19960853 Ver 1_Complete File_19960903

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
4"
ID EHNR
May 28, 1997
Ashe County
DWQ Project # 960853
State Project #8.1710901, TIP #R-2100A
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr, Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill material
in 0.20 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of improving NC 16 from US 221 to NC 16 crossing of South
Fork New River, as you described in your application dated 18 April 1997. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3103 and 3100. These
certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 14 and General Permit 031 when they are issued by the
Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with
your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and
Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit
expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified
below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If
total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below. Stream mitigation shall be done as
described in the application or with revisions as agreed upon in writing by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission. DOT shall send two copies of as-built stream restoration plans to DWQ after construction DOT shall
coordinate stream relocation/restoration plans with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission prior to submittal of
plans for Sections B and C.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask
for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
.Sincerely,
Preston Howard, Jr. P.E!
Attachment j
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers -
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Feld Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch 960853.1tr
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 500% recycled/100/a post consumer paper
•_ - d„tsugo
ram
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TZANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 10, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Michael Smith
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
veo
Subject: Ashe County, NC 16, from US 221 to the Blue Ridge Parkway, State
Project No. 8.1710901; TIP No. R-2100; COE Action ID 199700817,
199700840 thru 199700842; DWQ # 960853..
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has received the Section 404 permit for
the subject and wishes to thank the Corps of Engineers for their help in its issuance. As
part of the Section 404 permit, comments from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) were integrated into permit conditions. This letter addresses these conditions. A
copy of the WRC letter addressed to Mr. John Thomas and dated April 25, 1997, is
attached to this letter.
Response to Condition No. 1.
The DOT has eliminated the use of rip rap along the right-of-way side of Naked
Creek, which had been depicted on sheet 5 of 6 in the permit drawings of the application.
Rip rap needs to remain on the NC 16 side of Naked Creek for the following reasons:
1) a steep channel gradient (1.3 %) exists along the creek; 2) the new fill placed in the old
channel forms the new channel bank and must be protected; 3) the roadway fill is in close
proximity to the new channel (10 feet); and 4) there is a greater potential for scour at the
upstream end of the proposed culvert where the channel makes a 65 degree bend. The
existing channel at this location is scoured to the bedrock.
Response to Condition No. 2.
The Naked Creek site is located in a Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) detailed flood hazard study area. Roadway construction will encroach into the

2 '
floodplain. Therefore, a wider channel than the existing channel is required to maintain
flood depths at the existing level.
The proposed culvert is larger than the existing Little Naked Creek channel. A
wider culvert is necessary and is not unusual for culvert projects. A relatively short reach
of Little Naked Creek will be widened on either side to accommodate water conveyance
through the proposed culvert.
Response to Condition No. 3.
The stream gradient and meander patterns found at Little Naked Creek and Naked
Creek have been mimicked as much as practicable. A note on the plans directs
stockpiling of native bed material from the existing stream channel and its use in the new
channel at Little Naked Creek.
. This directive to stockpile and use native bed material at Little Naked Creek may
also be implemented at Naked Creek. The DOT has revised the channel change grade at
Naked Creek to allow for the formation of riffles and pools. The channel cross sections
should not change from what is shown for the proposed channel grade. Riffles and pools
can be formed by the extending the channel side slopes to a lower elevation, thereby
creating a narrower bed width at the lower elevation.
Thank you for your assistance in issuing this permit. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, WRC, Northside
Mr. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E. , Division 11 Engineer

RECEIVED
AFR c 9 1091
Regulatory Branch
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas, Permit Coordinator
Raleigh Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT to install/extend 6 culverts and relocate 440
linear feet of Creasey Branch, Little Naked Creek, and Naked Creek in
conjunction with widening NC 16, Ashe County, TIP 4R-2100A
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a letter of
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to obtain a 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We conducted site visits on 20 November 1996, 5
December 1996, and 26 February 1997. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT is requesting a 404 application for Section A (from east of US 221 to west
of South Fork New River) of the project, a distance of 12.8 miles. The project will involve
stream relocation at three sites: Creasey Branch (140 feet), Little Naked Creek (60 feet), and
Naked Creek (240 feet). Existing bridges over Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek will be
replaced with reinforced concrete box culverts. The NCDOT plans to bury culverts one foot
below the streambed and place rock on the culvert floor. Baffles will be constructed on each side
of the culverts to prevent rock from washing downstream. In addition, the culvert at Little Naked
Creek has been designed with a low flow channel.
We conducted fish sampling in Creasey Branch and Little Naked Creek on 20 November
1996. No trout were collected in either stream, although both streams support various species of
nongame fish. Naked Creek may support trout upstream of the project site. All streams flow
into the South Fork New River, which provides excellent habitat for smallmouth bass, redbreast
sunfish, and many species of nongame fish.

R-2100A
Page 2 April 25, 1997
We have no objection to the issuance of this permit, provided the following conditions
are met by the NCDOT:
1) The use of riprap should be minimized along new channel sections. On Sheet 5 of 6
showing the relocation of Naked Creek, the new channel appears to be lined with riprap.
This is unacceptable. Riprap should be limited to the outside banks of meanders or to
very steep slopes. Instead, natural materials such as woody vegetation, boulders, and root
wads should be used to stabilize the new channel. We are pleased that the NCDOT plans
to plant native species of trees along new channel sections.
2) New channel sections should have the same average width as the existing channels. On
Sheet 6 of 6 (Summary Sheet for TIP No. R-21 00A), the NCDOT proposes to create
wider channels on Little Naked Creek and Naked Creek. Instead, these new channel
sections should have the same average width as the existing channels.
3) As indicated in our memorandum dated 9 December 1996 to Mr. Phillip Todd of the
NCDOT, all new channel sections should be constructed to mimic the existing streams as
much as possible in terms of average depth, average width, length, gradient, meander
pattern, and substrate. We addressed width in Item #2 and note that the NCDOT plans to
mimic average depth and length on all channels. The NCDOT should also mimic
gradient, meander pattern, and substrate.
4) Livestock should be fenced out of new stream sections wherever possible to prevent
degradation of riparian vegetation.
5) Since brook trout should not be impacted by work on Section A, it is not necessary for
the NCDOT to commit to a moratorium of stream work and disturbance within the 25-
foot buffer zone during the brook trout spawning season of November 1 to April 15.
However, we will likely recommend this moratorium on Sections B and C.
6) Work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This
will lessen the chance of altering a stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
7) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mr. Ron Linville, DWQ

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 10, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mr. Michael Smith
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: Ashe County, NC 16, from US 221 to the Blue Ridge Parkway, State
Project No. 8.1710901; TIP No. R-2100; COE Action ID 199700817,
199700840 thru 199700842; DWQ # 960853..
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has received the Section 404 permit for
the subject and wishes to thank the Corps of Engineers for their help in its issuance. As
part of the Section 404 permit, comments from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) were integrated into permit conditions. This letter addresses these conditions. A
copy of the WRC letter addressed to Mr. John Thomas and dated April 25, 1997, is
attached to this letter.
Response to Condition No. 1.
The DOT has eliminated the use of rip rap along the right-of-way side of Naked
Creek, which had been depicted on sheet 5 of 6 in the permit drawings of the application.
Rip rap needs to remain on the NC 16 side of Naked Creek for the following reasons:
1) a steep channel gradient (1.3 %) exists along the creek; 2) the new fill placed in the old
channel forms the new channel bank and must be protected; 3) the roadway fill is in close
proximity to the new channel (10 feet); and 4) there is a greater potential for scour at the
upstream end of the proposed culvert where the channel makes a 65 degree bend. The
existing channel at this location is scoured to the bedrock.
Response to Condition No. 2.
The Naked Creek site is located in a Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) detailed flood hazard study area. Roadway construction will encroach into the
?r
2
floodplain. Therefore, a wider channel than the existing channel is required to maintain
flood depths at the existing level.
The proposed culvert is larger than the existing Little Naked Creek channel. A
wider culvert is necessary and is not unusual for culvert projects. A relatively short reach
of Little Naked Creek will be widened on either side to accommodate water conveyance
through the proposed culvert.
Response to Condition No. 3.
The stream gradient and meander patterns found at Little Naked Creek and Naked
Creek have been mimicked as much as practicable. A note on the plans directs
stockpiling of native bed material from the existing stream channel and its use in the new
channel at Little Naked Creek.
. This directive to stockpile and use native bed material at Little Naked Creek may
also be implemented at Naked Creek. The DOT has revised the channel change grade at
Naked Creek to allow for the formation of riffles and pools. The channel cross sections
should not change from what is shown for the proposed channel grade. Riffles and pools
can be formed by the extending the channel side slopes to a lower elevation, thereby
creating a narrower bed width at the lower elevation.
Thank you for your assistance in issuing this permit. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, WRC, Northside
Mr. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E. , Division 11 Engineer

RECEIVED
APR 'L 0 199d 7
Regulatory Branch
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas, Permit Coordinator
Raleigh Office, U.S. Amity Corps of Engineers
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program y n (?
DATE: April 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT to install/extend 6 culverts and relocate 440
linear feet of Creasey Branch, Little Naked Creek, and Naked Creek in
conjunction with widening NC 16, Ashe County, TIP 9R-2100A
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a letter of
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to obtain a 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We conducted site visits on 20 November 1996, 5
December 1996, and 26 February 1997. These comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT is requesting a 404 application for Section A (from east of US 221 to west
of South Fork New River) of the project, a distance of 12.8 miles. The project will involve
stream relocation at three sites: Creasey Branch (140 feet), Little Naked Creek (60 feet), and
Naked Creek (240 feet). Existing bridges over Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek will be
replaced with reinforced concrete box culverts. The NCDOT plans to bury culverts one foot
below the streambed and place rock on the culvert floor. Baffles will be constructed on each side
of the culverts to prevent rock from washing downstream. In addition, the culvert at Little Naked
Creek has been designed with a low flow channel.
We conducted fish sampling in Creasey Branch and Little Naked Creek on 20 November
1996. No trout were collected in either stream, although both streams support various species of
nongame fish. Naked Creek may support trout upstream of the project site. All streams flow
into the South Fork New River, which provides excellent habitat for smallmouth bass, redbreast
sunfish, and many species of nongame fish.
X
R-2100A
., -V
Page 2 April 25, 1997
We have no objection to the issuance of this permit, provided the following conditions
are met by the NCDOT:
1) The use of riprap should be minimized along new channel sections. On Sheet 5 of 6
showing the relocation of Naked Creek, the new channel appears to be lined with riprap.
This is unacceptable. Riprap should be limited to the outside banks of meanders or to
very steep slopes. Instead, natural materials such as woody vegetation, boulders, and root
wads should be used to stabilize the new channel. We are pleased that the NCDOT plans
to plant native species of trees along new channel sections.
2) New channel sections should have the same average width as the existing channels. On
Sheet 6 of 6 (Summary Sheet for TIP No. R-2100A), the NCDOT proposes to create
wider channels on Little Naked Creek and Naked Creek. Instead, these new channel
sections should have the same average width as the existing channels.
3) As indicated in our memorandum dated 9 December 1996 to Mr. Phillip Todd of the
NCDOT, all new channel sections should be constructed to mimic the existing streams as
much as possible in terms of average depth, average width, length, gradient, meander
pattern, and substrate. We addressed width in Item #2 and note that the NCDOT plans to
mimic average depth and length on all channels. The NCDOT should also mimic
gradient, meander pattern, and substrate.
4) Livestock should be fenced out of new stream sections wherever possible to prevent
degradation of. riparian vegetation.
5) Since brook trout should not be impacted by work on Section A, it is not necessary for
the NCDOT to commit to a moratorium of stream work and disturbance within the 25-
foot buffer zone during the brook trout spawning season of November 1 to April 15.
However, we will likely recommend this moratorium on Sections B and C.
6) Work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. This
will lessen the chance of altering a stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
7) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mr. Ron Linville, DWQ

JA,
1 l
PY
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas, Permit Coordinator
Raleigh.Off cr.e, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Original signed by
DATE: January 27, 1998 Joe Mckey
SUBJECT: Review of response by NCDOT to our conditions for improvements to NC 16,
from US 221 to the New River, Project No 8.1710901; TIP No. R-2100; COE
Action ID 199700817, 199700840 thru 199700842; DWQ No. 960853, Ashe
County.
We have reviewed the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) letter
dated October 10, 1997 concerning their response to certain conditions recommended in our
April 25, 1997 on the above referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
We are pleased than NCDOT has integrated most of our conditions into project plans.
Concerning NCDOT's response to certain conditions outlined in their October 10, 1997 letter to
your office, we have the following comments:
WRC Response to Condition No. 1: We have no objection to keeping riprap on the NC 16 side
of Naked Creek.
WRC Response to Condition No. 2: We have no objection to maintaining a wider channel and
culvert at this site since the roadway will encroach on the FEMA flood hazard area. Efforts
should be made not to widen the channel any more than necessary and banks should be
revegetated with tag alder, silky willow and silky dogwood.
Mr. Thomas 2 1/26/98
VYRC Response to Condition No. 3: We are pleased that stream gradient and meander patterns
have been mimicked as much as possible and that native bed materials will be stockpiled for use
in the new channel at Little Naked and Naked Creeks.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these responses to our
comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-
2982.
cc: H. Franklin Vick, Manager, NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch
Eric Galamb, DWQ
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES: T
Reviewer:
TO: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) * *
PERMIT YR:
APPLICANT NAME: 97 PERMIT NO:
DOT-NC16 TIP R-2100 090033-8 COUNTY: ASHE
PROJECT TYPE : ROAD IMPROVEMENT ----' PE IT TYPE :
O -?
RCD_FROM
CDA: DOT
REG_OFFICE: WSRO
RIVER AND_SUB_BASIN _# : 050701
-
STREAM-CLASS: WSIV DATE
_
STR INDEX NO:
- FRM CDA:

10-1-29 04/18/97??
'S, ,? Q

??Spi
81
WL_IMPACT? : Y/N WL_TYPE:
WL REQUESTED: WL ACR EST?: Y/O
WL_SCORE M : WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: YJN
MITIGATION? : Y/N MITIGATION-TYPE:
?? 7?r+- o i
MITIGATION_SIZE:y /: DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO?: Y&
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y N?
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/CONED ENY
COMMENTS: )1=0 /( OA !V L L'i le (:2- S- P Ydo C07?`"io1 /

V L°/
r

7/
CC: Regional Office
Central Files
r A t 1 ??
a v _ -

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
April 18, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION:
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Michael Smith
GARLAND B. GARRE17 JR.
SECRETARY

Chief, Northern Section C!o
Ashe County, NC 16, from US 221 to the Blue Ridge Parkway,
State Project No. 8.1710901; TIP No. R-21.00; DWQ # 96-0442.
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
proposes to improve an existing two-lane section of NC 16 from US 221 to the Blue
Ridge Parkway (TIP No. R-2100) in Ashe County. This letter and permit application
supersede the permit cover letter and application sent to your office in August 1996.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject project has been completed,
and the document was signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on
June 14, 1990. This document includes studies pertaining to impacts to natural systems
and protected species for the project. The EA also identified numerous potential adverse
impacts to waters of the United States, including extensive stream relocations, bridge
replacements and impacts to a mountain bog. Following coordination with resource
agencies, the DOT completed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
proposed project. The FONSI was signed by the FHWA on November 27, 1995. This
document expounds upon the works of the DOT to reduce and minimize project impacts
to Waters of the United States, as well as efforts that have led to a determination of "not
likely to adversely affect" a population of Virginia spiraea (Spraea virginiana) located in
the project study area.
The DOT proposes to enhance the horizontal and vertical alignment of NC 16 in
several areas. These enhancements will provide improved sight distance and design
speed. The existing roadway width will be increased to a twenty-four (24) foot pavement
section with eight (8) foot usable shoulders. A three (3) lane curb and gutter section will
be constructed in the Glendale Springs area. Guardrail will be placed in selected areas.
E)
2
The total length of the project is 10 miles. For construction purposes, the subject project
has been divided into three sections. The following table includes the construction
schedule of the project and a description of each section's termini.
Table 1. Construction Schedule for TIP No R-2100
SECTION LET DATE DESCRIPTION
A August 1997 east of US 221 to west of South Fork New River
B October 2004 southeast of NC 88 to southeast of SR 1158
C October 2003 southeast of SR 1158 to the Blue Ridge Parkway
The bridge that crosses the South Fork of the New River is not included in the project.
The existing bridge structure was constructed in 1986 as TIP No. B-1031.
The primary concern for this letter is Section A of the project. Section A is
scheduled to be let to construction in August 1997. The length of Section A is 2.8 miles.
It is the opinion of the DOT that the proposed improvements of NC 16, from east of US
221 to west of the New River, has independent >itility from the remaining sections of the
project. The DOT believes that this project can be considered independent of the
remaining sections because Section A of the project is usable and a reasonable
expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. The
existing NC 16 does not meet minimum safety standards, and the proposed action would
remedy this problem in particular.
Since completion of the FONSI, the DOT has continued its efforts to work with
resource agencies to plan for improvements to NC 16 while minimizing impacts to area
streams. The DOT and resource agencies met on December 5, 1996, to discuss the
August 1996 permit application and to clarify the proposed impacts to surface waters and
wetlands. Comments from this on-site meeting have been received from Stephanie
Goudreau of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). These
comments have been incorporated into the project design plans for the A section, as well
as for the remaining sections.
Construction plans necessitate impacting surface waters and wetlands. Surface
waters will be affected by the installation of culverts, installation and extension of pipes,
as well as channel relocation. Fill in surface waters will be required at four sites.
Impacts to surface waters for the project amount to 0.20 acre and occurs at four sites, with
0.04 acre of this total being temporary fill.
Project construction will necessitate stream relocation at three sites in Section A.
Creasey Branch will be relocated a total of 140 feet to accommodate widening NC 16
along this stretch. In the August 1996 permit application cover letter, it was incorrectly
stated that 65 feet of stream relocation would be needed. The stream relocation has not
been lengthened since the August 1996 letter. As previously mentioned, the DOT has
incorporated comments from the WRC into design plans for'the three sites.
Stream stretches at Little Naked Creek and Naked Creek will also be relocated. 1-
Stream relocation will total 60 feet at Little Naked Creek and 240 feet at Naked Creek.
The stream relocation at Naked Creek was not mentioned in the August permit application
although it was depicted on the permit drawings. Stream relocation at these two sites is
necessary in order to allow for proper water conveyance at the new culvert. A disturbed
community dominates the landscape along the stream sections to be relocated.
On-site detours have been planned at Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek.
Drawings depicting these detours are enclosed. These detours will be constructed in areas
dominated by disturbed communities. The placement of these detours minimizes impacts
to aquatic and terrestrial communities. The design plan for the Little Naked Creek
crossing includes the construction of a low flow channel to facilitate fish passage.
The DOT commits to revegetate areas that are adjacent to study area streams and
that are disrupted by project construction. Type 1 stream revegetation includes a random
planting with a 50/50 mixture of black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood (Corpus
amomum). Spacing of the shrubs varies between approximately one and three feet.
Vegetation used in Type 2 streambank revegetation includes a random planting with a
25%mixture of the following species: sweet-gum (Liquidamhar sty,-acifhia), sycamore
(Platanus occidemalis), black cherry (Pi-anus serotina) and river birch (Belula nigra).
These trees are planted at a spacing of approximately six to ten feet. A detail of the
streambank revegetation has been enclosed.
The DOT has committed to install appropriate catchment structures, turfed buffer
zones and/or other provisions to avoid and/or minimize non-point source pollution.
Erosion control measures to be implemented include "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" of the Sedimentation Control guidelines in addition to standard DOT Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters.
As mentioned earlier, existing bridges over Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek
will be replaced with box culverts. Culverts will be installed at these sites in place of
bridges because the existing crossings are not bridge size structures. In addition, costs
associated with culvert construction and maintenance are much lower than those
associated with bridges. Construction of bottomless culverts is not feasible at these
crossings due to the depth of bedrock in these streams. Culvert floors will be buried one
foot below the streambed. Rock will be placed on top of the culvert floor. Baffles will be
constructed on each side of the culvert to prevent the rock from washing downstream. As
mentioned, the culvert at Little Naked Creek has been designed with a low flow channel.
In summary, Section A of the subject project will impact 0.20 acre of surface
waters, which includes 440 linear feet of stream relocation. The DOT requests
authorization to proceed with this work under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 at
Site 2 and under a Section 404 Regional General Permit 3 1 at Sites 1, 3 and 4. Enclosed
you will find a completed permit application and drawings depicting impacts to Waters of
the United States from project construction. The DOT commits to a moratorium of
stream work and disturbance within 25 feet of trout waters during the brook trout
spawning season of November 1 to April 15. By copy of this letter and application, the
DOT requests that the WRC review this project. Application is also made for 401 Water
Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality.
Thank you for your assistance. If you need any additional information, please
contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone], Extension 314.
Since 1
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr; John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Northside
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E. , Division 11 Engineer
End Project / ?•.
11V 7z
1'? ? `? •, 1\,•\ /?-.\ J 1 c /,, " ? \ _ .`, ,1. •.' 1?',''t•..?' % - it r _ ..? _ _ ? / ? % • i
I k, 0,
;a i.. ;; L `': ° ?•' ; 1` \1 ?1 is f °`?
- ? o'b'i 1 ? '• ? ?
Site 4
Site 3 > ' __=
%• Itit,l I i •__;?? _ , ??, of ( ?-:s„/' ` ?\- ?? o?
_ ?y U
`°
- .(9.
'oy' ?FC_ ? .1\•'c .°\ ?\ ?, . 11N _ Site
_. 1. .1 +
Site 1
?) !--- ?°'-?5?`i-? 1• Begin Project
\ - •!S •1
' -?..J- _ : ? . •` ? is -_-- - "_ _ - + ?'.

