19961066 Ver 1_Complete File_19961119

?dMSLV!'a?
c?& Mg (v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 3, 2007
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1621
Dear Mr. John Hennessy,
?C
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRErARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River in
Ashe County.
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is completing the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the B-1037 project. This project is
included in the latest North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled
construction in fiscal year 2009.
The alternative under consideration at this time for this bridge replacement project is a
replace on new alignment to the south while maintaining traffic on existing structure.
We have provided a copy of the Executive Summary of the Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) for your use. We would appreciate any information you might have that would
be helpful in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. Your comments will be
used in the preparation of a federally funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your
agency respond by May 31, 2007 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning any of these projects, please contact
Tracy A. Walter at 715-2120. Please include the TIP Project Number in all correspondence and
comments.
Sincerely, /// Tracy A. Walter
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITOL BLVD - SUITE 168
BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT UNIT WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
1551 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1551
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over the South Fork New River in
Ashe County, TIP No. B-1037.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 39 on US 221, which spans
the South Fork New River. Preliminary plans call for the construction of a new bridge to
the south of the existing bridge. The project is located in a rural section of Ashe County,
approximately two miles west of Scottville. Elevations in the project area are
approximately 2,600 feet above mean sea level. The project is located within the Blue
Ridge Mountain physiographic province and topography of the project vicinity includes
rolling hills and low mountains.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soils
No hydric soils are mapped by NRCS within the project area according to the NRCS
county soil survey.
Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in sub-basin 05-07-01 of the
New River Basin (HUC 05050001). Within the project study area there are no wetlands
and the South Fork New River, a perennial stream, is the only surface water.
The bed material in the river is composed of small boulders, rubble, gravel, and sand and
is approximately 150 feet wide. On the day of the site visit, the water was clear with
constant flow and is classified as a cool water stream.
The best usage classification of the South Fork New River [Index number 10-1-(33.5)] is
Class B ORW. The South Fork of the New River is a cool water stream. The South Fork
of the New River is classified as a National Scenic River and a State Natural and Scenic
River. No water resources classified as Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) are located
within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
There are no water resources within one mile of the project that are designated as
biologically impaired water bodies regulated under the provisions of Clean Water Act
(CWA) §303(d).
Biotic Resources
Two terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a Chestnut Oak
Forest and the maintained-disturbed areas. The following table shows the relative
abundance of each community type in the project study area.
B-1037 i April 2007
Natural Resource Technical Report
Executive Summary
Table 1: Coverage Area of Terrestrial Communities in Project Study Area
Community Acreage Percentage of Stud Area
Chestnut Oak Forest 1.15 acre 51%
Maintained Areas 1.10 acre 49%
Total 2.25 acre 100%
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
The South Fork New River is the only perennial stream in the project study area and is
considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the CWA. Based upon the
results of the field investigation, the project area does not contain jurisdictional wetlands.
The existing bridge over the South Fork New River is constructed from concrete and
steel. impe?ets from fill ffe not wipoeted sines this bridge is f-e-F. -
Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permits (NWP) No. 23
(Categorical Exclusion) and/or 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering), as
promulgated under 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. This project will also likely
require a 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3403 and 3366, from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to issuance of the NWP 23 and 33,
respectively.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The
USFWS lists 7 species under federal protection for Ashe County as of January 29, 2007
(USFWS 2007). The following table lists each species, its current status, and if habitat is
available.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species of Ashe County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion Habitat
Present
Clemmys muhlenbergii Southern Bog Turtle T (S/A) NA No
Liatris helleri Heller's Blazing Star T No Effect No
Hedyotis purpurea var.
montana Roan Mountain Bluet E No Effect No
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E No Effect No
Helonias bullata Swamp Pink T No Effect No
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T Unresolved Yes
Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen E No Effect No
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T S/A Threatened due to similarity of appearance
B-1037 ii April 2007
Natural Resource Technical Report
Executive Summary
A brief biological conclusion for each species follows.
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is therefore not
protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in order to control
the illegal trade of individuals from the protected northern population, federal regulations
are maintained on the commercial trade of all bog turtles. No survey is required for this
species.
Heller's blazing star: No Effect
No Habitat exists in the project area for Heller's blazing star. Habitat for Heller's blazing
star includes ledges of rock outcrops above 3,500 feet. The elevation in the project area is
approximately 2,600 feet. Additionally a search of the NHP database on February 8,
2007 found no occurrence of Heller's blazing star in the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the project will have no effect on the Heller's blazing star.
Roan Mountain bluet: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for Roan Mountain bluet. The elevation of the project
area is approximately 2,600 feet and this species occurs above 4,600 feet. A search of the
NHP on February 8, 2007 database found no occurrence of Roan Mountain bluet in the
project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will no effect on this endangered
species.
Spreading avens: No Effect
Habitat for spreading avens in the form of scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges is not present in the project area. Additionally, the elevation
found in the project area of 2,600 feet is much lower then the preferred habitat of 5,000
feet. A search of the NHP database on February 8, 2007 found no occurrence of
spreading avens in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will have no
effect on the spreading avens.
Swamp pink: No Effect
The study area was surveyed on February 9, 2007 by NCDOT biologists and it was
determined that there is no suitable habitat for swamp pink. There are no wetland areas,
swamps or bogs located on the project site. In addition, a review of the NCNHP database
of rare species and unique habitats on February 8, 2007 found no occurrence of the
swamp pink within one mile the project area. Therefore, the project will have "no effect"
on this species.
Virginia spiraea: Unresolved
Potential habitat was observed in the project area during a site visit conducted on
February 9, 2007. Surveys will be conducted during the flowering season, during the
months of June and July. A search of the NCNHP database on February 8, 2007 found
one occurrence of Virginia spiraea within the 1-mile radius of the project. The
population is located on the South Fork of the New River approximately 2 river-miles
B-1037 April 2007
Natural Resource Technical Report
Executive Summary
upstream of the project. A biological conclusion will be determined after surveys are
conducted.
Rock gnome lichen: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the rock gnome lichen. The elevation of the
project area is approximately 2,600 feet. In Ashe County, this species occurs on
mountaintops and cliff faces at elevations above 4,000 feet. A search of the NHP
database on February 8, 2007 found no occurrence of rock gnome lichen in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will have no effect on this threatened
species.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the study area for this project, there are no wetlands and one jurisdictional stream.
The South Fork New River is a Class B; ORW water, located within the New River
Basin. Impacts to the South Fork New River are not currently known. The South Fork
New River is not listed as a 303(d) stream. No water resources classified as High Quality
Water or Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) are located within 1.0 mile of the project study
area. As South Fork New River is an ORW, NCDOT's Design Standards for Sensitive
Watersheds will be implemented. No moratoriums will be required for this project. The
Biological Conclusion for the Virginia spiraea will be determined after surveys are
conducted. All other federally protected species that occur in Ashe County is "No
Effect."
B-1037 iv April 2007
Natural Resource Technical Report
Executive Summary
N
? 1502 ? , s ''• . s m
Chestnut ^ 1552 Z
3 1563 p I5E0 •Z7
c
156 i 6- 1 19
1507 E) 15
- Bride No. 39 1 E"
1563
o I Sca tsviilee
(^ ?r
1574 16 '570 2 ? TO VN[u. N.C.
' roereaoa+C[, v}
\ u 4 0 I °70
7 \ ? . 1571 ? ---
hatley .,T
/ Springs ^ Q - v ti
536
\s 1571 1600 1603
1576 572 2 C
? • ? ? :AS ^ ?0G
1 1595 'a, Llber-y \ ?', fl J ??
n J H111 Ch. 16x2 ? E0-
1666 L y
Nathans 15? Pleascnt --
S alley Ch.
9 l 1579' 1660 Creek
E57 503 J? EO_ ?- •
l
fl 1X93 1_p5 66c
211 a D 601 ?J'
. ' 661 1591 ??• °? ? . • f . ?
5 \<
County 1592 d_ %"?%? 1• o
C.
A ri a G
f> ? •cJ9 1E
9 ?"lion rest
/ slute'lls Pee r ,
t
A S ,w? 1 , r5pg Ei2 4 j'
mmuu.
Lanunf ?' ttril7e.. ' Ero I
t '
Warren I Wm
AfnUnE. ' ? ?,? ?
......}}}}}} Chltonl i *jet n 1 ? i E i l
UAtonSmellroorl pant{ I?
et i M lcps
¦ U West If llenon y '612
`•[ [':: 1 Ind .?°. 2
I G en80e -? \-
?` Be10wm Sores} C? • cpq ,?,
1 ff ?// 16114
Iee1WMQ Aes• Itl Z a Traci OU
7/
r ,,y
North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. A ON US 221
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-1037
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
i -1 Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
l ,

401 ISSUED
*96106
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARR:TT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
RECEIVED
November 15, 1996
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
NOV 1 91996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
. -. I
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 39 over South Fork New River
on US 221. TIP No. B-1037, State Project No. 8.1710602, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-221(6).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
lsrOject Theroject is being ocessed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting. wriridividual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
-Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991 by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
Test borings will be required for a foundation investigation. Please review the project for
authorization under a Nationwide Permit # 6 as well.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certifications No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) and No. 2725 (Foundation Investigations) 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 Water Quality, for their review.
Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, a copy of this document is also
being provided to the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission for their review.
0

