. A palachian Yellow-bellied Sapsucker S h ra icus varius appalaciensis Yes SR
Olive Darter Percina squamafa Yes SC
Roan Supercoil Paravitrea varidens Yes T
Diana Fritilla Butterfly Spe eria diana Yes SR
Fraser Fir Abies fraseri No ---
Roan's False Goat's Beard Asfilbe crenafiloba Yes C
Mountain Bittercress Cardamine clematitis No SR
Piratebush Buckle a disfichoph Ila Yes E
Roan Sed a Carex roanensis Yes C
Tall Larkspur Delphinium exalfatum No E-SC
Glade spur e Eu horbia purpurea Yes C
Bent Avens Geum geniculatum Yes T
Butternut Ju lans cinerea Yes ---
Gra 's Lil Lilium ra i No T-SC
Canb 's Mountain Lover =cliff teen Paxistima canb i No ---
ALiverwort Pla iochila sullivantii var. sullivanfii No C
A Liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii No PE
Endangered (E) -any native oronce-native species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened (T) -any native oronce-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) -any species which requires monitoring but which maybe collected and sold under specific regulations.
Candidate(C) - a species for which USUSFWS has enough information on file to support proposals for listing as endangered
or threatened.
Significantly Rare(SR) -species which are very rare, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, and generally reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction.
Proposed Endangered (PE) - a species which has been formally proposed for listing as endangered, but has not yet completed
the legally mandated listing process.
2?

F.3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered species.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings. This project has been coordinated with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA
procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted on November 13, 2002. All structures within
the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a
concurrence form dated March 18, 2003, the SHPO concurred that there are no historic architectural resources
either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 29, 2002, recommended that "no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate bridges will result in
safer traffic operations.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 109 and 110 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is
expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No
relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
24

No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations) the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-
income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle route; therefore,
no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland for all land acquisition and construction projects. The proposed
project involves replacing the bridges in their existing locations; therefore, no impacts to prime or locally important
farmland are anticipated.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state
or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
No adverse effects to air quality are anticipated from this project. This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so
it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris
is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes after this
project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise receptors in
the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772, No additional reports are required.
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit determined that no underground storage tanks or areas of other contamination
were present at or near the project study area.
Mitchell County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project is not located within
an Approximate or Detailed Study Area. Since the proposed structures will be similar in waterway opening size, it
is not anticipated that they will have any significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. The
approximate 1.00-year floodplain in the project study area is shown in Figure 9.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
25

Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts will result from
the replacement of Bridge Nos. 109 and 110.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement program was initiated.
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the project
development with a scoping letter.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency comments are summarized below. Letters from the commenting agencies are included in the appendix.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC): Potential for fish spawning moratorium for May 1
through July 15 to prevent off-site sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry downstream of the site.
Response: The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water work between May 1 to July 15 to protect
fish spawning.
26

X. REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000a.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. (as revised through 2 February 2000) Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide Planning
Program. 2000b. French Broad River; Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (May 2000).
http;//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/french/frenchbroad wg management olan.htm.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 20041
The North Carolina Integrated Report [the 305(b) and 303(d) Report) (Final report 2002 and Draft report April
2004) http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303d.htm
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information Management
System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: French Broad River. Accessed 10 September 2001.
http:Uh2o.enr.state.nc.us/bimslregorts/basinsandwaterbodies/hydro/French_ Broad.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993. Classifications and
Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins. Division of Environmental Management. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth
Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. ~ Element Occurrence Search Report: Mitchell County, North
Carolina. http;//www,ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html. Updated July 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
27

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.
Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memo to
USACE districts from Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 6 Mar 1992,
signed by MG Arthur E. Williams, Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Technical Committee
for Hydric Soils. 1996. NRCS National Hydric Soils List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSD).
Accessed 15 October 2001. http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Updated through August 2001. Soil
Survey of Mitchell County, North Carolina. (unpublished).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Celo 7.5-minute Quadrangle, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Little Switzerland 7.5-minute Quadrangle,
North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2001. Threatened
and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Mitchell County. Updated 22 March 2001.
http://nc-es.fws. gov/eslcou ntyfr. htm I
U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. Celo, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. Little Switzerland, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
28

FIGURES

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1002
Replace Bridge Nos. 109 & 110
over Crabtree Creek
Mitchell County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4202
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 1
i

Looking Sou across Bridge o. 149
~,~ ;»
... ~ ..
~_
--
:.
,x
~.
,~: N ,~'. ~.w
~s . ~,~
.,~
~~
j' ~ ~
Looking est at Bridge o.1
'exG .
C p ® NC®R ! 17C6egP1R®Li ~9 y~ p rye{
^ ~~ ~ ®GPMR E ®F 1 r® 1 M 1 i
.. i

:.4 w yY.,
~s. ~" ' ~ r

ice... .. "'~, ~.:
+~
°
w
~
,k
s~ ~.~ ~ F
l ~ ~ ~ .~
~~
~~M
~
.y
.k
i1 II
r :it~« r:.
1.
1 ~i.~•
~•~ t ~ ~.;
,! ;r~i1
Looking North across Bridge No. 110
Looking South across Bridge No. 110

\~'f .
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Habitat Conservation Coordi r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 7, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements:
Mitchell County -Bridge No. 110, SR1002, East Fork Crabtree Creek, B-4202.
Burke County -Bridge No. 175, SR1901, White Oak Creek, B-4046
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Uur standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Memo 2 May 7, 2002
5. If temporary access roads or detours aze constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) azea of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:

Bridge Memo
May 7, 2002
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natuual ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
Mitchell County -Bridge No. 110, SR 1002, East Fork Crabtree Creek, B-4202
YELLOW LIGHT. Warmwater fishery, Tributary to Henry River, Listed species?
Sunfish and rock bass are important species. Potential for fish spawning moratorium for
May 1 through July 15 to prevent off-site sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fr"Y
downstream of the site.

Bridge Memo 4 May 7, 2002
2. Burke County -Bridge No. 175, SR1901, White Oak Creek, B-4046
YELLOW LIGHT. Warmwater fishery, Tributary to Jacobs Fork River, Listed species?
Sunfish and rock bass aze important species. Potential for fish spawning moratorium for
May 1 through July 15 to prevent off-site sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry
downstream of the site.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: David Cox, WRC

,t, Federal Ard # BRZ-1002(9) TIP # B-4202 County: Mttchell
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 110 on SR 1002 over Crabtree Creek
On 03!18/03. representatives of the
[]~ North Carolina Ueparunent of ~ll~ansportation (NCUOT)
,~,/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
I ~T North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Othet
Revir~~ed thr :;object project at
/ SCithilt~! ntrctim~
[~/ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
^ Other
All parties present agreed
I hrre are nil properties il~~r lif~i_, •, car., old ~~ithin the projects area ul~jtiltrnti;i~ cf('ccts.
l'hcr~ •.Irc nu Inup~rtii•s Ics~ than fili; `,au~; ulil ~~hich are consid~re~1 to rne~~t Criteria C~In:;ideratii,n i. ,~ iuti;, u:c
prii;cet~s atea of p~~tential ctt~rcts.
Iller~ arc properties ewer fifi~ _. cars ol[i within the project'; r\rea of Puten[ial 1=,fleets (APf:), but based on thr
historical inl:,rlttatioll a'~`;lil,~blr and thr photo'_r.raph of each propcrt~. Ihc` propcrt~ identiG::il as
i -~ (~ i; cc~nsi~J~rcd not cli<<ihlc liar the i~~atir~n:ll
Its I _1 21n11 1 ii l[I Il !' :'\ .. J~il`~! I `. I c ~3a1'\'.
V 1,.
j ~ rill prupc;rties greater than ~U years ut [t~~ located in the A1'E have been cunsid~reu at this cunsultatiun, an0 uase0
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) Ilan been completed for this project.
~r_ .
~ '~„ 3 ~ ~~ ~ Z.ao 3
Representativ , NC OT Date
_.
Ke}tresentuu ~ e. 1 l l'U irate
_ 3 ~ b3
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

a~
If~•~
~~ w.~•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Hlstoric Preservation Office
David L S. Brtwk. Administrator
Michael F. Easley, GUVCriIOf
Lisbcyh C. Evans, S~rr~lary
lutTrey 1. Crow, Deputy Scxr~~tary
ORice of An;hiv~ acrd History
January 29, 2002
hfEMOIL~1NDUi~[
t tom- r ~
GzLrl~~
Division of Historical Rewurees
David 1.OIwn, Dirrxtor
-['O: William D. Gilmore, i~tanager
N(:DOT, Division of Highways
„rh , ~~
FROM: David Brook ~ ` ;,~ jip
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge 110 on SR 1002 over Crabtree Creek, R~^~~rP Rrir~oP 10~ ~,$R 100 nvPr
C.r~t~~ck;~TIP B--I202, ;Vfitchell County, ER 02-8525
Thank you for your letter of September ?5, 2001, regarding the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that am_- archaeological resources that may be eligible Eor conclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. D(/e, therefore, recommend that no archaeological
im•estig~ation be conducted in connection with this project. .
~~!/e have conducted a search of our maps and files and did not locate any structtues of historical or
architecrural importance within the general area of the project. However, a survey of the area of potential
effect has never been done. an architectural historian foe the Department of Transportation should
inventory and evaluate this property and any others, that are fife- years old or older and located within the
area of potential effect.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G of the National Historic Preservation act and the
advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section lOG codified at 3G
CFR Part 80U.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733--f7G3. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: h{an• Pope Furr, NCDOT -~"~`~~~
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Loe><tlon Malling Address
Administratbn 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC X617 Mail Smice Ccnta.. Raleigh 27699-461 T
Rntorratlon 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh , NC 4b 13 Mail Service Cents. Raiei~r 27699-4611
Survey 6c Planning 5I S N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 46I K Mail Service Center: RalciRh 27699-461 R
TelephondFaz
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] •7tS-<80:
~9t9±733-478?g71s.480€