\ ti
\I b
I

D I
Site 1
.:,I Q11
r:i
:rn
'?. , o =rl
C23 C-3
Ch.
100
\
Ar LA
-(P 4
3 =
. is 400

?.J 1lll ?

r ?l
0
3
ci
70
-' a

U -z 4- 1
1, CII
Site-3
\ - (?. 1.^ - ? '? •.r'• • i ? 't - r +•^ ? • ..._ r .lam ? .1 (?,••?••
•\. C- -'x rid , _ 4 1,• - - M
21
19. 43
?.?• 1 :?_. - PT" 454+6^ 7
? . (a:1.:
r BIZ 11 ? _
?. f' --c+ ' 1 f.. •T f r '

flu

v ,
z

Bed material or rip rap
to 1.0' dcpCh
3cd material or rip rap
to 43.5' depth
sills e approx. 14'-3" 0-c-
NOTES
1). culvert inverts to be set 1.0' below
cx.stin,- bcd elevation.
2). wide sills spaced at approx. 14'-0"
on. centers .

a). to be cant and attaccd by
dowels to floor slab;
b). the 1.0' and 0.5' high sills
arc to be separate units.
3). L'cd material cxcacated from site for box
cuivcrt construction is to be stockpiled
and later placed on the floor of the
cortplctcd culvert.
4). Material to be placed in culvert
to top of sills; pzovidc continuous
low flow channel between sills
North Carolina Dep,•utmcnt of Transporation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2IOOA
Proposed culverts. grading and paving of
NC 16 from US _.I to west of New River
Scale as shown
Sheet q of CD
1
1
\•1 11
N
` ' ti f f.11
cz%
• ,-rrv ,r•? 1
•'i?.: 'a jam'., /.I i { n
t
i

- I fir, v???1i
?I
i
cc,
Site 4
-90*
m
? ,
,/w y C7 i ?. CU
C,cc
1 ;L.0
to
1 V y .,(,
ys ` l C • \ }-? North Carolina Department of Transporation
'•2l' ? `• Division of Highways
1 I T Ashy County
c1 TIP No. R-'_IOOA
Q 1 , C Proposed culverts. grading and paving of
NC 16 from US 221 to west of New River
4
Scale I- ;O*
Sheet ? of
Y+ '
1,
1\

7R z H

a
?
N
? O ? U
C

° ? N
3
s
o

z

0

r ?
? f
. ? A
4 C? C.

J

II ?'
C7
o

II
E II

N N ^`?- N

? A A A ?
C7 CJ
r-! r -.
"7
C7 A ?
N

?= S r
Q,I ^ ~.
c
0

N =
' .
W U, ,
- N
N
?;.

1

v? ?
CD

to
o

:?
:.

.
o ? f'
!
, .

n
C
.A W N ---
V V ? ? Y V r
F O O + 41- V J)
J N N O NCIO w+
-" Do O -" O O G?
.? Q N O ' O 00
c- oN
J
1 1 I 1
r"C; rr
1 1
N W? N N ?n .P
ZD ? \J (7-D,
°°
oNo N N X ? ?
00 n C/'
00 v
}
O C O C
C N O O
o p o 0
0 0 0 0
O O ? C
W W ? W
C
n
h
z
N
N
C
O
fTwrt MdeCT 4 wear TM.1,
If C.j R-2100A IRF- ??
awn n .. ? oar. imox J
TYPE I STRI.-%,NiBA.NK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLvNTED 0.9m TO 1.32m ON CENTER, It.%1NDOINt
SPACING, AVEMGING I.22m ON CENTER, APPROMMATELY 6726 PUNTS PER HECTARE.
? TYPE 2 STREa;-IBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 1.8m TO 3.Om ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 2.4m ON CEN`T'ER, APPROKTNIATELY 1680 PUNTS PER HECTARE.
? NOTE: TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 STRE2VNIMNK REFORESTATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR AS "STREXMBzkNK REFORESTATION"
STREAMBAINK REFORESTATION TYPICAL
I TYPE II
I TYPE I
I W 6
:.4 .$T.
:,
STRF_V\I
STRE V%IBANK REFORESTATION
ML\-rU E. TYPE, SIZE. kND FURNISii SMILLL CONFOMI TO THE FOLLONt1NG:
TYTE 1
`
50% SAM NIGRA BLACK NNILLOYV 300mm - 460mm BR
50% CORNUS AINIOMUNI SILIKY DOGWOOD 300mm - 460mm BR
WPE 2
25% LIQUIDAmBAR STYRACIFLUA SNVEETGUII 300mm - 460mm BR
25% PUTA;WS OCCIDENTALIS SYCAMORE 300mm - 460mm BR
25% PRUNUS SEROTINA BLACK CHERRY 300mm - 460mm BR
250% BETUU NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 300mm - 460mm Bit
© SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AIM- ?S TO BE PLANTED
STREXVIBANK REFORESTATION
DETAIL SHEET
i N.C.D.O.T.- ROADSIDF ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
tea'"
li 153
Dt"I't ID: 96-0442 CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):
T.I.P. No. R-2100A
NWP 14 & G. P. 31
PRE -CONSTRUCT = ON NOT 2 F =CAT = ON AP PL 2 CAT = ON
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Ashe NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Jefferson
1
Topo - Jefferson
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): NC 16 from US 221 to NC 16 crossing of
South Fork New River.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Naked Creek, Little Naked Creek,
Creasey Branch and Mill Branch
RIVER BASIN: New River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(W5-I OR WS-II)? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN: Stream designated
as trout waters, or (+) by DEM Water Classifications.
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOIY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): August 1996
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
Future Sections (B and C) are likely to be applied for, post year 2000
(See cover letter)
2
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0 EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING: 0 OTHER: 0
DRAINAGE: 0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY.THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: See summary sheet FT -AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Use road construction equipment to install/extend culverts, grading and
paving.
3
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
To add road shoulder, improve vertical and horizontal alignments for
public roadway safety.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
N/A

15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THF-PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: November 1, 1995
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: April 5, 1990 and September 13, 1995
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO []
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO []
4

IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS :
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE,PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY P_tOJECT.
C. IF"bELYNEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Agricultural,
scattered rural residences and commercial properties.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

t
OWNE 'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

DATE

6
•-«?-....w 9lSL?. sSTNgo
i IsSUED 960853
k STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DEPART
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 29, 1996
RF?F??Fo
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office E U J ?9
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 M??oNT?c
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615'
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
SUBJECT: Ashe County, NC 16, from US 221 to the Blue Ridge Parkway,
State Project No. 8.1710901, TIP No. R-2100.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
an existing two-lane section of NC 16 from US 221 to the Blue Ridge Parkway
(TIP No. R-2100) in Ashe County. For construction purposes, the subject project has
been divided into three sections. The following table outlines the construction schedule
and a description of each section's termini.
A August 1997 east of US 221 to west of New River
B October 2004 southeast of NC 88 to southeast of SR 1158
C October 2003 southeast of SR 1158 to the Blue RidSe Parkway
The bridge that crosses the South Fork of the New River is not included in the project.
The existing bridge structure was constructed in 1986 as TIP No. B-1031.
The NCDOT proposes to enhance the horizontal and vertical alignment of NC 16
in several areas. These enhancements will provide improved sight distance and design
speed. The existing roadway width will be increased to a twenty-four (24) foot pavement
section with eight (8) foot usable shoulders. A three (3) lane curb and gutter section will
be constructed in the Glendale Springs area (Section Q. Guardrail will be placed in
selected areas. The total length of the project is 10 miles.
Existing NC 16 was completed to its current roadway widths between 1937 and
1941. NC 16 is classified as a rural major collector in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System and is also designated as a Federal Aid Secondary route. Theg

NCDOT considers the proposed improvements necessary because the existing roadway
does not meet minimum safety standards. A majority of the studied route also has poor
sight distance.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed, and approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 14, 1990. This document includes studies
pertaining to impacts to natural systems and protected species. The EA also identified
numerous potential adverse impacts to Waters of the United States, including extensive
stream relocations, bridge replacements and impacts to a mountain bog. Following
extensive coordination with resource agencies, the NCDOT completed a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), which was approved by the FHWA on November 27, 1995.
This document expounds upon the works of the NCDOT to reduce and minimize project
impacts to Waters of the United States, as well as efforts that have led to a determination
of "not likely to adversely affect" a population of Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiatra)
located in the study area.
Construction plans necessitate impacting surface waters and wetlands. Surface
waters will be affected by the installation and extension of culverts and pipes, as well as
channel relocation. Fill in surface waters amounts to 0.30 acre and occurs at thirty-one
(31) sites. Temporary fill of surface waters totals 0.06 acre. Impacts to wetlands occur at
one site, Site 6, and involve filling 0.02 acres. Sites 1-18 lie in Section C. Sites 19-27 are
in Section B, and Sites 28-31 are located in Section A.
Prior to comments received from resource agencies on the EA, the NCDOT had
planned for 1650 linear feet of stream relocation. Encroachments into streams have been
reduced by the proposed construction of approximately 7158 linear feet of retaining walls
and 1860 linear feet of concrete barriers. These structures will reduce encroachment of
the South Fork New River, Obids Creek and other streams that flow parallel to NC 16.
The construction of retaining walls and concrete barriers has minimized the amount of
stream relocation needed to complete the project by two-thirds, from 1650 linear feet to
560 linear feet.
Stream relocation will occur at seven sites. These sites, stream names and amount
of stream to be relocated (in linear feet) is found in Table 2.
9 UT to Obids Creek 90 ft
1 I UT to Site 9 stream 100 ft
12 UT to Site 9 stream 105 ft
13 UT to Site 9 stream 100 ft
21 UT to Brush Creek 40 ft
28 Creasey Branch 65 ft
30 Little Naked Creek 60 ft
-

Total Amount of Stream Relocation _
560 ft
The stream mentioned at Sites 11, 12 and 13 is the same stream. Stream relocation at
Sites 11, 12, 13, 21 and 28 is necessary because widening the roadway would lead to the
obstruction of water movement. Relocation is required at Sites 9 and 30 in order to
improve the conveyance of water through the culverts. Areas that involve stream
relocation tend to have disturbed communities surrounding the site. Site 12 is the only site
necessitating impacts to a forested habitat in order to relocate part of the stream.
Three on-site detours have been planned (Sites 27, 30 and 31) to replace bridges
with culverts. Temporary fill in surface waters totals 0.06 acre for these sites. Drawings
of each detour are enclosed. The detours involve Bear Creek (Detour A), Little Naked
Creek (Detour B) and Naked Creek (Detour Q. Detour A lies in Section B, and detours
B and C are found in Section C. On-site detours will be constructed in disturbed areas.
The placement of these detours minimizes impacts to aquatic and terrestrial communities.
The NCDOT has committed to using the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission's (NCWRC) guidelines for Mountain Stream Relocation. This commitment
will include the revegetation of stream banks, the use of large boulders or deflectors in the
stream to improve habitat diversity and constructing culverts or stream crossings to
facilitate passage of fish during normal water flows. Design plans include the construction
of low flow channels in the new culverts of Bear Creek and Little Naked Creek (Sites 27
and 30). Drawings of these culverts are enclosed.
The NCDOT has also committed to install appropriate catchment structures, turfed
buffer zones and/or other provisions to avoid and/or minimize non-point source pollution.
Erosion control measures to be implemented include "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" of the Sedimentation Control guidelines, in addition to standard NCDOT
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The NCDOT has taken measures to avoid any encroachment of the mountain bog,
which is located in Section C. At its closest point, the bog lies 21 ft from NC 16.
Standard NCDOT BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters, as well as "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" of the Sedimentation Control guidelines will be
administered as erosion control measures to protect the mountain bog from run-off
associated with project construction.
Existing bridges over Naked Creek, Little Naked Creek and Bear Creek will be
replaced with box culverts. Culverts will be installed at these sites in place of bridges
because the existing crossings are not bridge size structures. In addition, costs associated
with culvert construction and maintenance are much lower than those associated with
bridges. Construction of bottomless culverts is not feasible at these crossings due to the
depth to bedrock in these streams. Culvert floors will be buried one foot deep. Rock will
be placed on top of the culvert floor. Baffles will be constructed on each side of the
culvert to prevent the rock from washing downstream. Culverts at Little Naked Creek
and Bear Creek have been designed with low flow channels.
Two of the thirty-one impact si s oc ur below headwaters. The NCDOT re uests
authorization under Nationwide Perm' #14 r Sites 27 and 31 (Stations 364 an 0 . It
is anticipated that the remaining sites can b authorized under Nationwide Pe #26
The NCDOT has compiled a compre ve nationwide notification for this pr ec 'n
order to obtain the concurrence of the NCWRC. Enclosed you will find a completed
notification form and drawings depicting impacts to Waters of the United States from
project construction. By copy of this letter and application, the NCDOT requests that the
NCWRC review this project. Application is also made for 401 Water Quality Certification
by the Division of Water Quality.
Although not addressed in the environmental commitments of the FONSI for the
project nor part of the Section 7 consultation commitments, it is suggested that the permit
include the staking of Virginia spirea. The population of Virginia spirea lies in the "B"
Section of the project. Staking of the population would alert construction workers to its
presence. Population staking would prevent disturbance of the plant so the biological
conclusion of "not likely to adversely affect" is upheld throughout project construction.
Thank you for your assistance. If you need any additional information, please
contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone].
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
cc: w/ attachments
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. John Hefner, USFWS
cc: w/o attachments
Mr. N. L. Graf, P. E., FHWA
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E. , Division 11 Engineer
DEM ID: 91-0057 ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): NWP 14 and 26
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR..70HN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Dept. of Transportation: Planning and Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh. NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H. Franklin Vick P.E.
Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Ashe (See vicinity map)
Nearest Town or City: Jefferson
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): (See site map)
6. Name of ClosestStream/River. Naked Creek/Little Naked Creek/Rear Crppk
7. River Basin: South Fork New River
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES k ] NO ( ]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO V3
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
0.38 acre
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 0.38 acre
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
TotalImpacted: Q-28 a rP
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 12" X 11" drawings only): See Individual drawings
Proposed culverts grading and paving - NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line to US 221
13. Purpose of proposed work: To improve the safety of NC 16 by the proposed construction.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. Proposed work to be done on existing road location where
wetlands and surface waters are present.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
]
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [X)] NO(
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES KX] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Woodland, farmland and pasture (scattered rural
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? residences & commercial propert
Owner's Signature Date
0
rl
C
1
nvdl
T
,oil
e
lu IN
"ton 4 01.v
Scale of Miles
0 5 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 40 48
Scale of Kilometers
l'11111d?LL ? / ?ti•' kill ?.1? '+ _
// \11!7 kill" . 3TA
.. LM '+ a
t! ,. ??/' / -\.. )_ a '1 ? '?'7?_t•r _i ?f'
1 113
VICINITY MAP

Mountain
Gsc
?11tt
Wilkes
.,ounty
xy ?? •+ \Ir+t list uil \, ^ BEGIN PRO IEGT
4. :. 'u ya 1
.' I
? ,GYI.1 .• ' 'rte ) f0 K f'Wfq•O-
tit.
MI41 olw.l'1
NORTH CAROLINA•DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ACHE COUNTY
0.1710902 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADING AND PAVING.
N.C. 16 FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LANE TO
U.S. 221, ASHE COUNTY.
SCAT E AS SIHOWN
SHEEET 0 F I SEPT .:JER 1995
.1{At
1 0 1 •M!3
J
00
O"
-YB- 5R 1431
?P 1513 NEZER RIO.
?`??? `gyp+OO
,tV
SR 1161 -v7-
Lu KG RD.
SR 19N2 -YS- ??
OX
TRAOING P051 RD. 00
SITE 13
o -Y6- 581632.
p $ TRADING P05T RO.
1,40+00
O
O
i2ax 517E ii ITEM
O _
x 51 ?
O E MAP
-Y4- SITEI
SITE Cl
\`0X00
'00 517E S
51TE 7
SITE 6
gpXcA
51TE 5
O?
1 /
-Y3- SR 136

(00+00 DOYLE PJARE RD.
SITE 4
I-f E 3 /
50tO0 SITE 2 /
`10*
00
N r- 163 -Y2- V0(
iv / V)
SITE 1 h1/Jr,
SR I I64 0LD DR5109 RD. -YI- q?
41
/
.
..
NORTH CAROLINA, DEPARTE,,iTO^ TRAN:PORTATZON
20+50=-L- p
XO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BLGIni GONSTRUGTION ,Lp
I AGUE COUNTY
V/
BLUERIDGE PARKWAY -Y- ?V%Z 0.1710902 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADING AND PAVING.
1 N.C. 16 FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, ASUE COUNTY.

SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 7- OPSEPTEMBER 1995

Z"OOU 1000 0 2000
IATGH LINE `
SITE 27-
1 c
O
37'0+0Q-L-
r -Y 12- 5R 1(-2.8
BARE GREEK RD.
360+00
350+00
1 SITE26
6
340+00
330'Gb -YII- 5R I
STANLEY
0+00 SITE 25
SITE Z4-
/
co
SITE 23
2tj0t00' 4.
SITE 22
200+co
. 270 +00
SITE 20--
t)58 -YIO- 260+Co
Ft51-I CEMETERY --?
25p+C40
SITE 10
240+DO
SITE 17
230+00
220100
51 T C• I'S
/
2/o 1100
SITE 1.+
TEZI
TE 19
SITE MAp
SGALE -
? zr
2000 IDOO 0 Zooo
ITE 16
-Yq - 5R Irn3I
i
20O* 00
?0
\°`Ox
("Y\ J'
P?
NORTH CAROLINA•DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
0.1710002 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADING AND PAVING.
N.C. 16 FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, ASHE COUNTY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SIIEET OP j_ SEPTEMBER 1995

544+0lo-- - L-
EN0 CONSi Roc lonl
?y? px OQ
84Dfco
53o4vo
vo
S/0,00
-YZI-05221/NCIlo
'7 LV_=r
DON WAL:
-Y19-SRifoB?
-Y I S - SR 1681
60OtpO
?p,•00 .
400+00
SZ
o
X
00
R 113 -YI6-
ANIK DILLARO RD.
4-30,%
420,
OO
i1TE.31
-Y17- ZiT O
30 3g3fi`13-L- \`

-Y15- 6>:CaW GONS'fRllGTion1 .
D. 410 Do S CA LE
[- •..0. ti•3
? 11 y
?x Y2.OOU 1000 0 2000
SITE 28
8
SR 1588-Y13- - NG8
-eL
380+ NORTH CAROLINA?DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
3?°1 +30 -L-
ST,9. r-"DCONSlRL1LT10NJ ASHE COUNTY
3>O'`O 8.1710902 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADING AND PAVING.
N.C. 16 I`'RON THE WILKES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, ASHE COUNTY.
SITE MAP SCALE AS SHOWN
SIIEET 4- OF SEPTEMBER 1995
Y4 ?OT 10+00
?CD ?t-
I
?iY m I W
- ?.T q
TREE FARM ?? ?_d' ? •Q
z
I'ro '
?•p j i
' ? ti I + NOTE: BA?KFII,I. (,UtrVEP-T .E-)CrEnl:)?DN
I N W JTH NA7LIFLAL EEO MATERIAL
III I 1.0 DE-EP.
? I .
oLil I .+ PC. II+QI.l9
PEDI
• ? ? ? I f?ENOTES FILL IN 5U!?FAG?.??ATGR•
ow.. , o a
5F3 -A
y't 1 40' GjK /ns3g .
PT 1.3+(3.40
WWNC\
Au -
cm N
J n? ?cb \ o ; % ''a oNC / O,Qyq
'?? pry GRADE IO?_ / ^(tr ?, S• r A\_
EXIST. DC{
x PE
S?, Ai-e 1 1?0'
LREV POC 115+26:7
Y4 POT 14+24:01.
x
, x 1 62'10 -
\,FO'S n
CLJ o• '
0 k L/E PZT2
?\\ --- -- - --- • - - W. G. LONG
RFAGC )tiIATC
.4P x p0 Cl1000J DENCTE5 FILL IN 5LI
S
52
? o. ?/ s ? (SEc Cse 2 O S?
:5 BLK 400 \ 20.7 li? ?s k
ANG NbUSE f ' 61ti - S'S? ??O O.
ONC J _ ,M``? i0N5 T v'D?
? I ?2? SOS
,9
TC1
-h
?- ti
I 4r? ` I.• \. fir; G?(:11,.`'\dN/? 28050 20 S
Y ry 3'' w:S c 43
-E? 120?+'S9:IS' ?, : j• - ?? ?. ?C? J ? •? ' ''S'AW.: ?C;
• ? ?? ??// /2'?,r SAO'' -77
-12t+2 0r1'0=C RE
-52 kv
X41
ST-123+20.1'0 - L- REV LB
POT I23+46.50 -L- L,R
SLA Lit I = 5D" -
00 .
W. G. LONG
r -I
-- -----------
Cl- I (-\/ E-R-r
- -----------------------
-- 36q.03' 6C 3
?? LO
DETOUR
TEMP.
_ E T .
-- - - (? /?> E -- PROVIDE GPAwLI AP,
• •,?r _f _I u? ` FLLL?0-T6
X52 //9` 2751TON5
1•y ?? lip
)E ?o °;w SITE' 2
rn P- 10
40' 60' C ? d.7
olt: Q' {-a_
i0o'EXISTING R/
TFL 11 ?a' :+±_ ' f3=G4trC-i?11'-fTL-81?-1JEE? T s
- ---- - ?_? - -----? - - ---_?--•? ?I??L;?--• I N3 n° ?_ 4 `40.8 V+/
:ONC HIY 'i' T CL CABLE 24' U/C
1/f 2-27 C0,Fak
o 109' il?Ti.q F17-1i
WALL PDE' - ZU-WRRY On U
C7, 5or
92,
` P,
?U' > J0 ;; /? `cam 1?/f C L C3?
r r-' \
SLA1-? I _ +
G9'
-- -.-.. - ... - , ...FDA,?;? :.
// DG,tiOTES C1LL iN ?LIZ?F[i:: {11r1TLt?' ''' Abc,",.?
r DENOTES TEMPORARY FILL
IN SURFACE. WA-I'ERS ?'
i
Tor
o.
2
M` 11 .
2
5 / -IC- 27
7 is 0 Jt/a 3 X IVS z- Z 2- 9Z/
- G-' ?e-¢ -17 t
?c.°l..v GdcG / r
Bed material or rip rap __ ._... _..........._.... ?.r.,Y a t;..; ?? ???z
to 1.0' depth \
Bed material or rip rap - - ?? ?
?y;i'??
1z.
to 0.5' depth A?,?
Sills @ approx. 13'-2" o.c.
NOTES
1). Culvert inverts to be set 1.0' below
;`r'?>
existing bed elevation. r
2 1 wide sills spaced at approx. 13'-2"
on centers t; t{ V
a) to be cast and attached by ;`
dowels to floor slab;
A •`•v ?.vv ?,?? ?'''? j
'Aria- J?°^ ` ?1'?}'.'f..?..•
b) the 1.0' and 0.5' high sills
are to be separate units. x'.77
3). Bed material excacated from site for box '!;'
,, rY r. ii::
culvert construction is to be stockpiled
and later placed on the floor of the `? ?? a ^'lL?? ?;;?? i`f' t' •`
completed culvert.
4). Material to be placed in culvert
to top of sills; provide continuous
low flow h n i+
c a nel between sills )
(See Section A-A)
ti{-I?f- " jn ni- ?
,n
• •• ,,, z .. ? ? • . ? ? ? :.? ? =r 'mow--
i LO 1 ,
N a tom`
tt
p , vo _
U Lij
f t'om' ?• 'V - ?l•?' ?•1 '??.,-" ?•'?-?I_'
l 1 lll`/ _ ___
() ko
uj vu
ri:
16
Lli
• ?'•) ?`? \p0 ? ? ?/,?+ ? .?, ? ` L?? ; • ? X. ice.. ? , „?•
41.
_ '•? ' o' i
• r L
l r
(Ni
° ? Its '?;' ?I .
;CA Ln
' ' !J_t- j .cry SMEETq ot=t,,?.
S 1 r ?U
_1Z ZW-, '12
I D'
w
C`
1-
Bed material or rip rap
to 1.0' depth
2. 42
Bed material or rip rap
H i
` to 0.5' depth (j
6vo Sills @ approx. 14'-0" O.C.
i.
r
NOTES
i
1). Culvert inverts to be set 1.0' below
existing bed elevation.
\;
2). 1' wide sills spaced at approx. 14'-0" Irl?
on centers :
a). to be cast and attached by
fc
dowels to floor slab;
>.
b). the 1.0' and 0.5' high sills
are to be separate units.
r•
3). Bed material excacated from site for box
culvert construction is to be stockpiled
and later placed on the floor of the completed culvert.
4). Material to be placed in culvert
to top of sills; provide continuous
low flow channel between sills
(See Section A-A).
t
.S

i• S
2-Z2.

\i Q
D ?

:1A 134 A

N
I
g
-
r
? Q c>J
?cl N
N
d
11?
U
W
I Q
IO
(n
Q
` N
1 '
LL
?a
O
I
I
r/ z
r?
?? p W
HIT
ul
I
I
z aR
I < ?.
J a
W ?
VJ
h Z
Z
? J
Q ll.
0
r
N
i
w
I--
W
J
Q
N
J
Q
z
O
N
a
O
n
.

? ? 8
LL

I
L -?
a
?a{ 0
i ?1 F rn 8

z O l 20
w

J n(n
2 Z.?
I z 32
-
W O

o>
J J ' v+ t ul

+
Z _O
-3
w
s
o s

t

I g
t
J
1 i
J
(
?
/ O

I
I ?
I
i
g

?.i cv fii N

NORTH CAROLINA•DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVIS ION OF HIGHWAYS
ASIIE COUNTY
0.171 0902 R-210v7
Q Q
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRAD ING AND PAVING.
J N.C. 16 FROi. THE WILXES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, ASHE COUNTY.

W
>
SCALE
AS SHOWN
SHEET I?- OFl,12'_ SEPTEMB ER 1095
SITE 10. STATION STRUCTURE FILL FILL TSHPORARY TOTAL
IN IN FILL IN FILL IN
WETLANDS SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE
WATER WATER HATER
(ACRES/CU.YDS.) (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES)
1. 23+06Rt-23+82Rt-L- 24ia.RCP 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07
2. 50+8ORt-51+23Rt-L- 18in.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
3. 52+22Rt-52+75Rt-L- 15ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
4. 54+00Rt-54+76Rt-L- N/A 0.00 <0.01 0.00 0.01
5. 73+69Lt114+34Rt-L- 30ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
6. 91+56Rt-93+38Rt-L- 18in.RCP 0.02145.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
7. 94+66Rt-L- 24ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 0.01
8. 98+74Lt/98+84Rt-L- 30in.RCP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
9. 115+00Rt-116+33Lt-L-REV 8Y1ft.RCBC 0.00 1.01 0.00 4.01
10. 121+45Lt/121+8ORt-L-REV 7z6ft.RCBC 0.00 0.01 0.00 <0.01
11. 128+26Rt-129+45Rt-L- 15in.RCP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
12. 133+58Rt-135+00Rt-L- 15in.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.06 <0.01
13. 148+24Rt/Lt-150+00Lt-L- 30in.CSP 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
14. 206+60Lt-L- 54ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
15. 221+00Lt-L- 36in.RCP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
16. 224+75Rt-L- 36in.RCP 0.00 <O.01 0.00 0.01
17. 235+6OLt-L- 48in.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
18. 249+74Lt/249+79Rt-L- 54in.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
19. 160+25Rt/Lt-L- 30in.RCP 0.00 X0.01 0.00 <0.01
20. 266+75Lt-L- 42in.CSP 0.00 0.01 0.00 <0.01
NORTH CAROLINA•DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVIS ION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
0.171 0902 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADI NG AND PAVING.
N.C. 16 FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, ASHE COUNTY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET a OPJ,?2 SEPTEMBER 1995

SITE 10. STATION STRUCTURE FILL FILL TEMPORARY TOTAL
IN IN FILL IN FILL IN
WETLANDS SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE
WATER WATER WATER
(ACRES/CU.YDS.) (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES)
21. 283+42Rt-284+00Rt-L- 42ia.RCP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 1.01
22. 286+9OLt-L- 60ia.CSP 0.00 0.01 0.00 <0.01
23. 296+95Rt-L- 24ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
24. 318+08Lt-L- 66ia.RCP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
25. 322+22Rt/Lt-L- 48ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
26. 345+00Rt/Lt-L- 48ia.CSP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
27. 364+57Rt/Lt-L- 30718ft.RCBC 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04
13+97Rt/Lt DETOUR A [e-mail]
28. 391+36Lt-398+87Lt-L- 48ia.CSP 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
29. 449+80Ltl450+05Rt-L- 54ia.RCP 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01
30. 454+5ORt-L- [e-mail] 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03
14+5OLt DETOUR B 2072ia.CSP
31. 490+26Lt-492+95Lt-L- 3112i8ft.RCBC 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.13
490+28Rt-490+64Rt-L-
15+47Lt/Rt DETOUR C 2@128%83ia.CSPA
-
-
-
-
-
-
----- -----------------------
TOTALS ------
--------- ------------
-----
0.02/45.0 --
----
0.30 -----------
0.06 ----------------
0.36
NOTE: SITES 27 AND 31 ARE BE LOW HEADWATERS, ALL OTHER SITES ARE ABOVE HE ADWATERS.
TOTAL FILL IN WETLANDS - 0.02 ACRES / 45.0 CU.YDS.
TOTAL TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE WATER - 0.06 ACRES
TOTAL PERMANENT FILL IN SURFACE WATER = 0.30 ACRES
TOTAL FILL IN SURFACE WATER - 0.36 ACRES
NORTH CAROLINA•DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
0.1710902 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADING AND PAVING.
N.C. 1G FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, AIIE COUNTY.
'CALE AS SHOWN
5BELT 1L OF_L'j SEPTBMOER 1995
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND ADDRESSES
1. RALPH MILLER
ROUTE 4 BOX 376 ,
NORTH WILKESBORO, N.C.
28659
2. JACK DAVIS
C/O SHARON MILLER
2276 LUCAS DRIVE
WARRENTON, N.C.
97138

NORTH CAROLINA'DCPARTCNT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
0.1710902 R-2100
PROPOSED CULVERTS, GRADING AND PAVING.
N.C. 16 FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE TO
U.S. 221, ASHE COUNTY.
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET j,'j 0 `J,5_ SEPTEMBER 1995
* N. C. IMPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FR

a
rah Br REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?-
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
? PLEASEANSWER - ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE. REPLY FOR MY SIGNATU RE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION - ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

',,
??
i
y??s,,=SfAT£°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 7, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line to US 220 at
Jefferson, Ashe County, TIP Project No. R-2100
Dear Eric:
In your January 29, 1996 letter, you had expressed concerns about the subject
project. I will try to address those concerns in the following paragraphs.
A. The Department believes that we have attempted to avoid as much impact to
the trout streams as possible. There are some areas along the project where we have trout
streams on both sides of NC 16 so widening away from the streams is not possible in all
cases. Also, since the prime reason for this project is to improve the overall safety of the
project, we must try to balance the alignment changes with the construction of the
retaining walls. We feel that we have accomplished this adequately.
B. The concrete barriers have been designed to be constructed adjacent to the
South Fork New River. There is no possibility of widening away from the river without
cutting into the side of a steep, rock embankment. Only the wooden retaining walls will
be constructed adjacent to the trout streams. I have attached a copy of the preliminary
design plans for this project which show the exact type and location of the concrete and
wooden retaining walls. If you still wish to have an on-site meeting, please contact me
and we will arrange one with our Roadway Design Branch.
C. Weep holes will have to be constructed in the structure to relieve hydrostatic
pressure. However, the structures will be designed as to eliminate any direct runoff from
the roadway into the adjacent streams.
I hope that I have addressed all of your concerns with this project. Please feel free
to contact me at 733-7844, Ext. 262 should you have any further questions regarding this
project.