2
You may note on page 2 of the Categorical Exclusion document, the NCDOT has
committed to providing the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission any plans for temporary work pads to be placed in the river. This
can not be determined until the results of the foundation investigation are considered. If it
is subsequently determined that temporary work pads will be required, NCDOT will
forward these plans to the agencies.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr

cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mrs. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 1 i Engineer
Mr. John L. Williams, P.E., Planning & Environmental

Ashe County
Bridge No. 39 on US 221
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
TIP # B-1037
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

PROGRAMMATIC 4(fls
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date _4;.,H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
9/z
Date Nichol af, P. .
f64-Division Administrator, FHWA
Ashe County
Bridge No. 39 on US 221
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
TIP # B-1037
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

PROGRAMMATIC 4(fls
September 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Date Jo L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
O ARO??''•.
.••?EESsip••.?4,
:••QQ ?,??•:y
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head SEA
6976 -
.?
A.,
14,
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager .,, V. QR ??.
Planning and Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Bridge No. 39 on US 221
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
TIP # B-1037
Bridge No. 39 is located in Ashe County on US 221 crossing over South Fork
New River. It is programmed in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion." No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced with a new bridge on new alignment
approximately 15 meters (50 feet) south of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the. existing structure during construction.
The new bridge will be approximately 140 meters (460 feet) in length and 8.6
meters (28 feet) in width including two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot)
offsets.
New approaches will extend approximately 122 meters (400 feet) to the west and
61 meters (200 feet) to the east. The roadway will include two 3.3-meter (I 1466t) lanes
and 2.2-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed
shoulders will taper to 1.2 meters (4-feet) where guardrail is not required. The existing
bridge will be removed upon completion of the new bridge. Based on preliminary design
work, the design speed will be approximately 50 km/h (30 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $2,200,000 including $2,000,000 in
construction costs and $200,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
1997-2003 TIP is $ 1,380,000.
II SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit No. 23 or General Regional Permit No. 31 will likely be applicable to
this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 23 or
General Regional Permit No. 31 a North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must be obtained.
The piers from the existing bridge will be cut off level with the river bed instead
of being pulled out if possible. This will minimize sedimentation resulting from the
project.
The private drive crossing under the east end of Bridge No. 39 will be kept open
during construction since this is the only access for residents living north of the bridge
along the east bank of the South Fork New River.
At an abandoned service station located east of the existing bridge structure there
are filler caps, indicating underground storage tanks. During design, efforts will be made
to avoid the underground storage tanks if possible. If it is determined that the tanks
cannot be avoided during design, a geotechnical investigation will be required to
determine what action might be required.
Bridge No. 39 and the New River General Store have been determined to be
individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Coordination between
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), FHWA, and NCDOT resulted in the
following commitments to protect or mitigate for these resources:
• Bridge No. 39 will be recorded as described in the attached Memorandum of
Agreement.
• Structure design will seek the input of the State Historic Preservation Office in the
design of the bridge rails.
• Blasting from the project will pose a danger to the store's shoring. Therefore,
blasting operations will be controlled such as to minimize damage to the New River
General Store. As much as possible, blasting will be scheduled to minimize
disruption to traffic. Design will present their ideas (including shoring) to
preservation of the store to Mr. John Horton, Restoration Specialist of State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), who will offer comments on the suggested protection
measures. Mr. Horton can be reached at SHPO's Asheville Office [phone].
Because the South Fork New River is designated as a National Wild & Scenic
River, NCDOT has coordinated with the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation. As a result, the
following commitments will be implemented:
• NCDOT will maintain access to recreational users of the South Fork New River
during construction.
• Before construction begins, the Division 11 Engineer will insure that "Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the
bridge to alert boaters.
• NCDOT will keep the South Fork New River channel open to boating traffic during
construction. Efforts will be made in both design and construction to maintain as
wide a channel opening as possible.
• NCDOT will (where feasible) minimize the number of piers required in the channel
for the new bridge. The spans on the new bridge will either maintain or increase the
open channel width available to boaters.
2
• If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within one meter (three
feet) of the water's surface, NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence of the
footings in order to protect boats and the footings.
In early coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC), NCDOT has asked NCWRC to comment on the proposed project. The
NCWRC responded that the South Fork New River is not designated as Public Mountain
Trout Water in the project area. The following are commitments resulting from
coordination with NCWRC (see attached letter from NCWRC) and standard practice in
Mountain Trout Counties.
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water
thus lessening the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
• The relocation of approximately 46 meters (150 feet) of an unnamed, small (non-trout)
stream will be required as a result of this project. As such, the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resource's (DEHNR) Stream Relocation/
Channelization Guidelines will be implemented in the design and construction of this
project.
• The NCWRC will review the environmental document during the 404 permit
application. NCDOT will provide any plans for temporary work pads to be placed in
the river along with the application.
• NCDOT will conduct foundation investigations on this project. The investigation
will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining
samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
• Both DEHNR (Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources) and
NCWRC have requested that NCDOT leave in place a section of either old bridge
approach to serve as parking for a small boat launch which NCWRC proposes to
construct sometime in the future. Consideration will be given during design and right
of way phases.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT anticipates a design exception will be likely because the horizontal
curvature will limit design speed to below the statutory speed limit.
IV, EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 221 is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It carries 600 vehicles per day. Because there is no posted speed
limit, the road is subject to a statutory 55 mph speed limit. US 221 serves traffic
traveling to and from Jefferson, N.C. and Virginia along with recreational, local, and farm
traffic.
The existing bridge was completed in 1922. It is 140 meters (462 feet) long.
There are approximately 13.7 meters (45 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge
deck and streambed. The deck has 6.1 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width. There
are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 44.5 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge has no posted weight
restrictions. The bridge has recurring scour problems as well as spalling and corrosion.
The bridge is posted as crossing a State and National Wild and Scenic River.
A vehicle approaching the bridge from the west would travel down a steep grade
on a sharp curve which terminates on the west end of the bridge. As a vehicle crosses the
bridge and travels east it would climb a gentle grade and curve. Pavement width on both
approaches is 4.8 meters (16 feet) and shoulders vary from 0.3 to 1.5 meters (1 to 5 feet)
in width.
The New River General Store is located at the west end of the bridge. It has been
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
There is a small perennial stream following along the south shoulder of US 221.
It passes through a 1.8 by 1.8-meter (6.0 by 6.0-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) under US 221 just to the west of the bridge.
There are two buildings just off the east end of the bridge. One is an old
abandoned house. The other, an abandoned gas station. The presence of filler caps
suggests the possible presence of underground storage tanks. Approximately 107 meters
(350 feet) east of the gas station, a private drive leaving US 221 turns back along US 221
and crosses under the existing bridge. This drive continues north providing the only
access to residents living north of the bridge along South Fork New River.
Traffic volume is presently 600 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 900 VPD
for the year 2018.
The Traffic Engineering Branch reports that one accident has taken place within
the last three years in the vicinity of the project. The accident resulted from the driver
exceeding a safe speed and running off the road into the bridge rail on the west end of the
bridge.
There are two school bus crossings daily over the studied bridge. The School Bus
Superintendent's office stated a strong preference for traffic maintenance on the project.
There are utilities in the area including aerial power and telephone lines. Also in
the area are the underground storage tanks mentioned earlier. While these utilities are in
the area, they should not be severely impacted by the proposed project.
V. PROPOSED ALT
There are no reasonable detour routes. Therefore traffic will be maintained onsite
during construction. The New River General Store is a thriving business that has been
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This qualifies the
General Store for protection under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act (80 Stat. 931, Public Law
89-670). A new alignment to the north of the existing bridge would require taking the
General Store and violate Section 4(f) since there is a prudent and feasible avoidance
alignment to the south. Therefore, only one build alternative to the south is considered in
this document.
The existing bridge will be replaced with a new structure approximately 140 meters
(462 feet) in length just south of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
COMPONENT COST
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Engineering & Contingencies $ 1,327,000
83,000
330,000
260,000