~ 10~29i2007 07:47 NC DOT PDEA -~ 97155501 N0.291 D02
y ..
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PRdJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUY,TATIQN FO1tM
><.ri. No. H-4202
I. GENERAL, L1'FOYtMATION
a. Consultation. Phase:
b. Project Description
c. State Project:
1"edecal Project:
d. Document Type:
LI. R1E~'ERENCE:
Construction
Mitchell County, Bridges Ntunber 109 & 1 ] 0 on SR 1002
over East Fork Big Crabtree Creek
S. 2680741
B>~z-~ ao2 (9)
CE
]une 2~, Z004
Date
Categorical E~sclusion approved June 25, 2004.
The following memorandum provides information to assist ui the preparation of a p'I-IWA, Right
of Way Consultation for the proposed project- It addresses water resources and federally
protected species potentially impacted by the project and, serves to update the referenced
Categorical Exclusion (CE).
ILL. CT~ANGES YN PROPOS]ED ACTYON AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
171/S1GN CHANGES
After the document was finished it was di,scavered that a design change would be
necessary for bridge No. 110 to tnaJ~e the bridge mare perpendicular to the stream. The
NRTR was reviewed with the proposed changes and it was determined that the revised
slope limits would not result in prohibited impacts to the natural or human environments.
WATER RESOrJRC.ES
Water resource classifications have not changed since the C<r was completed. I~owever,
the CE erroneously refers to East Fork Big Crabtree Creek as simply Crabtree Creek,
East Fork Big Crabtree Creek [Index # 7-2-48-2J, is classified as "C T.r" by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC)7WQ) and is located in the French Broad River
Basin, Subbasin 04-03-46 of Hyd,rolagical Cataloguing C.J'n;t pG0101p$. Neither Hid
Quality Waters (HQ~, Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or W5-II.
ConsUuction Consultation - 6-4202
September 2007

1029/2007 07:47 NC DDT PDEA -~ 97155501 N0.291 D03
:~
predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (QRVi~ occur
within l A mile of project study area. East Fork Big Crabtree Greek is not designated as a
North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a national Wild and Scenic River. East
1~ork Big Crabtree Creek is not listed as a 2006 303(d,) impaired 'water nor are any listed
within one mi.Ie of the project area, A 2004 letter fxom the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC) listed no trout moratoriums for this project.
PROTECTED SPECIES
plants a.rtd animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (1~E), Proposed Threatened (~'), are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of'the Endangered Species Act of l 973, as amended. As of .May I0, 2007, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (C7Sp'WS) lists eleven federally protected. species for Mitchell
County {Table 1). A description o:f the species and biological conclusion is provided in the
referenced CE document. As noted, in the CE document, the Hiolagieal Conclusion for each
species is "No Effect", due to la.c>~ of suitable habitat. The Bog'~rtle and Roan Mountain Bluer
were added to the Mitchell Cow~ty list since the publication of the CE document. The biological
conclusion for both is "No Effect" due to lack of suitable habitat.
T..i.h 1 ~...i~....u_. _~_~_ ._~ _ _t ~ ~,. _.
~ wu,c .. r w~. au ro~ctil:ea s eciea as iv1lTCnell 401111
S'clenh~c Name Common. Nfuzte )Fedexul Habitat 1lliiological
Status Conclusion
TV, L7eramvs mr~l~lenbereii Bo Turtle T S/A No Nat Required
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina nottberrt flying E No No Effect
caforatus s uirrel
M otis sodalis Indiana bat E No No Efi`'ect
A1asa~idonta raveneliana A alachian elktoe E No No Effect
Mdcrohexura mor~tiva a S ruee-fir mess s ider E No No Effect
Gewn radiatum S readin ovens E No No Effect
Liatris helderi Hell.er's blazia star T No No Effect
Solids o s itharn,aea Blue Rid. a oldenrod T No No Effect
S iraect vir 'niarta Vir 'tua s iraea T No No Effect
C rnnaderna dineare Rock rr-e lichen E No Na Effect
Hedyotis purpurea var. Roan 1Nlountain Bluer E No No Effect
monta,za
The NC Natural Heritage database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed o~n
August 15, ?007. There is no documentation of federal or state threatened or endangered
species found within 1 mile of the project study area.
Construction Consultation- 8202
September 2007

a 1Oi29i20O7 07:47 NC DOT PDEA ~ 97155501 N0.291 D04
k '' '~
IV. LIST OE Er1'V'iRONMENTAL CpM1~~ITMENTS
A list ofthe special project comnvtmetftS for ibis project is attAChed.
V. COORDINAT1pN
Project Development and Environmental Aunlysis Branch personnel have discussed current
project proposals with others as fallaws:
Design Engineer: Wayne C3est 8!21/07
Permits Section'
rHV~A Area 1ngineer:
Jef&ey Hemphill
ponnie Brew
Date
$121/07
Date
8/21107
Date
VI. NCY?OT CONCENCE
~~ ~~
Froject Develo nen sneer at
Construction Consultacion -8-4202
September 2007

~ 10i29i2007 07:47 NC DOT PDEA ~ 9?155501
•
~ v i`
PRUJECT COMMITIVIENTS
Mitchell CQUnty
fridge Nos. 109 & 1 l.0 on SR 1002 (Crrabtree Creek Road)
Aver Crabtree Creek
Federal Aid Project Na. $R7-1002 (9)
Slate Project 1Vo. 8,2880701
T.].P Prajdct No. 8-4202

Commitments Developed Through Project Development
There ane no special commitments associated with the proposed replacement of Bridges No. t09 & 110.
N0.291 D05
The moratorium from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission for in-water
work between May 1 and July 15 will not be adhered to by NCDQT since it i.s not for any
federally protected species. This cammitmcnt will be removed during the permitting
process.
Construction Cbrtsultation. - B-42U2
Green Sheet
September 2007 Sheet ] of 1

a
-L-
Pl Sto (0+0692 Pl Sta 11+8556 Pl S1o I6+1606 P! Sta 0+08b1 PI Sla 22+3555
p = 9'44095'fRTJ p = 6503'06TfLT1 p = 4552'!03'fL~1 p = IT39'039'fLTI p = ITO!'283'fRTI
D = 70'32' 005' D = 4T 44 413' D = 4r 13'1!9' D = 22' 25' 449' 0 = 64b' 15l
L = 1380' L = !3624 L = 11128' L = 78.70' L = 16282'
T = 692' T = 7652' T = 5882' T = 39.66' T =Blob'
R = 8123' R = 120.00' R = 139.GC1' R = 255.45' R = 8462r
PJ Sfo !0+6454 PI Sfa 14+2395 PI Sta J8+44b6 - P/ Sto 20+9600
p = 22'48'38.4fRT1 p = 5234555rRT1 p = 549'590'(iT1 p = !0'Sar25rLTJ
D = 4T 44 473' D = 4T 44 473' D = S 04 482' ~ D = 9' 32' 575'
_~ ~ L=47.71 L=11013' L=19356' L=113.48'
-?T< 242r T = 5928' T = 9702' T = 569Y
R, =-7~0'_ R = 120.L~' R~Z86'--
- R =600.0(1'
` - __ - - - -SH1D BERN GUTTER
-DRNE-
~
Pl Sfo 10+362( PI Slo If+3257 PI Sta 10+7592 + 3 ~
p =99'30'295RTJ p = 51'Or28B'fRTJ p = 2r39'310'fLT1 a
D = 229' 10' 592' D = 190' S9' 09.4 D = 42'26' 281 :- a a ~
L = 43.42' L =2986' L = 5103' ~ ~
T = 2954 T = 1630 T = 2582' N a
rte

R - 2500
- _
R - I e ~
- R - 3000' - 3500'
STAR+SB+/- -L- 3 ~ STA73+38+/- -1-
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB N l~PROACN SLAB
STA/3+23+/- -L-
r.°,a'-,,; =,~o! : j STAR+73+/- -L- END BRIDE ~ rrPE a-n AAr.AnR uxrr '~
,' ? ? .: _. _ BEGIN BRIGGS ®A°PROMH sue
SKETCH SHO4'1NG BRfDGE !N RELATKJN TO PAVEMENT
J PLUG.FILL AND
~/BANOCw fx NRCP ~'~
14!
NAD 83
P! Sta J1+2415
p = 5302'035fRT1
D = 38'!r 499'
L = 13884
T = 7x84
R = 15000'
s,-E, SHLD BERN g1TTER
8
~• a
^ ~ a °
a
STA/9+33+/- -L- s-E•
BEG1N APPROACH SLAB
S7A20+08+/- -L-
STAl9+48+/- -L- END BRIDGE a
BEGlN 8R1LGE
STA20+23+/- -C-
rrPf a-n aNah;R uNR END APPROACH SLAB
® aPPAnxn sue
SKETCH SHOVING BRICG£ 1N RELATION TO PAYENENT
o~
PIIWECT 1CF No. sr~T No.
--x.4242_ _4_
MN SHEET N0.
toADWAY DESIGN Hrouwua
ENGINEE# HVGNEER

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
0o nar vu to CONSTRUCf10N
~~
%YFI cS J':~]
sRCP sE~o'p~E~a IMO"
q?LET PROTECTXJY
CEtA~SS ' ~S RM
EST !J SY FF
SPEGA!~p TERAL N'(.1TCH
SEf CETA4. 2 - -
~ ,.
SJ. wcKlEiv_i HE!+<f. ETtt.
uB in ~~I ,~
.,3 ,~ ", ;,Z J
L'B «a op^ a75L,~
~a z_, ~ ,
-L- STA. 10+00 TO STA 11+25 IRTI
-L- STA, 12+91 TO STA 14+50 hn
-L- STA. 15+15 TO STA. 16+50 (L7)
-L- STA 15+50 TO SEA 15+75 (LT)
~.- STA, 21+75 TO STA 22+50 (Rid
RIP RAP AT ENBANXYfNT
CLASS 'G'RIP RAP
EST 1 TONS
£S7 9 SY FF
SfE L1t7A2 3
-r- srA 1o+zs to STA m+~s (LT)
~- STA 20+08 TO STA 20+50 (L1I
{- STA 12+59
1- STA 12+9A R
{- STA 1I+91
LI,' ~! _
va ~:2
`~~i;E i6i
J ' _ _ _._
_c~i2G •.G ~ r ~ .
WETLAND PERMIT SITE 1
DENOTES TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
UAPACTS
® DENOTES PERMANENT SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS
50 0 100
Permit Drawlrl3
Sheet _,~,__ of 1 ~-
' ELEVATION = _ ~925JlfT
OfSCHARGf = 6S Cf5
MY EIEVATgN = _g9252TfT
A1G fREOOfNCY = _ _-Y17$
VG LYSCHAAGE _ -
NG ELEVATION • --- -~-PTS
~_.
;,

