20240352 Ver 1_Attachment 02 28 24_20240229

NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
The following questions provide direction in determining when the Department is
required to prepare SEPA environmental documents for state -funded construction and
maintenance activities. Answer questions for Parts A through C by checking either
"Yes" or "No". Complete Part D of the checklist when NCDOT's Minimum Criteria
Rule categories 98, 12(i) or 915 are used.
TIP Project No.: N/A
State Project No.: BR-0250, BR-0251, BR-0252
Project Location:
Bridge No.
Latitude, Longitude
Location
BR-0250
Replace Bridge No. 050149 over Horse Creek on SR
050149
36.1043,-81.9931
1186 Herman Buchanan Road), Avery County.
Replace Bridge No. 130252 over UT to Zacks Fork Creek
130252
35.9475,-81.4862
on SR 1549 (Spring Meadow Road), Caldwell County.
Replace Bridge No. 940231 over Norris Fork Creek on
940231
36.2790,-81.6755
SR 1337 (Ball Branch Road), Watauga Co.
BR-0251
Replace Bridge No. 560072 over Little Foster Creek on
560072
35.9243,-82.6103
SR 1341 Foster Creek Road), Madison County.
Replace Bridge No. 560074 over Foster Creek on SR
560074
35.9381,-82.5999
1341 Foster Creek Road), Madison County.
Replace Bridge No. 560381 over Big Laurel Creek on SR
560381
35.9080,-82.6408
1339 Jarrett Cove Road), Madison County.
Replace Bridge No. 560500 over Big Laurel Creek on SR
560500
35.9117,-82.6573
1336 Buckner Branch Road), Madison County.
Replace Bridge No. 560515 over Buckner Branch on SR
560515
35.9111,-82.6573
1336 Buckner Branch Road), Madison County.
BR-0252
Replace Bridge No. 870133 over Walker Creek on SR
870133
35.1432,-82.6404
1557 Haskell Jones Road), Transylvania County.
Replace Bridge No. 870160 over Richland Creek on SR
870160
35.1698,-82.8934
1312 Richland Creek Road), Transylvania County.
Replace Bridge No. 870161 over North Fork Flat Creek
870161
35.1412,-82.8820
on SR 1319 Homer McCall Road), Transylvania County.
Replace Bridge No. 870189 over Shoal Creek on SR 1141
870189
35.1035,-82.8212
Babb Road), Transylvania County.
Project Description: NCDOT will replace twelve small timber bridges on existing
alignment. Project BR-0250 includes three small timber bridges in Division 11, BR-0251
includes five small timber bridges in Division 13, and BR-0252 includes four small
timber bridge replacements in 14.

The existing bridge abutments will be replaced with concrete end bents, except Madison
Bridge 560500 (BR-0251) where existing concrete abutments currently exist. A new
timber deck will be placed on new rolled beams for each bridge. An asphalt overlay will
finish the driving surface. The bridge deck rails will be replaced in -kind with timber
bridge deck rails. Minimal roadway approach work/improvements are anticipated though
some temporary roadway improvements may be required to maintain traffic during
construction of the bridges. Minimal right-of-way and/or easements may be required.
Each bridge replacement is detailed below:
Bridge No.
Existing Structure Description
Proposed Structure Description
BR-0250
Constructed 1968; 26.0'x20.3'
Single span timber deck bridge
050149
single span timber deck bridge;
31.75'x26.0' with concrete cap micro -piles
AADT (2016) 310 vpd
end bents, steel beam stringers, and timber
deck rails within the existing alignment.
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1956; 19.0'xl8.3'
25.00'x20.0' with concrete abutment on
130252
single span timber deck bridge;
spread footing for one end bent, concrete
AADT (2016) 380 vpd
cap micro -piles on other end bent, steel
beam stringers, and timber deck rails
within the existing alignment.
Constructed 1966; 41.0'x20.0'
Single span timber deck bridge
'
47.33'x25.0' with concrete cap steel H-
940231
single span timber deck bridge;
piles end bents, steel beam stringers, and
AADT (2016) 290 vpd
timber deck rails within the existing
alignment.
BR-0251
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1971; 19.0'x25.3'
32.17'x26.0' with concrete cap steel H-
560072
single span timber deck bridge;
piles end bents, steel beam stringers, and
AADT (2019) 200 vpd
timber deck rails within the existing
alignment.
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1971; 27.0'x25.4'
34.83'x26.0' with concrete abutment on
560074
single span timber deck bridge;
spread footing end bents, steel beam
AADT (2019) 200 vpd
stringers, and timber deck rails within the
existing alignment.
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1956; 41.0'xl9.0'
46.67'xl9.0' with concrete abutment on
560381
single span timber deck bridge;
spread footing end bents, steel beam
AADT (2000) 40 vpd
stringers, and timber deck rails within the
existing alignment.
02/20/24 2 of 13

Bridge No.
Existing Structure Description
Proposed Structure Description
Constructed 1957; 46.0'xl2.1'
Single span timber deck bridge
560500
single span timber deck bridge;
56.5'x12.25' with concrete cap micro -piles
AADT (1995) 20 vpd
end bents, steel beam stringers, and timber
deck rails within the existing alignment.
Constructed 1970; 17'xl2.1'
Single span timber deck bridge 23.0'xl2.5'
560515
single span timber deck bridge;
with concrete abutment on spread footing
AADT (1995) 20 vpd
end bents, steel beam stringers, and timber
deck rails within the existing alignment.
BR-0252
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1973; 19.0'x20.1'
25.25'x20.00' with concrete cap micro-
870133
single span timber deck bridge;
piles end bents, steel beam stringers, and
AADT (1996) 100 vpd
timber deck rails within the existing
alignment.
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1962; 21.0'xl7.8'
26.17'x18.00' with concrete cap micro-
870160
single span timber deck bridge;
piles end bents, steel beam stringers, and
AADT (2000) 40 vpd
timber deck rails within the existing
alignment.
Constructed 1962; 26.0'xl8.2'
Single span timber deck bridge
870161
single span timber deck bridge;
31.25'x 18.00' with concrete cap steel H-piles
AADT (1995) 30 vpd
end bents, steel beam stringers, and timber
deck rails within the existing alignment.
Single span timber deck bridge
Constructed 1963; 23.0'xl8.1'
29.41'xl8.00' with concrete cap steel H-
870189
single span timber deck bridge;
piles end bents, steel beam stringers, and
AADT (1995) 250 vpd
timber deck rails within the existing
alignment.
Notes: AADT (annual average daily traffic) values were sourced from the most recent reoccurring 24-
month Routine Structure Safety Re orts or each bridge; vpdvehicles per day.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: As parts of these projects may
impact jurisdictional resources, a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide
Permit will likely be required. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit
will be required to authorize these project constructions. A Water Quality Certification
from the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) will also be required for each of these
bridge replacement projects.
The following table identifies the applicability of the USACE Trout Watershed Map and
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) classification for each bridge replacement site:
Bridge No. Creek Name USACE's Trout Outstanding Resource
Watershed Map Waters
BR-0250
050149 Horse Creek Yes No
02/20/24 3 of 13

130252
UT Zack's Fork Creek
No
No
940231
Norris Branch
Yes
Yes
BR-0251
560072
Little Foster Creek
Yes
Yes
560074
Foster Creek
Yes
Yes
560381
Big Laurel Creek
Yes*
Yes
560500
Big Laurel Creek
Yes*
Yes
560515
Buckner Branch
Yes*
Yes
BR-0252
870133
Walker Creek
Yes
No
870160
Richland Creek
Yes
No
870161
North Fork Flat Creek
Yes
No
870189
Shoal Creek
Yes
No
*Trout moratorium waived per NCWRC letter dated October 6, 2023
ORW classifications are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A
NCAC 2B .0225, i.e., Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) rule.
Special Project Information:
Purpose and Need: The purpose and need of the projects are to maintain public road
transportation and EMS access to private properties currently being serviced by the
existing timber bridges.
Threatened and Endangered Species: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
the following federally protected species within the project study areas under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence
of habitat is included in the projects Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)1. Since
the NRTR's were completed, aquatic surveys for the protected mussel species and bat
surveys for the protected bat species have been completed. The table below reflects the
updated Biological Conclusions:
Bridge No.
I Protected Species
Biological Conclusion
BR-0250
050149
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Virginia Big -eared bat
Bog turtle
No effect
Appalachian Elktoe
' BR-0250 NRTRs: hItps:Hcomect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div11BR-
0250/ATLAS%20Deliverables/BR-0250 NRTRAddendwn.pdf (note that Wilkes County Bridge 960423
was surveyed for this project but is not being advanced and is, therefore, not included in this MCDC.);
BR-0251 NRTRs: hUs:Hcomect.ncdot. ovg /site/preconstruction/division/divl3BR-
0251/ATLAS%20Deliverables/BR-0251 NRTR.pdf; BR-0252 NRTRs:
httns://comect.ncdot. Rov/site/Preconstruction/division/div l4/BR-0252/ATLAS%20Deliverables/BR-
0252 NRTR.pdf
02/20/24 4 of 13

Bridge No.
Protected Species
Biological Conclusion
Virginia S iraea
Rock Gnome Lichen
130252
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Virginia Big -eared bat
Bog turtle
No effect
Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf
940231
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Virginia Big -eared bat
Bog turtle
No effect
Green Floater
Vir inia S iraea
BR-0251
560072
Gra bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
560074
Gra bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
560381
Gra bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
560500
Gra bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
560515
Gra bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
BR-0252
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Bog turtle
No effect
870133
Appalachian Elktoe
MANLAA
Lon solid
Tennessee Clubshell
Mountain Sweet Pitcher plant
No effect
Small Whorled Po onia
Swam Pink
Virginia S iraea
02/20/24 5 of 13

Bridge No.
Protected Species
Biological Conclusion
Rock Gnome Lichen
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Bog turtle
No effect
870160
Appalachian Elktoe
MANLAA
Mountain Sweet Pitcher plant
No effect
Small Whorled Po onia
Swamp Pink
Virginia S iraea
Rock Gnome Lichen
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Bog turtle
No effect
870161
Appalachian Elktoe
MANLAA
Mountain Sweet Pitcher plant
No effect
Small Whorled Po onia
Swamp Pink
Vir inia S iraea
Rock Gnome Lichen
Gray bat
MANLAA
Northern long-eared bat
Tricolored bat
Bog turtle
No effect
870189
Appalachian Elktoe
MANLAA
Mountain Sweet Pitcher plant
No effect
Small Whorled Po onia
Swamp Pink
Virginia S iraea
Rock Gnome Lichen
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the sites for bats during the
summer of 2023 and prepared Bat Memos with survey results. The BSG followed up the
Bat Memos with a Biological Conclusion of May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
(MANLAA) for each of the above endangered bat species based on the presence of suitable
foraging and commuting habitat. No evidence of federally listed bats was found on any of the
structures; no caves or mines are in the vicinity of the bridge replacements; and a large area
of alternative available suitable habitat exists in the vicinities of all eleven bridge
replacements. Tree clearing in the project footprint will be conducted during the winter
months (i.e., October 15 to April 1) for all bridges. Nightwork is not anticipated for any of
the bridges. No blasting is needed for any of these bridge projects. Permanent lighting does
not exist at any of the bridges and no new lighting is planned to be included with the bridge
replacements. Since the above avoidance and minimization measures, such as prohibiting tree
02/20/24 6 of 13

clearing during the active season can be implemented, the Biological Conclusion for
federally listed bats are MANLAA. Copies of the referenced Biological Conclusions memo
are available on the Connect NCDOT website.2
Aquatic surveys (i.e., mussels surveys) were conducted in the summer of 2023 for each
bridge replacement with federally protected mussel species within their identified project
study areas.
Based on the lack bivalve mollusk evidence and stream characteristics observed at the
time of the assessment, including small waterway size, high gradient, and substrate
composed primarily larger substrate sizes (i.e., highly limited interstitial space), Horse
Creek (Avery County Bridge 050149 [BR-0250]) does not provide suitable habitat for
Appalachian Elktoe.3
Similarly, the lack bivalve mollusk evidence and stream characteristics observed at the
time of the assessment, including small waterway size, high gradient, and substrate
composed primarily larger substrate sizes (i.e., highly limited interstitial space), Norris
Fork (Watauga County Bridge 940231 [BR-0250]) does not provide suitable habitat for
Green Floater.4
All BR-0252 bridge replacements have federally protected mussel species associated with
the project study areas. The BSG provided a Biological Conclusion of "May Affect Not
Likely to Adversely Affect' for the Appalachian elktoe, Longsolid, and Tennessee
clubshell. These survey reports will be available on the project Connect once complete.
Cultural Resources: NCDOT architectural historians and archaeologists reviewed each
bridge replacement. The following table summarizes the cultural resources reviews:
Bridge No.
Historic Architecture Conclusion
Archaeology Conclusion
BR-0250
050149
No historic properties affected
No archaeological survey required
130252
No survey required
No archaeological survey required
2 BR-0250 BC Memo: https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div11BR-
0250/Natural%2OEnvironmentBR-0250%2OUpdated%20bat%2Omemo.pdf; BR-0251 BC Memo:
hILtps:Hcomect.ncdot.gov/site/Treconstruction/division/divl 3/B R-0251 /Natural%20Environment/BR-
0251%20Updated%20Bat%20memo.pdf; BR-0252 BC Memo:
https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 14/BR-0252/Natural%20Environment/BR-
0252%20Updated%20bat%20memo%20Transylvania.pdf
3 Avery County Bridge 050149 (BR-0250) Aquatic Species Memo:
https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 11 BR-
0250/Proj ect%20Development%20CollaborationBR-
0250%20Aquatic%20Species%20Survey%20Report.pdf#search=docid%3APZWRFRC26R2C%2D 192758
1161 %2D 19%200R%20dlcdocid%3APZ WRFRC26R2C%2D 1927581161 %2D 19
4 Watauga County Bridge 940231 (BR-0250) Aquatic Species Memo:
https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 11 BR-0250/Natural%2OEnvironmentBR-
0250%20Aquatic%20Specie s%20Survey%20Report%20Bridge%20231.pdf#search=docid%3APZ WRFRC
26R2C%2D 1927581161%2D20%200R%20dlcdocid%3APZWRFRC26R2C%2D 1927581161 %2D20
02/20/24 7 of 13

Bridge No.
Historic Architecture Conclusion
A rc'haeology Conclusion
No eligible or listed archaeological
940231
No survey required
sites resent
BR-0251
560072
No survey required
No eligible or listed archaeological
sites present
No eligible or listed archaeological
560074
No survey required
sites present
No eligible or listed archaeological
560381
No historic properties affected
sites present
560500
No historic properties affected
No archaeological survey required
560515
No survey required
No archaeological survey required
BR-0252
870133
No historic properties affected
No eligible or listed archaeological
sites present
870160
No survey required
No eligible or listed archaeological
sites present
870161
No survey required
No eligible or listed archaeological
sites present
870189
No survey required
No eligible or listed archaeological
sites present
NCDOT sent coordination letters to the following Native Tribes on December 13, 2023:
• Catawba Indian Nation*
• Cherokee Nation
• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
• Muscogee (Creek) Nation*
• Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
• United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
*A response was received from these Native Tribes.
NCDOT "No Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present Forms" were forwarded to
Native Tribes with an interest in the area January 16, 2024 and February XX, 2024.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations: These bridge replacements were coordinated
with NCDOT-IMD. Because the NCDOT-IMD Estimation Map indicates that the project
study areas fall within low demand areas; because they fall outside municipal boundaries;
and because the scope of the projects are limited to structure replacement (does not
include roadway improvements), no bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are included
in this project. NCDOT-IMD's Complete Streets Review Assessments (CSRA) concurs
with the approach to replace these bridges in kind, without multimodal facilities.
s BR-0250, BR-0251, BR-0252 CSRA: https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div11BR-
0250%layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=PZ WRFRC26R2C-1236050455-3
02/20/24 8 of 13

Construction Techniques: Bridge replacements will be stage constructed or provide a
temporary on -site detour because these structures provide the only access route to
residents and local EMS operations. In general, few residents will be inconvenienced by
each bridge replacement. NCDOT will coordinate with local EMS prior to construction.
Bridge replacement construction operations are expected to last approximately 120 days.
NCDOT will construct a temporary detour structure upstream of the existing structure
with temporary pavement for all bridges except Bridge No. 0500149 which will be stage
constructed. Temporary structures will be constructed with a load rating equal to the
current posting. The existing structures will be removed and reconstructed. Traffic will be
shifted to the new structure and the temporary detour structure and temporary pavement
removed, regraded, and planted.
The following table summarizes the current posting and clear roadway width available
for each on -site detour:
State
Project
No.
Bridge
Current Posting
On -site Detour
Clear
Roadway
Width
County
Bridge
No.
SV
(ton)
TTST
(ton)
BR-0250
Avery
050149
11
15
10'-0"
Caldwell
130252
10
17
IT-0"
Watauga
940231
13
17
IT-0"
BR-0251
Madison
560072
15
22
12'-0"
560074
12
18
IT-0"
560381
24
30
10'-0"
560500
15
20
10'-0"
560515
19
28
10'-0"
BR-0252
Transylvania
870133
19
27
10'-0"
870160
Not Posted
10'-0"
870161
19
27
10'-0"
870189
15
21
10'-0"
Notes: SVSingle Vehicle (dump truck, school bus, etc); TTSTTruck Tractor, Semi -
Trailer (logging truck, 18-wheelers, etc)
Public Involvement: NCDOT mailed postcard notifications to property owners that would
be impacted by construction of the bridge replacements on December 6, 2023. The
postcards included information about the proposed replacement bridge as well as
anticipated right of way and construction schedules.
Two telephone voicemail comments were received in response to the postcards. The
project team returned these calls December 12, 2023, and left voicemails with
commenters that further explained the project. No return calls have been received and it
is assumed property owner concerns were addressed.
02/20/24 9 of 13

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item 1 to be completed by the Project Manager. YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed
under the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental
documentation is not required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state Environmental Assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? 9. Reconstruction of existing crossroad or railroad separations and
existing stream crossings, including, but not limited to, pipes,
culverts, and bridges.
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
4 to be completed by the Project Manager.
YES
NO
2_ Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
jft 5-8 to be cjJkL1.eted by Division Environmental Officer.
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on
wetlands; surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries;
parklands; prime or unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized
scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats?
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered 'yes ", the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact the Environmental Policy Unit at [phone] or EPL&cdot.gov.
02/20/24 10 of 13

PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9�mpleted by Division Environmental Officer.
YES NO
9.
Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10.
Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11.
Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12.
Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
e-�
15 to be completed by the Project Manage
13.
Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Project Manager and the Division
Environmental Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or
federal resource agency may be required. If any questions in Part " C" are answered
`yes ", follow the appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project
construction.
02/20/24 11 of 13

PART D:( To be completed when either cate2ory #8, 120) or #15 of the rules are
used.
Items 16- 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20. Total acres of wetland impacts:
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22. Project purpose:
Reviewed by:
Nick Pierce, PE
Structures Management Unit, Project
Manager
John Jamison
Environmental Policy Unit
Date:
Date:
02/20/24 12 of 13

NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge Program No. BR-0250
Replace three Timber Bridges (050149, 130252, 940231) on
Existing Alignment
Avery, Caldwell, and Watauga Counties
Federal Aid Project No. N/A
WBS Element: 50843.1.1
COMMITMENTS FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Commitments:
• With reference to the Section 7 determinations associated with endangered bat
species the NCDOT-Division 11 Bridge Program Manager will implement a tree
clearing moratorium between April 1 and October 15.
NCWRC Trout and High Quality Waters
• Horse Creek (Bridge 050149) and Norris Fork (Bridge 940231) are designated by
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission as Trout Waters. As a result, in -water
work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is prohibited from
October 15 to April 15 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction. In addition, Norris
Fork is designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). NCDOT will
implement Design Standards in Sensitive Waters for these bridges.
Construction in FEMA Floodplain
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall: (1) construct all vertical and horizontal
elements within the floodplain as designed; and (2) consult with the Hydraulics
Unit of any planned deviation of these elements within the floodplain prior to
commencing any such changes; and (3) submit sealed as -built construction plans
to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction. The Hydraulics
Unit will then verify either: (1) the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically; or (2) any changes made to
the plans were reviewed and approved to meet FEMA SFHA compliance; or (3)
appropriate mitigation measures will be achieved prior to project close-out.
*NOTE: The commitment will be added to the Project Commitments Dashboard on
Connect upon the review and approval of the draft Green Sheet.

NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge Program No. BR-0251
Replace five Timber Bridges (560072, 560074, 560381, 560500, 560515) on
Existing Alignment
Madison County
Federal Aid Project No. N/A
WBS Element: 50844.1.1
COMMITMENTS FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Commitments
• With reference to the Section 7 determinations associated with endangered bat
species identified in the November 17, 2023, NCDOT Biological Surveys Group,
NCDOT-Division 13 will commit to implement a tree clearing moratorium
between April 1 and October 15.
NCWRC Trout and High Quality Waters
• Foster Creek (Bridges 560072 and 560074) and Big Laurel Creek (Bridges
560381, 560500, and 560515) are designated by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission as Trout Waters. As a result, in -water work and land disturbance
within the 25-foot trout buffer is prohibited from October 15 to April 15 to avoid
impacts to trout reproduction for Foster Creek. The moratorium is waived for Big
Laurel Creek. However, Foster Creek, Little Foster Creek, and Big Laurel Creek
are designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). NCDOT will implement
Design Standards in Sensitive Watershed for Madison County Bridges 560072,
560074, 560381, 560500, and 560515.
Construction in FEMA Floodplain
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall: (1) construct all vertical and horizontal
elements within the floodplain as designed; and (2) consult with the Hydraulics
Unit of any planned deviation of these elements within the floodplain prior to
commencing any such changes; and (3) submit sealed as -built construction plans
to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction. The Hydraulics
Unit will then verify either: (1) the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically; or (2) any changes made to
the plans were reviewed and approved to meet FEMA SF14A compliance; or (3)
appropriate mitigation measures will be achieved prior to project close-out.
*NOTE: The commitment will be added to the Project Commitments Dashboard on
Connect upon the review and approval of the draft Green Sheet.

NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge Program No. BR-0252
Replace four Timber Bridges (870133, 870160, 870161, 870189) on
Existing Alignment
Transylvania County
Federal Aid Project No. N/A
WBS Element: 50845.1.1
COMMITMENTS FROM PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Section 7 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Commitments
• With reference to the Section 7 determinations associated with endangered bat
species, NCDOT-Division 14 will commit to implement a tree clearing
moratorium between April 1 and October 15.
NCWRC Trout and High Quality Waters
• Walker Creek (Bridge 870133), Richland Creek (Bridge 870160), Flat Creek
(Bridge 870161), and Shoal Creek (Bridge 870189) are designated by the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission as Trout Waters. As a result, in -water work and
land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is prohibited from October 15 to
April 15 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction. In addition, NCDOT will
implement Design Standards in Sensitive Watershed for these bridges.
Construction in FEMA Floodplain
• This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall: (1) construct all vertical and horizontal
elements within the floodplain as designed; and (2) consult with the Hydraulics
Unit of any planned deviation of these elements within the floodplain prior to
commencing any such changes; and (3) submit sealed as -built construction plans
to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction. The Hydraulics
Unit will then verify either: (1) the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically; or (2) any changes made to
the plans were reviewed and approved to meet FEMA SFHA compliance; or (3)
appropriate mitigation measures will be achieved prior to project close-out.
*NOTE: The commitment will be added to the Project Commitments Dashboard on
Connect upon the review and approval of the draft Green Sheet.

BR-0252 - Timber Bridge Replacements
NRTR's Combined In This Order
Bridge 133, Transylvania Co.
Bridge 160, Transylvania Co.
Bridge 161, Transylvania Co.
Bridge 189, Transylvania Co.

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Timber Bridge Replacement - Replace Bridge No. 870133 on
SR 1557 (Haskell Jones Rd.) over Walker Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0252
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 870133 on SR 1557 (Haskell Jones Rd.) over Walker Creek in Transylvania County,
North Carolina as part of TIP BR-02521 (Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway for Bridge
No. 870133 does not have an outlet. There will not be an off -site detour during
construction. It has not been decided whether traffic will be maintained through the use of
a temporary bridge or phased construction. The following Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of the appropriate
environmental documentation.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and
Permitting's Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest
NRTR Template (September 2021). Field work was conducted on August 31, 2023. Water
resources identified in the study area have not been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The principal
personnel contributing to the field work and document is provided in the appendix.
Prior to field work, the following data sources were reviewed: the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database2, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) online soil mapping website and Transylvania County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, Brevard NC (2022)
quadrangle, and North Carolina Drought Update map.
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 3 shows the location
and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are presented in the
context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Dominant Species (scientific name)
Coverage
ac.
Fescue (Festuce sp)
Rural Residential
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
0.5
Sweet gum Li uidambar s raci ua
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Deciduous Mixed Riparian
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
0.5
Forest
Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Poison iv Toxicodendron radicans
' TIP BR-0252 will replace four timber bridges in Division 14. Bridge No. 870133 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2https://connect.ncdot. gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 14/BR-
0252/ layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMCWYR-1388431580-27
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
Total 1 1.0
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The USFWS lists the following federally protected species within the study area under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table 2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or
absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based
on survey results in the study area.
Table 2. ESA federally protected species within the study areal
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Status
Present
Conclusion
*otis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
No effect
*otis septentrionalis
Northernblotng-eared
E
Yes
MANLAA
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
MANLAA
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T(S/A)
No
No effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Appalachian Elktoe
E
Yes
MANLAA
Fusconaia subrotunda
Longsolid
T
Yes
MANLAA
Pleurobema oviforme
Tennessee Clubshell
PE
Yes
MANLAA
Sarracenia rubra ssp.
Mountain Sweet
E
No
No effect
jonesii
Pitcher plant
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled
T
No
No effect
Po onia
Helonias bullata
Swamp Pink
T
No
No effect
Spiraea virginiana
Virginia Spiraea
T
No
No effect
Lichen Gymnoderma
Rock Gnome Lichen
E
No
No effect
lineare
' IPaC data checked on October 16, 2023 hUs://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div14BR-
0252/_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMC WYR-13 884315 80-26
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered; T — Threatened; T(S/A) — Threatened due to similarity of
appearance; MANLAA — May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: No effect
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the site for bats during the
summer of 2023 and will prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will
determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat
habitat assessment conducted on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting
under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Bog Turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1-October 1 (visual surveys)
Biological conclusion: Not required / No effect
The study area is primarily Rosman loam soils which are well -drained soils. Field
inspections conducted on August 31, 2023, confirmed no mountain bog habitat is located
within the study area (i.e., no habitat). A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023,
indicates no known Bog Turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Appalachian Elktoe
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
NCDOT-BSG will survey the area and determine a Biological Conclusion prior to
permitting. A review of the NCNHP database records dated October 17, 2023, indicates
that there are no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe in or within 1.0 mile of
the study area.
Longsolid
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
NCDOT-BSG will survey the area and determine a Biological Conclusion prior to
permitting. A review of the NCNHP database records dated October 17, 2023, indicates
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
that there are no known occurrences of the Longsolid in or within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
Tennessee Clubshell
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
NCDOT-BSG will survey the area and determine a Biological Conclusion prior to
permitting. A review of the NCNHP database records dated October 17, 2023, indicates
that there are no known occurrences of the Tennessee Clubshell in or within 1.0 mile
of the study area.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
USFWS Optimal survey window: April 1-October 1
Biological conclusion: No effect
The study area does not include Southern Appalachian Bogs (Bog) and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Mountain sweet pitcher plant. A Mountain sweet pitcher plant
habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant
Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications of Bog habitat or
presences of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Mountain sweet pitcher plant
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Small Whorled Pogonia
USFWS optimal survey window: mid May -early July
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third
successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does
not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying
geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open,
dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The
species may also be found on dry, rocky, wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking
stream channels; or slope bases near braided channels of vernal streams. A Small
whorled pogonia habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance
with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications
of referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study area. A review
of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Small
whorled pogonia within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Swamp Pink
USFWS optimal survey window: April -May
Biological Conclusion: No effect
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
Swamp pink occurs in clonal clumps in a variety of groundwater -influenced
wetland habitats including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic white
cedar swamps, swampy forests bordering meandering small streams, boggy
meadows, headwater wetlands, and spring seepage areas. The study area does not
include any of the above referenced habitats. A Swamp pink habitat assessment was
completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence
of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates a high accuracy 2017 observation occurrence of Swamp
Pink within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Virginia Spiraea
USFWS optimal survey window: May -early July
Biological conclusion: No effect
The Virginia Spiraea occurs in flood -scoured, high -gradient sections of rocky river
banks of second and third order streams, often in gorges or canyons. This perennial
shrub grows in sunny areas on moist, acidic soils, primarily over sandstone. The shrub
tends to be found in thickets with little arboreal or herbaceous competition along early
successional areas that rely on periodic disturbances such as high -velocity scouring
floods to eliminate such competition. Virginia Spiraea also occurs on meander scrolls
and point bars, natural levees, and other braided features of lower stream reaches, often
near the stream mouth. Scoured, riverine habitat sites are found where deposition
occurs after high water flows, such as on floodplains and overwash islands, rather than
along areas of maximum erosion. Occurrences in depositional habitats are found among
riparian debris piles, on fine alluvial sand and other alluvial deposits, or between
boulders. A Virginia Spiraea habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in
accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no
indications of the referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study
area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no known
occurrences of Virginia Spiraea within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Rock Gnome Lichen
USFWS Optimal survey window: year round
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Elevations at the study area are between 2,550 and 2,600 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). The study area does not include high elevations of 5,000 feet amsl where there
is often fog, nor boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges, and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Rock gnome lichen. A Rock gnome lichen habitat assessment
was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence of
referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17,
2023, indicates no known occurrences of Rock gnome lichen within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do
not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests
in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on August 28, 2023, using 2021 color aerials. No water
bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a
review of the NCNHP database on October 17, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of
this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences,
and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will
not affect this species.
4.3 Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified no habitat within the study
area as Essential Fish Habitat.
5.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the Walker Creek - French Broad River basin
[U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010105]. Two streams were
identified in the study area (Table 3). The locations of the streams are shown in Figure 4.
Table 3. Streams in the study area
Map
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Stream Name
ID
Index
Classification
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
Number
Walker Creek
SA
6-38-10
C;Tr
2
8
12
UT Walker Creek
SB
6-38-10
C;Tr
2
5
10
Walker Creek has not been designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). There
are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-
II) within, or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina 2022 Final
303(d) list of impaired waters has not identified either creek within, or within 1.0 mile
downstream of the study area as an impaired water.
No surface water (pond) was identified in the study area.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Two streams were identified in the study area (Table 4). The locations of the streams are
shown on Figure 4. The streams in the study area have been designated as cold water
streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Status of streams in the study area
Length
Compensatory
River Basin
Map ID
Classification
ft.
Mitigation Required
Buffer
SA
225
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Walker Creek
SB
150
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
UT Walker Creek
Total
375
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area.
6.2 Construction Moratoria
There are no streams in the study area that provide anadromous fish habitat. Walker Creek
is located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Transylvania County. Therefore,
impacts to JD waters requiring a Section 404 permit would require review and comment
from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The project is not subject to buffer rules.
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are located in the
study area.
6.5 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
There was no Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern
(AEC) identified in the study area.
6.6 Coastal Barrier Resources System
No Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units exist within the study area.
7.0 REFERENCES
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Surface Water Classification.
Accessed September 1, 2023.
hops://experience. arc gis. com/experience/7073 e9 l 22ab 745 88b 8c48ded34c3 df55/
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Riparian Buffer Protection Program.
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-guatily_permitting/401-buffer-
permitting/riparian-buffer-prote ction-pro gram
7 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870133, Transylvania County, N. C.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Maps, "Find Your
HUC in North Carolina." Accessed September 1, 2023.
hI tps://experience. arc gis. com/experience/d63 87977847643 308aee 5 9517ccdaad9
NCDENR, Maps, "North Carolina Physiographic Provinces of N.C." Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hitps://data-ncdenr.opendata. arcgis.com/maps/ncdenr::phy sio graphic -province s-of-
nc/explore?location=3 5.473407%2C-78.701750%2C9.06
N.C. Drought Update Map, Accessed August 31, 2023.
hops://www.ncdrou hg t.org/map-archives
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Element Occurrence Online Database.
Accessed October 17, 2023.
https://ncnhde.nature serve.org(
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Section 10 Waters list,
1965 and Addendum, 1980. https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatoly-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
USACE, Wilmington District, Trout Resources in Western NC. Accessed September 1,
2023.
hops://www. saw.usace.4M.mil/Missions/Regulatoly-Permit-Pro gram/Agency-
Coordination/Trout/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Transylvania County Soil Survey. Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hLtps://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ilpp/
USDA, NRCS, Hydric Soils Lists. Accessed September 1, 2023.
hUs://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Public/IL/State—List NRCS_Hydric_Soils _Report _Dyna
mic Data.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed October 16, 2023.
hl!ps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/user/login
USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Online Mapping. Accessed August 31,
2023. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Brevard (NC
2022). Accessed August 31, 2023. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-
80.340
8 November 2023

l I �
Great
Ba/sa•m
Mountains , ShniAgRock � —
6406jt Wilderness �O, \
Mountain H
4
V Etowah
Hen
r
1
Bridge No. 160' 4,
IS B eva d
Bridge No. 133
fJ Transylvania
ti DuPont gtate
l Fore 1 �teZ`\F`
�ntai
Bridge No: 161
Gorges State °,' Caesars Head
Park t' ` State Park
} 281 — —
—
t✓ - - CaC`ra i Bridge No. 189
ock Soutr g
PSS _ t >
Lake
Jocassee
130
135 �7
i
133 ,-
c
P i c k e niPickens 183
i
L83I
karkoky
�
Project Location s �j Ash(
_; County Boundary
la Brev rd
crest
•
I2 sman
N
G
0 2 4
Miles
Td
Vicinity Map
BR-0252
Bridge Replacement
NCDOT Division 14
Transylvania County
4�0
, NORTH,_, Figure 1
Transylvania County GANNETT
FLEMING
Tq �P
�OF TRPNseO August 2023

ro
m
JIM
i � y`may � � ♦. �•1.'. �.
•.�K ��. + AY I •, .''1�..`~ '' �' • �" ,` i'�,„ems C a� •il 4''
VV
40,
big
' •� • - Bridge No. 133 � � •� � .
.-'
\totes f
, ^ 10
lop
4.
_r !^►r to T
r!
Project Study Area ,
Streams
Parcels
1
N
/ Transylvania County
0 100 200
Feet
M,
{
Project Study Area Map
BR-0252
Bridge No. 133 Replacement
NCDOT Division 14
Transylvania County
f NOAiM Figure 2
00 GANNETT
g FLEMING
♦y� a
F�OFTRANS� July 2023

R?.
Ile
> WHO",
�•.
s .
VA
-" -4 Bridge No. 133 .
•.! i i w, � � :�� , i •ref
�,�,••� ' _ ' � .! r` �'t • �. fir'' � � a
Y 1
♦ a � A�
f. A
}' ;vwjs
Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams BR-0252
Parcels Bridge No. 133 Replacement
Rural Residential f NCDOT Division 14
>' Transylvania County
Deciduous Mixed �` �oF"ORTHC, Figure 3
Riparian Forest N GANNETT
/ P
Transylvania County y y �j �1
0 25 50 n ` _ - Ir`v—_/rl FLEMING
Feet
9PF'1'T OFTRPNSeOQ~ September 2023

Qualifications of Contributors
Lead Investigator: John Thomas
Education: B.S. Forest Management, North Carolina State University, 1973;
B.S. Biology, North Carolina State University, 1974
Experience: US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Project Manager 1990-2017
Gannett Fleming, Senior Environmental Specialist, 2018-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural community assessment, stream
assessment, Cultural Resource assessment, Threatened and Endangered
species surveys, Environmental Permit process review,
document preparation
Investigator: Julia Roblyer
Education: B.S. Medical Science, University of Florida, 2009; M.S. Environmental
Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, 2017
Experience: Senior Environmental Program Coordinator, Broward County, 2017-2022;
Project Environmental Designer, Gannet Fleming, 2022-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, environmental due diligence analysis and
document preparation, GIS analysis and map preparation
Quality Control: Adam Archual
Education: B.A. Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, B.A. Geography, University
of Cincinnati, 2004; M.H.P. Heritage Preservation, Georgia State
University, 2010
Experience: Senior Environmental Planner, Gannett Fleming, 2019-Present
Responsibilities: Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for project deliverables

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Timber Bridge Replacement - Replace Bridge No. 870160 on
SR 1312 (Richland Creek Rd.) over Richland Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0252
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 870160 on SR 1312 (Richland Creek Rd.) over Richland Creek in Transylvania
County, North Carolina as part of TIP BR-02521 (Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway
for Bridge No. 870160 does not have an outlet. There will not be an off -site detour during
construction. It has not been decided whether traffic will be maintained through the use of
a temporary bridge or phased construction. The following Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of the appropriate
environmental documentation.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and
Permitting's Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest
NRTR Template (September 2021). Field work was conducted on August 31, 2023. Water
resources identified in the study area have not been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The principal
personnel contributing to the field work and document is provided in the appendix.
Prior to field work, the following data sources were reviewed: the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database2, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) online soil mapping website and Transylvania County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, Lake Toxaway NC
(2022) quadrangle, and North Carolina Drought Update map.
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 3 shows the location
and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are presented in the
context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Dominant Species (scientific name)
Coverage
ac.
Fescue (Festuce sp)
Rural Residential
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
0.7
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Tag alder Alnus serrulata
Deciduous Mixed Riparian
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Forest
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
0.3
Yellow po lar Liriodendron tuli i era
' TIP BR-0252 will replace four timber bridges in Division 14. Bridge No. 870160 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2https://connect.ncdot. gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 14/BR-
0252/ layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMCWYR-1388431580-25
1 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
Poison iv Toxicodendron radicans
Total 1 1.0
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The USFWS lists the following federally protected species within the study area under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table 2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or
absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based
on survey results in the study area.
Table 2. ESA federally protected species in the project study areal
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Status
Present
Conclusion
Myotis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
No effect
*otis septentrionalis
Northernblotng-eared
E
Yes
MANLAA
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
MANLAA
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T(S/A)
No
No effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Appalachian Elktoe
E
Yes
MANLAA
Sarracenia rubra ssp.
Mountain Sweet
E
No
No effect
Jonesu
Pitcher -plant
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled
T
No
No effect
Po onia
Helonias bullata
Swamp Pink
T
No
No effect
Spiraea virginiana
Virginia Spiraea
T
No
No effect
Lichen Gymnoderma
Rock Gnome Lichen
E
No
No effect
lineare
' IPaC data checked on October 16, 2023 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div14BR-
0252/_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMC WYR-13 884315 80-24
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered; T — Threatened; T(S/A) — Threatened due to similarity of
appearance; MANLAA — May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: No effect
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the site for bats during the
summer of 2023 and will prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will
determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat
habitat assessment conducted on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting
under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on July
13, 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on July 13, 2023, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on July 13, 2023, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Bog Turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1-October 1 (visual surveys)
Biological conclusion: Not required / No effect
The study area is primarily Braddock loam soils which are well -drained soils. Field
inspections conducted on August 31, 2023, confirmed no mountain bog habitat is located
within the study area (i.e., no habitat). A review of NCNHP records on July 13, 2023,
indicates no known Bog Turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Appalachian Elktoe
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological conclusion: NANLAA
NCDOT-BSG conducted mussels surveys in the area and determined a Biological
Conclusion for projects. A review of the NCNHP database records dated July 13, 2023,
indicates that there are no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe in or within
1.0 mile of the study area.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher -plant
USFWS Optimal survey window: April 1-October 1
Biological conclusion: No effect
The study area does not include Southern Appalachian Bogs (Bog) and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Mountain sweet pitcher plant. A Mountain sweet pitcher plant
habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant
Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications of Bog habitat or
presences of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on
3 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
July 23, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Mountain sweet pitcher plant within
1.0 mile of the study area.
Small Whorled Pogonia
USFWS optimal survey window: mid May -early July
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third
successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does
not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying
geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open,
dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The
species may also be found on dry, rocky, wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking
stream channels; or slope bases near braided channels of vernal streams. A Small
whorled pogonia habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance
with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications
of referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study area. A review
of NCNHP records on July 23, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Small whorled
pogonia within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Swamp Pink
USFWS optimal survey window: April -May
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Swamp pink occurs in clonal clumps in a variety of groundwater -influenced
wetland habitats including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic white
cedar swamps, swampy forests bordering meandering small streams, boggy
meadows, headwater wetlands, and spring seepage areas. The study area does not
include any of the above referenced habitats. A Swamp pink habitat assessment was
completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence
of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on July
23, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Swamp pink within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
Virginia Spiraea
USFWS optimal survey window: May -early July
Biological conclusion: No effect
The Virginia Spiraea occurs in flood -scoured, high -gradient sections of rocky river
banks of second and third order streams, often in gorges or canyons. This perennial
shrub grows in sunny areas on moist, acidic soils, primarily over sandstone. The shrub
tends to be found in thickets with little arboreal or herbaceous competition along early
successional areas that rely on periodic disturbances such as high -velocity scouring
floods to eliminate such competition. Virginia Spiraea also occurs on meander scrolls
and point bars, natural levees, and other braided features of lower stream reaches, often
near the stream mouth. Scoured, riverine habitat sites are found where deposition
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
occurs after high water flows, such as on floodplains and overwash islands, rather than
along areas of maximum erosion. Occurrences in depositional habitats are found among
riparian debris piles, on fine alluvial sand and other alluvial deposits, or between
boulders. A Virginia Spiraea habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in
accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no
indications of the referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study
area. A review of NCNHP records on July 23, 2023, indicates no known occurrences
of Virginia Spiraea within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Rock Gnome Lichen
USFWS Optimal survey window: year round
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Elevations at the study area are between 2,550 and 2,600 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). The study area does not include high elevations of 5,000 feet amsl where there
is often fog, nor boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges, and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Rock gnome lichen. A Rock gnome lichen habitat assessment
was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence of
referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on July 13, 2023,
indicates no known occurrences of Rock gnome lichen within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do
not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests
in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on August 28, 2023, using 2021 color aerials. No water
bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a
review of the NCNHP database on July 13, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of this
species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences,
and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will
not affect this species.
4.3 Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified no habitat within the study
area as Essential Fish Habitat.
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
5.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the West Fork of the French Broad River -
French Broad River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010105].
One stream was identified in the study area (Table 3). The location of the stream is shown
in Figure 4.
Table 3. Stream in the study area
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Stream Name
Map ID
Index
Classification
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
Number
Richland Creek
SA
6-2-7
C;Tr
2
16
12
Richland Creek has not been designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). There
are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-
II) within, or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina 2022 Final
303(d) list of impaired waters has not identified the creek within, or within 1.0 mile
downstream of the study area as an impaired water.
No surface water (pond) was identified in the study area.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
One stream was identified in the study area (Table 4). The location of the stream is shown
on Figure 4. The stream in the study area has been designated as cold water stream for the
purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Status of streams in the study area
Length
Compensatory
River Basin
Map ID
Classification
ft.
Mitigation Required
Buffer
SA
160
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Richland Creek
Total
160
One wetland wase identified within the study area (Table 5). The location of this
jurisdictional wetland is shown on Figure 4. All wetlands in the study area are located
within the West Fork of the French Broad River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010105).
A USACE wetland determination form and a NCWAM form for this wetland will be
included in a separate JD Data Package which will be available in the project file.
Table 5. Characteristics of wetlands in the study area
Area (ac.)
NCWAM
NCWAM
Hydrologic
404/401
Map ID
Forested
in Study
Classification
Rating
Classification
or 401
Area
6 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
WA
Riverine Swamp
No
High
Riparian
404/401
Forest
6.2 Construction Moratoria
There are no streams in the study area that provide anadromous fish habitat. Richland Creek
is located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Transylvania County. Therefore,
impacts to JD waters requiring a Section 404 permit would require review and comment
from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The project is not subject to buffer rules.
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are located in the
study area.
6.5 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
There was no Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern
(AEC) identified in the study area.
6.6 Coastal Barrier Resources System
No Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units exist within the study area.
7.0 REFERENCES
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Surface Water Classification.
Accessed September 1, 2023.
https://experience. arc gis. com/experience/7073 e9l 22ab 745 88b 8c48ded34c3 df55/
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Riparian Buffer Protection Program.
hUs://deg.nc. gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-qualiiy_permitting/401-buffer-
permitting/riparian-buffer-prote ction-pro gram
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Maps, "Find Your
HUC in North Carolina." Accessed September 1, 2023.
hops://experience. arc gis. com/experience/d63 87977847643308aee 5 9517ccdaad9
NCDENR, Maps, "North Carolina Physiographic Provinces of N.C." Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hitps://data-ncdenr.opendata. arcgis.com/maps/ncdenr::phy siographic-province s-of-
nc/explore?location=3 5.473407%2C-78.701750%2C9.06
N.C. Drought Update Map, Accessed August 31, 2023.
hops://www.ncdrought.org/map-archives
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Element Occurrence Online Database.
Accessed July 13, 2023.
7 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870160, Transylvania County, N. C.
hops://ncnhde.nature serve.org/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Section 10 Waters list,
1965 and Addendum, 1980. https://www.saw.usace.glmy.mil/Missions/Re atoly-Permit-
Pro gxam/Juri sdiction/
USACE, Wilmington District, Trout Resources in Western NC. Accessed September 1,
2023.
hUs://www. saw.usace.almy.mil/Missions/Regulatoiy-Permit-Program/Agency-
Coordination/Trout/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Transylvania County Soil Survey. Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hILtps://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ilpp
USDA, NRCS, Hydric Soils Lists. Accessed September 1, 2023.
hLtps://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Public/IL/State_List NRCS_Hydric_Soils _Report _Dvna
mic Data.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed October 16, 2023.
hLtps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/user/login
USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Online Mapping. Accessed August 31,
2023. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Lake Toxaway
(NC 2022). Accessed August 31, 2023.
hILtps://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-80.340
8 November 2023

