20240392 Ver 1_Attachments 3 6 24_20240307

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: 508445.1.1
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-0251 - Timber Bridge Replacements
NRTR's Combined In This Order
Bridge 560072, Madison Co.
Bridge 560074, Madison Co.
Bridge 560371, Madison Co.
Bridge 560500, Madison Co.

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Timber Bridge Replacement - Replace Bridge No. 560072 on
SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek
Madison County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0251
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560072, Madison County, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 560072 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek in Madison County, North
Carolina as part of TIP BR-02511 (Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway for Bridge No.
560072 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 30, 2023. Water
resources identified in the study area have not been verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina 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 (NRCS) online soil mapping website and Madison County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic Sams 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)
0.5
Sweet gin Li uidambar s raci ua
Deciduous Mixed Riparian
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Forest
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
0.5
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tuli i era
' TIP BR-0251 will replace four timber bridges in Division 13. Bridge No. 560072 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2https://connect.ncdot. gov/site/preconstruction/division/div 13/BR-
0251/ layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKQ-1242716848-11
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560072, Madison 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 within Madison County'
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
*otis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Northernblotng-eared
*otis septentrionalis
E
Yes
Unresolved
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
' IPaC data checked on October 31, 2023 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/preconstruction/division/div13BR-
0251 /_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKO-1242716848-8
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
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 August 30, 2023, showed no indications of bat
roosting under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records
on October 31, 2023, indicates a high accuracy occurrence for Gray bat dated March
19, 2020, within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
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 August 30, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the
area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 31, 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)
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560072, Madison County, N.C.
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
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 August 30, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the
area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 31, 2023, indicates a
high accuracy occurrence for Tricolored bat dated March 19, 2020, 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 project 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 proj ect limits was not conducted.
Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on October 31, 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 Big Laurel 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
Classificatio
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
Number
n
Foster Creek
SA
6-112-11
C;Tr,ORW
2
14
12
Little Foster Creek
SB
6-112-11-2
C;Tr,ORW
1.5
09
10
Foster Creek and Little Foster Creek have been designated as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW). There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560072, Madison County, N.C.
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 (ponds) 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 stream in the study area has been designated as a 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.
Miti ation Required
Buffer
SA
250
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Foster Creek
SB
100
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Little Foster Creek
Total
350
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. Foster Creek
and Little Foster Creek are located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Madison
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.
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560072, Madison County, N.C.
Accessed September 1, 2023.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/7073e9l22ab745 88b 8c48ded34c3df55/
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Riparian Buffer Protection Program.
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-gualiiy_permitting/401-buffer-
permitting/riparian-buffer-protection-pro gram
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Maps, "Find Your
HUC in North Carolina." Accessed September 1, 2023.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Publiclnformation/index.html?Upid=ad3 a85 aOc6d644aOb97
cd0698238aO
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.
hops://www.ncdrought.org/map-archives
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Element Occurrence Online Database.
Accessed October 31, 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.
hI tps://www. saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatoly-Permit-Pro gram/Agency-
Coordination/Trout/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Madison 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
(IPaQ. Accessed October 31, 2023.
bl!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
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560072, Madison County, N.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Sams Gap (NC
2022). Accessed August 31, 2023. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-
80.340
6 November 2023

T'
Unicoi'�
I�
14//�
�.,
\
Erwin
��,
'
Rich,
/}ti�� '
Mountain
��^_•
:`Unaka
Moup! Ons
Greene
Greeneville
107
3s1
' i i -J
Pie i Unicoi 'Flattop
SS
�� Mountain
Ga
--
70 k:.. Brid11�ggLlNo.74
fl >
K.
Bridge No. 500 Z,6
�a P:��iou (a�
`Bridge No. 72
f� Walnut �„` Yance
Mountains
Bild Madison
Mou Val s 7
t Bridge No. 381
J ^ Mars Hill 4
1 Pisgah National
a-- Forest
t M
{ i 197J
Lt� `
f [209 rl �r�eP
ter'. 50�' •_�
z ,
c 63
a
Vicinity Map BR-0251
Madison County
0 Project Location - Bridge Replacement
County Boundary NCDOT Division 13
Madison County
HI
t Sri gs M rs Hill Figure 1
IVsy Asheville �°FNaarHg90
rk� y`' GANNETT
0 2 4 9 FLEMING
JJ..�
Miles v9�vTOFTRAN pONP
st November 2023

le 17
rsK
, tz",
` �ge
~ - •new/ A .c t
ry
19
' �' • VAT
�:.
AJ
tt Ir
if
14.
to
Pr j
1p
7
•�'f _ �p •Y - �y .. r _ -.g It
■,

0 Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams
Madison County BR-0251
.� �
Parcels f Bridge No. 72 Replacement
NCDOT Division 13
* Rural Residential ? Madison County
s L
Deciduous Mixed Figure 3
� J P pORTH C
Riparian ForestPam°
r ' GANNETT
0 25 50 FLEMING
Feet Ashevill 9 �P
Se ��OF TRpNSeptember 2023

f r M
y
Y
s _ •` 1
r •j 1
cox r. SR-1341 yP •r«
06
i Brdge
- ... �.
1 ' y fit ,r •; ! � �' ._+
41
r, 1r t '
MW
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area .,
Madison County BR-0251
Streams f Bridge No. 72 Replacement
SA (Foster Creek) ,- �,'NCDOT Division 13
SB (Little Foster Creek) f' �L Madison County
Parcels FNORTHC Figure 4
N , - Pam°
r ' GANNETT
0 25 50 � � � � FLEMING
Feet Ashevill
- OFTRpNSe 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. 560074 on
SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0251
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560074, Madison County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 560074 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek in Madison County, North
Carolina as part of TIP BR-02511 (Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway for Bridge No.
560074 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 30, 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 (NRCS) online soil mapping website and Madison County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, Sams 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)
0.50
Sweet gin Li uidambar s raci ua
Deciduous Mixed Riparian
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Forest
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
0.50
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tuli i era
' TIP BR-0251 will replace four timber bridges in Division 13. Bridge No. 560074 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2https://connect.ncdot. gov/site/preconstruction/division/div 13/BR-
0251/ layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKQ-1242716848-13
1 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560074, Madison 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 within the study areal
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
*otis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Northernblotng-eared
*otis septentrionalis
E
Yes
Unresolved
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
' IPaC data checked on October 24, 2023 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/preconstruction/division/div13BR-
0251 /_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKO-1242716848-6
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
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 August 30, 2023, showed no indications of bat
roosting under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records
on November 02, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Gray Bat within 1.0 mile
of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
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 August 30, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the
area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on November 02, 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)
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560074, Madison County, N. C.
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
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 August 30, 2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the
area around the bridge. A review of NCNHP records on November 02, 2023, indicates
no known occurrences of Tricolored bat 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 November 02, 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 Big Laurel Creek - 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. Streams in the study area
Ma
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Stream Name
p
Index
Classification
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
ID
Number
Foster Creek
SA
6-112-11
C;Tr,ORW
2
14
12
Foster Creek has 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 either creek within, or within 1.0 mile
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560074, Madison County, N. C.
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 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
440
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Foster Creek
Total
440
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. Foster Creek
is located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Madison 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 e9l 22ab 745 88b 8c48ded34c3 df55/
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560074, Madison County, N. C.
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), Riparian Buffer Protection Program.
hItps://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.
https://data-ncdenr.opendata. arcgis.com/maps/ncdenr::phy siogmphic-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 November 02, 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/Juri sdiction/
USACE, Wilmington District, Trout Resources in Western NC. Accessed September 1,
2023.
hI tps://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 Madison 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 24, 2023.
hl!ps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/user/login
USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Online Mapping. Accessed August 31,
2023. b!tps://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle White Rock (NC
2022). Accessed August 31, 2023. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-
80.340
5 November 2023

— A -
Unicoi'�
Greene ' �' ' � �' ,..
Greeneville
_ -
107 �� _-— — — — --— � Erwin '•�
' Rich,
351 /}ti�� ' Mountain
:`'Unaka
Mou�ia'i0s
i -
i
� ♦ /� ' •�• Unicoi �~'Flat�op ��
ee Mountain
SS
Ga
--
70 k:.. BridggLlNo.74
fl >
►.
212 �Z,6 Jr
Bridge No. 500 �a
`Bridge No. 72
f� Walnut Yancel
Mountains
Bild i Madison
MoU Val s 7
t Bridge No. 381
Mars Hill 4
1 Pisgah National
a--' Forest
* Mc
{ i 197J
Lt \
f [209
ter'. 50\' •_i
z ,
v
c 33
a
Vicinity Map
0 Project Location Madison County BR 0251
County Boundary Bridge Replacement
NCDOT Division 13
Hot Spri gs M rs Hill Madison County
N kY NOHT
s Asheville
rk rm 0 L9 GANNETT
0 2 4 9 FLEMING
Miles J.
st 99 �N'OPTS AHpONP September 2023

0 Project Study Area
Streams
Parcels
N
0 100 200
Feet
a
4 l _ IL i. .�. .iJFla
i
V
Madison County
c
t
A.shevill
r w i
K54,
Project Study Area Map
BR-0251
Bridge No. 74 Replacement
NCDOT Division 13
Madison County
cnzcw�A
ly
GANNETT
FLEMING
September 2023

-A-
-4
t
1:34::1]
KworloF 7,71
A%
b
w
w-
-AL
A
V- k
iL
#V
Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams Madison County BR-0251
Bridge No. 74 Replacement
Parcels ve N, L NCDOT Division 13
Rural Residential Jf? Madison County
Deciduous Mixed
Figure 3
Riparian Forest N 4' A +
k "., AJ GANNETT
0 25 50 LL
Feet FLEMING
'*TOFTRPII 5 October 2023

`..— -
N.
�k
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area `
Madison County BR-0251
Streams SA - ' Bridge No. 74 Replacement
(Foster Creek) .r N,' NCDOT Division 13
Parcels �{' ~t Madison County
rt J F NORTH C
Figure 4
N' Sao qqp
y GANNETT
0 25 50 ` fAL
Feet Asneviii FLEMING 9, <P
�' � "rOFTRPII October 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. 560381 on
SR 1339 (Jarrett Cove Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek
Madison County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0251
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560381, Madison County, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 560381 on SR 1339 (Jarrett Cove Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County,
North Carolina as part of TIP BR-02511(Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway for Bridge
No. 560381 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 30, 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 (NRCS) online soil mapping website and Madison County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, White Rock 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 gum 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
Total
1.0
' TIP BR-0251 will replace four timber bridges in Division 13. Bridge No. 560381 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/preconstruction/division/divl3BR-
0251 /_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKO-1242716848-10
1 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560381, Madison County, N.C.
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
Myotis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Northernblotng-eared
Myotis septentrionalis
E
Yes
Unresolved
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
' IPaC data checked on October 26, 2023 hUs://comect.ncdot. ovg /site/preconstruction/division/div13BR-
0251 /_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKO-1242716848-7
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the site for bats during the
summer of 2023. NCDOT-BSG completed a Bat Survey Memo, dated September 25,
2023, which concluded there is not enough information available at this time to make
and effects determination. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological Conclusion prior
to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted on August 30,
2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area around the
bridge. A review of NCNHP records on October 26, 2023, indicates a high accuracy
occurrence of Gray Bat dated April 19, 2020, within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023. NCDOT-BSG
completed a Bat Survey Memo, dated September 25, 2023, which concluded there is
not enough information available at this time to make and effects determination.
NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge
inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted on August 30, 2023, showed no
indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review
of NCNHP records on October 26, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Northern
long-eared bat within 1.0 mile of the study area.
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560381, Madison County, N.C.
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023. NCDOT-BSG
completed a Bat Survey Memo, dated September 25, 2023, which concluded there is
not enough information available at this time to make and effects determination.
NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge
inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted on August 30, 2023, showed no
indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review
of NCNHP records on October 26, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of Tricolored
bat 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 26, 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 Big Laurel Creek - French Broad River
basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010105]. Four 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
Stream Name
Map
ID
NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Hei ht ft
Bankfull
width ft
Depth
in
Big Laurel Creek
SA
6-112
C;Tr,ORW
5
40
16
UT Big Laurel Creek
SB
6-112
C;Tr,ORW
2
3
10
Watermelon Branch
SC
6-112-14
C;ORW
2
3
10
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560381, Madison County, N.C.
UT Big Laurel Creek I SD 1 6-112 1 C;Tr,ORW 1 2 1 3 1 10
Big Laurel Creek and Watermelon Branch are 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 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.
Four 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
100
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
(Big Laurel Creek
SB
175
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
(UT Big Laurel Creek
SC
240
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Watermelon Branch
SD
200
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
UT Big Laurel Creek
Total
715
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. Big Laurel
Creek and Watermelon Branch are located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for
Madison 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.
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560381, Madison County, N.C.
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.arcgis.com/experience/7073 e9l22ab74588b8c48ded34c3df55/
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-protection-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 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 26, 2023.
hitps://ncnhde.nature serve.org[
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Section 10 Waters list,
1965 and Addendum, 1980. hUs://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/Regulatory-Permit-Pro gram/Agency-
Coordination/Trout/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Madison County Soil Survey. Accessed September
1, 2023.
hLtps://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ilpp/
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560381, Madison County, N.C.
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 26, 2023.
bl!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 White Rock (NC
2022). Accessed August 31, 2023. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-
80.340
6 November 2023