a
rc
0
o
0
0
b
U
O
h
w
ti
Vi
~O
~\
~m
W3
$~
L
¢o
00
~~
4
Co
O2
~N
Oi
,~ o
~W
pUp~
6~
CW
02
Wh
1~ O
ZU
VIti
~O
4
1- pp2
Wi
~p
40
hN
)j
2p
O
w'
2
_L_
PI StG 10+0692 P1 SfG 11+8556 PI S1G 16+16A6
p = 544'095'rRTJ p = 6503'061211 p = 4552'103'fLrJ
D = 7432' 003' D =47'44' 47.3' D = 4T 13' 119'
L = 13.84 L = 13624' L = 11128'
T = 692' T = 7852' T =58.82'
R = 8123' R = l20Ad R = 139.00'
Pl S1G 10+6454 P! Sfa 14+2395 Pr Sfo 18+44b6
p = 2248'38.a 1RT1 p = 52'3a5551RT1 p = 54559A'(LTl
D =47'44' 473' D = 4T 44 473' D = SOa 482"
'~ - L =9771
~ L = 11013' L = 19356'
_'~~_,= 242Y T = 5928' T = 97A2'
`'ft"`='720Ad_ R = 120Ad
~_ R ___1J27.86'--
-
,,----
-ORNE-
PI Sfa 10+3621 PI Sfa 71+3257 P! Sfa l0+7592
p = 99'3429.EILTI p = 5TOY288'fRTI D = 213531A'rLTI
D =22514 592' D = 1945509.4' D = 42' 26' 287' :-
L = 43.42' L =2996' L = 51A3' _
'
T =2954' T = 1634 T = 2582
R = 25.00' R = 30A0' R = !35.04
sra
_ BEG/
;~ _
-
~ -
,~
_ . - - ~
___ _,' PL(1G. FJLi A4D ~ .. __
~A9NIOCW~EX 24'FCP ___
_ .
m
w
h
w
-L- STA 10+00 TO STA 11+25 (RT)
a.- STA 12+91 TO STA 14+50 (Ln
SrA 15+75 TO STA 16+50 1LTI
-1- STA 15+50 10 STA 15+75 (LlI
-4 STA. 21+75 TO STA 22+50 ICI
-Y- STA 10+25 r0 STA 10+75 (Llf
-L- srA zo+oe ro STA zo+so lLn
A-SG I4+59 ~i1
a. SU 17+9! 8,711
-l-SfA iZ+9/ L
P1 Sfa 17+OBbl
p = R'35039'rLTI
D = 22' 25'499'
L = T87d
T = 39b6'
R = 255.45'
P! StG 20+96A0
p = la5d129'rcrJ
D = 532' 575'
L = 1!3.48'
T = 569Y
R =600.00'
P! Sto 22+3555
p = 1T OY 283' fR71
D=646'/51'
L = 16242'
T = 81b6'
R = 8462Y
SHLD BERM GUTTER
-G

~3'~' sral3+3a+/- -L-
/- -t-
'DACH SLAB ND APPROACH SLAB
STAB+23+/- -L-
~+73+/- -L- END BR10GE ~ 77PE s-n AYCh6Y uxR
eRrocE ®A"PROfCN sue
SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE !N REfAT10N TO PAVEMENT
._ ~_____
NAD 83
Pl Sto !l+2475
p = 53'02'039'(RTI
D = 38'IY 499'
L = r388a
T = 14$a
R = 150Ad
~,6, SHLD 6ERN GUTTER
a ~, ~
N ~ ~- a N ~
STa19+33+/- -L- ~'-s'
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
sra2o+oa+/- -L-
STA19+48+/- -L- END BRfOGE u
BEGIN BRIDGE
STA20+23+/- -L-
n~ a-n AW.wa9 uxa ENO APPROACH SLAB
® APPROACH 51A5
SKETCH SHOWING BRIDGE /H RELATION TO PAVENENT
PiOIECT iEFERENCE N0. SMEET N0.
--$-4~Q~_. _4_
WI 5N&T N0.
LoArnNAr ~cN NmrtAUUCs
BIGINE9t ENGWEEI

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
m NOT VSi RO CONSSRVCfluIX
!,
~
o~
,.. \ _

