20061480 Ver 2_Application_20071031

y „a5fA7F ~ C~~.i~.s ~P°~,~
s ~r r ^~
~, -.:2 ~ r.. ~' ,y, Irv,
r
'"F+~~ ~ n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 7~~;'~~y ...:
"~ ,~'~.,,r~...,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION `~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
~\
~- October 25, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
~ Regulatory Field Office
~~ 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Monte Matthews
NCDOT Coordinator

Subject: Clean Water Act Nationwide Permit 23 and Nationwide Permit 33
application for replacement of Bridge No. 334 on SR 1169 (Conley Cheek Road)
over South Fork New River, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1169(2), State Project No.
8.2712701, Ashe County, Division 11, TIP No. B-3803. WBS Element No.
33259.1.1.
Dear Sir:
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Ecosystem Enhancement
Program mitigation acceptance Letter, Rapanos jurisdictional determination form, permit
drawings and design plans for the subject project. A Categorical Exclusion was completed for
this project in May 2006 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon
request. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the
107-foot, one lane low water Bridge No. 334 with a three span replacement bridge of
approximately 200-foot in length. Bridge No. 334 will be replaced on a partially new alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 420
feet to the north and 730 feet to the south of the new structure. During construction, traffic will
be routed to a temporary offsite detour. There will be a total of 101 feet of permanent stream
impacts and 0.13 ac of temporary stream impacts associated with this project.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: There are two jurisdictional streams on the project site: South Fork New
River and an associated unnamed tributary (UT). These water resources are located in the New
River Basin (subbasin OS-07-O1, Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 05050001). The North
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING. SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWbV.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

a
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) index number for the South Fork New River is
10-1-(20.5). The South Fork New River is classified by the Division of Water Quality as a
Class WS-V HQW water body. The best usage classification of the associated UT is the same
as the water body to which it is a tributary. No waters listed on the 303 (d) list occur within 1.0
mile of the project area. The average baseflow width of the South Fork New River is
approximately 100 feet. Average depth is 1-6 feet. The associated UT is approximately 2-3
feet wide, with a depth of 1-2 inches.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 101 feet of permanent stream impacts associated with this
project. An additional <0.01 ac of permanent stream impacts will occur due to the placement of
bents for the construction of the new bridge over the South Fork New River.
• Site 2: A 42-inch pipe will be installed for a relocated driveway on the UT to the South
Fork New River causing 40 feet of permanent impacts. An additional 14 feet of impacts will
occur from the placement of Class B rip rap at the pipe outfall for bank stabilization.
Therefore, the total impacts from pipe installation is 54 feet.
• Site 3: The placement of Class II rip rap for bank stabilization at the confluence of three
ditches entering the South Fork New River accounts for 47 feet of permanent impacts.
Temporary Impacts: There will be 0.13 acres of temporary stream impacts associated with this
project.
• Site 1: The use of causeways for the removal of the existing bridge and the construction of
the replacement bridge will result in 0.13 acres of temporary impacts to the South Fork New
River. Causeways will be phased so that no more than half of the stream is blocked at any
time.
• Site 2: The relocation of a driveway and placement of a 42 inch pipe on the UT to the
South Fork New River will result in <0.01 acres of temporary impacts due to dewatering.
Bride Demolition: Bridge No. 334 is a four span structure that consists of a timber deck on
steel I-beams. The end bents consist of reinforced concrete. The interior bents consist of
reinforced concrete piers. Causeways will be used for the removal of all components of the
bridge resulting in no appreciable fill in "Waters of the United States".
Utility Impacts: There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, and there will be no
impacts to jurisdictional waters due to utility relocation.
FEMA COMPLIANCE
A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMAR) was required and received for the project on
August 1, 2007.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 10, 2007 the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list 6 species under federal protection for Ashe County: bog
turtle, spreading avens, swamp pink, Roan Mountain bluet, Heller's blazing star and Virginia
spiraea. With the exception of Virginia spiraea it determined that there is no suitable habitat for
2

the listed species. The NC Natural Heritage database of rare species and unique habitats was
reviewed in August 2007. There is a documented occurrence of Virginia spiraea approximately
5,000 feet north (downstream) of the proposed bridge project. A survey of the study area on
June 7, 2007 resulted in no species being found. A conversation with Marella Buncick
(USFWS) on August 27, 2007 resulted in a Biological Conclusion of No Effect. The
replacement of Bridge No. 334 will not impact the known population of Virginia spiraea
downstream.
Table 1. Species Under Federal Protection in Ashe County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenbur ii T (S/A) No Not re uired
S readin avens Geum radiatum E No No Effect
Swam ink Helonias bullata T No No Effect
Roan Mountain bluet Hedyotis purpurea var.
montana E No No Effect
Heller's blazin star Liatris helleri T No No Effect
Vir 'nia s iraea S iraea vir iniana T Yes No Effect
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design.
• Replacement of a four span bridge with a three span bridge (fewer bents in water)
• The existing 21-foot pipe from the current driveway on the UT will be removed and the
stream daylighted.
• Use of offsite detour
• Controlled run-off from bridge and a road
Miti atg, ion:
Permanent impacts for this project due to bank stabilization of the South Fork New River and
an UT to the South Fork New River total 61 feet. These impacts do not constitute "loss of
Waters of the United States". Therefore we are not proposing mitigation.
There are also 40 feet of permanent impacts associated with the relocation of a driveway on the
UT to the South Fork New River. The existing 21-foot pipe from the current driveway on the
UT will be removed and the stream daylighted, which will provide mitigation at a 1:1 ratio. Per
conversation with Monte Matthews (USAGE) on October 25, 2007 additional mitigation is
required for the remaining 19 feet of permanent impact. The Ecosystem Enhancement Program
will provide mitigation for 19 feet of permanent impact (see EEP mitigation acceptance Letter).
Mitigation was originally sought for 33 feet of permanent impact, but on further investigation it
was determined that only 19 feet of additional mitigation is required.
3

SCHEDULE
The project schedule calls for a May 20, 2008 Let date with a date of availability on July 1,
2008. The review date for the project is April 1, 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit : It is anticipated that the construction of causeways and the temporary
impacts to the UT for installation of a driveway pipe will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). We are therefore
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33. It is anticipated that the use of rip rap for
bank stabilization and permanent impacts to the UT for installation of a driveway pipe will be
authorized under the Nationwide Permit No. 23. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance
with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3632 and 3634 will apply
to this project. All General Conditions of the General Certification will be adhered to, therefore we aze
not requesting concurrence from the DWQ. We are submitting 2 copies of this permit application for
your records.
This project is located in a trout county, therefore comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of
Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers and the
NCDOT within 30 calendar days of receipt of this application.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please contact Jason Dilday at jldilda~(?a,dot.state.nc.us or [phone]. The
application will be posted at http://207.4.62.65/PDEA/PermApps/.
Sincere ,
~,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment w/o attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies) Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Programming and TIP
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Ms. Natalie Lockhart, PDEA Project Planning Eng.
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael A. Pettyjohn, P.E. Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division 11 Environmental Officer
4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
• ®Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Cazolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gre o J. Tho e Ph.D. Environmental Mana ement Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~919) 733-9794
E-mail Address: jldilday~a,dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge 334 over South Fork New River
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3803
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Ashe Nearest Town: Yates
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): SR 1169, Conley Cheek
Road
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36'17'38' °N -81'27'41' °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: South Fork New River
8. River Basin: New River Basin
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/ma~s/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Agricultural, minor residental and forest communities
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 334 will be replaced with a bridge of approximately 200 feet in len h using
standard bridge demolition and construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Bridge No. 19 is proposed for replacement due
to its strctural sufficiency rating of 38.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge
is considered functionally obsolete due to deck eg ometrYappraisal of 2 out of 9 according to
FHWA standards.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9

Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 54 feet of permanent impacts to a UT
will occur from the placement of a 42" ape on a relocated driveway. The current 21 foot
driveway pipe will be removed and the stream daylighted causing a net total of 33 feet of
permanent impacts (54'-21'=33'). There will be an additional 35 feet (<O.OIAc) of
temporary impacts associated with the placement of the driveway pipe (Site 2). 47 feet of
permanent impacts associated with placement of class B rip rap for bank stabilization of
ditches (Site 3) entering South Fork New River. 85 feet (0.13 Ac) of temporary impacts
associated with the use of causeways for the removal of the existing bridge and construction
of the replacement bridge (Site 1).
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separatel list im acts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Neazest
Stream
(lineaz feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
No wetlands

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number

(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of
Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Im act Impact
Length

linear feet) Area of
Impact
)
(acres
1 South Fork New River Temp Perennial 100 ft 85 0.13
2 UT to South Fork New River Temp Perennial 3 ft 35 <0.01
2 ITT to South Fork New River Perm Perennial 3 ft ~33~~t~ <0.01
3 South Fork New River Perm Perennial 100 ft 47 0.01

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.01
~~~
Page 4 of 9

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

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

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

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

Impact
(acres)
No Impacts

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.13 (temp)
0.01 ermanent)
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.13 (temp)
0.01 ermanent)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
Ib~ 120 (temp)
.8'6( ermanent)
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
Page 5 of 9

financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.Traffic will be placed on a
temporary offsite detour utilizing SR1003 and US221. Temporary causeways for removal of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge will be phased so the river will not be more
than half blocked at any time. NCDOT Best Management Practices will be implemented during
all phases of construction and demolition.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
There is 80 feet of permanent impacts to the South Fork New River. Mitigation is not
proposed for this project.
Page 6 of 9

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts aze proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
Page 7 of 9

2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact I I Required
Zone , ~,_~_~ c ~,~ Multiplier ,,,~:,,__~,__
1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone I .
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. All stormwater from this brid a replacement
project shall be directed to buffer areas and shall not be routed directly into the stream.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Page 8 of 9

Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
This project is limited to a bridge replacement. No indirect or cumulative impacts are
anticipated.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
F.
Applicant/~gen~s Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
a'
Page 9 of 9

o stem
~n a eme~t
PROGRAM
September 24, 2007
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
RED~~'~D
SEP z s 2001
D!VlSJ.~JN 4F HiGh
PDfA•OEFfCE ~ N14NRAl
B-3803, Replace Bridge Number 70 on SR 1366 over Horse Creek,
Ashe County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide the compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project.
Based on the information supplied by you on September 19, 2007, the impacts are located
in CU 05050001 of the New River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Cold Stream: 33 feet
During the review of this request, it was noted that this project did not include any
wetland or stream impacts in the 2007 Impact Projection Database; however, EEP will
provide the requested stream mitigation. Depending on the availability and projected
need of stream mitigation in this cataloging unit, additional stream mitigation may be
required that was not included in the biennial budget submitted to NCDOT on September
18, 2007.
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation to
offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the
Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, fully executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact
~Z.P~StO~'GK~... ~ ~ .. P~D~"P.Gt"GGiJG' OGff~ .S-t~2~ ~DENR
North farolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service tenter, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a
new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
~ti. ~~.
_"~ i liam . Gilm re, P.E.
EEP Di ector
cc: Mr. Monte Matthews, USACE -Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3803

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: B-3803 (Replacement of Bridge No. 334 on SR 1169 over South Fork New
River
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish borough: Ashe City: Yates
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36'1 T55"° ~I, Long. 81'28'06'° 1~J.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: South Fork New River and UT to South Fork New 12iver
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: South Fork New River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 05050001
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
~] Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
~] Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RNA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Ar,~ "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review
area. [Required)
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
® Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: Used extensively by recreational canners and tourists.
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Virg "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):'
TNWs, including territorial seas
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: p
Non-wetland waters: 20001inear feet: 100 width (ft) and/or acres. t~T . ~oDr~ ~''~-e~~T-~~
Wetlands: acres. /' 3 t,y; ~ ~ ~,
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OAWM.~ ~`~ l~T C~~w~
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an IZPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

• SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.i. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW: South Fork New River.
Summarize rationale supporting determination: Guide services and canoe rentals.
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or Gave continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary bas adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section HI.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: miie>i
Drainage area: ~q ~"" ell
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
® Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through ] r more) tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are ~'~ ) river miles from TNW.
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are river miles from RPW.
Project waters are ~ re~ aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are ' or, ea`s} aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
a Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the acid
West.
s Flow mute can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characte sties (check all that applyl:
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Vertical (1:1 or less).
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/%cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/p~,l enmplexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: 12eletively straight
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ,(gt_ermittent,hut ~t seasonal flow
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 2Q (ox greater)
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: t3scete;;And cogfined. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: '~" ~ Ex lain findin s:
~P~p..~• P g
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics ,type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow_Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Intermittent flow. Explain:
Surface flow is: Di'screte,e~d confined
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by ben~n/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity,(Relationshiyl to TNW
Project wetlands are 30; or more river miles from TNW.
~~ ,~~,i
Project waters are ~Q ~or inore~aerial (straiehtl miles from TNW.
x- »,~
Flow is from: ~Yet~and to/~oim navigable waters..
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the500-,year o; greate% floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. CharaMeristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 30 (oc more)
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
® TNWs: 2000 linear feet 100 width (ft), Or, acres.
[~ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: NCDWQ stream form score of 34.5.
^ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
® Tributary waters: 10001inear feet 3 width (ft1
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an I2PW: .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicatine that wetland is directly
abutting an 12PW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an 12PW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters v
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)a°
°' which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
BSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review rnnsistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
^ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLl~:
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
[^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
d Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
[] Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Q Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
[Q U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
[~ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
~'] 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ~ (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Q Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
t] Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicablelsupporting case law:
j] Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

V f ~~5 f f, ~- ~~ 1
~ '~'.1 ~`t, ~`.~ ~'~~~' ~ ~- Jam- I .
~_~ _
k J..~• '
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ fry ~ `1 f ~,. ~r
~- ) ~ O i ~
f > ~ I: ~
z '
ti; i
1 1 /
- \\ !! ~„~
~ G
~.. .._ ~ o

~ 1210 '
~ o ~ ~'~ 1178 ~
a
3 ,~ t
_~ ~ !
~' ~° ~ !
275 ~~ 1177 1232
~ m _
m ~
N ~
~ ~ ~, r8 ~
1111 ~ _ 1 r
110fi 'e ~
I
1216 y i
Pleasan Grove
Baptist
~ ~t
~- ~-
1103 1
rove Bapt ~ ~ i
m ~ 1a ~
~ U
1101 1265
.s iw
1,6 °' ~ .1
~Id Oval Zz
1179 1180
~~ 1181
1
rn
.~
v~
`~ 1179 ~" 118
__ ~ rya 1168
1169 '
~~ , `~,
NE
Yates N
6 /~ ~ .4
~ Idlewild
l
~ ~ ~ ~
t
3 1169 \ 1168
4
Studied Detour Rout
e -~~
•31 70 - ~`
~ NOgTh NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~~
„~~ ~\ TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
,~~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
\~. .d~/ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 334 ON SR 1169
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-3803
Permit Drawirw
sheet of / Q

]~R®]~IERTY ®~N~:R~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES SITE NO.

N®RTH CAR®LINA
DIVISION OF ffiGSWAYS
ASHB COUNTY
PROJBGT:3345911 8118051
REPLACBbIBNT OF BRIDGE
OVER SOUTH FORg
NSW RIVBR ON SR 1169
SIIgET L OF (,~

O
ANN M. ELLIOTT 360 GOLF COURSE RD.
WEST JEFFERSON,
NC 2869
1
O
S
ANN M. ELLIOTT 360 GOLF COURSE RD.
WEST JBFFERSON,
NC 4869
1
O
3 W. CLAY AND
~~~ CHURCH ~ CANOE GAP RD.
WEST JBFFERSON,
NC Y869~
1

O W. CLAY AND
b18LONIE CHURCH ~ CANOE GAP RD.
WEST JEFFBRSON,
NC 2869
1, s

~ 1210 1 ,
~ .y ¢ ~ ~'~ 117s 3 Id ~
i
'
3 ~
~
1179 ~
A ~ .~,~
~ ~ ~
~ °' 1~'
~
a 1 _ 1232 j
~
~
~
~ .
, ;, ,"~
.
~
275
! ~ ,.
~
` m
e ,
i - ~ ~ a
1 69
~ l ~ ~,
ry ~~ 4` 7~ • l
-~ "`
176
~
1111
~ ~ - ~ ~~-~
~
:':~'
'~ 1~ ~~ ~:

11os , ~~

~
~ F ._
j= _ t ~
1
~.~
1216 ~ ,,.~; . ~,
~, . ~,
Pleasan Groae
~ ~
~
Bap ~St N _~a
i Yates ;~
~-+- l
'~' 6

A
s w ~~ :~

~
Idiewild
1103 1 "t...
I
rove Bapt
~
' : ~ ~ a 100 ~ ~ .~~ -:~.

.
1101 1=
116f~ ~"
.S
w
W ., ~ Y »~ +a
~~

i
..
1100 .+-~ -~, -~ ~: .: ..,
i, ~ St~•~~~~~'Detour ..Ri~ottt~ ~ ~~,-
.1 _ d ,
Permit Drawing
Sheet of
,~ .,~ .;:.,r,r.rM.~,~,: ,. _~
•3 1 70
~,r~~
' ~~ c`.3~~iffi~ON: Q~ i71CT~ ~~"F{c"„1Y5
~'ROJEC'[' ~''~F~T
,~ ~IV'~t~iA2~i'1"AI.1+~'d~d~:"+1':
~~
B-3R~}3 ,
..,.,,. _~ ..~:, , . _ . ~,.,...,,.,....V,..u..

a
w
t
RE1p ~CwAD.4
4
' .- DECK DadNS
' G'014METEA _
w l2'SPACING
'' CLA55 II ~
AIP AAP ~
,'
STANDARD AASEf
olrcx w/ LDN
MATIINL
a /~
~~TA~1L ®~ Cr~~JSEW~~
Proposed Bridge
l l'//.'VIII'//vV I I'/LVAI I Y/LvAI I I'//.~~
V(_UME OF CLASS II
RiP nAP eELUW W.S.= 605 cy
AREA OF
CLASS II RIP RAP = 0.11 Ac
Rock Embankment
r Flow
1.5:1
Stream Bed
~\1 I I'/LTV 1 Y//.~V I I'//,~
' •' ~ ,.
ice/ ` ..
GDG /
.k
.. _ .:.
P '
. ....

ELLIOTi, ANN M. ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~
IATERdL ., ~• ~ ~~
;: V'DITLx ! SITE '``
CUSS A - .
fEAAL - f ' P' ~.\ `~ . ~~ AIP AAP ' ;'_ APd RAPE '~ `,;
DlTCx SITE I '
~'~ F P - ~ ENDaNANENT r"~ v'ua
aIP RAP DtrcH `~. CHURCH, W. CLAY & MELONIE
,.. ~
PR0lE0f REFEEENCE N0. SHffT N0.
B-3803 4
4W SHEET NO.
tCMiDWAY DESIGN HYDFAWR
ENGINEFA eNC1NEER
INCOMPLE E PLANS
DD NOT USE FOA /W AroDfSm0N
PRELIMIN Y PLANS
Do NOI NE roNATADCI'ION
DRAIir'~'• P ~.. F~ Lv olrcH E
;~'~ _ F ~ f F' x/ CLASS lu 3
_ IP RAP ~ ~ O
~ -1 ~:::.x r EIAA EfNT I p
RIP AAP . \``~\AN'',; ,, \ N
,j ~ \ a ~ tc SDC~ - j'~
TA2tl w/ '' ~ N •.
CLOT !+ry R ~~ '~ A '
2 LRATE
`S [LASS 'E
ELLIOTT, ANN M. AW RAP
1~ j ~ • LATERAL
;,/ q : EraBANCNEMJ
~/~~ ~:"/ RIP RAP
/ ~/
/~g / ;
r~
~.. J
i
, r ,
y

"' G CLASS 'A'
': >';
(~ AIP AAP =„ ~ iBtGI W/

,.. . ~ FLAi 2'BdSE HEAD „ ,.

DITCx w/ PSRI.(
,~ v

' ~

v ~ ~~. i82Gl w/ ~
u
E ~_ .
~ -
~: E '~
~\
_
F iR2Gl w/
FLAr <~ ~. _.
,r
-., E
~ E GAarE ..
....

Jf,F
F ., -.,,
\ .. TA2GI w/
FLAT
..... .t E ~ TB
.
~~, '~' 18 18 18'
I '`AF
, '~...
~
F\ :.. .~ F
~ .
~
.
~ _
_ F
is ..
' RIP RAP m1
I \
~
P :.
.. .. ~. .._~^ ~ p ... ~ ..
clad enP In F HURCH, W. CLAY & MELONIE "BASS e ~ I E ~~
!~-

CHANNEL
SITE ~ RIR PAP
O :~..... ~ ... . -'~ `
~E-
,P APA AAP .. ~~
-.
F

JURISDICTIONAL ,.' ~ - ,

•.
STREAM o C .....-~~
'~ F e~
..._
* ~ F
a55 R
. , ,.
IMPACTS DUE TO CAUSEWAY FOR
BUILDING THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
i
I
I~
1~
I
1
i
/ A`
~~
I ~
i
i
i
Permit Drawinfl
sr-~t 7 of ~y
-.~..~
® TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
®FILL IN~ SURFACE WATERS
•w CAUSEWAY MUST BE PHASED SO THAT NO
MORE THAN HALF THE RIVER WIDTH WILL BE
BLOCKED AT ONE TIME.
SEE SNEET 5 fOR -L- AND ERNE- PROFILE

NWS Elev=2829.00'
5'
2.0' Min.
--1 --
I I'//.~V I I'//.~V I I'/LTV I Y//.~V I I'%L~~
VOLUME OF CLASS II
RIF RAF BE~ON W.S. _ &dB cy
AREA OF
CLASS II RIP RAP = O.IIAc
Rock Embankment
Flaw
I,5:1
Stream Bed
xwirii,wirii.~

., ~ i ,._
~ i
__
,.. '' ~ _
/ i
Ij~ ~~ _~ ~~ ~,... ~I
IMPACTS DUE TO CAUSEWAY FOR
BUI~DIf~G THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
~111d ~YMUIQ
Sheet ` ~ 1~.~
® TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
®FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
•¥ CAUSEWAY MUST BE PHASED SO THAT NO
MORE THAN HALF THE RIVER WIDTH WILL BE
BLOCKED AT ONE TIME.
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- AND -DRNE- PROFILE

,., ..
, -.. -, , .. - ; .i
: '.
' , , .PAOECf AEFEAENCE N0. SHEET NO.
,
`. < .
~... ,
B-3803
4

r -
._.- ~ -
'' MY SHEET N0.
A
' ` ~- ~ ". - ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAlR1CS
., _ - ENGINEER ENGINEER
' INCOMPLE E PLANS
N
i
` ro HOT use roa w ,Amuomo
_ ~ \ PRELIMIN
vo rror use Y PLANS
roNSTxvrnoN
' -
. ;' _'...
, ...
-. .~, _ .. c
_

~
~
_ _ -
c
,. ~
~ :~
- -

, ,
_ ~
::;

:
~
~ ..>
_
V ~ ~
\ ~~ -- _..
. .~ ~ ~~
..
- ~~~\` ~ .
< :. ~
:_
:
~'
_

:..

.
~
~
- v A.
~
_ "- -
. _ ,.

`. - . t

v~ ~-
~ ~
--
¢ a
_: ~~ ~~~
~
~ \ ~

~
' Al/ ~ ~~ A
V ~ ~
-' ~~ ~ ~'', ~ ELLIOTi, ANN M. - - _ -
' LATEPAL ~' .,
V'DITGx' n
S TE
~
I

~
,
~
::: _ GLASS: II ~A
~

_. :. Ld1EAAL fl ~~ ~ C
SS B
IP
R R,~

~
; ~
`
~
'

~ vGITCx ,~
~

y
/ +:\'/ ~f _ _ __.
~

_
. ~.
54TE I

EIbANA4ENT
t' V TA0. v

':
~
~\
\ \~
~'
i
Ga .~.,,
a 1
DRAIN'
~ _
- k.

.~
~
~f ,
RIP RAP " GITCX
E uTERU
V' TCN
~F
~
'

CHIIACH, IY.~CLdY DrRE.
'~ /M ~
? E a ~ EC
- - '

,

;, ~
w _
~" f wi
w eiP
l
_
,.

, ..
.r// ..
_L_
~:..

IP RA
~. ,

~.
ah
~ ` _.
_:.
~
~..
„
- . ~:.
~

` ~y

, \~.

~
S
_

_ -

/

,

~

. ..
~.

SGG l7J ,~_ a
F
~ -
. ~
r /~ / - `' l P
_
~ ~ /

~, ~

F BOG'
V ".
__

~

_ I

,~

... ' ~ ~=
TB2GIw
~
- ~
'
, '~ FLdT RIP '

..

~
' ~
i
,'
:

,- ~ ~ 2 '. GRATE :.

,~ ~ CLASS B
~ B(Lp ~P.S

M'DFCA<(P
`
B J

~

_ ~

~
E J

'.ly

,
~, ^ ~~
~~~(((
'~,, 7' ELLOTT, ANN MI. RIP R #P
~ R4A,5
~ [LA4§:'B'

p "TB2G~w/ ~ 2 aeS
RE4D
R
4
~
N .,
l
- „ J
~
/ /~ / LATERAL ~. ~T RIP Ai AI? F! AT ~ ARCH r/
$ r

.,F ~
~
~
/ ~~ _'
e/ EAI~ANKDENf
AR`P#P '' CEL'x GRAINS
6'OIAUETER IB2GI N/ ~ E ~~ ~
~ \ l ~ -- TBZL A/
al
.,
,r
~ , /
,` y
~
~- ~
~ ~~ ~ ,~
ACRIG~
,' P 12 E
FLAiE ~~

E
~E 1~- 7
-

--~
)
~ GRATE
/
~,
i /
1
/ I/ 55
RIP RAP ..
... 182GLwF ~{
.
r

"
~~
,
Df ~ ~
~
~ I 2f ~~
/"
~ ~. STANDARD BASE T ~
.~~ K, S.
to ~
t y a
; ~
,i
~ ^'~~(h~y~/A-g~s
~ olTCx R/ coat
; ~

,; .
~ t~
~ ~

...
/ ~ , ~

~; ~ ~ ~

1, W ~ ~'~~ F
T T
~~ f

° o „~ E
.~
, .
'' i.%
s!
^'.
'
._
~ HIP RAP/
., ~ DO NOT
~ \

F
/O
.
~ ~
~ F.
~~~F `-_ F
•~

~ -

..
~ /?
iy
_ ~ ,~
'.
'/ -
v . PLALE
I WP RAP IN
"
~ G1A55 B'
_
HI1RCHri1.tLAY & IdELONIE
~' 'r~_ RIP' AAP
~ E
~
A
~
~ ~, __
' ~ '
-'LHANNEL
r

,
\ \
SITE ~ 2
- ~P
WP
RAP _^-~ W _ _
~/
~
-
f
r
,~ ,
;
_: '

~

,,
,~
,'

'

~ /
~ _ , ~

JURISDICTIONAL

,
-~-

:

'

... ,•
'
..STREAM . -

_

*
~

"N

..

, _ -

r.. --
_,
_ -
--
'
..
_ _

r .: ,
r ~ _
... ..
,._ - r _
e
i
d

, .r
,

.
__
~,
,.
-
_
,
.

;~. ~ _
. r
- \
.,`
F
r~

~ _
_ ~ _ - ~

- _

_ _

~D1E7[°AI1L ®1F ~AUS]EWA~
Existing Bridge
NWS Elev=2829.00'
25'
1
J Rock Embankment
2.0' Min.
--1 --
--Flow
T LS:I
1.5:1 Stream Bed
~
iT~w~.~~
o ~~~~9i.~
Ii'n~~lll~ii.wii'liwirii.wii~n.wii'li.wil'ii.wlrli.wirii.~
vOtUME OF CLASS II
RIP RAP BELOW W.S. = i00 cy
AREA OF
CLASS II RIP RAP = 0.09 Ac
.~ _
_.
_.
,~. ~' ~~
~~ F _.
:.
,~ .. i
,,
~ ~.
._. ..
i. ~ - .
_ ~ ~ ..,`
`~' II
IMPACTS DUE TO CAUSEWAY FOR
REM0IIING THE EXISTING BRIDGE
Permit Driwirp
Sheet ~ d /Q
® TEMPORARY FILL 1N SURFACE WATERS
®FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
** CAUSEWAY MUST 8E PHASED 50 THAT NO
MORE THAN HALF THE RIVER WIDTH WILL BE
BLOCKED AT ANY TIME.
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- AHD -DRNE- PROFILE

)JEQ e6fABKE NO. BNfff NO.
8-3803 q
Aw ssEFf No.
awAr oESJCN
ENOD&9l xroewua
ENGINEEll
INCOMPLE PLANS
Do Nm use wow iw ,LCaumTwN
PRELIMIN Y PLANS
w0 NOT USC PO CONSTRUCTION
N
N
~_~ f w/ Cu55
. f4. \ ;\~ ~ / - `.. WRAP
j _L •~ ~ ~ Ns
y/, ~ RW AA
i,
. P B
SDG . ~ ~
_k i ; J ;r
Put ~,
/" ~ ~ 2 GAATE 6QQ AP5 ,
/'~~ MASS 'B' _ » OECNd(E
FILIOTT, ANN M. RW RAP w D.R~vs ,
~ ~ ,~ ~ LITERAL T
V' qi[N
'EUBANwuENT / :/ DECe ORdwS
•, ~"/ AIP AAP 6'DUUEiER •
w ¢' SPdCI
~~ CLABB N
RIP RAP ~
/ §,
_ BTgN1AR1
DITCX w/
Y wAiiINC
/'
i ~ ...
D~~°A~L ®F CA~JS~W.~~'
Existing Bridge
I i'ii.w I r/i.~~~ I rliw I rn.w u'in~
vOLUME OF CLASS 11
niP AAF BELOW WS. = TOO cy
AREA OF
CLASS II RIP RAP = D,OB Ac
Rock Embankment
f_ FOW
1.5:1
^Stream Bed
1CW /~/~~eV ~~N•I /.iT
yi.w~r/i.wirli.wlril.~

1~
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
~ Aw`
I /
i
i
~~ ~I° U
li

\\ r
BDG'
J ~ ~.,' J

_.
c cuss e•
RIP ~AAP
~
~ ~-~' %~ /
re2gw/ _
B45E NE1D
_
EAT gT
v Lf.. ,~~~ ~~ - . I ,1-TEAT l ._ ..
® TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
~MRACTS D~1E TO CAUSEWAY FOR ®FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
~ REMOVING THE EXISTING BRIDGE ..
CAUSEWAY MUST BE PHASED SO THAT NO
MORE THAN HALF THE RIVER WIDTH WILL BE
BLOCKED AT ANY TIME.
EE SHEET 5 FOR -L- AND -DRNE- PROF!!F

0
a
r
N
}
0
E
T
L
tNri
Sao
wm
~~
~~
fA/
+A N
~}
w~
~~
wL
~~
~+
~U
~0
~,'
~"
~•-
xE
~~
~~
wa
~i
two
a,,,m
_,~~,
~~m
_~
N~~
N~~
0
~o
V
W
O
Q~
'1

Iii
U
O
U
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
y
~ ~.
I'
,\
~}
,~~,
'~
~_ -'
. ~, -
VICINITY ~ "'
.-.-~.-~ DETOU
THIS PROJECT IS NOT V
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
CLEARING FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD
~~~~~~®1~ ®~ ~~~u~~A~~~ FbrmitDr~rin/yC~
~FV{ ~~r VI I
ASHE COUII~TY
LOCATIOAL• BRIDGE N0.334 OVER THE
SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER ON SR 1169
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, f~ STRUCTURE
.A
em aun wounx mn~ss Nn ~'~'' sxuis
•C~ 8-3 803 1
R~If laY1116 aLeaYte6 ae101a:Rf
33259.1.1 BRZ-1169 2 PE

~~~
INCOMPLETE PLAN5
no Nm use roa ar• .srnuamoN
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W Nm USa i0a CONSTRUmiON
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Preparaf In tt» Offkg of: HYDRAULICS ENGAGER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
50 25 0 50 loo ADT 2004 = 300 LENGTH ROADWAY STATE PROJECT 8-3803 = 0
221 Mi ~ooo e~.~b Rag. n., Raleigh NC
z~s~o
ADT 2025
90 .
. ,
=
0 zavr srnme
ea sPecarrarroxs
PLANS DHV = 12 % LENGTH STRUCTURE STATE PROJECT B-3803 = 0.030 Mi.
PE
50 25 0 50 100 D = 60 % RIGHT OF WAY DATE: JIMMY GOODNIGHT srcnc+rvaE

TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT B~803 = 0.251 Mi PE

T = 3 % ' . MAY 19
2006
Peo~cr txcn~c
ROADWAY DESIGN
srera aesrcN evco~
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) y = 30 MPH , E'~`G~R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTON
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIO
to s o l0 20
' TTST 1 'DUAL 2 LETTING DATE: MARK HUSSEY
MAY 15, 2007 P"o'EC' nrucx °vc°'~r`
PROFILE (VERTICAL) FUNC.CIASS = LOCAL PE .:PPaovm
srcxnrvea arvrsrox wnunusrxamn acre

t
iT
m
-
~
m

N
c
o°
>;
a
See Sh~1 1-A Foy Index of Sheet.<.
M
~ A -
~_
~.
VICINITY use
+-ram--~ DETOU
e~
^1
h
U
O
U
CLEARING FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III
~7[".~T1E ~]F N~IB°I°~-I C.~Ib~b.dNA
Y~IVI~I~N ~1F 1H[I~~-IW.~~Y~
ASHE COU11tTY
LOCATION: 9RtDGE N0.334 OVER THE SOUTH FORK NEW
RNER ON SR 1169 (CONLEY CHEEK RD)
TYPE OF WORR~ GRADI11tG, DRAINAGE, PAVING, 6a STRUCTURE

PREL[MINARY PLANS
_~~_~~~~
GRAPI.ffC SCALES
50 25 0 50 100
PLANS
50 25 0 50 100
PROFILE HORIZONTAL)
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2004 = 300
ADT 2030 = 900
DHV = 11 %
D = 60 %
T = 3 %'
V = 30 MPH
• TTST 1 'DUAL 2
FUNC. CLASS - LOCAL
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-3803 = 0.113 Mi.
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8803 = 0,038 Mi.
Pre~ored rn 7M a/fce ol,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
l60a Blrol Rll~i D~., Rol~f~a NC, P7ala
seas sznm,sto a'raCaracasssvs
TOTAL LENGTH. TIP PROJECT 8-3803 = 0.251 Mi,
RIGHT OP WAY DAT& JIMMY GOODNIGHT
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 ~cr>mm~oQe
LJITlING J1lT13: MARK HUSSEY
FEBRUARY 19.2008 "'~'f~` aarcaoQe
~ ~~
~~
HYDRAULICS ~rGn~
ROADTYAY DESIGN
BNGIIYSBR
DIT?SR>111 OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA
MO
.,

a Note; Not to Scale
m *s U.~ = spat Urst:~v E~
S°l['t~1°E ~1F N~R'1[°1H C.~F$~]LdN.~
IDdVISI~1~ ~F HIGa]HWA~S
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
-.
-
Stole Une
CouMy Une .°
...--
Township Une -

Cily Une
Reservation Una - ~ - ~ -
Propery Une
Existing Iron Pin
properly Comer ~
Propery Monument
Parcel/Sagwna Number
ExGting Fence Une -x-x-x-
Proposed Woven Wiro Fence ~
Proposed Chain Unk Fence e
Proposed Barbed Win Fenn ~--
Existing Wetadnd Boundary - - - -~- - - -
Pro~sed Wetland Boundary -v
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary w-
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary °•
B[lILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE:
Gas Pump YeM or L6G Tank Cap o
Sign a
Well °
Small Mine x
Foundation Q
Aroa Outiins D
Cemetery 0
Building [~-'~
School
Church
Dam
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r_--- J
Jurisdictional Stroam -e...
Buller Zone 1 -a i -
BufferZone 2 -s:~-
Flow Arrow -F- --
Disappearing Stream ~ -
Spring c~"'~~^
Swamp Manh ,~
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch ~
~-- ,m
False Sump ~
RrlILRQf]DS.•
Standard Gauge
RR SignolMilepost
„
Switch 0
RR Abandoned ~- -~- ~-- -~
RR Dismonfled
RIGHT of waY
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker - 0
Existing Right of Way Une -
Proposed Right of Way Una - ---~--
Proposed Right of way Une with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Conueie or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Ausss - --~-
Proposed Control of Access -~
Existing Easanentline - -E--
Proposed Temporary Conshudian Easement- e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -me-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- -roe-
Proposed Permaner~UHlilyEasenrent -roe-
ROADS AND REL4TED Ff 4TURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavemer~ --
Existing Curb --
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - - - ~ - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill ----r---
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Romp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for Futuro Wheel Chair Ramp - cr
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guideroil "
Proposed Cable Guideroil n n n
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
l~IsGETAT70N.•
Single Tree -
Single Shrub -
Hedge
Woods line -
Orchord
Vineyard
4
~.,.,,-
4 Q Q Q
nroyor°
EXISTING STRUCTURES.•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wali, Head Wall and End Wcll
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gaffer
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTTLITIES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Proposed Power Pols
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Une Tower
Power Transformer
U~G Power Cable Nand Hole
H-Frome Pole
Rewrded UG Power Line
Designated USG Power Urb (S.U.E.•)
WATER:
Water Manholo
Water Meter o
Water Valve
water Hydrant ~
Recorded L4G Woler Une
~~ Designated l6G Water Une (S.U.E.•}-- ----•----
~ c~ ~ ~ Above Ground Water Une ~~~ .mn.

~o~ ~ N;
N SotelBte Dish CC
~---~ TV Pedestal
^°e N Tower
----- l~G N Cable Hand Hols
® Recorded l1G TV Cable '•
° Designated lYG TV Coble (S.U.E.h - - - -~'- - - -
Recorded UG Fiber Optic Cable -'•'•-
Designated lVG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.'}- -
- - - -,. ro- _ -
b
0
8
H

TELEPHONE;
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole ~
Telephone Manhole 0
Telephone Booth ~
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower ~
lYG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U~G Telephone Cable '
Designated II~G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.•)- ----'----
Recorded U~G Telephone Cr::nduit ~°
Designated IJ~G Telephone Conduit(S.U.E."j- ----'°----
Recorded lbG Fiber Optia Cable '
Designated U~G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.•)- ----"°---
GAS:
Gas Vane 0
Ga: Meter ~
Recorded U~G Gas Une
Designated USG Gas Une (S.U.E.•) ----e----
Above Ground Goa Une "` `°°
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole .
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout p
lVG Sanitary Sewer Une u
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer .~ :~,~rary sew
Rewrded SS Forced Main Une ~-
Designoted SS Forced Main Una (S.U.E.7 - ----~•,----
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole ~
Utility Pole with Baas p
Utility located Oblect o
Utility Traffic Signal Box m
Utility Unknown l4G Une -,m-
WG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
A~G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
WG Test Hole (S.U.E.•) m
Abandoned Aaording to Utility Records - AATUR
End of Information E.0.1.

4~4~
_O
2
Mi €
a l~
fiR$E~
a,
}~~TF
V O
~~
3
~~
~~pgi
2 $ ~'
2
b
0
V1
0;
a
t
a

0
`~ p ~ Qlt~ ~
~ a° a
o ~ 1 °~ Q, ~ Q
I a ~,, o
~/ ~' Q qp p
~ ~~ o ~~ Q
° °
r ~ ~1
Q ~ - -4 17+65.29 PINC
D 16 '
9 QI ~ 58.3 STRIGIiT 67.0(~j
-BL- CPS 63803-2 I +17.6 P C~
-L- STa.13a4.72 60.95' RIGHT I b `IIS"~ Q
.1
d _ P - - PT t4fT '
~W uTEwL r aTa
q u cn4 sEE o[rl~ e
Q La~TE~ ti e r t ~
{7 l1MVhFMN \
Q f l ~
-L- POCSIa 11+9125 Q ~ ~oEAw oo+
,~>r
i

11
1 I B9
1

1 STA 19.07,70
L
1 194.26' LEFT

, '. ~, 1 1 ELEV. 2851.08'
II 1~
f~l
4
.
A.
1
1
w ,
~ P
P
~ 1
ias1
FF 11

~
T
~ 1
I

~
ET~l
S
ff
O
w 1 I 7 ~
,\
r^ ~
-L- PT 10+9948 Q rniE +
aass a iorc
\k's Q ~ E~ST~0115 UIFAIL ortcx ~ ~ U ~
\+ EST p STFF ~ OED 0 ~ ~ ~
0 b' ~
O k\ ~ YE 11ETLL ~ ~' J3
ELLE)Ti,dNl k ~ a~
DI 1.1 K EZT ~ ~ / (. n~ 75P1CIIC ~•P
'fy0 `~l, b ~oE
' ~ ~/~~ ti~
/ ~ ~L~ti' 1~c "~ h~J +
/~` O ~OA9
~/ ~ /
/ ~ EG/N TIP PROJECT 8-3803 ,
-L- Sto.10+50A0
/ ~e
~'
/ -L- PCSIa +00.00 ~ : / a
/ -BL-3 11+3 97 PINC / o /
% ~ i
DETAIL A DETAIL B DETAIL C
SPE IAL I CH GRADE LATERAL 'V' pITCH STANpA D DITCH
1 NOt ro Scplal INpr 1a Scplel INOf tp xdkl
crouna J.,~ spzteF slope r and D r/Fr. Smile °
Nln. D= L0 Fi.
Min. D= I.0 Ft. .wnen B Is > 6.0' Max. °: IA Fi.
b= S.0 Ff. D= 2.0 Ft.
MIn. D= L0 Fi. Sid. no. eT6.q
F3QM f0L 17+30 TQ (TAU+10 LT a' Tyne of Liner= PSAN
NaN AA tO+SO ro IIA 17+i0 R ar
1EOA1 ETA.I7+EO TO QA 11+15 LT ar FqM fTA 14+41 ro EG.13+DO ET -1.• 3rA 33+10 LT ar
FErwl rtA n+1o ro ErA 3a+3o Lr ~- ELOFE . Eao%
FEOM ErAlo+3E ro nA n+ao Er a»-
DETAIL D DETAIL E DETAIL F
LdTEACL 'V' DITCH RIP RdP~T-T:'Ea6aNKMENT $TA A 'V'pITCH
llbi f0 $odel INp} tp $C0101 IN01 }p Spplel
wpr~cl ---- fill Dlrcn-~T--O~
d '~ I'/Fi. Slope Grade I.0 0.5 Nao
d wourw ., D a and
MIn. D= Ft.
Filter Max. °= Ft. Est 7 Tons LU
Faorm b= Fi. T- MIn. D= L0 Fr.
T Typo o+ uner apss e~mp-Rap RA1{+f0 LT -4
ype of Liner= ? AiD-RaD llt)FE ~ 3.00%
f'IOM fTA 16+0pro ffA1d+9o lT ar EFA 1l+oo lT ar
STA is+o0 Era.
ETA, 16+00 lT ar
I
1

f
~~
p -L- J I A, 19+U0.93 Ib.91 Lth I
N
LLCC m
O6 SgLQS{ ~a
0 2
t ~Q
- - _ _ f r sE'c"
./ lsal
' iBip~y '~ E OETat C `~
~ OCEx3a~ydw. /QV~ 00
+ _ N5 A. '`
~~h7 ` ~ ~ qE E ~ „ ~' KPRESSWAT +OOryryO of 0
a
~.
~9
sJ,~s ~S f
~~~~
z
~ rlra v coa M/ / ~ ~j ~ / 1 1E u ~~'
SEE EEr/a c _ I -
IlMONl~AFD I~ ~ GAfE I I F~\ 3a £ 4 .
alas r ~ '~ 8 _ - E+ , - -
arxw ~*~ n „•
EST 6 101Q/ 1 i- FR 4aOwL1 • ' 851 O' ..
EST Si S1iT I E w ~
Np~N~p~ L ~ p t53FU ~ - .. .; .E ~
1 OB 310 10 L¢ti slco - '\ q `
\1 1
~ O Ilp Itt1,y~ ESI ASTFi
-_ _ _ _-
-- SaA - - _---
... ~
--------
,.~,~U„~~ ~ 1 I
DETAIL H ~ooos i ~
sTa a 'v' ITCH ~
I ear tp xpa, ~
Nor I Notr
" N T1P T
n J;y A ~ u """
' - - p, f
° Min. D= I.o Fr. ~ ' Ib N000. ut
Forer Fobr Max. °. Lo Ft.: , , ' ~ ~ ~ p0 3/0010 Qt4
Type of Li r Class 'B' Rip-Rail i / / / 5
" /
STA a+u ro AA to+os ~ ~ '
- ~ "
3~~10qq~~ LLB
JYLwL'.CK
w0pD5
.' .' SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- AND -ARIVE- PROFILE
-L- CURVE DATA PTSlal4+7228
PI Sfo Ip+49B8 P/ Sla N'-65,31 PI SYo 13+45.42 P/Sto 19+3163 PlSto 22+2295
v - 10'26'40.3'! RTl p . 3' 2q 405rRT10. 58' 33'03. rRT10 = IJ'28' I4B rLT1 0 • rr28' 22l rRT
D - 1L-30'OOD' D • 645'ODD' D -20'50'05.¢ D - 1419'25.2' D • 416'329' THEaO
L - 99.4T'
' L -5177' L - ZBIA2' L - 12197'
'
' L -26154'
' ~ h
T • 49a1 r . 6L46
T -2589' T - 154n r - x3422
R -54561' R =848,83' R • Z75AO' R • 9.00' R • L34O.00' i
4CURVE w1aREO'D ~ {aE
+
URNS 3 d''o + .
P1 Slo 11+14J4 P1510 10+4485 ~
O = 60'51'55,4fRT) p • 69'54145'ILT)

D -190'59'09.4 D =190'59'09.4 + ,
+
3660'
T
3
nbfi T =
-
20.97' + ,
R •30.00' R = 30.OD' sEa . EMIXRDEE eEEEI aulret
SfE PLANS FOR SUPERE(EVATA)N AND RUFF LENGTxS BR/OGE SKETCH/RELATIONSHIP
DETAIL G
$TdN d d pITCH
lnor to scale
~sL
round D q-0 round
d
14n.0= ].5 ft.
Max. °= L5 Ft.
B= 3 Ft.
Type of liner- Colr Fiber Mot
nraA ETA to+do ro ErA t{+ee rt ar

.~
~:
m
rZ
W
~~
~°
$„
n
m'
Pr
_~
EST p
I
r I
i

f

Ashe County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1].69 (Conley Cheek Road}
over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1169 {2)
VV.B.S. No. 33259.1.1
State Project No. 8.2712701
' T.I.P. No. B-3803
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ~
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
-~ r
.~ ~ j
DA f regory J. Tho ,PhD,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
~~ ~
ATE John F. Sullivan, III, Division Ad or
/Federal Highway Administration

.~
~ '
Ashe County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1169 (Conley Cheek Road)
over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-111b9 (2)
'VV.B.S. No. 33259.1.1
State Project No. 8.2712701
T.I.P. No. B-3803
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
5~u2-
DATE Joh L. Williams, P ,Project Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Ashe County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1169 (Conley Cheek Road)
Over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1169 (2)
State Project No. 8.2712701
W.B.S. No. 33259.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3803
Office of Natural Environment -Bridge Demolition
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge Demolition
and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 334. The maximum potential resulting
temporary fill associated with Bridge No. 334 is 20 yd 3 .
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Resident Engineer -Sensitive Watersheds
Water resources classified as High Quality Waters are located within one mile of the
project study area. The project lies in a High Quality Water Zone. Therefore, Design
Standazds in Sensitive Watersheds should be adhered to during construction of this
project.
Division Resident Engineer -Coordination
NCDOT will notify Ashe County Schools and Emergency Management Services prior to
bridge closure.
Ashe County Schools will need a place to turn azound at each end of the bridge.
Division Resident Engineer -Trout issues
This is not a designated trout stream nor is there any indication that it supports trout.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
April 2006

Ashe County
Bridge No. 334 on SR 1169 (Conley Cheek Road)
over South Fork New River
.Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1169 (2)
W.B.S. No. 33259.1.1
State Project No. 8.2712701
T.I.P. No. B-3803
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 334 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible
for the Federal-Aid Bridge Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts aze anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 334 has a sufficiency rating of
38.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
due to a deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program.
Bridge No. 334 is a one lane low water bridge that currently carries 300 vehicles per day with
900 vehicles per day projected for the future. The substandard deck width is becoming
increasingly unacceptable and replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
While the bridge is not classified as structurally deficient, components of the concrete
substructure have experienced an increasing degree of deterioration. These deficiencies are as
follows: bent #1 in the north-east corner has spalls at the waterline, bent # 2 facing west on the
upstream side has a 6 inch surface loss throughout, the upstream wing .wall has backfill being
washed out, there are minor spalls along the south-west wing wall and breast wall juncture,
and an island downstream is restricting flow which is causing the north-east bank to erode.
The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in
safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on SR 1169 over South Fork New River in Ashe County just north of
Yates Crossroads, neaz the intersection of SR 1003 and SR 1169 (see Figure 1). The azea
surrounding the bridge consists of low-density residential land uses.
SR 1169 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle route
and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.

In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1169 varies from 14 to 18-foot pavement width with no
shoulders (See Figures 3). The roadway grade is in a sag vertical curve through the project
area. The existing bridge is on a tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 9 feet above
the river bed.
Bridge No. 334 is afour-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
end bents consist of reinforced concrete. The interior bents consist of reinforced concrete
piers. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1966. The overall length of the
structure is 107 feet. The clear roadway width is 11.0 feet. The posted weight limit on this
bridge is 17 tons for single vehicles and 22 tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities located within the project study area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
low.
The current traffic volume of 300 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 900 VPD
by the year 2030. The projected volume includes one- percent truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and two- percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit, statutory 55
miles per hour would have been used but 3-R guidelines were used for this project, therefore a
design speed of 30 miles per hour was used for this project. Two school buses cross the bridge
daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
There were no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 334 during a recent three-year
period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 200 feet in length. The
bridge length is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements.
The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide for two 10-foot lanes with 5-foot offsets on
each side. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 7 feet higher than
the existing grade.
The existing roadway will be widened from eighteen feet to twenty feet. Five-foot shoulders
will be provided on each side (eight-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). This roadway
will be designed as a Rural Local Route with a 30 mile per hour design speed.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
2

One alternative for replacing Bridge No. 334 that was studied in detail is described below.
Alternate 1 (Preferred)
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the existing low-water structure on partially new roadway
alignment with aspill-through type bridge approximately 200 feet in length raised
approximately 9 feet above that of the existing bridge. The design storm would be reduced
from the desired 25-year event to the 10-year event. The new bridge would likely raise water
surface elevations during flooding events. If that were the case, a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) would be required. Improvements to the approach roadways will be
required for a distance of approximately 420 feet to the north and 730 feet to the south of the
new structure. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the construction period.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Brid a Replacement Projects
considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average
road user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would include
SR 1003, and US 221. The detour for the average road user would result in 9.0 minutes
additional travel time (5.2 miles additional travel). Up to a ten-month duration of construction
is expected on this project. Based on the guidelines, the criteria above require evaluation of
alternatives including onsite and offsite detours to determine what is appropriate.
In this case, Ashe County Emergency Services has indicated that an offsite detour is
acceptable. The condition of all roads and bridges on the offsite detour are acceptable without
improvement. Ashe County School Transportation has indicated that rerouting buses around
this project will not be a problem. In view of the lower impacts to environment and property,
project cost savings and no major opposition, an offsite detour is recommended. NCDOT
Division 11 concurs in these recommendations.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1169.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition.
These deficiencies are as follows: bent #1 in the north-east corner has spalls at the waterline,
bent # 2 facing west on the upstream side has a 6 inch surface loss throughout, the upstream
wing wall has backfill being washed out, there are minor spalls along south-west wing wall
and breast wall juncture, and an island downstream is restricting flow which is causing the
northeast bank to erode.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 334 will be replaced on a partially new alignment as shown in Figure 2. NCDOT
Division 11 concurs with the preferred alternative.

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the alternative is as follows:
Alternative 1
Preferred
Structure $ 429,000
Roadwa A roaches $ 351,000
Structure Removal $ 19,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 226,000
En . & Contin encies $ 176,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,201,000
Ri ht-of-wa Costs $ 73,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 1,274,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Physical Characteristics
Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in Hydrologic Unit 05050001,
Sub-basin OS-07-O1 of the New River Drainage Basin. Two streams were identified in
the project study area. South Fork New River and an unnamed tributary (UT) to South
Fork New River are perennial streams.
The best usage classification of South Fork New River (Index Number 10-1-(20.5)) is
Class WS-V HQW (NCDENR-DWQ, 2004). The best usage classification of an
unnamed tributary is the same as the water body to which it is a tributary. Water
resources classified as High Quality Waters are located within one mile of the project
study area. The project lies in a High Quality Water Zone, therefore Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds should be adhered to during construction of this project.
Biotic Resources
Three terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area:
conifer/hardwood forest, maintained disturbed land, and riparian fringe. The following
table shows the coverage area of the project on these communities.
Community Coverage within project
study area (acres)
Conifer/Hardwood Forest 32.8
Ri arian Frin a 3.9
Maintained/Disturbed Land 37.7
4

Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
South Fork New River and the UT to South Fork New River are considered
jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
field investigation revealed no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area.
Coverage area estimates are based on the proposed "bubble study" area.
Approximately 2,000 feet of South Fork New River is located in the project study area.
Permits
In accordance with the Federal Register of January 15, 2002, Part II, Volume 67,
Number 10, the project will likely require authorization under a Section 404
Nationwide Pernut (NWP) 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions). However, a CWA
Section 404 Individual Permit (1P) may be required, rather than a NWP 23 if impacts
from the proposed project exceed the threshold of 300 feet of stream impacts or one
half of an acre of fill in Waters of the U.S. The USACE determines final permit
requirements, including IP requirements, under the statutory provisions of CWA
Section 404. If a temporary causeway is needed and is not specified in the Categorical
Exclusion, a Nationwide 33 Permit (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering) will be necessary for this project. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) No. 3403 corresponds to NWP 23. Written concurrence from the
DWQ will not be required if all General Conditions are met. If the project is
authorized under a CWA Section 404 1P, then a CWA Section 401 Major Water
Quality Certification from the DWQ will be required.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of March 8, 2006 there are six federally protected species
listed for Ashe County.
Bog Turtle Biological Conclusion: N/A
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)].
T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
not required.
Spreading avens Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for this species is at elevations at or above 5,060 ft. The project site is
located at an elevation of approximately 3,000 ft. Therefore, habitat for
spreading avens does not exist in the project area. It can be concluded that the
construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
5

Swamp pink Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There are no wetlands associated with the project area that could provide suitable
habitat for swamp pink. It can be concluded that the construction of this project
will have no effect on this species.
Roan Mountain bluet Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for this species is at elevations at or above 4,600 ft. The project site is located
at an elevation of approximately 3,000 ft. Therefore, habitat for Roan Mountain bluet
does not exist in the project area. It can be concluded that the construction of this
project will have no effect on this species.
Heller's blazing star Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Heller's blazing star is found at elevations at or above 3,500 ft on ledges of rock
outcrops. The project area is located in a valley along a stream crossing at an elevation
around 3,000 ft. Habitat does not exist for Heller's blazing star within the project area.
It can be concluded that the construction of this project will have no effect on this
species.
Virginia spiraea Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat does exist within the project area for Virginia spiraea. Within the project area,
some of the riparian area around South Fork New River is open on both sides of the
creek. These riparian communities are maintained/disturbed and have no canopy
closure. A systematic survey for this species was conducted on June 16, 2005. No
specimens of Virginia spiraea were observed during this survey. The project area will
be resurveyed prior to construction. Therefore, this project will have no affect on
Virginia spiraea.
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.

Historic Architecture
The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed the subject project and determined
that a survey is required (see letter dated August 12, 2004). A survey was conducted
by a NCDOT architectural historian in September 2004 (see Concurrence Form dated
September 27, 2004). Nine properties over fifty years of age were evaluated according
to National Register Criteria. In a meeting with HPO and NCDOT both parties
concurred that there are no eligible historic properties in the project area and therefore
no historic properties affected by the project.
Archaeology
The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological
investigation needed to be conducted (see letter dated August 12, 2004).
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. The right-of-way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. Most of construction will take place along existing alignment. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic

noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports
are required.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Ashe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area
of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or
extent of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION & AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the N.C. Division of Water Quality, NC Department of
Natural Resources, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, N.C Wildlife Resource Commission, and
Ashe County Planning Department.
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission in standardized letters provided a request that they
prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning structure.
Response: NCDOT will be replacing the bridge with a bridge.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality, the Army Corps of Engineers, NC Department of Natural
Resources, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Ashe County Planning Department had no
special concerns for this project.

IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected directly by
this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments have been received to
date.
There is not a substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project.
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to
be a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
9

1210 ~
~ .a a •~ ~ti 1178 Id Oval 22 ~~ 1181
3 ~ i 1179 1180
~ O `• ~ P
1177 12-1.32 ~
275 m' 1
~ m ~ l
~ ~~~ 6 1 .r
ti ~
'~ ~ `r ra ~ , 17 6 (~l
1111 ~
~ ` ?
fVl! `~ 1179
6 1106 •a ~ ~ ~ ryp 1168
~ 1169 '
Pieasan~ Grove
Baptist
~-~- ~.
1103 ~
rove Bapt,. ~ ~' ~
~ ® ~
0 1
U
1101 1265
•S w
1100 ~ -~
f,8 ~ ~
??
NE
Yates N
6 a .~a
A _ Idlewild
d ~iN
~~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
'` DIVISION OF I•IIGFIWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
~a ~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.334 oN SR 1169
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-3803
Figure 1
~ ~^
I
100 ~ ~ ~
3 1169 ` 1168
4
J
Studied Detour Route
a
a ~
} •5 1 70 ~

v~ .:~~ i -
«ac-:
rt ,
s ~ .. .~, ~. y ~ E -`^9~,
y~. -~
~ ~.r ~ ~.~ r• ,x •'
- r -
~ ~ ~ 4 ~~~
q - .. ~W P
qq ''f"~..f.. - ~ t
~ f Lh
.. ^ _,~
.. T" _!
f,.
^' -
i
:9P1` t _i
Y
a~
i ~ - ., "
i^-~ ~!t
r
:{ 4 ~' ~ ! .
i
w
11n
-
iZ
i
~:-t ~:
ka
,~
.. .....
N >....
' ~ -
~ ~ Tom'"
r
iif~ L
c
~ ~ ~,~
U
~~ ~~ ~~
~~ , ~; i _`
t1 E
* ~
~'
..
. .
~ ,~ T
a~ ~ ~ -- :~~,..
. ~ ~. * . ~ ~s .~~ .~
F _
{~ ~~ '
- _~
f " ,,,;R ~ ,, y , , ~.
c
~_ a~. ~ ~~-~ ..,~ ~~
-~~y.~fl, ~ •~rih. ~ ~a ,~ R ,r=`~vj~"a~:''%. :,, .`_ «~., a~ ~'' "~`~~ 7.. +r,.
~ ., NORTH ~ CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
" ~ ;~ ~ , ~ '`t ~. ,.~'- - ~p'~ OF TRANSPORTATION
~ , o
~ ;. .; t;k ~ ~~ DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
g ~~
,;~ +Y~ '` ~' ~y' .;_ ' ~ _~" PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
x I(., y3 ;t ,; •`~• •°'~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
..,...
> _ ~ _ : ~ .. ~ ~i . ~ F ~' r ~' ASHE COUNTY
. ; yT ~. ,,+ , W 4 ,
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.334
.r,
~~ ° ~ ~ # ~'~' ' ~ ~ ,. ~~'~ .~ ~.~ x=~ ON SR l/69 (CONLEY CHEEK ROJ
- : - ' ' ~~ , ° ~< OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RNER
'x' .: L ~ '* .~'. ~, ' ~;~,. ~ •, ^ s ` . ~,s,,,, B-3803 __
,t ~ ~~ •~``. ~..~ ~~' ~l ~ FIGURE 2

Federal Atd #: BRZ-1169(2) TIP # : B-3803 County: Asbe
CONCURRENCB FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
T~.~TATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 334 on SR l 169 over South Ii'ork New Rlver
Ott September 27, 2004, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® ~ North Carolina State HlsloriC Preservation Office {HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project at
^ Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review sessioniconsultation
^ Othor
All parties present agrced
^ Thera are no properties overfifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less Was fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
® There are properties over filly years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on We
historical information available and the photographs of sash property, the properties identified as (List below) are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them are necessary.
® There are no National Register-listed or Study'Listed propertios within the project's area of potemial effects.
® All properties greater than 50 years of age bested in the AP)r have been considered at Chia consWtation, and based
upon the above concutronce, all compliance for historic architecture wiW Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has bcen completed for this project.
®~ Thera sere no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
. ~~
Representative, Nt:DOT (J Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other FederalAgency - Date
r r~ / .
• ,C ~ ~27 D
tative, ~ Dat
I Q
State Historic Proservation Officer p~
I If a survey rapo~t ie prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

r TIiP BR1DG I COUNTY DiVISiONi BUILT ~ PDE Architecture i Archaeoio
~ B-3492 580058 McDOWELL 13 1962 'Hancock ! Yes Na
y J 8-4408 030265 ANSON 10 1961 Hancock I No i Na
oy $-4409 030308 ANSON 10 1922 I Hancock No i No
10 030307 ANSON 10 1931 I Mancock Yes No
130+ 8-4448 100227 BUNCOMBE 13 ! 1958 Hancock No No
64486 210004 CLAY is ! 1852 Hancock ~ Na i No
8-4469 220219 CLEVELAND i 12 I 1952 Hancock ~ ~ No, No
~fa1~1 $ 8-4518 350110 . GASTON i 12 ~ 1962 Hancockk I No No •
~~ B-0545 ,440072 HENOERSON i 14 I 1963 Hancock ; No No
~pp~~ i 8-4573 540183 LINCOLN 12 1965 I Hancock No i No
~K~+I 8-4631 800526 RUTHERFORD 13 1970 Hancock i No Na
~~y B-4423 060087 BEAUFORT i 2 1965 Ca s No No
~~~ 3 8-4424 060088 BEAUFORT 2 I 1968 I Ca s No No
boy 8.4454 150043 CARTER>:T 2 ~ 1963 f Ca s N~ No
~~ 8520 360032 GATES 1 1952 Ca Yes No
X41 538 410025 HALIFAX d 1985 Ca ~ No No
~11•?$1 8.4540 410142 HALIFAX i 4 I 1982 Ca I Yes Yes
3o
~~ B-4548 450002 HERTFORD , 1 i 1980 Ca - No Yea
3~ 8-4549 450042 HERTFORD 1 i 1960 Ca Yes Yes
2~~ 8.4567 530069 LENOIR 2 1971 Ca Yes i Yes
~~ B-4578 570008 MARTIN 1 ~ 1974 Ca No No
~ 13 -4848 880017 TYRRELL 1 ; 1977 i Ca s ~ No ~ No
1317 8-4864 920025 WARREN 5 1957 Ca s ! Yes I Yes
1 J 8-4688 920036 WARREN ! 5 ; 1955 Ca No ~ Yes
4 320052 EDGECOMBE ! 4 ! 1964 Johnson No i Yes
Epay J B-4580 500102 JOHNSTON 4 1958 i Johnson I Yes Yes
boy 9 B-4587 630082 NASH I 4 ~ 1961 Johnson Na I Yes
~ B-4618 , 770445 R08ESON ~ 6 ' 1955 Johnson Yes I No
• 8-4644 830057 STANLY 10 1961 Johnson I No ~ No
B-4849 890377 UNION 10 1962 Johnson I No i No
} 8.4851 890251 UNION 10 1957 Johnson No ! No
F7c~•l J 58 910345 WAKE 5 1960 Johnson ~ No No
:~ I 8.4871 960035 WAYNE 4 1961 Johnson I No ; Yes
cppery 3824 130190 CALDWELL 11 ~ 1981 Pi kin ! No No
-3819 ! 130184 CALD ELL 11 I 1962 PI kin ! No No
3911 ? 850038 f SURRY I 11 1923 Pi kin Yes No

~y 8-4404 . 000102 ALAMANCE 7 ~ 1968 P! kin I Yes No
3
~~ B-4552 1 480!00 I REDELL 12 i i 963 ~ Pi kin i Yes I No
-4813 750415 RANDOLPH I 8 ! 1959 ~ Pi kin No Yes
t B-4646 850132 SURRY 11 1982 Pi kin Yes j No
i B-4675 980034 WILKES 11 1960 ~ Pi k!n i No No
~•j ~ B -3 69 310158 DURHA i5 ~ 1960 Williams . Yes No
!3o B -3806 040070 ASHE 11 ~ 1963 Williams ! Yes No
~ 8 .3802 040229 ASHE ! 11 1960 Williams : No No
8 .3803 1 040334 ASHE ' 11 1968 ~ Williams i Yss No
a -3804 040296 ASWE 11 ~ 1964 Willfarraa i Yes ~ No
13 8 -4523 380164 RANVILLE 5 1955 Wlltiams ; No Yes
3 8 -4524 380193 RANVILLE 5 ! 1956 Williams No Yea
ZZ~'~f 3 8 -4525 380133 GRANVILLE 5 1960 Williams No I Yes
-4526 1 380200 GRANVILLE i 5 ~ 1957 :Williams No Yes

Thank you £or your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental re~~iew coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
PBS:w
Attachments
! Spreadsheet
1 G i~Iemos
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Fury

s,,. ~7A~'c,
~.~
.a~~,.
lYorth Carolina Department of Cut#ural Reso
State Historic Preservation Office
Poser 8. Sondbed:. Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans. Secretary
Jet1'rey 1, Crow, Deputy Secretory
august 12, 2004
1vIE~iORANDUlvt
otr« or ~lrchiistary
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
TO: Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROivi: Peter B. Sandbeck ~~P~.~v~jrJeC~.
SUBJECT: 2004 Bridge Projects, including B-349?, B--F408, B-4409, B-~F10, B-4446,
B-4466, B4469, B-4518, B-4545, B-4573, B-4631, B-4423, B-4424, B-4454,
B-4520, B-4538, B-4540, B-4548, B-4549, B-4567, B-4578, B-4648, B-4664,
B-4665, B-4504, B-4560, B-4587, B-4618, $-4G~#4, B-4649, B-4651, B-4658,
B-4671, B-3624, B-3819, B- 391], B-4404, $-4552, B-4613, B-4646, B-4675
B-3169, B-3606, B-3802, B-3bu3, B-3804, B-4523, B-4524, B-4525, B-4526,
Multi•county, ER (?4-1280-ER 04-1330
On July 28, 2004, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for Transportation projects, met with the North
Carolina Deparanent of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting o£ the minds concerning the above
projects. We teponed on our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project descriptions, area photographs, and
aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we have included our
comments for each bridge project on a spreadsheet attached to this letter. These comments are provided for
each project as proposed.
If an archaeological survey is requested on the spreadsheet, a separate ruemorandum from the Office of State
archaeology, e:tplaining whether a general survey is required or if the survey is predicated upon an ofE site
detour or new location, is attached.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Envirotunental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 11ct and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 3G Cl~R
Part 800_
I.seatioa Nsilinq Address Tek}i1o~dFu
AgMINISTItA'TION SI17 N_ BIotNN 5lroet, Rakitdt NC 1417 MAII Sarricc CcMOr. Ra4igh NC ?7694-0617 191717]1-J76]/733.8653
ItF:S'TgRAT10N it S N. Ilkwn Street, Raki~ NC .1417 MCI Service C~-rater, Raingil NC ?7699r1617 tv191733.65a7n1]~o01
SURVF;Y S AI.ANNINr: S1S N. Dlm~m Sual, ade~~. Nl` .JhI7 MaI SCfVceC C~YxCr, RaklfllL NC~ ?76~M/-4617 (9191733fi5dSr11 S-Ji101

..r..~ ~,
.~
~ ~'
~,
ji
~}f•
.°
Looking Northbound of
Bridge No. 334
,~
>,
Looking at West Face
of Bridge No. 334
~~ ~'"
~~ ; ~ ~`

, North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
~~
~ot ~ Planning & Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 334 on SR 2169
Over South Fork New River
B-3803
Figure 3