T'
Unicoi'�
i�
14�/�
�.,
Erwin
'
Rich,
/}ti�� '
Mountain
:`'Unaka
Moup! Ons
Greene
Greeneville
107
3s1
' i i -J
ee U n i c o i 'Flattop
SS
�� Mountain
\e
Ga
--
70 k:.. Brid11�ggLlNo.74
fl >
K.
212 �Z,6 Jr '�� � �„ �.•
Bridge No. 500 �a P:��iou (a�
`Bridge No. 72
f� Walnut �„` Yance
Mountains
Bild Madison
MOU Val s 7
t Bridge No. 381
Mars Hill 4
1 Pisgah National
a-- Forest
* M
{ i 197J
Lt� `
f [209
ter'. 50�' •_i
z ,
c 63
a
Vicinity Map
0 Project Location •
Madison County BR-0251
County Boundary - Bridge Replacement
NCDOT Division 13
HI
t sri gs County
k �—
Madison Hill Figure 1
N y I. NOHTN g
s Asheville �F �q90
irk
m 0L9 GANNETT
0 2 4 9 FLEMING
Miles J.
st 99 �n'OPTS ANpONF September 2023

AFL
0 Project Study Area
Streams
Parcels
N
o 100 zoo
Feet
Madison County
IN
•r ♦ s
a
t
J U�
Ashevill
R�a�e
Project Study Area Map
BR-o251
Bridge No. 381 Replacement
NCDOT Division 13
Madison County
of NORr� Figure 2
GANNETT
4 FLEMING
oFrpA ' July 2023

f ` t - l'
+ AbPr
Bridge No.
A
J
_ SR-1339 t+�
' :1P =� "
� t�i �, _� it I � 1�; '• _ i
r� rC' fx. '
q(c -� r , •
a;..
0 Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams
Madison County BR-0251
� `
Bridge No. 381 Replacement
C Parcels yr N J, L NCDOT Division 13
Rural Residential > <., Madison County
Deciduous Mixed Figure 3
(� J F NORTH C
' Sao qqo/
Riparian Forest N
f y y LL GANNETT
0 25 50
9
Feet FLEMING
9, <P
�NTOFTFPN5QOQ October 2023

4S
- •ram S � !•�
�.� - -''- ••tom �tQ SR-1318
. Brid e-N6. 38,1 };
� SR-1339 •7— -
.� + .`
"
r� , rC fx, iy' ' •
" r
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area `
Madison County BR-0251
Streams SA/SB/SC/SD - ' Bridge No. 381 Replacement
(Big Laurel Creek) .r N,' NCDOT Division 13
Parcels �{' t Madison County
(J ' OF NORTHO Figure 4
N
GANNETT
0 25 50A _ FLEMING
Feet Asnevill tP
k ' `TOFTRANSeO October 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. 560500 on
SR 1336 (Buckner Branch Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek
Madison County, North Carolina
TIP BR-0251
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No. 560500, Madison County, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 560500 on SR 1336 (Buckner Branch Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County,
North Carolina as part of TIP BR-02511(Figures 1 and 2). The affected roadway for Bridge
No. 560500 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 30, 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 (NRCS) online soil mapping website and Madison County Soil
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic, White Rock 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 gum 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
Total
1.0
' TIP BR-0251 will replace four timber bridges in Division 13. Bridge No. 560500 is one of those timber
bridges. Refer to Figure 1.
2 https://comect.ncdot.gov/site/preconstruction/division/divl3BR-
0251 /_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKO-1242716848-12
1 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560500, Madison County, N.C.
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
Myotis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Northernblotng-eared
Myotis septentrionalis
E
Yes
Unresolved
Perimyotis subflavus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
' IPaC data checked on November 02, 2023,
hUs://comect.ncdot. ovg /site/preconstruction/division/divl3BR-
0251 /_layouts/ 15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=A3KVYKDKSUKO-1242716848-9
E — Endangered; PE -Proposed Endangered
Gray Bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (BSG) surveyed the site for bats during the
summer of 2023. NCDOT-BSG completed a Bat Survey Memo, dated September 25,
2023, which concluded there is not enough information available at this time to make
and effects determination. NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological Conclusion prior
to permitting. The bridge inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted on August 30,
2023, showed no indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area around the
bridge. A review of NCNHP records on November 02, 2023, indicates a high accuracy
occurrence of Gray Bat dated April 19, 2020, within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023. NCDOT-BSG
completed a Bat Survey Memo, dated September 25, 2023, which concluded there is
not enough information available at this time to make and effects determination.
NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge
inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted on August 30, 2023, showed no
indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review
of NCNHP records on November 02, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of
Northern long-eared bat within 1.0 mile of the study area.
2 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560500, Madison County, N.C.
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15-August 15 (Structure Checks)
Biological conclusion: Unresolved
The NCDOT-BSG surveyed the site for bats during the summer of 2023. NCDOT-BSG
completed a Bat Survey Memo, dated September 25, 2023, which concluded there is
not enough information available at this time to make and effects determination.
NCDOT-BSG will determine a Biological Conclusion prior to permitting. The bridge
inspection/bat habitat assessment conducted on August 30, 2023, showed no
indications of bat roosting under the bridge or in the area around the bridge. A review
of NCNHP records on November 02, 2023, indicates no known occurrences of
Tricolored bat 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 November 02, 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 Big Laurel 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
Ma
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Stream Name
p
Index
Classification
Height (ft)
width (ft)
(in)
ID
Number
Big Laurel Creek
SA
6-112
C;Tr,ORW
5
40
16
Buckner Branch
SB
6-112-17
C;ORW
2
3
10
November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560500, Madison County, N.C.
Big Laurel Creek and Buckner Branch are 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 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
100
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
(Big Laurel Creek
SB
217
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Buckner Branch
Total
1 317
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. Big Laurel
Creek and Buckner Branch are located on the USACE's Trout Watershed map for Madison
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.
4 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560500, Madison County, N.C.
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.
hops://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.
hops://www.ncdrought.org/map-archives
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Element Occurrence Online Database.
Accessed November 2, 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/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), Web Soil Survey and Madison 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 November 2, 2023.
bl!ps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/user/login
5 November 2023

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP BR-0251, Bridge No.560500, Madison County, N.C.
USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Online Mapping. Accessed August 31,
2023. hops://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inven!M
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle White Rock (NC
2022). Accessed August 31, 2023. hops://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#8/35.131/-
80.340
6 November 2023

— A -
Unicoi'�
Greene ' �' ' � �' ,..
Greeneville
_ -
107 �� _-— — — — --— � Erwin '•�
' Rich,
351 /}ti�� ' Mountain
:`'Unaka
Mou�ia'i0s
i -
i
� ♦ /� ' •�• Unicoi �~'Flat�op ��
ee Mountain
SS
Ga
--
70 k:.. BridggLlNo.74
fl >
►.
212 �Z,6 Jr
Bridge No. 500 �a
`Bridge No. 72
f� Walnut Yancel
Mountains
Bild i Madison
MoU Val s 7
t Bridge No. 381
Mars Hill 4
1 Pisgah National
a--' Forest
* Mc
{ i 197J
Lt \
f [209
ter'. 50\' •_i
z ,
v
c 33
a
Vicinity Map
0 Project Location Madison County BR 0251
County Boundary Bridge Replacement
NCDOT Division 13
Hot Spri gs M rs Hill Madison County
N kY NOHT
s Asheville
rk rm 0 L9 GANNETT
0 2 4 9 FLEMING
Miles J.
st 99 �N'OPTS AHpONP September 2023

oo
ir 4.
F� aw
ve.
it
ltvk
I
44
Alp;
-'Z' r
e.
1:14
rill"
IAN
OW vLMI� 1� L � ,
JOL-�

r
�• �,;•�� v . - , fit" X � ,.
r
SR-1318
Big laurel Creek
Bridge No. 500
0 Project Study Area Terrestrial Communities Map
Streams
Madison County BR-0251
� `
C Parcels - f Bridge No. 500 Replacement
*e NL NCDOT Division 13
Rural Residential > <., Madison County
Deciduous Mixed Figure 3
(, J F NORTH C
' Sao qqo/
Riparian Forest � � p 4
f y y LL GANNETT
0 25 50 FLEMING
9
Feet 9, <P
�NTOFTRPII Q October 2023

• � /' • ,. * �_ �" mot' i '� f
.j
t' J + +.
Big laurel Creek
Bridge No. 500
. m r
i SR-1336 R ,e •l�.
�y
a •
': ., ti� •, •,� ' e., � �,� ; r:�*''-�,j��-..ems_'
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area �
Madison County BR-0251
Streams SA/SB - ' Bridge No. 500 Replacement
(Big Laurel Creek) .r NNCDOT Division 13
Parcels �{' ~t Madison County
N NORT/i Cqqo/
Figure 4
' s�oLAJ
y GANNETT
0 25 50 ` f
FLEMING
Feet Asneviii 9, .P
*rOF1PaN October 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

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-0251 Scoping Comments on Madison County Timber Bridge Replacements:
• Bridge 072, carrying Foster Creek Road (SR 1341) over Foster Creek
• Bridge 074, carrying Foster Creek Road (SR 1341) over Foster Creek
• Bridge 381, carrying Jarrett Cove Road (SR 1339) over Big Laurel Creek
• Bridge 500, carrying Buckner Branch Road (SR 1336) over Big Laurel 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-0251 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
Madison Bridge 72
Foster Creek (C Tr ORW) supports naturally reproducing populations of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). To protect trout spawning, adherence to the January 1 to April 15 moratorium is recommended
for stream and buffer disturbance for any permits that may be required. Eastern Hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, NC Special Concern) are found in Big Laurel Creek downstream of the
bridge but are unlikely to be in Foster Creek. NWCRC biologists intend to assess the habitat conditions
near Madison Bridge 72 soon. 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

BR-0251 Page 3 October 6, 2023
project design and construction, as practical, given the watershed's ORW classification and to help ensure
protection of trout and other aquatic habitats.
Madison Bridge.
Foster Creek (C Tr ORW) supports naturally reproducing populations of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). To protect trout spawning, adherence to the January 1 to April 15 moratorium is recommended
for stream and buffer disturbance for any permits that may be required. Eastern Hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, NC Special Concern) are found in Big Laurel Creek downstream of the
bridge but are unlikely to be in Foster Creek. NWCRC biologists intend to assess the habitat conditions
near Madison Bridge 74 soon. 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, given the watershed's ORW classification and to help ensure
protection of trout and other aquatic habitats.
Madison Bridge.
Big Laurel Creek (C Tr ORW) is stocked with trout by the NCWRC and supports some wild fish,
however NCWRC biologists have waived the trout moratorium for recent bridge projects on this stream
because trout spawning is believed to be limited. The trout moratorium should be waived for Madison
381. While trout spawning may not be a concern, Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, NC
Special Concern) are found in Big Laurel Creek and the stream is classified as ORW. Therefore, 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. In addition, the NCWRC would
appreciate being apprised of the construction schedule, once known, so that the bridge area can be
surveyed for hellbenders and animals moved as 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,...).
Madison Bridge 500
Big Laurel Creek (C Tr ORW) is stocked with trout by the NCWRC and supports some wild fish,
however NCWRC biologists have waived the trout moratorium for recent bridge projects on this stream
because trout spawning is believed to be limited. The trout moratorium should be waived for Madison
381. While trout spawning may not be a concern, Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, NC
Special Concern) are found in Big Laurel Creek and the stream is classified as ORW. Therefore, 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. In addition, the NCWRC would
appreciate being apprised of the construction schedule, once known, so that the bridge area can be
surveyed for hellbenders and animals moved as 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,...).