~ ~..
EN SHW 8 RN
GUTTER STA PIr5~ RT ' ` /
-
,
_ j ~ ~
<
~9Fy..>'
L~~:~.
CE _

~ ~
~
~ £'
~
Tg
~R ftW
l
i
'
~
,' ~~
_~a
R
~a
V ~
/
ti'-
~
~ 4
l
F ~
/~ ;
~
%/ / ~ S
/~
y>~ i r~
l
~ - 1
J
~ ~
~
T~sPEa~.~T~~: , . ~~,~
~ ~ ~
u'C~~It S E : '
/; ~ IlEF 2
~ W/ r/ fi t i~ ~^YJ
G9 32
J3'
. °. LH CmEN ~' to ~ _ ~
+25.00
.
/ 1zLNaf r sRGP c.ar
sPfaA1 cur arcH
/ r ~ ,
;..r~ SEf OETNL I
_ -
~~ ~ REA10'E J .+]S
'. + 5
~~ 11 ~t~ ~~E~lQN. _ ~ ~ '::
t,
~ /
/..
4r
- /~~
-`~. 0 E~ 7 TSaFF i
~
+80.00 r
~
- 0.00-Y-
.
~~~~
6 ~
.(~{ ~ sPECrpp~(~urERa~w&'rcfr
~ ~ ~

3 SEE DETAf1 2
~~~ ii ~ •~~ ~ ~ ~
- /
~.. /
.. ~' /
',.•
IAP -. - -. esr. msi rn "~ ~,-, Ago INSTAVATgN OF NEW ABUTNENr$ - /,', 3dA0'--`
_ - - ~ _ fRt7AlN EX15TNlG FOOTINGS) ~ / ~ ~ ~, ~~~
~ / ,
_. ~ \/i /
~\ g
- ~ ~ L ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ / , t
- 'C.D. dci(4 E ~ T i --` r~x' ~ '~
'1F 't P 3y! ~ _ ~
a , 43~ ~ ~
J
PIPE HYDRAt1LIC~~?A~,4`' ~` ~ -_ ~~ a 7~~:~ -- --~ + . ~,
~~~. .G i~9~ 8 r
g1aNAGE AREA = __ oes x WETLAND PERMIT SITE 1
DES~N FREQUENCY __ 25 YR5
DESluN gSCHARGE i3 CfS ~j,{,~ DENOTES TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
DES~iIO HW ELEVATION s _?9J611fT ! ~/J~i'//a IMPACTS ~',
DENOTES PERMANENT SURFACE WATER
UMAC75
50 0 100
' EIEYATKIN = _ 29PS1/fT
`
715CHARGE _ _ 65 CFS ~Y°
'AV ElEYATAJN = 292521 FT
NG FREOU£MLY = __ :_rR5
NG gSCHARGE _ __ __CFS
NG ELEVATION - FT
------ ~
'
'
i ,
Pemtit Drawing
gam{ G of ) ?.

IJ.
y ;~
~ .:,~

7

'~~ ~.f:
-i __- ~ ~
~ ~~ , ~ ~' 6
. ~ y '\ ~ -~- SPEGAL CUT
SEE DETatI
~ ~
~~ ~
~. -
_ _
__ ~
~ ~.
~
~ , l
~\ l
\
`

.. +
0000
~~
` ~ ~ ,_y~„^
~\
P
+ ~ ` '~ ~ -
ti~~y

Mirt Pf Y HEis~, E. Fi.
3 a v e~U
3 P...g
~~
TO D~.RAIM~SEO
-D£rouR 'A'-
P! Slo l0+4385 PI Sla I1+74.44 PI SID f3+5027
~ = 2525'195'fRTJ p = 7r43'04B'fLTJ ~ = 35'29'49.0'fRTI
D = 47'44' 473' D =41'44' 47.3' D = 7623' 39.7'
L = 61b2 L = 15021' L =46.47'
T = 315r T =8673' T = 24Ar
R = 120.Od R = 120.00' R = 75.00'
-D£rouR 'a'-
PI SiD 18+4658 P1 SI019+2491 P! SlD 20+6026
0 = 24'44' 28.d fRTJ p = 3d 53' 059' fLTJ D = 2614 lab' fLTI
D = 97' 44' 473' D =97'94' 473' D = 57'17' 44.8'
C = 5182' L = 64b9' L = 45b8'
T = 2632' T = 3315' T = 2324'
R = !20.00' R = 120.Od R = 100.00'
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
1 Not t0 5e0iaf
2~ NOturai
D ich ~/On 0~ p C~ouM
Slope 70~ 'L'~
Min, p= I.0'
-OET 'B'- STA 20+19 TO STA 20+94 (L1J
-Y- STA. 10+44 TO STA. 10+75 ILT)
a
rQ ~ 83
=~~0 )L4lS .._ `-v t EPi~-, ,4 ~.,~,.P. C asY„ f.
>L' ef3 •L r,g
TO ~ HD
~ .,~~~
~+ ~ ~~
~, s ~ .,
~,-
jE I. .
+6500 ~~
,. ;65f ~ ~ ~..
c°~usls
E5T 3
Esr ro
i
I
i
I
I
A
f
PROIEC7 REPERBVCE N0. I SHEET N0.
-Y-
P1510 11+2475
~ = 53'02'039'fRTJ
D = 381r a99"
L = 13884'
r = 7484'
R = 150.00'
kW SHEET N0.
ROADWAY DESWN HIDRAWC3
ENGINEER ENONEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT Ink N C9NSTRURIpN

~i - ,
_ \iiil
_
i
%
..
;~-~--- - - - -- -
o~

/ ~ ~
~/ / S

/,. t ,/ C..: ~ j t.
~
~J
/
\ ~
n 1)
. I
'
~
l ~ 3rC =:i I +8.00
~
~~
36. Ju
_ ~,.

„. f .` b
f 30m - lp .. YPytARt' BLIND JB
\~ > 1 ~ l~ ~~ P
~ti~`'J
~ ~ 1 I3
k 'r ~^`
~ \ : ~_ 10
00
~ `
~, :~
~ ~ ~^.-
~ .
16.73' -
3e.Da
~ 3oolr tee- ~~' ,f'
.,
~~'` ti ,
R~ t?.. `
~ ,
~ , ;..~ , ~ _ sEfGD~ETUUiE2Ai'wDRCB
~ aw .., ;
~ / / 70 QO' ~ ~ ~,
,__~.-~ - k E -
_ - 'E ~ + 00 +35.00
' 30A0' 60.00' ~
~ i
+OOAO 30.00' S6A0' +50.00 1 I : ~~+50
~! /
30.00'
1
i
~~ I
S.D. d R E i r.S, ~ *~~.
~ ~ ,::
JE ~ f-
c~ a a s
~ r,c
PI S1G 21+7214
~ = 1504'399'fRrl
D = 51' A' 448'
L = 33.34
r = 16.sa
R = IOO.Od
i
I
,.
/.~ i
/` /
i^ r i
,~;- ~ ,.
^ fJ9 7 '3 ?tc '~/ t
~ % v6 fEa -;, 65 .. ~ 1
~ a _ ~, ~ LJ _' i
€-0 ,co .., _~
PIP£ HYDRAULIC DATA '1
0 ~~
DRAINAGE AREA = __ 095 AC
DESMM FREWENLY 25 rR5
'
'
DESIGN aSCHARGE IJ CFS
-
_
0.°SIGN FAV ELEVATION ~ 293B11 FT
100 YEAR aSCNARGE - I5 CF$
100 YEAR IAY E(EVAT~N = 293b16 FT
OVERTOPPING FREW£NCY = ___ YR$
OVERTOPPING aSCRARGE _ - Cf5
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = ___ __i7
50 0 100
PIPE HYDRAULIC DATA
1~7 TEYFa4AR/ IB'NCP
DRA1NAGf AREA = _ 2A0 AC
DESIGN fREDfIENCY _ _ 25
rR5
a:SIGN aSCNARGE _ _ _
SJ CFS
DESIGN hW ELEVATION = X2511 FT
_
N10 YEAR aSGfARGE = 65 CF$
N10 YEAR FA9 ELEVATION = P9257JFT ~
GVERTOPPING fREOUENCY = _ - _YRS
OVERTOPPING aSCHARGE _ _ __ CFS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = ______FT
.,
,:
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~ of 1 L

~,,.
r~
-Y- 5
-4~QZ _
P! Ste 11+24.75 -M' ~~ ~
p = 53' 02' 039' (RTl Ro~ow~r o~cN KroRwuts
D = 38' Ir 995 ~~ ENGINBR
L = 13884'
r = 74.84'
R - !~'~ PRELIMIN
00 NOT VSE Fb RY PLANS
CON9TglICI'ION
..~;.
~ '., ~,
!~ 2.. py, ~jq
~
r
~ ~~~
-~
- >
~1
~ ~ ~ },~a C k pg 5
~ i /
-DETOUR 'a - -- s
_
~. i
P! Sto 10+4385 P! Sta 11+74,94 P! 5/e 13+5027 ; ~ ' ,z ~ vE z ~" ~ ` `_ ~ _
~ '~ ~ ; s
p =2425' 19S' fRT1 p = Ir 43' 04,8' fLTI p = 35'29' 49A' (RTI ~ ~ a a s
S
L v
~ _ ` ~_~'
?? 4
A ` ~' 1
~
-~
~
D =41'44' 413' D = 4T 44' 473' 0 = 76' 23' 39.T ,
„ \
~
~ ..
.,J~rs
_ :~,, , c ,>s .
?
3 L Er. h. ES
tai
r
~rR .~:>> 3P
~
L = 61b2' L = 15021' L =46.47' ~ - ~
,
_
~~ ,._ r~
~
T=315r r=8613' T=24Ar - d
a
R = 120.00' R = 120.00' R = 75,00'
-DETOUR '8'-
PI Sla 18+4658 P! Sta 19+2497 Pl Sto 20+6026 PI5/o 21+7214
p = 24'44'28.0'(RTl p = 30'S3'D55(LTl p = 26'10'13b'fLTJ p = l404'395fRT1
D = 47' 44' 413' D = 47' 44'473' D =57'17' 44.8' D = 57'17' 44.8'
L = 5182' L = 64b9' L = 45b8' L = 3334
T = 26.32' T = 3315' T = 2324' T = 1680' j~
R = 1201N!' R = !20,00' R = 100!)0' R =(00.()0'
X
* _,,
yi ,
,~
of ~ nr~ uf8Nhflg
Sheet ~ of i Z

16

,w^~ ', ~\~ --~~. ! I ~ __ v/ski/ 9Mi WAS F~=M 9 F 5'

WETLA11tD PERMIT DRAWING
BSR PROFILE @ STA 12 + 73 U
J
V
T
b
B-4202

20
c
1+~
~e p
CL
90
_\
-`~
1:_.
21
~3,
LOWSIDE
~R
~Q0
>TA 19f78-L
60'
'ORED!SLAB.
=LEA = Zg3
SKEW:
LOWSTEEL A
OF : 3.0% SU

WETLAND PERMIT DRA WI11 tG
BSR PROFILE @ STA l9 + 45 -L-
0
8-4202

Note: Not to Scale
*S.UAE = Srcbrurfac>: Utility Egg
S°J[°A'J[°lE ~~' N~Y$°TH[ C.~I8~1LIN.~
~I~I~I~N ~~ 1HIGH[W.~~~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUIIDARIES AIID PROPERTY
--"-"'-
Stab Une
County Une
Towruhip Une

Ciy Une
Reservation Une - - ~ -
Property Une
Existing Iron Pin a
Properly Comer -"'
Properly Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Exuding Fence Une -X-X-X-
Proposed Woven Wire Fence e
Proposed Chain Unk Fence -~--
Proposed Barbed Wiro Fence S
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - -"'- - - -
Proposed Welland Boundary ~°
Existing High Qualify Wetland Boundary - -'° °-
Existing Endangered Mimal Boundary '"
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTXER CULTURB~
Gas Pump Vent or l6G Tank Cap o
Sign g
WeB o
Small Mine ~'
Foundation Q
Area Outline 0
Cemetery 0
Building ~'~
School ~j
Church
Dam
XYDROLOGYAA
Sheom or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir [____]
River Basin Buffer
Flow Arrow E
Disappearing Stream >---
Spring c~^~.--~
Swamp Marsh ~
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump m
RAILROADS.A
Standard Gauge ~,
RR Signal Milepori „~~, ss
Swffch O
RR Abandoned ~ T' T
RR Dismantled
RIGIiT of wAyA
Baseline Control Point .
Existing Right of Way Marker ~
Existing Right of Way Une -
Proposed Right of way Line -~
Proposed Right of way Une with
Iron din and Cop Marker
Propose Right of Way Une with
Concrote or Gron'rte Morlaer
Existing Control of Access --;~; --
Proposed Control of Aceesa -~-
Exiriing Easement line --e--
Proposed Temporary Conrinrction Easement - e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -~-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement - -r~-
Proposed Pem+onent Utility Easement -rue -
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES
Existing Edge of Pavement --
Existing Curb --
Proposed Slope Slakes Cut --- ~ ---
Proposed Slope Slakes Fill _ _ _ F _
Propose Wheel Choir Romp
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp - ~
Existing Metal Guordrotl
Proposed Guardrail
Exbting Cable Guideroil "
Proposed Cable Guideroil -Il "
Equality Symbol ~
Pavement Removal
;vEGETATION.~
Single Tree ~
Singh Shrub °
Hedge -~
Woods line '"~'""`'
Ordtard 4 4 4 4
Vineyard ""°'~°
BXIST7NG STRUCTURES.A
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Woll and End Wall - ~ ~
MINOR:
Head and End Wall G
Pipe Cuhrort
Footbridge ~ ---~
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB ^GB
Paved Dikh Golfer -----
Stone Sower Manhole
Storm Sewer
UI7LITIES.A
POWER:
E~ariing Power Pole j
Proposed Power Pob b
E:dsting Joint Use Pole -~-
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Une Tower
Power Transformer 8
llti Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole ~
Recorded IJ~G Power Une '
Designated tlG Power Una (S.U.E.') ----A----
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole ~
Telephone Manhole ~
Telephone Booth ~
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower •~
tK3 Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U~G Telephone Cable '
Designated UG Telephone Cabb (S.U.E.')- ----'----
Recorded UG Telephone Conduit "
Designated U~G Telephone Conduit(S.U.E.')- ----'°----
Recorded UG Fiber Optia Cable "°
Designated UG Fiber Oplia Coble (S.U.E')- ----"°---
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter ~
Water Valve
Water Hydrant ~
Rewrded l1G Water Une
Deaignated U+G Water Une (S.U.E.')---- - ---•----
Above Ground Water Une .,~ ~*~
rv:
TV Satellite Dish ~
TV Pedestal
TV Tower
UG TV Coble Hand Hole
bl
R
d
d lVG TV C
ecor
e
a
s
Designated lbG TV Coble [S.U.E,') - - - -^- - - -
t
bl
r O
C
R
d
d U~G Fib '°~°----
p
e
a
s
ecror
e
e
DesignaMd USG Fiber Optic Coble (S.U.E,")- - - - -'~ A°- - -
GAS:
Gas Valve 0
Gas Meter
Recorded WG Gas Urn °-
Deeignated USG Gas Une (S.U.E.'~ ----°-
Above Ground Gas Une "/` `°'
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanovf 0
lbG Sanitary Sewer Une
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer A/G Sanl*K7 Ss.x
Recorded SS Forced Main Une A:=
Designated SS Forced Main Une {S.U.E.'~ - - - - -~Y- - - -
MISCELLANEOUS,
UHBty Pole •
UHRty Pole wHh Bose p
UtiIBy Located Object o
UtilHy Traffic Signal Box
UHINy Unknown UG Une +~~-
U~G Tonle; Water, Gas, Oil
ArG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil 0
USG Test Hole (S.U.E.•) m
Abandoned According to Utility Records - MTUR
End of Information E.0,1,

SURVEY C011tTR OL SHEET B-4202
BL
POINT OESC. NORTH
GPS] 84282.1 779+73.7859
3 BL-3 778755.5569
OP52 84202-2 779]10.9221
BL-4 7791&.375q
5 BL-5 779481.7373
6 BL•6 779667,5300
7 BL•7 779955.4799
8 BL-8 780302.4169
9 BL•9 700566.1775
IB BL•10 780801.7328
I1 BL-ll 781127.9374