Total Construction $ 2,000,000
Right of Way $ 200,000
Total Cost $ 2,200,000
VII RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced with a bridge 140 meters (460 feet) in length and
8.6 meters (28 feet) in width including two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-
foot) offsets. It will be located just south of the existing structure at approximately the
same elevation as the existing structure with a minimum gradient of 0.3% provided to
facilitate deck drainage. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
Approach work from the new bridge will extend approximately 122 meters
(400 feet) to the west and 61 meters (200 feet) to the east. The roadway will include two
3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 2.2-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate
guardrail. The grassed shoulders will taper to 1.2 meters (4-feet) where guardrail is not
required. The existing bridge will be removed upon completion of the new bridge.
Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be approximately 50 km/h (30
mph).
Total project length, including approaches, is about 323 meters (1060 feet). The
project will require the removal (blasting) of a section of steep bluff southwest of the
existing bridge and realigning approximately 46 meters (150 feet) of a small perennial
stream.
The Division 11 Engineer concurs with the proposed project.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There is a potential for hazardous waste impacts depending on whether the final
design can avoid two underground storage tanks. There is no other known potential for
hazardous waste impacts in the area.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. The abandoned
buidling closest to the east end of the bridge will be taken as a result of the project (see
attached relocation report) and the second may also be taken. Aside from the abandoned
buildings, no other private structures should be impacted by the project.
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.
There are no publicly owned parks, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
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.
The project is located in Ashe County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the
project will not impact prime or important farmland soils.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Five structures over fifty years of age were identified in the area of potential effect
(APE) during the survey of historic architectural resources. The structures include two
twentieth-century houses, a gas/station store, the New River General Store, and Bridge
No. 39. One of the houses is located outside of the APE but the property associated with
the house extends into the APE. Of the five, only the New River General Store and
Bridge No. 39 have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
There is no way to preserve Bridge No. 39 (a deteriorating reinforced concrete
bridge) and so it will be demolished as a result of this project. The removal of the bridge
has been determined to be an Adverse Effect. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in concurrence with the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR), and the
NCDOT and have determined the removal of the bridge to be an adverse effect.
Therefore, Bridge No. 39 will be recorded as described in the Memorandum of
Agreement (see attachments).
The above mentioned agencies have concurred that there will be a Conditional No
Adverse Effect on the New River General Store. The condition is that the shoring of the Y
New River General Store be improved sufficiently to withstand the blasting required by
the project. This concludes compliance with Section 106 and Section 4(f) requirements
with regard to the historic resources.
In the attached letter, the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) indicated that
an archaeological survey was required. In the investigation of Bridge No. 39 in Ashe
County, no previously unrecorded archaeological sites were found. Although there are a
number of sites in the vicinity, the bridge project, as currently planned, will avoid all of
these sites. Therefore, no further archaeological work is recommended. This concludes
compliance with Section 106 requirements with regard to the archaeological resources.
E. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The South Fork New River, from its junction with the New River in Ashe County
to its junction with Dog Creek east of Jefferson, has been designated as a Wild and
Scenic River. The administration of the South Fork New River has been delegated to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation.
The proposed bridge replacement will not involve an alteration to the river or
stream bed, other than the installation of piers to support the structure. The project will
not introduce a new intrusion into the setting, as it simply replaces an existing bridge.
7
Best management practices will be utilized during the construction of the bridge to
minimize temporary erosion that may result in temporary deterioration of the water
quality. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed bridge replacement project will not
have an adverse effect on, nor will it result in the foreclosure of options to further classify
the South Fork New River as a wild, scenic, or recreational river.
F. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Physiography md 52ib
The project area lies within the Blue Ridge Belt of sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks. The project site is in a narrow zone of mica schist, but most of the rock in the
vicinity is muscovite-biotite gneiss.
The project region in Ashe County is located in the Mountain physiographic
region in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is hilly with a few low mountains.
The highest elevation in the project vicinity is about 914 meters (3000 feet). The
elevation at the level of the South Fork of the New River is about 774 meters (2540 feet).
The top of a steep bluff on the western end of the project area is about 805 meters (2640
feet). The bluff increases in height east of the project area. The elevation of the existing
bridge is 788 meters (2586 feet).
Drainage patterns are dendritic in the project region. Wide floodplains are
well-developed in many places along the meandering South Fork and the mouths of its
larger tributaries. Small floodplains are infrequent along the tributaries and along other
sections of the South Fork.
The soils of the project vicinity are in the Clifton-Evard-Fannin association.
These are well-drained soils of gentle to steep slopes at intermediate elevations. Subsoils
are clayey or loamy.
The steep bluff area on the southwest side of the project area consists of Chandler
loam. This upland soil occurs on 25-65% slopes and is somewhat excessively drained. It
is characterized by rapid surface runoff, and the erosion hazard is very severe on bare and
exposed areas. It is also subject to slides in bare areas because of the high mica content.
Colvard fine sandy loam occupies a large floodplain on the southeast side of the
project area. This is a level, well drained soil that occurs along major streams, forming
on recent alluvium. It is subject to occasional brief periods of flooding.
The well drained Tusquitee loam forms on colluvium and occurs in drainageways
and coves and on foot slopes. The slope is 8-15%. Such soils occur on the northwest
side of the project area.
The slope on the northeastern side of the project area is Watauga loam, 25-45%
slopes. This well drained upland soil borders drainageways on slopes. The hazard of
erosion on bare and exposed areas is very severe, and it is subject to slides.
There are no listed hydric soils found in the project vicinity. However, the
Tusquitee loam may have hydric soil or wet spot inclusions in seeps.
Waters Impacted
All of Ashe County is drained by the New River and its tributaries. The New
River flows northward through Virginia, joining the Kanawha River in West Virginia,
and eventually reaching the Ohio River system. The project area is on the South Fork
New River. The South Fork joins the North Fork to make the New River approximately
16 kilometers (10 miles) downstream of the project area.
The western approach to the bridge is aligned immediately west of, and parallel
to, a small unnamed perennial stream that crosses under US 221 and empties into the
South Fork immediately north of the existing bridge. This small stream and the South
Fork itself will receive all potential runoff from the construction area and the new
roadway. A small floodplain ditch at the edge of a cornfield on the east side of the river,
south of the bridge, lies adjacent to the R/W. This ditch will not likely receive runoff
from the construction project.
The South Fork New River is a large mountain river. The river at the US 221
bridge is over 46 meters (150 feet) wide. The floodplains under the bridge are sandy and
quite narrow, but there are large floodplains adjacent to the project area. Woody debris is
built up along the banks and caught in places on rocks in the open water. The water
depth appears to vary from 0.3-1.2 meters (1-4 feet), except for some deeper holes. There
is a small rapid on the north side, and some large outcrop on the south side. The river
substrate generally consists of sand, gravel, rubble, and small boulders. There are a few
small bars of sand, muck, and cobble and which are sparsely vegetated. The riverbanks
are steep, generally between 0.6-1.8 meters (2-6 feet) in height, and generally
non-forested. The bank on the southwest side of the river below the steep bluff is from
3-4.6 meters (10-15 feet) wide.
The small perennial stream that parallels US 221 has a channel approximately
3 meters (10 feet) across and a stream bed about 1.5 meters (5 feet) in width. The water
depth was up to 10 centimeters (4 inch). There were some small pools approximately
30 centimeters (12 inch) in depth, and an occasional larger pool with short falls up to 1
meter (3.3 feet) in height. The stream bed was mostly rock, with some sand and gravel
areas. The canopy was open over the creek in the lower section under a power line, but
closed elsewhere. This creek parallels US 221 until it is directed under the road through a
box culvert just west of the bridge. The road bank above the creek is at least 6.1 meters
(20 feet) in height.
Best Usane Classification
The South Fork NewRiver in the project region is classified as a Class "B ORW"
stream (NCDEHNR 1993). Beginning at a point upstream about 19 kilometers (12
miles), between Dog Creek and the Ashe-Watauga County line, the South Fork is
designated HQW (High Quality Waters). The named tributaries near the project area
(Cranberry Creek, Prathers Creek, and Nathans Creek) are classified as "B Tr +".
Unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they are
tributary.
Class "B" waters are freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis and all Class "C" uses (NCDEHNR 1994).
Class "C" waters are "protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife." All freshwaters are classified to protect Class
"C" uses at a minimum. Outstanding Resource Waters ("ORW") are "unique and special
waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which
require special protection to maintain existing uses." Trout waters ("Tr") are "freshwaters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout". The "+" symbol in
the classification "identifies waters that are subject to a special management strategy
specified in 15A NCAC 2B.0216, the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) rule, in order
to protect downstream waters designated as ORW."
Water Quality
There is generally high water quality throughout the New River Basin, with 66%
of sampling sites receiving "Excellent" bioclassifications in 1993 (NCDEHNR 1994).
This is due to the low level of industrial development and to the sparse population. Fish
tissue data are all below EPA and FDA limits (NCDEHNR 1994). Water quality is better
in Ashe County than in the Watauga County portion of the drainage. There are chemical
and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and physical (AMS or
ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings]
available for several stations in or near the project vicinity (NCDEHNR 1994). The
bioclassification for a station on the South Fork at the US 221 crossing in the project area
has gone from Good in 1985 to Excellent for all but one sampling event since 1987,
including 1993. A sampling site on Cranberry Creek was rated Good in 1990 and
Excellent in 1993. Stations on Nathans and Prathers Creeks were rated Good-Fair in
1990. A stream nearer Jefferson below the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) was
rated Poor in 1986 and Fair in 1993. A stream below an abandoned copper mine was
rated Poor to Fair in 1993.
There are only five dischargers in the New River Basin with a permitted flow
equal to or greater than 0.5 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) and only 30 known
10
permitted dischargers altogether. The South Fork sub-basin includes the Boone WWTP
(3.2 MGD) and the Blowing Rock WWTP (0.8 MGD) in Watauga County. The Jefferson
WWTP (0.38 MGD) in Ashe County is the WWTP nearest to the project area.
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Water quality data indicates that streams in the project area are presently in good
to excellent condition, and apparently supporting their designated uses. The designated
uses are in classifications that require high water quality. Construction impacts could
degrade these waters, with sediment loads and other pollutants affecting water quality
from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and
inputs deriving from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage
and control runoff. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices must be employed
consistently.
There will be two stream crossings, the major crossing of the New River and the
minor crossing of a small perennial stream. A section of stream that runs parallel to
existing US 221 may be altered or relocated by construction, or, at the least, receive direct
runoff from construction.
There will be some unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Even though
much of the construction zone lies in a large floodplain, most sites do not meet the
definition of jurisdictional waters (wetlands), except for surface waters. There could be
potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite wetlands.
Construction of this project will likely modify the flow of an unnamed small
stream, possibly more so than it has already been affected or modified by past
construction. The stream can be crossed effectively with appropriately designed and
placed culverts, but careful design will be necessary to minimize stream relocation and
prevent discharges into the stream. Flow within the New River should not be
permanently modified because of, or as a result of, construction. If instream activity
involves the construction of piers, there is the potential for serious disturbance of the
stream bed and some temporary modification of stream flow. Bridge supports from high
ground on the banks must be carefully constructed and protected from erosion and
pollution runoff. Erosion control measures (Best Management Practices) will be
necessary to protect all streams, and all instream activities should be scheduled during
low flow periods.
There will be some minor unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in
species composition will modify affected stream reaches.
11
The project, as described, impacts waters classified ORW (Outstanding Resource
Waters). Other classifications, such as HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I (water
supplies in natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds) will not be affected, and the project does not lie within 1.6 kilometer
(1.0 mile) of such resources.
The biota and natural and secondary communities of the project area are typical of
the Appalachian Ecoregion. No unusual or especially significant elements were located
during the field investigation, as noted below, though there were a few taxa that are rather
rare.
Plant Communities and Land Ty=
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project right of way. The predominant natural vegetation of
the project area would likely be classified as Acidic Cove Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest,
and Montane Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
For purposes of discussion and quantification, eight communities and land types
are recognized in the right of way. These are divided into two groups: Natural .
Communities and Developed Land Types. The larger portions of the land impacted under
R/W are existing roadway and steep slope forest.
Natural Communities
Steep Bluff and Slope Forests. This forest is developed on the narrow bluff
above the New River. The mature community varies from a rich, mesic woods on the
lower slope and base of the east-facing bluff to a drier, less diverse forest at and on the
top of the bluff. The slope is extremely steep and difficult to climb in most places. This
area is an excellent example of this community type. The average size of the larger trees
is about 51 centimeters (20 inches) dbh. The canopy is dominated by sweet birch,