BR-0251
Page 4 October 6, 2023
Please contact me at david.mchenrykncwildlife.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
Yates Allen and Karina Clough, NC Department of Transportation, Division 13 Environmental

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0022
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
n "j . ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES .
PRESENT FORM
g° This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
- It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: County: Madison
WBSNo: 50844 Document: State Minimum Criteria Checklist
F.A. No: Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge 74 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek in Madison County. The
Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager, is
approximately 122 meters (400 ft.) long and 30 meters (100 ft.) wide. The project is state funded
and will require federal permits. No easements will be required. The project will require federal
permits, so this review is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
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:
see attached February 2024 archaeological survey results memo
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes
have expressed an interest: the Cherokee Nation; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; the United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; the Catawba Indian Nation; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the
process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
1 of 2

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0022
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
Other:
Signed:
CALEB SMITH
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
® Photos ❑Correspondence
2/28/2024
Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2 of 2

Archaeological Survey for the Replacement of Bridge 74
on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek,
Madison County, North Carolina
(PA 23-07-0022)
Caleb Smith (2/28/2024)
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge 74 on SR
1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Foster Creek in Madison County (Figures 1-2). The Area of Potential
Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager, is approximately 122
meters (400 ft.) long and 30 meters (100 ft.) wide. No design plans have been developed for the
project at this time. The project is state funded and will require federal permits, so this review is
conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Cultural Resources Review
This project was submitted for cultural resources review in September 2023. The review included an
examination of a topographic map, the Madison County web -based soil survey, an aerial photograph,
and an examination of records about previously recorded sites, previous archaeological surveys, and
previous environmental reviews available on the web -based GIS server of the North Carolina Office
of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. The review found that there are landforms with the potential
for prehistoric archaeological sites within and adjacent to the study area, and an Archaeological
Survey Required form was submitted on 10/17/2023. Also, an archaeological reconnaissance of the
project was conducted on 11/28/2023. The bridge is oriented approximately north to south, and the
study area will be described as quadrants (i.e., the northwest quadrant is the north side of the creek
and the west side of the road).
The topographic map (Sam's Gap) shows the study area is in a narrow creek valley (Figure 3). Foster
Creek runs north to south along the base of the ridge that forms the east wall of the valley. Bridge 74
is also oriented north/south, and SR 1341 runs along the west side of the creek on the north side of
the bridge, and along the east side of the creek on the south side of the bridge. The landform in the
study area appears to be a level floodplain on the west side of the bridge and the base of a ridge on
the east side. The map depicts the floodplain as cleared, indicating it is probably suitable for
agriculture (well -drained). Level, well drained floodplain landforms have a moderate to high
potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. No structures are shown in the study area. The
community of Hall's Store is labeled a short distance south of the study area.
The Madison County web soil survey shows one soil type in the study area. Dellwood-Reddies
complex (0-3% slopes), occasionally flooded, is a moderately well -drained soil found on floodplains.
Well -drained landforms next to streams have a moderate to high potential for prehistoric
archaeological sites.
The aerial photograph (with elevation contours) shows the study area is cleared on the west side of
the bridge and wooded on the east side (Figure 4). The northwest quadrant is cleared pasture or hay
field. There is a driveway next to the bridge. The southwest quadrant is a narrow strip between the
road and the creek.
1

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
MITCHELL
_c
YANCEY
MADI SO N
HAYWOOD
c EH'
y 1 L? lL
^Open St_
B,i HEREHERE . bolas. en e
e
_tM
SoucEs Esri C min, i3 I
d eG15 Vs •-• --
Figure 1: Location of the study area in Madison County, North Carolina.
2

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
3

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
lox
#�Xb / •' ., �\ , tit' t'
-
Madison 74 study area
~ , °. •. Jr Sams Gap.
. '� � `'�•'�'_f '� •' /'+!)`.�1 ~__'r� 'ram' ��! �'
Figure 3: Topographic map of the study area (USGS 1978 Sam's Gap 1:24,000-scale topographic map).
4
0

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
The landform in the southeast quadrant is a steeply sloped, wooded ridge. The northeast quadrant is
a narrow strip of disturbed roadside between the road and the creek, and a wooded, steeply sloped
ridge on the east side of the creek.
A review of information on the web -based GIS service shows there are no previously recorded
archaeological sites within or adjacent to the study area. The study area is not within any projects
that have been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The study area is not within
any areas that have been surveyed for archaeological sites.
Archaeological Reconnaissance and Survey
An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted on 11/28/2023 by NCDOT archaeologist Caleb
Smith. The reconnaissance examined each quadrant of the bridge replacement to determine the
archaeological potential of the landforms within the study area. The study area for this project
includes land within 15 meters (50 ft.) of the centerline on each side of the road. The archaeological
survey was conducted on 1/4/2024 by OSA Western Office archaeologist Rachael Denton and
NCDOT archaeologist Caleb Smith. The survey consisted of the excavation of shovel test pits (STs)
on the landforms within the study area that appeared to have some potential for prehistoric
archaeological sites.
In the southwest quadrant SR 1341 runs along the east side of Foster Creek (Figure 5). The landform
in the study area is a narrow (5-meter [16 ft.) wide) strip of disturbed roadside between the road and
the creek from the bridge south for approximately 91 meters (300 ft.). This landform appears to be
disturbed by road construction and maintenance, as well as creek bank stabilization.
Cel

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
The creek banks are lined with stacks of river cobbles indicating the creek bank has been stabilized
and/or that the soil in the surrounding area is very rocky. (Plowing and earthmoving in the area
probably exposes a lot of cobbles which are placed along the creek.) Jass Cove Road joins SR 1341
approximately 91 meters (300 ft.) south of the bridge. There is an old barn located approximately 91
meters (300 ft.) south of the bridge and 46 meters (150 ft.) west of the road (Figure 6). This is one of
several old -looking barns in the vicinity of the study area. This area may have been part of the
community of Halls Store which is labeled on the 1940 and 1978 editions of the Sams Gap
topographic map. No archaeological survey was conducted in this quadrant.
The landform in the southeast quadrant is a steeply sloped, wooded ridge (Figure 7). The ridge slopes
directly up from the edge of pavement. There is no ditch or shoulder next to the road. No
archaeological survey was conducted in this quadrant.
In the northeast quadrant SR 1341 runs along the west side of Foster Creek (Figure 8). The study
area includes a narrow (3-meter [10-ft.] wide) strip of land between the road and the creek. The
landform on the east side of the creek is a steeply sloped, wooded ridge. No archaeological survey
was conducted in this quadrant.
The landform in the northwest quadrant is a level floodplain/terrace from the bridge north (Figure 9).
It is currently used as a maintained yard for a house located 46 meters (150 ft.) southwest of the
bridge. The driveway to the house is located next to the bridge. There is an old shed or farm building
approximately 23 meters (75 ft.) west of the bridge. This quadrant is a level, well drained landform
next to a stream, a landform with a high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. However, there
appears to have been a considerable amount of earth-moving/landscaping done in this quadrant.
7

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
A pond has been excavated in the yard approximately 40 meters (131 ft.) west of the road. There are
several stacks of large cobbles and boulders scattered about the yard, and the drainage ditch that runs
along the road is lined with large river cobbles (Figure 10). These indicate the soil has a high gravel
content.
Six STs were excavated along the west side of SR 1341 in the northwest quadrant. The STs were
placed at a 15-meter (50-ft.) interval within 15 meters (50 ft.) of the centerline. The locations of the
STs are shown in the photographs in Figures 11-13 and on the aerial photograph in Figure 14. ST1
was located approximately 30 meters (100 ft.) north of the creek and 5 meters (33 ft.) west of the
road. The soil in the ST consisted of approximately 35 centimeters (14 in.) of dark brown sandy loam
with a heavy gravel content. The excavation stopped at a dense cobble layer. ST 2 was placed
approximately 15 meters (50 ft.) north of ST1 and 5 meters (33 ft.) west of the road. The soil in this
ST consisted of approximately 30 centimeters (9 in.) of dark brown sandy loam with a heavy gravel
content. ST3 was located approximately 15 meters (50 ft.) north of ST2 and 10 meters (33 ft.) west
of the road (Figures 11-12). The soil consisted of approximately 45 centimeters (18 in.) of dark brown
sandy loam with a dense gravel content. One artifact, a dark gray ("Ridge and Valley") chert lithic
reduction flake, was recovered from the ST. ST4 was excavated approximately 15 meters (50 ft.)
north of ST3 and 10 meters (33 ft.) west of the road. The soil consisted of 60 centimeters (24 in.) of
dark brown sandy loam with a dense gravel content. ST5 was located approximately 15 meters (50
ft.) north of ST4 and 10 meters (33 ft.) west of the road. The soil consisted of 40 centimeters (16 in.)
of dark brown sandy loam with a dense gravel content. ST6 was placed approximately 15 meters (50
ft.) west of ST3 (from which the lithic reduction flake was recovered) (Figure 13). The soil consisted
of 30 centimeters (12 in.) of dark brown sandy loam with a heavy gravel content.
G�

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
10

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
11

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
12

Madison 74 survey memo (PA 23-07-0022)
The lack of artifacts in any of the other five STs placed around ST 3 indicates the lithic reduction
flake is an "isolated find." Examination of the soil in the STs did not identify any evidence of intact
cultural features or buried soil horizons. As mentioned above, landforms with rocky soils are usually
not good for intact prehistoric archaeological sites. The high rock content suggests an unstable soil
that has been subject to high -velocity floods and/or erosional deposition/landslides from the
surrounding ridges. Also, it is difficult to plow (or even dig a hole in) rocky soil and so they are not
always the most attractive places to live. One definition of the Dellwood soils is: "on nearly level
and gently sloping flood plains of fast flowing streams in the upper reaches of watersheds in the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. Elevation generally ranges from about 1,200 to 3,200 feet, but
many range as high as 4,500 feet. The soils formed in loamy and sandy alluvium that contains a large
amount of rounded gravel and cobbles." The lithic reduction flake is not diagnostic of any time period
(other than generally prehistoric or the early Contact period). The material, a gray stone which we
call "Ridge and Valley" or "Knox" chert, comes from a geological formation in eastern Tennessee
and is commonly found at sites in western North Carolina. Additional work at this location has little
potential to produce information that is considered "important," and the isolated find is recommended
ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Summary and Conclusion
The cultural resources review for the replacement of bridge 74 included an examination of a
topographic map, the Madison County soil survey, an aerial photograph, and records about previously
recorded archaeological sites, previous archaeological surveys, and development projects that have
been reviewed by HPO. The review found landforms within/adjacent to the study area with some
potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. An Archaeological Survey Required form was
submitted on 10/17/2023. An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted in November 2023, and
the archaeological survey was conducted on 1/4/2024. The landforms in the southwest, southeast,
and northeast quadrants did not appear to have much potential for archaeological sites. Six STs were
excavated in the northwest quadrant. The STs did find one prehistoric lithic reduction flake. The
isolated find is recommended ineligible for the NRHP, and no additional archaeological survey is
required.
References Cited
Smith, Caleb
2023 Archaeological Survey Required form: Replacement of Bridge 74 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek
Rd.) over Foster Creek in Madison County, North Carolina (PA 23-07-0022). Archaeology
Team, Environmental Analysis Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation, Raleigh. Form
submitted on 10/17/2023.
13

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0021
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
na ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES .
PRESENT FORM
g° This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
- It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: County: Madison
WBSNo: 50844 Document: State Minimum Criteria Checklist
F.A. No: Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge 72 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Little Foster Creek in Madison County.
The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager,
is approximately 122 meters (400 ft.) long and 30 meters (100 ft.) wide. The project is state funded
and will require federal permits. No easements will be required. The project will require federal
permits, so this review is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
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:
see attached March 2024 archaeological survey results memo
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes
have expressed an interest: the Cherokee Nation; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; the United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; the Catawba Indian Nation; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the
process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
1 of 2

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0021
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
Other:
Signed:
CALEB SMITH
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
® Photos ❑Correspondence
3/5/2024
Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2 of 2

Archaeological Survey for the Replacement of Bridge 72
on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Little Foster Creek,
Madison County, North Carolina (PA 23-07-0021)
By Caleb Smith (3/5/2024)
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge 72 on SR
1341 (Foster Creek Rd.) over Little Foster Creek in Madison County (Figures 1-2). The Area of
Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager, is approximately
122 meters (400 ft.) long and 30 meters (100 ft.) wide. No design plans have been developed for
the project at this time. The project is state funded and will require federal permits, so this review
is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Cultural Resources Review
This project was submitted for cultural resources review in August 2023. The review included an
examination of a topographic map, the Madison County web -based soil survey, an aerial
photograph, and an examination of records about previously recorded sites, previous archaeological
surveys, and previous environmental reviews available on the web -based GIS server of the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. The review found there are landforms with
the potential for prehistoric archaeological sites within and adjacent to the study area, and an
Archaeological Survey Required form was submitted on 10/6/2023 (Smith 2023). Also, an
archaeological reconnaissance of the project was conducted on 11/28/2023. The bridge is oriented
approximately east to west, and the study area will be described as quadrants (i.e., the northwest
quadrant is the north side of the creek and the west side of the road).
The topographic map (Sam's Gap) shows the study area is in a narrow creek valley (Figure 3). The
valley is wider on the north side of the bridge. Little Foster Creek joins Foster Creek a short distance
south of the bridge. SR 1341 runs along the north side of Foster Creek which runs along the base of
the ridge that forms the south wall of the valley. The landform in the study area appears to be
floodplain on the north side of the bridge and the base of the ridge on the south side. The map
depicts the floodplain as cleared, indicating it is probably suitable for agriculture (well -drained).
Level, well drained floodplain landforms have a moderate to high potential for prehistoric
archaeological sites. A structure is shown in the northwest quadrant of the study area, and two
structures are shown next to the study area on the south side of the bridge.
The Madison County web soil survey shows two soil types in the study area. The soil in most of the
study area is Dellwood- Redd ies complex (0-3% slopes), occasionally flooded, a moderately well -
drained soil found on floodplains.
1