BMl ELEvg1]OI4 • 2951.19
N 77%09 E 1871%7
L STATION 23.17 1277 LEFT
RR SPIKE iN 24. OAK
6M2 ELEVATION 2943.33
N 788084 E 1071980
L STgTIDN 14.47 58 RIC41T
RR SPIKE IN 36' POPLAR
.• ............... ............ •.., .4....
8M3 ELEVAT]al 2936.84
N 760228 E 1872856
L STATION ]fi•63 37 R]GHT
Poi SPIKE IN 36' OAI(
NOTE: DR4WIN(# NOT TO SCALE
xcoor rrs sr~. ~aa,r
toc~L~ racvacr coounuwrss
x . nun.nn
8 ^ IBTlA'7L616f
•
EA6T ELEVAT]ON L STAT]DN
]071871.6768 2966.17 23.16.71
]07]947.4228 2961.46 23.16.71
]07]058.0777 2961.99 23.16.71
1071972.8485 2%4.66 23•!6.71
7077903.0101 2949.25 23.16.71
]07]883.2324 2946.05 18.56.43
107]%4.4813 2943.43 !3.64.17
1872085.3301 2937.75 17.48.09
1871881.0527 2930.77 28.81.59
]07]606.610] 2927.36 23.16 71
1071506.7339 2930.25 23,16.71
BMI ELEVATION •2935.91
N 788411 E 1071896
L STATION ]8.99 29 LEFT
RR SPIKE IN 48' HEMLOCK
B1fi ELEVATION •2925.94
N 788943 E 1071527
L STAT]ON 23•]7 232 LEFT
RR SPIKE ]N 14' NgPLE
OFFSET
2286.25 Ri
2015.53 RT
]651.37 RT
1597,34 RT
]290.16 RT
7.33 RT
34.12 RT
11.32 RT
14.00 LT
70.85 LT
406.14 RT
DATUM DESCRIPTION
111: LOCUIZEtI LODRDINeIE STSTEN DEYEICPED FOR THIS FAUIEtT
15 RASED ON THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED Br
NCDOT FOR IOIUAENT '84202-1'
AITN NAD 83 STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OF
NORTHING: T181T1.1859fft1 FASTING: 1DT1811.6T681ft1
THE AVERAGE COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT
IGROUND TO GRID1 I5: 0.99980016
Tiff N.C. !ALBERT GRID BEARING 110
LOCALIZED IBNIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FRpI
'81202-I' TO i- STATION 10100.00 1S
S 0'59'47' E 1117.88'
All LINEAR DIIENSIONS AAE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL OATUM USED 15 NAVD 86
-L- STA,13+1Q71 BND STATE PROJECT 33549.1)
LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDIlVATES
7VCD07' GP8 STd 7112A7-2' =~j
zoCert~o r~QlBl;r coaronlGtrss ~-~~~~ N = 78074A7187
x ^ '~ w E = 107I8S1.7180
JP = 1071LSL0111
•
~. ~
NOTES:
1, THE CONTROL DATA FOR TB7S PROJECT CAN BE POZIND ELECTRONICALLY BY BELECTINO
PROJELT CONTROL DATA AT•
HTI'P~9W.DOH.DOT.9TAT&NC.EI$~PR&CONBTRUL7f1~OHWAY/LOCATION/PRCVECT/
THE FILER TO BE FOUND ARS AR FBLLOWBr
B4S08 ~ CONTROL_OBOF8I.T%T
BTTE CAL7BRA.T70N DJFORlG1TION HA8 NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR TB73 PROIECI:IF FZIRTHER
DVP'ORNATION IS NEEDED, PLEASE CONTACT THE LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
-L- STA,I0+OA00 BEGIN STATE PROJECT 33S49d.1
LOCALTLED PROJECT COORDINATES
N e 77962L4883
E = 1071851.7180

~" ~ -Y- STA.11+95.47 END STATE PRGjJECT 33549.1.1
~ LOCALIZED PROJECT COORDLILlTBS
N = 780613.7895
E = 1071999.6818
• WDICATE9 GEODETIC CONTROL MONUb~'NT8 USED OR BRT FOR HORIZONTAL PROJECT CONTROL
BY THE NCDBT LOCATION ,;ND 9URVEYB UNIT.
PROJECT CONTROL ESTABLZ9HED U3DV(I GLOBAL P03ITIONlNO SY87TAM•

P
0
0
V
W

See Sf~ef ?-A For Index of Sf~eis
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
~TA~C]E ®]F ITT®R~~[ CAR®LINA
~I~vI~I®N ®~ HI~~I~A~Y~
MITCHELL COUNTY
LOCATION: REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0109 AND
BRIDGE N0.110 ON SR I002 (CRABTREE
CREEK ROAD) OVER CRABTREE CREEK
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE
AND STRUCTURES
mi+ .r~+ n+iaT maan la ~
xn mru
~u
.~. ~ ~0~
RN[ 1iElO~ Rl1YL,R ~
33549.1.1 BRZ-1002 PE
33549.2.1 BRZ-1002 AAV U11L

N`
-- ,-~ _
E~
r
T
0
N
~o
ti~
o~
c
o~
UO
~c
Q~
U
O
U
v~
•• DESIGN SPEED EXCEPTION wlLl BE REQUIRE
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II
GRAPHIC SCALHS
50 25 50 1
PUNS
D&SIG11f DATA
ADT 1005 = 350
ADT 1025 = 600
DHV = 12 96
D = 65 96
T = 3 96 '
++V ~ 20 MPH
• ~ TTST 196 + DUAL 196 ~
PROJECT LENGTH
PrtAxed Jn Jlr a1lpp dr
0.216 MI DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Hlrei RlJ~~ Dr., Hsldti NC, 11611
0.021 MI ~ ~
0.237 MI
S~ 25 0 5D 100
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL}
NC.CLASS. =RURAL
LENGTH RQADwAY TIP PROJECT B-4202
LENGTH STRUCTURES TIP PROJECT 8-4202
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-4202
luGflT' OP WAY DATE: I G. E. BRF:'~, PE
JUNE 30, 2006 '"'~
LBTfAfG Ja,9T8r W, T. BEST
JUNE ]7, 2008 Afd1~
f1YD%ULf~S ID~'GINSBR Y DlVISIOIY OF SIGRWAYS
STATE OF NOR221r CAROLQIG4
ROADWAY DBSIGX trua assaar Aam~t
BkG>2V(BBR DBPdRTMffiY2' OP TRANSPORTA270X
FEDERAL l~VGgfVAY ADMIlVISTRATIDI

2
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
(FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN)
C 1 PROP. APPROX. 1" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.bA, PROP. 8" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER S0. Y0.
C2 O A;;
C088REPE
SgQFAYE
S
A
T
CI
E
9 R1 CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
AT
AN O
R
D
AVERAGE RATE
OF
N
EACH
OF
Two
LAYERS
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE CAURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
C3 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER SD. YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO R2 CONCRETE SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 21~" IN DEPTH
E1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 625.08,
T EARTH 1JATERIAL
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 458 LBS. PER SG. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B26.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SO. YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
EZ BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3" IN DEPTH OR GREATER U EXISTING PAVEMENT
THAN 6Y~" IN DEPTH
NOTE: PAVE MENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE STANDARD WEDGING DETAIL SHT 2-B)

c
m
v
T

VAR. Y
eatna aouw - . _ ~ ' - -~ 2.
INSET 'A'
USE INSET 'A' IN CONJUNCTION WITH
TYMCAL SECTION N0.1 AND TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
-L- FROM STA. 13+18.08 TO STA.13+54J5 ON LEFT EDGE OF PAVEMENT
-lr FROM STA. 13+45.18 TO STA. 13+54J5 ON RIGHT EDGE OF PAVEMENT
-Ir FROM STA. 20+13.00 TO STA. 21+54.78 ON LEFT EDGE OF PAVEMENT
mpNC wnuo - . - - 1~7
GRADE TO THIS UNE ~
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1
I~p~ l 10,02 ~ p.p4~
4,~
T GRADE TO THIS UNE b~
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2
• NOTE 7' WITH 6UAADIAII
V
~*~r0
ty
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
-L- FROM STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 11+04.84
~- FROM STA. 10+33.00 TO STA. 11+15.00
~- FROM STA. 11+75.00 TO STA.11+25.00, TRANSTiION FROM
TYP. SECT. N0.1 TO EXISTING
NOTF; 7'NTRI GUAADfAIL
r
tit~l~
7.1
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
~ FROM STA 11+01.82 TO STA,12+73.00+~ roEGIN BRIDGE)
~ FROM STA. 13+13 00+~ (END BRIDG TO STA. 15+3314
-L- FROM STA. 19+33;00 TO STA. 19+48~+~ 18EGIN BRIDGE)
-Jt FROM STA. 20+08.00+~ SEND BRIDGl~TO STA. 20+33.00
-Y- FROM STA. 10+30.67 TO STA.10+44.
Y FROM ~'TA.10+4~;q1 i0 STA. 11+88.78, TRANSRION RtOM
TYP. SE N0.1 v t705TING

a
d
V
FINAL PAYEYENT DE8I0N
C1 PROP. APPROX. 1" ,TYPE 8FR.5A
('Q PROP. APPROX. Z", TYPE BFB.SA
E1 PROP. APPROX. 4", TYPE BsS.OB
R1 CONCRETE VALLEY BUTTER
T EARTN MATERIAL
(~ EXI8TIN0 PAVEMENT
W VAIRABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAYEYENi
INSET 'B'
USE INSET 'B' IN CONJUNCTION YYRN
TYPICAL SECTION N0.4
-1r FROM 5TA.18+08.22 TO STA,18+57x12 ON LEFT EDGE OF PAVEMENT
emn+o a~ouno

TYPICAL SECTION N0. 3
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 4
,~,
2'~' is ~a 2'~•
GRADE
POM
C1 1V
10.02 00.
1' ~.
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 5
ON STRUCTURE
I
~~ ',
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 6
ON STRUCTURE
Y~" 10' 17 3'-b'
GRADE
POINT
C
~~ ~ O=~
UL
- - ~ _ . - w~nu uoa,w
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
-It FROM STA. 15+33.19 TO STA. 16+68.52
dl
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.4
-Ir FROM STA. 18+00.00 TO STA. 18+5O.OO,TRANSITION FROM
EXISTING TO TYP. SECT. NO.4
-4- FROM STA.18+50.00 i0 STA. 19+48.00
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.5
-Ir fROM STA. i2+73.00+,~ TO STA. 13+23.00+f-
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. b
-L- FROM STA. 19+48.00+~ TO STA. 20+08.00+~

m
v
a
V
FINhL PAVEMENT DESISN
C1 PROP. APPROX. 1° ,TYPE BFS.EA
CZ PROP. APPROX~ 2", TYPE SFB.SA
C3 PROP. VAR. DEPTH, TYPE SFS.EA
EZ PROP. VAR, OEPTN, TYPE B46.OB
~ 1 PROP. 8" ASSREDATE BASE COURSE
T EARTH MATERIAL
U EXISTINS PAVEMENT

TYPICAL SECTION N0. 7

Jl
_ ~ - BOfIMO OIpJ11D
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.7
-0ET'A'- FROM STA.1D+50.00 TO STA. 11+15.27, TRANSITION PROM
EXISTING TO TYP. SECT. N0. d
-0ET 'A'- FROM STA,11+15.27 TO STA. 13+10.00+~ ((BgEGIN BRIDGE
-0ET 'A'- FROM STA. 13+80.00+,~ (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 15+27.44
-0ET'A'- FROM 15+27.46 TO 15+65.88,TRAN Tt10N FROM
TYP. SECT. N0.7 TO EXISTING
JL
- _ . _ . - BOiRNO WOIMD
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. B
-0ET'B'- FROM STA.18+20.26 TO STA. 18+82.66, TRANSITION FROM
F%ISiING TO TYP. SECT. N0.8
-DET'B'- FROM STA. 18+82.66 TO STA. 19+75.00+,~ (BEGIN BRIDGq
-0Ei'A'- FROM STA.20+35.00+,~ (END BRIDGEI TO STA. 21+19.33
-0ET'B'- FROM STA. 21+19.33 TO STA. 21+87.16,TRANSRION FROM
TYP. SECT. N0. B TO E10STING
~ Wedging Detail For Resurfacing
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 8

6
a
c
c
m
i
n
a
D
N
8
N
-L-
P/SJO N1+0651 PI Sfo n+8556 PI SYO J6+l6,Q6 PI SJa !1+08,¢1 PI Slo
p • 9'44095'(RTJ p = 65'03'06T'ftT1 p = 45'S2'103'fL J p = fi39'035(!Tl p = Il
D = 70'32'003' D - 4T 44' 47,3' D - 4r 13' 1J5 D =22'25'445 D = 6'
t = r380' C - r3624' L = Jn28' t = 7870' C =
T -692' T = 76,52' T =5882' T = 39b6' T = &
R •8123' R• 12000' R- 139,00' R =255.45' R
a. su is+w o-n
nwrea e~~ ra, a+~er No.
8-4202 4
22+3555 P157o IJ+24T5 Rw aar wa
Ol'28J(RTJ p = 53'O2'039'fRTJ ~~r ~~~
l62 rd5l D = 9' e+ower e~+a+mi
Nqp 83 r = 748a
846 R = J50D0'
PREI.IMIN RY P1.AN5

i i
t-AUC-2007 14:32
\rop4la~.y\Proy\64202_rdy_pnh5.dgn
~o~~oD~ ~o~~oD~
n n 1 1 1 ~1 u u" nAAl~uyy~n
~~'~~~0'0 81l'n~y`4~
~~ ~~~
~otiroD~ ~~~op~
I I I I I V~ 1 1 1 1 1
0
Q~~~~d w ~wa
~~q~ R ~~$
~j
`-
~`+''OD~ ~ ~-+~oD~ s
rxluac~ xxxuu~
N ~~ ~~ ~+
~~~ ~~~
..
~~'`OD~
n u"u act
~~~a~~
~ ~~
~~ ~~~ ~
T4 ~
'~ n
~a m~ ~~~'
O~ v SAD
n
t0 ~' 4 r. N
..~
v T ~ ~~ g
0
?~ ~ ~~ _
~.+p r
+ o

'~._ ae.~
99'10' E ~~.
~~
t~

rV ~~
O ~~
~~ s i

~ >T
"o
++
~~
00
tT
N N
++
~i w
~'~
~R
~$

v
m
~
~ m
'
v o
n D
~c -
`v -
~ o~ i
v

T O_T

4
,~
E ~
~w
~ ~--- wa.
eea~` ,
--~~
589110, M 1~ ~ a
~~~
j ~ o ~
~~~
~~~
~~ ~
~~
~'~ E
~Z 0
~y~OD~
M M I M 1 ~
~ V~~ M +
(~'Y~ 1
tn- `~(`71
Y
y
61'B
~~
aj
~~ii.
J~
~~

g
N
z
~c
~~
~r
z

_Rdy_xpl_l.dgn

202_Rdy_xpl_l.dgn

nalecr mee+a ra. slur ra
8-4202 4
DESIGN DAT A
DESIYMM SPEED fi0 trpA
POSTED SPEED 55 ~
CURAEA? YEAR AD( 120a1 300 vpR
a:SNN YEAR ADT 120251 fi00 vpd
x Trsr ,z alas Ix ,2x
PuAeTroxa. cLASSrF~aT1DR Aurd Ixal
TERRNN uamvolrous
NAX RAaUS 1205 11
uAx1Y0Y GRADE px
SUPEAElEVATION RATE Se • ODB
• OEStiN EXCEPTION REOOIRED
h
-L-
PI Slo 13+6057
~= 73'29318'fR71
D = SY09 250'
L = 14356'
T = 83b2'
R = 112D(Y
OS = 20 mph
• i _-
~! \'
p / ~ i~`~~
.. j' /
Q ~-~
i
_. / ~
~ ~
n.'.
/ ~

-L- SI.
8,4202
(ALTERNATIVE A)
IN-PLACE WITH ON-SITE DETOUR
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

~a ~ •~a
,~0'
5 O ~ o ~,
~ N ~ NW
~~ z.
y4~' -L- `~ 'a
BEGIN GRADE yXh M Pl Slo 17+2023 A ~ ~ tNN '
~ 4 ~ = 25'02'48B'(RT) A ~ r
-L- STA14+45D0 0• v hi ~ r
8-4202 ~ + D = 38'IY499" xh ; ~ ~
,v tD T = 3332' p N o
R = 150D0' ~ ° N
~' ~
~'. ~ DS = 20 mph ~ o} ro
J / liy lA .
\~~ ~ r
\t ti ~ \
\ fN0 BRILUE ~ l
\ c ~ -L- STAG+08.00 ~ r
~~\~ 8-4202 ; ~~ ~P ..
\~- ~ fND GRADE p ~ '
\ ` \ c -L- STA18+55,00 ~-' ~
~ `~ c ~ ~~ ' 8-4202 /
l
N 4'S7'40.4'W ~ ~ v\ ~ ~ ~_______ ,/ ~ ~ y fAj~
EDGE ~ ~
6+33.00 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~' ~fl ~ EB N BRI
~ 25 i0 221' a -C- STAi
a ~~___~~ 8-4202
~ xa ~
-L- `0 'hV ~?~ -~ BEGIN GRADE -L-
PI Sto 16+0581 ° xy ~ -L- STA 21+8000 PI Sta 21+9601
0= 3Y30'S0.3'ILTI `~ ~' 8-4202 ~_ !0'35'373'ILTI
J y ~. D = 6' 2r 583'
0 = 3r 49 516' L = 166.9r
1 \. T = 83.44'
T =5079' ~' v -L-
R = 18000' R =90000'
DS = 25 mph ~ PI Slo 20+18.46 ~ DS = 50 mph ~
°D = 4z 1IS6~s raT}
4 L = 16193' ~... ~ _`../"
I T = 85.48' ~-...~".
R =205.00' \._~
~, o. ,..P DS = 25 mph
6'-0'
wi p>Awlua
I
I
LP6[[ ~
roIN,
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
-L- ~,
8-4202

.~'
r
\~~
PRELIMIN
~>~ ~ RY PLANS
~~
INCOMPLE E PLANS
b 7Wf WC 1p1 /~ AOOU61770N
i~
~~ /~ ~//~
~. ~~' \ n
~ ~ .
-L-
- /` PI Slo 27+39b8
+ END GRADE p = 26' 14' 412' fRTI
/ -L- STA25+30D0 D = 510' 024
j /+ B-4202 ~} - 2862
~ / 1- - 1457
-L- R = 625.Q7
~ Pf Slo 23+91.96 DS = 45 mphp ~
~ o= s'Saoro•an\
D = arro6,4' +
~ ~ 1 + L = 83.49' ~}
,/ ~\ ~` 1~ R =700.00' \+ /k~k,
~ ~ ~ DS = 45 nlOh ~+ ~ p
R ~ ~b' +
~~ 1~ ~ . ~ ~
~~pl i k ~'~b
p t ~ ~~ Q
I ~~ 1 / ~
r I~
1 ,~1 I
% ~g1~ ~ I
// MAP
p.P I I'-0' I I I'-P ~ J ~p'
i
~,oE I
~~ ~
1
TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
SCALE
so o so 100
FIGURE 4

DETOUR DESIGN DATA
D£SMrN SPEED 27 mpA
ANN.RAfaUS N5 (1.
YAX1YdM CRADE 8X
SUPEREIEYATA7N RATE Se = OL5
I, .
_ II
__ - . ,,
p ~-_-p! ! p i l
pp ~~
pp rp ~ i
~Q ~~ 1t !1 ~i~EQ
/ ~
! ~. ~,~
.~ ~ p p t! //~
p ~~ Qp / ~~ p
p : /
j/..~,,i,~~
~~ ~~.
-_y~_ ~.J
'- ~. p~9
~~ ~~ p
~~ ~
~`_ _i..
\`.\`

(ALTERNATIVE AJ
IN-PLACE WITH ON-SITE DETOUR
BRIDGE N0, 110
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

•
-~ ~...'
/~- ~ 8-9202
,~
N 26' 33' 099'E
A
-DETI-
PI Sta N+0923
~ = 3298' 435' (LTI
o = 45952or
L = 6596'
T = 33.86'
R = !l5A0'
DS = 20 mpA
4
i
nioecr mace w. ner ra.
B-9202 4
DADMAY DEIGN
RIf~R MYO~NJIIff
91G~lmt
PRELIMIN
m Hor ~. RY PLANS
co,anluc~ma
INCOMPLE
DD N01 V~ ,011 E PLANS
/ f ACOV1617gN
~~ ~, P7 Sto 12+3391
D = 26'20' 42A' fRTI
D = 4549' 20.T'
L =5298' /
T = 26.9Y r/
R = 115.00'
2 ~ 84 CItP DS - 20 mph ~/;
~~ N 6I5' 33b' W END PROJECT • p ~ .l // /1
~ ~ ~ ~ /.
__ 1 P7 -DETI- Sta.12+59J8 pp per I / / ~
F ~ B-4202 ~ ~ ` f - ~
f \ ill ~
~ ~~
F ~\ f \ ~`// ~\~% /%/
~ \ ~/ ~ / \~
` ~ \__X' /
__.. '/
x~ p / .
N
w v~ `~~_
i ~ 1. ~ i
ti ~,. /~~
0 0
a ~ ~..\ pp //.
SCALE
50 0 50 100
FIGURE 5
TYPICAL DkTOUR ROADWAY CROSS SECTION

neoxr meera !a. uer ra.

DETOUR DESIGN DATA
OES~GN SPEED ZO aqA
MIM.RAON15 115 fi.
MAXLIUY GRAQE 8X
Sf1PfRECEVATNM~ RATE St = OD6
(ALTERNATIVE A)
IN-PLACE WITH ON-SITE DETOUR
BRIDGE N0.109
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
PT -DE
8-4202
0

• ~ ~ ~ /
b~ ~/n
~ PC -DET2- STa.10+00D0 ~ p p ,~~
BEOIN PROJECT
\\\\\ \ \ . B-4202
~~~
\ ~~~ •N
\ \ ~
--- ~i
~\\ ~~~/
,.
x~ -DET2-
PI Sta b+18b0
.p f4'08'23.3'(RTl
~_ D`~,.381P 499'
R=
OS =
/~
1~
:~
30!
o~
R
1
-DE72- N
~ Pl Sfa N+IOJ9
m p = 2! 47' 398' ILTI
~ D = 38'lC499'
ro
v,
T =2888'
L = ~~, l
o R = 150.00'
o DS = ZQ mph j/
b

N ,-~
0.14+28.47
i x
/~~~, - ~~\\'~ //may/mix/~i~~-
/+/+ /DET2- ~ ~ a b . p
+~/Pl Sto 14+05.38
/~ / D = 38'IY149.9'RTl tJ Q
F/ ~
/ R = 150D0' p p C~
/ DS = 20 mph ~
/ / `~ '~
/ ~. ~? ~
'y
o .~
,lab s,~
o, ~\
~ 1 ~ ~x
_~~, 1111~~ E?~} -DET2- ~'8S
'P I 1 p PI Sta 12+9213
i_ . ~ p= 2437'121fLT1
~?~I I ~ p D = 38'!P 449'
~} ~ ~,, ~ ~ k p~ T= 32J3'
I ~1 11 ~ R = ISODO'
DS = 20 mph
` / / /~}
/ /
~~1' // ~

SCALE
50 p 50 100
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
eo Hor w oo.ar~ueemrr
INCOMPLE E PLANS
m tm u~ rat i~ ArnuRmx
FIGURE 6
TITICAI DETOUR ROADWAY CROSS SECTION

f
0
S ~ I '
~I
,.~-~ ~
ll
I 1 0 ~~~
~~py 1~~~
~ 11 ~~~~ A
~ p i ~
~ J ~i
i ~
~' x \~,.
\ ~\
~~ J
.,\ ~
•~~
P
BEG1N PROJE
-u- sraro~
8-4202

n ~ ~~;...
- - ~~ ~\
--~_~ ~ ~
DO \ \
~~\ ~\ ~~
^7
~~
~o
y
Q~

S~
~ ~ 1 •
a ~~
~ l
~- ~
\ ~i //
~~~pJ
~~ ~/ ~
i ,/ C /
~\
.~ ~~
\~
\` ~ ~\ r
\~ \~~ \~
\\~ \\`~
~\
~ ` ~~'_
~_ ~,
~~\
\\\ f
I
u•-a• s~•r
e,.a.
wi wumw~a
weoc
Pgnr
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
(ALTERNATIVE B)
(NEW LOCATION -EAST SIDE)
n=a
n•-o• rr-a ~ ird r-o'
w~oc ~
~~ n.~
L ~
TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
~ -CI-
Pf Sta 2Ji09bB
~ p = 65 DY 259' 2TJ
D = 510' 02,4'
C = 10930'
`~ T = 39835' p
' \ R = 625D0' Q
\\.~ OS = 45 mph
SCALE
50 0 50 100
ntascr tsaetesa ra. star ta.
B-4202 4
IIOADMAY 0lSIGH t1rOdlAlft
?pYlEt BlGM®l

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
CO NOf Wi COrimRUCTON
1NCOMPLE E PLANS
ro N01' ns wa iw AOOVWipn

49~c
ti
Gy
F
~G~
4
i
~i
1
• ~ 1~
~... ~ >, ~
~~Q.
I 1 ~~
. I I ~~
~~Ypl~ ,I k~
~ ~ ~
~ I_
/10711 ,Jf
• I l I~
//
~~ i
/
FIGURE 7
DESIGN DATA
DESIGN SPEED 6D mph •
POSTED SPEED 55 nM
WRRfNi YEAR ADT f200A 300 vp9
DESIGN YEA4 ADT ,20251 600 vpd
z TTSr ,z alas ri ,rl
PuNCrlavAC a~sslPrcATaN Ruior(acot
TERRAIN NaNdncus
NAx RADrus a6s n
NAXIanrN GRADE mz
SUPEREitYATfON RATE Se = OAA
• DESIGN fXCEPTpN R£OINRED
N

1
nior~r ~vaeue rro.
(ALTERNATIVE B)
(NEW LOCATION -EAST SIDE)
~p
1
I~
S~
-4202
/ ~-
i~~.i P III
/~i ~~~~
~} ~
~p p 4 p ~ ~
~% ~
'~ pp ap .
+' ~
P! Sto 26+85.44
c'S' % / ~= 3534'03.6'tRTI ~ ~ ~'
C'2F /~ D = 5!0'024' ~ ~
L = 43162'p ~ ~
'C~ T = 224$1' '-
,~j, e R = 625[10' ~ i
q~ \ DS = 45 mpA ~ p c
x~ 0
* ~
p f
x
'~ / ~k.
~+ ~ Q
~\
I
~'
I
I
wr
(ANE J
porn
TYflCAI ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
W
DESIGN DATA
DESIGN SPEED 40 mpn
POSTEO SPfEO 35 mpA
CURRENT YEAR ADT f200D 307 vpG
QESlGN YEM aD7 f2D251 600 v~
z Trsr ,z macs Iz ,u
FUNCTIONAL cussiPA:arroN Ruraucar
TERRNN MouNolnws
MAX RAOrUS 465 ti
MAXIMUM GRADE roX
SUPER£(EVATDN RATE Se =DDB
• DESIGN EXCEPTION REWIRED
C
I
za•~~
3_0'~ II'q' I II'~p' p~.p.
n ~~ I
f ` ..3PL~ ~&~,
1
TYPICAL BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
s~sr ra.
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
W Nm IIY OONSfAUCITON
INCOMPLE E PLANS
m wm uc ral iw nccuemoN
FIGURE 8

For permitting, any project that falls under the Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permits 23 or 33
do not require written concurrence by the NC Division of Water Quality. Notification and
courtesy copies of materials sent to the Corps, including mitigation plans, are required. For
projects that fall under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 or Regional General Bridge
Permit 31, the formal 401 application process will be required including appropriate fees and
mitigation plans.
Do not use any machinery in the stream channels unless absolutely necessary. Additionally,
vegetation should not be removed from the stream bank unless it is absolutely necessary.
NCDOT should especially avoid removing large trees and undercut banks. If large, undercut
trees must be removed, then the trunks should be cut and the stumps and root systems left in
place to minimize damage to stream banks.
Use of rip-rap for. bank stabilization must be minimized; rather, native vegetation should be
planted when practical. If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water.
Rules regarding stormwater as described in (15A NCAC 2b.0216 (3) (G)) shall be followed for
these projects. These activities shall minimize built-upon surface area, divert runoff away from
surface waters and maximize utilization of BMPs. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed
in order to allow it to be most effectively utilized for storm water sheet flow.
Special Note on projects B-4037 and B-4076: these waters are classified as 303(d) waters.
Special measures for sediment control will be needed.
Also note that projects B-4037, B-4052, B-4015,B-4013, B-4012, B-4011, B-4202, B-4196,
B-4322, B-4317, and B-4316 occur in Trout waters. Any trout-specific conditions that would be
determined by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, to protect the egg and fry
stages of trout from sedimentation during construction, would be required on any 401
certifications.
Streams classified as "+" signify a stream draining into another stream that is ORW or HQW.
Projects that occur in "+" streams are: B-4016, B-4012, B-4011, and B-4317.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost.

L-' j`•
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 18, 2002
1 ~ •
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dornejy
NC Division f W.
From:
Robert Ridings ~1
NC Division of Water
ity, 401 Unit
nit
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B-4037, B-4076, B-4116, B~016,
B-4052, B-4015, B-4013, B-4012, B-4011, B~2~B-4199,
B-4196, B-4195, B-4322, B-4317, B-4316, B-4285, & B-4028.
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream. Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) must be
implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream
aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation must be planted on all bare
soil within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 150 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. While the NCDWQ
realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate ntigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
extensions.
Wetlands/40( Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone [phone] p'AX # ?33-689.=-

USFV~ mments (6/2002) F 2 bridgeprojE Y2005
PDE I_TIP __ County Rank Reason for Rank FWS Log Nurti
DW f B-4192 McDowell Y Need to assess pogonia ~ 4=2'
JJ ,B-4194 McDowell Y Need to assess pogonia _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 4=2-
JJ ~ B-4195 McDowell Y Need to assess pogonia 4-2-
JJ ; B 4196 McDowell Y Need to assess pogonia 4 2,
DW B 4197 McDowell Y Need to assess pogonia, FWS requests mussel surveys, badge to bridge for high quality stream 4 `2
JJ B-4198 McDowell Y_ _ _ Need to assess pogonia ~ 4 2.
__.. ,
DW _ 8-4199 i McDowell Y Need to assess pogonia - , 4 2
DW B-4202 Mitchell Y Unresolved for Elktoe, FWS requests bridge to bridge, NO SURVEY NEEDED,FOR..INDIANA`:BAT 4 2=.
DW B-4239 Polk Y unresolved for small-whorled pogonia and heartleaf _ _ _ _ 4.2.
DW B-4240 Polk Y unresolved for small-whorled pogonia and heartleaf 4.2:.
_ ._. -~
SH B-4255 Rowan G _ may need resurvey for Schweinitz's sunflower 4.2:
SH ;B-4258 ,Rutherford Y unresolved for small whorled pogonia ;:. ~ 4:2;
RY I B-4259 Rutherford Y unresolved for small-whorled pogonia, FWS requests another heartleaf survey 42-02-~
RY B-4260 Rutherford Y unresolved for small-whorled pogonia I 4 2-02
SH IB-4261 Rutherford Y unresolved for small-whorled pogonia and heartleaf 4 2 02_,+
---
RY B-4264 Rutherford Y unresolved for small-whorled pogonia, FWS requests another survey
for heartleaf 4~2.?02-'
RY B-4265 Rutherford Y ,
unresolved for small whorled pogonia, FWS requests another survey for heartleaf and irisette 4~-2=02-:
RY B-4266 Rutherford Y unresolved for small whorled pogonia, FWS requests another survey for heartleaf 4 2-02;
note for R
_.- _ - -.. r utherford Co pr
- -- ojects -No
--- survey is required for Indiana bat because the record is a winter record.

H iB-4282
(

Stokes

R
- -- -- - -------- ---.. _
unresolved for cardamine and James spiny mussel, FWS concerned about bridge design
., ,

4-2-02-~
_
DP ;8-4284 i _
Surry _Y _
____
unresolved for pogonia .FWS requests assessment for bog turtle and brook floater, bridge to bridge _ ~ __ _
02
4 2.
DP
B 4285
Surry
_
Y
_ _ _
unresolved for pogonia, FWS requests assessme_ nt for bog turtle
and brook floater
_
_ .
,
4 2 02h

RY B-4286
DW ~B
Swain
R _
P.
unresolved for listed species, esp. Indiana bat, FWS concerned with badge design
4a2 02~'
-4287 Swain R p
unresolved for listed s ecies, es Indiana bat, FWS concerned with bridge design 4- 0
RY IB-4288 (Transylvania Y unresolved for listed species, FWS requests survey for bunched
arrowhead 4-2-02-.
SH B 4290 Transylvania Y _
unresolved for listed species i `

9
nia - - ---- ..
l
a _ 4 2 0~
MD B-43
6
JJ 8-4317 - -
iWatauga
Wat Y
G FWS reques
ts b
dge to badge for high quality stream, FWS r_e_q_u_e_st_s_su_rve_y fo_r green floater_ ___
~ - -.4-2-0
-----~~-~-
~~
auga FWS requests bridge to bridge for high quality stream
_. _. - '
3

MD IB-4318
Watauga
G _ _ -
FWS requests bridge to
bridge for high quality stream, FWS requests survey for green floater
4
MD ; B
3 ,
-4
22 Wilkes G FWS requests badge to bridge for high quality stream, assessment for,bog;turtle; _ . 4-2x,02;
W B-4330 Yancey Y unresolved for elktoe, FWS requests resurvey for Spiraea, be careful.ofdownstream effects 4~~~n'~.

USFWS comments (6/2002)
Paye 1
bridgeproje... _,~Y2005
PDE ; TIP County Rank Reason for Rank FWS Log. Number
SH B-2988 Haywood Y equests review of bridge design __ _ __ ___-
unresolved for listed species, FWS
_ _... 4 2 02-391

--- _

Mb
B-4011
Ashe
Y r
_ _
.- _
FWS requests resurvey for spiraea assessment for bog turtle and green floater, review bridge plans
4 2 02-405
MD I B-4012 Ashe _
Y FWS requests resurvey for spiraea and habitat assessment for bog turtle _ ___ 4 2 02 404
MD 6-4013 Ashe Y ___ FWS requests resurvey for spiraea and habitat assessment for bog turtle, review bridge design __ 4 2-02-403
MD B-4015 Ashe Y FWS requests resurvey for spiraea and habitat assessment for bog turtle, review bridge design ~ 4-2-02-402

MD _ _
8-4016
Ashe _
Y
FWS requests resurvey for spiraea and habitat assessment for bog turtle, review bridge design ~
4-2-02-401
SH B-4032 __
Buncombe G ~
FWS requests review of bridge design 4 2 02-387
SH 8-4036 Buncombe __
Y .
unresolved for mussels, FWS requests review of bridge design
-- - 4-2-02-395
SH
B-4037 Buncombe Y unresolved for mussels, FWS requests review of bridge design i 4 2-02-396
a
DW ~B-4038 Burke Y unresolved for listed sp
ies, be careful of downstream effects ~
ec _
4 2-02-379
DW B-4039 _
Burke - _ Y - _
_
unresolved for heartleaf _. ___ _ __ __ _._ _ . __ _ ___ . _ _ . _ ._ I . _ _ -- 4 2 02-380
RY ~ B-4040 I Burke _
Y FWS requests resurvey for heartleaf ~ 4-2-02-381
DW B-4041 Burke Y FWS requests resurvey for heartleaf 4-2-02-382

RY B-4043 __.
Burke
Y
ridge
d
esign
FWS requests mussel survey, requests bridge to bridge and review of b
4-2-02-383

RY B-4044
Burke
Y _
_
_
_ _. ._
FWS requests resurvey for
heartleaf and pogonia, badge to badge
4 2-02-384
RY B-4045 _ _
Burke -
_ _ _ _ _
Y _ _
.
ile ~
FWS requests resurvey for heartleaf, new occurrence w/in 1 m 4-2-02-385
RY ;B-4046 Burke Y _
unresolved for pogonia, FWS requests resurvey for heartleaf, request bridge for high quality stream i 4 2-02-408
RY ~B-4047 Burke _ _ _ Y ___
_. _. -_ . unresolved for heartleaf

- -. ~ 4 2-02-386
_
MD B-4052 Caldwell Y unresolved
I of the USGS gaging station at this location
for heartleaf, be carefu I 4-2-02-407
JJ B-4059 Cawtaba ____ _
Y _ ___ _ _
_
_
inadequate ~
Need survey for heartleaf--habitat assessment j 4-2-02-409
---- --
DW iB-4060
,Cawtaba
Y _
Need survey for heartleaf--habitat assessment inadequate
; 4-2-02-410

RY B-4067
Cherokee
Y _.
unresolved for listed species, close coordination w/USES, high quality stream
i 4-2-02-394
DW B-4070 Cherokee Y all listed species unresolved, FWS requests special consideration here for sicklefin redhorse 4-2-02-371

JJ B-4076
Cleveland
Y _ _
Need survey for heartleaf--habitat assessment inadequate
4-2-02-413
_ _._. _
SH ~B-4103 Davidson Y quality
FWS requests mussel survey, requests bridge to bridge because of stream 4-2-02-370

JJ IB-4116 _
Gaston .
Y _
_ _ _-
Need resurvey for heartleaf
4-2-02-416
DW ~B-4123 Graham Y unresolved for listed species, Indiana Bat, close coordination w/USES, high quality stream 4-2_02 393
SH IB-4144 Haywood Y s_re_v_ie__w_ of b_rid__ge_ design
s
t
unresolved for listed species, FWS reque_ _ _______4-2-_0___2_-3_S2
DP B-4155 Iredell G _
_
_
FWS requests survey for bog turtle
4-2-02-412
DP B 4158 Iredell G FWS requests survey for bog turtle, contractor suggested survey for heartleaf, FWS requests bridge 4-2-02-4.11
--- -
DW B 4161 Jackson Y unresolved for listed species, FWS requests review of bridge design _ _ 4-2-02-388
.1,1 ,B-4177 Lincoln Y _ _
Need resurvey for heartleaf ~ _ _ 4-2-02-414

DW i6-4178
Lincoln __
Y __
._ ..
Need resurvey for heartleaf
-- --
4 2-02-415

DW ~B-4179 _
--
Macon
~
Y --~--- _ .
unresolved for listed species, FWS requests review of bridge design
4-2-02-389
R'Y IB-4180 _ _
-
(Macon Y unresolved for listed species, FWS requests bridge to bridge, consideration for green salamander 4-2-02-390
RY ~B-4183 Madison These 2 b ridge replacements are part of R-2518 and 2519 merger process, review by merger team

4. For listed species,~it:often was difficult to tell whether field surveys had been
conducted or whether the information was limited>to a database search.
~. In the future, I would appreciate having the Rosgen stream classification included
as part of the information.
Listed Species Surveys
Projects currently ranked as Yellow will need to be reviewed in the future after the stated
issues are resolved. For those reports with unresolved issues related to listed species, I
would recommend that NCDOT wait until closer to implementation time to conduct final
surveys. In general, after three to five years we need updated information regarding the
project and listed species. Additionally, when aquatic species are involved (particularly
mussels) several surveys may be required to adequately determine presence or absence.
The three'projects receiving a Red ranking will need to be followed very closely to
determine future consultation requirements. These include B-4287 .(actually 2 bridge
replacements), B-4286, and B-4282. These projects were ranked as Red because of the
significance of the number of listed resources potentially affected and the river (either
main stem or tributary) involved.
I would encourage NCDOT to require consultants to at least assess habitat for the bog
turtle. While the bog turtle technically does not require Section 7 consultation, it is a
species of concern and NCDOT is actively managing mitigation sites or parts of sites for
this species. Additionally, the Wildlife Resources Commission considers this animal rare
in NC and participates actively in surveys and conservation efforts on its behalf.
Bridge Design and Construction Practices
I am assuming that FWS comments/recommendations in the past regarding bridge design,
demolition, and construction practices will be folded into each of these projects. Since
NCDOT is also working on a BMP manual that covers these practices, I think it would be
redundant to state them again. However, if any questions arise. please let me know. I
would like to emphasize that we prefer off-site detours wherever possible, to minimize
effects to resources.
Each of these projects has been assigned a log number. Please refer to these numbers in
future requests regarding the subject projects. Thank you again for the opportunity to
:~.
.: a ~ , ;
., ~~
~.;;.
provide these comments. If you have questions, please let me know.

US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone [phone] Ext 237, Fax [phone]
MEMO FOR: William T. Goodwin, P.E. DATE: June 27, 2002
FROM: Marella Buncick
SUBJECT: Review of NCDOT 2005 Bridge Program
I have completed initial review of the approximately 70 proposed bridge replacements for
NCDOT Divisions 9-14 for the year 2005. I would like to commend NCDOT for
obtaining the natural resource information up front and allowing the agencies to review
the proposals and provide comments so earl} in the process. It vas a large volume of
work for everyone involved but 1 feel that the input will be much more meaningful at this
early planning stage.
Attached is a spreadsheet with specific comments for each project reviewed. All of the
projects have been assigned a Green, Yellow, or Red ranking depending on the resources
affected and the need for future consultation. As you will note; the majority of the
projects received a Yellow ranking. This is due in large part to the fact that there are
unresolved issues related to listed species. Many of these projects likely will become
Green projects after further field review. However, obligations under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2)
actions are subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
I also have general comments regarding the process and reports. My general comments
follow.
Report Content and Organization
1. The reports would be more easily handled if they were not spiral or otherwise
bound.
2. Maps need to be much better. Without a significant landmark-- highway, larger
town, other feature - it sometimes took a long time to figure out the location of
the project within a county.
3. The reports were organized somewhat similarly, but more consistency would aid
in the review process. Perhaps a table that has the significant features ---stream
width, depth, DWQ class, etc.--also would help.

APPENDIX

` ~~w~~
'- NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1002
Replace Bridge No.109 ~ 110
over Crabtree Creek
Mitchell County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-4202
FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 9