G r, e at
Balsam —� \
Mount a rn'S. Shining lock
`t6406ft Wilderness �p
c� Mountain H<
�, Q3
l Etowah
2A-5 �J v, Her
a
} r
Bridge No. 160'
IS B eva d
Bridge No. 133
i
Dania
1
S DuPo t State e'
Forest
J �
Bridge No: �161
Gorges State t_�,Jy,'� Caesars Head
Park State Park
} 281 ��—
aro\�na-
-
orth -
Bridge No. 189
iock S o uth J
es5 4
5 l
i 178
J
Lake
Jocassee
I
\
i
`> 133
i
I
I
i
,
I
1183
0 Project Location
6._ � County Boundary
N
0 2 4
Miles
S `\I
135
i
i
i
'P i c k e n sPickens 183
40
6
®r Transylvania Count
85
m
Td
Be ea
Vicinity Map
BR-0252
ge Replacement
DOT Division 14
sylvania County
Figure 1
GANNETT
FLEMING
August 2023

,.� N17NN
7
0 Project Study Area
Streams
Parcels
r
i
N '
Feet
S R-1312
Project Study Area Map
BR-0252
Bridge No. 160 Replacement
NCDOT Division 14
Transylvania County
�OF NOFiN .q90 Figure 2
GANNETT
FLEMING
9 tiP
�711-il RANc', July 2023
1

t
Iwo
It,
X
e'k
AnN
J9
J I
yo-
Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams BR-0252
Parcels Bridge No. 160 Replacement
Rural Residential NCDOT Division 14
Transylvania County
Deciduous Mixed
,AORTI,, Figure 3
Riparian Forest N 0 4
Transylvania County
LAJ� GANNETT
0 25 50 ko L FLEMING
Feet %
TOFTRPkll September 2023

A
R
. - unningPine R°ad-
R
ii - -1 �17_ 40
.. der►-i, r WA
�ek Road
�► _ SR-1312
ZQ_ W,
' 10J+ -, -. 1
Ir
'� �� • It. � , 1• MA i 1 A • � , � ! � . ' i�♦ a •T_
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area BR-0252
Streams SA Bridge No. 160 Replacement
(Richland Creek) NCDOT Division 14
Wetlands WA -' Transylvania County
Parcels N OFNORTfCy9 Figure 4
r ,�.�.. �P� a4� 1
Transylvania County y '. GANNETT
0 25 50 ` _ - 9 � FLEMING
Feet �P
OF TRPN'eO September 2023

Qualifications of Contributors
Lead Investigator: John Thomas
Education: B.S. Forest Management, North Carolina State University, 1973;
B.S. Biology, North Carolina State University, 1974
Experience: US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Project Manager 1990-2017
Gannett Fleming, Senior Environmental Specialist, 2018-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural community assessment, stream
assessment, Cultural Resource assessment, Threatened and Endangered
species surveys, Environmental Permit process review,
document preparation
Investigator: Julia Roblyer
Education: B.S. Medical Science, University of Florida, 2009; M.S. Environmental
Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, 2017
Experience: Senior Environmental Program Coordinator, Broward County, 2017-2022;
Project Environmental Designer, Gannet Fleming, 2022-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, environmental due diligence analysis and
document preparation, GIS analysis and map preparation
Quality Control: Adam Archual
Education: B.A. Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, B.A. Geography, University
of Cincinnati, 2004; M.H.P. Heritage Preservation, Georgia State
University, 2010
Experience: Senior Environmental Planner, Gannett Fleming, 2019-Present
Responsibilities: Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for project deliverables

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Timber Bridge Replacement - Replace Bridge No. 870161 on
SR 1319 (Homer McCall Rd.) over North Fork Flat Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0252
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 870161 on SR 1319 (Homer McCall Rd.) over North Fork Flat Creek in Transylvania
County, North Carolina as part of TIP BR-02521 (Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway
for Bridge No. 870161 does not have an outlet. There will not be an off -site detour during
construction. It has not been decided whether traffic will be maintained through the use of
a temporary bridge or phased construction. The following Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of the appropriate
environmental documentation.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and
Permitting's Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest
NRTR Template (September 2021). Field work was conducted on August 31, 2023. Water
resources identified in the study area have not been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The principal
personnel contributing to the field work and document is provided in the appendix.
Prior to field work, the following data sources were reviewed: the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database2, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) online soil mapping website and Transylvania County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, Lake Toxaway NC
(2022) quadrangle, and North Carolina Drought Update map.
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 3 shows the location
and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are presented in the
context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Dominant Species (scientific name)
Coverage
ac.
Fescue (Festuce sp)
Rural Residential
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
0.5
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
White Pine Pinus strobus
Deciduous Mixed Riparian
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Forest
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
0.5
Yellow po lar Liriodendron tuli i era
' TIP BR-0252 will replace four timber bridges in Division 14. Bridge No. 870161 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2https://connect.ncdot. gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 14/BR-
0252/ layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMCWYR-1388431580-29
1 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
Poison iv Toxicodendron radicans
Total 1 1.0
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The USFWS lists the following federally protected species within the study area under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table 2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or
absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based
on survey results in the study area.
Table 2. ESA federally protected species in the project study areal
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Status
Present
Conclusion
Myotis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
No effect
*otis septentrionalis
Northernblotng-eared
E
Yes
MANLAA
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
MANLAA
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T(S/A)
No
No effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Appalachian Elktoe
E
Yes
MANLAA
Sarracenia rubra ssp.
Mountain Sweet
E
No
No effect
Jonesu
Pitcher -plant
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled
T
No
No effect
Po onia
Helonias bullata
Swamp Pink
T
No
No effect
Spiraea virginiana
Virginia Spiraea
T
No
No effect
Lichen Gymnoderma
Rock Gnome Lichen
E
No
No effect
lineare
' IPaC data checked on October 16, 2023 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div14BR-
0252/_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMC WYR-13 884315 80-28
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered; T — Threatened; T(S/A) — Threatened due to similarity of
appearance; MANLAA — May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: No effect
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the site for bats during the
summer of 2023 and will prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will
determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat
habitat assessment conducted on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting
under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Bog Turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1-October 1 (visual surveys)
Biological conclusion: Not required / No effect
The study area is primarily Toxaway fine -loam loam soils which are poorly
drained soils. Field inspections conducted on August 31, 2023, confirmed no mountain
bog habitat is located within the study area (i.e., no habitat). A review of NCNHP records
on October 17, 2023, indicates no known Bog Turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
Appalachian Elktoe
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological conclusion: NANLAA
NCDOT-BSG conducted mussels surveys in the area and determined a Biological
Conclusion for projects. A review of the NCNHP database records dated October 17,
2023, indicates that there are no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe in or
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher -plant
USFWS Optimal survey window: April 1-October 1
Biological conclusion: No effect
The study area does not include Southern Appalachian Bogs (Bog) and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Mountain sweet pitcher plant. A Mountain sweet pitcher plant
habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant
Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications of Bog habitat or
3 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
presences of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Mountain sweet pitcher plant
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Small Whorled Pogonia
USFWS optimal survey window: mid May -early July
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third
successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does
not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying
geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open,
dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The
species may also be found on dry, rocky, wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking
stream channels; or slope bases near braided channels of vernal streams. A Small
whorled pogonia habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance
with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications
of referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study area. A review
of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Small
whorled pogonia within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Swamp Pink
USFWS optimal survey window: April -May
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Swamp pink occurs in clonal clumps in a variety of groundwater -influenced
wetland habitats including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic white
cedar swamps, swampy forests bordering meandering small streams, boggy
meadows, headwater wetlands, and spring seepage areas. The study area does not
include any of the above referenced habitats. A Swamp pink habitat assessment was
completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence
of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Swamp pink within 1.0 mile
of the study area.
Virginia Spiraea
USFWS optimal survey window: May -early July
Biological conclusion: No effect
The Virginia Spiraea occurs in flood -scoured, high -gradient sections of rocky river
banks of second and third order streams, often in gorges or canyons. This perennial
shrub grows in sunny areas on moist, acidic soils, primarily over sandstone. The shrub
tends to be found in thickets with little arboreal or herbaceous competition along early
successional areas that rely on periodic disturbances such as high -velocity scouring
floods to eliminate such competition. Virginia Spiraea also occurs on meander scrolls
and point bars, natural levees, and other braided features of lower stream reaches, often
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
near the stream mouth. Scoured, riverine habitat sites are found where deposition
occurs after high water flows, such as on floodplains and overwash islands, rather than
along areas of maximum erosion. Occurrences in depositional habitats are found among
riparian debris piles, on fine alluvial sand and other alluvial deposits, or between
boulders. A Virginia Spiraea habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in
accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no
indications of the referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study
area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no known
occurrences of Virginia Spiraea within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Rock Gnome Lichen
USFWS Optimal survey window: year round
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Elevations at the study area are between 2,550 and 2,600 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). The study area does not include high elevations of 5,000 feet amsl where there
is often fog, nor boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges, and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Rock gnome lichen. A Rock gnome lichen habitat assessment
was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence of
referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17,
2023, indicates no known occurrences of Rock gnome lichen within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do
not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests
in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on August 28, 2023, using 2021 color aerials. No water
bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a
review of the NCNHP database on October 17, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of
this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences,
and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will
not affect this species.
4.3 Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified no habitat within the study
area as Essential Fish Habitat.
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
5.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the West Fork of the French Broad River -
French Broad River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010105].
One stream was identified in the study area (Table 3). The location of the stream is shown
in Figure 4.
Table 3. Stream in the study area
Map
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Stream Name
ID
Index
Classification
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
Number
North Fork Flat Creek
SA
6-2-10-1
C;Tr
2
16
12
North Fork Flat Creek has not been designated as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I
or WS-II) within, or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina
2022 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters has not identified the creek within, or within 1.0
mile downstream of the study area as an impaired water.
No surface water (pond) was identified in the study area.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
One stream was identified in the study area (Table 4). The location of the stream is shown
on Figure 4. The stream in the study area has been designated as cold water stream for the
purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Status of streams in the study area
Lengt
Compensatory
River Basin
Map ID
Classification
It ft.
Mitigation Required
Buffer
SA
106
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
(North Fork Flat Creek
Total
106
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area.
6.2 Construction Moratoria
There are no streams in the study area that provide anadromous fish habitat. North Fork
Flat Creek is located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Transylvania County.
Therefore, impacts to JD waters requiring a Section 404 permit would require review and
comment from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The project is not subject to buffer rules.
6 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are located in the
study area.
6.5 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
There was no Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern
(AEC) identified in the study area.
6.6 Coastal Barrier Resources System
No Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units exist within the study area.
7.0 REFERENCES
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Surface Water Classification.
Accessed September 1, 2023.
hLtps://experience. arc gis. com/experience/7073 e9l 22ab 745 88b 8c48ded34c3 df55/
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Riparian Buffer Protection Program.
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-gualily_permitting/401-buffer-
permitting/riparian-buffer-prote ction-pro gram
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Maps, "Find Your
HUC in North Carolina." Accessed September 1, 2023.
https://experience. arc gis. com/experience/d63 87977847643308aee 5 9517ccdaad9
NCDENR, Maps, "North Carolina Physiographic Provinces of N.C." Accessed
September 1, 2023.
https://data-ncdenr.opendata. arcgis.com/maps/ncdenr::phy siographic-province s-of-
nc/explore?location=3 5.473407%2C-78.701750%2C9.06
N.C. Drought Update Map, Accessed August 31, 2023.
https://www.ncdrought.org/map-archives
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Element Occurrence Online Database.
Accessed October 17, 2023.
https://ncnhde.nature serve.org(
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Section 10 Waters list,
1965 and Addendum, 1980. https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
USACE, Wilmington District, Trout Resources in Western NC. Accessed September 1,
2023.
hI tps://www. saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Pro gram/Agency-
Coordination/Trout/
7 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870161, Transylvania County, N. C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Transylvania County Soil Survey. Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hUs://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
USDA, NRCS, Hydric Soils Lists. Accessed September 1, 2023.
hLtps://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Public/IL/State_List NRCS_Hydric_Soils _Report _Dvna
mic Data.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed October 16, 2023.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/user/log
USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Online Mapping. Accessed August 31,
2023. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Lake Toxaway
(NC 2022). Accessed August 31, 2023.
hILtps://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-80.340
8 November 2023

l
Great
BaIsa,m r� \
Mountains Shining Nock
` 6406jt Wilderness
t
4�
Etowah
2,�5 a
276L
1 �
Bridge No. 160'
f s B eva d
Bridge No.
ti DuPo t State
Forest
f � 1
Bridge No: �161 - 4
Gorges State , °' Caesars Head
1 Park ,' ` State Park
281 +
ock g
;
car°�`na Brid a No. 189
South
ess
178 �
Lake
Jocassee
l�l
Mountain
•
Henderson
H
133
0u n t a 1
S3�063 M
T
130 i
135 �7
133]
i� Pickens 183
i
Be ea
1183
mokY Vicinity Map
Q Project Location a i s Park ... Ashevill BR-0252
� r
County Boundary Bridge Replacement
is Brev�rd NCDOT Division 14
orest _ Transylvania County
Rosma
N4�OfNORTHCggO Figure 1
Peer Transylvania County y �j . �1
GANNETT
0 2 4A FLEMING
Miles "'
TOF TRANSeOQ
August 2023

' g
SR-1313
i,
t4J(
Bridge No. 16'1
Xmf } Y I
SR-1318
71T•','.�
Project Study Area Map
0 Project Study Area BR-0252
Streams Bridge No. 161 Replacement
Parcels ' NCDOT Division 14
Transylvania County
F NON M Figure 2
N r �°
Transylvania County y ' ° GANNETT
0 100 200 ` _ - ' ° FLEMING
9
Feet `
9 OF TReNSeOpr
July 2023

Qualifications of Contributors
Lead Investigator: John Thomas
Education: B.S. Forest Management, North Carolina State University, 1973;
B.S. Biology, North Carolina State University, 1974
Experience: US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Project Manager 1990-2017
Gannett Fleming, Senior Environmental Specialist, 2018-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural community assessment, stream
assessment, Cultural Resource assessment, Threatened and Endangered
species surveys, Environmental Permit process review,
document preparation
Investigator: Julia Roblyer
Education: B.S. Medical Science, University of Florida, 2009; M.S. Environmental
Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, 2017
Experience: Senior Environmental Program Coordinator, Broward County, 2017-2022;
Project Environmental Designer, Gannet Fleming, 2022-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, environmental due diligence analysis and
document preparation, GIS analysis and map preparation
Quality Control: Adam Archual
Education: B.A. Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, B.A. Geography, University
of Cincinnati, 2004; M.H.P. Heritage Preservation, Georgia State
University, 2010
Experience: Senior Environmental Planner, Gannett Fleming, 2019-Present
Responsibilities: Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for project deliverables

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Timber Bridge Replacement - Replace Bridge No. 870189 on
SR 1141 (Babb Rd.) over Shoal Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0252
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 870189 on SR 1141 (Babb Rd.) over Shoal Creek in Transylvania County, North
Carolina as part of TIP BR-02521 (Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway for Bridge No.
870189 does not have an outlet. There will not be an off -site detour during construction. It
has not been decided whether traffic will be maintained through the use of a temporary
bridge or phased construction. The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
has been prepared to assist in the preparation of the appropriate environmental
documentation.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and
Permitting's Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest
NRTR Template (September 2021). Field work was conducted on August 31, 2023. Water
resources identified in the study area have not been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The principal
personnel contributing to the field work and document is provided in the appendix.
Prior to field work, the following data sources were reviewed: the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database2, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) online soil mapping website and Transylvania County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, Eastatoe Gap NC
(2022) quadrangle, and North Carolina Drought Update map.
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 3 shows the location
and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are presented in the
context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Dominant Species (scientific name)
Coverage
ac.
Fescue (Festuce sp)
Rural Residential
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
0.75
Sweet gin Li uidambar s raci ua
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Deciduous Mixed Riparian
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
0.25
Forest
Yellow Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Poison iv Toxicodendron radicans
' TIP BR-0252 will replace four timber bridges in Division 14. Bridge No. 870189 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2https://connect.ncdot. gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div 14/BR-
0252/ layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMCWYR-1388431580-31
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
Total 1 1.0
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The USFWS lists the following federally protected species within the study area under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table 2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or
absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based
on survey results in the study area.
Table 2. ESA federally protected species within the study areal
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Status
Present
Conclusion
*otis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
No effect
*otis septentrionalis
Northernblotng-eared
E
Yes
MANLAA
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
MANLAA
Glyptemys muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T(S/A)
No
No effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Appalachian Elktoe
E
Yes
MANLAA
Sarracenia rubra ssp.
Mountain Sweet
E
No
No effect
jonesii
Pitcher -plant
Isotria medeoloides
Small Whorled
T
No
No effect
Po onia
Helonias bullata
Swamp Pink
T
No
No effect
Spiraea virginiana
Virginia Spiraea
T
No
No effect
Lichen Gymnoderma
Rock Gnome Lichen
E
No
No effect
lineare
' IPaC data checked on October 16, 2023 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/div14BR-
0252/_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=ZPXV4RRMC WYR-1388431580-30
E — Endangered; PE — Proposed Endangered; T — Threatened; T(S/A) — Threatened due to similarity of
appearance; MANLAA-May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: No effect
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the site for bats during the
summer of 2023 and will prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will
determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat
habitat assessment conducted on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting
under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023 and will
prepare a Bat Memo with survey results. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological
Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted
on June 20, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area
around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Bog Turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1-October 1 (visual surveys)
Biological conclusion: Not required / No effect
The study area is primarily Toxaway loam soils which are poorly drained soils. Field
inspections conducted on August 31, 2023, confirmed no mountain bog habitat is
located within the study area (i.e., no habitat). A review of NCNHP records on October
17, 2023, indicates no known Bog Turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Appalachian Elktoe
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological conclusion: MANLAA
NCDOT-BSG will survey the area and determine a Biological Conclusion prior to
permitting. A review of the NCNHP database records dated October 17, 2023, indicates
that there are no known occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe in or within 1.0 mile of
the study area.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1-October 1
Biological conclusion: No effect
The study area does not include southern Appalachian bogs (Bog) and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Mountain sweet pitcher plant. A Mountain sweet pitcher plant
habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant
Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications of Bog habitat or
presences of referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Mountain sweet pitcher plant
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Small Whorled Pogonia
USFWS optimal survey window: mid May -early July
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second to third
successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests. It does
not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil type, or underlying
geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is typically found in open,
dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white pine and rhododendron. The
species may also be found on dry, rocky, wooded slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking
stream channels; or slope bases near braided channels of vernal streams. A Small
whorled pogonia habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance
with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no indications
of referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study area. A review
of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Small
whorled pogonia within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Swamp Pink
USFWS optimal survey window: April -May
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Swamp pink occurs in clonal clumps in a variety of groundwater -influenced wetland
habitats including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic white cedar
swamps, swampy forests bordering meandering small streams, boggy meadows,
headwater wetlands, and spring seepage areas. The study area does not include any of
the above referenced habitats. A Swamp pink habitat assessment was completed on
June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat
assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence of referenced
species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023,
indicates no known occurrences of Swamp Pink within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Virginia Spiraea
USFWS optimal survey window: May -early July
Biological conclusion: No effect
The Virginia Spiraea occurs in flood -scoured, high -gradient sections of rocky river
banks of second and third order streams, often in gorges or canyons. This perennial
shrub grows in sunny areas on moist, acidic soils, primarily over sandstone. The shrub
tends to be found in thickets with little arboreal or herbaceous competition along early
successional areas that rely on periodic disturbances such as high -velocity scouring
floods to eliminate such competition. Virginia Spiraea also occurs on meander scrolls
and point bars, natural levees, and other braided features of lower stream reaches, often
near the stream mouth. Scoured, riverine habitat sites are found where deposition
occurs after high water flows, such as on floodplains and overwash islands, rather than
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
along areas of maximum erosion. Occurrences in depositional habitats are found among
riparian debris piles, on fine alluvial sand and other alluvial deposits, or between
boulders. A Virginia Spiraea habitat assessment was completed on June 20, 2023, in
accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols. The habitat assessment showed no
indications of the referenced habitat or presence of referenced species within the study
area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17, 2023, indicates no known
occurrences of Virginia Spiraea within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Rock Gnome Lichen
USFWS optimal survey window: year round
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Elevations at the study area are between 2,700 and 2,750 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). The study area does not include high elevations of 5,000 feet amsl where there
is often fog, nor boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges, and therefore would
be unlikely to include the Rock gnome lichen. A Rock gnome lichen habitat assessment
was completed on June 20, 2023, in accordance with NCDOT Plant Survey Protocols.
The habitat assessment showed no indications of the referenced habitat or presence of
referenced species within the study area. A review of NCNHP records on October 17,
2023, indicates no known occurrences of Rock gnome lichen within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do
not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests
in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on August 28, 2023, using 2021 color aerials. No water
bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were
identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a
review of the NCNHP database on October 17, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of
this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences,
and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will
not affect this species.
4.3 Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified no habitat within the study
area as Essential Fish Habitat.
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
5.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the Shoal Creek - French Broad River basin
[U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010105]. Two streams were
identified in the study area (Table 3). The locations of the streams are shown in Figure 4.
Table 3. Streams in the study area
Map
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Stream Name
ID
Index
Classification
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
Number
Shoal Creek
SA
6-5-1
C;Tr
2
5
12
UT Shoal Creek
SB
6-5-1
C;Tr
2
3
10
Shoal Creek has not been designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). There are
no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II)
within, or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina 2022 Final
303(d) list of impaired waters has not identified either creek within, or within 1.0 mile
downstream of the study area as an impaired water.
No surface water (pond) was identified in the study area.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Two streams were identified in the study area (Table 4). The locations of the streams are
shown on Figure 4. The streams in the study area have been designated as cold water
streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Status of streams in the study area
Length
Compensatory
River Basin
Map ID
Classification
ft.
Mitigation Required
Buffer
SA
140
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Shoal Creek
SB
120
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
UT Shoal Creek
Total
1 260
No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area.
6.2 Construction Moratoria
There are no streams in the study area that provide anadromous fish habitat. Shoal Creek
is located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Transylvania County. Therefore,
impacts to JD waters requiring a Section 404 permit would require review and comment
from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
6 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The project is not subject to buffer rules.
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are located in the
study area.
6.5 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
There was no Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern
(AEC) identified in the study area.
6.6 Coastal Barrier Resources System
No Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units exist within the study area.
7.0 REFERENCES
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Surface Water Classification.
Accessed September 1, 2023.
hLtps://experience. arc gis. com/experience/7073 e9l 22ab 745 88b 8c48ded34c3 df55/
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Riparian Buffer Protection Program.
hI tps://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-gualily_permitting/401-buffer-
permitting/riparian-buffer-prote ction-pro gram
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Maps, "Find Your
HUC in North Carolina." Accessed September 1, 2023.
hops://experience. arc gis. com/experience/d63 87977847643 308aee 5 9517ccdaad9
NCDENR, Maps, "North Carolina Physiographic Provinces of N.C." Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hitps://data-ncdenr.opendata. arcgis.com/maps/ncdenr::phy sio graphic -province s-of-
nc/explore?location=3 5.473407%2C-78.701750%2C9.06
N.C. Drought Update Map, Accessed August 31, 2023.
hops://www.ncdrought.org/map-archives
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Element Occurrence Online Database.
Accessed October 17, 2023.
hitps://ncnhde.nature serve.org(
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Section 10 Waters list,
1965 and Addendum, 1980. https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
USACE, Wilmington District, Trout Resources in Western NC. Accessed September 1,
2023.
7 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0252, Bridge No. 870189, Transylvania County, N. C.
hops://www. saw.usace.4M.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Pro gram/Agency-
Coordination/Trout/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Transylvania County Soil Survey. Accessed
September 1, 2023.
hLtps://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ilpp/
USDA, NRCS, Hydric Soils Lists. Accessed September 1, 2023.
hLtps://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Public/IL/State_List NRCS_Hydric_Soils _Report _Dvna
mic Data.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed October 16, 2023 .
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/user/login
USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Online Mapping. Accessed August 31,
2023. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Eastatoe Gap (NC
2022). Accessed August 31, 2023. hops://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-
80.340
8 November 2023

l
Great
BaIsa,m r� \
Mountains Shining Nock
` 6406jt Wilderness
t
4�
Etowah
2,�5 a
276L
1 �
Bridge No. 160'
f s B eva d
Bridge No.
ti DuPo t State
Forest
f � 1
Bridge No: �161 - 4
Gorges State , °' Caesars Head
1 Park ,' ` State Park
281 +
ock g
;
car°�`na Brid a No. 189
South
ess
178 �
Lake
Jocassee
l�l
Mountain
•
Henderson
H
133
0u n t a 1
S3�063 M
T
130 i
135 �7
133]
i� Pickens 183
i
Be ea
1183
mokY Vicinity Map
Q Project Location a i s Park ... Ashevill BR-0252
� r
County Boundary Bridge Replacement
is Brev rd NCDOT Division 14
orest _ Transylvania County
R osman
N4�OfNORTHCggO Figure 1
GreerTransylvania County y �j . �1
GANNETT
0 2 4A W FLEMING
Miles "' '9 tP
TOF TRANSeOQ
August 2023

I .
t
q
I A
V4
Al
4
q4� SR-1141
Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams BR-0252
Parcels Bridge No.
189 Replacement
NCDOT Division 14
IP Rural Residential
Transylvania County
Deciduous Mixed
NORTH Figure 3
Riparian Forest 0 4
0 Transylvania County
0 25 50 FLEMING
Feet OF TR WGANNETT
September 2023

q
L7w V"p,
or, ;4,
A
4
"C
0�
SR-1141
CIA I 'k
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area BR-0252
Streams SA/SB Bridge No. 189 Replacement
(Shoal Creek) NCDOT Division 14
Parcels Transylvania County
NORTH
4 C Figure 4
N 0
Transylvania County
GANNETT
0 25 50
Feet OF TR WFLEMING
September 2023

Qualifications of Contributors
Lead Investigator: John Thomas
Education: B.S. Forest Management, North Carolina State University, 1973;
B.S. Biology, North Carolina State University, 1974
Experience: US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Project Manager 1990-2017
Gannett Fleming, Senior Environmental Specialist, 2018-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural community assessment, stream
assessment, Cultural Resource assessment, Threatened and Endangered
species surveys, Environmental Permit process review,
document preparation
Investigator: Julia Roblyer
Education: B.S. Medical Science, University of Florida, 2009; M.S. Environmental
Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, 2017
Experience: Senior Environmental Program Coordinator, Broward County, 2017-2022;
Project Environmental Designer, Gannet Fleming, 2022-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, environmental due diligence analysis and
document preparation, GIS analysis and map preparation
Quality Control: Adam Archual
Education: B.A. Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, B.A. Geography, University
of Cincinnati, 2004; M.H.P. Heritage Preservation, Georgia State
University, 2010
Experience: Senior Environmental Planner, Gannett Fleming, 2019-Present
Responsibilities: Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for project deliverables

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
23-07-0026
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
LZ NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BR-0252
County:
Transylvania
WBSNo.:
50845.1.1
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 160 over Richland Creek on SR 1312 (Richland Creek
Road
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on August 2, 2023. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or
SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps. Properties
over fifty years of age were identified within the APE and visually surveyed through Google
Maps, and from this survey it was determined that all are unremarkable and/or have diminished
integrity and do not warrant further evaluation. Bridge No. 160 is not eligible for NR listing.
There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design
Tans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Transylvania County survey, Transylvania County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are
considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being
present. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no
survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
'W & 192 .�ar� a$Kt ,g 9023
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3

State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 3

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
23-07-0026
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
LZ NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BR-0252
County:
Transylvania
WBSNo.:
50845.1.1
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 161 over North Fork Flat Creek on SR 1319 (Homer
McCall Road).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on August 2, 2023. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or
SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps. Properties
over fifty years of age were identified within the APE and visually surveyed through Google
Maps, and from this survey it was determined that all are unremarkable and/or have diminished
integrity and do not warrant further evaluation. Bridge No. 161is not eligible for NR listing.
There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design
Tans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Transylvania County survey, Transylvania County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are
considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being
present. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no
survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
'W & 11N .�ar� a�Eg g 9023
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 4

Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 4

Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 4

State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 4 of 4

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
11-03-0024
�,•� Update
Gf HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
a NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form supercedes that dated 27 May 2011.
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BR-0252
County:
Transylvania
WBS No.:
50845.1.1
Document
T e:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
Permits):
X Yes No
Permit
T e(s):
USACE
ProiectDescription: Replace Bridge Number 189 on SR 1141 (Babb Road) over Shoal
Creek (no off -site detour specified in review request).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions: HPOWeb reviewed on 24 August
2023 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE).
Transylvania County current GIs mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated a
wooded APE with cleared fields and residential resources dating from the 1940s and the 1970-
80s (viewed 24 August 2023); since the on -site survey in May of 2011, several buildings no
longer stand. Pre-1973 resources are unexceptional, mostly altered examples of their types.
Bridge No. 189, built in 1963, is not eligible for the National Register as it is not representative
of any distinctive engineering or aesthetic type. Google Maps "Street View" confirmed the
absence of critical historic structures and landscapes in the APE (viewed 24 August 2023).
No architectural survey is required for the project as currently defined.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified siznificant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect
area: APE equates with the study area provided in the review request (see attached). The
county comprehensive architectural survey (1990-1991) and later studies include no properties
in the APE (Laura A. W. Phillips and Deborah Thompson, Transylvania: The Architectural History ofa
Mountain County (Raleigh, NC: Transylvania County Joint Historic Preservation Commission, 1998)).
County GIS/tax materials and other visuals clearly illustrate the absence of significant
architectural resources. No National Register -listed properties are located within the APE.
Should the project limits change, please notify NCDOT Historic Architecture
as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
24 August 2023
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.

NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
23-07-0025
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES AFFECTED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BR-0252
County:
Transylvania
WB.S' No.:
50845.1.1
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ® Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No.133 over Walker Creek on SR 1557 (Haskell Jones Road).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPOGIS web service was undertaken on August 8, 2023. Based on this review, there
are properties which are over 50 years of age in the project Area Potential Effects (APE). An
NCDOT Architectural Historian will conduct a site survey to determine if an Eligibility Evaluation
is needed. Survey Required. On September 14, 2023, a site visit was conducted by two NCDOT
Architectural Historians. No structures in the APE have the level of architectural integrity that
warrant further evaluation. No Historic Properties are present in the APE.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO HISTORIC PROPERTIES PRESENT
sk6bij FF2.PeGp December 13, 2023
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 2

BR-0252 Bridge No 133 APE
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oa ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES�3
p PRESENT FORM ` o
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
_`. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult ;f1
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BR-0252 (Bridge 160) County: Transylvania
WBS No: 50845.1.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 160 on SR 1312 (Richland Creek Road) over Richland
Creek in Transylvania County. The archaeological Area ofPotential Effects (APE) for the project is defined
as an approximate 420 foot (128.02 m) long corridor running 210 feet (64.01 m) north and south along
Richland Creek Road from the center of Bridge No. 160. The APE is 100 feet (30.48 m) wide extending 50
feet (15.24 m) to either side of the center line. In all, the APE encompasses approximately one acre.
A federal permit is anticipated. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subjectproject and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological reconnaissance and field investigation for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 160 on SR 1312 (Richland Creek Road) over Richland Creek in Transylvania County, North
Carolina. The project is located southwest of Brevard, northwest of Rosman, and plotted in the southeast
section of the Lake Toxaway USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Background Research
A site files search was conducted using data from the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on August 7, 2023.
While no previous archaeological investigations are recorded at Bridge No. 160, seven sites (31TV21,
31TV22, 31TV487, 31TV634, 31TV677, 31TV727, and 31TV728) have been identified along Richland
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
10 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
Creek and its tributaries during various other investigations. Sites 31TV21 and 31TV22 were recorded by
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1964 for their Cherokee Archaeological Investigations.
Ruth Wetmore reported 31TV487 and 31TV634 in 1993 during the An Archaeological Survey of
Transylvania County. Lastly, sites 31TV677, 31TV727, and 31TV728 were identified by the US Forest
Service (Ashcraft and Snedeker 1998; Noel and Snedeker 1994). All the sites yielded precontact material
with 20th century artifacts collected at 31TV727 and 31TV728 as well. Of the seven, six (31TV21, 31TV22,
31TV487, 31TV634, 31TV727, and 31TV728) are situated in settings similar to the current project area along
floodplains and stream terraces. Although information is limited from these sites, their locations did suggest
a high probability of unrecorded sites near Bridge No. 160. Therefore, a field investigation was
recommended.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2023), there
are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits.
An examination of historic maps concerning this project failed to find any significant features within APE
either. Most early maps provide only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads and
settlements. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map is one of the first to display a reliable location (Figure
2). This map plots no features such as a road or structures in the vicinity of the project. The later 1905 USGS
Pisgah map illustrates the region in greater detail with a road and a crossing near the present bridge; however,
the road does not follow the same layout as Richland Creek Road (Figure 3). It is not until the 1950s that the
current road alignment is shown. While it was unlikely for historic resources to be present, this was confirmed
during the current investigations.
The USDA soil survey shows the APE composed of Braddock loam (BvC) and Rosman fine sandy loam
(Ro), but it is likely that a third unmarked series is present as well composing the southern hillside (Figure
4). The Rosman series is found in the floodplain south of the stream. It is fairly level with slope of less than
2 percent and well drained, but it is subject to frequent flooding. The Braddock series encompasses the
northern stream terrace. This series is well drained with a slope of 8 to 15 percent. Since both soils are
generally dry and fairly level, they are well suited for evidence of early occupations. The hillside within the
APE is also identified as Rosman, but this appears incorrect as slope is around 25 percent based upon the
lidar contour image. Subsurface archaeological resources are usually not found of slope of 15 percent or
more. As a result, subsurface testing was not required along the hillslope.
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 160 on
Richland Creek Road over Richland Creek was conducted on November 7, 2023. The investigation included
a visual inspection and the excavation of four shovel tests (STs) (see Figure 4). Shovel tests were placed 15-
meter (ca. 49 ft) apart in the northeast quadrant, while one judgmental test was excavated in the southwest.
Slope was more than 15 percent on the hillside at the southern end of the APE (Figure 5), and the stream
terrace to the northwest was graded and leveled with up to 5 feet of soil removed (Figure 6). Also, a small
drainage and standing water occupied the southeastern quadrant adjacent to the bridge. No shovel tests were
placed in either of these locations.
The APE for the project crosses Richland Creek north to south following Richland Creek Road. The stream
drains north and is part of the French Broad drainage basin. A small tributary empties into the creek just
southeast of the bridge. The northern half of the APE is situated on a sloping stream terrace that drops quickly
into the creek (Figure 7), while the southern half consists of a narrow floodplain that rises sharply onto hillside
slope (Figure 8). The project area is generally open with dense vegetation along the southern hillside and in
the southeast quadrant. Ground disturbance is heavy in the northwest quadrant. The stream terrace has been
recently graded and leveled for a horse coral with several feet of soil removed (see Figure 6), and the area
just south of a private drive is covered over with gravel and large equipment. Disturbance is lighter elsewhere
with noticeable soil erosion on the terrace to the northeast. Finally, the floodplain to the southeast is lower
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
than the property to the southwest. As a result, this section of the floodplain contains standing water and wet
soils.
A pedestrian survey of the project area was first carried out. Surface visibility was typically poor. No rock
outcrops or unusual surface features were observed within the project limits. Shovel tests were then placed
in the northeast and southwest quadrants where ground disturbance was less obvious. STs 91-3 were
excavated along the northern stream terrace (see Figure 7). Stratigraphy consists of two layers. The surface
layer or plowzone is a 10 to 30 cm (ca. 4 to 12 in) thick layer of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) clay loam.
Below this is subsoil, which is strong brown (7.5YR 5/6 or 4/6) clay. STs 94 was the only subsurface test
excavated in the floodplain southwest of the bridge (see Figure 8). It yielded three soil layers. The plowzone
is a dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) sandy loam approximately 10 cm (ca. 4 in) thick. The second layer is
a yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/4) sandy loam that extends to 40 cm (ca. 16 in) below the surface. The final layer
or subsoil is yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) sandy clay. All shovel tests were negative for cultural materials.
Recommendations
The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 160 on Richland Creek Road
over Richland Creek in Transylvania County identified no archaeological sites. The four STs were negative
for cultural material, and no artifacts were found at the surface. The stream terrace to the northwest is heavily
disturbed with the soil removed or covered over with gravel, while the floodplain to the southeast is
waterlogged or flooded with the presence of the stream. Slope along the hillside at the southern end exceeds
15 percent, and no surface features were seen. No further archaeological work is recommended for this
project. However, additional testing maybe necessary if the APE expands.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and Muscogee
(Creek) Nation have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
forwarded to the tribe using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures
Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑ Correspondence
Other: historic map images
Signed:
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3 of 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
REFERENCES CITED
Ashcraft, A. Scott and Rodney Snedeker
1998 Heritage Resource Survey for the Proposed Richland Creek Road Easement, P198-1,
Compartment 123; Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North
Carolina. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
HPOWEB
2023 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.httnl?id=79ea671 ebdcc45639f0860257d5 f
5ed7. Accessed August 7, 2023.
Noel, Robert O. and Rodney Snedeker
1994 Heritage Resource Survey for the Proposed Richland Creek Timber Sale, Compartment
123 & 125; Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North
Carolina. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS)
2023 Transylvania County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/gpp/. Accessed August 7, 2023.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1892 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
1905 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
2016 Brevard, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1993 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. Sponsored by the
Transylvania County Historic Properties Commission. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
4of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
NOWN W�w, L, I
PIP
OWN
NMI
fir,
P-11 111 I►"i.1
■ i
Miles w00Transylvania County Meters S
f•
1
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Lake Toxaway (2016) NC USGS 7.5' Topographic
Quadrangle.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
5 of 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
Project Area
r f
Figure 2. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
..
k
-'oProject Area
/jJj ,
1 - • _
Figure 3. The 1905 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
6of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
Figure 4. Aerial view of the project area showing landforms, soils, contours, and STs.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
7of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0026
Figure 5. General view of hillside slope at the southern end of the APE, looking east.
Figure 6. General view of stream terrace in the northwest quadrant showing the removed soil, looking
northwest.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
80 9

AmR,

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oa ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES�3
p PRESENT FORM ` o
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
_`. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult ;f1
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BR-0252 (Bridge 161) County: Transylvania
WBS No: 50845.1.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 161 on SR 1319 (Homer McCall Road) over North Fork
Flat Creek in Transylvania County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is
defined as an approximate 430 foot (131.06 m) long corridor running 215 feet (65.53 m) northwest and
southeast along Homer McCall Road from the center of Bridge No. 161. The APE is 100 feet (30.48 m) wide
extending 50 feet (15.24 m) to either side of the center line. In all, the APE encompasses approximately one
acre.
A federal permit is anticipated. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subject project and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological reconnaissance and field investigation for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 161 on SR 1319 (Homer McCall Road) over the North Fork Flat Creek in Transylvania County,
North Carolina. The project is located southwest of Brevard, west of Rosman, and plotted in the southeast
corner of the Lake Toxaway USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Background Research
A site files search was conducted using data from the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on August 7, 2023.
While no previous archaeological investigations are recorded at Bridge No. 161, eight sites (31TV485,
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
10 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
31TV486, 31TV591, 31TV592, 31TV632, 31TV666, 31TV678, and 31TV679) have been identified along
Flatt Creek and its tributaries, which includes North Fork Flat Creek, during various other investigations.
These sites were recorded by either Ruth Wetmore (1993) during the An Archaeological Survey of
Transylvania County or the US Forest Service (Noel and Snedeker 1994). All of which yielded precontact
artifacts. Of the eight sites, the six (31TV485, 31TV486, 31TV591, 31TV592, 31TV632, and 31TV666)
identified by Wetmore are situated in settings similar to the current project area along floodplains and stream
terraces. Although information is limited from these sites, their locations do suggest a high probability of
unrecorded sites near Bridge No. 161. Therefore, a field investigation was recommended.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2023), there
are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits.
An examination of historic maps concerning this project failed to find any significant features within APE
either. Most early maps provide only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads and
settlements. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map is one of the first to display a reliable location (Figure
2). This map plots no features such as a road or structures in the vicinity of the project. The later 1905 USGS
Pisgah map illustrates the region in greater detail with a road and a crossing near the present bridge (Figure
3). However, the accuracy of this depicted alignment is questionable due to its stylized nature. While it was
unlikely for historic resources to be present, this was confirmed during the current investigations.
The USDA soil survey shows the APE composed of Braddock loam (BvC) and Toxaway loam (Tn), but it is
likely that the southern hillside is composed of Chester stony loam (CrF), which is not depicted (Figure 4).
The Toxaway series is makes up the floodplain. It is fairly level with slope of less than 2 percent. It is also
very poorly drained and subject to frequent flooding. Significant archaeological resources are not expected
on this soil type due to persistent wetness. The Braddock series encompasses the northern stream terrace.
This series is well drained with a slope of 8 to 15 percent. Since it is dry and fairly level, it is considered well
suited for evidence of early occupations. Finally, the hillside within the APE is identified Toxaway, but this
is incorrect as slope is between 35 and 40 percent based upon the LIDAR contour image. It is more likely
this is the neighboring Chester series, which is described as well -drained and stoney with a slope of 25 to 45
percent. Subsurface archaeological resources are usually not found of slope of 15 percent or more. As a
result, subsurface testing was no required along the hillslope.
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 161 on
Homer McCall Road over the North Fork Flat Creek was conducted on August 23, 2023. The investigation
included a visual inspection and the excavation of eight shovel tests (STs) (see Figure 4). Shovel tests were
typically placed 15-meter (ca. 49 ft) apart with some distances slightly greater due to obstructions such as
private drives or fallen trees and brush. Slope was also more than 15 percent on the hillside in the northeastern
quadrant, where no shovel tests were placed.
The APE for the project runs roughly from the northwest to the southeast along Homer McCall Road. The
North Fork Flat Creek flows south to join with Flat Creek. A seasonal drainage running down and alongside
the adjacent hill is also present within the project limits in the northeast quadrant. Its confluence with North
Fork Flat Creek is just at the edge of the APE, north of the bridge. These waterways are part of the French
Broad drainage basin. The project area consists of a floodplain on both sides of the stream with steep hillside
slope to the southeast. Further outside of the APE to the northwest, the floodplain rises onto a stream terrace.
The properties to the west are generally open with a spacious lawn in the southwest quadrant and a former
pasture in the northwest (Figures 5 and 6), while the eastern half is forested and covered in secondary growth
(Figures 7 and 8). Overall, ground disturbance is minimal with some fill covering the ground surface to the
southeast.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
Surface visibility was typically poor over the APE; however, no rock outcrops or unusual surface features
were observed along the southeastern hillside. Shovel tests were then placed in all four quadrants. STs 91
and 2 were excavated within the floodplain to the southeast. A 20 to 35 cm (ca. 8 to 14 in) thick layer of sand
and gravel fill covers this quadrant. Under the fill is a dark brown (10YR 3/3) hydric loamy sand that extends
to approximately 50 cm (ca. 20 in) below the surface. This is followed by a 10 cm (ca. 4 in) thick layer of
very pale brown (10YR 7/4) wet sand. The final stratum is a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) wet sand
that has a depth of at least 75 cm (ca. 30 in) below the surface. STs 93 was the only subsurface test dug in
the northeast quadrant due to the hillside and poor soils. Dark brown (IOYR 3/3) hydric loamy sand makes
up the upper stratum and extends to at least 30 cm (ca. 12 in) below the surface. Excavations were halted due
to water table, which was encountered at about 20 cm (ca. 8 in) below the surface. STs 94-6 are in the
southwest quadrant and yielded only two stratigraphic layers. The surface layer is a dark brown (IOYR 3/3)
loam that is typically 40 cm (ca. 16 in) thick. The bottom layer is a very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) hydric loamy
sand that increased in gravel with depth. Excavations were halted at about 60 cm (ca. 24 in) below the surface
due to wetness. Shovel tests in the northwest quadrant (97 and 8) are similar, but the dark brown upper layer
was not present at ST 97 yielding only the very dark brown hydric loam sand at the surface. No extra shovel
test was dug near the creek in this quadrant due to wet soils at the surface. All shovel tests were negative for
cultural materials.
Recommendations
The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 161 on Homer McCall Road
over the North Fork Flat Creek in Transylvania County identified no archaeological sites. The eight STs were
negative for cultural material. The APE's floodplain is subject to flooding with wet soils characterizing the
area, which makes the landform unsuitable for evidence of early occupations. Slope along the hillside exceeds
15 percent, and no surface features were seen. No further archaeological work is recommended for this
project. However, additional testing maybe necessary if the APE expands.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and Muscogee
(Creek) Nation have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
forwarded to the tribe using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures
Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑ Correspondence
Other: historic map images
Signed:
fib SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3 of 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
REFERENCES CITED
HPOWEB
2023 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webgppviewer/index.httnl?id=79ea671 ebdcc45639fD860257d5 f
5ed7. Accessed August 7, 2023.
Noel, Robert O. and Rodney Snedeker
1994 Heritage Resource Survey for the Proposed Richland Creek Timber Sale, Compartment
123 & 125; Pisgah Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest, Transylvania County, North
Carolina. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS)
2023 Transylvania County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. Accessed August 7, 2023.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1892 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
1905 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
2016 Lake Toxaway, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1993 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. Sponsored by the
Transylvania County Historic Properties Commission. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
4of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
1r; s ffit A
i
o s Nil `
I �
IL
10
N
r
r Miles W E
0 1,500
Transylvania County Meters S
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Lake Toxaway (2016) NC USGS 7.5' Topographic
Quadrangle.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
5 of 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
ti
I
Project Area
;Fo
4.
Figure 2. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
Project Area _
1A,
de
Figure 3. The 1905 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
6of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
Figure 4. Aerial view of the project area showing landforms, soils, contours, and STs.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
7of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
Figure 5. General view of the lawn within the floodplain in the southwest quadrant, looking southeast.
Figure 6. General view of the former pasture within the floodplain in the northwest quadrant, looking
southeast.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
80 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0027
Figure 7. General view of the floodplain in the southeast quadrant, looking southeast.
Figure 8. General view of the floodplain and hillside in the northeast quadrant, looking southeast.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
900

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oa ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES�3
p PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
_`. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult ;f1
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BR-0252 (Bridge 189) County: Transylvania
WBS No: 50845.1.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 189 on SR 1141 (Babb Road) over Shoal Creek in
Transylvania County. A `No Archaeological Survey Required" PA form was originally submitted on
March 17, 2011. The project's APE has subsequently expanded. As a result, the former PA form is no
longer valid and is replaced by the current PA form. The new and expanded archaeological Area of
Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as an approximate 420 foot (128.02 m) long corridor
running 210 feet (64.01 m) north and south along Babb Road from the center of Bridge No. 189. The APE
is 100 feet (30.48 m) wide extending 50 feet (15.24 m) to either side of the center line. In all, the APE
encompasses approximately one acre.
A federal permit is anticipated. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subject project and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological reconnaissance and field investigation for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 189 on SR 1141 (Babb Road) over Shoal Creek in Transylvania County, North Carolina. The
project is located south of Brevard and Rosman and plotted at the northern end of the Eastatoe Gap USGS
7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
10 9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
Background Research
A site files search was conducted using data from the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on August 7, 2023.
No previous archaeological investigations or known sites are recorded at Bridge No. 189 and only one site
(31TV566) has been identified within a mile. In general, previous archaeological investigations in this section
of Transylvania County are rare. Known site 31TV566 is located on a ridge nose along a small drainage
northwest of the project area and was recorded by Ruth Wetmore (1993) during An Archaeological Survey of
Transylvania County. The main period of occupation for the site is the Archaic with later cultural phases
represented by single resources. Due to disturbance from cultivation and construction activities, the site is
ineligible for the National Register. Its location shows none of the same environmental features which are
found within the project area. However, the dry stream terrace could have potential as other sites further
afield have been found in similar settings. As a result, a field investigation was recommended.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2023), there
are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits.
An examination of historic maps concerning this project failed to find any significant features within APE.
Most early maps provide only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads and
settlements. The first map to depict the area with any accuracy is the 1892 USGS Pisgah topography map
(Figure 2). This map plots no structures or roads in the vicinity of the project. The following 1905 USGS
Pisgah map, however, identifies the road as a two -track trail with a crossing over Shoal Creek near the current
bridge (Figure 3). This road appears to follow the same alignment as Babb Road, but no structures are
illustrated near the APE. Subsequent historic maps from the early 20th century continue to show the road
and crossing as improved, but no other features are depicted. While it was unlikely for historic resources to
be present, this was confirmed during the current investigations.
The USDA soil survey shows the APE composed of the Ashe-Edneyville complex (AnE), Tate fine sandy
loam (TsD), and Toxaway loam (Tn) (Figure 4). The Toxaway series makes up the floodplain. It is fairly
level with slope of less than 2 percent. It is also very poorly drained and subject to frequent flooding.
Significant archaeological resources are not expected on this soil type due to persistent wetness. The Tate
series encompasses the northern stream terrace. This series is well drained with a slope of 8 to 15 percent.
Since it is dry and fairly level, it is considered well suited for evidence of early occupations. Finally, the
hillside consists of the Ashe-Edneyville complex. It is rocky and somewhat excessively drained with a slope
of 15 to 30 percent. Subsurface archaeological resources are usually not found of slope of 15 percent or more.
As a result, the hillside does not require subsurface testing.
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 189 on Babb
Road over Shoal Creek was conducted on December 5, 2023. The investigation included a visual inspection
and the excavation of nine shovel tests (STs) (see Figure 4). Shovel tests were placed at 15-meter (ca. 49 ft)
interval on the eastside of Babbs Road and in the southwest quadrant. No shovel tests were excavated in
disturbed areas or along slope of 15 percent or more.
The APE for the project crosses Shoal Creek roughly north to south following Babb Road. Shoal Creek runs
alongside Babb Road in the southwest quadrant for a short distance before being joined by an unnamed
tributary and crossing under the bridge. These waterways are part of the French Broad drainage basin. The
northern half of the APE consists of a floodplain that rises onto a sloping stream terrace and then steep hillside,
while a floodplain covers the entire APE to the south. Properties east of the road are open with a residential
lawn in the northeast quadrant and a pasture in the southeast (Figures 5 and 6). To the west, properties are
lightly forested and associated with residential lots (Figure 7). Ground disturbance is mixed. The road
alignment previously ran west of the existing bridge with a ford crossing the creek prior to the placement of
the bridge. Fill has been deposited over the former alignment. In addition, the current road is elevated on an
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2of9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
earthen berm within the floodplain to alleviate potential flooding of the road. According to Mr. Chappell,
property owner in the southeast quadrant, flooding is common.
The investigation first included a pedestrian survey of the project area. Surface visibility was poor, and no
rock outcrops or unusual surface features were observed. STs 91-3 were then excavated in the northeast
quadrant, which yielded three stratigraphic layers (see Figure 5). The surface layer is approximately 25 cm
(ca. 10 in) thick and is a brown (I OYR 4/3) sandy loam. This is followed by a light yellowish brown (I OYR
6/4) sandy loam that extends to 35 to 40 cm (ca. 14 to 16 in) below the surface. The final layer is subsoil,
which is a very pale brown (I OYR 7/3) sandy clay reaching a depth of at least 60 cm (ca. 24 in) below the
surface. Next, STs #4-7 were placed within floodplain in the southeastern quadrant (see Figure 6). Three
soil layers were also identified in these test pits except at ST 94, which yielded 40 cm (ca. 16 in) of disturbed
soil followed by a rock impasse. This is likely associated with repair work along the riverbank. According
to Mr. Chappell, the bank was washed away awhile back and stone incased in wire was used to fill the gap.
Elsewhere, the surface layer or plowzone is dark yellowish brown (I OYR 4/4) or yellowish brown (I OYR
5/4) wet loam that is 20 to 30 cm (ca. 8 to 12 in) thick. Beneath this is a dark brown (10YR 3/3) wet sandy
loam that extends to 60 cm (ca. 24 in) below the surface. The final stratum is hydric soil, which is a very
dark brown (10YR 2/2) loamy sand that extends 75 cm (ca. 30 in) below the surface. STs 98 and 9 were
placed in the southwest quadrant (see Figure 7). No additional shovel tests were placed further north in this
quadrant due to disturbance from the former road alignment and private drive. These two shovel tests yielded
two soil layers. The upper layer is a yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/6) sandy loam that is 30 cm (ca. 12 in) thick,
while the bottom layer is a light yellowish brown (1 OYR 6/4) sandy loam extending at least 75 cm (ca. 30 in)
below the surface. Lastly, no shovel tests were placed in the northwest quadrant due to slope of 15 percent
of more, impervious gravel surfaces from private drives, and ground disturbance from the former road. All
shovel tests were negative for cultural materials.
Recommendations
The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 189 on Babb Road over Shoal
Creek in Transylvania County identified no archaeological sites. All STs were negative for cultural material,
and no artifacts were found at the surface. Flooding is common over most of the APE and ground disturbed
is heavy adjacent to the bridge. It is very unlikely that significant archaeological resources are present. No
further archaeological work is recommended for this project. However, additional testing may be necessary
if the APE expands.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and Muscogee
(Creek) Nation have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
forwarded to the tribe using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures
Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
Other: historic map images
Signed:
® Photos ❑ Correspondence
DECEMBER 14, 2023
C. Damon Jones, Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3 of 9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
REFERENCES CITED
HPOWEB
2023 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webgppviewer/index.httnl?id=79ea671 ebdcc45639fD860257d5 f
5ed7. Accessed August 7, 2023.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS)
2023 Transylvania County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. Accessed August 7, 2023.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1892 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
1905 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
2016 Eastatoe Gap, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1993 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. Sponsored by the
Transylvania County Historic Properties Commission. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
4of9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Eastatoe Gap (2016) NC USGS 7.5' Topographic
Quadrangle.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
5 of 9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
r Project Area lot�
/�
Figure 2. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
0 /
Project Area
L_
i�
Figure 3. The 1905 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
6of9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
Figure 4. Aerial view of the project area showing landforms, soils, contours, and STs.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
7of9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
Figure 5. General view of sloping stream terrace in the northeast quadrant, looking south.
Figure 6. General view of floodplain in the southeast quadrant, looking north.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
80 9

Project Tracking No.
11-03-0024 Revised
Figure 7. General view of the floodplain in the southwest quadrant, looking north.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
900

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oa ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES�3
p PRESENT FORM ` o
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
_`. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult ;f1
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BR-0252 (Bridge 133) County: Transylvania
WBS No: 50845.1.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1557 (Haskell Jones Road) over Walker Creek
in Transylvania County. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as an
approximate 450 foot (137.16 m) long corridor running 225 feet (68.58 m) east and west along Haskell
Jones Road from the center of Bridge No. 133. The APE is 100 feet (30.48 m) wide extending 50 feet (15.24
m) to either side of the center line. In all, the APE encompasses approximately one acre.
A federal permit is anticipated. As a result, this archaeological review was conducted in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subjectproject and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological reconnaissance and field investigation for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 133 on SR 1557 (Haskell Jones Road) over Walker Creek in Transylvania County, North
Carolina. The project is located south of Brevard near the southern edge of the county line and plotted in the
southeast corner of the Brevard USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
Background Research
A site files search was conducted using data from the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on August 7, 2023.
While no previous archaeological investigations are recorded at Bridge No. 133, four sites (31TV136,
31TV137, 31TV539, and 31TVI112) have been identified within a mile. Sites 31TV136 and 31TV137 were
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
10 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
first identified by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1964 for their Cherokee Archaeological
Investigations, while Ruth Wetmore (1993) in 1992 recorded 31TV539 during An Archaeological Survey of
Transylvania County. The sites yielded a limited number precontact material over various landforms, but
only 31TV539 appears to be situated partially along a floodplain similar to the current project area. The
remaining site, 31TVI 112, was identified by a local resident and is reported to be a rock sculpture of a turtle.
Its location and origin are unconfirmed. None of the sites have been evaluated as eligible for the National
Register. Little information can be drawn from these past investigations, but over the entire county several
sites have been identified in a setting like that of Bridge No. 133 suggesting that the probability of
archaeological resources is high. Therefore, a field investigation was recommended.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2023), there
are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits.
An examination of historic maps concerning this project failed to find any significant features within APE.
Most early maps provide only general details concerning the region illustrating just major roads and
settlements. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map is one of the first to display a reliable location for the
project (Figure 2). This map depicts Walker Creek, but no crossing is shown. The later 1905 USGS Pisgah
map illustrates the region in greater detail with a road following the alignment of Haskell Jones Road and a
crossing near the bridge site (Figure 3). A structure, possibly domestic, is also plotted southwest of the
crossing. Other early 20th century maps provide no new or significant details. While it was unlikely for
historic resources to be present, this was confirmed during the current investigations.
The USDA soil survey shows the APE composed of Rosman fine sandy loam (Ro), but it is likely that the
Tusquitee loam (TsE) extends into the project area south of the road (Figure 4). The Rosman series makes
up the floodplain. It is fairly level with slope less than 2 percent and well drained, but it is subject to frequent
flooding. Since the soil is described as generally dry, it should be well suited for evidence of early
occupations. The Tusqsuitee series appears to make up the hillsides. Although it too is well drained, it has a
steep slope of 15 to 25 percent and soil erosion is moderate to severe. Subsurface archaeological resources
are usually not found of slope of 15 percent or more. As a result, subsurface testing was not required along
the hillslope.
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 133 on
Haskell Jones Road over Walker Creek was conducted on December 5, 2023. The investigation included a
visual inspection and the excavation of eight shovel tests (STs) (see Figure 4). Shovel tests were placed 15-
meter (ca. 49 ft) apart on the northside of Haskell Jones Road, while two judgmental tests were excavated in
the southeast quadrant at 30-m apart (ca. 98 ft) due to obstruction from the stream channel. Slope was more
than 15 percent on the hillside in the southwest quadrant (Figure 5), and waterways also run alongside the
road to the south. No shovel tests were placed on the hillside or where the waterways were present.
The APE for the project crosses Walker Creek east to west following Haskell Jones Road. Walker Creek
drains north and has a confluence an unnamed tributary approximately 85 feet (ca. 26 m) to the north. The
tributary is also crossed by Haskell Road within the project limits just west of the bridge. These waterways
are part of the French Broad drainage basin. The APE resides primarily within a floodplain with hillside
slopes to the south. Properties are open lawns and gardens north of the road (Figures 6-8), while a forest is
to the south. Ground disturbance is minimal with ground disturbance limited to the current road and a
plowzone.
A pedestrian survey of the project area was first carried out. Surface visibility was poor, and no rock outcrops
or unusual surface features were observed. Six shovel tests (91-6) were then placed in the northeast and
northwest quadrants parallel with the Haskell Jones Road (see Figures 6 and 7), while two additional STs (97
and 8) were excavated in the southeast quadrant (see Figure 8). STs east of the bridge (91-3, 7, and 8) consists
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
of two soil layers. The surface layer or plowzone is a 30 to 35 cm (ca. 12 to 14 in) thick layer of very dark
gray (10YR 3/1) loamy sand. Below this is a very dark brown (10YR 2/2) wet sandy loam that extends at
least 75 cm (ca 30 in) below the surface. STs #4, located between Walker Creek and it tributary, also yielded
two soil layers with a 35 cm (ca. 14 in) thick surface layer of dark brown (1 OYR 3/3) loam followed by hydric
soil, which is a black (10YR 2/1) very wet loam extending at least 75 cm (ca. 30 in) below the surface. STs
#5 and 6 at the western end of the APE are at a slightly higher rise and yielded three strata. The plowzone is
approximately 15 cm (ca. 6 in) thick and is a dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) loam. Beneath this is a brown
(10YR 4/3 or 5/3) loam that extends up to 30 cm (ca. 12 in) below the surface. The final layer is subsoil,
which is a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) gravelly clay loam that reaches at least 50 cm (ca. 20 in) below the
surface. All shovel tests were negative for cultural materials.
Recommendations
The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 133 on Haskell Jones Road over
Walker Creek in Transylvania County identified no archaeological sites. All STs were negative for cultural
material, and no artifacts were found at the surface. The floodplain soils are generally wet, while the hillside
south of the road is greater than 15 percent. This makes it unlikely that for evidence of occupations will be
present. No further archaeological work is recommended for this project. However, additional testing may
be necessary if the APE expands.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, and Muscogee
(Creek) Nation have expressed an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
forwarded to the tribe using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures
Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑ Correspondence
Other: historic map images
Signed:
7 _ DECEMBER 12, 2023
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3 of 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
REFERENCES CITED
HPOWEB
2023 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service.
https://nc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webgppviewer/index.httnl?id=79ea671 ebdcc45639fD860257d5 f
5ed7. Accessed August 7, 2023.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA NRCS)
2023 Transylvania County Soil Survey. Available online at
http://webosilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/. Accessed August 7, 2023.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1892 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
1905 Pisgah, North Carolina -South Carolina 30 minute quadrangle map.
2016 Brevard, North Carolina 7.5 minute quadrangle map.
Wetmore, Ruth Y.
1993 An Archaeological Survey of Transylvania County, North Carolina. Sponsored by the
Transylvania County Historic Properties Commission. North Carolina Division of Archives and
History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
4of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
One Mile Radius (Shaded) l
Around Project Area 1
a
a 4 �
9 y
� t
. s-
BM LtiT 1854 ��
sa �
'al C
4^ate
1J Bridge 133
APE (Red)
� O
1
re 2
NUIA—aft—=41-111
. • <� tea. `��- • • • � � • [ 1�.
■
Miles
0 w Transylvania County Meters S
Figure 1. Topographic Setting of the Project Area, Brevard (2016) NC USGS 75 Topographic Quadrangle.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
5 of 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
Ar—
Project Area
" P�
Figure 2. The 1892 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
Project Area
Figure 3. The 1905 USGS Pisgah topographic map showing the location of the project area.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
6of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
Figure 4. Aerial view of the project area showing landforms, soils, contours, and STs.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
7of9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
Figure 5. General view of hillside base in the southwest quadrant, looking east.
Figure 6. General view of floodplain in the northeast quadrant, looking west.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
80 9

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0025
Figure 7. General view of the floodplain in the northwest quadrant, looking east.
Figure 8. General view of the floodplain in the southeast quadrant, looking west.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
900

Office 803-328-2427
January 17, 2024
Attention: Nick Pierce
NC Department of Transportation
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1582
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
BR-0250 — Avery, Caldwell and Watauga Counties, BR-0251 — Madison County, BR-0252
2024-193-59 — Transylvania Co.
Dear Mr. Pierce,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Cameron Ingram, Executive Director
October 6, 2023
Nick Pierce
Project Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Structures Management Unit
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Subject BR-0252 Scoping Comments on Transylvania County Timber Bridge Replacements:
• Bridge 133, carrying Haskell Jones Road (SR 1557) over Walker Creek
• Bridge 160, carrying Richland Creek Road (SR 1312) over Richland Creek
• Bridge 161, carrying Homer McCall Road (SR 1319) over North Fork Flat Creek
• Bridge 189, carrying Babb Road (SR 1141) over Shoal Creek
Dear Nick,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) invited comments on the subject bridge
replacements. These timber bridges will be replaced, in place, with comparable new timber structures.
The roads these bridges carry do not have outlets, so off -site detours are not possible. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) staff are familiar with the project areas. These comments are
offered to conserve wildlife resources affected by the projects and to promote wildlife -based recreation in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the state and federal Environmental Policy Acts (G. S. 113A-
lthrough 113-10; 1 NCAC 25 and 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), respectively), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
Standard Comments (NOTE specific recommendations follow)
NCWRC standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope include:
1. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact water in or discharge to streams.
2. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in stream channels.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

BR-0252
Page 2 October 6, 2023
3. Applicable measures from the current NCDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Design and
Construction Manual should be implemented and maintained during construction. Matting used in
riparian areas should not contain nylon mesh because it entangles and kills wildlife. Coir matting
should be used on unstable stream banks that are steep or susceptible to high water and matting
should be securely anchored with wooden stakes according to NCDOT specifications.
4. Temporary detours and access roads should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, to
minimize clearing, and avoid destabilizing stream banks. Tree stumps and root mats should be left
where possible under and along temporary access roads to limit streambank disturbance and promote
regrowth of vegetation. Temporary fills should be removed to original ground elevations upon the
completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded, or mulched, and native tree species
should be planted with a spacing of 10'x10'.
5. NCDOT biologists should be notified about streams that contain threatened or endangered species.
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.
6. All work in or adjacent to streams should be conducted in dry work areas. Sandbags, cofferdams, or
other clean diversion structures should be used where possible to avoid excavation in flowing water.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the banks rather than in stream channels to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
8. Only clean, sediment -free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways) and fill material should
be removed with minimal disturbance of the natural stream bottom when construction is completed.
Staged construction is recommended for timber bridge replacement to minimize the amount of stream
disturbance. Temporary detours should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the
need for clearing, and avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, then
the old structure and the approach fills should be removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills
should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and
planted with native tree species. NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands if the area reclaimed was
previously wetlands.
Specific Comments
Transylvania Bridge 133
Walker Creek (C Tr) supports a naturally reproducing population of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
To protect trout spawning, adherence to the October 15 to April 15 moratorium is recommended for
stream and buffer disturbance in any permits that may be required. In addition to standard
recommendations, erosion control measures under Design Standards in Sensitive Waters (see part (d) of
15A NCAC 04B .0124) are encouraged in the project design and construction, as practical, to help ensure
protection of trout and aquatic habitats.
Transylvania Bridge 160

BR-0252 Page 3 October 6, 2023
Richland Creek (C Tr) likely supports a naturally reproducing population of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta)
as does the West Fork French Broad River a short distance downstream. To protect trout spawning,
adherence to the October 15 to April 15 moratorium is recommended for stream and buffer disturbance in
any permits that may be required. Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, NC Special
Concern) are found in the West Fork French Broad River downstream of the bridge but are unlikely to be
in Richland Creek. The river also supports French Broad River Crayfish (Cambarus reburrus), a state
Threatened species. In addition to standard recommendations, erosion control measures under Design
Standards in Sensitive Waters (see part (d) of 15A NCAC 04B .0124) are encouraged in the project
design and construction, as practical, to help ensure protection of trout and aquatic habitats. The
NCWRC also would appreciate being apprised of the construction schedule, once known, so that the
bridge area can be surveyed for crayfish and animals moved, if needed. A notice a few weeks before
construction, or an invitation to any preconstruction meeting, is requested. My contact information can be
used in any communications with construction staff (e.g., green sheet commitments, contract notes,...).
Transylvania Bridge 161
Flat Creek (C Tr) likely supports a naturally reproducing population of Rainbow Trout (Onchoruynchus
mykiss) near the bridge. To protect trout spawning, adherence to the January 1 to April 15 moratorium is
recommended for stream and buffer disturbance in any permits that may be required. Brown Trout
(Salmo trutta) and Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, NC Special Concern) are found in
the West Fork French Broad River downstream of the bridge and may be in the lower reaches of Flat
Creek as well. The river also supports French Broad River Crayfish (Cambarus reburrus), a state
Threatened species. In addition to standard recommendations, erosion control measures under Design
Standards in Sensitive Waters (see part (d) of 15A NCAC 04B .0124) are encouraged in the project
design and construction, as practical, to help ensure protection of trout and aquatic habitats.
Transylvania Bridge 189
Shoal Creek (C Tr) likely supports a naturally reproducing population of Rainbow Trout (Onchoruynchus
mykiss) near the bridge. To protect trout spawning, adherence to the January 1 to April 15 moratorium is
recommended for stream and buffer disturbance in any permits that may be required. Standard
recommendations are encouraged in the project design and construction, as practical.
Please contact me at david.mchenrya,ncwildlife.org or [phone] if you have any questions about
these comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these projects. The NCWRC
looks forward to assisting as needed as the project develops further.
Cordially,
Dave McHenry, NCWRC Western DOT Coordinator
Cc: Adam Archual, Gannett Fleming
Kevin Barnett, NC Department of Transportation, Division 14 Environmental

A
R
. - unningPine R°ad-
R
ii - -1 �17_ 40
.. der►-i, r WA
�ek Road
�► _ SR-1312
ZQ_ W,
' 10J+ -, -. 1
Ir
'� �� • It. � , 1• MA i 1 A • � , � ! � . ' i�♦ a •T_
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area BR-0252
Streams SA Bridge No. 160 Replacement
(Richland Creek) NCDOT Division 14
Wetlands WA -' Transylvania County
Parcels N OFNORTfCy9 Figure 4
r ,�.�.. �P� a4� 1
Transylvania County y '. GANNETT
0 25 50 ` _ - 9 � FLEMING
Feet �P
OF TRPN'eO September 2023

tar. - 0252
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �njIL3. ProjecUSite:%34 U 0 Latitudo:3S
Lui
Evaluator: !�AI rn — - - l County: T �� +� Longitude: _ y�
Total Points: Stream Determinati n {eir nee) Other d W A
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermitten e n e
it a 19 or renniat if t 30• 9 Quad Nan+e: x a
A. Ge_omorphol-ogy_(Subtotal = 19 S Absent Weals Moderate " Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 2 3
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool. step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence- - -- - _ �W . 0 1 i 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 2.��.- 3 "'
5. Activelrelict floodplain 0 1 - 2 _
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 -F w _ 3
7 Recent alluvial deposits�� 0 1 �— ` g
8. Headcuts 0 2 3 I
9. Grade control 0 1 15
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1.5 1
11. Second or greater order channel _ _ I No = 0 es =
artificial ditches are not rated, see ' Cu ions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Basellow 0 I 1 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter _ _ _ _ 1 _ 1 OS 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 05 15
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 05 _ 15
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 _ ; e
C_ Biolo Subtotal _
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 I
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 t 2 3
22. Fish 0
23. Crayfish �� 05 __ _ 4 1 1-5
24. Amphibians 0 _ 1 1.5
25. Algae 0-5 1 1, 5_
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0-75. OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may alsoi identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
Sketch: 10jr 3
--- N(o1v; aGfi

NCOUT 3a'1'$ridge Habitat Assessment Form Updated 3/23/21
AAeBat Habitat Assessment Form
. NCDOT Bridges
Observers: TA N 4�2G,1 TIP or DOT project number: 8t — 6 rz Sr—
Date: 1 Bridge Road (Name of facility carried)! JO?
County: Bridge Number:so
Cros51rsg (Name oft intersected)- x � ,c.
% Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial
Suburban/Residential
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland
Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? N/A65
no
Complete this section for Indiana bat counties (Avery: Cranberry Min area only, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, Macon, Rutherford: Bat Cave/Lake Lure area only, Swain)
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH? N/A yes
no
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive duri ng the day? N/A
1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
Caves yes 4D
yes OF
Abandoned mines yes (9>
yes
if 'Yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description, and location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A river ream/cree
pond lake swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non sta gnant, s -nooth or sla k wa er.
ye no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown yes na
Guard rails none concrete amber
metal
Deck type concrete metal timb
open grid
Beam type none concrete steel
ER)
End/back wall type concrete timbe masonry
Creosote evidence
0 no
Suitable roosting crevices present ('/: - 1%" wi( e)
yes
Deck drains
yes n
i
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water ft):
Bridge alignment N/S E/W NW/SE
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge ig med low
none
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed)
yes
Below section completed only if bats/evidence of bats observed:
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page)
yes no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
yes no
Type of Evidence (circle all that apply) guano
staining bats observed
Roost Type
crevice open area
Roost Material
metal concrete
Bat species present (list all species):
Notes (list each species locations and estimated number of each species):

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjectlSite: BR-0252 Br#870160 Bridge Replacement City/County: Transylvania Sampling Date: 08/31/2023
ApplicanUOwner; NCDOT Division 14 Stale: NC Sampling Point WA1
Investigator(s): John Thomas (Gannett Fleming) Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Riparian Floodplain Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)- LRR N Lat: 36.169811 Long:-81.893433 Datum NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Braddock loam NWI classification: R4SBC / adjacent stream
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes x No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators minimum of two required)
❑Sparsely
Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Primary Indicators minimum of one is re uiredo all that a I
❑ Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14)
High Water Table (A2)
IZI
+� Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
❑Drainage
Patterns (614)
❑ Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0)❑
H
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
M Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Q Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Q Drift Deposits (83)
0 Algal Mat Crust
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other in Remarks)
:]Stunted
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stressed Plants
or (64)
Iron Deposits
(Explain
❑
❑Geomorphic
or (131)
Position
(135)
(02)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
H
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Microlopographic Re)ief (134)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAG -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 3"
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): surface
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available -
Remarks:
Wetland saturated to surface with auger hole filled with water within three inches of the surface.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 radius ) % Cover Species? Status
1 None
2.
3.
4.
5.
7
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1 Alnus serrulata 10 Yes FACW
2 Quercus phellos 5 Yes FACW
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
15 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1. Vemonia noveboracensis 50
2. Boehmeria cylindria 10
3 Impatiens capensis 5
q Juncus effusus 5
5.
6.
7.
9,
10.
1t.
50% of total cover: 35
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius )
1 Smilax rotundifolia 10
2.
4
5
50% of total cover: 5
:. (Include photo numbers here or on a separ
Yes FACW
No OBL
Sampling Point: WA1
Dominance Test worksheet: i
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (a)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (AI131
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
15
x 1 = 15
FACW species
70
x 2 = 140
FAC species
10
x 3 = 30
FACU species
0
x 4 = 0
UPL species
0
x 5 = 0
Column Totals:
95
(A) 185 (B)
Prevalence index = BlA = 1.95
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ X 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
4 Morphalogical Adaptations' (Provide
supporting data in Remarks )
_Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
No FACW 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
No OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall,
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover: 14
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Yes FAC
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
10 = Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover. 2
Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to
or
Sampling Point: WA1
-Deptti Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 311 100 loam
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Locat
IH��Lidric Soil Indicators:
LJ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black H stic (A3)
i Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑2 cm Muck (At0) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1)
�✓ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
gn MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
LLLLJJJJ Sandy Redox (SS)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (177)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N.
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplam Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
ion: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
icators
for Problematic Hydric S(
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present.
unless disturbed or problematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Check boxes seemed to be jumbled. I intended to check box for "Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)".
The Soil Survey for the site mapped the site Braddock loam which is a well drained soil.
However the study area includes a concave flood terrace adjacent to the site's stream
resulting in a small hydric inclusion adjacent to Richland Creek.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2 0

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA Date 8 31 2023
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jthomas/Gannett Fleminc
f�+ t.kg -Q—n Fr�r AssR5 ment-EQ[tP OYNj NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (YIN) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (YIN) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (YIN) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (YIN) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Soluble Change Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
_
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Gr "(j;252
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �I 3
_
proJecVS1te rJYb 7 a / Latitude:
Evaluator: '�
County: Ir�w.s
Longitude:-
Total Points: �,
Stream 1s et least
Seam Determinati n (ci
Other 1.Q4 TuXd wo,y N
Uf2!Inter3+ttent
if 1 � or rannial if t 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e g quad Name:
j
A. Geomorpho_ ogy (Subtotal ��)
_ Absent Weak
Modeir-a-te
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank „w
Q 1
2 r�
-
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0 1
3
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
-- pool sequence__
0 1
T 2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0 1
u
2 f
S. Activelrelict floodplain
_
0
_
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits . V ... _
0 1
2
3
8 Headcuts
_
0
2
3
9 Grade control
05
1
1 5
10. Natural valley
0 E
1.5
11. Second or reater order channel
No =_ 0
_ _
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrol2gy jSubtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1 - 1
0.5
_.-0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 �^
_ 1
15
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
15
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
C. Biolo Subtotal =
` 18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
2
i
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
3_
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
-- _ --
0.5
1 '
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5 ��-
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75. OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified yping other methods See p 35 of manual.
-
� .�.-
Notes: r
-----
._. _ ?7. , try -
�e
Sketch:
'k

NLIMI'Mridge Habitat Assessment Form Updated 3/23/21
Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Ao-ioma'-3
NCDOT Bridges
Observers: a N TIP or DOT project number: U 2
G
Date: �J 1 �3 _ _ Bridge Road (Name of facility carried lfCW �/"
County: _ Lt�►..�� �✓ _ -'���, _ Bridge Number:�l►_�1� +
Crossing (Name ofthe-featlhre intersected):
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial Suburban/Residential 2 15
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest S
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? N/A yes no
�. _
Complete this section for Indiana bat counties (Avery: Cranberry Mine area only, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, Macon, Rutherford: Bat Cave/Lake Lure area only, Swain)
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH? N/A yes no
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive duri ng the day? N/A
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
1-3 hours
4 6 hours 7f hours
Presence of: In project footprint
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
Caves es
Y
Y es
n
Abandoned mines yes
I o
yes
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description,
and location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A river
stream/cree
pond
lake swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non-sta gnant, s -nooth or sla
k wa r.
yes
no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown yes
no
Guard rails none concrete
timber
metal
Deck type concrete metal
imbe
open grid
Beam type none concrete
steel
timber
End/back wall type concrete timbe
masonry
Creosote evidence
(05
no
Suitable roosting crevices present (%: - 1'/<" wic e)
yes
Deck drains
yes
n
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water (ft):
Bridge alignment N/5 E/W
NW/S
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge (S� med
low
none
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed)
yes
Below section completed only if bats/evidence of bats observed:
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page)
yes
no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
yes
no
Type of Evidence (circle all that apply)
guano
staining
bats observed
Roost Type
crevice
open area
Roost Material
metal
concrete
Bat species present (list all species):
Notes (list each species locations and estimated number of each species):

NC DWq Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 _
Date: 3 23 ProjectfsIte: 97 a Latitude
Evaluator: County: � Lon Itude:
d u N / An s /V� h ; _ g
Stream is at feast intermittent Total Points: Stream Determination (air a one Other
StreaI
if a 19 orperennial if a:30' 1 Ephemeral Intermittent erennla i e g Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholog fy (Subtotal = 3,5) FAbsent
1° Continuity of channel bed and bank 0
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
~r 0
0
_
5 Active/relict floodplain
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
_ -
8. Headcuts
_
9. Grade control _.
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0
s artiTiCiat ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =�
12. Presence of Baseflow 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?-
No = 0
T
C. Biology Subtotal =
weak
Moderate
2 _^
T 2
_ 2
T 2
Stro
3
3
3
3
1
1
®
_
2
3
3
2
2
?
3
D
D.5
1
1 5
1.5
1
e5=3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
i 1 j
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
" .0
2
--•._ __._
1
,.m.___. 2
2
_ _
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
M
22, Fish
0
1
_
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
m _
0
_ _ 0.5
1
1
1
25. Algae
0.5
26. Weiland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75. OBL = 15 Other = 0
'perennial strgams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual
Sketch:
1
i
i
0
0
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1

NL'DUT- aai�ridge Habitat Assessment Form updated 3/23/21
Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Observers: ,4N 71 orn(tiS
Date: a 411 l 21
County:
Crnssing tNam f the featurty intersected):
NCDOT Bridges
TIP or DOT project number: ar�-
Bridge Road (Name of facility carried) SGP1 SS %;Tawu
Bridge Number:3ir-_ mil% 0/33
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial Suburban/Residential *1S
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland 2, Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest 570
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? N/A yes no
Complete this section for Indiana bat counties (Avery: Cranberry Mine area only, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, Macon, Rutherford: Bat Cave/Lake Lure area only, Swain)
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH? N/A yes no
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive duri ng the day? N/A 1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7 1 hours
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
In vic inty (0.5 mi)
Caves yes
(3n)
yes
n
Abandoned mines yes
nfl
yes
no
if 'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description,
and location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A river
0tream tree
pond
lake swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non-sta gnant, s -nooth or sla
k water?
yes
no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown yes
o
Guard rails none concrete
amber
metal
Deck type concrete metal
timb
open grid
Beam type none concrete
steel
timber
End/back wall type concrete timber
masonry
Creosote evidence
es
no
Suitable roosting crevices present ( % - 1%" wit e)
yes
GD
Deck drains
yes
no
3�
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water (ft):
Bridge alignment N/S E/
NW/SE
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge igh med
low
none
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed)
yes
na
Below section completed only if bats/evidence of bats observed:
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page)
yes
no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
yes
no
Type of Evidence (circle all that apply)
guano
staining
bats observed
Roost Type
crevice
open area
Roost Material
metal
concrete
Bat species present (list all species):
Notes (list each species locations and estimated number of each species):

q
L7w V"p,
or, ;4,
A
4
"C
0�
SR-1141
CIA I 'k
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area BR-0252
Streams SA/SB Bridge No. 189 Replacement
(Shoal Creek) NCDOT Division 14
Parcels Transylvania County
NORTH
4 C Figure 4
N 0
Transylvania County
GANNETT
0 25 50
Feet OF TR WFLEMING
September 2023

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Z
Project/Site.
County:
_ 1
�� �? 0 j& q Latitude:
Longitude: -
✓ ✓a.. j _ '"1fJ-14
Evaluator: /� GZ-S
Points:
StreaTota
Stream is at least Intermittent
3
Stream Determination (ct on�
Ephemeral
OtherZ-& _5 T .-&8
al
NG
ift 19 or rennieril a 30•
Intermittent
Perenri
e 9 Quad Blame:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_�)
Absent
_ Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2'
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
CE-
3
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
I
0
1
-
2
n�ple-pool sequence _ _
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
f ' - 3
5 Activelrelict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
M
2
$, Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0,5
1 5
10. Natural valley
0
05
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
eS
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
~
14. Leaf litter
- - _-
1 T
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
_
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3 �~
_
C. Biolo Subtotal =
...
J
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
G
0
2
1
_ 2 _ _1
2
0
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
CD
3
22. Fish
0
.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish -
24. Amphibians
0
05
SM1
1
1
)
1.5
1.5
25. At ae
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed l
FACW = 0.75. OBI_ = 1.5 Other = 0 T
*perennial streaTj may also be identiusing other methods See p 35 of manual
. .. . .
Sketch: 1

NL't70 MaaiBridge Habitat A}s,-ssment Form Updated 3/23/21
Bat Habitat Assessment Form
NCnDOT Bridges
Observers: �� 11?�/ / �ID�'n Gt� ____. TIP or DOT project number: r�Y
Date: / 31 3 Bridge Road (Name of facility carried),w q1 (B b
County: L-k.�<<` �si _ / �:�x_ Br;dge Number:-- 8)1 _
Crossing ( aN me ofthe tealture i tedj:
% Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial Suburban/Residential_
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest 1-1-5
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? N/A yes no
Complete this section for Indiana bat counties (Avery: Cranberry Min rea only, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood,
Jackson, Macon, Rutherford: Bat Cave/take Lure area only, Swain)
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH? N/A yes no
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive duri ng the day? N/A 1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of:
In project footprint
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
Caves
yes
n
yes
no
Abandoned mores
yes
no
yes
n
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description,
and location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A
river
st am cree
pond
lake swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non-sta gnant, s -nooth or sla
k water?
es
no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown
yes
no
Guard rails none
concrete
im er
metal
Deck type concrete
metal
imber
open grid
Beam type none
concrete
steel
timber
End/back wall type concrete
amber
masonry
Creosote evidence
yes
no
Suitable roosting crevices present ( %: - 1'/<" wic
e)
yes
n
Deck drains
yes
no
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water ft):
Bridge alignment
E/W
NW/SE
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge high
med
low
none
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed)
yes
no
Below section completed only if bats/evidence of bats observed:
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page)
yes
no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
yes
no
Type of Evidence (circle all that apply)
guano
staining
bats observed
Roost Type
crevice
open area
Roost Material
metal
concrete
Bat species present (list all species):
Notes (list each species locations and estimated number of each species):

UNC{ASSrm STRUCTURE acLvATRIN
FLOODPWN ELEv.
r�RACEIF ro�rPo:osrD Toe
PRGPasED Tae
Enen"G CRANNEL MNK
L
Nc�N wP Iw srAeluunory
AT _NPeII
SETPACK ILL --
"oN OFo", roe
II l -K OF [ VSS II RIP RAP
D - KEvfn N FLEv,
IILESS II RIP xAP FOR
n e our vsiocE Ii.II. oN°r°I"
ENDREM M.E1'ED IN flfV_
PROPOSED 4' BRIDGE
DAP WI PILE
CLASS II RIP RIP SLOPING
2 _I,
I��
DETAIL NOTES:
4. FOR USE WHERE EXISTING ABUTMI
2. EXCAVATE TO FLOODPLAIN ELEVA
3, FLOODPLAIN STABILIZATION TO
4. FOR ALL LOCATIONS OF GLASS I
S. GDIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INS
AND AREAS BACKFILLED WITH NA
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
♦
eGe W�tlAre Ue
BR-0252 (870160)
-
GANNETT
Svite 900
Nalei9h, NE2l6o3
919-420-)660
RS SHEET NO.
FLEMING
NC Liu No. F-ov0 I
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
LLO
8 abN
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL I
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DEWATERING TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS (-L-)
$�
BANK STABILIZATION PERMANENT SURFACE
WATER IMPACTS (-L-)
ONSITE DETOUR TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS (-DET-)

10+30 10+40 10+50 10+60 10+70 10+80
10+90 11+00 11+10
0
r
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
V
co
0
C
V
L
O
Ln
L +
L
C9
/ E
co ._
U
(D
O
L
n
U)
4-
(D+
Ea
U;
U
O
U
O 4-
I �
I
a �
I O
+ o
O U
� I
Q
O
U
T �
N n
4-
C r�
N r�
(5
3: C\1
r)
I
C CV
4-- O
U CV
/ L0
CAI
d
FILL FACE (�) END BENT 1
STA.10+66.60 —L-
2610 GRADE POINT EL. 2606.23
EL. 2606 ±
EXISTING SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYPo)
2600 TOP OF SILL
EL. 2598.25
(TYPo)
2590
UN —REINFORCED
CONCRETE SILL (TYPo)
EXP.
END BENT 1
H Ao 11.6279
ST0+79068
EL. = 2,606.02
GRADE DATA -L-
EL. 2606 ±
LOW CHORD
SPAN A
FIX.
EL. 2605 ±
� PROP. ELo 2604057 LOW CHORD
EXIST. ELo 2603094 PROP. EL. 2604010EXIST. EL. 2603.58
APPROXIMATE
WATER SURFACE
EL. 2597 ±
ELo 2598 ±
SECTION ALONG -L-
SECTIONS @ END BENTS ARE AT RIGHT ANGLE
2F'_2„
I LI"HIN
(CONCRETE SILLS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
FILL FACE C�) END BENT 2
STA.10+92.77 —L—
GRADE POINT EL. 2605.80
ABUTMENT
STEM (TYPo)
END BENT 2
APPROXIMATE
NATURAL GROUND
ELo 2605 ±
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT
suite
-
F LEMING
ghh,, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
PROJECT NO.
BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA
STATION°
SHEET 1 OF 3
COUNTY
10+79.68 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 870160

BENCHMARK: BENCHMARK INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY REPORT
NOTES:
ASSUMED LIVE LOAD = HL-93 ALTERNATE LOADING
a
CD
U)
.L
m
CV
O
CV
Cn
V
/
c
V
c
O
Ln
Ln
m
r-- CD
�o )
/ E
cn ._
4-
0
N
O
C
/
co
4-
C 4-
E a
D�
Oil
O
+
� U
O LF-
a c
O
+ o
O U
C i
U)_U
E a
O
U
T �
�a
4- m
C C�1
r)00
a�
4
0)
C CV
'- O
CV
/ U0
Cal
, Q
C
10+00 10+00
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
NO OUTLET
12"CMP
' BRIDGE ID
STA.10+79.68 -L-
! n it
STA.10+69.96 -DET-
DETOUR BRIDGE
/
/
/
/
/
/
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION, SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
5 1/2„
op
CAI
�
Ln
n
n
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS/J. MYA
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
1'-0"
LOCATION SKETCH
.A
4"x8" TIMBER DECKING
4"x12" NAILER
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
110,
11+00
� 100 °-001-00.00"
----.(TYP.)_
-DET- 11 \00
60" WC
RAIL FED
18'-0" DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
17'-1" (CLEAR ROADWAY)
8'-6i/2„
t
-L-
36" C M P �� \
GRPv�� ORiv�W P�
5 1/2„
THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.
THIS BRIDGE IS LOCATED IN SEISMIC ZONE 1.
SPROJECT NO. BR-0252
GRADE POINT AWS
� 0 K TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
8 SPA. 2 2'-0" CTS. = 16'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(9 LINES OF W10x60 I BEAMS)
0.01 ---
W1Ox60
(TYP.)
1welm
TIMBER RAIL
(TYP.)
*MIN. 2�/2" AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STATION°
61, :129WA961 G!
10+7g.68 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 8701601
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
RICHLAND CREEK ON
SR 1312 (RICHLAND CREEK ROAD)
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT Sulte 900
Ralelgh,NC 27603
LAJ
PEENING 919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F-0270
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED
FINAL UNLESS ALL
SIGNATURES COMPLETED
REVISIONS
SHEET NO.
S-2
NO.
BY:
DATE:
NO.
BY:
DATE:
TOTAL
SHEETS
3
4

17'-91/2" ± DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
16'-10" ± CLEAR ROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
0
CD
n
co
a�
.L
m
L
(D
C)
E
/
.F
L
O
/n
Ln+
�L
Q0 n
/ E
U) .
U
N
O
L
n
co
c +
Ea
DU)
U L1
O
�%
� U
O
I
n L
I U
+ 0
O U
c I
n
O
U
T �
�a
c3
N
d �
I
C CV
4_ O
0) N
/ Q0
CV
dI-,
STREAM
FLOW
+, FZ -L- & C EXIST. BRIDGE Jai
I I I I
�c a. >
3" ± AWS Wl-
a
__________________________ ________�__________=====1I
�I I` �I I` �I I` �I 1` 1I 1` 1I 1` 1I 1` 1I 1` 1I 1` 1I 1` 1I I` �I I` /I I` /I I` /I I` /I I` �� - -4 1
Inl Inl Inl Inl Inl Inl Inl Inl , Inl Inl Inl Inl AlInl Il Inl Inl I _I
�� I/ `I I/ �' I/ �' I/ `I I/ ���I/ ��
1512 " TIMBER JOIST (TYP.)
/
EXISTING
3'-5"
10'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
C TEMP. TRAFFIC T� REMOVE UPSTREAM
II SHIFT II CUT EXIST. ;� PORTION OF EXISTING
DECK a l BRIDGE
I I
-_------ ---_� - — -_- ---_________
T������ I��� I I �� �� I I
r�Xl IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI I I IXI—;' 11 V�I V�I
l V�I V�I V -4 I
nI nl nl 'A
L LJ�� �� I� �� �ki � ��
TEMPORARY
SHORING ---�N
1'-0"
STAGE I
SUBSTRUCTURE
STAGE I
IG �I
I -----------_---_ I
I T TT�77TT�7TT
r-iXl IXI !X1 IXI IXI IXI IXI � —I
I
1.
1.
1.
STAGE II
SUBSTRUCTURE
12'-7i/2„
11'-n1 IKATNI 1 rl FAR PnAnWAY
TEMPORARY
SHORING---�
N
REMOVE TEMPORARY i11
BRIDGE RAIL J I G
YI
L r
STAGE II
t I
� *- TEMP. TRAFFIC
L CONE
STAGE III
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ISO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STAGE I:
1. SHIFT TRAFFIC TO DOWNSTREAM SIDE USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES.
2. CUT DECK, REMOVE DECK AND BEAMS 11-17. RE -PURPOSE UPSTREAM SIDE TIMBER RAIL FOR THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC SHIFT.
3. MAINTAIN THE TRAFFIC SHIFT USING TEMPORARY SIGNALS IN A 1-LANE/2-WAY TRAFFIC PATTERN.
4. INSTALL SHORING
5. COMPLETELY REMOVE THE UPSTREAM PORTION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE.
6. CONSTRUCT STAGE I SUBSTRUCTURE
STAGE II:
1. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF NEW SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR 11'-0"CLEAR ROADWAY ON TEMPORARY
BEARINGS. ATTACH TEMPORARY TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
2. SHIFT TRAFFIC TO STAGE II TEMPORARY DETOUR.
3. COMPLETELY REMOVE REMAINING EXISTING BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCT STAGE II SUBSTRUCTURE.
STAGE III:
1. USE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO TEMPORARILY HALT TRAFFIC.
2. SHIFT SUPERSTRUCTURE AND INSTALL ON PERMANENT BEARINGS.
3. RETURN TO SIGNALIZED TRAFFIC OPERATION.
4. USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONES, REMOVE TEMPORARY TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL AND INSTALL REMAINING
BEAMS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE.
FINAL:
1. USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES, INSTALL BRIDGE DECK AND RIGHT SIDE
TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL.
2. COMPLETE REMAINING WORK REQUIRED INCLUDING PAVEMENT AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS.
3. REMOVE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVICES.
18'-O" DFCK WTDTH (OUT TO OUT)
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT
Sulghh,,
-
FLEMING
Raleeil N NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
FINAL
PROJECT N0. BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA ('nIINTY
STATION°
SHEET 3 OF 3
10+79.68 —L—
REPLACES BRIDGE 870160

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
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)
160
-L- 11+80 - 11+96
PROPOSED BRIDGE
< 0.01
160
-L- 11+80 - 11+96
DETOUR BRIDGE
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
0
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

�'
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
GANNETT
niece w�eare a
wrm
BR-0252 (870161)
2 -
919-N20-)660
RhV SHEET NO.
FLEMING
N, F-070
NC Liu No. F-ov0
NC Lk.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
I
-L- PT Sto.1/+27.65
-DET - PRC Sta. 10+29.26
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0252 (870161)
-L- STA.11 + 00.00 0
s
T
o�
T
-L- PC Sta. 10+00.00
C
SR 1319 --
L ROAD
HMCCAL
OMER _--_.—_-_-- _
WCW]MXO r11AKT1A! F1S�Y�M
R:
TPOPCdFA �' &1IWE
i r eLoasnNN
G •f vI LE
r Gdi PironnNG
Tb &bt— roe
Pltaroseo Tae
T--
� iYP.J
emlNNnIuP 5,mmRAn9u'��
Pio�oFTtle '
K[
M53 � of R41 pR
[IwS3 it n.
of SIOfiHG
MIx FICnYnTION SiA➢1lIL.110H
recce
aeur..e+T iTrr.i
z v.cc
RHrOLF, LIMEonm
o96Nr �•m iH el�v.
DETAIL WTES.'
1. FOR USE WERE EXISTING AIPUTMENTS AND 6ULKIEEADS AHE TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
2. EXCAVATE TO FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS SPECIFIED ON PRELIMINARY GENERAL ORAWINGS
8. FLOOOPLAIN STABILIZATION TO BEGIN WITH A 5' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPOSED TOB
i- FOR ALL LOCATIONS OF CLASS II RIPRAP, FILL VOIDS WITH CLASS B nip RAP
S- COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED OVER LIMITED OF FLOODPLAIN EYCAVATION
AND AREAS BAOKFILLE➢ WITH NATIVE MATERIAL
END TIP PROJECT BR-0252 (870161
-L- STA.12 + 00.00
-L- PC Sta. 12+/4.83
i
-L- PT Sto.13+00.00
DCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
r0 UNLOESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DEWATERING TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS (-L-)
BANK STABILIZATION PERMANENT SURFACE
WATER IMPACTS (-L-)
ONSITE DETOUR TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS (-DET-)

11+00 11+10 11+20 11+30 11+40 11+50 11+60 11+70 11+80 11+90
0
cl)
r
U)
.L
L
E
CV
O
CV
V
co
0
C
V
L
O
Ln
L +
L
C9
/ E
co ._
U
(D
O
L
n
U)
4-
(D+
Ea
U;
U �
O
� U
O 4-
O
a �
+ o
O U
C i
Q
O
U
T �
�a
4- Ln
a�
r) ao
CV
d
1
C CV
4-- O
pi CV
/ LO
CAI
d
700K
FILL FACE @ END BENT 1
STA.11+32.67 -L-
GRADE POINT ELo 2551.93
(+) 0.0866
STA. 11+48.29
EL. = 2,551.94
GRADE DATA -L-
SPAN A
FILL FACE @ END BENT 2
STA.11+63.92 -L-
GRADE POINT ELo 2551.96
APPROXIMATE
FIX. ELo 2552 ± EL. 2552 ± NATURAL GROUND
LOW CHORD EXPO
LOW CHORD
--���PROP. EL. 2550.05
PROP — ------- -----------
�, --- . EL. 2550.02 EXIST. EL. 2549.79
;C\ I EXIST. EL. 2549.79
2550 7 EXISTING FI ELo 2552 ±
EL.2552 ± IT SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYPo) i i APPROXIMATE
WATER SURFACE
II
77EL.
HP 12X53
STEEL PILES
2546 ± (TYPo)
7T. ELo 2547 ±
� ELo 2545 ± �
4ztl
END BENT 1
SECTION ALONG -L-
3
I U I AL LLNG I H OF bHiUGE (F 1LL F AUE I U F 1LL F AUE)
(PILES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
END BENT 2
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT
-
FLEMING
del , RN
Raleighh, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
PROJECT NO.
BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA
STATION:
SHEET 1 OF 3
11+48.29
COUNTY
-L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 870161

BENCHMARK:BENCHMARK INFORMATION NOT IN SURVEY REPORT
M1,
H
Ord
22
Ao
0
CD
n
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
U)
H-
c
V
c
O
Ln
/
Ln
m L
r-- a)
Q0 r)
/ E
cn ._
-F- F--
U
N
O
L
CL
/
co
4-
c
0 _
E a
U 0il
+ � -
1 U
O q-
a c
0
+ o
O U
C i
��
U)_U
E a
0
U
T 75;
oa
c�
(D
r) 00
a(\j
a) ;;zl-
c CV
q- O
U CV
/ L0
CV
,
r)
x
i— — x
i
i
i x
GRAVEL xx`
DRIVEWAY
NO OUTLET
10+00 11 100
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
15//CMP
ROCK
COLUMN
5/ WOOD \
RAIL FENCE
BRIDGE ID
STA.11+48.29 -L-
n
u
DETOUR BRIDGE
STA. __+__o__ -DET.-
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION,SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
5 �/2 //
9 //
LOCATION SKETCH
8/-6i/2//
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
--1111
u
18/-O// DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
17/-1// (CLEAR ROADWAY)
-L-
►
►
►
lit
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
90/-00/-0.00//
(TYPo)
molam
8/-6i/2//
TO US 64
51/2//
12+00
NOTES.
ASSUMED LIVE LOAD = HL-93 ALTERNATE LOADING
THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.
THIS BRIDGE IS LOCATED IN SEISMIC ZONE 1.
II I II
-L-
co a -TIMBER RAIL PROJECT NO. BR-0252
iv � 4°x8"TIMBER DECKING GRADE POINT � qWS (TYPJ TRANSYLVANIA
COUNTY
STATION: 11+48e29 —L—
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS/J. MYA
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
1/-0//
4//x12// NAILER
8 SPA. 2/-0// CTS. = 16/-0//
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(9 LINES OF W12x58 I BEAMS)
W12x58
(TYPo)
1/-0//
*MIN. 2/2// AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ADO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHEET 2 OF 3
REPLACES BRIDGE 870161
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
NORTH FORK FLAT CREEK ON
SR 1319 (HOMER McCALL ROAD)
GANNETT One Glenwood Avenuesuite 900 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED NO. BY:
Ralelgh,NC 27603 FINAL UNLESS ALL �
PEENING 9/9-420-7660 SIGNATURES COMPLETED
NC Llo. No. F-0270
REVISIONS
DATE: I N0. BY:
SHEET NO.
DATE: S-2
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

18'-1�/2" ± DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
17'-2" ± CLEAR ROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
STREAM
FLOW
0
CD
n
co
a�
.L
m
L
E
Ln
/
Ln +
rn L
Q0 n
/ E
U_
U
N
O
L
/
co
+
C
+
E a
�U�
U �
O
C
� U
O �+
a
O
U U
C �
+ +
Q
O
U
T �
N n
+
C ap
O O
r)
C7
a
i
+
N
C CV
+ O
CT CAI
/ Q0
CV
d
*- TEMP. TRAFFIC
CONE
STAGE II
SUBSTRUCTURE
-L- & C EXIST. BRIDGE
�I a
3" ± AWS
------------
=F-F— — __�f
12"ROLLED BEAM (TYP.)
EXISTING
10'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY)
C TEMP. -L-Z
TRAFFIC
SHIFT
LLB --�-- --
CUT EXIST.
DECK
�1 I
. . .........
TEMPORARY
SHORING
11-Ol/ J
STAGE I
SUBSTRUCTURE
STAGE I
11'-8"
5'-71/4" 1- 10'-6" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
STAGE II
STAGE I:
1. SHIFT TRAFFIC TO UPSTREAM SIDE USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES.
2. CUT DECK, REMOVE DECK AND BEAMS 6-8.RE-PURPOSE DOWNSTREAM SIDE TIMBER RAIL FOR THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC SHIFT.
3. MAINTAIN THE TRAFFIC SHIFT USING TEMPORARY SIGNALS IN A 1-LANE/2-WAY TRAFFIC PATTERN.
4. INSTALL SHORING
5. COMPLETELY REMOVE THE DOWNSTREAM PORTION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE.
6. CONSTRUCT STAGE I SUBSTRUCTURE
STAGE II:
1. CONSTRUCT DOWNSTREAM PORTION OF NEW SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR 10'-61,CLEAR ROADWAY ON TEMPORARY
BEARINGS. ATTACH TEMPORARY TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL ON THE LEFT SIDE.
2. SHIFT TRAFFIC TO STAGE II TEMPORARY DETOUR.
3. COMPLETELY REMOVE REMAINING EXISTING BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCT STAGE II SUBSTRUCTURE.
STAGE III:
1. USE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO TEMPORARILY HALT TRAFFIC.
2. SHIFT SUPERSTRUCTURE AND INSTALL ON PERMANENT BEARINGS.
3. RETURN TO SIGNALIZED TRAFFIC OPERATION.
4. USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONES, REMOVE TEMPORARY TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL AND INSTALL REMAINING
BEAMS OF SUPERSTRUCTURE.
FINAL:
1. USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES, INSTALL BRIDGE DECK AND LEFT SIDE
TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL.
2. COMPLETE REMAINING WORK REQUIRED INCLUDING PAVEMENT AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS.
3. REMOVE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVICES.
1 R'-n" nFC'K WTnTH (nI IT Tn nI IT)
FINAL
PROJECT NO. BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
I[ I STATION° 11+48029 -L-
TEMP. TRAFFIC REMOVE TEMPORARY I I I
CONE BRIDGE RAIL�J I I SHEET 3 OF 3 REPLACES BRIDGE 870161
j ri STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
11 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TTTRALEIGH
L—�"F�:u ODCI TAATKI A DV
STAGE III
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ISO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT
Sul
-
FLEMING
Raleiel ghh,, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
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)
161
-L- 11+39 - 11+58
PROPOSED BRIDGE
< 0.01
< 0.01
21
161
-L- 11+39 - 11+58
DETOUR BRIDGE
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
< 0.01
21
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

�r
a
i
°uife9'�W°°`"°eO°` GANNETT
919- 2, N[2J6R3
F L E M I N G N[9K ,ZNo�F 02]0
W
END TIP PROJECT BR-0252 (870189) '1
s -L- POT STA.12 + 02.12
ti
-L- PT Sto.10+36.22 7-
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0252 (870189)
-L- POT STA.10 + 43.37 S 5S -1 -
-F {
._.__\ F _ - -F _ © $ - -L- PT Sta. 14+79.61,
/ —'J SRg� RD) ,f
E o 25`21109.6"E (BAB
S 4f 3 47 4
—L— POT Sta.10+00.00/ \
—L— PC Sto. 10+04.43
1
1
Sto.10+59.99
iPIdP�EU a' GSO3[ u ELOOdINN ellv.'•
GtiP •f PILE M oimi0 n � 'Oioe
TYP.� `
srwxrAnor+'-.
moot=. w
01
tWi 9AP W NM
WSS it d� ARI SfOdHG MNIK IXWaIICN SiA➢1lIL.110N
wr im.i rtnioucn Rex>Ge iNfm onm
x Iycc v�+dvcn ,Pry iN efe,. '
LS: MlIERE Ex13TING R9VTAEWYS ANO 6uLHnEA03 ARE TO BE CpIPLE7ELY REMOVER
E T'0 FLQOBPLAI#1 ELEVATION AS SPECIFIED ON PRELIMINARY QENEML ORAlYINOSLAIN STABILIZATION TR BEGIN WITH A 5'YINIMRY SETBACK FROM PROPOSER TOB
L LOCATICN9 OF CLA33 II RIPRAP, FILL VOIDS WITH CLA43 B R1P RAPIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED OVERLIMITS OF FLOORPLAIN EXCAVATIONEAS BACIKFILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL -
—L— PT Sta.11+3/.74
—L— PCC Sta. 13+41.65
®DEWATERING
TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS (-L-)
®BANK
STABILIZATION PERMANENT SURFACE
WATER IMPACTS (-L-)
DETOUR TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
®ONSITE
IMPACTS (-DET-)

IN
U)
a�
.L
om
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
V
co
U
C
V
C
O
i
Ln
L +
M L
r-- a)
/ E
co ._
U
(D
O
L
n
U)
4-
C +
Ea
U;
U
O
U
O 4-
O
a �
+ o
(D U
C i
Q
O
U
T 7;
N n
4-
C CV
N Ln
N
d CV
(1) ;1-
C CV
4-- O
U) CV
/ L0
CAI
d
2630
2620
10+80 10+90 11+00 11+10 11+20 11+30 11+40 11+50 11+60
(-) 0.0310
STA. 11+19092
EL. = 2,618.86
FILL FACE Cq) END BENT 1 GRADE DATA -L- FILL FACE @ END BENT 2
STA. 11+05.21 -L-
GRADE POINT ELo 2618087
EL.2620± EXISTING SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYP.)
TOP OF SILL
EL. 2613.00
(TYPo)
UN -REINFORCED
2610 CONCRETE SILL (TYPo)
2600
HORIZONTAL CURVE DATA -L-
P.I. STA. 10+97.21
= 15 °-28'-45.9" (RT)
D = 104 °-10'-2609"
L = 14.86'
T � Ate,
SPAN A
EXP. FIX.
EL. 2618 ± EL. 2619 ±
OW CHORD LOW CHORD
LOW
EL. 2617.14 PROP. EL. 2617.13
EXIST. EL. 2616.63 EXIST. EL. 2616.67
APPROXIMATE
WATER SURFACE
7w7
EL. 2614 ±
EL. 2613 ±
7
EL. 2612 ±
END BENT 1
SECTION ALONG -L-
SECTIONS @ END BENTS ARE AT RIGHT ANGLE
/ EXISTING ---\
TOTAL LENGTH OF BRIDGE (FILL FACE TO FILL FACE)
mmi
(CONCRETE SILLS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
STA.11+34.63 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. 2618.86
ABUTMENT
STEM (TYPo)
END BENT 2
APPROXIMATE
NATURAL GROUND
— — — — — — — — — — — —
EL. 2619 ±
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
'ING
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GAN N E T T
suite
-
FLEMING
ghh,, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
PROJECT NO.
BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA
STATION°
SHEET 1 OF 3
COUNTY
11+19.92 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 870189

BENCHMARK: N 514643.3020, E 875395.55009 -L- STA. 10+74.57, OFFSET
= 22.63' LT
b
re
00
0
CD
U)
a�
.L
m
L
a�
E
CV
O
CAI
co
/
c
V
L
O
Ln
/
Ln +
rn �
/ E
co
U
(D
O
L
n
/
co
c +
a)
E a
�U�
U �
O
-A U
O 4-
a �
O
+ o
O U
C
4
U_U
_UP a
O
U
T �
N Ln
C\i
d CV
C CV
4- O
U) CV
CAI
, d
0:7��
00
11+00
DETOUR BRIDGE
STA.10+74.78 -DET-
BRIDGE ID
STA.11+19092 -L-
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION, SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS°
5 I/2 „
yp
n
.1
Ln
v
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS/J. MYA
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD : R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
1'-0"
LOCATION SKETCH
8'-6i/2„
4"x8"TIMBER DECKING
4"x12" NAILER
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
11+00
120 °-00'-00"
(TYPo)
18'-0" DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
17'-1" (CLEAR ROADWAY)
-L-
;e7:111m963V1II
8 SPA. 2'-0" CTS. = 16'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(9 LINES OF W12x58 I BEAMS)
8'-6i/2„
t
TEMPORARY
SHORING
(TYP.)
SAWS
0.01 ---
W1Ox60
(TYPo)
TO US 178
1'-0"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 �/2„
EXISTING ROAD
TIMBER RAIL
(TYPo)
MIN° 2/2" AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
NOTES.
ASSUMED LIVE LOAD = HL-93 ALTERNATE LOADING
THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS°
PROJECT N0. BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
11+19092 -L-
STATION°
SHEET 2 OF 3
REPLACES BRIDGE 870189
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED NO. BY:
Raleighh,,NC 27603
- suite FINAL UNLESS ALL
FLEMING
N
9/9-420-7660 SIGNATURES COMPLETED
NC Llc. No. F-0270 12,
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
SHOAL CREEK ON
SR 1141 (BABB ROAD)
REVISIONS
DATE: I N0. BY:
4
SHEET NO.
DATE: S-2
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE.
T
.L
m
L
a)
n
E
Ln _
i-n +
rn �
Q0 n
/ E
co .
+
U
N
O
L
/
+
C +
a)
Ea
D U�
01,
O
+ %-
1 U
O +
n
+ Oo
O U
C
4
o �
E Q
O
U
T �
a�
+ n
C
�O
Q C\1
N
Q CV
C CV
+ O
U) CAI
/ \
/ Q9
CV
d �
TEMP. TRAFFIC
CONE
REMUVE UEIUUR
BRIDGE
18'-2%16" ± DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
+1 F� L--L- & C EXIST. BRIDGE J�
I I I I
N CL I a I
I II II I >
r 7 1 a
3" - AWS
N I T I + I T
F"�"f=------------------------ --------------------------�
r----------------------------- -- u------u---------------1 1
I _ _ T T- - I
10" ROLLED BEAM (TYP.)
EXISTING
REMOVE DOWNSTREAM
PORTION OF EXISTING F� CUT
BRIDGE ;, EXIST.
DECK—
Ir
1- T
------L, — -
I I
II 1 1
1 n'-n" (MTN1_) ('1 FAR RnAnwAy
12'-6"
3'-0"
10'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
-L- I I
I
TEMP. I
TRAFFIC 11
SHIFT
I I
------- -- U ------------ ---------1 I
T T e I
L
1 1 1 1 1 II
Y
STAGE I
STAGE I:
1. SHIFT TRAFFIC TO UPSTREAM SIDE USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES.
STREAM 20 CUT DECK, REMOVE DECK AND BEAMS 1-3. RE -PURPOSE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF TIMBER RAIL FOR THE LEFT SIDE
FLOW OF THE TRAFFIC SHIFT.
4'-0"
F- qrPORTIONIREMOVE REMAINING
_L_ OF
4EXISTING BRIDGE
I II 7 I
Ir
IL------- -- UU EJ------------ ------Ej 1
I I � T T T --J I
I r---
II 1 1 1 1 1 II
TEMPORARY
SHORING
STAGE II
I-- — — — —
I I
3'-61/2„
10'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
r�
REMOVE
TEMPORARY
SHORING
CONSTo JTo
STAGE III
PROPOSED
SUBSTRUCTURE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
3. MAINTAIN THE TRAFFIC SHIFT USING TEMPORARY SIGNALS IN A 1-LANE/2-WAY TRAFFIC PATTERN.
4. INSTALL SHORING
5. COMPLETELY REMOVE THE DOWNSTREAM PORTION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE°
STAGE II:
1e CONSTRUCT DETOUR BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM OF EXISTING BRIDGE°
2e SHIFT TRAFFIC ONTO DETOUR BRIDGE. CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN TWO-WAY TRAFFIC WITH ONE LANE ON THE DETOUR
BRIDGE DURING THIS STAGE.
3. REMOVE REMAINING PORTION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE°
STAGE III:
1. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF PROPOSED BRIDGE. PLACE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS IN CONCRETE END BENTS.
PLACE TEMPORARY TIMBER RAILING ALONG DOWNSTREAM FACE OF COMPLETED PORTION OF PROPOSED BRIDGE°
2e SHIFT TRAFFIC ONTO THE PROPOSED BRIDGE. CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN TWO-WAY TRAFFIC WITH ONE LANE ON
PROPOSED BRIDGE DURING THIS STAGE.
3. REMOVE DETOUR BRIDGE. ADJUST PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY SHORING TO ALLOW SPACE FOR COMPLETION OF CONCRETE
END BENTS.
4. CONSTRUCT REMAINING PORTION OF CONCRETE END BENTS AND PROPOSED BRIDGE INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF
TIMBER PLANKS OVER FULL WIDTH OF PROPOSED BRIDGE. REMOVE TEMPORARY SHORING.
FINAL:
1. PLACE ASPHALT OVERLAY ON THE PROPOSED BRIDGE AND BRIDGE APPROACHES.
20 REMOVE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS°
3. RESTORE DETOUR ALIGNMENT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS°
18/-O" DFCK WTDTH (OUT TO OUT)
�s
i
r7
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT
suite 900
-
FLEMING
Ralelgh, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
FINAL
PROJECT N0. BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
STATION°
SHEET 3 OF 3
11+19e92 —L—
REPLACES BRIDGE 870189

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
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)
189
-L- 10+62 - 10+78
PROPOSED BRIDGE
< 0.01
189
-L- 10+62 - 10+78
DETOUR BRIDGE
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
0
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

LINQA59FIED SIRJJCWU EMCAVATpN
PRMSEG 4BRIDGE
BAdG'ILL 14TJATAIE AAA1481AL 1'
FLOOENWN M.
W Wf PILE
C.R FIBER AYiIING
PLACFG RO PPOPOERG Too
PPOP(?SE� lOR
f_ \
- - ``� F%IBIING CXANNEL RAMS
(TYP.j
BEGIN RIP RAP STAgFOiAl1ON
ANG NATIRE RACFF
AT ACR
FRpV, M P1010OPOSFG TpB
I I IAY— OF CVSS IIRW RAP
TO ENOBFIr 9— IN RLV.
CLRSS II RIP RAP FOR
CLASS II RIP RAP SLOPING
ARUTMBiT RTPJ
3'TNICK
BANK BIGVATION SFABILIIATION
ITNRpIIGN MIGGE LIM1R ONLII
EN—m PI IN flfV_
DETAIL NOTES:
1. FOR USE WHERE EXISTING ABUTMENTS AND BULKHEADS ARE TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
2. EXCAVATE TO FLODDPLAIN ELEVATION AS SPECIFIED ON PRELIMINARY GENERAL DRAWIKGS
3. FLOODPLAIN STABILIZATION TO BEGIN WITH A G' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPOSED TDB
4. FOR ALL LOCATIONS OF CLASS II RIPRAP, FILL VOIDS WITH CLASS B RIP RAP
S. CIDER FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED OVER LIMITS OF FLOCDPLAIN EXCAVATION
AND AREAS EACKFILLEO WITH NATIVE MATERIAL
-L- POT Sto.
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0251 (870133
-L- POT STA.11 + 21.89
-L- PC Sta. 12-f33.44
-L- PT Sta. /2-t29./3
- _PC Sta. ll-f03.59
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NC.
GANNETT OneG/enwvadAvenue
9ulfe 904
BR-0252 (870133)
-
919-42G-7660
1660
F L E M I N G Rdeig6, 3
NC CiR. No. F-G2lG
RI SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
-
ENGINEER ENGINEER
r
00
—oc
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
Q
-L- PCC Sta. 13-W.92
-L- PT Sta.14+/5.04
-L- POT Sta 14t23.69
C,
- F F
F F- - F- F F F
—C -- _C— — JONES RD)
c{ 1557 t ASKELL
`22'48.4"E J
k6------- c /
-y-
END TIP PROJECT BR-0252 (870133)
-L- POT STA.12 + 77.43
DEWATERING TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
IMPACTS (-L-)
BANK STABILIZATION PERMANENT SURFACE
WATER IMPACTS (-L-)
® ONSITE DETOUR TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER
Y IMPACTS (-DET-)

b
PW
H
m
r
ISl
0
CD
n
co
a�
.L
om
L
r)
E
CV
O
CV
V
0
/
c
V
L
O
Ln
/
L +
rn L
aD
/ E
co ._
U
N
O
L
n
co
E n
Oil
O
A U
O 4-
a �
O
+ o
O U
C i
O
n
U
T �
a) n
c �
N
N
d
N �
C CV
4- O
U CV
/ \
/ L0
CAI
d
11+50
2690
2670
11+60
(-)O.8178 7.
11+70
(-)Oo3237
P.V.I. STA. 11+59.04
EL. = 2,684.19
VoCo = 4.00'
GRADE DATA -L-
11+80
11+90
FILL FACE Cagy END BENT 1
STA. 11+88.11 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. 2684.09
EL. 2684 ±
EXPO
EL 2684 ± LOW CHORD —
PROP. EL 268232
EXIST. EL. 2682.25
HORIZONTAL r.i iRVF noTA -1 -
P.I. `
A_
D =
L =
T = 6
R = F
END BENT 1
12+00
SPAN A
EL. 2682 ±
12+10
EL.2684 ±
FIX.
EL. 2682 ± --
EXISTING ��—
SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYP.) APPROXIMATE
WATER SURFACE
��
---- --- �
EL. 2392 ±
ELo 2392 +-
SECTION ALONG —L-
12+20
FILL FACE Cagy END BENT 2
STA.12+13.36 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. 2684.01
12+30
APPROXIMATE
--�EL.2684 \----� NATURAL GROUND
—LOW CHORD EL 2684 ±
PROP. EL. 2682.27
7
EXIST. EL. 2682.28
7" 0 MICROPILES
(TYP.)
END BENT 2
SECTIONS END BENTS ARE AT RIGHT ANGLE
12'-7�/2" 12'-71/2" --
(ALONG ARC) (ALONG ARC)
25'-3" (ALONG ARC)
TOTAL LENGTH OF BRIDGE
(FILL FACE TO FILL FACE)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
12+10
(-)Oo3237
(-) O.1636 Y.
P.V.I. STA. 12+42.44
EL. = 2,683.92
VoCo = 7.00'
GRADE DATA -L-
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GANNETT
suite
-
FLEMING
Raleighh,, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
PROJECT NO.
BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA
STATION°
SHEET 1 OF 3
COUNTY
12+00.73 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE NO. 870133

BENCHMARK: N 527013.7247, E 911881.2650 -L- STA 11+14.31 OFFSET = 11.14, RT
NOTES.
ASSUMED LIVE LOAD = HL-93 ALTERNATE LOADING
0
CD
U)
a�
.L
m
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
co
/
c
V
L
0
Ln
/
Ln +
rn �
�-0 n
/ E
co ._
U
N
.O
L
n
/
co
c +
a�
E a
D U;
oil
0
� U
O C�-
a �
0
+ 0
� U
C i
Q
0
U
T 7;
Ca
a�
r
a�
C CV
4- O
U) CV
/ L0
CAI
, d
DETOUR BRIDGE
STA. 11+06.31 -DET-
T—S 276---------
I BM 3 i--------_--------------\\ \\
-- 58 °-47'-41013"
�% GRAVEL I TAN. TO CURVE
1, DRIVEWAY,
� I
� I
1 I
� I
� I
I
� I
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION,SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
�p n
MR
5 �/2„
1'-0"
61m
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD : R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
g,-6i/2„
BRIDGE ID
STA.12+00.73 -L-
-DET-
—L-
---------------
NO OUTLET
— 61 °-12'-21.44"
-- TAN _-TOCURVE------------------------------
I EXISTING
\ STRUCTURE
LOCATION SKETCH
20'-0" DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
4"x8"TIMBER DECKING
4"x12" NAILER
19'-1" (CLEAR ROADWAY)
g,-6i/2„
-L-
Am
WALKER CREEK
5 �/2
12+00___
THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.
PROJECT N0. BR-0252
GRADE POINT SAWS � � � TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
9 SPA. 2 2'-0" CTS. = 18'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(10 LINES OF W1Ox60 I BEAMS)
0.01 ---
W10x60
(TYPo)
TIMBER RAIL
(TYPo)
1'-0"
* MIN. 2�/2" AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
PRELIMINARY PLANS
8O NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STATION°
12+00.73 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 870133
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
WALKER CREEK ON
SR 1557 (HASKELL JONES ROAD)
GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue suite 900 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED NO. BY:
Ralelgh,NC 27603 FINAL UNLESS ALL
PEENING 9/9-420-7660 SIGNATURES COMPLETED
NC Llc. No. F-0270
REVISIONS
DATE: I N0. BY:
SHEET NO.
DATE: S-2
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

20'-2�/2" ± DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
19'-3" ± CLEAR ROADWAY
STREAM
FLOW
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
n,
om
/
F
U
n
0
r
U)
N
aL
om
L
E
CV
O
CV
co
U
/
c
V
L
O
O
L
/
U)
4-
(D+
Ea
�U)
U
O
% 4-
U
O 4-
O
a �
+ o
O U
C i
12
O
U
T 7;
N n
4-
C I�
N r�
3: C\1
a�
C CV
4__ O
U) CV
/ L0
CAI
d
10'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
DETOUR
CONSTRUCT DETOUR STRUCTURE AND SHIFT
TRAFFIC FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE
DETOUR
REMOVE DETOUR STRUCTURE
+1 FZ L--L- & C EXIST. BRIDGE
^ I I I I
GRAVEL 4 '
1r WEARING Q
��11
,N " ; i SURFACE ,-
I k t I
1--r-I----T----T----r-�----r---T----T-�----r-� ----r----T-� I
9'/2" ROLLED BEAM (TYP.)
26'-3"
26'-3"
EXISTING
F� T�
I I I I
I -L _ a 1
I 11 11 I
1f'---------------------------------------------------------------L
I I--r-1----T----T----I-r ----r ---T----7 -F -----r ----r----T-1 I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
STAGE I
EXISTING
REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTURE
2n'-n" nFrK WTnTH (nl IT Tn nI IT)
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCT PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND SHIFT
TRAFFIC FROM DETOUR STRUCTURE
STAGE II
��'-�" nFC:K WTF)TH (nl IT Tn MIT)
FINAL
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STAGE I:
1. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY DETOUR BRIDGE DOWNSTREAM OF EXISTING STRUCTURE.
20 SHIFT TRAFFIC ONTO DETOUR BRIDGE. MAINTAIN TWO-WAY TRAFFIC WITH ONE LANE USING TEMPORARY
SIGNALS AT EACH END OF THE PROJECT.
3. REMOVE THE EXISTING BRIDGE°
STAGE II:
1. CONSTRUCT PROPOSED BRIDGE°
2e SHIFT TRAFFIC ONTO THE PROPOSED BRIDGE. CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN TWO-WAY TRAFFIC WITH ONE
LANE ON PROPOSED BRIDGE DURING THIS STAGE.
FINAL:
1. PLACE ASPHALT OVERLAY ON THE PROPOSED BRIDGE AND BRIDGE APPROACHES.
2e REMOVE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS°
3. PLACE GABIONS FOR STREAM BANK STABILIZATION AS SHOWN ON PLANS. RESTORE DETOUR
ALIGNMENT TO EXISTING CONDITIONS°
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GAN N E T T
suite
-
FLEMING
ghh,, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
PROJECT N0. BR-0252
TRANSYLVANIA rni iNTY
STATION°
SHEET 3 OF 3
12+00.73 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 870133

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
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)
133
-L- 11+85 - 12+18
PROPOSED BRIDGE
< 0.01
< 0.01
35
133
-L- 11+85 - 12+18
DETOUR BRIDGE
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
< 0.01
35
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb