19930473 Ver 1_Complete File_19940308

i?
: f C-,
a cc o
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director R ???
., ..... ,_.._. -, j LS
Opo
t_{ ,, s „ ?-+ ? k.+ y :...: t_• , i., ...: :..! :....: , ,_; .!. k ,;r_ :... i i?i• , .._ i_i ,..? .t.:... ..... " y% .t_' t .a+ i i .... , ,
t'..'::.',.: S. i C. i + ,- r-, 'a' .}.. i...i i .? k i::: _.. rW i:-: -.•t .?;', ?'
?'? f114!el.i .
_ WATER < <
. H .... _ _. ... i t ..
:..: t..::... :., ,..., t..: .... , : .: ... : , ::
cr ?? ...
,_3 "% t:! -! i ;? ? ?", .E ,. ''•_y r.; '::y: ! ' : +•..`,.... , {.: .• :_: i... ; •+?..: ; .. + i + 17
._` Y P:, ?'-, ::.... , ?"..+. i is p- {•?k 1--' isi'

::! k ?..:t::ti {::- ....+. k ?i:i ::
+ {•.::' ,..? t..l ::.:...: .:... . ::..t •.-` .,. t::.`':: t, t::.` k !.+ ! ;... t.. : x... L"" 3'
fi!''" -.:: .i. {.v ... is {.+ ,. 7...h f:' "I i .. is t ? 4_!k?':
C t.! :.! "k c:?'`, I
{'iii;+•!iii_t is J. {::'• }..`.
....:, ? ,... in .. .i. t... :::t'1-? :: ._ ' t•_•t k'? + ? :{ ;'!'? :1. .i. :.. .: i . :t. t: k , ?'?k i::.,.:; :1. .. o-` tFA .i.:.., . _ ..- ..:..s.
z. ?.._ ,.., .... f.., .!.. ..i.. ,
:_: .... _...
!+_:'::^. .. :t. t'.::: {... ,.. :..E i?:i _..... .:i.. i' i
' ," ...+ .}. i:1 ?_! k i'_.: i_. {:
... ?...; .... ?..:.3. {::: <::i i F .....t ez Ac: , .3. 9 ` 3, :''+ • ...iry L!
„ ,... .: i..: •: °-F :_: .... i:::: 't..
L( .}. .-J : 'i.:i. A t:.. ?.. f i._.;•:? ..-
.. .., .. ,. `-y' -:.1
,..E n+ } { r,• :. i"` ..} :.. :..{ ` . , ,
a ..
i- .. :,,..+,..i ,... _ ._, :::•'! .... r_, ,._. .+.. _ .,rat
,.i .:.i .+. U t_i :•_: {.! '! ! 1-:1 t'a:.",N+: J. :
g k i k k k :::. + t.. {_! ,:. - F' ? ... ..... , ..... „ .. ..
!. ::3 ;^? ! k i, .:.._. ?.' Li
.1. ! :..., , , ;..j
(.J
, ,'-! t^. , -: C :: .: ? + ! :.: k Y. `'`.{ i.:: v'a k •..i. ';; +i :.. . ....... .......:.... . i_! f-i aii {: t::? t.., ,.., .... .. :}. c
1A J 'E C'." C3 Cit.! I C:
t:::::-:}.) ; :::.::':•,...:_: k!i::::++i. .....,_..'?-.,.....i{::j r:t :::li..'.?..I:1.i?•!•'.:j .... ,_.i:i_iY"' ,
r
4-- 1- cl
.. : 't ..... .::, _ ...+ L I +...+ .. . _, j_ - .j_ _, `..., .!.. ...i !._
'`
... ,..+r..`i.! t:+: .t" +t:::: :..: ',•'y: t::ii_r 't ?..}?ic.::i: :}. .? }"._ ??, i k
..i.. , .. .. ...
-i :
t k c:!. , ; ?•.. i? ,_` :..: i .• ,. ,........ ..... . ' ici'''. .,. i?:.: . , ..., k-i {::i {:.. {"s {'}'t ri k {•si ?i" k '.. t .! .i ..! ? k ::
!_, ....
i. } .#. .!.:... i::1 `:::- {:•-, i::t ' i::{ 'U
01iginal signed by
Joe.. OMY
;::!...( a.. ... { .+ .).
e-.
E"; A
. a
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
June 16, 1993
S
WETLANDS GR0 W
WATER LIALITY SECTION
Action ID. 199302696 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L. J. Ward
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to your letter of May 26, 1993, regarding your plans to
discharge dredged/fill material into the waters/wetlands of the North Fork New
River, associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 59, S.R. 1100, Creston,
Ashe County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2002. Plans included with your letter
showed that you propose to replace the aforementioned bridge with a new bridge
to the west of the existing bridge, and that the existing bridge will be
removed when the new route is completed. Reference is also made to
Mr. Stephanie Goudreau's letter of March 5, 1993, in which the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission expressed no objections to the planned road
improvements provided that:
a. No heavy equipment is operated in the live streams in order to
minimize sedimentation and prevent introduction of other pollutants.
b. Erosion control measures should be implemented where soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion.
C. Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's
water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
d. Temporary ground cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.) must be
placed on all bare soil during construction. Permanent vegetation in these
same areas must be established within 15 days of ground disturbing activities
to provide long term erosion control.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or

-2-
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Special regional conditions of this NWP state that before discharging
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States occurring within the
twenty-five mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout waters, the
applicant will obtain a letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission. Review of the information you have provided, and the
comments submitted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
reveals that your proposed work, is authorized by NWP provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and the
recommendations set forth by the Wildlife Resources Commission. This
NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or
local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

-3-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Dr. Charles Bruton
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning and Research Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Doug Miller
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
?a?John Dorney
ater Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau
Habitat Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
Division of Boating & Inland Fisheries
Route 2, Box 278
State Road, North Carolina 28676

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE 2 ® 0JL
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
DEM, DEHNR
Room 625-D
Archdale Building
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

J dd SVVFv
r:.
STATE- OF NORTH CAROLINA L-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 26, 1993 110
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
A
JUN 1 093
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
E
JUN I - 1993
3
Subject: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 59 over the
North Fork New River on SR 1100, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1100(4), State Project No. 8.2710401,
TIP No. B-2002.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesti an 'ndividual
permit but propose to proceed under a 'tionwi e Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) ' sued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. he visions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
We also anticipate that 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.

If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
. J. OQu' PE
A nt Branch Manager
r
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE-Raleigh
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM.
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W.E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Fedora, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

Ashe County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1100
Over North Fork New River
Federal Project BRZ-1100(4)
State Project 8.2710401
TIP# B-2002
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
FP-,- Planning and Environmental Branch
"ate Nic 67as L. Graf, P. E.
Jm/tDivision Administrator, FHWA
i. .
Ashe County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1100
Over North Fork New River
Federal Project BRZ-1100(4)
State Project 8.2710401
TIP# B-2002
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
MARCH 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
W- `1 a an.
R. W. Fedora Sr.
Project Planning Engineer
%01,1111111111",
Oja Yq -h4
Wayne Elliott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head SEAL
6916 '
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager V. "0:,%
Planning and Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1100
Over North Fork New River
Federal Project BRZ-1100(4)
State Project 8.2710401
TIP# B-2002
I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Bridge No. 59 is located over North Fork New River, in Ashe County.
It is included in the 1993-1999. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. The project has been classified as a
Federal Categorical Exclusion. No substantial environmental impacts are
expected.
Bridge No. 59 will be replaced on a new, skewed alignment west of the
existing bridge as shown by Alternate 1, Figure 2. The recommended
replacement structure is a 300-foot long, 30-foot wide bridge.
Approximately 800 feet of new approach roadway will improve the horizontal
alignment, providing a 35 mph design speed. The new roadway will have a
24-foot wide travelway and six-foot graded shoulders at approximately the
same grade as the existing roadway.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The estimated cost of the project is $861,000. The estimated cost
shown in the 1993-1999 TIP is $726,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. Less than 0.01 acre of wetlands will be
disrupted by the project. Standard sedimentation and erosion control
measures and best management practices will be used during construction.
Wet concrete will not be allowed to contact stream water. Temporary ground
cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.).will be placed on all bare soil
during construction. Permanent vegetation will be established at these
areas within 15 days of ground disturbing activities. After construction
is completed, the existing roadway will be removed, graded to surrounding
conditions, and planted with native vegetation. A Section 401 General
Water Quality Certification is required.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1100 is classified as a rural minor collector route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System.
Near Bridge No. 59, SR 1100 has a 16-foot wide travelway plus
four-foot grass shoulders. Vertical alignment is fair. Horizontal
alignment is poor because of a near 90 degree turn at the southern end of
the.bridge. Bridge grade is 17 feet above stream bottom.
2
Traffic volume is projected at 700' VPD for 1995 (the proposed
construction year) and 1200 VPD for 2015. Truck percentages are 12-o
truck-tractor semi_trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles.
The existing bridge was built in 1930 and has a timber deck on
I-beams, a low steel truss, and reinforced concrete (RC) abutments. Total
length is 200 feet with a clear roadway width of 11 feet. Bridge No. 59
carries one lane of traffic and has posted load limits of 16 tons SV and
20 tons TTST.
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency
rating is 11.6 of a possible 100 with an estimated remaining life of less
than five years.
Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates no
accidents occurred at the bridge between 1 February 1989 and 31 January
1992. The Transportation Director for Ashe County Schools indicated four
school bus crossings daily (two busses crossing twice each).
IV. ALTERNATIVES
There are two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 59.
Alternate 1 (Recommended) is to replace the existing bridge with a
skewed, 300-foot long, 30-foot wide bridge on new location west of the
existing alignment. This alternate will improve the alignment and allow
traffic to be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Based on preliminary design, a design speed of 35 MPH will result.
Alternate 2 is to replace the existing bridge with a 230-foot long
bridge on new location nearly parallel to the existing alignment. The
width of this bridge would vary from 30 feet to 36 feet to, provide for
curve widening. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. Based on preliminary design, a design speed of 25 MPH would
result.
A design exception is required for either alternate.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual
closing of the road as the existing bridge deteriorates.
3
V. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 shows the estimated costs of each alternate.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
RECOMMENDED
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
BRIDGE $432,000
BRIDGE REMOVAL 27,000
ROADWAY & APPROACHES 143,900
MOBILIZATION &
MISCELLANEOUS 120,100
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES 108,000
$403,300
27,000
162,200
118,500
107,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $831,000 $818,000
RIGHT OF WAY $ 30,000 $ 33,000
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $861,000 $851,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 59 should be replaced west of the existing alignment as
shown in Alternate 1, Figure 2. Traffic should be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
The recommended replacement structure is a 300-foot long, 30-foot
wide bridge. According to a preliminary hydraulics investigation, this
size bridge should be adequate to handle flow from the North Fork New
River. This size may change after further hydrologic studies. The
roadway approaches should have a 24-foot wide travelway plus six-foot
graded shoulders. A service road will be constructed to serve the fire
department and church as shown in Figure 2.
Alternate 1 is recommended because it provides a higher design speed
than Alternate 2. Both alternates have approximately equal costs and
environmental consequences.
The NCDOT Division 11 Engineer recommends replacement on new location
as no suitable detour exists to provide the Creston Volunteer Fire
Department direct access to NC 88 north of the bridge.
4 ' 1 .1 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS

A. Background
The project is located in a rural setting east of Creston in Ashe
County. It is in the Mountain Physiographic Province. The majority of the
study area is used for pasture and agriculture. A narrow fringe of
hardwood vegetation borders the North Fork New River. Topography in the
area ranges from gently to moderately sloping. Elevation is approximately
2850 feet above mean sea level.
B. Plant Communities
The disturbed community is maintained and dominated by an herbaceous
layer that contains Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), Joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium fistulosum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), various grasses
and Asteraceous plants. Pasture dominated sites exist north of the river
and agricultural dominated sites exist south of the river. The
agricultural site is being used for growing Christmas trees (Abies sp.)
and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum).
A narrow band of hardwood vegetation occurs on both sides of the
river. The canopy is dominated by several hardwood species.such as
buckeye (Aesculus octandra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sugar maple
(Acer saccharum), black willow (Salix nigra), black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). The shrub and herb is
dominated by two touch-me-not species (Impatiens alp lids and I. capensis),
Joe-pye-weed, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides). The ground cover contains poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia).
Adjacent to the banks of the North Fork of the New River is a
Palustrine Fringe community. This community occurs in channels or
depressions in narrow bands that receive periodic flooding. This community
supports dogwood (Cornus amomum) and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
Plant community impacts are presented in Table 2. These estimates
are preliminary and may change.
Table 2. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community AM Alt2
Disturbed 1.6 1.1
Mixed Hardwood 0.1 0.2
Palustrine Fringe 0.1 0.1
TOTALS 1.8 1.4
5
A direct result of construction is vegetation loss. The majority of
the study area is dominated by the Disturbed plant community. A narrow
fringe of Mixed Hardwood community will be impacted by construction.
Construction of Alternate 1 will impact the most vegetation since it is
proposed on new location at an angle to the existing bridge. Alternate 2
impacts less vegetation because it is proposed closer to the existing
bridge. Efforts will be made to control erosion during construction.
C. Wildlife Communities
Mammals anticipated in the study area include deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck (Marmota
monax), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Birds likely to inhabit the study area are house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), red- tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), bobwhite (Colinus
virginianus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), common grackle (uiscalus quiscala), Coopoer's hawk
(Accipiter cooperii), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), field sparrow
(Spizella usilla), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura).
Likely amphibians in the study area include American toad (Bufo
americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), slimy salamander (Plethodon
gluttinosus), and Jordon's salamander (Plethodon jordonii). Likely
reptiles include eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), brown snake
(Storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata), eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina).
Fish in the project area include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), central stoneroller (Campostoma
anomalum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), tonguetied minnow
(Exoglossum laurae), bigmouth chub (Nocomis platyrhynchus), various
shiners (Notropis spp.), Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus), blacknose
dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), rock bass
(Ambloplites rupestris), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), several
darters (Etheostoma spp.), and mottle sculpin (Cottis bairdi).
Efforts will be made to minimize erosion into the New River.
Construction may impact filter feeders and non-mobile organisms by
deposition of soil material and increased sedimentation.
Construction equipment and fill placement may have an impact on
non-mobile terrestrial organisms, especially on new location sections.
After bridge construction is completed, the existing roadway will be
removed, graded to surrounding conditions, and planted with native
vegetation. This will create new wildlife habitat.
6
D. Soils
. Soils information was obtained from the Ashe County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service, 1985). Two soil mapping units are located in the
study area, Colvard fine sandy loam and Toxaway loam. Colvard fine sandy
loam is classified as a soil unit with Hydric Inclusions and Toxaway loam
is classified as being all Hydric.
Colvard fine sandy loam formed in recent alluvium and is located on
nearly level floodplains of major streams. This map unit is well drained.
Toxaway loam formed in recent alluvium and is poorly drained. Toxaway
loam is also found on floodplains of major streams.
E. Water Quality
The project is located in the New River Basin. The project crosses
the North Fork of the New River. The North Fork New River is
approximately 50'- 60' wide and several feet deep. The bottom is composed
of gravel and boulder sized materials with lesser amounts of silt and
cobble materials. The North Fork New River originates southwest of the
study area and flows to the northeast where it joins the South Fork New
River to become the New River. Best use classification of the North Fork
New River is C (DEM, 1991). Best use recommendations for Class C waters
include aquatic propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters,or waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or one mile
downstream.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program. This network addresses
long term trends in water quality by measuring the taxa richness and
presence of intolerable organisms. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. No BMAN surveys have been conducted in
the North Fork New River in the project
area.
Sedimentation Control guidelines and Best Management Practices will
be implemented prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of
the project. Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts
made to control sediment runoff.
F. Waters of the U.S.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities in
"Waters of the US" based on the following laws: Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344), and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any action that
proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under the jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers and a federal permit is required. Generally, "Waters
of the US" is defined as navigable waters, their tributaries and
associated wetlands and subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
7
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined'by 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters and
wetlands are two subsets of "Waters of the US".
Impacts to "Waters of the US" are anticipated from proposed
construction. The proposed project will impact "surface waters" of the
North Fork New River and a jurisdictional wetland plant community located
in the study area. Jurisdictional wetland boundaries were determined from
observations of vegetation, soils and hydrology. The vegetation is
hydrophytic and the soil color is hydric. The site is located at a
depression that drains into the North Fork New River. Table 3 summarizes
impacts to Waters of the U.S. These estimates are preliminary and may
change with project design.
Table 3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the US
JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
Site Community AM A1t2
1 Palustrine Fringe <0.01 acres <0.01 acres
SURFACE WATERS
North Fork New River 0.2 acres 0.1 acres
G. Permits
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for
proposed construction. This permit authorizes any activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency or department as determined pursuant to the
Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work, or discharge is Categorically Excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment and the Corps of Engineers' office of the Chief of
Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the CE and concurs with that determination.
In addition, the project is located in a designated "trout" county.
Final permit decision rests with the Corps of Engineers. Ashe County is
located within a "Trout" county. The North Fork New River is classified
as a Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (under Hatchery Supported
8
Trout Waters) in the study area. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission will not object to the project provided the following
conditions are implemented:
1) Construction is implemented so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
2) Temporary ground cover such. as hardwood mulch or straw is placed
on all bare soil during construction and permanent vegetation is
established within 15 days of ground disturbing activities.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required. State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Construction is likely to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit.
Generally, no mitigation is required according to the MOA between the
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The
final decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
H. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to determine if any
protected species are located in the study area.
Four federally protected species are listed in Ashe County by the
USFWS as of August 28, 1992. These are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed for Ashe County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Roan Mountain bluet Hedyotis purpurea var. montana E
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T
E - Endangered T - Threatened
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges. Habitat requirements for this species
include full sunlight, high elevations, and shallow acidic soils. The
spreading avens is found.in soils composed of sand, pebbles, sandy loam,
clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for spreading avens. No
impacts to spreading avens will occur from proposed construction.
J
Roan Mountain bluet can be found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops,
steep slopes, and in the gravelly talus associated with cliffs. It grows
best in areas where it is exposed to full sunlight and in shallow acidic
9
soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for Roan Mountain bluet.
No impacts to Roan Mountain bluet will occur from proposed construction.
Heller's blazing star is a high altitude early pioneer species and
can be found growing on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy
areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It prefers shallow acid soils
associated with granite rocks. The study area does not support suitable
habitat for Heller's blazing star. No impacts to Heller's blazing star
will occur from proposed construction.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats
consisting of scoured banks of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls,
point bars,. natural levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The
scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough
to completely remove small, woody species. This species occurs in the
maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various other
disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in areas with full
sunlight, but can survive in shaded areas until it is released from
.competition. The study area supports suitable habitat for Virginia
spiraea along the banks of the North Fork New River. Both north and south
banks of the river were surveyed by walking in the water along the entire
length of the project and downstream of the project. No Virginia spiraea
was found. No impacts to Virginia spiraea will occur from proposed
construction.
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special Concern are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife Species of Special Concern (1987) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species occur in the project
vicinity according to the NCNHP. Although all or some of these species
may be present in the study area, no surveys are necessary.
I. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils
are defined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and are generally
those soils which produce the highest crop yield with minimum input of
energy and economic resources.
The SCS has reviewed the proposed improvement and has determined that
no prime or important farmland soils occur in the project area.
Therefore, compliance with the act is complete.
J. Historic and Archaeological Resources
In terms of historic architectural resources, the SHPO reported no
National Register-listed properties are located in the area of potential
effect. No historic architectural survey was recommended for this
10
project. Creston United Methodist Church is located in the area of
potential effect and may be eligible for listing in the National Register.
Neither alternate would have an effect on this church.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. A
comprehensive survey was conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains. The
survey determined that site 31AH28 will be impacted by the project.
However, the site is considerably disturbed by modern activities and
recovered artifacts lack context. This is the only site located in the
project area, and no further archaeological work is necessary.
WF/plr
FIGURES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 59
ON SR 1100
OVER NORTH FORK NEW RIVER
ASHE COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2002
0 m1 le FIG. 1 I
# t
p yt? c
Wis. ?.
.Coso
ZONE X

ZONE X
Vorth Fork Net, River ZONE X--
North Fork- Nes
- ;DB'
PROJECT AREA
2861
2852
Cy 2855
co y9 2856
0 C
_ `L RM22 k
r4P ZONE X \
\\
2858
ZONE
2857
Three Trip C ek
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
i
i
123.
ZONE X - FIGURE 4
APPENDIX

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program DATE: March 5, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge #59 on SR
1100 over North Fork New River, Ashe County (Federal
Project BRZ-1100(4), State Project 8.2710401, TIP #B-
2002)
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding the replacement of Bridge #59 on SR
1100 over the North Fork New River in Ashe County. The proposed
new structure is a 300-foot long bridge with a 30-foot wide
travelway located west of the existing bridge.
The North Fork New River is Hatchery Supported Designated
Public Mountain Trout Water in the project area. The stream
provides good habitat for trout.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
no objection to this project, provided the following conditions
are implemented:
1) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of
altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
2) Temporary ground cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.)
must be placed on all bare soil during construction.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide
long term erosion control.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.

cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
.......... ..........b
'sTn4 W >
13
C ? \Z
'4
?oC 1% A;1
alb?? ? -? ,, ,. • `? ???
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 22, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 59 on SR 1100
over North Fork New River, Ashe County,
B-2002, GS 92-0086, 8.2710401, BRZ-1 100(4)
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On April 15, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on
historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with
our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at
the meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, no National Register-listed
properties are located within the area of potential effect. We feel that the
four structures over fifty years of age (Bridge No. 59, Site Nos. 4, 6, and 7)
within the area of potential effect (as delineated by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation) are not eligible for National Register-listing
since they are not distinct representatives of their types. Thus, we
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this
project.
Please note, we feel that Site No. 2, Creston United Methodist Church, is
also located within the area of potential effect for this project and may be
eligible for listing in the National Register. However, we feel that neither of
the alternatives discussed at the scoping meeting would have an effect upon
the church.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project
boundaries. However, the project area has never been systematically
surveyed to determine the location of significance of archaeological
resources.
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
M
Nicholas L. Graf
May 22, 1992, Page 2
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an
experienced archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior to
the initiation of construction activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how
NCDOT addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
AJ avid Brook
v?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
DB:slw
cc: . J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
,f s .
'K
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 6, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199302696 and Nationwide Permit No.
D
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
vities)
J?s r=
WET-- D° _a ,6 _ .. ,
ER UFiLITY ?EC;;'':r
Reference is made to your letter of November 8, 1993, regarding your plans
to discharge dredged/fill material into the waters/wetlands of the North Fork
New River, associated with foundation test borings included with the
replacement of Bridge No. 59, SR 1100, Creston, Ashe County, North Carolina,
TIP No. B-2002. Reference is also made to Mr. Joe Mickey's letter of
November 16, 1993, in which the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
expressed no objections to the aforementioned test borings.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for survey activities
including core sampling, seismic exploratory operations and plugging of
seismic shot holes and other exploratory-type bore holes.
Special regional conditions of this NWP state that before discharging
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States occurring within the
twenty-five mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout waters, the
applicant will obtain a letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission. Review of the information you have provided, and the
comments submitted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
reveals that your proposed work, is authorized by NWP provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and the
recommendations set forth by the Wildlife Resources Commission. This NWP does
not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or local
approval. You should contact Mr. John Dorney at telephone [phone]
regarding water quality certification.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
f Q
-2-
the NWP authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during
the 2 years, the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and
conditions of the NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will
remain authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the
date of the NWP's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary
authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or
revoke the authorization.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure

-3-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Dr. Charles Brouton
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning and Research Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Doug Miller
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Kr . John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. Stephanie Goudreau
Habitat Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
Division of Boating & Inland Fisheries
Route 2, Box 278
State Road, North Carolina 28676
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comntsio `rt "?
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
Original signed by
Joe Mickey , ..::