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
MFrC H ELL
YANCEY
4 l r
1 — r
HAYWOOH..�,
ScucEs E'i, HERE,,�S—in, U$' S n'ter
Cp SVm- H.p m jbutzs, enc th_GIS Us
Figure 1: Location of the study area in Madison County, North Carolina.
2

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
3

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
L:
Y Madison 72 study area
41
White Rack
AN
Figure 3: Topographic map of the study area (USGS White Rock and Som's Gap 1:24,000-scale topographic maps).
E

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
The soil at the west end of the study area is Tusquitee-Whiteside complex (8-15% slopes), a well -
drained soil found in fans, drainageways, and coves. Landforms with well -drained soil adjacent to
streams have a moderate to high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites.
The aerial photograph (with elevation contours) shows the study area is cleared in the northeast
and northwest quadrants and wooded in the southwest and southeast quadrants (Figure 4). In the
northeast quadrant, Little Foster Creek Rd. runs along the east side of Little Foster Creek. The rest
of the northeast quadrant appears to be a gently sloped pasture or hay field. In the northwest
quadrant, the area next to the bridge is a residential yard. The west half appears to be used as a
plowed garden and a barnyard. SR 1341 runs along the north bank of Foster Creek. The southwest
and southeast quadrants appear to be narrow sections of land between the road and the creek. The
study area includes a small amount of wooded land on the south side of the creek. The landform
slopes steeply uphill from the creek to the south.
A review of information on the OSA's web -based GIS service shows there are no previously recorded
archaeological sites within or adjacent to the study area. The study area is not within any projects
that have been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The study area is not
within any areas that have been surveyed for archaeological sites.
Archaeological Reconnaissance and Survey
An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted on 11/28/2023 by NCDOT archaeologist Caleb
Smith. The reconnaissance examined each quadrant of the bridge replacement to determine the
archaeological potential of the landforms within the study area. The study area for this project
includes land within 15 meters (50 ft.) of the centerline on each side of the road. The archaeological
survey was conducted on 1/3-1/4/2024 by OSA Western Office archaeologist Rachael Denton and
NCDOT archaeologist Caleb Smith. The survey consisted of the excavation of shovel test pits (STs)
on the landforms within the study area that appeared to have some potential for prehistoric
archaeological sites.
The landform in the northwest quadrant is a narrow (15-meter [50-ft.] wide) section of floodplain
at the base of a ridge (Figures 5-6). The study area includes a house, driveway, and front yard next
to the bridge, a driveway and storage area for machinery and building materials, and a
garden/pasture for goats. (A house is shown at this location on the 1940 and 1978 editions of the
topographic map.) This landform does not appear to have much potential for prehistoric
archaeological sites. The area next to the bridge appears disturbed by the driveways and equipment
storage area. The garden/pasture at the west end of the study area occupies a narrow stretch of
floodplain between the road and a sloped ridge. It appears to have been disturbed by plowing and
erosion. No STs were excavated in this quadrant.
The landform in the southwest quadrant is a narrow (3-meter [10 ft.) wide) strip of roadside
between SR 1341 and Foster Creek (Figure 7). This landform appears to be disturbed by road
construction, maintenance, and creek bank stabilization. No STs were excavated in the disturbed
roadside. The study area includes a narrow strip along the south side of Foster Creek, although the
bridge replacement will probably not impact that part.
5

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
Via,.,
R
Bridge 7244 dl-
Figure 6: East view of the northwest quadrant (November 2023).
7

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
We could not access that side of the creek, but there appears to be an old road or driveway running
along the south bank. From there the landform is a moderate to steep slope up to the south. There
is a pile of rocks that looks like a chimney fall on a level bench approximately 30 meters (100 ft.)
west of the bridge and 46 meters (150 ft.) south of the road. Several structures are shown near
Bridge 72 in the 1938 aerial photograph (Figure 8). One structure is shown there on the 1940 edition
of the (1:24,000) topographic map (Figure 9), and two are shown on the 1978 edition (see Figure 3
above).
The landform in the southeast quadrant is also a narrow (5-meter [16-ft.) wide) strip of roadside
between SR 1341 and Foster Creek (Figure 10). Like in the southwest quadrant, this landform
appears to be disturbed by road construction, maintenance, and creek bank stabilization. No STs
were excavated in the disturbed roadside. The study area also includes a narrow strip along the
south side of Foster Creek, although the bridge replacement will probably not impact that part. We
could not access that side of the creek, but there did appear to be an old road or driveway running
along the south bank. From there the landform is a moderate to steep slope up to the south. We
did not see any structural remains on the south side of the creek in that quadrant, but the maps and
aerial photograph do show several structures in the vicinity. The 1940 topographic map (see Figure
9) shows there was a school and a church on the south side of the creek to the east of the study
area.
E3

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
41
# _�CIA
40
ir
. �. �;;', ;;.t • ��' Bridge 72
I • ' � �i � .. � 4• �, L 11 '�• is ti �ti � 1
�• r •.sue,: -: -a ! _ .*a'" �y{��� f L �' J ��'�� �. . ' '�� � ` .1►!
l:j�s� E'. t,ti /�__� �j„�., � 1 • F A � 1'�i'r 1 �i+ �,+,i�t �
;Le
•{4SP`,yT�,.y�1� •till+ ^�4 1 _� �.� sAt
..I• 7
-44
''?fir ylf ,:�- H�"�"� �.+ •*�.
Figure 8: Aerial photograph of the study area in 1938.
P7

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
The landform in the northeast quadrant is a wide, level floodplain that is currently used as a hay
field (Figures 11-12). Little Foster Road runs north from SR 1341 along the east bank of Little Foster
Creek. There is a drainage ditch along the north side of SR 1341. The floodplain along the road is a
level landform. The floodplain rises slightly to a low ridge toe approximately 40 meters (131 ft.)
north of the road.
The survey included the excavation of five STs (1-5) at a 15-meter (50-ft.) interval along the north
side of SR 1341. The study area includes land within 15 meters (50 ft.) of the centerline of SR 1341,
so the STs were each placed approximately 10 meters (33 ft.) from the pavement edge. Three of
the STs (1-3) contained prehistoric artifacts, so a second line of STs (6-10) was placed (outside of the
study area) approximately 15 meters (50 ft.) north of the first line. All five of those STs contained
artifacts. The site was given the state site number 31MD---. Each ST is described in Table 1. The
locations of the STs are shown in the aerial photograph in Figure 13 and in the photographs in
Figures 14-16.
The artifact collection consists of lithic reduction flakes (n=39), and two small prehistoric ceramic
sherds. The lithic reduction flakes are produced during stone tool production. This collection
includes flakes from the secondary and tertiary stages of lithic reduction. No primary flakes were
recovered. Primary flakes are produced during the quarrying of stone whereby the outer cortex is
removed. The quarried stone is shaped into a "blank" form that can be finished at another location.
So, this means the stone was quarried elsewhere and brought here for the detailed
work/sharpening.
10

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
11

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
Table 1: Description of Shovel Tests
Shovel
Description
Artifacts
Test
1
0-66 cm (0-26 in.) 10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam;
• 1 secondary flake, chert
some gravel at the top; less below
2
0-30 cm (0-12 in.) 10YR 4/4 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam with
• 1 interior flake, quartz
dense gravel content
• 1 flake fragment, chert
3
0-40 cm (0-16 in.) 10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam with
• 1 utilized flake, chert
dense gravel content; sandy at the bottom
• 1 interior flake, chert
• 1 secondary flake, chert
4
0-45 cm (0-18 in.) 10YR 3/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam with
-
dense gravel content; stopped at a gravel/cobble layer
5
0-35 cm (0-14 in.) 10YR 4/4 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam with
-
dense gravel content
6
0-70 cm (0-28 in.) 10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty clay loam
• 1 N.A. ceramic fragments, body, sand
with moderate gravel content
tempered, small; one shows stamped exterior
treatment
• 2 biface fragments, chert
• 1 retouched flake, chert
• 5 interior flakes, chert
• 5 interior flakes, quartz
• 2 secondary flakes, chert
• 3 flake fragments, chert
• 1 flake fragment, quartz
7
0-50 cm (0-20 in.) 10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty clay loam
• 2 interior flakes, quartz
with moderate gravel content; 50-57 cm (20-22 in.) slightly darker
. 1 interior flake, chert
soil; 57-63 cm (22-25 in.) 10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty clay
• 1 secondary flake, quartz
12

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
8
0-30 cm (0-12 in.) 10YR 3/6 (dark yellowish brown) sandy loam
with dense gravel content
• 1 bifacial thinning flake, chert
9
0-57 cm (0-22 in.) 10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty clay loam
• 1 whiteware fragment
with moderate gravel content
• 1 N.A. ceramic fragment, body, crushed quartz
tempered, coil break
• 1 interior flake, quartz
• 1 secondary flake, quartz
• 1 secondary flake, chert
• 1 flake fragment, quartz
• 1 flake fragment, chert
10
0-55 cm 10YR 3/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam with light
• 1 soapstone fragment, flat, two edges
gravel content; stopped at cobble layer
smoothed
• 2 interior flakes, chert
• 1 possible fired clay fragment (mended break),
irregular thickness and no obvious tempering
agent
13

Madison 7 survey memo (PA 23o%o021)
V.�
r . . Ilk
-�
S10
%
., ��� S§ of . . O #0
\ � _. \� ' /�. • 00 IdSST6 §§ , -
�/ 00 S7
, ® � ��
S B �» ,
1
\ �� |54�}\.
�00
. 1.0
/,
_ / 1 S 2 �
S100
�
� \ �-
yt
Figure 13 Aerial photograph showing the shoveIt a locations a!site 31 9 D-- in the northeast quadrant of the study area.
14

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
15

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
The flakes represent three different stone materials (chert, quartz, and quartzite). The chert color
ranges from light gray to dark gray. The dark gray specimens are referred to as Ridge and Valley or
Knox chert because that stone is thought to be part of the Ordovician Knox group formation located
in eastern Tennessee. All three stone types are typical of artifact collections from western North
Carolina. Several of the flakes show signs of having been used as simple, expedient tools called
"bifaces."
Prehistoric ceramics are identified and organized based on several factors including vessel form,
vessel thickness, tempering agent, and surface treatment/decoration. The two sherds from 31MD-
-- are too small to accurately identify any of these. One appears to be sand tempered with a
stamped exterior. The other appears to be tempered with crushed quartz. Also recovered were
two small artifacts produced during the historic period, one piece of clear glass and one "whiteware"
ceramic. Both materials have a wide date range of production and are found on sites all over the
country. These were interpreted as random refuse, not indicative of a historic occupation, and were
discarded.
The artifact density was low to moderate (n=4 per ST). ST 6 did contain a high density of 20 artifacts,
but several of the STs only contained between 1-4 artifacts. The two STs with the most artifacts (STs
6 and 9) were located along the base of the ridge toe that overlooks the floodplain. We suspect the
higher density of artifacts there is a result of them "washing down" and collecting along the base of
that landform. No STs were placed on the top of the ridge toe because it is far outside of the study
area for this bridge replacement.
16

Madison 72 survey memo (PA 23-07-0021)
The soil was consistent across the site. It consisted of between 30-70 centimeters (12-28 in.) dark
yellowish brown sandy loam with a moderate to dense gravel content. (The soils in each ST are
described in Table 1.) The mapped soil type is Dellwood- Redd ies complex, a moderately well
drained soil found on floodplains. The soil survey describes it as a "gravelly to extremely gravely
sand formed from gravelly and cobbly sandy alluvium." The high gravel content suggests an
unstable landform that has been subject to high -velocity floods and/or erosional
deposition/landslides from the surrounding ridges. While prehistoric archaeological sites are found
on landforms with rocky soils, experience suggests that cultural features like post holes, refuse pits,
and burials from prehistoric occupations are rarely found. It is difficult to plow this soil, let alone to
excavate a sizable hole in it, so people looking for a longer -term occupation probably chose more
accommodating places. And, for archaeologists, it is difficult to see evidence of cultural features
because the dense gravel content makes it impractical to get a clean view of the soil stratigraphy.
Site 31MD--- is recommended ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The site
consists of a low- to medium -density scatter of prehistoric artifacts in an agricultural field. The
artifact collection includes lithic reduction flakes from several kinds of stone along with a few small
prehistoric ceramic fragments. The flakes are not indicative of any time in prehistory. Both the
sample of prehistoric ceramics and the individual sherds are too small to determine the period in
which they were produced. Examination of the soil condition shows little potential for or evidence
of intact cultural features or buried soil horizons. Additional work at this location has little potential
to produce information that is considered "important," and no further work is recommended.
Summary and Conclusion
The cultural resources review for the replacement of bridge 72 included an examination of a
topographic map, the Madison County soil survey, an aerial photograph, and records about
previously recorded archaeological sites, previous archaeological surveys, and development
projects that have been reviewed by HPO. The review found landforms within/adjacent to the study
area with some potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. An Archaeological Survey Required
form was submitted on 10/6/2023. An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted in November
2023, and the archaeological survey was conducted on 1/3/2024. The landforms in the northwest,
southwest, and southeast quadrants did not appear to have much potential for archaeological sites.
Ten STs were excavated in the northeast quadrant. The STs identified a prehistoric artifact scatter,
site 31MD---. The site is recommended ineligible for the NRHP, and no additional archaeological
survey is required.
References Cited
Smith, Caleb
2023 Archaeological Survey Required form: Replacement of Bridge 72 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek
Rd.) over Little Foster Creek in Madison County, North Carolina (PA 23-07-0021).
Archaeology Team, Environmental Analysis Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation,
Raleigh. Form submitted on 10/6/2023.
17

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0023
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
na ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.'_
- It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult t4
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: County: Madison
WBSNo: 50844 Document: State Minimum Criteria Checklist
F.A. No: Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge 238lon SR 1339 (Jarrett Cove Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County.
The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager,
is approximately 122 meters (400 ft.) long and 30 meters (100 ft.) wide. The project is state funded
and will require federal permits. No easements will be required. The project will require federal
permits, so this review is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
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:
see attached February 2024 archaeological survey results memo
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes
have expressed an interest: the Cherokee Nation; the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; the United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; the Catawba Indian Nation; the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the
process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
1 of 2

Project Tracking No.
23-07-0023
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
Other:
Signed:
CALEB SMITH
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
® Photos ❑Correspondence
2/26/2024
Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2 of 2

Archaeological Survey for the Replacement of Bridge 381
on SR 1339 (Jarrett Cove Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek,
Madison County, North Carolina
(PA 23-07-0023)
Caleb Smith (2/26/2024)
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge 381 on SR
1339 (Jarrett Cove Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County (Figures 1-2). The Area of
Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based on the study area provided by the project manager, is approximately
122 meters (400 ft.) long and 30 meters (100 ft.) wide. No design plans have been developed for the
project at this time. The project is state funded and will require federal permits, so this review is
conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Cultural Resources Review
This project was submitted for cultural resources review in September 2023. The review included an
examination of a topographic map, the Madison County web -based soil survey, an aerial photograph,
and an examination of records about previously recorded sites, previous archaeological surveys, and
previous environmental reviews available on the web -based GIS server of the North Carolina Office
of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. The review found that there are landforms with the potential
for prehistoric archaeological sites within and adjacent to the study area, and an Archaeological
Survey Required form was submitted on 10/11/2023. Also, an archaeological reconnaissance of the
project was conducted on 11/28/2023. The bridge is oriented approximately north to south, and the
study area will be described as quadrants (i.e., the northwest quadrant is the north side of the creek
and the west side of the road).
The topographic map (White Rock) shows the study area is in a narrow creek valley (Figure 3). On
the south side of the bridge, SR 1339 runs along the east side of Watermelon Branch which joins Big
Laurel Creek in the southwest quadrant. The landform in the southwest quadrant appears to be the
base of a ridge. The landforms in the northwest and northeast quadrants appear to be narrow sections
of level floodplain. SR 1339 joins SR 1318 at the north end of the study area, and the north side of
SR 1318 is shown as the base of a ridge. The landform in the southeast quadrant is a somewhat wider
section of level floodplain. In this region, level floodplains, if well drained, have a moderate to high
potential for archaeological sites. Narrow sections of floodplain at the base of steep ridges have a
lower potential due to disturbance from flooding and man-made creek stabilization. The topographic
map depicts the study area as being cleared land. It shows two structures near the south end of the
southeast quadrant. SR 1339 is depicted as an unimproved road (dotted lines).
The Madison County web soil survey shows two soil types in the study area. The soil at the north
end of the study area is Unison loam (15-30% slopes), a well -drained soil found on stream terraces.
The soil in the southern 3/4 of the study area is Reddies sandy loam (0-3% slopes), occasionally
flooded, a moderately well -drained soil found on floodplains. Landforms with well -drained soil
adjacent to streams have a moderate to high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites.
1

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
3

112-SRO-1r.
t*

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
The aerial photograph (with elevation contours) shows the study area is cleared in all four quadrants.
The northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants appear to be pastures or hay fields. The southwest
quadrant is occupied by the Watermelon Branch creek bed. A drainage ditch runs along the east side
of the road in the southeast quadrant, and a structure is located at the south edge of the study area.
The elevation contours show the pastures/hay fields in the northwest, northeast, and southeast
quadrants are level landforms. The southwest quadrant is a moderately sloped ridge.
A review of information on the OSA's web -based GIS service shows there are no previously recorded
archaeological sites within or adjacent to the study area. The study area is not within any projects
that have been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). The study area is not within
any areas that have been previously surveyed for archaeological sites.
Archaeological Reconnaissance and Survey
An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted on 11/28/2023 by NCDOT archaeologist Caleb
Smith. The reconnaissance examined each quadrant of the bridge replacement to determine the
archaeological potential of the landforms within the study area. The study area for this project is
narrow and includes only 15 meters (50 ft.) from the centerline on each side of the road. The
archaeological survey was conducted on 1/3/2024 by OSA Western Office archaeologist Rachael
Denton and NCDOT archaeologist Caleb Smith. The survey consisted of the excavation of shovel
test pits (STs) on the landforms within the study area that appeared to have some potential for
prehistoric archaeological sites.
In the southwest quadrant SR 1339 runs along the east side of a small creek (Watermelon Branch)
which joins Big Laurel Creek next to the bridge. The study area includes a narrow road shoulder,
streambed, and a slope up to a ridge toe on the west bank (Figure 5). It is probable the creek was
realigned to run along the west side of the road when the bridge was constructed in 1956. The
landform has no potential for archaeological sites and no STs were excavated. There may have once
been a structure on the ridge toe on the west side of the creek. The landform is level and cleared of
trees (although overgrown now) (Figure 6). There appears to be an old driveway or access road near
the bank of Big Laurel Creek. We suspect an earlier version of SR 1339 used to turn west and cross
Watermelon Branch at this point, then run west along the south bank of Big Laurel Creek for a
distance before crossing it farther downstream.
In the northwest quadrant SR 1339 joins SR 1318 (Big Laurel Rd.) approximately 25 meters (83 ft.)
north of the bridge. The landform in the study area is a narrow strip of floodplain between the creek
and SR 1318, and then a steeply sloped ridge on the north side of the road (Figure 7). The floodplain
is currently a fallow field. In his region, narrow strips of floodplain at the bases of steep ridges are
often unstable landforms shaped by regular flooding because there is no place for the floodwaters to
go. Also, in the mountains where level land is at a premium these sections have usually been used
for generations for agriculture, parking, and for storage buildings. In most cases, the land alongside
roads and streams has been disturbed by road construction and maintenance, as well as stream
stabilization efforts. No STs were excavated in this quadrant.
5

Madison 381 study area
_ Watermelon Branch
Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
Big Laurel Creek
j
>L
Barn
Figure 4: Aerial photograph (with elevation contours) of the study area.
2

r r,
a
r
I

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
The landform in the northeast quadrant is a narrow (18-meter [60-ft.] wide) strip of level floodplain
from the creek north to SR 1318, and then a steep ridge side on the north side of SR 1318 (Figures 8-
9). The area on the north side of SR 1318 is occupied by a house, yard, and outbuildings. The
floodplain may sometimes be used for agriculture or pasture, but is currently a storage area for farm
equipment, automobiles, boats, and Recreational Vehicles/campers. No STs were excavated in this
quadrant.
The landform in the southeast quadrant is a level floodplain from the bridge south for approximately
46 meters (150 ft.), and the base of a ridge toe from 46-76 meters (150-250 ft.). The floodplain is
currently used as a fallow hay field (Figure 10). A drainage ditch runs along the east side of SR 1339.
An old barn is located on the ridge toe at the south end of the study area, approximately 53 meters
(175 ft.) south of the bridge (Figure 11). There is a plowed garden plot on the base of the ridge behind
(east of) the barn (Figure 12). An inspection of the plowed ground did not identify any artifacts.
There is an abandoned house in an overgrown lot on the ridge slope to the south of the barn,
approximately 91 meters (300 ft.) south of the bridge (Figure 13). There is an old storage shed/ farm
building south of the house, approximately 183 meters (600 ft.) south of the bridge. A comparison
of two editions of the topographic map (1939 and 1978) shows the house was there in 1939. The barn
is shown on the 1978 edition.
Three STs were excavated in the southeast quadrant. The study area is narrow so the STs were placed
within 15 meters (50 ft.) of the centerline. The locations of the STs are shown on the photographs in
Figures 10 and 11 and on the aerial photograph in Figure 14. ST1 was located approximately 15
meters (50 ft.) south of the creek and 10 meters (33 ft.) east of the road.

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
Bridge 381
T1
ST 2
£x
ML
4l]
T
Figure 10: North view of the southeast quadrant showing the shovel test locations
(January 2024).
10

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
11

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
*,wpm
a4k
t
j - rt � '•3.
F � � � _ J •4 _ ~jf
r
ST 1 -ice
t
7 .
4 ST 2
ST 3
Figure 14: Aerial photograph of the study area showing shovel test locations and
field conditions.
12

Madison 381 survey memo (PA 23-07-0023)
The soil in the ST consisted of approximately 35 centimeters (14 in.) of dark brown silty loam with a
moderate gravel content. The excavation stopped at a dense cobble layer. ST 2 was placed
approximately 15 meters (50 ft.) south of ST1 and 10 meters (33 ft.) east of the road. The soil in this
ST consisted of approximately 60 centimeters (24 in.) of dark brown silty loam with a very low gravel
content. The soil was sandier near the bottom, possibly indicative of flood deposits. ST3 was located
approximately 15 meters (50 ft.) south of ST2 and 15 meters (50 ft.) east of the road. The soil
consisted of approximately 60 centimeters (24 in.) of dark brown silty loam with a few rocks. No
more STs were excavated to the south of ST3 because the landform rises from the floodplain to the
base of the ridge toe on which the barn is situated. No artifacts were found in any of the STs. Also,
an examination of the plowed garden behind (south of) the barn did not identify any artifacts.
Summary and Conclusion
The cultural resources review for the replacement of bridge 381 included an examination of a
topographic map, the Madison County soil survey, an aerial photograph, and records about previously
recorded archaeological sites, previous archaeological surveys, and development projects that have
been reviewed by HPO. The review found landforms within/adjacent to the study area with some
potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. An Archaeological Survey Required form was
submitted on 10/11/2023. An archaeological reconnaissance was conducted in November 2023, and
the archaeological survey was conducted on 1/3/2024. The landforms in the southwest, northwest,
and northeast quadrants did not appear to have much potential for archaeological sites. Three STs
were excavated in the southeast quadrant. The STs did not contain any artifacts. No additional
archaeological survey is required.
References Cited
Smith, Caleb
2023 Archaeological Survey Required form: Replacement of Bridge 381 on SR 1339 (Jarrett's Cove
Rd.) over Big Laurel Creek in Madison County, North Carolina (PA 23-07-0023).
Archaeology Team, Environmental Analysis Unit, N.C. Department of Transportation,
Raleigh. Form submitted on 10/11/2023.
13

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
23-07-0021
t' HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
a NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
f 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-0251
County:
Madison
WBS No.:
50844.1.1
Document
T e:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
Permits :
X Yes No
Permit
Typ e s :
USACE
ProiectDescription: Replace Bridge Number 72 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Road) over
Foster 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 17 August
2023 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE).
Madison County current GIs mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated an APE
of woodland and cleared fields with domestic and agricultural resources dating mostly from the
1950s to the 1970s (viewed 17 August 2023). Pre-1973 resources are unexceptional, largely
altered examples of their types. Bridge No. 72, built in 1971, 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 17 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 significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the nroiect
area: APE equates with the study area provided in the review request (see attached). The
county comprehensive architectural survey (1984) and later studies include no properties in the
APE. 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
23 August 2023
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.

c.
i kF
I i
+1044
.011,
i 15.7 J.
+ik"i3O
Project Study Area Map
Q Project Study Area ` Madison County BR-0251
Streams f Bridge No. 72 Replacement
Parcels rr �. 0 t NCDOT Division 13
Madison County
N .-
'� d:d
o 100 200 GANNETT
a^ 4 FLEMING
v Feet
��
gin" July 2023
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
23-07-0022
t' HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
a NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
f 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-0251
County:
Madison
WBS No.:
50844.1.1
Document
T e:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
Permits :
X Yes No
Permit
Typ e s :
USACE
ProiectDescription: Replace Bridge Number 74 on SR 1341 (Foster Creek Road) over
Foster 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 17 August
2023 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE).
Madison County current GIs mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated a
mostly wooded APE with domestic and agricultural resources dating from the first half of the
twentieth century and the 1980s (viewed 17 August 2023). Pre-1973 resources are
unexceptional examples of their types. Bridge No. 74, built in 1971, 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 17 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 significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the nroiect
area: APE equates with the study area provided in the review request (see attached). The
county comprehensive architectural survey (1984) and later studies include no properties in the
APE. 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
23 August 2023
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.