chestnut oak, and northern red oak. Important associate species in the canopy are
cucumber tree, red maple, and scarlet oak. The subcanopy consists mostly of northern
red oak, sweet birch, beech, basswood, black gum, serviceberry, and white pine.
The shrub layer is generally very dense, with rosebay rhododendron especially
important and forming some impenetrable thickets in spots. Mountain laurel is important
in one area where the canopy was open and around and near the top under scarlet oak.
Other common shrubs are pepperbush, hydrangea, and witch hazel. Yellowroot is
common at the base of the slope. There are occasional alternate-leaved dogwood, buffalo
nut, poison ivy, and wild grape.
12
The herb layer is diverse at the base of the slope. Common taxa here are
Christmas fern, hay-scented fern, asters, and bluebell. Some other herbs present included
jewelweed, thimbleweed, and virgin's bower.
The forest floor under the dense rhododendron thickets on the steep slope and cliff
area is generally open and bare, but there are occasional Indian pipe, pink lady's slipper,
and galax. Some poison ivy and Virginia creeper are also present in some of the open
spots.
Exposed rock faces are extensive, and there are dense mats of a variety of mosses
and crustose and foliose lichens in places. The lichen rock tripe is common in spots.
Rock cap fern, mountain spleenwort, and a sedge are present on some of the rock.
The steep bluff community appears to be present and well-developed for the entire
length of the ridge toward the south, a distance of approximately 488 meters (1600 feet).
A similar community is present on the lower southeast-facing steep slope along US 221,
on the northwest side of the project area.
Disturbed Open Bottomland and River Bank. These open sandy areas are
mostly filled with lush weedy herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, particularly under and
near the existing bridge. The community exists on both sides of the river, but there is
more of it on the east side of the river where the floodplain is wider. Dominant herbs are
cut-leaf coneflower, jewelweed, broad-tooth hedgenettle, wingstem, and goldenrods.
Some scattered small trees are present on the east side of the river, including
walnut, black cherry, black locust, and common apple. There are some shrubs and vines
present on both sides, including poison ivy, Virginia creeper, and elderberry.
Disturbed Remnants of Slope Forests and Flats. One variation of this
community lies below an old house on a moderately steep slope on the east side of the
river. Most of this area was cleared at one time. The general vegetation is weedy and
scrubby and does not comprise a good forest. There is a lot of discarded rock rubble from
former construction. The common trees are black locust, white pine, black cherry, and
crab-apple. Common shrubs and vines are poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry,
and multiflora rose. Important herbs are wingstem and goldenrods.
Another variation of this community occurs on the north side of the eastern
terminus of the project. A formerly cleared area, including two old sheds, associated with
the unused house mentioned below is covered with tall lush herbs and scattered trees of
white oak, black walnut, black cherry, and black locust.
Roadside Cliff and Slope. This is a small area that was cut for the existing road
on the northeast side of the bridge across from an old house that is in the R/W. This area
includes a small wet seepage dropping into a wet ditch at the foot of the slope on the
13
roadside. The rock face is covered mostly with smooth sumac. There are a few mesic
herbs, including Solomon's seal, alumroot, shield fern, hay-scented fern, and bluebell.
Powerline and Small Stream Community. A small powerline R/W is cleared
over the small stream that parallels US 221. The dominant woody vegetation is rosebay
rhododendron and saplings and sprouts of the hardwood trees from the surrounding
forest. Sweet birch and red maple are most common where there is a canopy over the
creek. Some hydrangea, raspberry, and rose are present. Some of the herbs present,
especially in open areas, are cut-leaf coneflower, jewelweed, and groundsel.
Forget-me-not and bulrush are common in silt and sand beds within the creek.
Moss-covered rock is common.
River. The open water of the river under apparent normal summer conditions
covers approximately 0.11 hectares (0.26 acres). No aquatic plants were noted in the
vicinity of the bridge.
Developed Land Types
Maintained Roadside. Common plants on the flat roadside within the R/W are
fescue, witchgrass, bluegrass, orchard grass, common plantain, red clover, wood sorrel,
hog peanut, common purple violet, and jewelweed. Some Japanese honeysuckle is also
present in spots. The particular mix of plants present is dependent on the lay of the
ground. This is a community maintained in a low state of succession by regular mowing.
Yard and Buildings. There is a maintained yard area associated with an unused
house and another building on the southeast side of the bridge in the R/W. The common
plants in the yard are bluegrass, other grasses, common purple violet, white clover,
common plantain, dandelion, wood sorrel, and ground ivy. Some shrubs that are part of
the old landscaping are lilac, spiraea, mock orange, and a Retinispora form of
Cupressaceae.
Terrestrial Fauna
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below.
The diversity of habitat types in the project area is moderate. The primary habitat
types consist of mature steep slope forest, alluvial floodplain (primarily with herbaceous
vegetation), a small stream community, and the New River itself. There are some
associated successional and ecotonal areas. The habitat exists as narrow strips or as part
of wider zones, depending on the habitat type. There are some large contiguous forest
tracts adjacent to the project area, and about 50% of the project vicinity is in open fields
or low successional communities. The mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas is
14
beneficial for many species, and the species diversity for the vicinity should be fairly
high. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be generally good for birds, and
singing birds were commonly noted though not always identifiable. There are no ponds
or marshy areas noted in the project vicinity, and the distinct array of reptiles, birds and
mammals that frequent such areas is not expected in the project area.
Based on available habitat in the project area, terrestrial animals are here divided
into five general groups, four mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth
being somewhat ubiquitous. These are more open areas, consisting of the open bottoms
and river banks, and maintained roadside areas; intermediate habitats, consisting of the
disturbed slope forests and flats, the roadside cliff area, and the maintained powerline;
forest on slopes and rocky bluffs; and stream and riverine habitats.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland
chorus frog, and spring peeper. The two-lined salamander, the eastern newt, the slimy
salamander, and the redback salamander are expected in the moister forest habitats. Seal
salamanders and red salamanders may be present at the edges of streams and in seepages,
and some other Desmognathus species may also be present. Treefrogs should be
common in the forested areas. Ambystomid salamanders are not expected because of the
absence of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, and copperhead. The eastern
hognosed snake might be expected in some of the more open areas in the sandy loam
river bottoms. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern garter snake,
and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box
turtle, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake. Ribbon snake may occupy some
of the damp meadows and stream margins in the floodplains. Timber rattlesnakes may
possibly occur on the rocky hillsides and adjacent river valley.
The avifauna of open areas include turkey vulture, field sparrow, and robin. Some
birds in intermediate areas include least flycatcher, wood peewee, and brown thrasher.
Some forest species include broad-winged hawk, ruffed grouse, and barred owl. Some
species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk, common crow, and
cardinal. Green-backed heron and belted kingfisher probably utilize the river margins.
Woodcock may utilize the non-forested floodplains.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew,
long-tailed weasel, meadow vole, and groundhog. Examples of those ranging into forests
as well as those open and intermediate habitats present in the project area are northern
short-tailed shrew, masked shrew, and hairy-tailed mole. Several species usually
shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and forested areas, include opossum, and
chipmunk. Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis, eastern pipistrelle, and red
bat might be expected foraging over the streams and broken forests. Exclusively forest
species include smoky shrew, rock shrew, raccoons, woodrat, southern flying squirrel, red
15
squirrel, and gray squirrel. Muskrat and mink should be common along the ditches and
streams in the area and in riparian areas along the New River. Most of the shrew species
mentioned above, as well as the woodrat and the spotted skunk, like habitats such as the
cliffs and rocky slopes of the bluff in the project area. White-tailed deer, a typically
mid-successional species, were not observed in the area and appear to be absent, as
judged by the lack of tracks and browse evidence.
Aquatic i
There are 20 native fish and several introduced fish known in the North Carolina
portion of the New River Basin, with four endemic to the upper New River and four
others native to the state only in the New River Basin (NCDEHNR 1994). Gamefish
known to occur in the New River include smallmouth bass and rock bass. Fish (1968)
reports that there is exceptional smallmouth bass fishing at times. Other taxa should
include creek chub, white sucker, brown bullhead, channel catfish, redbreast sunfish, and
some other sunfishes. Fish that might occur in the small streams would likely be rosyside
dace, creek chub, mottled sculpin, rainbow trout, and darters.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the streams and adjacent habitat could
support two-lined salamander, northern dusky salamander, bullfrog, green frog, and
pickerel frog. The hellbender may likely occur in the New River.
Good turtle habitat is not present, but the snapping turtle is probably present in the
area. Northern water snake and queen snake are the most likely water snakes of the area.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are given in Table 2.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial
photographs onto which the prospective R/W was drawn. The existing paved roadway
was included in the area measurements.
Blasting of the steep bluff will remove a portion of this community. The
bottomland community should not be as greatly impacted because it will actually be
bridged during construction. Relocation of, or construction immediately adjacent to, the
small stream system will produce a major impact on that community. The roadside
community would be completely destroyed during construction, but would eventually
re-establish itself after construction. The edges of the other communities will be taken,
thus reducing in small part the total natural habitat of these types in the project area.
16
Table 2 Area estimates of community and land types impacted under R/W.
hectares (acres)
Steep Bluff and Slope Forest 0.22 (0.54)
Disturbed Open Bottomland and River Bank 0.12 (0.29)
Disturbed Remnants of Slope Forests and Flats 0.05 (0.13)
Roadside Cliff and Slope 0.02 (0.05)
Power Line and Small Stream Community 0.06 (0.14)
River 0.11 (0.26)
Maintained Roadside 0.02 (0.05)
Roadway 0.10 (0.26)
Yard and Buildings 0.08 (0.19)
TOTAL
0.78(l.91)
There will be some net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and
scavengers that utilize open areas. There will be a reduction in the available habitat for
animals that require forest and intermediate habitats. Some habitat types will return
following removal of the old bridge. The actual impacts to biotic communities may be
less than those indicated in the Table if some of the R/W is not utilized in construction.
The data in Table 2 above suggest only the direct takings of land and community
types due to construction. There will likely be other indirect effects. Blasting of the
rocky bluff will introduce indirect effects to the organisms of the adjacent sections
outside of the R/W. This bluff area is also very susceptible to erosion and slides in bare
areas. Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase
because the total amount of roadway will not increase. The riparian zone of the New
River is probably an important corridor for animal movement. The existing roadway
already disrupts natural corridor movement, so replacement of this bridge will not
introduce a significantly new factor except during the construction phases of the project.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and
injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and
skinning of trees by machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be
avoided.
Fragmentation of habitat is not an issue here because no new location dividing
larger tracts is involved. There will be no new impacts on the larger species and those
smaller species that require large tracts of unbroken forested land (such as many
neotropical migrant birds).
17
Aquatic Systems
Removal of the old bridge piers and construction of any new bridge piers are
potential sources of serious stream modifications, and utmost care will be taken during
these activities.
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms. The New River and one perennial small
stream will be impacted in this way.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
Jurisdictional Waters gf lbg United States
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by alteration of
characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important
because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species; maintenance of
biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal; sediment
trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology;
recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases.
Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgment
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine system in streams are the most important
jurisdictional waters present in the project R/W, to which construction will be limited. It
is determined that the only jurisdictional wetlands are minor pockets associated with the
small stream which will be crossed and probably relocated. None of the alluvial
18
4.,
communities associated with the New River in the project area appear to meet the criteria
for jurisdictional wetlands; a number of hydrophytic taxa are present, but the hydrology
and soils are not appropriate. Some jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream
of the bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from road construction.
In the NWI system (following Cowardin et al. 1979), all the streams in the area
would be classified R3RBIH (Riverine, Upper Perennial, Rock Bottom, Permanently
Flooded) with some tendency to R3UB 1 H (Unconsolidated Bottom). The small pocket
wetlands [collectively less than 0.1 hectares (<O.1 acre)] along the small stream and in
one seepage area would be classified PEMIB (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Sand) or
PUS213 (Palustrine, Unconsolidated Shore, Sand, Saturated). It will be impossible to
avoid these in project design and construction.
It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland impacts, except for actual takings
under R/W, until the particular design requirements are known for the terrain in question.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Nationwide Permits
[33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14 and 26)] authorize actions that have no significant environmental
effect, such as when dealing with road crossings of wetlands or waters of small size [<O.1
hectares (0.33 acre), short bridge crossings [<61 in (<200 ft)], or because of their location
above stream headwaters (1.5 meters 3/second = 5 feet3/second) or in isolated wetlands or
waters. Individual or General Permits are required for situations where the criteria for
Nationwide Permits are not met. This project will impact the floodplain and riverine
system of the New River, a small perennial stream (crossing and probable relocation),
and small pocket and seepage wetlands.
Other permits may be necessary. Because the project area lies in a trout county,
discretionary authority by the COE requires that the NCDOT must seek review and
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to
the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits (pursuant to 33
CFR 330.8). Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23) would authorize the
project following NCWRC concurrence. This permit is specifically designed for
Categorical Exclusions.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity
in surface waters where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
19

Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and a
small amount of palustrine wetlands. There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing
the South Fork New River. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report.
However, compensatory mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide Permits
or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. If an Individual Permit should be
required for the South Fork New River crossing, all sites will have to be accumulated for
mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of
drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion
control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into
streams and wetlands, and soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as
possible during and after construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and
other areas where the soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and
borrow locations will not be placed in wetlands. The piers supporting the existing bridge
can be cut off to protect the river instead of removing them.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of April 1, 1996 the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these classifications for Ashe
County.
The Roan Mountain bluet (HedXjais pure= var. montana, Endangered), a
vascular plant in the Rubiaceae, is found on high elevation rocky summits or on grassy
balds in five mountain counties. This plant flowers in late spring and early summer and
fruits in late summer. There were no bluets found during the field study. The elevational
requirements that produce suitable habitat for the Roan Mountain bluet are not present in
the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The spreading avens (Geum radiatum. Endangered), a vascular plant in the
Rosaceae, is also found on high elevation rocky summits and balds. It has been reported
from eight mountain counties. Flowering is from June to August and fruiting from July
to September. No plants of this genus were located in the study area, and the elevational
requirements that produce suitable habitat for the spreading avens do not exist in the
vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
20

Typical habitats for Heller's blazing star (biatris the leri. Threatened), a vascular
plant in the Asteraceae, are high elevation rocky summits, ledges, and cliffs. The plant
has been reported from six mountain counties. The plant flowers in late summer and
fruits in early fall. No plants of the genus were found during the study, and the
elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for this species do not exist in the
project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Virginia spiraea (SDiraea virginiana, Threatened), a vascular plant in the
Rosaceae, has been found on riverbanks in six mountain counties. This plant flowers in
early summer and fruits in late summer. The riverbanks and floodplains in the project
area were carefully surveyed to the degree possible given the lush vegetative growth in
these habitats. This easy to identify plant was not located. No wild spiraeas were found
in the area. However, suitable habitat does exist in the project area for this species.
Available information did not indicate the existence of any populations in the project
vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on any federally protected
animal or plant species.
During the original natural resources investigations, the March 28, 1995 edition of
the USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species listing included the rock gnome lichen.
The April 1, 1996 edition does not include this species. The following is the result of the
original investigation.
The rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) occurs in at least ten mountain
counties on rock outcrops and cliff faces, at high elevations or in humid gorges. This
squamulose lichen, endemic in this mountain region, is restricted to areas of high
humidity. Such environments typically occur above 1220 m (4000 ft) or in deep gorges
below 762 in (2500 ft). Vertical rock faces with seepage water from higher forest soils
that flows only at very wet times appears to be a habitat requirement. The lichen fruits in
late summer. The taxon was not located during field study, and suitable habitat for this
species does not occur in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
21
IX PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(#) FOR A HISTORIC BRIDGE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project: BRSTP-221(6)
State Project: 8.1710602
T. I. P. No.: B-1037
Description: Replace Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River in Ashe
County. The new bridge will be on new alignment approximately 15
meters (50 feet) to the south of the existing bridge. Bridge No. 39 has
been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The replacement of the bridge will be an adverse effect.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is
on or eligible for listing on the X
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
Landmark? r_1 X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. D n in X a
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered F-1 X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety F
hazards? X
-1
22
Yes N
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affecting the historic X
integr4 of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/or (iv) The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge F
affecting the historic integ4 X
-1
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
23
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning x F-I
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
For bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
The bridge will be recorded as described in the attached Memorandum of Agreement
The new bridge will incorporate the "Hillsborough Street Panel" in design of the bridge
rails.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation. Not Applicable
24
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation see attachment
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies not applicable
d. US Coast Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
V
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved: 12?
Date Arrr Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
9?9G
Date FIpivisi dministrator, FHWA
25
X. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(#) FORA HISTORIC SITE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-221(6)
STATE PROJECT 8.1710602
T. I. P. NO. B-1037
Description: Replace Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River in Ashe
County. The new bridge will be on new alignment approximately 15
meters (50 feet) to the south of the existing bridge. As a result of
construction, the New River General Store will be shored up to prevent
damage from blasting. The shoring will require a temporary construction
easement. This has been determined to be a "No Adverse Effect"
conditional to the commitments listed in this document.
NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the X
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? F-1
X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the F
existing highway? X
-1
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings, F-1 X
structures, or objects? -
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are F-1 X
important to preserve in place rather -
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) a
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic a X
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
26

7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts and the proposed X
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? F1 X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing Yes No
Does the "do nothing" alternative: X F-I
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the
asliacent historic site
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
F-I-
o-
17 X
F X
X F-I
X F-I
27
o (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the historic site.
X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM_
Y0s No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been

agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR a
X
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate, the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
The New River General Store is also eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places but not associated with Bridge No. 39. Blasting from the project will pose a
danger to the store's shoring. Therefore, design will include appropriate measures to
protect the store against blasting including but not limited to improved shoring. Design
will present their ideas regarding preservation of the store to Mr. John Horton,
Restoration Specialist of State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), who will comment
on the project. Mr. Horton can be reached at SHPO's Asheville Office [phone].
28
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation see attachment
c. Property owner see attachment
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies see attachment
e. US Coast Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
5- f8-9/
Date
9 2Dat#-4
29
fkif Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
XI PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) FOR A RECREATIONAL AREA
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-221(6)
State Project 8.1710602
T. I. P. No. B-1037
Description: Replace Bridge No. 39 on US 221 over South Fork New River in Ashe
County. The new bridge will be on new alignment approximately 15
meters (50 feet) to the south of the existing bridge. The bridge will cross
the South Fork New River. Crossing this recreational resource constitutes a
4(f) but with "No Adverse Effect" conditional upon the enclosed
commitments.
Yes No
Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X 17
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? 7 X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or a
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? X
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(#) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
30
Yes No
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its F-1 X
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land X
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? F-1 X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent: X
1. Do-nothine.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? X
31
f i
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? F-I X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X a
2. Improvement of the hig iwav without using
the adjacent public park recreational X
and or wildlife waterfowl refuee.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic N/A
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact There is no shift in alignment
which can avoid crossing the
or (ii) substantial increased costs South Fork New River, therefore,
Question 2 is not applicable.
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public perk,
recreational land or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, (This would be N/A
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve There is no shift in alignment
the existing problems which can avoid crossing the
South Fork New River, therefore,
or (ii) substantial social, Question 3 is not applicable.
environmental, or economic
impacts
32
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
Oa Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
c. Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
O Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
33
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
• NCDOT will maintain access to recreational users of the South Fork New River
during construction.
• Before construction begins, the Division 11 Engineer will insure that "Bridge
Construction Ahead" signs are placed on the upstream and downstream sides of the
bridge to alert boaters.
• NCDOT will keep the South Fork New River channel open to boating traffic during
construction. Efforts will be made in both design and construction to maintain as
wide a channel opening as possible.
• NCDOT will (where feasible) minimize the number of piers required in the channel
for the new bridge. The spans on the new bridge will either maintain or increase the
open channel width available to boaters.
• If pier footing(s) which are placed in the channel come to within one meter (three
feet) of the water's surface, NCDOT will install fins to indicate the presence of the
footings in order to protect boats and the footings.
• Both DEHNR (Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources) and
NCWRC have requested that NCDOT leave in place a section of either old bridge
approach to serve as parking for a small boat launch which NCWRC proposes to
construct sometime in the future. Consideration will be given during design and right
of way phases.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
c. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
see attached
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
34
RY AND APPROV
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
4 f8 9? c <???
Date Rssf -Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Date ` Divisi Administrator, FHWA
35
FIGURES
X563 1561 /
? , ? 1562 . g ?? • 6
Q Chestnut ^ 1552 a ,
I"ill,-, * 1565
3 1563 a 15coi
1567 .6 1567 1567
Brid e No. 33 1673
1568

11574 16 1570
4.0
S 1571
575
hatley • s
/ Springs ^
\S i 571
1576 572 1.2 FAS n

2<I 1595 .o Liberty 1602
Hill Ch.
1668 ?
•
1651
•
?
? ,
6 Nathans a t s9a °' r
3 l 1579 1660 Creek
_ ,657 7 159
1 3 i
1593
?? fl 3 \ ?
.•? 1595
2? . 1a f'
.
1661 1591
_
584 1 l
County 15S2
I
;_ Airport P ; %0 , ?
Fob • o

1
1
r ?.
1570
166E
1601
9
Z
i
1549
I
I Scottsviilee
1665
1635 22! 70 OfA' G
5 a noee+oea:, V
g f4S,
.3 w.
o, h.?
~ 1636
1600 16C3
rcOG
'6C5
Pleasant '6C5
Valle Ch.
-06
603 ¦ r`
• i 604
1609 16
9 J
r ;
c „
' J
1599 1612 ,4
"609
'9
i611
N
1595 u 1612
2 1 EEeC V a Trorisou 161 a
y` North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 33 ON US 221
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-1037
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

P
k+rj?,
V ,

'
r?: f, yk
r
r?

r ! ) Ak1
d
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
F.
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39
ONUS 221 OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-1037
0 meters 30 kilometers 60
-4-1 Figure 2
0 feet 100 feet 200
FIGURE 3
VIEW OF NORTH FACE OF BRIDGE
VIEW OF BRIDGE RAID, DETAIL
EAST END OF BRIDGE FACING EAST APPROACH
FIGURE 4
WEST END OF BRIDGE FACING WEST APPROACH
FIGURE 5
VIEW OF NEW RIVER GENERAL. SWORE (SOUTH FACE)
NORT? FACE OF NEW RIVER GENERAL STORE
Lao
PROJECT SITE
RPJ!4I _-,
! 6
MAP OF
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN v
/
i
I
i

ZONE AE
?`,? 261
a

C
ZONE X
O
ZONE AE
i
ZONE X

2562
256.,:
L?\ZONE X
N,
P
i
? ; I Siu
i ZONE X
O>
2566
Z7
yHf? ???\ L
\

C 67 \`?
5

3
I-
A
FIGURE 6
t
ft?? ZONE X

r

ATTACHMENTS
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 7440*
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C) E H N F?
B. Howes, Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
July 16, 1996
TO: John Williams, Planning Engineer
NCDOT, Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Sue Regier, Heads?11(
Resource Management Program
SUBJECT: US 221 Bridge Replacement, Ashe County (B-1037)
The Division of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the Section 4(f) statement for the replacement
ofBridge No. 39 over the South Fork of the New River on US 221. This section of the South Fork
of the New River is a State and Federal Scenic River and is used extensively by the public for boating
and fishing. We agree with the safety commitments in section 3.
In addition to these commitments the Division would like the inclusion of public access at this bridge
crossing. With the current level of river use, public access at all bridge crossings of the South Fork
of the New River is needed. Access from the east side of the river appears to be most feasible at this
site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Let me know if you need additional
information. I can be reached at 733-7795.
/smr
cc: Jay Wild, New River State Park
S/20
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Y
Outdoor Adventure throughout Northwestern North Carolina
New River Adventures, Inc.
P.O. Box 433
Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
Tune 20, 1S9G
To: Mr. John N illianls
Planning d. Enyiromentaf Branch
N.C. Department o(' Transportittion
P.O. Bux 25 201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
From: Randy i evk
mew River Outfitters &- iirlieral Store
1'.0. Bo): 433
el"ferson. \.C. 2x040
idea.- :sir. i? illiams,
Thank you for rasing me the first three pages of the planning document which
outline the replacement of bridge 39. I agree with the proiect as proposed.in the
portion o the doculileili that I iila-ve received, N14fich appcar's it) be the portion relative
to file notential effects on my husiness.
oni-i concern to this o0int had been the potential iiisruptlon ortrarik, both on
the road, and oil the river. .Ater, our phone conversation, and your assurance that
aiiv interuption of traffic would be oah temporary, meaning mialite's, not days of
longer. I was glad to receive this information, which certainly added to my support of
111e rrojeo"
1 anl3rcciate the consideration %.ou have given m} 1'usllleS and t!)e time v:tcl't e
`lis, its .:ia. I1LJrn2.. [ alt 122 .
`iit7cer_?IE. ,
Randy i'. Regis
k.1% i iyer jut iir[' iy: iYrliel ill Store
New River Outfitters
U.S. 221 South, Scottville, NC 28672
[phone] 9 [phone]
.t
G -
UJ cb v
o'
4 VNI, .& E
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program- f -?
DATE: June 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge #39 over South Fork New
River along US 221, Ashe County, TIP #B-1037.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the
existing bridge with a new bridge on new location to the south of the existing bridge. In
addition, approximately 100 feet of an unnamed tributary to South Fork New River will be
relocated at the western end of the project.
The South Fork of the New River does not support trout; however, it provides exceptional
smallmouth bass fishing and provides habitat for other species such as sunfish, catfish, suckers,
chubs, shiners, and darters. We have the following comments regarding this project:
1) We are interested in increasing recreational access to the river, which as you know is
designated as a national Wild and Scenic River. If feasible, our agency may want to
construct a small boat launch at the bridge, which would allow the public to easily carry a
canoe or other small boat to the river bank for launching. Would it be possible for the
NCDOT to leave in place a section of the old bridge approach for parking?
2) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
river water. This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and
causing a fish kill.
3) If a 404 permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the project
description should include any plans for temporary work pads to be placed in the river.

B-1037 Page 2 June 6, 1996
4) The NCDOT should contact the Natural Heritage Program (919/733-7701) to determine
if any federal or state listed species may be impacted by this project.
5) The new channel of the unnamed tributary should match the old in terms of average
width, depth, length, slope, and meander pattern. Natural materials (e.g., boulders, trees)
should be used to stabilize the banks rather than lining the new channel with riprap.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
F- x-1 F-? CORRIDOR = DESIGN
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1710602 COUNTY ASHE Altemte 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-1037 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #39 ON US 221 IN ASHE CO., OVER SOUTH
FORK NEW RIVER
........ ...
.. . . ... . ., . • , • . . .
..... ....
ESTI1t3ATBD DI$PLACEES ..:. ;......... .
. ..,. . . .. . .
.

.
.
. INCOME LEVEL .. ,....... .
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 O 2•::<V I,UE OF DWELLING ... .... DSS I)V ELMO AVA0ABlZ.. :
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tena nts For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0 0-20M A 10-150 WA
..... :::::.. . .
ANSWER•At?L. ULSilo1VS :::::::::::::::: 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M A 2so A
Ye. No E lain all "ITS" answers 40-79M 0 250-404 0 40-70M WA --iii-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 7e-1eoM 0 400-600 0 70-1e0M A 400-600 A
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by Ise ur 600 yr roo up A too up A
............................
............................
::::::::::::

placement?

displacement?

TOTAL

:.::::.....::
0
-. WA
A
X 3. Will business services still be available after
. .....
...;:......,, ...

, :.REMA)tt11;S. Res oud b I?runlber ..::. .
......... ..
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
........... .
indicate size, type, estimated number of
NOTE - THE PROPOSED R/W CONTAINS TWO STRUCTURES,
employees, minorities, etc. A STORAGE BUILDING AND A VACANT HOUSE. THERE
77 X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? ARE NO OCCUPIED RESIDENCES OR BUSINESSES.

6.
.......................
Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? NEGATIVE STUDY
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
NI A 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing ?C
?JIAN?GER

....•.....
.... housing available during relocation period? ,
w AY ?r1UCH
A
NI
13. Will there be a problem of housing within R?(?}?( OF

........
' financial means?
N/
A
14. Are suitable business sites available (list AR 2 91996
source). M
15. Number months estimated to complete INJI N
RELOCATION? r'' 11..pej, pF

B. D. BOWERS 03-27-96 ',',,
, .3- a S?
Relocation t Date =
Appro ved b Date
Fenn 15 4 Revved 5190
Original & I Copy: store Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

.tea ....?,.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 22, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh,,N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 39 on US 221 over South Fork
New River, Ashe County, B-1037, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-221(6), State Project
8.1710602, ER 96-8869
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
G
MAY241996
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1996, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Bridge x#39. This bridge is eligible under Criterion A for transportation
because it represents the culmination of transportation improvements at a
major crossing along a new state highway. It is also eligible under Criterion
C as a good, representative example of a 1920s reinforced concrete bridge.
New River General Store. The store is eligible under Criterion C as a rare and
intact example of an early twentieth-century rural general store.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 T???
Nicholas L. Graf
May 22, 1996, Page 2
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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
DB:slw
cc: `"H. F. Vick
B. Church
I I I It? ? M??o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Di f Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary G JWif iapt 'ce, Jr., Director
July 13, 1995 Q?? ~ 4?1
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator 3U? 1 7 1995
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue 1),d1SIC"! CF
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 'it?cjIGHWAYS
Re: , Bridge 39 on US 221 over South Fork New
River, Ashe County, State Project 8.1710602,
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-221(6), B-1037, ER
95-7582, ER 95-9230
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 16, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Thomas Padgett concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Mr.
Padgett has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant arohaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
rSi4icerely,
.V
?All )1d rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: V14' F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

Federal Aid ;: t,94,rf - 11-1 (a TIP Tr
t,10-.q
County As"E,
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
V_i:PLAc,F. PAR-1Dc r P.1o. oM %Ae, 'L .1 o-jee- S#L4n4 pow I?rw V.4VER-.
On _???% ?? , 1°?°I? , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Resister-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Resister-eligible proper ty/properties within the
project's area of potential erect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Sianed:
Repre CDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section Date
INV or the Division ministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative,JSHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer. at
(over)

Federal Aid I >?wsrP - 22? ??,? TIP # ?• ?03? County 1?5HE
T
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
tMt P rrF- 110. -221 C G£ I - A V,4Ms E, ZFr-g
NEht P-IVEr. GFoe?.AL, Srsr-G (Ds') - 4V ADVE?.SE EFFE-_r'
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FHZVA SHPO 1
4 '
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between
the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a)
for the Replacement of Bridge #39 on US 221 over the South Fork of the New River
Ashe County, North Carolina
TIP #B-1037, State. Project #8.1710602, Federal Aid #BRSTP-221(6)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) has determined that the
replacement of Bridge #39 on US 221 over the South Fork of the New River will have an effect
upon Bridge #39 and the New River General Store, properties eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places; and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800, regulations implementing Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Randy and
Barbara Revis, owners of the New River General Store (store owners), have participated in the
consultation and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHwA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account
the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHwA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Bridge #39
A. Recordation: Prior to the demolition of Bridge #39, NCDOT shall record the bridge in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan (Appendix A). The
recordation plan shall be carried out and copies of the record shall be sent to the North Carolina
SHPO prior to the start of construction.
B. Replacement Bridge Design: NCDOT shall provide the North Carolina SHPO the
opportunity to review and comment upon designs for the replacement bridge.
II. New River General Store:
A. Structural Stabilization: NCDOT shall stabilize the structure to withstand the effects
of blasting required for the project. NCDOT shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO and
store owners regarding the method of stabilization to be used.
B. Blasting: NCDOT shall control and monitor blasting operations to minimize damage
to the New River General Store.
C. Existing Road and Access: NCDOT shall provide the North Carolina SHPO with an
opportunity to review and comment upon plans for the removal of the existing road and access to
the store.
Page 2
III. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30) days to any
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this agreement, FHwA shall consult with
the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHwA or the North Carolina SHPO
determines that the objection can not be resolved, FHwA shall forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide FHwA with recommendations which FHwA will take into account in reaching
a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHwA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.6(b) and proceed
to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into
account by FHwA in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(2) with reference to the subject
of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain only to
the subject of the dispute; FHwA's responsibility to carry out all the actions under this MOA that
are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHwA and the North Carolina SHPO,
its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and implementation of its terms, evidence that FHwA
has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge #39 and its
effects on historic properties, and that FHwA has taken into account the effects of the bridge
replacement on historic properties.
Federal Highway Administration
By: G J'L ery'.1 Date: North Caro ' State ist/o?ri?c Preservation Officer
By: I V Date: 7 I f 1 ?7?v
L/ 1) V
V
Accepted:
Ja
Advisory C cil on Historic Preservation
By:_ - Date: --?
Page 3
Concur:
North ZColr#* ep of Nton
BY: Date: 3? /?
Page 4
Concur:
New Ri4ren era l Store Owners
BY. v Date: 7-/ - 5L
fir.
.:?
. IV
Page 5
Appendix A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrative/description of Bridge #39.
Photographic Documentation
Photographic views of Bridge #39 including:
*Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
*Overall views of the bridge in its setting
*Details of construction or design
Format:
*35mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
*4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
*Color slides (all views)
*All processing to be done to archival standards. Fiber-based paper is the
traditional archival standard. According to Kodak, however, their resin-coated
paper meets archival standards if it is stored in total darkness (in an envelope)
and at low humidity.
*All photographs, negatives and slides to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History Standards.
Graphic Documentation
Reproduction of the construction blueprints from microfilm
Copies and Curation
*One (1) set of all photographic and graphic documentation and the historical
background information shall be deposited with the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent
part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF. 110. OR OOM, BLDG.
?? ??erv?{?_ l- R
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ldhn ?in?ms
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
?PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
•.? -,PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
'.
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
?
. : ..;
..

.
y P'L SfATFq
N 6 w».i?
yw
?? QLLtM ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1RANsPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 27, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
ApR 41995
ENVIRONMENTA CICNCFS
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: US 221, Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 39 over
South Fork New River, State Project 8.1710602, F. A.
Project BRSTP-221(6), B-1037
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Highway
Building on December 05, 1994.
The following people were in attendance:
Dewayne Sykes Roadway Design
John Alford Roadway Design
Roy Girolami Structure Design
Christina Todd Traffic Control
Eric Galamb Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
Danny Rogers Program Development
Ray Moore Structure Design
Sid Autry Location & Surveys
Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit
John Williams P&E
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters are Class B as well as being
considered an Outstanding Water Resource. He requested that the most
stringent Soil and Erosion Control Measures be used and to avoid weep holes
directly into the river.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics stated that the new structure will be a bridge
and that it will likely be a little longer than the old bridge. Specifics
will not be available until more details on the new alignment are known.
Ray Moore of Structure Design stated that the new structure would likely
require two seasons to construct.
Enlo
March 27, 1995
Page 2
Sid Autry of Location & Surveys made the following comments:
The stilts on which the general store are built may be affected by
possible blasting associated with the project.
Advised that we should contact Bill Moore of Geotechnical to help
determine possible impacts.
There is a USGS marker (64 ATA 1950) which will have to be moved.
There may be USTs at an old gas station to deal with.
David Cox commented that the river is an excellent source of small mouth
fish. He advised that strong sedimentation and erosion control be used. He
inquired about retaining some area for public access.
PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT
There are no reasonable detour routes. Therefore, traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Because the general
store is a likely candidate for the National Register of Historic Places and
because it is a thriving business it does not seem reasonable to look at an
alternate which would cause harm to the building. For this reason, we will
evaluate only one alternate to the south as approximated on the attached
figure. There is a home and an abandoned gas station at the east end of the
bridge which may be taken by the construction of this alternate. The home
also appears to be abandoned.
Cost Estimates are not yet available
s. - March 27, 1995
Page 3
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 3-24-95
TIP PROJECT B-1037 DIVISION 11
STATE PROJECT 8.1710602 COUNTY Ashe
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-221(6) ROUTE US 221

PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIP ALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR
OTHERS? YES NO X
STRUCTURES
BRIDGE NO. 39
EXISTING LENGTH 140 METERS; WIDTH 7 METERS
STRUCTURE: 462 FEET 23 FEET
Proposed Structure Length NOT YET AVAILABLE
But it will be longer than the existing one.
COSTS
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .........................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .........................
TIP TOTAL COST ................................
$ 1,100,000
+ $ 110,000
$ 1,210,000
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE IS NOT YET AVAILABLE
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector
2
1549 -
.9 ? . 2
? 1316?? u') 3 316
. ? 13-LE 1 1323 .9
4
13083 1321
1303 .2--:
?•
• 8 1322
1308 / - 1351
r 1303 113
s 1560
j? 1552 1545
1560
1561
1•
'N. p - 6 f
552
1565
1566
1567
l 1673
.Q
O
1570
n
1602
1666
1601
1595 D
1599
1 3 1307
.4 (O

1306 4)
Topia 1320 1
.2 ?.3 N I
1305 1304 Mt. Zion
w Ch.

CD N .7
y
o-u 1303 w 1327 `
1300
1 ?,' Q 8 _ .? 1328
1549 1
302 Pendsn •s¦. 1
IwA C" I
Ch.
!m 0 ?P300
1301 ?o h •?
1 Scottsville
1645 w- . - -
: 1635 221
'?qS O 58
_ 1.3
T41
1603 1636 1158
'7p • c?
113
1157
Bri a No. 39
160 0 (o
o - U 'cal G? .
Pleasant
Valley Ch. m 1606 160,
1603 ?? • S
1604
1609; - 1603
J
¦

1 ,?? , N
1 ?
¦
1
r as
¦
Lansing -Oct
Warren pr gy sca
•
If

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39
ON US 221 OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-1037
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
r
0 miles 1 miles 2
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM,BL G.
7 P46

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT"
COMMENTS:
I-L

e o,, RECEIM
OCT 2 1 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 39 on US 221 in
Ashe County over South Fork New River, B-1037
I have moved the scoping meeting for B-1037 to December 6, 1994 at
9:30 A. M. in Room 434. This was done because the necessary information
will not be available by November 2, 1994 (the old date for the scoping
meeting). I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this change.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r X507 0). A?vvvl
- 33,
SUA&
r- t ??- ?- 2 s ? w
rv - h
At, t
2 -ems &
IW4 01VI "rt C'?
S?0 j00 2-0I
,e
6
Ank
(?a f 1 S°? 3 of
f_ l i rr
. .
C 1316] ?C
0 r --?
3 316
16' 1323 .9
4 1
-"_.- _
- 1 !: 4 1321
1549 1303 2 -
1322 s
5591.2 1308 1351
-.8 r 1303 113
y 1. 3 1307
1560
4 (D
1552 154S = 1306
Topic 1320
2? 1 3 > 1
1 1560 U
1305 1304 Mt. Zion
1561 Ch.
2 = = N
'6 •F ODi h`I '' -' •41
552 0 130311 1327 "Y'
ro ?' i 300
1565 • v .8
1328 '
1566 1. 0' . \
1567 1549 302 Penden ,•
ta) 1
•? ` Mtn CIrme1 '
1673 , - 'Ch.
p 1300
h t
'Q .1301 '0
Scottsville _
1645 ' -- • -
O 1635 221
3 .5
1570 3' p
1:3
co L T41 A
1636 1158
1600 1603
^ 113
1157
Q l
1602 O c0
v4160 i
Pleasant ?•?
Valley Ch. m 1606 ;kjl6G,
1603
rte, 1666 W ` :`J 1
3•
1601 1604
O 595 1609 l 1603
I i
f ?
a ?
i.
¦ -OCr
-N 0 1599" J
1
51j,
r?
I\I',
It
AV,
1
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ASHE COUNTY A
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39
ONUS 221 OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B - 1037
U km 1:6 km 3:2
Q miles 1 miles 2
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLI P 94
TO,
(I?1it. ERIC ???g ?M- REF. NO. OR jOOM, B DG.
FROM: REF. NO. ORROO M. LDG.
-5;HN WlLLt *l% P ?
ACTION
NOTE AND FILE ?.PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO 'ME ? PER. YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE ..
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND. REPORT
COMMENTS........ ,:. ..,
rrc'od??

OCR - 3199
WETLl1saLITY?SEG?'f;1\ ?.,:??

oY d w ?? ,
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
September 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 39 on US 221
in Ashe County over South Fork New River, B-1037
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for 94 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conferenc Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting r mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your ass' tance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions bout the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Projj?ec Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r
Attachment
Kf)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9-28-94
TIP PROJECT B-1037 DIVISION ELEVEN

STATE PROJECT 8.1710602 COUNTY ASHE

F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-221(6) ROUTE US 221
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 221, BRIDGE #39, ASHE COUNTY,
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL MAJOR COLLECTOR
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 140 METERS; WIDTH 7.0 METERS
462 FEET 23 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 19100,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 110,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................* 1,L1s,VVV

1 16??
?n '31316
tr 4 t
.6 D'
1549 1_-3
.6 1322
553 t . 2 ? ? - ?
1308 1351
.? .8 r 1303 113
y 1 3 1307
1560
.4 (o
154
1552 Tula 1320
. 2 t • 3 ,?
1560 1}

3 '
? 1305 _ Mt. Z1on
1304
1561 / ? •? Ch.
- i
2 S
. ?
CD
l n1 N ,
1
•
552 ,
tfl 12 4
°? ``
w 1327 `,
?
° ? 1344
1565 -
1566 1 01-1 ' Q 8 _ 1328 '

1567 1549 302 Pwxlon N. `f
l

1
673 -,o Carmel '
- -Ch
Q
•O
1570
co
n
1602
5
1666
1601
• p T300 _
,
• 1301 0 h ?
1 SaoMsvilh
1645 ' - - _
1635 221
3
,cos 3 3 . 5 , 0 •p
rn 1.3
?- 1636 1158
1600 • 1603 c?
13
1157
•? l
1595`
1599
C -? 160. • O (o

a
^
Pleasant -
•
Valley Ch.
m
1606
1603 i'
. _J
0 `
1604

N.

1609 160:

11 -?
¦
,•*+ ?• O
¦
1
a t- as
sturgills re
1
If
?
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39
ON US 221 OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-1037
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
0 miles 1 miles 2
01
Iu ado
USGS Map.
Laurel Springs
7.5 Minute Quadrangle
7.7
U
I
?l
rrill
4\..\
' \ tt/?:
\ X00. ,/ ?/ V? yil I '?1 --\? J I g 00 \\??\
lo-
` -'
V'r
I?Jl It
10
N®R
.'" it >
I t
o
1
x
r
Q,3 N N,
? q ,j --yrs.-? '\: ?1; \ l?"`t _3" ^'m • ? _ ?„.????'?-
', 1 ?q
,\ ?% ?? '?a"