Mr. Eric Galamb
October 7, 1996
Page 2
Sincerely,
B rel
Brad P?
Y?
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc (without attachment): Raleigh Office, US Army Corps of Engineers
Monica Swihart
Stephanie Goudreau, NC Wildlife Resources
Melba MsGee, Department of Administration
Jimmy Jackson, NCDOT Roadway Design Branch
December 13, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb
Post-it® Fax Note 7671 Date 1 paof
ges
To N J° From
Co./Dept. Co.
Phone # Phone #
Fax # Fax #
Subject: FONSI for NC 16
Ashe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1710902, TIP # R-2100
EHNR # 96-0442, DWQ # 11153
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The document states
that 0.20 acres of wetlands and waters will be impacted by this project. DWQ offers the
following comments on the FONSI:
A) A on-site meeting with DOT, WRC, USFWS and DWQ's Winston-Salem
Regional Office was held on December 5, 1996 as a result of our comments on
the FONSI. DOT acknowledged that wetland and water impacts were
underestimated. DOT also acknowledged that avoidance options could be
further investigated.
B) DOT agreed to contact Dennis Herman. Mr. Herman will be requested to
provides technical assistance to ensure that the bog is not impacted directly or
indirectly from this project. DOT is also considering bog mitigation for this
project.
Due to the continuing coordination, DWQ will concur with the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786)
in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
nc16(2)
cc: Raleigh COE
Byron Brady, DOT
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ffl1.9;VA
IT 0
?A&41 *
NNW
C) F== F=1
December 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee

Through: John Dorn4?
From: Eric Galamb ?0
Subject: FONSI for NC 16
Ashe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1710902, TIP # R-2100
EHNR # 96-0442, DWQ # 11153
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The document states
that 0.20 acres of wetlands and waters will be impacted by this project. DWQ offers .the
following comments on the FONSI:
A) A on-site meeting with DOT, WRC, USFWS and DWQ's Winston-Salem
Regional Office was held on December 5, 1996 as a result of our comments on
the FONSI. DOT acknowledged that wetland and water impacts were
underestimated. DOT also acknowledged that avoidance options could be
further investigated.
B) DOT agreed to contact Dennis Herman. Mr. Herman will be requested to
provides technical assistance to ensure that the bog is not impacted directly or
indirectly from this project. DOT is also considering bog mitigation for this
project.
Due to the continuing coordination, DWQ will concur with the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786)
in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
nc16(2)
cc: Raleigh COE
Byron Brady, DOT
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
FAXED
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509/o recycled/10% post consumer paper
Eric Galamb
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville <n1 ew331 @wsro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: NC16 Comment (FYI) and Concurrence (modification)
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 1996 6:01 AM
FYI:::
It may be necessary that DOT also provide for some' better buffers
next to the roadway adjacent to the bog than currently planned.
This would require relocating
some minor tributaries away from the road and closer to the bog.
This should collect a lot of roadway runoff and trash that
otherwise would enter directly into surface waters. I have talked to
John Taylor about this and believe this would be better for water
quality "IF" Dennis Herman agrees. Another option (probably the best)
would be to preserve the bog area and simply plug existing drainages
to provide for sheet flow thru the bog. Again IF Dennis agrees.
Currently much trash and litter is staying next to the road
due to existing vegetaive buffers.
For concurrence statement modification :::::
I would suggest that the concurrence sentence of your draft
letter be changed to the following:
Based on DOT's expressed desire to continue positive coordination
with the NCWRC, USFWS and DWQ to protect existing uses (brook
trout and bog turtle habitats) which should likely include mimicking original
streams during relocation, bog preservation, and providing for
waterbody shaded riparian buffers: the DWQ will concur with the FONSI.
Ron Linville @ WSRO 910/771-4608 x 265
"A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological
conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual
responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the
capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our
effort to understand and preserve this capacity." Aldo Leopold
Page 1
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission aA
oleo
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program 01
DATE: December 9, 1996
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 96-0442, Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 16,
Ashe County, TIP #R-2100.
In a previous letter to you dated 19 January 1996, we commented on the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the subject project. At that time we requested that the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) provide additional information regarding proposed stream
relocations and retaining walls before we could concur with the FONSI. Subsequently we received an
application for a 404 permit dated 29 August 1996 for stream relocations and wetland fill associated with
this project. The permit application was put on hold because we had not yet concurred with the FONSI.
We then received a letter dated 7 October 1996 from Mr. Byron Brady of the NCDOT with additional
information regarding the project. Because of the potential for adverse impacts to brook trout waters and
a mountain bog, we requested that NCDOT staff meet with representatives of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality to discuss the project. We held this on-site meeting on 5 December 1996.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
We have asked the NCDOT to explore the feasibility of reducing stream relocation where
possible and to better determine how road widening will impact the mountain bog, either directly or
indirectly. These issues are being worked out as part of the 404 permit process. At this point the
NCDOT has provided us with sufficient information regarding proposed stream relocations and retaining
walls for us to concur with the FONSI.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
RFc
-96
,JS'cjFN?Fs
cc: Mr. John Fridell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Eric Galamb, DWQ
Eric Galamb
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville <n1 ew331 @wsro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
To: NROAR04/[e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: NC 16 Ashe Co. (No assignment #)
Date: Thursday, December 05, 1996 6:04 PM
For your information, I spent an entire day on this project
review. It would not have been reviewed under normal procedures as
Central 401 would likely_ have issued a certification w/o field
visits. As George & WRC had concerns, I visited w/ WRC and F&W as well as
DOT. End results were that we determined that DOT had not shown all
impacts again and that avoidance was possible and probably very
practical even from DOT perspective on part of the project. Bottom
line, DOT will go back to the drawing board to try realignment on part of
roadway and meet w/ Dennis Herman to discuss bog impacts and
potential mitigation. These impacts to stream are important to WRC
due to nice Brook trout habitat in New River area and important to
F&W as they are concerned about direct and indirect impacts to a
known bog turtle fen. DOT has been very cooperative in this review
and hopefully they can make something good happen here to actually
provide for better WO and fisheries if they take a progressive step
towards enhancements, stream buffers and stream reconstruction as
well as the avoidance discussed in the field. COE has told WRC and
F&W to discuss mitigation opportunities to protect existing uses.
Streams reconstructed should mimic those destroyed and DOT will
provide contour mapping, etc. as needed.
Ron Linville @ WSRO 910/771-4608 x 265
"A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological
conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual
responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the
capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our
effort to understand and preserve this capacity." Aldo Leopold
Page 1
Call Ashe County Commissioners and ask
them if they will take a stand against this waste of
taxpayers dollars.
County Office 246-8801 eorge Yates 246-9024
Doyle Denny 384-3524 Warold Stanley 246-6371
Beth Saylor 877-1356 John Marsh 982-2755
Call Governor Jim Hunt toll free at
800-662-7952 and ask him to have NC DOT stop the Highway 16
project. Be prepared to leave your name and phone number
(for a return call) and a brief message.
Write to the local highway
commissioner and tell him why you oppose this
project.
Fred G. Eidson
Board of Directors
Dept. of Transportation 11th Division
PO Box 811
LL Elkin, NC 28621
'[phone] fax
Attend the Public Hearing-
Date: Thursday, November 7
Place: Cooperative Extension Office 971 West King St., Boone
Time: 1:00 pm to sign up to speak at the hearing
2:00 pm Hearing
for more information contact:
FRIENDS OIL HIGHWAY 16
PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 [phone] or [phone]
2
STOP r
THE HIGHWAY 16 WIDENING
WHAT NC DOT PROPOSES
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT)
proposes to "improve" ten miles of the existing two-lane
highway NC 16 through rural Ashe County and the
unincorporated village of Glendale Springs at an estimated
cost of at least $16,310,000 (as of November 95). The
project would widen the roadway to 24 feet plus 8 foot
usable shoulder, and add a third lane through Glendale
Springs. Two bridges would be replaced with culverts.
Additional right of way is estimated to be from 40 to 100
feet in width. NC DOT would construct 7158 linear feet of
retaining wall and 1860 linear feet of concrete barrier
along waterways.
NO NEED FOR THE PROJECT
NC DOT points to safety as the justification for this
project. But the accident rate on NC 16 is 68% .below the
statewide average for a primary route. A wider roadway would
encourage higher speeds and increase the danger.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION
Highway reconstruction would clear a.wide swath from the
Blue Ridge Parkway, along the New River to Highway /221.-
UP to 5 acres of mountain habitat would be lost, a half acre
of rare mountain bog would be affected, and 650 feet of wild
mountain trout streams would be destroyed.
WHO BENEFITS AND WHO PAYS
This project would waste taxpayer dollars. Construction
would cause years of inconvenience to.local and tourist
traffic and a major interruption of small businesses along
NC 16. Recovery from the loss of business could take nears
after the dust settles. The construction cost of $16,000,000
would be $727 for every man, woman, and child in Ashe
County. Who benefits?
HELP US STOP THIS WASTEFUI. AND _UNNECESSARY PROJECT.
SEE HOW YOU CAN HELP ON THE MI;K OF THIS FLYER
Eric Galamb
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville <nlew331 @wsro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
To: Phillip Todd <PTodd @ mail.dot.state.nc.us>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DOT project R-2100, Ashe County
Date: Monday, December 09, 1996 5:12 PM
Have you set up a meeting w/ Dennis Herman? The bog boundaries are
important; however, stormwater impacts and drainage concerns need to be given
ample consideration for the project. I don't think this can be
accomplished without further review with Dennis @ bog area. This area may be
worthwhile for DOT to know more about should mitigation be required
for this or other projects in Ashe (in the same basin particularly).
Let me know when and I will try to visit w/ you and Dennis at Hwy 16
in order to be familiar w/ site as well as southern impacts of road
construction. Enjoyed meeting with DOT last week. Everyone seemed
to want to do the best possible job with the least possible damage.
Just received copy of FONSI report and will try to spend some time
looking at it. Please thank Byron for me. John's redesign for the
options discussed in the field will be extremely useful as soon as he
can complete as some avoidance may be gained.
E-mail worked finell Later, Ron
Ron Linville @ WSRO 910/771-4608 x 265
"A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological
conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual
responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the
capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our
effort to understand and preserve this capacity." Aldo Leopold
L. 'is i,
Page 1
'4 1996
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 7, 1996
Ms. Stephanie E. Goudreau
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line to US 220 at
Jefferson, Ashe County, TIP Project No. R-2100
Dear Ms. Goudreau::
In your January 19, 1996 letter, you had expressed concerns about the subject
project. I will try to address those concerns in the following paragraphs.

1. I have attached a set of preliminary plans for the subject project which will
show the exact length of each stream location.
2. All construction of concrete and wooden barrier retaining walls will be
permanent. The attached set of preliminary plans will show the exact locations of these
retaining walls.
I hope that I have addressed your concerns. If you wish additional information on
this project, please feel free to contact me at 733-7844, Ext. 262 in Raleigh.
Sincerely,
- ? ?'``
trE'. Brady P.E. ?1
?
nning and Environmental Branch
cc (without attachment): Janice Nichols, USFWS Asheville
Enc Galamb, DEHNR
0
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Thro
h John Dornep
:
ug
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for NC 16
Ashe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1710902, TIP # R-2100
EHNR # 96-0442, DEM # 11153
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.20 acres of wetlands and waters will be
impacted by this project. DEM offers the following comments on the FONSI:
A) DEHNR expressed concern about the trout stream relocations in the EA. DOT
may have believed that concerns would be removed if DOT committed to using
High Quality Sediment and Erosion control. The higher level of erosion control
coupled with the retaining walls and the concrete barriers is a step in the right
direction to alleviate our concerns. However, the document fails to discuss
other options of avoidance such as widening the road away from the streams.
This may not produce the ideal horizonal or vertical alignment but we believe
that it may provide a safer facility and address our water quality concerns.
B) DEM is concerned that the retaining walls and concrete barriers may increase
water temperatures since overhanging vegetation may be removed and the
walls/barriers may reflect light into the water. Since trout are highly sensitive to
temperature and sediment, an increase in these parameters could result in the
denial of the 401 Water Quality Certification. Therefore, DOT needs to further
discuss measures to mitigate for these concerns, particularly temperature.
Widening away from the stream is an option that must be investigated further.
Perhaps an on-site meeting may assist everyone in coming to a resolution for
this project.
C) DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
Due to the major issues raised, DEM does not concur with the FONSI. DOT is
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Melba McGee Memo
January 29, 1996
Page 2
reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial of a
401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
ncl 6.fon
cc: Raleigh COE
Byron Brady, DOT
Monica Swihart
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
FAXED
JAN 2 9 19961
-4C 1-6
From the Blue Ridge Parkway to US 221 in Jefferson
Ashe County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-16(1)
State Project No. 8.1710902
T.I.P. Project No. R-2100

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
and
49 U.S.C. 303
at H. Frank in Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
R
7 q
t" Z4? ?2 -
Date Nich s L. -Graf, P.E.
Te,K Division Administrator, FHWA
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affa
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due firm de dline):
-I I n r/ / JYY J O?-l Y? .? L/ L I L
!(? ?Vwh 4ttt 13k 2u ,
s 941% :J1r'? It 47 CD
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Air ? Coastal Management ls?water Planning
? Fayetteville
? Water
? water Resources El Environmental Health
El Mooresville El Groundwater ?
kf Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ?Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others 49 nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response..
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee , Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104
From the Blue Ridge Parkway to US 221 in Jefferson
Ashe County
Federal Aid Project No. STP-16(1)
State Project No. 8.1710902
T.I.P. Project No. R-2100

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
November 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ru,? ?. Axe,.,A,
B E. Brady, .E.
Pro t Planning Engin r
. A. Bissett, P.E.
Consulting Engineering Unit Head
?oot'Lo CARN/'•,
i??••??ESSIOti:•q
.
40
.p .. GIN . e?PO•
. .........
Environmentzl Commitments
1. To avoid and/or minimize non-point source discharges of toxic
substances ?anolarmful, mmaterials,'E
'gemept ac „e.. This will significantly
minimize sediment-relatediiaCo area streams.
2. NCDOT proposes to construct approximately 7158 linear feet of
retaining walls and 1,860 linear feet of concrete barriers to
prevent encroachment into the South Fork New River and to
eliminate most encroachments into the adjacent streams which
flow parallel to NC 16.
3. To avoid and/or minimize non-point source discharges of toxic
substances and harmful particulate materials
Wmi Ze lio i ys rj
r:,.resoarces.<.
W bf A
ilcrtta revat-ion of s.treAm
?9?'large.lr ct r`s in zl?e <stream; bed, to
;?vers-itys h: 'St fwcting cu.- verts or stream
f leis (i.e., replacing existing open-bottom box culverts with
similar structures or bridges where appropriate).
5. Mc=t the
w' *wv nstrttcti on of t*f-s pact. i+ gt? ?a1 a ty- MAtejr. Best
en't ract ces will be enforced -for This eon>str ctioe:
6. NCDOT will use forest protection fencing to protect the existing
population of Virginia Spirea during construction.
NCDOT will stub the existing corrugated metal drainage pipe and
leave in place as to not disturb the Spirea population. The
proposed reinforced concrete pipe in the area of the population
will be skewed to avoid disturbing the Spirea population.
7. NCDOT will state in the special provisions of the contract
documents that this area of the Spirea population is a highly
sensitive area and shall be avoided at all times during
construction.
8. NCDOT will develop a planting plan for the area of construction
adjacent to and part of the Blue Ridge Parkway and submit it for
their approval. The plan will include soil stabilization with
Parkway grass seed mix along with plantings of native woody
species that replicate adjacent plant communities.
9. NCDOT will mark all trees ov'ar 6" in diameter breast height that
are planned for removal on easements on the Blue Ridge Parkway
land. NCDOT will notify the Parkway of the quantity and species
of trees to be removed.
10. NCDOT will re-set any National Park Service boundary monuments
that will be disturbed as the result of this construction.
11. NCDOT will acquire property of equal value and convey to the `
National Park Service to mitigate the acquisition of
right-of-way required for this project.
112. NCDOT will coordinate with resource agencies as the design of
the culverts versus bridges option is developed.

TABLE `Of CONTENTS
PAGE
' 1. Type of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3. Actions Required by other Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4. Description of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
5. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . 2
6. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . 2
7. Comments Made During And Following The Public Hearing . . . . . 16
8. Revisions To The Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Wetlands Finding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Floodplain Finding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Basis For Finding Of No Significant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Coordination With Review Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The
North
1. Type of Action
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) action, Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any
significant impact on the human environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact is based on the Environmental Assessment which has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed
project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining
that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
2. Project Status
After the Environmental Assessment was approved by the FHWA on
June 12, 1990 and was circulated, a Design Public Hearing was held on
May 14, 1992 at the Ashe County Courthouse in Jefferson, N.C. Comments
received during and after the hearing are addressed in Section 8, page 16.
Comments on the Environmental Assessment are addressed in Section 7,
pages 3 to 16.
3. Actions Required bv other Federal Agencies
A permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required for
this project under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Also, a Section 401 Water Quality certification permit will be required.
In addition, authorization under the discretionary authority of the
Corps of Engineers for a trout county will be required. A Special Use
Permit will be required from the National Park Service for obtaining
National Park land in one area of the project.
4. Description of Action
The N.C. Division of Highways proposes to improve a section of the
existing two lane NC 16 in Ashe County (See Figure 1). The project begins
NC 16 near the Blue Ridge Parkway and terminates at the intersection with
US 221 in Jefferson. The project length is 10.0 miles. The proposed
improvements will consist of horizontal and vertical alignment
enhancements in several areas to provide improved sight distance and
design speed, increasing the existing roadway to a 24 foot pavement
section, construction of guard rail in selected areas, replacement of
bridges over Naked Creek, Little Naked Creek, and Bear Creek, and a
complete pavement overlay. A 3-lane curb and gutter section will be
constructed in the Glendale Springs area. Shoulder widths will be 8 feet
usable of which 2 feet will be paved. NCDOT proposes to acquire .48 AC of
Blue Ridge Parkway property in order to construct the proposed
improvements. In addition, 1 AC of construction easements and 1,000 SF of
permanent drainage easement will be required. The total estimated cost
for the project is $16,310,000. Of this cost, $1,910,000 is right-of-way
cost and $14,400,000 is construction cost. The cost listed in the
1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program is $8,665,000.
5. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following
Federal, State and local agencies: (An asterisk denotes agencies from
which comments were received)
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Raleigh and Asheville
*U.S. Coast Guard, Portsmouth District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
U.S. Forest Service-Asheville
U.S. Soil Conservation Service-Raleigh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Atlanta
Tennessee Valley Authority
*National Park Service, Asheville
*State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
M.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Human Resources
Region D Council of Governments
Ashe County Commissioners
Town of Jefferson
This Assessment was also made available to the public.
6. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment
(a) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1. "This section of Ashe County contains natural resources of
great significance, all of which would be adversely
impacted by this project. At least two streams in the
vicinity serve as brook trout nursery streams, a native
species threatened by habitat loss in many areas of western
North Carolina. Young of the year trout were collected
from the unnamed tributary to Obids Creek and the tributary
to South Fork New River which we believe is called Creasey
Branch. According to the EA, sections of both streams
would be relocated during this project, resulting in loss
of habitat. Off-site sedimentation and thermal pollution
from loss of riparian zones also threaten brook trout in
3
these streams. The NCWRC strongly objects to the
relocation of trout streams for these reasons. Obids Creek
and Bear Creek may also support brook trout and should be
sampled and the results reported."
Response: The close proximity of existing streams to the
existing roadway make it impossible to completely avoid the
relocation of these streams. However, when possible, NCDOT
will reduce these relocations substantially with the use of
retaining walls. The preliminary construction plans for
this project show approximately 7,158 linear feet of
retaining walls and 1,860 linear feet of concrete barriers
to be installed along the project route. The purpose of w
these walls are to eliminate most channel changes and
encroachments into the streams mentioned above.
Also, NCDOT intends to enforce the use of High Quality
Water Best Management Practices in it's erosion control 00
plan for this project.
2. "Approximately 0.5 acre of bog lies adjacent to the
construction corridor. According to the EA, 0.1 acre would
be impacted by the project. The EA does not address how
loss of part of the bog will affect its hydrology, and we
request this information. Mountain bogs are unique habitat
types and often contain rare species of plants and animals.
The NCWRC requests that a thorough search be made for the
Bog Turtle (Clemmys Muglenbergi), which is listed and
requires specialized searching techniques. This species
has previously been reported from Ashe County in close
proximity to the project. The NCWRC also requests that a
knowledgeable biologist search the bog for rare plants."
Response: A NCDOT Biologist visited the site of the bog
referenced above and took measurements of the limits of the
bog. Upon discussing these limits with NCDOT des* engineers, it was determined that6
NCDOT
has gone to extreme lengths to prevent encroachment into
this bog. The existing grade of NC 16 will not change in
this area, thus, no changes in the hydrology are expected.
3. "The South Fork New River downstream of the construction
corridor is designated by federal action as a "Wild and
Scenic River" and by state action as a "Natural and Scenic
River". Extreme care should be taken to protect the river
from off-site sedimentation."
Response: An erosion control schedule will be devised by
the contractor prior to construction. This schedule will
show the time relationship between phases of the work which
must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule the
4
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt fences, etc., will be used
as needed to protect sedimentation from entering the South
Fork New River.
Also, NCDOT intends to enforce the use of High Quality
Water Best Management Practices in it's erosion control
plan for this project.
4. "The EA is inconsistent in discussing bridge replacement
over streams. In the summary, the EA states that bridges
over Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek will be replaced,
but on page 9 it states that "several bridges" will be
replaced with box culverts. The NCWRC requests information
as to which bridges will be replaced. In addition, we
recommend that bridges be replaced with new bridges rather
than culverts, which create habitat loss and change the
slope of a stream."
Response: Existing bridges over Naked Creek, Little Naked
Creek, and Bear Creek will be replaced with culverts.
NCDOT studied the replacement of these bridges with new
bridges but found it not to be feasible from an engineering
and economic standpoint. The existing structures are not
bridge size structures and the culvert construction and
maintenance costs are much lower than the bridge costs.
The culvert floors will be buried one foot deep with rock
placed on top. Baffles will be constructed on each side to
prevent the rock from washing downstream. Geotechnical
borings were taken in the field and rock was detected
deeper than 5 feet which prohibits NCDOT from constructing
a bottomless culvert.
5. "The EA does not show which sections of the tributary of
South Fork New River and tributary of Obids Creek would be
relocated, nor does it show where cuts will be made. The
NCWRC requests this information. Again, our policy is to
avoid stream relocations on trout waters. We are aware
that the tributary to South Fork New River has already been
channelized and relocated in the past by NCDOT."
Response: The project originally had planned to encroach
into the two above mentioned streams at five separate
locations. However, NCDOT's preliminary construction plans
proposes retaining walls for these five locations. These
walls will prevent most of the encroachment of the South
Fork New River tributary and a tributary of Obids Creek.
(b) National Park Service
1. "As indicated in our earlier letter of February 8, 1989, we
would like to review detailed plans concerning any
construction that might be proposed within the Parkway
right-of-way near the beginning of the project."
5
Response: It will be necessary to acquire some Blue Ridge
Parkway land in one area along the project to complete
shoulder construction. NCDOT will be applying for a
Special Use Permit from the National Park Service for this
acquisition. Since the issuance of the Environmental
Assessment, the National Park Service has had the
opportunity to review the plans for the project as it
relates to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
2. "Our deed information indicates the State of North Carolina
only reserved a twenty-foot right-of-way through the
Parkway lands at Horse Gap. A copy of this deed is
enclosed for your information. Page 14 of your
Environmental Assessment states that there will be no
construction within the Parkway right-of-way. If this is
true, there is no need-to negotiate a new right-of-way
through federal lands at Horse Gap. If you intend to widen
the existing roadway through the Parkway right-of-way, then
we will need to change the existing deed information and
that process will take some time."
Response: NCDOT will be applying for a Special Use Permit
from the National Park Service for this construction. This
permit will be needed for the acquisition of a small
strip of land needed for shoulder construction.
3. "If this project intends to increase the width of N.C. 16
from twenty-foot width to twenty-four foot width within the
Parkway boundary, we would recommend that the project be
changed to begin at the federal boundary instead of at the
underpass under the Parkway motor road. By doing this, we
will avoid the necessity of invoking the Section 4(f)
involvement and its consequent procedures. A map showing
the federal lands at this location is enclosed for your
reference."
Response: The project has been changed to begin at the
federal boundary instead of at the underpass. However,
there is one location where the purchase of Parkway land
will be needed for shoulder construction for this project.
(c) U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (letter of August 30, 1990)
1. "It is the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) belief
that the subject document does not (1) justify a need for
the widening of NC 16, (2) adequately describe the fish and
wildlife resources occurring within the project impact area
and the potential impacts (direct and indirect) the highway
project will have on these resources, or (3) provide
adequate justification as to why the impacts to these
resources cannot be provided."
Response: Improvements to NC 16 such as the widening and
the alignment are needed to improve the overall safety of
the roadway.
Impacts to fish and wildlife resources along the project
have been greatly reduced with the approximately 7,158
linear feet of retaining walls and 1,860 concrete barriers
proposed to prevent most of the encroachment into the
streams and any encroachment of the South Fork New River.
2. "As currently proposed, the project will directly impact a
mountain bog and at least two streams that currently
provide spawning and/or nursery habitat for wild brook
trout. Because of their scarcity and high habitat value to
fish and wildlife species, the Service strongly opposes any
filling or adverse alteration of these resources. We are
particularly concerned about impacts to the bog.
Accordingly, we recommend that the North Carolina'
Department of Transportation modify the project to avoid
impacting the bog and streams."
Response: The project originally had planned to encroach
into the two above mentioned streams at five separate
locations. However, NCDOT's preliminary construction plans
propose retaining walls for these five locations. These
walls will prevent most of the encroachment of the South
Fork New River tributary and a tributary of Obids Creek.
In reference to the mountain bog, see response to question
7(a)2 (page 3).
3. "In addition, the Service officially listed Geum radiatum
(spreading avens) as a federally endangered species on
April 5, 1990 (Federal Register 55(66):12793-12798), and
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) as a federally
threatened species on June 15, 1990 (Federal Register
55(116):24241-24246). Before the Service can agree that
obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
have been satisfied, it must determined whether the
proposed action may affect either of these species, formal
consultation must be initiated, in writing, with this
office."
Response: NCDOT conducted surveys in the Summer of 1995 in
all sitable habitat for each of five species listed by the
USFWS for Ashe County. Only one population (Virginia
Spirea) of one species was detected on the project site.
Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed
that the proposed improvements would have a NO EFFECT on
this species. The remaining four species were not
detected.
4. "Section I.C.11, Page 2: It is stated that bridges over
Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek will be replaced with
culverts. In order to avoid the elimination of stream
habitat and any adjacent wetland habitat associated with
these streams, the Service recommends that the existing
bridges be replaced with new bridges."
Response: See response No. 4, page 4.
5. "Section I I , E, Page 6: 'A t ;y-- ; I
f+he< to ;the, state, rggion, and
c "veld be pr- ?-.a y.?re a, a ataprovW,ed
in s a 1(?( ge .6).. r= flat the accident rate for
NC. n .tie Project. area was- wel
_, l below the statewide.f
?:cv..o'f , t1S prima p `d?rrg the period of
M6-1988. According to the information provided in Section
II.D (Page 5), the only two areas identified as having a
high rate of accidents are located at the intersection of
NC 16 and SR 1632 and the intersection of NC 16 and
SR 1155. Traffic safety at the intersection of NC 16 with
SR 1632 might be corrected by improving the signing and
pavement marking at this intersection. Traffic safety at
the intersection of NC 16 and SR 1155 might be improved by
changing the angle of SR 1155 and the alignment of NC 16
approaching this intersection. If such is the case, it
should be stated in this section that the primary benefit
of the project could be achieved by improving these two
intersections and would not necessitate widening of NC 16."
Response: The improvement to these two intersections
mentioned above along the project are just two aspects of
the safety improvements. The primary benefit of this
project is to improve the safety of NC 16 from the Blue
Ridge Parkway to US 221 in Jefferson. Some of the existing
roadway has only a 20-foot pavement width with no paved
shoulders. There are areas of the existing roadway that do
not have safe, adequate shoulder widths. Even the
replacement of the bridges is necessary to upgrade the
facility.
The accident studies along this section of NC 16 show that
49.19-. of all accidents during the study period were caused
by vehicles running off the right and left sides of the
roadway. The proposed improvements for this project call
for not only widening the roadway but also widening the
unpaved shoulders to a standard and uniform width. This
increased width will substantially reduce accident
potential.
6. "Section IV, Page 8: It is our belief that the recommended
alternative is not adequately justified (see comments on
Section II.E above) and that it does not give adequate
consideration to the high-quality fish and wildlife
resources present within the project area. In view of
this, we recommend that this section be revised to address
the alternative of improving only those sections of NC 16
and/or intersections within the project area identified as
safety hazards (see comments on Section II.E above)."
8
Response: As stated in the Environmental Assessment, the
widening of NC 16 is needed to improve sight distance,
design speed, and the safety of the facility. There are
very few areas (if any at all) along the route which
adheres to current (AASHTO) safety widths and standards.
NCDOT feels that safety is a foremost justification for
this project. With the construction of retaining walls
(see response to No. 1, page- 5) and environmental
commitments regarding the mountain bog, endangered species,
and the trout streams, NCDOT has committed to protecting
the high-quality fish and wildlife resources within the
project area.
7. "Section V.A, Page 9: This section should be revised to
provide a complete description of all potential stream and
wetland impacts associated with the proposed action,
including a complete breakdown, by site, of the type and
extent of the stream and/or wetland habitat to be affected.
This should include all of the wetland habitat associated
with the streams in the project area that may be affected.
The document should detail ways project-related stream and
wetland impacts have been reduced and should fully justify
why potential impacts are unavoidable. A detailed
mitigation plan that fully describes proposed mitigation
sites and specific measures to be implemented to restore
and/or replace habitat to mitigate all unavoidable stream
and wetland habitat losses should also be included under
this section. In addition, we recommend that the document
include a map that clearly identifies the type, location,
and extent of stream and wetland habitat occurring within
the project corridor".
"According to statements in this section, the action as
currently proposed will result in impacts to a bog. All
potential project-related impacts to this bog and the plant
and animal species associated with the bog (including
effects on the hydrology, soil activity, soil nutrient
levels, etc.) should be fully assessed. The service places
high value on mountain bog habitat. These rare mountain
wetlands provide unique, high quality habitat for a diverse
assemblage of plant and animal species, often including
rare plant and animal species. Because of the scarcity of
Southern Appalachian mountain bog habitat and the rarity of
some of the plant and animal species generally associated
this type of habitat, we are currently preparing to
petition the Service's Atlanta Regional Office to have all
remaining mountain bog habitat in North Carolina designated
under the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Register
46(15):7644-7663, January 23, 1981) as "Resource Category
1" habitat -- habitat of high value to fish and wildlife
species that is unique and irreplaceable on a national
basis or in this ecoregion. Accordingly,=we are strongly
opposed to any proposal that may result in adverse
modification of this habitat type. Potential impacts to
the bog located within the proposed project corridor should
be avoided by not widening NC 16 in the vicinity of the bog
9
and in areas where the `hydrology of the bog may be
adversely affected or by shifting the centerline of the
proposed alignment away from and avoiding construction
immediately adjacent to the bog".
a? requrre a a total of 5filinear
fee of z am eha?n ?i t.a ?yh t,o-Ilbads creek ando`a
t ?utary -te, tti ,Soutar- t om't-he-,New4iver... These two
streams are identified by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (Commission) as providing important
spawning and/or nursery habitat for ?,??
Streams of this nature also generally provide importan?`°?'
spawning, nesting, nursery, and/or foraging habitat for a
wide variety of other fish (game and nongame) and
invertebrate, amphibian, reptilian, avian, and small
mammalian species. As stated in the document,
project-related construction activities have the potential
to eliminate the populations of trout, and other species,
in these streams. We do not believe the current proposal
to relocate sections of these streams gives adequate
consideration of their fish and wildlife habitat values,
and we do not believe the proposal is adequately justified
in the document. Accordingly, we recommend that impacts to
these streams be avoided. In the Service's review of
applications for any Department of the Army permits
necessary for this proposal, we will recommend against
issuance of any permit that will likely result in the
elimination or adverse alteration of water and wetland
habitats associated with these streams when practicable
alternatives that will avoid such impacts are available".
"Finally, the statement under this section that impacts
to wetlands will include replacement of several bridges
with box culverts requires clarification. Section I.C.11,
identifies only the bridges over Naked and Little Naked
Creek as being replaced with culverts. All proposed bridge
replacements should be described and justified in this
section. The selection of bridges versus culverts should
give full consideration to the fish and wildlife values of
the waters and wetlands being crossed. All potential
impacts to streams and wetlands associated with the bridge
replacements should be fully described and quantified. As
stated in our comments on Section I.C.11 above, we
recommend that all existing bridges requiring replacement
be replaced with new bridges."
Response: As reported in the Environmental Assessment,
only minor wetland impacts are anticipated. low,
P 1 WMv ; r?U3? 1;r >nr ICUs: 1JYU 1- dWJ TL-r- P rvvemerJL5
proposed. Note that the mountain bog, previously
destined for impacts by the proposal, will not be affected
(see Response to 7(a)2 on page 3). Streams to be crossed
by the project are listed below:
10
STREAM CROSSINGS
Naked Creek 1
Little Naked Creek 1
South Fork New River 1
Bear Creek 1
Obids Creek 2
While these streams are to be crossed only once or twice by
the proposed project, portions of several streams including
Obids Creek, tributary to South Fork New River, Creasey
Branch and Naked Creek lie parallel to NC 16. Serious
attempts are being made to avoid rechannelizing portions of
these streams
re sn ` 60 .;1 inear f farriers
pg_ %w ar i Only five ,minor std OrAr ttons
wi® ;tit1l ?ng.l:ess than 0 20 aGa-.af .W.et l ands
Comments of stream and wetland habitat to be affected are
addressed in the response to 7(c)9 on page 11.
6 W F Existing bridges over Naked Creek, Little Naked Creek, and
Bear Creek will be replaced. See response No. 4, page 4.
`? - 8. "Section V.B, Page 10: In view of the fact that mountain
yd ogb gs often support rare plant and animal species, we
recommend that those rare bog species that occur within the
project impact area be thoroughly inventoried by qualified
personnel. The results of that inventory should be
included in this section and in Section V.C."
Response: As stated above, a NCDOT Biologist visited the
site of the bog referenced above and took measurements of
the limits of the bog. Upon discussing these limits with
NCDOT design engineers, it was determined that construction
of the NC 16 improvements will not encroach into the bog
limits. Since the bog will not be encroached, there is no
reason to inventory for those rare bog species.
Nevertheless, all necessary steps, including implementation
of Best Management Practices, will be taken to protect the
bog and any rare species.
9. "Section V.C, Pages 10 and 11: This section should be
revised to provide a complete inventory of the fishery
resources, both game and nongame, of all the streams in the
project area potentially impacted by the proposed action.
Also see our comments above in Section V.B."
Response: South Fork New River, its tributaries and their
adjacent plant communities have the capability to support a
rather rich aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna. These
11
organisms rely on the aquatic milieu for some or most of
their life history, either as forage, refuge, or as nesting
habitat. Numerous fish and invertebrates, which occur in
these zones, are totally water-dependent throughout their
lives.
Project area streams are known to support populations of
1kIOW Hbt'- Salvelinus fontinalis), the only native trout
in N.C. Based upon an eloctroshock survey conducted by the
NCWRC in May 1989, the following species 7?1-1
°ected'f
on or more proj'e -area" stream s, lntlud ny caked
Creek, Little Naked Creels and unnamed tr1'butaries to+Obfds
Eree;k and -,South Fork New 'Rives (Joe Mickey, May, 1989):
rosyside dace, creek chub, blacknose dace, fantail
darter, stoneroller, bluehead chub, rock bass,
northern hog sucker, mountain redbelly dace and
sculpin.
10. "Section V.D, Pages 11 and 12: The section of the South
Fork New River designated as a Scenic River, both
nationally and by the state of North Carolina, runs from
the confluence of Dog Creek (located roughly 3 miles below
the project site) downstream to the North Carolina/Virginia
stateline. The document should be revised to fully address
the potential short- and long-term negative impacts
(including impacts associated with increased runoff of
highway pollutants) the action may have on the water
quality of this and the other streams in the project area.
The impact any project-related, long-term degradation of
water quality of the South Fork New River and other streams
in the project will have on fishery resources and
recreation values should also be fully evaluated. The
measures that will be implemented to avoid/minimize water
quality impacts, and the methods by which these measures
will be monitored and enforced, should be fully detailed."
Response: Water quality of the streams in the study area
have suffered from past disturbances. Major land uses in
the basin are forestry and agriculture. These activities,
coupled with erodible soil, make nonpoint runoff a major
problem in the mountain physiographic province. Further
deterioration is sure to be harmful to the aquatic
organisms. Grubbing and grading activities are likely to
place sediment into the water column, as will culvert
installation and pier placement activities.
Sediment-loading of the stream channel by such activities
can be harmful to local populations of aquatic organisms,
including fish, as well as invertebrates such as mollusks,
crustacea and insect larvae, important parts of the aquatic
food chain. Stream benthos, including filter-feeding
mollusks are particularly vulnerable.
12
While harmful in any amounts, sediment-loading that may
result from the proposed widening of NC 16 will be minor
and short-term in duration. In view of the
r ;Say '?Jc
8-1-90) t
. 0
rit n to
.,
orce the_ hig est des wig H '
C'n ,r. ctices. This will
significantly minimize sediment-related impacts to area
streams.
To avoid and/or minimize non-point source discharges of
toxic substances and harmful particulate materials,
appropriate catchment structures, turfed buffer zones
and/or other provisions will be used throughout the
project. These measures will minimize both short-term and
long-term impacts to study area water resources.
11. "Section V.D, Page 12: Two plant species, Geum radiatum
(spreading avens) and Spiraea virginiana (Virgin-
spiraea), have been officially listed by the Service and
should be addressed under this section (see General
Comments above). Both of these species have been recorded
from Ashe County, and S iraea virginiana is known to occur
in and adjacent to the South Fork New River, downstream of
and in close proximity to the proposed action. Before the
Service can agree that the Federal Highway Administration's
obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
have been satisfied for this proposed action, it is
necessary that we be provided additional information
showing that adequate surveys by qualified personnel have
been conducted in all habitat suitable for these species,
and also for Liatris helleri. These surveys should include
suitable habita potentia ly affected by proposed
alignments, disposal sites, borrow sites, staging areas,
maintenance of the completed facilities (including areas
affected by the use of herbicides, pesticides, deicing
compounds, and other pollutants associated with highway and
right-of-way maintenance and use), construction or
development reasonably expected to occur as a result of the
completed project, etc."
"If it is determined that the proposed action may affect
listed species, formal consultation with this office must
be initiated in writing. Requests for formal consultation
must include: (1) a complete description of the proposed
action, (2) a complete and detailed description of the
specific area that may be affected by the action, (3) a
description of the species and its habitat that may be
affected by the action, (4) a complete description of the
manner in which the action may affect the species and an
assessment of the cumulative effects, (5) measures that
will be implemented to avoid or minimize potential effects,
and (6) any other relevant available information on the
action and the affected species."
13
"In addition, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi), which
is a candidate for Federal listing as endangered or
threatened and is listed by the State of North Carolina as
a threatened species, is known to occur in close proximity
to thg project impact area and may occur in the bog
currently proposed to be impacted by the project. As a
candidate for Federal listing, this species is not subject
to any of the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
until it is officially proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. However, the Service recommends that a thorough
survey of all suitable habitat for this species that occurs
within the impact area of the proposed action be conducted
by qualified personnel to determine whether the species is
present in the project area. This species may be federally
listed in the future, at which time it will receive full
protection provided by the Endangered Species Act."
Response: NCDOT conducted surveys in the Summer of 1995 in
all suitable habitat for each of five species listed by the
USFWS for Ashe County. See response to No. 3, Page 6.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (letter of February 24,
1994)
12. "The Service requests more information on the proposed
location of the alignment in relation to the bog (e.g.,
distance in feet) and whether any mitigative measures will
be taken to minimize adverse hydrological impacts to the
bog. Finally, the Service is concerned about the proposed
replacement of existing bridges with culverts and would
appreciate any additional information regarding the
decision analysis."
Response: The proposed edge of pavement for improvements
to NC 16 in the vicinity of the mountain bog is 21 feet
from the closest edge of the bog. A NCDOT Biologist
visited the site of the bog and took measurements of the
limits of the bog. It was determined that construction of
the NC 16 improvements would not encroach into the bog
limits. NCDOT intends to enforce the highest design
criteria for sedimentation control, High Quality Water Best
Management Practices. NCDOT has made a decision to replace
all existing bridges with culverts. See response No. 4,
page 4.
14
(d) N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
1. "How much of the wetland loss is associated with the use of
culverts for Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek rather than
bridges? What is the difference in costs between culverts
and bridges? Are there any alternatives to the partial
filling of the bog mentioned on Page 9?"
Response: Existing bridges over Naked Creek, Little Naked
Creek, and Bear Creek will be replaced with culverts. See
response No. 4, page 4.
As stated in the response to question 7(a)2, this project
is not anticipated to impact the bog mentioned on page 9 of
the Environmental Assessment.
2. "What will become of the old roadway that will not be used
when NC 16 is straightened? Could it be removed and the
area planted in trees to mitigate the 5 acres of quality
habitat lost due to straightening?"
Response: Relocated pavement sections of NC 16 will be
removed and seeded with grass. This right-of-way will be
abandoned by NCDOT and the ownership of this property will
revert back to the original property owner. Further
landscaping of these areas will be the responsibility of
the new property owners.
3. "Will the banks of the streams to be "rechanneled" be
planted with evergreen shrub?"
Response: Appropriate ground cover including grasses will
be planted along the banks of all rechanneled streams to
stabilize the bank. NCDOT will plant evergreen shrubs if
it is found necessary to do so.
4. Reference has been made to partially relocate two streams
which serve as trout nurseries. This department does not
support relocation of trout streams due to the loss of
habitat it would cause. Off-site sedimentation and thermal
pollution from loss of cover in riparian zones also
threatens brook trout in these streams. In addition, both
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of
Parks and Recreation recommend a survey of state endangered
and federally threatened species be conducted by a
qualified biologist to evaluate impacts of the project on
these species."
15
Response: For a response to the relocation of streams, see
Response to 7(c)2. For a response to a survey of state
endangered and federally threatened species, see
Environmental Commitment No. 2 on page 2.
5. "The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission feels strongly that
the EA does not consistently discuss bridge replacement
over streams. This department has recommended in the past
that the Department of Transportation's (DOT) project plans
consist of bridging all stream crossings instead of
culverts where feasible. From a wildlife resources view,
culverts negatively impact fish and wildlife and interrupt
flow regimens and other functions of the wetland."
Response: For a response to bridge replacements over
streams, see Response to 7(a)4 on page 4.
6. "Much of the proposed construction corridor is adjacent to
the South Fork New River. Downstream of the site the river
has the federal "Wild and Scenic River" designation and is
by state action a "Natural and scenic River". Extreme
measures are warranted to protect the river from offsite
sedimentation. Launch areas to provide access by canoe
would greatly enhance recreation opportunities as well."
Response: For a response to concerns over offsite
sedimentation into the South Fork New River, see
Environmental Commitment No. 1 on page 2.
(e) N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1. "Although the Natural Heritage Program database does not
record the presence of any listed species within the road
corridor itself, there are several such species known from
the near vicinity, most of which were mentioned in the list
of federal status review species provided by M. Gantt."
"Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), a species listed as
state endangered and federally threatened, occurs along the
New River within 0.75 miles of the project. Gray's lily
(Lilium grayi), which is threatened within the state and a
candidate for federal listing, has also been found along
the New River within 1.5 miles of the project. In the
river itself and also located within 1.5 miles of the
project are-occurrences of two rare species of aquatic
animals, a riffle beetle (Stenelma 9ammoni), listed as
threatened in North Carolina and a federal candidate
species, and the sharpnose darter (Percina oxyrhyncha), a
fish considered of state special concern. One additional
species found at two locations within five miles of the
project is the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), a species
considered threatened in North Carolina and a candidate for
federal listing."
16
"The environmental review mentions a site visit during
which these species were looked for but not found (p. 12).
However, no details were provided concerning the intensity
of the survey, the area covered, the methods used, the time
of the year, or the qualifications of the personnel. A
single site visit is certainly inadequate to ascertain the
presence or absence of all the species mentioned above.
The bog turtle, for instance, is notoriously difficult to
survey and may take repeated visits to likely habitat in
order to find it. Given the high potential for suitable
habitat present within the project, a full survey is
definitely warranted."
"Several areas in particular should receive the highest
priority for surveys. The entire area along the New River
paralleled by the project is prime habitat for the
endangered spiraea, and the bog that was mentioned that
would be partly destroyed by the project should be
thoroughly searched for both bog turtles and Gray's lilies.
The turtle and lily can both occur in wet meadows or
pastures, and these habitats should also be surveyed
wherever they would be affected by the project."
"Unless it can be demonstrated that the previous site
inspections were in fact adequate to assess the presence of
the above mentioned species, the Heritage Program
recommends that a complete survey be done by qualified
biologists working during the appropriate seasons of the
year. Furthermore, given the designation of this reach of
the New River as a High Quality Water, the presence of two
rare species of aquatic animals, and the proximity of the
Wild and Scenic reach of the new River just downstream from
the project, the highest level of protection should be
given to this watershed, not just the standard measures
mentioned in the mitigation plans."
Response: A survey by a qualified biologist with NCDOT was
conducted on April 11, 1989, along the project route. The
survey report listed only one plant species proposed for
federal protection in the area of the project. Ten other
species of plants, fish, reptiles, and insects were listed
as Status Review species. None were observed during the
site visit. Additionally, a review of the project will be
conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition and
construction for any additions of these items to the
Endangered Species Act. A second survey was conducted in
the Summer of 1995. See response No. 3, page 6.
7. Comments Made During And Following The Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a Design
Public Hearing was held May 14, 1992 at the Ashe County Courthouse in
Jefferson, N.C. Approximately 35 persons attended the hearing including
10 NCDOT personnel.
17
Four persons made comments or asked questions at the hearing. Two of
these opposed the project and two asked for specific information. All
questions were adequately answered by the Hearing Officer.
Written comments received after the Public Hearing included one
opposing opinion and one asking specific questions about the project.
All opposition to the proposed project was based on past performance
by NCDOT in negotiating right-of-way contracts with homeowners affected by
those projects.
8. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment
The bridge over Bear Creek is to be replaced under this project in
addition to the improvements listed in the Environmental Assessment.
The Environmental Assessment originally reported that only one home
was to be displaced. Upon further study, there will be approximately ten
homes displaced. The majority of these are due to acquiring these owner's
septic tank fields during right-of-way acquisition.
The project will require purchase of .48 AC of right-of-way from the
Blue Ridge Parkway. Also, construction of this project will require 1 AC
of construction easements and 1,000 SF of permanent drainage easements.
9. Wetlands Finding
As stated in the Environmental Assessment, the proposed improvements
are expected to include no more than five acres of wetlands. With the
addition of the approximately 7,158 linear feet of retaining walls and
1,860 linear feet of concrete barriers proposed for this project, this
wetland total has been reduced to approximately 0.20 acre.
Due to the nature of the road improvements, and their existing
location, roadway alternative improvements to completely avoid wetlands
are not practical from an engineering and economic standpoint.
10. Floodplain Finding
The section of NC 16 which is adjacent to the South Fork New River is
within the 500 year flood plain as per the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, the
proposed project was evaluated with respect to potential impacts on
regulated floodplains/floodways.
To ensure that floodwater property damages due to roadway
construction are minimized, drainage structures are designed with upstream
(headwater) elevation in mind. All bridges and culverts on this project
will be designed and constructed in accordance with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
18
floodplain impact requirements so that there is no increase in floodplain
elevation greater than 1 foot. There will not be any significant
longitudinal encroachments in the floodplain.
11. Basis For Finding Of No Significant Impact
Based upon a study of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and upon comments received from Federal, State,
and Local agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration that the project
will not have a significant impact upon the human or natural environment
for the following reasons.
(a) No significant adverse impacts on natural, ecological, cultural
or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance
are expected.
(b) No significant detrimental impact on air or water quality or
ambient noise levels for adjoining areas is expected.
Therefore, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is applicable for this project.
12. Coordination With Review Agency
NCDOT met with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on January 20, 1994
to discuss environmental issues for this project. This meeting
specifically discussed NCDOT's proposal to install retaining walls and
concrete barriers to prevent encroachment into the South Fork New River
and other adjacent streams to the project.
NCDOT personnel also met with representatives of the Blue Ridge
Parkway on the project site September 28, 1994 and on June 22, 1995, to
discuss the preferred alternative.
Staff biologist with the Planning and Environmental Branch conducted
surveys for the five federally threatened and endangered species in the
summer of 1995. There was only one population of Virginia Spirea found
adjacent to the project site.
A meeting was held with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
to discuss this species at the project site on October 18, 1995. NCDOT
agreed to several environmental commitments regarding this population and
the USFWS concurred with the project. (See USFWS letter dated November 1,
1995).

BB/plr
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
•??°e
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
NC 16
FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE
TO US 221 ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 8.1710901
TIP NO. R-2100
11/88 FIG. I
S FP 1990
h';rCtiVED
N
. r n^A ?a
KN North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment,, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Fred Harris, Chief / rrt rJ ' V'AA?-
Division of Boating tnd Inland Fisheries
DATE: August 24, 1990
SUBJECT: Administrative Action Environmental Assessment,
Improvement of NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line
to US 221, Ashe County, TIP No. R-2100, State
Project No. 8.1710901.
This correspondence responds to your request for our
review of the proposed improvement of NC'16 from the Wilkes
County line to US 221, Ashe County. Biological field staff
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
have reviewed the Administrative Action Environmental
Assessment (EA) and have conducted a site visit. The NCWRC
is concerned about potential impacts to fisheries and
wildlife resources within and adjacent to the construction
corridor. The EA fails to address the following issues to
our satisfaction:
1. This section of Ashe County contains natural resources of
great significance, all of which would be adversely impacted
by this project. At least two streams in the vicinity serve
as brook trout nursery streams, a native species threatened
by habitat loss in many areas of western North Carolina.
Young of the year trout were collected from the unnamed
tributary to Obids Creek and the tributary to South Fork New
River which we believe is called Creasey Branch. According
to the EA, sections of both streams would be relocated
during this project, resulting in loss of habitat. Off-site
sedimentation and thermal pollution from loss of riparian
Memo Page 2 August 24, 1990
zones also threaten brook trout in these streams. The NCWRC
strongly objects to the relocation of trout streams for
these reasons. Obids Creek and Bear Creek may also support
brook trout and should be sampled and the results reported.
2. Approximately 0.5 acre of bog lies adjacent to the
construction corridor. According to the EA, 0.1 acre would
be impacted by the project. The EA does not address how
loss of part of the bog will affect its hydrology, and we
request this information. Mountain bogs are unique habitat
types and often contain rare species of plants and animals.
The NCWRC requests that a thorough search be made for the
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muglenbergi), which is listed as
threatened in NC, is a candidate for federal listing and
requires specialized searching techniques. This species has
previously been reported from Ashe County in close proximity
to the project. The NCWRC also requests that a
knowledgeable biologist search the bog for rare plants.
3. The South Fork New River downstream of the construction
corridor is designated by federal action as a "Wild and
Scenic River" and by state action as a "Natural and Scenic
River". Extreme care should be taken to protect the river
from off-site sedimentation.
4. The EA is inconsistent in discussing bridge replacement
over streams. Tn the summary, the EA states that bridges
over Naked Creek and Little Naked Creek will be replaced,
but on page 9 it states that "several bridges" will be
replaced with box culverts. The NCWRC requests information
as to which bridges will be replaced. In addition, we
recommend that bridges be replaced with new bridges rather
than culverts, which create habitat loss and change the
slope of a stream.
5. The EA does not show which sections of the tributary of
South Fork New River and tributary of Obids Creek would be
relocated, nor does it show where cuts will be made. The
NCWRC requests this information. Again, our policy is to
avoid stream relocations on trout waters. We are aware that
the tributary to South Fork New River has already been
channelized and relocated in the past by NCDOT.
6. In the future, the NCWRC requests that all wetlands in a
construction corridor be clearly marked on aerial
photographs. The tributary to Obids Creek, Obids Creek,
Creasey Branch and the bogwere not marked on the
photograph, although they were discussed in the EA. This
would facilitate our site visits.
Memo Page 3 August 24, 1990
This EA does not address our concerns thoroughly. The
NCWRC requests that our concerns be addressed in an
Environmental Impact Statement, given the outstanding
resources present, the possible presence of rare species,
and the high potential for environmental degradation in the
construction corridor.
FAH/lp
cc: Mrs. Linda K. (Mike) Gantt, USFWS
Mr. John Fridell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Don Hayes, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Allen Boynton, Mt. Region Nongame Biologist
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Regional Environmental
Biologist
1000N- AdOO
i %T1 y
cl-S
z v f 0
90 9O j.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources CommisSc 8 ,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bryon E. Brady, Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Fred Harris, Chief a,
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
DATE: October 1, 1990
SUBJECT: Improvement of NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line to US 221, Ashe
County, T.I.P. No. R-2100, State Project No.8.1710901.
Recently the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
submitted comments concerning the Environmental Assessment written for the
improvement of NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line to US 221, Ashe County. In
the memo dated August 24, 1990, we recommended a thorough search be made for
the bog turtle ( lemur mu leg nberg_i) in the bog adjacent to the project corridor
approximately 1.5 miles south of Glendale Springs. The turtle is a State Threatened
species and is a candidate for federal listing.
A staff biologist returned to the bog on September 20, 1990 with the
following individuals: Allen Boynton, NCWRC nongame and endangered wildlife
project leader for the Mountain Region; Dennis Herman, Assistant Curator of
Reptiles at Zoo Atlanta; Bern Tryon, Curator of the Department of Herpetology at
Knoxville Zoo; and Ken Taylor, NCWRC photographer. The bog was identified as
excellent habitat for the turtle. While no turtles were collected after limited
searching, an egg was found and identified as a bog turtle egg by Mr. Herman and
Mr. Tryon, who operate captive breeding programs at their respective zoos. This
signifies that a reproducing population may be present.
The purpose of this memorandum is to notify the North Carolina
Department of Transportation that bog turtles indeed appear to be present at this
site, and to reemphasize our position that an Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared for this project. If we can provide further assistance, please call
on us.
FAH/lp
cc: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Allen Boynton, Mt. Region Nongame Biologist
L. K. Gantt, USFWS
John Fridell, USFWS, Asheville
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Don Hayes, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
U ck
MENEIN
United States Department of the Interior AMU"
a
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
'k*eA 3.
200 BB&T Building
Pack SquareV
IN REPLY REFER TO, One Asheville. North Carolina 28801 ^ l
L3027
August 13, 1990
.? AUG 1 5 1990 z
Mr. J. L. Ward, Manager DW16iON OF
Planning and Environmental Branch HIGHWAYS ?QP
North Carolina Division of Highways RESE
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
In response to your letter of July 16 requesting comments on the recently prepared
Environmental Assessment for the improvement of N.C. 16 from the Parkway and Wilkes County
line to U.S. 221, we would like to make the following comments:
? As indicated in our earlier letter of February 8, 1989, we would like to review detailed
plans concerning any construction that might be proposed within the Parkway right-of-way
near the beginning of the project.
? Our deed information indicates the State of North Carolina only reserved a twenty-foot
right-of-way through the Parkway lands at Horse Gap. A copy of this deed is enclosed for
your information. Page 14 of your Environmental Assessment states that there will be no
construction within the Parkway right-of-way. If this is true, there is no need to negotiate
a new right-of-way through the federal lands at Horse Gap. If you intend to widen the
existing roadway through the Parkway right-of-way, then we will need to change the
existing deed information and that process will take some time.
? If this project intends to increase the width of N.C. 16 from twenty-foot width to twenty-
four foot width within the Parkway boundary, we would recommend that the project be
changed to begin at the federal boundary instead of at the underpass under the Parkway
motor road. By doing this, we will avoid the necessity of invoking the Section 4(f)
involvement and its consequent procedures. A map showing the federal lands at this
location is enclosed for your reference.
Thank you for this opportunity to make our comments and, should you need further information,
please contact Mr. Jim Fox, Lands Protection Specialist, [phone].
Sincerely,
Gii " verb ra dt
Superintendent

Enclosure
L3027
August 25, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
In response to your letter of March 14, the Blue Ridge Parkway concurs with and
approves the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) preferred
alternative for road improvements of NC 16 provided that the following conditions are
met:
1. A planting plan is to be developed and implemented by NCDOT, subject
to prior Parkway approval. The plan should include soil stabilization
with Parkway grass seed mix along with plantings of native woody
species that replicate adjacent plant communities. We enclose a copy of
our approved grass seed mix.
2. NCDOT will mark all trees over 6" diameter breast height (DBH) that
are planned for removal. NCDOT will notify the Parkway of the quantity
and species of trees to be removed. For any trees removed that have not
been mutually agreed upon in advance, NCDOT will be assessed the full
tree replacement value using the 1992 International Society of
Arborculturist Guide to Plant Appraisal.
3. The creek running along NC 16 will need to be relocated. We would
prefer a natural appearance to the realigned streambank; however, a rip-
rap ditch would be acceptable in this case.
4. We ask that due care be taken to preserve National Park Service
boundary monuments, and that any disturbed monuments be re-set
following construction.
5. The state reserved by deed a 20-foot wide easement for NC 16; however,
the current proposal calls for significant use and disturbance of Parkway
land well beyond the deeded easement zone. To mitigate this loss, we
propose that NCDOT acquire land or a property interest of approximately
equal value to be conveyed to the United States. As the NC 16
improvement proposal is a federal aid project, mitigation should be
2
negotiated through the Federal Highway Administration and our Atlanta
Field Office. The National Park Service authorizing official is Mr. Robert
M. Baker. You may reach Mr. Baker at the following address:
Robert M. Baker, Field Director
Southeast Field Area
Attention: William Springer
Appalachian System Support Office
National Park Service
75 Spring Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Please contact Jim Fox, Staff Park Ranger, Land Resources, and inform him of your
construction schedule. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Fox or Will Orr
at 704/271-4779 ext. 217.
Sincerely,
GARY EVERHARDT
Gary Everhardt
Superintendent
Enclosure
cc:
Bluffs District Ranger
Bluffs Assistant District Ranger, Laurel Springs
Bluffs Resource Management Specialist
Landscape Architect
Park Resource Management Specialist
Cultural Resource Management Specialist
Roy Shelton, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410, Raleigh
27601
Byron Brady, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT, POB 25201, Raleigh
27611-5201
Wade Hoke, Division Engineer, NCDOT, POB 250, North Wilkesboro, 28659
4
SEED MIX
Name of Seed Shoulders/Ditches
Clover, white 1/16 pound
Fescue, chewings 3/4 pound
Fescue, Kentucky 31, tall --
Red top 3/16 pound
Slopes
1/4 pound
1/4 pound
1/2 pound
H30
xL7617
September 29, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
We are writing concerning the adequacy of the archeological survey completed in
1990 for the NC Improvements Project, TIP No. R-2100. This reference is
Archeological Survey NC 16 Improvements. Wilkes County Line to US 221, Ashe
County. TIP No. R-2100, by Thomas J. Padgett, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Planning and Research Branch, February, 1990. To quote from the
Management Summary of this report:
"This report details the findings of an archeological survey of
the proposed NC 16 improvements in Ashe County (TIP No. R-
2100, Clearinghouse No. 89-E-4220-0551). The survey was
conducted in accordance with FHWA procedures for
compliance with historic preservation legislation. Most of the
proposed improvements will be within the existing right of
way and no significant impacts are anticipated...
Since the project as currently planned will have no effects on
any archeological sites that are on or are eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places, no further
archeological work is recommended."
Mr. Padgett's assertions were confirmed by a January 19, 1990 letter to Paul L.
Lariviere, acting division administrator, Federal Highway Administration, from
David Brook, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, regarding Section 106
consultation on this NC 16 project. To quote from the letter:
"We have reviewed the documentation enclosed with your
letter and concur with North Carolina Department of
Transportation's finding that this project will have no effect
on the Glendale Springs Inn, a property listed in the National
2
Register of Historic Places, or the Blue Ridge Parkway, a
property we believe is eligible for listing in the National
Register."
We in turn concur with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Padgett
archeological report that this proposed road improvement for NC 16 will have no
effect on sites or structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Sincerely,
GARY EVERHARDT
Gary Everhardt
Superintendent
cc: Lands Specialist
Roy Shelton, FHA, 310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410, Raleigh 27601
Byron Brady,rPlanning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT, POB 25201,
Raleigh 27611-5201
ENT F
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
o
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
August 30, 1990 _,- -
t?
-? SCp p 4 199p
Mr. L. J. Ward P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation AFSEAR
P.Q. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
¦
TM ?
PMN

Subject: Environmental Assessment for the proposed widening and
realignment of NC 16 from the Wilkes County Line to US 221 in
Ashe County, North Carolina (State Project No. 8.17109011; T.I.P.
No. R-2100)
This responds to your letter of July 16, 1990, received August 1, 1990,
requesting our comments on.the subject document. These comments are
provided in accordance with the Fish and wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
GENERAL COMMENTS:
It is the Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) belief that the subject
document does not (1) justify a need for the widening of NC 16,
(2) adequately describe the fish and wildlife resources occurring within
the project impact area and the potential impacts (direct and indirect) the
highway project will have on these resources, or (3) provide adequate
justification as to why the impacts to these resources cannot be avoided.
As currently proposed, the project will directly impact a mountain bog and
at least two streams that currently provide spawning and/or nursery habitat
for wild brook trout. Because of their scarcity and high habitat value to
fish and wildlife species, the Service strongly opposes any filling or
adverse alteration of these resources. We are particularly concerned about
impacts to the bog. Accordingly, we recommend that the North Carolina
Department of Transportation modify the project plans to avoid impacting
the bog and streams.
In addition, the Service officially listed Geum radiatum (spreading avens)
as a federally endangered species on April 5, 1990 (Federal Register
55(66):12793-12798), and Spiraea vir4iniana (Virginia spiraea) as a
federally threatened species on June 15, 1990 (Federal Register
55(116):24241-24246). Before the Service can agree that obligations under
2
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied, it must
determined whether the proposed action may affect these species. If it is
determined that the proposed action may affect either of these species,
formal consultation must be initiated, in writing, with this office.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Section I.C.11. Page 2: It is stated that bridges over Naked Creek and
Little Naked Creek will be replaced with culverts. In order to avoid the
elimination of stream habitat and any adjacent wetland habitat associated
with these streams, the Service recommends that the existing bridges be
replaced with new bridges.
Section II.E. Page 6: According to this section, the benefits of the
proposed project to the state, region, and community would be primarily
safety related. Data provided in Table 1 (Page 6) indicates that the
accident rate of NC 16 in the project area was well below the statewide
average for US primary routes during the period of 1986-1988. According
the information provided in Section II.D (Page 5), the only two areas
identified as having a high rate of accidents are located at the
intersection of NC 16 and SR 1632 and the intersection of NC 16 and
SR 1155. Traffic safety at the intersection of NC 16 with SR 1632 might
corrected by improving the signing and pavement marking at this
intersection. Traffic safety at the intersection of NC 16 and SR 1155
might be improved by changing the angle of SR 1155 and the alignment of
NC 16 approaching this intersection. If such is the case, it should be
stated in this section that the primary benefit of the project could be
achieved by improving these two intersections and would not necessitate
widening of NC 16.
to
be
Section IV. Page 8: It is our belief that the recommended alternative is
not adequately justified (see comments on Section II.E above) and that it
does not give adequate consideration to the high-quality fish and wildlife
resources present within the project area. In view of this, we recommend
that this section be revised to address the alternative of improving only
those sections of NC 16 and/or intersections within the project area
identified as safety hazards (see comments on Section II.E above).
Section V.A. Page 9: This section should be revised to provide a complete
description of all potential stream and wetland impacts associated with the
proposed action, including a complete breakdown, by site, of the type and
extent of the stream and/or wetland habitat to be affected. This should
include all of the wetland habitat associated with the streams in the
project area that may be affected. The document should detail ways
project-related stream and wetland impacts have been reduced and should
fully justify why potential impacts are unavoidable. A detailed mitigation
plan that fully describes proposed mitigation sites and specific measures
to be implemented to restore and/or replace habitat to mitigate all
unavoidable stream and wetland habitat losses should also be included under
this section. In addition, we recommend that the document include a map
that clearly identifies the type, location, and extent of stream and
wetland habitat occurring within the project corridor.
3
According to statements in this section, the action as currently proposed
will result in impacts to a bog. All potential project-related impacts to
this bog and the plant and animal species associated with the bog
(including effects on the hydrology, soil acidity, soil nutrient levels,
etc.) should be fully assessed. The Service places high value on mountain
bog habitat. These rare mountain wetlands provide unique, high-quality
habitat for a diverse assemblage of plant and animal species, often
including rare plant and animal species. Because of the scarcity of
Southern Appalachian mountain bog habitat and the rarity of some of the
plant and animal species generally associated this type of habitat, we are
currently preparing to petition the Service's Atlanta Regional Office to
have all remaining mountain bog habitat in North Carolina designated under
the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal%Reaister 46(15):7644-7663,
January 23, 1981) as "Resource Category 1" habitat--habitat of high value
to fish and wildlife species that is unique and irreplaceable on a national
basis or in this ecoregion. Accordingly, we are strongly opposed to any
proposal that may result in adverse modification of this habitat type.
Potential impacts to the bog located within the proposed project corridor
should be avoided by not widening NC 16 in the vicinity of the bog and in
areas where the hydrology of the bog may be adversely affected or by
shifting the centerline of the proposed alignment away from and avoiding
construction immediately adjacent to the bog.
It is also stated in this section that the proposed action will require the
relocation of a total of 650 linear feet of stream channel of a tributary
to Obids Creek and a tributary to the South Fork of the New River. These
two streams are identified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (Commission) as providing important spawning and/or nursery
habitat for wild brook trout. Streams of this nature also generally
provide important spawning, nesting, nursery, and/or foraging habitat for a
wide variety of other fish (game and nongame) and invertebrate, amphibian,
reptilian, avian, and small mammalian species. As stated in the document,
project-related construction activities have the potential to eliminate the
populations of trout, and other species, in these streams. We do not
believe the current proposal to relocate sections of these streams gives
adequate consideration of their fish and wildlife habitat values, and we do
not believe this proposal is adequately justified in the document.
Accordingly, we recommend that impacts to these streams be avoided. In the
Service's review of applications for any Department of the Army permits
necessary for this proposal, we will recommend against issuance of any
permit that will likely result in the elimination or adverse alteration of
water and wetland habitats associated with these streams when practicable
alternatives that will avoid such impacts are available.
Finally, the statement under this section that impacts to wetlands will
include replacement of several bridges with box culverts requires
clarification. Section I.C.11, identifies only the bridges over Naked and
Little Naked Creek as being replaced with culverts. All proposed bridge
replacements should be described and justified in this section. The
selection of bridges versus culverts should give full consideration to the
fish and wildlife values of the waters and wetlands being crossed. All
potential impacts to streams and wetlands associated with the bridge
4
replacements should be fully described and quantified. As stated in our
comments on Section I.C.11 above, we recommend that all existing bridges
requiring replacement be replaced with new bridges.
Section V.B. Page 10: In view of the fact that mountain bogs often support
rare plant and animal species, we recommend that those rare bog species
that occur within the project impact area be thoroughly inventoried by
qualified personnel. The results of that inventory should be included in
this section and in Section V.C.
Section V.C. Pages 10 and 11: This section should be revised to provide a
complete inventory of the fishery resources, both game and nongame, of all
the streams in the project area potentially impacted by the proposed
action. Also see our comments above on Section V.B.
Section V.D. Pages 11 and 12: The section of the South Fork New River
designated as a Scenic River, both nationally and by the state of North
Carolina, runs from the confluence of Dog Creek (located roughly 3 miles
below the project site) downstream to the North Carolina/Virginia
stateline. The document should be revised to fully address the potential
short and long-term negative impacts (including impacts associated with
increased runoff of highway pollutants) the action may have on the water
quality of this and the other streams in the project area. The impact any
project-related, long-term degradation of the water quality of the South
Fork New River and other streams in the project will have on fishery
resources and recreation values should also be fully evaluated. The
measures that will be implemented to avoid/minimize water quality impacts,
and the methods by which these measures will be monitored and enforced,
should be fully detailed.
Section V.D. Pape 12: Two plant species, Geum radiatum (spreading avens)
and SSpiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea), have been officially listed by
the Service and should be addressed under this section (see General
Comments above). Both of these species have been recorded from Ashe
County, and Spiraea virginiana is known to occur in and adjacent to the
South Fork New River, downstream of and in close proximity to the proposed
action. Before the Service can agree that the Federal Highway
Administration's obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
have been satisfied for this proposed action, it is necessary that we be
provided additional information showing that adequate surveys by qualified
personnel have been conducted in all habitat suitable for these species,
and also for Liatris helleri. These surveys should include suitable
habitat potentially affected by proposed alignments, disposal sites, borrow
sites, staging areas, maintenance of the completed facilities (including
areas affected by the use of herbicides, pesticides, deicing compounds, and
other pollutants associated with highway and right-of-way maintenance and
use), construction or development reasonably expected to occur as a result
of the completed project, etc.
If it is determined that the proposed action may affect listed species,
formal consultation with this office must be initiated in writing.
Requests for formal consultation must include: (1) a complete description
5
of the proposed action, (2) a complete and detailed description of the
specific area that may be affected by the action, (3) a description of the
species and its habitat that may be affected by the action, (4) a complete
description of the manner in which the action may affect the species and an
assessment of the cumulative effects, (5) measures that will be implemented
to avoid or minimize potential effects, and (6) any other relevant
available information on the action and the affected species.
In addition, the bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenber4i), which is a candidate for
Federal listing as endangered or threatened and is listed by the State of
North Carolina as a threatened species, is known to occur in close
proximity to the project impact area and may occur in the bog currently
proposed to be impacted by the project. -As a candidate for Federal
listing, this species is not subject to any of the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act until it is officially proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened. However, the Service recommends that a thorough
survey of all suitable habitat for this species that occurs within the
impact area of the proposed action be conducted by qualified personnel to
determine whether the species is present in the project area. This species
may be federally listed in the future, at which time it will receive full
protection provided by the Endangered Species Act.
SUMMARY COMMENTS:
The Service does not believe that the document adequately justifies a need
for the recommended alternative, and the recommended alternative does not
give adequate consideration to the high-quality fish and wildlife resources
present within the project impact area. In view of the potential for
significant project-related impacts to these resources associated with the
recommended alternative, the Service recommends that the North Carolina
Department of Transportation evaluate and implement other alternatives that
will avoid adverse effects to the bog, trout streams, South Fork New River,
and other important fish and wildlife habitats present in the project
impact area.
Also, additional information must be provided before the Service can agree
with the determination that improvements to NC 16 will not affect federally
listed species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. John Fridell of our office at 704/259-0321 or
FTS 672-0321. Please reference our log number 4-2-88-103 in any future
correspondence concerning this project.
Sincerely,
I/ c
lp AA47-
V. Gary 7Hery
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program,
P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
QrPSM,ENT F T y?$
United States Department of the Interior
9
a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
H s Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
February 24, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: NC 16, From the Wilkes County Line to US 221, Ashe County,
North Carolina, TIP No. R-2100
This is to follow-up on a discussion we had at the January 20, 1994
interagency meeting in Raleigh regarding the subject project. At the
meeting, you requested identification of any issues pertaining to this
project that still need to be addressed. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed the March 1990
environmental assessment for the subject project and provided comments to
the North Carolina Department of Transportation on August 30, 1990. In
our letter, we stated that the document does not "adequately describe the
fish and wildlife resources occurring within the project impact area and
the potential impacts (direct and indirect) the highway project will have
on these resources, or provide adequate justification as to why the
impacts to these resources cannot be avoided," The Service was -
specifically concerned about (1) potential impacts to a mountain bog;
(2) proposed stream channel relocations; and (3) the lack of information
on rare species inventories within the project impact area.
At the January 20, 1994, meeting, proposed project modifications were
presented. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes the
following measures to address resource agency concerns: (1) construct
approximately 6,940 linear feet of retaining wall adjacent to streams and
the South Fork New River in order to eliminate most of the channel
changes and wetland impacts; (2) shift the alignment away from the
mountain bog, and (3) conduct surveys for federally endangered and
threatened species prior to right-of-way acquisition. The Service
appreciates these suggested changes; however, we still have a few
questions regarding potential impacts to streams and sensitive wetland
systems.
As we highlighted in our August 30, 1990, letter, the Service places high
value on mountain bog habitat. These rare mountain wetlands provide
unique, high-quality habitat for a diverse assemblage of plant and animal
species, often including many rare species. We appreciate avoidance of
the bog located within the general project area, but are still concerned
about the potential construction-related impacts to the hydrology of the
bog. The Service requests more information on the proposed location of
the alignment in relation to the bog (e.g., distance in feet) and whether
any mitigative measures will be taken to minimize adverse hydrological
impacts to the bog. Finally, the Service is concerned about the proposed
replacement of existing bridges with culverts and would appreciate any
additional information regarding the decision analysis.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide further comments on this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-89-019.
Since ly,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S.
Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
0?11
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 1, 1995

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
cEI V
01
NOV p ? 1995 L

Subject: Proposed widening of NC 16 from the Wilkes County line to
US 221, Ashe County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. R-2100
Your letter dated October 20, 1995, concerning the subject road project
and the potential for impacts to a population of Virginia spiraea
(SSpiraea virginiana), a federally threatened plant species, was received
in our office on October 30, 1995. A meeting was held on October 18,
1995, to discuss this project with regard to the SSgiraea virginiana
population. At that meeting, it was requested that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) concur with the determination that the subject
project would "not be likely to adversely affect" SSpiraea virginiana.
The following comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
As you are aware, SSDiraea virginiana was listed as threatened on June 15,
1990 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register 55(116):
24241-24246). This species is presently known from six states--West
Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia--in
the southern Blue Ridge physiographic province on streams that flow to
the Ohio River drainage basin. In North Carolina, the species is known
from the following river systems: New River, Little Tennessee River,
South Toe River, Nolichucky River, and Cane River. There are
approximately 11 extant populations. S iraea virginiana is found along
the banks of high-gradient sections of second- and third-order streams or
on point bars, natural levees, and other braided features of lower
reaches. This species is typically found in disturbed sites along rivers
and streams where scour from periodic flooding is sufficient to inhibit
arboreal competition. Residential and recreational development along
rivers and the manipulation of riverine habitat (e.g., impoundments)
contributed to the species' decline.
Proposed project activities were described at the October 18, 1995,
on-site meeting: at a January 20, 1994, meeting in Raleigh; and in the
March 1990 environmental assessment. According to your October 20, 1995,
letter, the North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to
implement several environmental commitments to protect the SSpiraea
virginiana population located along the South Fork of the New River
within the project area. The Service appreciates this cooperation and
believes these provisions should protect this population.
If the commitments listed in your October 20, 1995, letter are strictly
adhered to, the Service concurs with a "not likely to adversely affect"
determination for SSDiraea vir4iniana for this particular project. In
view of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act, as
amended, are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect endangered or threatened species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action
is subsequently modified in a manner not considered in this review, or
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the action.
Again, the Service appreciates the assistance and cooperation of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation to protect this federally.
threatened species. In any future correspondence pertaining to this
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-89-019.
Sinc
o urrie
ing Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
Mr. Roy Shelton, Federal Highways Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue,
Suite 410, Raleigh, NC 27601

F, 7 8 9
J
1 A
SEP 1999
KE, FIVED
."?cC?'<ha2',"; OFFICE
4? iiCn. aJ
State of North Carolina ?a`?
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resou ' " ?? ?2v
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor John N. Morris
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
August 30, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherland
SUBJECT: EA for NC 16 I Provements in Ashe County,
Project Number 91-0057
We have reviewed the referenced document and have the
following comments :
1) How much of the wetland loss is associated
with the use of culverts for Naked Creek and
Little Naked Creek rather than bridges?
What is the difference in costs between cul-
verts and bridges? Are there any alternatives
to the partial filling of the bog mentioned on
page 9?
2) What will become of the old roadway that will
not be used when NC 16 is straightened? Could
it be removed and the area planted in trees to
mitigate the 5 acres of quality habitat lost
due to straightening?
3) Will the banks of the streams to be "rechanneled"
be planted with evergreen shrub?

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

e „a SEAT[
?, t' SAP 7990
.,
C'_ ZD
?. o01 vrrlCE
State of North Carolina "-
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourc?° t^ <. ;?
???lL Ut, ?
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Doug Lewis
V J
RE: 91-0057 - NC 16 Improvements
Environmental Assessment, Ashe County
DATE: September 6., 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed
project.
In reviewing our comments, it is evident that this project
will impact the environment. A number of issues have been raised
that will need to be addressed before this project proceeds into
final planning stages or any permit applications.
Reference has been made to partially relocate two streams
which serve as trout nurseries. This department does not support
relocation of trout streams due to the loss of habitat it would
cause. Off-site sedimentation and thermal pollution from loss of
cover in ripariam zones also threatens brook trout in these
streams. In addition, both the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
and the Division of Parks and Recreation recommend a survey of
state endangered and federally threatened species be conducted by
a qualified biologist to evaluate impacts of the project on these
species.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission feels strongly that
the EA does not consistently discuss bridge replacement over
streams.. This department has recommended in the past that the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) project plans consist of

R0. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611J657 Telephone [phone]
bridging all stream crossings instead of culverts where feasible.
From a wildlife resources view, culverts negatively impact fish
and wildlife and interrupt flow regimens and other functions of
the wetland.
Much of the proposed construction corridor is adjacent to
the South Fork New River. Downstream of the site the river has
the federal "Wild and Scenic River" designation and is by state
action a "Natural and Scenic River". Extreme measures are
warranted to protect the river from offsite sedimentation. Lauch
areas to provide access by canoe would greatly enhance recreation
opportunities as well.
In summary, these and the other concerns mentioned in the
attached comments are very important issues this department feels
should be discussed more thoroughly with more precautionary
measures developed in the EA. At this point, it would be our
recommendation to arrange a meeting with DOT representatives
before this project proceeds any further.
MM: bb
cc: David Foster

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECRE ON SEP 1990
August 17, 1990 ^r" ':'`
Memorandum G ?
190
TO: Melba McGee. AND
aEv??opr??Nr
THROUGH: Carol Tingley
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program < ?.
SUBJECT: EA -- Improve NC 16, Ashe County
REFERENCE: 91-0057
Although the Natural Heritage Program database does not record the
presence of any listed species within the road corridor itself,
there are several such species known from the near vicinity, most
of which were mentioned in the list of federal status review
species provided by M. Gantt (see Appendix).
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), a species listed as state
endangered and federally threatened, occurs along the New River
within 0.75 miles of the project. Gray's lily (Lilium grayi),
which is threatened within the state and a candidate for federal
listing, has also been found along the New River within 1.5 miles
of the project. In the river itself and also located within 1.5
miles of the project are occurrences of two rare species of
aquatic animals, a riffle beetle (Stenelma gammoni), listed as
threatened in North Carolina and a federal candidate species, and
the sharpnose darter (Percina oxyrhyncha), a fish considered of
state special concern. One additional species found at two
locations within five miles of the project is the bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii), a species considered threatened in North
Carolina and a candidate for federal listing.
The environmental review mentions a site visit during which these
species were looked for but not found (p. 12). However, no
details were provided concerning the intensity of the survey, the
area covered, the methods used, the time of year, or the
qualifications of the personnel. A single site visit is certainly
inadequate to ascertain the presence or absence of all the species
mentioned above. The bog turtle, for instance, is notoriously
difficult to survey and may take repeated visits to likely habitat
in order to find it. Given the high potential for suitable
habitat present within the project, a full survey is definitely
warranted.
Several areas in particular should receive the highest priority
for surveys. The entire area along the New River paralleled by
the project is prime habitat for the endangered spiraea, and the
bog that was mentioned that would be partly destroyed by the
project should be thoroughly searched for both bog turtles and
Gray's lilies. The turtle and lily can both occur in wet meadows
or pastures, and these habitats should also be surveyed wherever
they would be affected by the project.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the previous site inspections
were in fact adequate to assess the presence of the above-
mentioned species, the. Heritage Program recommends that a complete
survey be done by qualified biologists working during the
appropriate seasons of the year. Furthermore, given the
designation of this reach of the New River as a High Quality
Water, the presence of two rare species of aquatic animals, and
the proximity of the Wild and Scenic reach of the New River just
downstream from the project, the highest level of protection
should be given to this watershed, not just the standard measures
mentioned in the mitigation plans.
31 68

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
17 - /) -7 1 f'!a3
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, 8, sewer construction contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging Into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
1 permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
J discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever Is later.
t
30
days
Water use Permit
1 Pre
application technical conference usually necessary
.
(NIA)

Well Construction Permit
NIA 7 days
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct a operate Air Pollution Abatement fin. I .• :? 7s 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NIA ?'? ` A ls (90 days)
f
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.

molition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with "' 1. :.•. V 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. ?J• . = J
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties In coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
shouldbe requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
4
PS 105
COnlinuPd on rPVErtP
--,.
Norrr.ai Process

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory lime
limit)

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon 10 days
(N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
J Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
7 State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include 15-20 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.

J 401 Water Quality Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(180 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development T $10.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

reviewer signature /agency date
C
C
L
C
C
C
i
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Moorseville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]

_*
EGIONAL OFFICES
,,,
Z 8 9 I0?
l
? Fayetteville Regional Office
c?
Sip 199 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
s [phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
J Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919
733
23
14
(
)
.
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH I Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES d - bn 5'7
DIVISION OF Et.VIRON!ENTAL HEALTH I County
1y?' Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project !game -?p tc S Z2-) Type of Project ??
The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC IOD .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact
/ the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful substances.
Additional information is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional information
is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
and federal drinking water monitoring reouiremnents. For more information the applicant should
contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project !s constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank instailations (as required under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 et. seq. and/or sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable.) For information concerning septic tank and other
on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
Y The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For informaiton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
Reviewer Branc /Unit ate

Commander
oast Guard District
U.S. Department /Aff
of TransportatioFifth C
United States Coast Guard
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
f North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh; NC 27611-5201
Federal Building
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23705-5004
Staff symbol ( o b )
Phone:
[phone]
16590
September 6, 1990
Subj: EA, Ashe County, S.P.8.1710901; F.A.P. RS-9645 T.I.P R-2100
Dear Mr. Ward:
Please refer to your letter of July 16, 1990 concerning Coast Guard
requirements on the subject Environmental Assessment in Ashe County,
North Carolina.
South Fork of New River, and its tributaries of Little Naked Creek and
Naked Creek, in the vicinity of your project all conform to criteria
set forth under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1987
which exempts certain bridges projects from Coast Guard permitting
requirements.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard offers no objections to the project and
Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required.
gEP ? q ` 1??0 _
U
? p1v1 ? A?c ?Q'
?/?G d RESSP?
Sincerely,
C. S. Park
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard
Chief, ATON & Waterways
Management Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
a y.ay.
_ s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 5, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
41-
41
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Improvements to NC 16, Ashe County, TIP
R-2100., Federal-Aid RS-9645(2), CH 89-E-4220-05512
ER-90-7996
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1990, transmitting the archaeo-
logical survey report by Tom Padgett concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two archaeological 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 archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act-of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800..
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Dav? Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: LL. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina VM 27601-2807
?v
33?;r'r -_ 3
sf
1[ 4
J? C ?f
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr, Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 13, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 16 Improvements, Ashe County,
R-2100
Dear Mr. Graf:
C ?/

Sep 18 199S
?C
`P AYIG
On September 5, 1995, Renee Gledhill-Earley and Debbie Bevin of our staff met
with Bryon Brady of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to discuss the
above project.
We understand that plans for this project have been revised since the completion of
the Environmental Assessment and now call for taking land from the Blue Ridge
Parkway, a property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Given that
the amount of land to be taken is minimal, we continue to believe that the project
will have no effect on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
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.
,Si erely,
Davtd BOOk
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: F. Vick
B. Church
Gary Everhardt,
Blue Ridge Parkway
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
oz?r
Q3
P
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 RS 9645(2)
State Project 8.1710902
T. I. P. No. R-2100
Description: Improvements to NC 16 from the Blue Ridge
Parkway to US 221 in Jefferson, Ashe County
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on V/ F
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or ? ?
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located
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 a
in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) 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
a 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
intended purpose?
2
Yes No
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
4(f) lands? (see Attachment A-1). ?L-
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
(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
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of F-1
an EIS?
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. Do-nothing. ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative: F-1
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
b correct existing safety hazards? F-1
or c correct deteriorated conditions?

and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or / a
impacts of extraordinary measure? ?!
3
2.
Improvement of the highway without using
the adiacent public park, recreational
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
Yes No
(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 community
impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
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 of extraordinary
magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park,
recreational land. or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a
localized "run around.")

(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
F-I
,/ F-I
,/- F-I
4
and (iv)
such impacts,
difficulties
or unique or
magnitude
costs, or
of truly unusual
extraordinary
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
5
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
10
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)
O 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.
O 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.
e. 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.
D Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
Yes No
t -1
--./- F
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as
follows:
1. A planting plan is to be developed and will be
implemented by NCDOT, subject to prior Parkway approval.
The plan will include soil stabilization with Parkway
grass seed mix along with plantings of native woody
species that replicate adjacent plant communities.
2. NCDOT will mark all trees over 6" in diameter breast
height (DBH) that are planned for removal. NCDOT will
6
notify the Parkway of the quantity and species of trees
to be removed.
3. If the creek running adjacent to NC 16 will be relocated,
NCDOT will reconstruct it using a rip-rap ditch.
4. NCDOT will preserve all National Park Service boundary
monuments. Any disturbed monuments due to construction
will be re-set following construction.
5. NCDOT will acquire land or a property interest of
approximately equal value to be conveyed to the United
States. As the NC 16 improvement proposal is a federal
aid project, mitigation will be negotiated through the
Federal Highway Administration and the Atlanta Field
Office of the National Park Service.
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 bridge requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Dike
/127 9S
Dat e
r -
Manager, Planning -& Environmental Branch
CDOT
'? 40
Division Administrator, FHWA
k

r
ONO,
l?r„ 4L A
G IR-0 roc >? _ 1? ?? ??
0 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: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
O?ti (DtTl\ A7 , > ?'? cam; h L61io
yyy pp ?p p?
DATE: January 19, 1996. pp
qP O 4w? Ib/
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 96-0442, Finding of No Significant Impact for
NC 16, Ashe County, TIP #R-2100
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the Finding of No Significant. Impact (FONSI) for improvements to NC 16 from the Blue' Ridge
Parkway to US 221 in Jefferson. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve a 10-
mile section of NC 16 by enhancing horizontal and vertical alignment, widening the existing
roadway to 24 feet, constructing guard rails, replacing bridges over Naked Creek, Little Naked
Creek, and Bear Creek, and doing a complete pavement overlay.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have the following
comments regarding the FONSI:
1) Stream relocation - The document indicates that the need for stream relocation in
unnamed tributaries to the South Fork New River and Obids Creek has been reduced since
the Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in 1990. The NCDOT estimated in the
EA that approximately 650 linear feet of stream channel would be relocated; however, the
FONSI document does not include specific information as to how many linear feet of
stream channel is now proposed for relocation. One of our major concerns with this
project is adverse impacts to these streams, which serve as brook trout nursery streams.
We cannot concur with the FONSI without more information on proposed stream
relocations. Specifically the NCDOT should provide a location map and the linear footage
of stream channel that is proposed for relocation.
I-

96-0442 Page 2 January 19, 1996
2) Retaining walls and concrete barriers - The document indicates that the NCDOT was able
to reduce the need for stream relocation because they plan to construct 7,158 linear feet of
retaining walls and install 1,860 linear feet of concrete barriers. We are pleased that less
relocation is planned; however, the FONSI document includes virtually no information
regarding the type of retaining walls proposed for construction and potential impacts to
trout from higher water temperatures resulting from loss of riparian vegetation. We are
also unsure if the concrete barriers will be temporary to keep construction activities away
from streams, or if they will be a permanent feature of the roadway. In addition, no map
showing the location of retaining walls and concrete barriers is included in the document.
As indicated in our memorandum to Ms. Melba McGee dated 24 August 1990, this
project has the potential to adversely impact streams that support wild brook trout based on
sampling by our biological staff. The FONSI document is rather vague regarding impacts to these
streams and should be supplemented by the information requested above.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Eric Galamb, DEM
ice: - .
NC 16
From the Wilkes County Line to US 2?
Ashe County --?
Project No. 8.17109.01
T.I.P. No. R-2100
_(Z0 0
Project L gth - + 10.0 miles
Existing Pavement Width - 20'
Proposed improvements - Widen. existing roadway to a 24-foot
pavement. Shoulder widths will be 8' usable with 2 foot
paved shoulders.
Trout stream encroachment
NCDOT proposes the construction of approximately 6,940 linear
feet of retaining wall adjacent to streams and the South Fork
New River. Purpose. To eliminate mgt all channel changes
and encrDachmPntG_ Total does not include approximately
1,860 LF of Jersey-type concrete barriers to be constructed
for slope protection.
Erosion Control
J NCDOT proposes to enforce the use of High Quality Best
Management Practices in our Erosion Control plans to protect
these streams and the river.
the proposed 6,940 linear feet of retaining walls, the
wetland to a _ ''ll from a r1oxima ely 5 acres.
to 0.10 acres. la'S 7??? ' dal ?y oZ I?F? 7
`mac eJ l
Permits required
A Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may
be required for this project with full concurrence from the
wildlife Resources Commission.
- Existing mountain bog
/ An NCDOT biologist visited the site of the bog with a set of
/ proposed construction plans and has verified that Ws
?o
?? project will not affect. the bog.
- Endangered and Threatened Species /
Surveys for all Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
will be conducted prior to Right-of-Way Acquisition and
Construction.
- Bridges -vs- culverts
This project will require the replacement of bridges over the
Naked Creek, Little Naked Creek, Bear Creek and Obids Creek.
NCDOT's Hydraulic Unit is evaluating the replacement of these
bridges with culverts
- W tlands
With
r
ASHE COUNTY
elton (ass r•
Stur6ills 2 3Creea .T
,el r ?
S 94 H a
l A >
A ? - Crum 'I
LBnsinH a ey 3cottvllle
lain P 6s Warren 6 U
j 5 +
shlandp ClIton3 t*let erson
- aura p!;
9 Cr ton5methPOlt?
West Jefferson cdl9rs«`
Ind bl
1.21 e
1 HQ/;
-\ Baldwin G$p(i s -.
1 19
l wit
a lee ?
v ?
.II•+
a ?O (
t
ye
NORTH CAROLINA
1562
- - 1'2 Y sas ?n Crumpler 1 41 Q 1
as .Y
tso . ? ? t , Cherhwl ^ IS -7
•r J `• A• .* Hill
',t` b 154.E
1L
LM .2
'' iffs! ) t=• Iee7 'I z ti' m 1542 b !• 1347
.7
iii N ?? T .1 3 a 2.s
Isdtl `i
14?Z0 .B I6se ° i17a .e la :6/ LW.
.8 1s55 Ls to lei]
sol :- - ,
.8 .9
j ! 1313 .e :b .1 s
'Oak Hill 41 .1 .?J3>{ \
Ch.! i+ ' B t 'J 1$3 e.0 !i
• la]e ?. Shatley
b
141YL' ` s]] 1 $plelgr
ITN. ] .J 1 1 1.7 F,1S
Klts• LL72 .J .3
w n= •
. _1373} I n -1345 'P Liberty J.442
a 7 1 •' /1 s9a Hill
14L t
.6 sithons
.1412/.1 Luir .B b 'AS Cr
1617
'? VS` la 1 1£L4 e• .a ] 321 .? •.1.543. l
u v 2 144E
'Y 1391 a'
/..p. 4 9 ./ } 391 1.445 .
141. I e.
JEFfER50N a Ashe County Q? y? ^
POP. 1,08 1e70 /u 'rpert 1596 1,0
.8? AS END PROJECT I,
__?..? le<: I e ti THE PEAK
MT. JEFFERSON t ?? 9 L 1597
... Wogonsr 9
., Isee
1152 'j- BB ;p J Low Gap
1261 1155 1 yr/ Ch
N ..? J 103] Y
1626 ?1? JSit ` Orwn. b
.9 •FMS .? .;
Indea'. L67
a f1' 1620 9 Ore
11 - Big Ridge I Knob -B 97
G y : ?;/ *ql. n .1472.
~ 1475 1
LW
'A5.6 131 -?
t.? .? 13391330 ,? ./ lea]
1316 ?'o 1159 '9 I ?D (^ ` le3e ' b
eK.r Ilse ? , ? '
s 7/ :?.b I .1
1199 1• 1629 SIB
IT10 • ?J 13 0 'D
Ia
\II OMwllo
a ,per` aIS! b
11U 163 `n'P 1169'.
---- a LL42 -
jl• 1 v
.1181- Q •4
a 1192 Glendale` j °I
11 I J ??
Bethel Ch. Q :•/ Springs
U 1 .7
!.7 2 116? ? o I
??1191 JJ /J • 9
•?. o I
T
O 40 163 la'
X f.? 1179 •111221.. L19!
ti 61 o BEGIN PROJECT
1169 _ _ __
/,•? •r' 15147. 7J / M1S
Yates .? Blue 40,b
N Ridge
/. Ch S
11)3 Idlewild 1! ° ?ti ??QC .?
? F
F DAIL
1 a
7
' i
31 'o
5
L PHIWPS
GAP
p ?
r r R?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISIOK OF HIGHWAYS
v`'' N 1991JF? PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANCH
NC 16
FROM THE WILKES COUNTY LINE
TO US 221 ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 8.1710901
TIP NO. R-2100

__..___
?I
Il

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Environmental Management
On% 000%
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary [D E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dornep "
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for NC 16
Ashe County
State Project DOT No. 8.1710902, TIP # R-2100
EHNR # 96-0442, DEM # 11153
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that 0.20 acres of wetlands and waters will be
impacted by this project. DEM offers the following comments on the FONSI:
A) DEHNR expressed concern about the trout stream relocations in the EA. DOT
may have believed that concerns would be removed if DOT committed to using
High Quality Sediment and Erosion control. The higher level of erosion control
coupled with the retaining walls and the concrete barriers is a step in the right
direction to alleviate our concerns. However, the document fails to discuss
other options of avoidance such as widening the road away from the streams.
This may not produce the ideal horizonal or vertical alignment but we believe
that it may provide a safer facility and address our water quality concerns.
B) DEM is concerned that the retaining walls and concrete barriers may increase
water temperatures since overhanging vegetation may be removed and the
walls/barriers may reflect light into the water. Since trout are highly sensitive to
temperature and sediment, an increase in these parameters could result in the
denial of the 401 Water Quality Certification. Therefore, DOT needs to further
discuss measures to mitigate for these concerns, particularly temperature.
Widening away from the stream is an option that must be investigated further.
Perhaps an on-site meeting may assist everyone in coming to a resolution for
this project.
C) DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
Due to the major issues raised, DEM does not concur with the FONSI. DOT is
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Melba McGee Memo
January 29, 1996
Page 2
reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial of a
401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
ncl6.fon
cc: Raleigh COE
Byron Brady, DOT
Monica Swihart
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
FAXED
JAN 2 9 19961
r r
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affa a
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:

Date:

? Project located in 7th floor library
III?*.?->
Date Response Due gfirm deadline):
t/rr-- IL-1, -Z,-7,f Ali.
?i
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Air ? Coastal management Water Planning
? Fayetteville
? Water
? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ?Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid waste management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
• Melba McGee , Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104