• � � -,.ire i; � .
Brill a No.
A"
' SR-1341 . ► .
L
19
i
Project Study Area Map
Q Project Study Area fwa soy co,.nry BR-0251
— Streams - " ~ % ' Bridge No. 74 Replacement
Parcels '� •, r NCDOT a1VlSlorl 13
Madison County
N ry 40GANNETT
t
0 100 200 F EMIMG
Feet 0►Istevf
July 2023
Historic Architecture andLandscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
�— 23-07-0023
CGV!�fAll HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
L+6 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-0251
County:
Madison
WB.S' No.:
50844.1.1
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No. 381 over Big Laurel Creek on SR 1339 (Jarrett Cover 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
sketbLu Reap December 12, 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-0251 Bridge No 381 APE
Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2

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

`..— -
N.
�k
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area `
Madison County BR-0251
Streams SA - ' Bridge No. 74 Replacement
(Foster Creek) .r N,' NCDOT Division 13
Parcels �{' ~t Madison County
rt J F NORTH C
Figure 4
N' Sao qqp
y GANNETT
0 25 50 ` fAL
Feet Asneviii FLEMING 9, <P
�' � "rOFTRPII October 2023

BQ- oast
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: & U 73 Pro)eat►site: 3r 5 6 ou y Latikuae: 3s'" 93
1
Evaluator. d N County: Hacks ,�,/ �6
V 1"h �S l��'S a n/ i Longitude: --5'Mi
Total Points: Stream Determination {cir Other SAC �R� ��
Stream is at least intermittent '3 �, � Ephemeral Intermittent orennii � e g Quad Name:
if t 19 or renniaf if t 3t}'
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = , 5 Absen
I* Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
_
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
rip 1p�ol se uence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
D
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
6, Depositional bars or benches
0
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
8. Headcuts
9. Grade control
-
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel I
s artificial 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
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Biolo Subtotal
No=0
1
1
1
2
2
0.5
1
1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 j
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) —� 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2
22. Fish 0 1
23. Crayfish 0.5 1
24. Amphibians_.........,......_�..�.-..�..�......... � 0.5 1
25. Algae 0.5---
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75- OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identifte using other methods See p. 35 of manual
Notes: r,_'U
Sketch.
3
3
3
3
15
1.5
3
1.5
15
0
3
3
1.5
i5
1-5
15

NLTMT73nridge Habitat Assessment Form updated 3/23/21
Bat Habitat Assessment Form
_11 1 NCDOT Bridges
Observers: dU�N 7�Io m&tS TIP or DOT project number: Pt — o2 571
Date: _ Bridge Road (Name of facility carried)
County: l ;�./ �.4q Bridge Number: �• _ ___
Crossing - ame the fea ure intersected): _ . 7"v r
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial Suburban/Residential
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest Jr.f)
Woody Wetland/Herb Wetland/Open Water
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? N/A ye 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+ 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 o
yes
ro,
Abandoned mines yes no
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 water.
no N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown yes n
Guard rails none concrete timber
metal
Deck type concrete metal timber
open grid
Beam type none concrete teel
timber
End/back wall type concret timber masonry
Creosote evidence
< es
no
Suitable roosting crevices present ( % - 1%" wi( e)
yes
0
Deck drains
yes
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water (ft): V
Bridge alignment N E/W NW/SE
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge hig 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):

f r M
y
Y
s _ •` 1
r •j 1
cox r. SR-1341 yP •r«
06
i Brdge
- ... �.
1 ' y fit ,r •; ! � �' ._+
41
r, 1r t '
MW
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area .,
Madison County BR-0251
Streams f Bridge No. 72 Replacement
SA (Foster Creek) ,- �,'NCDOT Division 13
SB (Little Foster Creek) f' �L Madison County
Parcels FNORTHC Figure 4
N , - Pam°
r ' GANNETT
0 25 50 � � � � FLEMING
Feet Ashevill
- OFTRpNSe September 2023

8). - a,2sl
NC DWQ Stream identification Form. Version 4.l1
Date: t3 [Projecftteap, 5 00 9 ;�_ Latitude•3S ,2y
Evaluator: County:� Longitude: ���Q?y�74o m 6
StrewTotaPoints: Stream Determination (circle one) Other 5+4r►�s C
Stream !sat least i i arnt0* Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial e g Quad Name:
if 2 19 or perenniat if t 30' [ -.. - -....
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Jj
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
2, Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate
5 Active relict floodplain
6 Depositional bars or benches
7 Recent alluvial deposits
8- Headcuts
9 Grade control
10. Natural vallep
11. Second or greater order channel
sarGficiai ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual -_ -'
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =)
12, Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1
14. Leaf litter _
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16.Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C.-Biology (Subtotal = __24)
--- -- 0 -
1
2
2
0
0
1
1 µ
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
0.5
0
1
No = O
0
1
2
1 ---
2 -
_
0 �
05
1
1
- No = 0 ----
3
3
3
15
15
3
1.5
15
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
I 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenlhos (note diversity and abundance)
02
0
i
1
2
0
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish r
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
24. Amphibians
1�
0.5 1 1.5
0.5 _�- 1 1.5
0.5 - 1 1.5
FACW = 0.75. OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
25. Algae
26. Wetland plants in streambed
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
— . - _ r •.V� .t�l BSc r.,
Sketch:

NcD&BMridge Habitat Assessment Form Updated 3/23/21
AOBat Habitat Assessment Form
NCDOT Bridges
Observers: �d /V S TIP or DOT project number: 8k ~
Date: o Bridge Road (Name of falcilility carried) OS4 r-al►�U`�.,
County: .c Bridge Numbgr: A} 7-406 77,
Crossing ameameof the mature intersected):
% Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commerciale Suburban/Residential
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest 509
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 7+ hours
Presence of. In project footprint
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
Caves yes
6P
yes
n
Abandoned mines yes
o
yes
n
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description,
an location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A river
team/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
no
Guard rails none concrete
timber
metal
Deck type concrete metal
imber
open grid
Beam type none concrete
steel
timber
End/back wall type concrete timbe
masonry
Creosote evidence
es
no
Suitable roosting crevices present (%: - 1%" wit e)
yes
Deck drains
yes
1
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water (ft):
Bridge alignment N/S E W
NW/SE
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge igh 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):

4S
- •ram S � !•�
�.� - -''- ••tom �tQ SR-1318
. Brid e-N6. 38,1 };
� SR-1339 •7— -
.� + .`
"
r� , rC fx, iy' ' •
" r
Jurisdictional Features Map
Project Study Area `
Madison County BR-0251
Streams SA/SB/SC/SD - ' Bridge No. 381 Replacement
(Big Laurel Creek) .r N,' NCDOT Division 13
Parcels �{' t Madison County
(J ' OF NORTHO Figure 4
N
GANNETT
0 25 50A _ FLEMING
Feet Asnevill tP
k ' `TOFTRANSeO October 2023

f�r _ 6751
NC DWO Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3 - ProjecUSite. �, - * Latitude: CGC
Evaluator: d�/fNCounty: v� t�her
ngitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination (cir j�� jR me
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent erenniQuad Na-me� -
if a 1�rennial d 2t 30'
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = l6 _,
I' Continuity of channel bed and bank u _._
Weak
Strong
3
Absent
0_
0
Moderate
1
2
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1
-
3 In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
. maple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0
1
5 Active/relict €loodplain
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
_
2
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
.0
3
1 5
1-6 1
9. Grade control
1
10. Natural valley
0
1
11 Second or greater order channel ___ _ No = 0 _ Yes - 3
artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
8. H drol Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 i i 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter _ _ 1 l 0.5 - 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 05 �- 1 _ ; 1 5 {
16. Organic debris lines or piles 05 1 1 5 '
17. Soif-based evidence of high water table? l No = 0 es =
C. Biolo Subtotal = V5 i
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1 t
0 ,
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2 y
1
2
2
1
0
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
3
1.5
22. Fish
0
23. Crayfish
0.5
� 0-5
1
1
- 1
1.5
24. Amphibians
1.5
25. AI ae
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
_
FACW = 0 75, OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes:
Sketch:

NCOUT rMridge Habitat Assessment Form Updated 3/23/21
Bat Habitat Assessment Form
_ 1 NCDOT Bridges
Observers: do4'. 7woYPI -s TIP or DOT project number: 6t — U.ZSt ►
Date: V 93 Bridge Road (Name of facility carried) SCE 13CI+��RoI)
County: &6&aa Bridge umber: & 5032FI
Crossing ame of t feature intersected):. _. rAM
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi. Urban/Commercial Suburban/Residential-5-
of project footprint (approx) Herb/Shrub/Grassland Agricultural
Deciduous/Evergreen/Mixed Forest 3 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 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+ hours
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >S"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
ff large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of:
In project footprint
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
Caves
yes
yes
Abandoned mines
yes
yes
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos,
description,
and location.
Major water source in project footprint N/A
rive
stream/creek
pond lake
swamp
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non-sta gnant, s moot
or sla
k water?
no
N/A
Structure specific questions:
Artificial lighting unknown
yes
o
Guard rails none
concrete
timbe
metal
Deck type concrete
metal
timb
open grid
Beam type none
concrete
steel
timber
End/back wall type concrete
imber
masonry
Creosote evidence
es
no
Suitable roosting crevices present (%: -1%" wi(
e)
yes
Deck drains
yes
S
Max height of bridge deck above ground or water (ft):
Bridge alignment
E/W
NW/SE
NE/SW
Human disturbance under bridge ig
med
low
none
toln
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):

04
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. I SHEET NO.
•
PROPOSED 4' BRCDOE
CAP IY� PILE
3.5'
uw-)
CLASS II RIP RAP SLOPING
ABUTMENT {TYP.j
Y THICK
FA
UNCLASSIFIED STRUCTURE EXCAVATION
BAOTILL WIKATIVE MATERIAL I'
FLOOCPIAIN ELEY-
COIR FIRER MATFING
PLACED TO PROPOSED TOO
PROPOSED TOD
EXISTING CHANNEL RANK
BEGIN RIP RAP STABILIZATION
AND NATIVE BACKFILL
AT MIN. 5'SETBACK
FROM PROPOSED TOM
nENDO
MACK OF CLASS II RIP RAP
CB(NT KEYED IN ELEY.
'Al FOR
TIONIOGE LIMITS ONLY)ELEV.
DETAIL NOTES:
I, FOR USE WHERE EXISTING ABUTMENTS AND BULKHEADS ARE TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
2. EXCAVATE TO FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS SPECIFIED ON PRELIMINARY GENERAL DRAWINGS
3. FLOOOPLAIN STABILIZATION TO BEGIN WITH A 5' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPOSED TDB
4. FOR ALL LOCATIONS OF CLASS II RIPRAP, FILL VOIDS WITH CLASS R RIP RAP
S. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED OVER LIMITS OF FLOODPLAIN EXCAVATION
AND AREAS BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL
r�
ltq0
8 �oo/
—L — PC StG. /0 f13a33
RN/ SHEET NO. _
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
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-)

11+70
11+80
11+90 12+00
12+10
12+20 12+30 12+40 12+50 12+60 12+70
0
r
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
Cn
co
0
C
V
C
O
Ln
Ln +
M L
r-- N
C9
/ E
co ._
U
(D
O
L
n
/
U)
4-
C+
Ea
U;
U
O
U
O 4-
O
a �
+ o
O U
C i
Q
O
U
T �
�a
4- (_0
C�
�o
�o
a�
(1)
C CV
H- O
c)) CV
/ O
3 r1r)
d
2640
2630
2620
2610
(+)3059797 (+)2057827
P.I. STA. 12+10.00
EL = 2633.86'
VC = 120'
GRADE DATA -L-
LIMITS OF UNCLASSIFIED
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION —
FILL FACE @ END BENT 1
STA.12+03.34 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. 2633.50
EL.2632±7 TOP OF FTG.
EL. 2626.50--\
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD : R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
1'-6"
(TYPo)
EL. 2633 ±
SPAN A FILL FACE (q) END BENT 2
STA.12+40.47 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. 2634.61
LOW CHORD
PROP. EL. 2631.64 EL. 2634 ±
EXIST. EL. 2631.15
LOW CHORD EXP.
PROP. EL. 2632.60
EXIST. EL. 2631.83
EXISTING
SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYPo) APPROXIMATE
WATER SURFACE
PROP. GRADE EL. 2628 ±
ELo 2629 ± EL. 2629 ±
END BENT 1
EL. 2628 ±
SECTION ALONG -L-
SECTIONS 0� END BENTS ARE AT RIGHT ANGLES
PLAN
APPROXIMATE
NATURAL GROUND
TOP OF FTG.7
� EL. 2630.50 EL. 2634±
PROP. GRADE
ELo 2630 ±
END BENT 2
(FOOTINGS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
TEMPORARY SHORING
(TYP.)
PRELIMINARY PL PLANS
NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT NO.
MADISON
STATION°
SHEET 1 OF 3
BR-0251
12+24,3
7
COUNTY
-L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 560074
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
FOSTER CREEK ON
SR 1341 (FOSTER CREEK ROAD)
H M H 7 7 One Glenwood Avenue DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED NO. BY:
RGlelgh,NC 276o3 FINAL UNLESS ALL
-IF L 1P= 919-420-7660 SIGNATURES COMPLETED
IM J J S NC Llc. No. F-0270
REVISIONS
DATE: I N0. BY:
SHEET NO.
DATE: S-1
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

BENCHMARK:BENCHMARK INFORMATION NOT IN SURVEY REPORT
NOTESo.
ASSUMED LIVE LOAD = HL-93 ALTERNATE LOADING
m
/
+co
c
0
n
0
CD
n
U)
a�
.L
m
L
T
r)
E
co
/
C
V
L
O
Ln
/
Ln +
rn L
aD
/ E
co ._
U
N
O
L
n
/
co
c +
a�
E a
DU�
Oil
O
+ �
1 U
O q-
a L
O
+ o
O U
C
4
a E
O
U
T 7;
�a
C CV
(Do
-qo
a�
C CV
4- O
U CV
/ O
a�
T0 S
TEMPORARY SHORING
(TYPo)
18"PLASTIC PIPE
EXISTING — --_
STRUCTURE
tz- ——�
l i �
\\ \ GRAVEL DRIVEWAY `♦
\\ BRIDGE ID \\\
\ STA. 12+24.37 -L- \
\\\ \\ -L- NO OUTLET
�40 °-20'-52048"
\ -DET-
11+00 °
TAN.TO CURVE
I � �
I�
DETOUR BRIDGE
STA. 11+07.71 -DET-
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION, SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS°
5 i/2„
Qo
n
�n
Ln
--
1,-1i/2„
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER OF
RECORD R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
LOCATION SKETCH
13'-8"
4"x8" TIMBER DECKING
4"x12" NAILER
(TYPo)
26'-3" DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
25'-4" (CLEAR ROADWAY)
CHORD
VARIES
-L-
:el n1lm983V0aI
12 SPA. 2 2'-0"CTS. = 24'-0"
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(13 LINES OF W12x58 I BEAMS)
11'-8"
I\
u
0.01 ---
5 i/2 „
AWS
W12x58
(TYPo)
1,-1i/2„
*MIN. 2�/2" AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ISO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
TIMBER RAIL
(TYPo)
THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS°
THIS BRIDGE IS LOCATED IN SEISMIC ZONE 10
PROJECT NO.
BR-0251
IVIHUIJVIV r.OiiNrY
STATION°
SHEET 2 OF 3
12+24.37 —L—
REPLACES BRIDGE 560074
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
FOSTER CREEK ON
SR 1341 (FOSTER CREEK ROAD)
r�
One Glenwood Avenue
ll_--:� A-\ m H E U
\_'] Suite 900
Ralelgh,NC 27603
919-420-7660 NC Llc.No. F 0270
M KF
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED
FINAL UNLESS ALL
SIGNATURES COMPLETED
REVISIONS
SHEET NO.
S-2
NO.
BY:
DATE:
NO.
BY:
DATE:
�
�
TOTAL
SHE3ETS
4

Ln
CV
O
i
m
F
C
U
n
Cl)
r
O
0
Q
O
co
N
L
D
U
D
L
m
O
U)
N
.L
m
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
O
V
co
0
C
v
L
O
i
Ln
L +
L
C9
/ E
co ._
U
(D
O
L
n
U)
4-
C +
(D_
E a
D U�
U
O
% 4-
U
O 4-
Q �
i O
O U
C i
E Q
O
U
T Q
N
4- LO
C CV
O O
Ln
� O
a
i
N
C CV
4- O
U) C\1
/ O
3 r1r)
a

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)
74
12+00-12+40
Proposed Bridge
< 0.01
< 0.01
14
74
12+00-12+40
Detour Bridge
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
< 0.01
14
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

LINESSIFI{P SIRUGNR{ IXU>'aFlPN
LLCKSED a' BRIME
LL FLOODPLMN ELII
C[-0 ro PROPOSED iOR
PROPOSED ME
E-�i .... e."c
ITYP 1
SSGM NP w $1pFILL
MN
ADM"PROPOSEDRTOM
I L—K OF CIL— II RIP RAP
10 f1 - KEISD IN fLEY,
Cl/. ICI RGyRT FOR
CUSS I RI P MP SLOPING
1'R11CK ��
enPGE LMSiis PEni�7N
FNpeeOHROUGu
Nl K[vFp IN
DETAIL NOTES:
1. FOR USE WHERE EXISTING ABUTMENTS AND BULKHEADS ARE TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
2. EXCAVATE TO FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS SPECIFIED ON PRELIMINARY GENERAL DRAWINGS
3. FLOODPLAIN STABILIZATION TO BEGIN WITH A S' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPOSED TOB
4. FOR ALL LOCATIONS OF CLASS II RIPRAP, FILL VOIDS WITH CLASS B RIP RAP
5. 00IF F18ER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED OVER LIMITS OF FLOCOPLAIN EXCAVATION
AND AREAS BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL
PC StG.10+83,78 _-7
POT Sta. /O OOa00 I
w
PT StG.13+50a54
POT StG.14+20.58
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
BR-0251 (560072)
RN/ SHEET NO.
OADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DEWATERING TEMPORARY SURFACE
WATER IMPACTS (-L-)
BANK STABILIZATION PERMANENT
s
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS (-L-)
ONSITE DETOUR TEMPORARY SURFACE
_ �
WATER IMPACTS (-DET-)

11+50 11+60 11+70 11+80 11+90 12+00 12+10
12+20
12+30
12+40
12+50
12+60
12+70
0
CD
n
O
/
0
a
U
co
(D
L
U
D
L
rn
O
L
a�
E
CV
O
CV
co
0
/
c
V
L
O
Ln
/
Ln +
M L
co ._
U
a�
O
L
n
/
U)
4—
c +
(D
E n
D c;
Oil
O
� U
O q-
a �
O
+ o
O U
C i
� Q
O
U
T �
�a
CV
C Ln
no
a�
C CV
4- O
CT C\1
/ O
d
2400
FILL FACE Cad END BENT 1
STA. 11+91.28 -L-
GRADE POINT EL. 2392.16
2390
LOW CHORD
EL. 2392± PROP.EL. 2390.14
EXIST. EL. 2390.12
PROPOSED GRADE
EL. 2388.50 (LEVEL)
2380 (TYP.)
HORIZONTAL CURVE DATA -L
P.I.
STA. 12+17.17
L =
1 ° 20' 16.9" (LT)
D =
0 ° 30' 05.7"
L =
266.76'
T =
133.39'
R =
11,423.09
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD : R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
FIX.
END BENT 1
(+) 200000
STA. 12+07.00
EL. = 2392.48
GRADE DATA -L-
SPAN A
(TYPo)
EL. 2392 ± ELo 2393 ±
APPROXIMATE
WATER SURFACE
EL. 2388 ±
EL. 2387 ±
EXISTING
SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYPo)
SECTION ALONG -L-
LIMITS OF UNCLASSIFIED
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (TYPo)
FILL FACE Cad END BENT 2
STA.12+23.45 -L- APPROXIMATE
EXP. GRADE POINT EL. 2392.80 NATURAL GROUND
LOW CHORD �EL. 2393±
fl PROP. EL. 2390.63
EXIST. EL. 2390.51
7" DIA. MICROPILES
(TYPo)
END BENT 2
SECTIONS C�j END BENTS ARE AT RIGHT ANGLES
I.rLHJJ 11 I
RIP RAP (TYPo)
PLAN
(PILES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
(Al nN(, ARM
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
RY SHORING (TYP.)
1342
PROJECT NO.
MADISON
STATION°
SHEET 1 OF 3
BR-0251
COUNTY
12+07.37 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 560072
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
LITTLE FOSTER CREEK ON
SR 1341 (FOSTER CREEK ROAD)
GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue suite 900 DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED NO. BY:
Ralelgh,NC 27603 FINAL UNLESS ALL
PEENING 919-420-7660 SIGNATURES COMPLETED
NC Llc. No. F-0270i�
REVISIONS
DATE: I N0. BY:
SHEET NO.
DATE: S-1
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

a
b
H
r
H
r
I
r
0
CD
r
L
(D
r)
E
CV
O
CV
co
/
c
V
L
O
Ln
Ln +
M L
r-- aD
/ E
co ._
U
N
O
L
n
/
co
+_
c +
a�
E n
DU�
Oil
O
A O
O C�_
a �
+ Oo
O U
C i
Q
O
U
T <
0a
C Ln
a� Cr
�o
a�
(D
C CV
H- O
U) CV
/ O
a
BENCHMARK:BENCHMARK INFORMATION NOT IN SURVEY REPORT
TO SR 1318
C
CLASS II
RIP RAP
(TYP.)
1
k
Q
w
H
J
Q
I
I
1
I
I\
1
I
► W
► C/)
' DETOUR BRIDGE W �� C) 0
WQ:1
STA. 10+92 ± -DET- i
oo0 J oo�o /� ,►
/
� TAN. TO CURVE �
�__ BRIDGE ID
STA. 12+07.37 -L- /
EXISTING
STRUCTURE
FOSTER CREEK
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION, SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS°
5 1/2„
Qo n
Ln --
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD : R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
/
l
11+00 EXIST. 18" CMP
TEMPORARY SHORING
1200-01'-53063 -L
DETOUR TAN. TO CURVE
STRUCTURE
LOCATION SKETCH
11'-10�/2"
4"x8" TIMBER DECKING
4"x12" NAILER
(TYPo)
26'-O" DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
25'-1" (CLEAR ROADWAY)
-L-
[el l 1 963rlII
CD 2'-0" CTS. = 24'-0" 12 SPA.
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(13 LINES OF W12x58 I BEAMS)
0.01 ---
PROPOSED 18" CMP
13'-2i/2„
-DET-
t
TO SR 1342
AWS
W12x58
(TYPo)
�Y'II
1'-0"
*,MIN. 2/2" AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
5 1/2„
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
TIMBER RAIL
(TYP.)
NOTES.0
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.
MADISON COUNTY
STATION°
SHEET 2 OF 3
BR-0251
12+07.37 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 560072
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
LITTLE FOSTER CREEK ON
SR 1341 (FOSTER CREEK ROAD)
GANNETT One Glenwood Avenue
- suite 900
Ralelgh,NC 27603
919-420-7660
FLEMING NC Llc. No. F-0270
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED
FINAL UNLESS ALL
SIGNATURES COMPLETED
REVISIONS
SHEET NO.
S-2
N0.
BY:
DATE:
N0.
BY:
DATE:
TOTAL
SHEETS
3
�
4

25'-31/4" ± DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE,
/
co
c
0
CD
0
CD
r
L
r)
CV
O
CV
co
0
/
c
V
L
O
L_n
/
Ln +
M L
r-- a)
/ E
co ._
U
N
O
L
n
/
co
4-
Ea
U;
U
O
� U
O C�_
I �
I
a �
O
+ o
O U
� I
��
�_U
Q
O
U
T �
�a
�o
�o
a�
I
C c\1
q- O
U) CV
/ O
d
STREAM
FLOW
24'-4" ± CLEAR ROADWAY
+1 AT�
CL i it -L- & EXIST. BRG. li i CD
O � I I >
I I Q
I II II
I k I
",-______________________________________________________________________________ __ I 00
I l-----��----T--- 7--r�---�-T-- -�-- --- -T-----��---TT-----��---T�-J I \I
I I L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L I I
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
12" ROLLED BEAM (TYP.)
EXISTING
REMOVE DOWNSTREAM F'
PORTION OF EXISTING i1
BRIDGE ;G CUT EXIST.
1 DECKS
I
I
I I L--- r r--- -T---F -�--ram--- -T - L -�-
--1 r r r I
STAGE I
SUPERSTRUCTURE
10'-10"
12'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
i
I `-DET-
12'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
TEMP. TRAFFIC
SHIFT
II
kI
I
--- � -T---�r --------� ------ �- I I
r r7­1 r r r ir
I I I I I r--
I
TEMPORARY
SHORING
STAGE I
4'-1"
TEMP. TRAFFIC
CONE
T7] REMOVE DOWNSTREAM
PORTION OF EXISTING
-L- �I BRIDGE
I
I
II
k I
---------------------------------------r�
---- -T---� - -- --- L ---F -T L --- i T- I I
Ir r r I r r -I I
TEMPORARY
SHORING
STAGE II
I I
� REMOVE TEMPORARY
BRIDGE RAIL
EEILWWWWWWWW�fl
DRAWN BY :
J. HARRIS
DATE :
1/2024
CHECKED BY :
J.YANNA000NE
DATE :
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD : R.NELSON
DATE :
1/2024
STAGE III
STAGE I
SUPERSTRUCTURE
TEMP. TRAFFIC
CONE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
STAGE I:
1. SHIFT TRAFFIC TO DOWNSTREAM SIDE USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES.
20 CUT DECK, REMOVE DECK AND BEAMS 1-8.RE-PURPOSE UPSTREAM SIDE TIMBER RAIL FOR THE LEFT
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 12'-0"CLEAR ROADWAY ON TEMPORARY
BEARINGS. ATTACH TEMPORARY TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
20 SHIFT TRAFFIC TO STAGE II TEMPORARY DETOUR.
3. COMPLETELY REMOVE REMAINING EXSTING BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCT STAGE II SUBSTRUCTURE.
STAGE III:
1. USE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO TEMPORARILY HALT TRAFFIC°
20 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.
20 COMPLETE REMAINING WORK REQUIRED INCLUDING PAVEMENT AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS°
3. REMOVE TEMORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVICES°
2r'-c" nFC'K WTnTH (0I 1T TO 0I 1T)
FINAL
PROJECT N0.
MADISON
STATION°
SHEET 3 OF 3
BR-0251
COUNTY
12+07.37 —L—
REPLACES BRIDGE 560072
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
LITTLE FOSTER CREEK ON
SR 1341 (FOSTER CREEK 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-0270i�
REVISIONS
DATE: I N0. BY:
SHEET NO.
DATE: S-3
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

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)
72
10+70-11+00
Proposed Bridge
< 0.01
< 0.01
38
72
10+70-11+00
Detour Bridge
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
< 0.01
38
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

PROPOSED 4' BRIOOE
OAP -1 PT -
CLASS II RIP RAI
AR- f-
T TMICR
DETAIL NOTES:
1. FOR USE WHERE EXISTING ABUTMENTS AND BULKHEADS ARE TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED
2. EXCAVATE TO FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AS SPECIFIED ON PRELIMINARY GENERAL DRAWINGS
3. FLOODFLAIN STABILIZATION TO BEGIN WITH A 5' MINIMUM SETBACK FROM PROPOSED TUB
4. FOR ALL LOSATIONS OF CLASS II RIPRAP, FILL VOIDS WITH CLASS B RIP RAP
S. COI FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED OVER LIMITS OF FLOCDPLAIN EXCAVATION
AND AREAS BACKFILLED WITH NATIVE MATERIAL
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
BR-0251(560381)
P,W SHEET NO. _
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
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-)
N
C

m
/
+ YD
n
L
m
L
E
N
O
(\j
/
L
0
Ln
/ n
Ln
rn �
/ E
U 7
o �
L ±
n a
�v
E L
0
0
� r)
/L
a�
n
c �
P n-
0
n
� N
n N
Q Ln
11+50 11+60 11+70 11+80 11+90 12+00 12+10 12+20 12+30 12+40 12+50 12+60 12+70
(—)Oo2358
STA. 12+17.49
EL. = 2112.13
FILL FACE Cep END BENT 1
2120 STA. 11+94.15 —L—
GRADE POINT EL.2112.19
6" CONCRETE
ROADWAY SLAB
2110
ABUTMENT
EL.2112 + STEM (TYPo)
2100
2090
HORIZONTAL CURVE DATA -L-
Polo CT n 11 -L QC 70
D=
L =
T =
R =
CLASS II RIP RAP
(ROADWAY PAY ITEM)
UN —REINFORCED
CONCRETE SILL (TYPo)
GRADE DATA -L-
FILL FACE Q END BENT 2
STA.12+40.82 —L—
GRADE POINT EL.2112.08
FXP_ F— EL. 2112 ± SPAN A EL. 2112 ±
LOW CHORD
— — PROP. EL. 2109.44
LOW CHORD EXIST. EL. 2109.27
PROP. EL. 2109.53
EXIST. EL. 2109.27
APPROXIMATE
[.--EXISTING WATER SURFACE
SUBSTRUCTURE
(TYPo)
EL. 2104 ±
EL.2104 ± EL.2103 ±
END BENT 1
L- L Y1,J,J 1 1 I\ 1I I\ /--\I
(ROADWAY PAY ITEM)
END BENT 2
SECTION ALONG -L-
SECTIONS C�) END BENTS ARE AT RIGHT ANGLED
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
Cn r`nNIr`DCTC
APPROXIMATE EXISTING
GROUND LINE
RIP RAP
PAY ITEM)
RY
One Glenwood Avenue
`
`\
GA�L—N ` T
Suite
F�EMIN
Raleighh,,N NC 27603
NC i�°oF0270
HORIZONTAL CURVE DATA -L-
P.I. STA. 12+42.63
L = 8 ° 58' 32023" (RT)
D = 229 ° 10' 5902"
L = 3092'
T = 1096'
R = 25000'
PROJECT NO.
MADISON
STATION. -
SHEET 1 OF 3
BR-0251
12+17.49
COUNTY
-L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 5603811

BENCHMARK-.N 805191.64769 E 922076.8670 -L- STA. 12+32.46 OFFSET = 28.01' RT
NOTES.
ASSUMED LIVE LOAD = HL-93 ALTERNATE LOADING
m
/
+ YD
n
L
m
L
0
n
E
CV
O
CV
F—
/
L
0
Ln
/ q
Ln
/ E
U 7
0 0
L ±
n a
�v
EL
0
0
�o�
/L
a�
n
C �
P n-
0
Q66
° 00000
P °O�
o
I
—J
W
Q LU
J W
U U
H
m
CLASS II RIP RAP
(TYPo)
III EUOXISTING 0
O
TRUCTURE 00 D10o
°o�oS— oo°
°pO — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
60 °
0
—
112+00 TEMPORARY
II SHORING
(TYPo)
BRIDGE ID ► TO SR 1318
I STA. 12+17.49 -L-
I I 95 °-00'-00" (TYPJ I
-I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-DET-
OO — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
o
0 o0O Oo0 O00 DETOUR BRIDGE
0�)0 Oo00o�,000�00° 00�0 STA.10+76.85 -1-
o 00
CLASS II
RIP RAP
- U v
(TYPo)
FOR UTILITY INFORMATION, SEE UTILITY PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS°
DRAWN BY o
Jo HARRIS
DATE e
1/2024
CHECKED BY -
J.YANNAOOONE
DATE -
1/2024
DESIGN ENGINEER
OF RECORD 2 R°NELSON
DATE -
1/2024
LOCATION SKETCH
/ I
I
— — �o00°0C
00�Ooc
DETOUR
STRUCTURE
OBM 1
19'-0" DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
18'-1"(CI FAR ROADWAY)
(TYPo) vv,— iAU(TYPU
J
FENCE
k
k
k
1'-6" 1 8 SPA. Q 2'-0" CTS. = 16'-0" 1 1'-6"
TYPICAL SECTION
(SIMPLE SPAN)
(9 LINES OF W21x68 I BEAMS)
TIMBER RAIL
(TYPo)
*MIN. 21/2" AWS AT
RETAINING STRIP
PRELIMINARY PLANS
N S
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
THIS BRIDGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS°
THIS BRIDGE IS LOCATED IN SEISMIC ZONE 10
PROJECT NO.
MADISON
BR-0251
COUNTY
STATION- 12+17.49 -L-
SHEET 2 OF 3 REPLACES BRIDGE 560381
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH
PRELIMINARY
GENERAL DRAWING
FOR BRIDGE OVER
BIG LAUREL CREEK ON
SR 1339 (JARRETT COVE ROAD)
suite 9ooeod Avenue DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED NO. BY-
■�A�����
- Roleigh,NC 27603 FINAL UNLESS ALL
r---- E M I N G 919-420-7660 SIGNATURES COMPLETED
NC Lic. No. F-0270
REVISIONS
DATE- NO. BY -
SHEET NO.
DATE- S-2
TOTAL
SHEETS
3

19'-01/2" ± DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT)
18'-1" ± (CLEAR ROADWAY)
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE:
L
E
CV
O
CV
V
co
0
/
C
V
L
O
Ln
/
L +
rn L
/ E
co ._
U
(D
O
L
/
U)
4-
C +
Ea
U;
U
O
U
O 4-
o
a �
+ o
O U
C i
�4-
a
O
U
T �
N n
C �
(D
r)
3
a (9
TEMP. TRAFFIC
CONE
+1 �r L--L- & EXIST. BRG.
1 a I
�I CD
I I I >
cuv ��i i Q
I I
I
---4 1 1 1 1----
�Ii� 2 1 "
EXISTING
3'-6"
0-1
10'-71/2" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
I -L-
I
� TEMP.
TRAFFIC
C SHIFT
-------------------------
I �
ti
------- --- ---
'� 1 1 1
'J---4 1 1
1 1 1
�� �� W-W16%.
?1 1
� CUT EXIST.
DECK
j
_ I
I I
� I
a I
F I I
1
ILMFUKA
SHORING
STAGE I
11'-7"
STREAM
FLOW
J REMOVE UPSTREAM PORTION
OF EXISTING BRIDGE
a
II I
� I
I I
10'-0" (MIN.) CLEAR ROADWAY
STAGE I
SUBSTRUCTURE
REMOVE REMAINING PORTION -L-
OF EXISTING BRIDGE ri1 N F' I C
C
-DET- �
ri
I ------- ------- --- ---�I
1
,---i
l---
1 1 1 1
rho rh% r r %.
STAGE II TEMPORARY
SUBSTRUCTURE SHORING
STAGE II
STAGE I:
1e SHIFT TRAFFIC TO DOWNSTREAM SIDE USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES.
20 CUT DECK, REMOVE DECK AND BEAMS 5 AND 6.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°
C:�K:016V1motile 0.2File]=aLil1:i.21:,1I:1111:liI
STAGE II:
1. CONSTRUCT UPSTREAM PORTION OF NEW SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR 10'-0"CLEAR ROADWAY ON TEMPORARY
BEARINGS.ATTACH TEMPORARY TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL ON THE LEFT SIDE.
20 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°
20 SHIFT SUPERSTRUCTURE AND INSTALL ON PERMANENT BEARINGS°
3.RETURN TO SIGNALIZED TRAFFIC OPERATION°
FINAL:
1. USING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND TRAFFIC CONES, INSTALL BRIDGE DECK AND LEFT SIDE
TIMBER BRIDGE RAIL.
20 COMPLETE REMAINING WORK REQUIRED INCLUDING PAVEMENT AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS°
3. REMOVE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES AND DEVICES.
1 q'-n" nFC'K WTnTH (nI IT Tn nI IT)
FINAL
PROJECT N0.
MADISON
-L- STATION°
TEMP.TRAFFIC REMOVE TEMPORARY II
CONE BRIDGE RAIL I�J I SHEET 3 OF 3
�iI I
II
DEPART
STAGE III
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
�
One Glenwood Avenue
GAN N E T T
suite
-
FLEMING
Raleighh,, NC 27603
919-420-7660
NC Llc. No. F 0270
BR-0251
COUNTY
12 +17.49 -L-
REPLACES BRIDGE 560381

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)
381
11+93-12+45
PROPOSED BRIDGE
< 0.01
< 0.01
25
381
11+93-12+45
DETOUR BRIDGE
< 0.01
< 0.01
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
0.01
25
0
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb