19970885 Ver 1_Complete File_19971014

State of North Carolina 1?X;qVA1
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Division of Water Quality rr
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary p E H N F?L
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 27, 1997
Ashe County
DWQ Project # 970885
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
Post Office Box 25201
Ralegih, 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 0.01 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing Bridge 339 on SR
1320, as you described in your application dated October 10, 1997. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers
3127 and 3107. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 26 and 23 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.
1. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds
(T 15A:04B .0024).
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. 276 1 1-7447. This certification
and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
T
his 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.
S' Vton ow,Jr.
P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
9708851tr
Division of Water Ouality - Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # 733-99W
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
a?
'awn
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. Mike Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
9 ?ll
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECREi'ARY
401 ISWF-D

Subject: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320 over Roaring Fork
Creek; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1302(1); State Project No. 8.2710901;
TIP No. B-2907.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the subject
project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on August 20, 1997. The project involves replacing
Bridge No. 339 over Roaring Fork Creek on SR 1320. The existing bridge will be replaced at
approximately the same location with 3 @ 8-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour located
approximately 50 feet north of the existing bridge.
The project will impact ring the natural resources
investigation and described in t a "wet spot." The size of this
wetland was approximated to b
. The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the DOT does not anticipate requesting a
Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit
23 in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the Corps
of Engineers (COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations
will be followed in the construction of the project.
As noted in the CE prepared for the subject project, foundation investigations will be
needed for this project. It is anticipated that this activity may be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This work would not require notification if not for the
fact that this project lies in a mountain trout county.
small wetland identifie u
h Categorical Exclusion
e < . 1 acre.
?:
Ir
2
. Since completion of the CE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now lists the bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) for Ashe County.
The FWS has classified the bog turtle as Proposed Threatened due Similarity of Appearance (T
S/A) and the rock gnome lichen as Threatened. This classification of the bog turtle as Proposed
T S/A does not afford it protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.. A copy of
the "No Effect" biological conclusion for the rock gnome lichen is attached with this permit
application.
Enclosed is a completed preconstruction notification form for a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 6 and 401 Water Quality Certification. These permits are necessary for survey work
within Roaring Fork Creek. The DOT is also requesting that the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) provide comments to the COE concerning this permit request. The DOT
understands that written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for 401 Water
Quality Certification (No. 3127) is not required, but a copy is enclosed for their records. General
conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certification will be followed.
The DOT is also requesting authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 to
replace Bridge No. 339 over Roaring Fork Creek. Comments from the WRC on this bridge
replacement are requested. The DOT also asks for 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DWQ to replace the existing bridge.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Phillip
Todd at [phone], extension 314.
A.Z
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Ken Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
T
DE,M ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2907
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) NWP 6 and 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
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,
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Ashe
PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Roten
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [x] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN: Downstream of the
project, Big Laurel Creek is a hatchery supported designed public
mountain trust water.
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 [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
<0.01 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: <0.01 acre EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 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: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: x
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Geotechnical Surveys
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?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Geotechnical equipment will be used for foundation surveys and bridge
will be replaced with a culvert
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Foundation surveys for future bridge
replacement - replace existing bridge with a culvert.
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
Only practicable alternative as off detour would have required 7 miles
of additional travel (See Categorical Exclusion document).
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 THE 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: By copy of letter
(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: August 18, 1996
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x.] NO N (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 H
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].
4
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 PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION 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? Rural
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.
dEk'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
f
ATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
?a4 pll
970885
$ 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 10, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 GL??
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615,
Attention: Mr. Mike Smith ??iql
Chief, Northern Section ?cF?o
Dear Sir: ?s
Subject: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320 over Roaring Fork
Creek; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1302(1); State Project No. 8.2710901;
TIP No. B-2907.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the subject
project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on August 20, 1997. The project involves replacing
Bridge No. 339 over Roaring Fork Creek on SR 1320. The existing bridge will be replaced at
approximately the same location with 3 @ 8-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour located
approximately 50 feet north of the existing bridge.
The project will impact a small wetland identified during the natural resources
investigation and described in the Categorical Exclusion as a "wet spot." The size of this
wetland was approximated to be <0.01 acre.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the DOT does not anticipate requesting a
Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit
23 in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the Corps
of Engineers (COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations
will be followed in the construction of the project.
As noted in the CE prepared for the subject project, foundation investigations will be
needed for this project. It is anticipated that this activity may be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This work would not require notification if not for the
fact that this project lies in a mountain trout county. N#r

2
Since completion of the CE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now lists the bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) for Ashe County.
The FWS has classified the bog turtle as Proposed Threatened due Similarity of Appearance (T
S/A) and the rock gnome lichen as Threatened. This classification of the bog turtle as Proposed
T S/A does not afford it protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A copy of
the "No Effect" biological conclusion for the rock gnome lichen is attached with this permit
application.
Enclosed is a completed preconstruction notification form for a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 6 and 401 Water Quality Certification. These permits are necessary for survey work
within Roaring Fork Creek. The DOT is also requesting that the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) provide comments to the COE concerning this permit request. The DOT
understands that written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for 401 Water
Quality Certification (No. 3127) is not required, but a copy is enclosed for their records. General
conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certification will be followed.
The DOT is also requesting authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 to
replace Bridge No. 339 over Roaring Fork Creek. Comments from the WRC on this bridge
replacement are requested. The DOT also asks for 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DWQ to replace the existing bridge.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Phillip
Todd at [phone], extension 314.
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Ken Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2907
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): NWP 6 and 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
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: Roten
1
t
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [x] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN: Downstream of the
project, Big Laurel Creek is a hatchery supported designed public
mountain trust water.
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 [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2
so I
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
<0.01 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: <0.01 acre EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 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: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: x
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Geotechnical Surveys
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?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Geotechnical equipment will be used for foundation surveys and bridge
will be replaced with a culvert
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Foundation surveys for future bridge
replacement - replace existing bridge with a culvert.
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
Only practicable alternative as off detour would have recruired 7 miles
of additional travel (See Categorical Exclusion document).
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 THE 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: By copy of letter
(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: August 18, 1996
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO H (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 H
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [ ]
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].
4
s•°
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 PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION 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? Rural
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.
JEZR'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
?? f
ATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
t --- _ -4,
Ashe County
Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320
Over Roaring Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1320(1)
State Project 8.2710901
TIP # B-2907
407, 185 1880E L
1-90
. 41 4
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
?-/7-77 oL<'LT
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Ni olas Graf, P.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Ashe County
Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320
Over Roaring Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1320(1)
State Project 8.2710901
TIP # B-2907
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
7 7
Jef am
Pr sect Plannin ngineer
Wi L//-1 -0--/S-77
Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
g -19-97
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
,,???ltttfltlf
??H 0 A
?'? O? ••'FESSIp• ?iy''.
• SEAL
6916 =
'•.,,? V PR????.•
448;1111100
Ashe County
Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320
Over Roaring Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1320(1)
State Project 8.2710901
TIP # B-2907
Bridge No. 339 is located in Ashe County on SR 1320 crossing over Roaring Fork
Creek. It is programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 339 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a 3 @
2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 foot by 7 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) located
at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic
will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour alignment
located approximately 15.2 meters (50 feet) north of the existing bridge.
The proposed project will provide two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes and a minimum
of 0.6 meter (2 foot) grassed shoulders. Where guardrail is warranted, the minimum
offset from the edge of the travel lane to the face of the guardrail will be 1.2 meters
(4 feet). Approach work to the new culvert will extend approximately 30 meters
(100 feet) on each side. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be
approximately 50 km/h (30 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 318,000 including $ 275,000 in construction
costs and $ 43,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $ 245,000.
H. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Roaring Fork Creek and its tributaries are classified as trout streams. Big Laurel
Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water downstream of
the project site. The following commitments are made to protect the trout waters.
1) Work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a
fish kill.
2) Heavy equipment should be operated, when possible, from the bank rather than in
the stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood
of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
3) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-
term erosion control.
4) NCDOT will conduct foundation investigations on this project. The investigation
will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining
samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception may be required for the design speed on the approaches to the
bridge.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1320 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 350 vehicles per day (VPD) and
projected at 5,00 VPD for the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit. The road serves
mostly local residential traffic.
The existing bridge was completed in 1967. It is 14 meters (46 feet) long. There
are approximately 2.7 meters (9 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and
streambed. The deck has 7.3 meters (24.1 feet) of bridge roadway width. There are two
lanes of traffic on the bridge.
. According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 36.8 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 24 tons for single
vehicles and 27 tons for truck tractor semi trailers.
The bridge has fair horizontal and vertical alignment. The pavement width on the
approaches to the bridge is 5.5 meters (18 feet). Shoulders on the approaches are
approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide. There is a mountain north of SR 1320 and
northeast of the stream.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There is one school bus that crosses the bridge twice daily.
There are several utilities in the vicinity of the project: Blue Ridge EMC has a
single phase electrical service north of SR 1320, servicing the residence north of the
existing bridge. Skyline Telephone has an underground service north of the existing
bridge.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There is one "build" option considered in this document. It is as follows:
Alternate 1 replaces the existing bridge with a 3 @ 2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 foot
by 7 foot) RCBC at the existing location, maintaining approximately the same roadway
elevation as that of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained using a temporary on-
site detour alignment. This detour will require 3 @ 1700 millimeter (66 inch) pipes. The
detour will have a roadway elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than the
existing bridge and will be located approximately 15.2 meters (50 feet) north of the
existing bridge.
The only possible off-site detour requires approximately 11.2 kilometers (7 miles)
of additional travel and includes a 4 kilometer (2.5 mile) narrow, steep, unpaved
secondary road. This detour would be unsuitable for the duration of the bridge
replacement project.
To "Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I
New Structure $ 45,000
Bridge Removal 8,000
Temporary Detour 80,000
Roadway & Approaches 45,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 55,000
Engineering & Contingencies 41000
Total Construction $ 275,000
Right of Way $ 43,000
Total Cost $ 318,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 339 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a 3 @
2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 foot by 7 foot) RCBC at existing location, maintaining
approximately the same roadway elevation as that of the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained using a temporary on-site detour. This detour will require 3 @
1700 millimeter (66 inch) pipes. The detour will have a roadway elevation approximately
1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing bridge and will be located approximately
15.2 meters (50 feet) north of the existing bridge.
The proposed project will provide two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes and a minimum
of 0.6 meter (2 foot) grassed shoulders. Where guardrail is warranted, the minimum
offset from the edge of the travel lane to the face of the guardrail will be 1.2 meters
(4 feet). Approach work to the new culvert will extend approximately 30 meters
(100 feet) to each side. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be
approximately 50 km/h (30 mph).
The division engineer concurs with this recommendation.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees as a result of the project. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any substantial adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
4
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Ashe County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project area is located in a rural area with few scattered urbanized land uses.
The project vicinity is composed mainly of agricultural and residential land uses, with
wooded and undeveloped areas also.
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS
responded that the project will not impact prime or important farmland soils. The project
will impact a small amount of land, but the area is void of agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that "there are two
structures over fifty years of age within the general project area--a house and a barn."
These two structures "do not appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places." They therefore recommend no further historic architectural surveys be
conducted.
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) also indicated that "it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project construction." They therefore recommend
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Ashe County is located in the Mountain physiographic
region in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is hilly to mountainous. The
elevational range in and near the project vicinity is from about 920 meters (3020 feet) at
Roaring Fork Creek to about 1158 meters (3800 feet) on nearby ridgetops.
Drainage patterns are dendritic in the project region. Floodplains are narrow to
non-existent, except further down along Big Laurel Creek. In this region, small
floodplains are infrequent along the major streams, and the largest floodplains occur
along the North Fork of the New River.
. The soils of the project vicinity are in the Edneyville-Ashe Association. These are
well-drained and somewhat excessively drained loamy soils of moderately steep to very
steep slopes at intermediate elevations between 914 meters (3000 feet) and 1219 meters
(4000 feet).
Virtually all the soils of the project area are mapped as belonging to the Colvard
fine sandy loam series. This is a well drained floodplain soil forming in recent alluvium
on 04% slopes along major streams in long and narrow units from 2-40 hectares (5-
100 acres). They are slightly to medium acid deep soils, with moderately rapid
permeability and slow surface runoff. They are subject to only occasional flooding for
very brief periods. There are included soils that make up about 20% of the mapped units,
some at higher elevations and subject to less flooding, and some in depressions and on
low terraces. The hydric Toxaway soil may occupy the depressions.
Some Edneyville loam (25-45%) occupies the slopes adjoining the Colvard loam,
and some small areas on the northwest side are in the study corridor. This is a well
drained strongly acid upland soil forming in residuum over gneiss and granite. It occurs
in long bands on side slopes. Permeability of this relatively shallow soil is moderate.
Runoff is very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe on bare and exposed areas.
The Toxaway loam series is the only soil in Ashe County indicated as a hydric
soil or one that has hydric soils as a major component. This is a poorly drained and very
poorly drained soil along major streams, with moderate permeability, slow to ponded
surface runoff, and a seasonal high water table at or near the soil surface.
Water Resources
Waters Impacted
All of Ashe County is drained by the New River and its tributaries. The New
River flows northward through Virginia, joining the Kanawha River in West Virginia,
eventually reaching the Ohio River system. The New River Basin in North Carolina is a
small basin of only 1313 square kilometers (769 square miles). The project area is on
Roaring Fork Creek, a small tributary of Big Laurel Creek which is a large tributary of
the North Fork New River. The project area is 1.2 kilometers (0.8 miles) from the mouth
of Roaring Fork on Big Laurel Creek; thence, it is 8.4 kilometers (5.2 miles) to the mouth
of Big Laurel Creek on the North Fork. The North Fork joins the South Fork to make the
New River approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) downstream of the project area. The
South Fork has a gentler gradient than the North Fork, and a portion of it, along with the
New River, has been designated a National Scenic River. East Fork Roaring Fork is a
large tributary of Roaring Fork Creek; the confluence is located about 152 meters
(500 feet) upstream of the study corridor. There are no other tributaries within the project
area.
The project vicinity is in the North Fork New River sub-basin. This sub-basin has
a drainage area of 493 kilometers (289 miles), about 37% of the New River Basin in
North Carolina. The only towns in the sub-basin are Crumpler, Lansing, and portions of
West Jefferson.
The study corridor is aligned more or less parallel to Roaring Fork Creek, but with
a perpendicular crossing in the center of the corridor. Roaring Fork Creek flows from the
northwest to the project area, and then it makes a sharp turn to the south passing through
the study corridor on its way to its confluence with Big Laurel Creek as it flows beside
SR 1320. Big Laurel Creek then flows southeastward to the North Fork New River
which flows northeastward. All drainage from the project area moves directly into
Roaring Fork Creek or East Fork Roaring Fork. Roaring Fork Creek will receive all of
the runoff from the roadway and construction activity.
Stream Characteristics
Roaring Fork Creek is an entrenched stream and not associated with significant
wetlands in the project area, though it may be elsewhere. A site visit by a biologist
occurred just after a period of heavy storms. Water levels were high and the active
stream was about 4.6 meters (15.0 feet) in width; the width under normal flows is
probably about half of that value. Under these high water conditions, the average depth
was about 41 centimeters (16 inches), and some deeper spots were about 1 meters (3 feet)
deep. The channel is poorly defined, varying around 6 meters (20 feet) in width where
evident. The streambanks are variable, from 0.6-1.2 meters (2.0-4.0 feet) in height where
well defined, to gently sloping on roadsides or absent against a nearly vertical rock cliff
in one section where slippage occurs. The substrates are mostly bedrock, rubble, and
cobble. Extensive riffle and pool areas appear to be present, though difficult to ascertain
under high water conditions. Current speed was swift, and the waters were extremely
turbid following the recent storm (On another visit, the turbidity was clear). Stream
debris appeared to be minimal, but there was some household and roadside trash and junk
metal caught on small logs and against rocks. Floodplain is mostly absent; elevation
drops quickly to the channel level where many large boulders are present. The vegetation
of the riparian zone varies from open lawn and maintained areas such as pasture to
thickets in places. A barn at creekside is a source of organic wastes entering directly into
the stream. Horses have access to the creek in a pasture within the study corridor,
creating muddy and silty areas.
Best Usage Classification
Roaring Fork Creek and its tributaries as well as Big Laurel Creek and its
tributaries (except for Little Laurel Creek classified as "C +") are classified as Class "C
Tr +" streams. These are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic
life including propagation and survival, and wildlife". This is the lowest freshwater
classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. The "+" symbol in
the classification "identifies waters that are subject to a special management strategy
specified in 15A NCAC 2B.0216, the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) rule, in order
to protect downstream waters designated as ORW All unnamed tributaries carry the
7
same classification as the streams to which they are tributary. The "Tr" designation
signifies trout waters. Trout waters are freshwaters protected for natural trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout. The North Fork New River, the primary
receiving stream of all these waters, has received a "C +" classification.
Most of the streams in the project region are class "C Tr +." The ORW waters are
those of the New River itself.
Water Quality
There are many water quality monitoring stations within the sub-basin.
Historically, it appears that only six sites were routinely sampled in the sub-basin, but at
least 13 new sites were added in 1989 and 1990. This was apparently done because of the
increasing importance of the waters in the sub-basin for outdoor recreation. Chemical
and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and physical (AMS or
ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] are
not available for any sites in the project area, but there are several sites located within the
Big Laurel Creek watershed and other sites on the North Fork New River.
One site located on Big Laurel Creek, apparently downstream of the confluence of
Roaring Fork Creek near the mouth of Big Laurel Creek, received a "Good" rating in
1984 and an "Excellent" rating in 1993. Another site on Big Laurel Creek, well upstream
of the mouth of Roaring Fork Creek, received a "Good-Fair" rating in 1990. Data are
available for three sites on the North Fork New River in the region: a site off SR 1100,
about 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) upstream of the mouth of Big Laurel Creek, received a
"Good" rating in 1989 and an 'Excellent rating in 1993; a site about 8 kilometers
(5 miles) downstream of the mouth of Big Laurel Creek off SR 1340 received an
"Excellent" rating in 1989; a site off SR 1644 near Bina, about 23 kilometers (14 miles)
downstream of the mouth of Big Laurel Creek, received a "Good" rating in 1989 and
"Excellent" ratings in 1990 and 1993. A long-term ambient monitoring station on the
North Fork New River at Crumpler, about 41 kilometers (25 miles) downstream of the
project area, has been rated "Excellent" in all recent samplings.
Studies in 1993 suggest that several stream reaches in the region could qualify for
HQW designation; but studies from previous years indicated insufficient water quality
(Good ratings) to merit this designation. A resurvey of Big Laurel Creek and other
streams during wetter summer periods was recommended to firmly establish the water
quality (lower flows in 1993 could have reduced nonpoint impacts).
Information on general water quality status in the region is presented to give an
indication of the overall water quality in the region. High water quality is indicated
throughout the sub-basin. Of samples collected in the period 1983-1993, 37% were rated
Excellent and 33% were rated Good. The 1993 data were even better; 67% of the sites
sampled received Excellent bioclassifications, 19% were Good, 6% were Fair, and only
8% were Poor. This is due to the low level of industrial development and to the sparse
population. Fish tissue data for a variety of contaminants are all below EPA and FDA
limits. Water quality is better in Ashe County than in the Watauga portion of the
drainage. There are few unique chemical characteristics of the waters of the New River
Basin, but the waters do have slightly higher total nitrogen concentration and higher
maximum pH values than other mountain streams.
There is only one discharger in the sub-basin with a permitted discharge greater
than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Sprague Electric is permitted at 1.6 MGD and discharges into
the North Fork New River near Bina, about 19 kilometers (12 miles) downstream of the
mouth of Big Laurel Creek.
There are no support ratings in the most recently completed assessment of the
New River Basin. Previous support ratings are available for a number of sites in the sub-
basin. These ratings in the BMAN or chemical data give indication of how the best usage
classifications that have been designated for streams are being supported. Most stations
are supporting their designating uses. Only a few stations are rated Support Threatened
or Not Supporting. The sites on the North Fork New River described above are all listed
as. Supporting their designating uses. Major sources of use impacts for streams that are
not fully supporting their designated uses are non-point sources associated with
agriculture. Agriculture is the primary land use other than forestry. Point sources are
implicated in a few cases, such as sites receiving discharges from the West Jefferson
WWTP and from storm drains and broken sewer mains under the town. A point source
problem is indicated for the North Fork New River site off SR 1340.
Much of the New River Basin was intensively clearcut in the early 1900s. A lot
of the basin was put into cultivation. Accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation
followed these past land uses. Nonpoint source inputs are the largest pollution sources.
However, better erosion control and reduction in pesticide use may be improving the
habitat for smallmouth bass.
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Water quality data indicate that streams in the project area are presently
supporting their designated uses. These uses can be impacted by construction activity.
Substantial pollution discharges are possible when roads, culverts, and bridges are
constructed. Construction impacts can degrade waters, with pollutants and sediment
loads affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint. Because of the
generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs derived from
construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage, control runoff, and
reduce or eliminate stream disturbances. These measures must include an erosion and
sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water
management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management
Practices must be employed consistently.
The table below summarizes potential water resource impacts. The surface waters
of Roaring Fork Creek will receive runoff from construction. These are the only
significant water resources that will be impacted. There is one wet spot on the north side
adjacent to the bridge.
Water resources potential impacts in study corridor.
Stream crossing (width)
Stream length
Channel area in corridor
Wet spot
ca 4.6 meters (15.0 feet)
ca 94 meters (310 feet)
ca 0.04 hectare (0.09 acre)
<0.01 hectare (<0.01 acre)
Other than the wet spot, there should be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.
Only a very narrow floodplain is present in the study corridor, and sites do not meet the
definition of jurisdictional wetlands. There could be potential indirect impacts to
downstream offsite wetlands.
Streams can be crossed effectively, and with minimal impact, with application of
appropriate construction techniques and bridge and culvert designs. Construction of this
project has the potential to modify the flow of Roaring Fork Creek, particularly because a
RCBC will be installed instead of a bridge. Some minor realignment may be necessary.
Careful design will usually avoid the necessity of any stream relocation, but any stream
relocation should be kept to a minimum. Erosion control measures will be necessary to
protect the stream, and all instream activities should be scheduled during low flow
periods. Installation and removal of the on-site detour will require similar precautions to
reduce potential impacts.
There will be some minor unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels will result in higher stream temperatures and
modified species composition in affected stream reaches. Removal of streamside forest
and thicket affects sediment flux, chemical and biological transformations, food
availability, habitat structure, and dissolved oxygen availability. Sediment deposition
will adversely affect aquatic organisms.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1 (water supplies in
natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped watersheds).
The project does not lie within 1.6 kilometer (1.0 miles) of such resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. Most of the land in the project area has been
converted to pasture, Christmas tree plantation, or other developed lands.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, twelve communities and land types
are recognized in the study corridor. These are divided into three groups: Natural
Communities, Maintained Communities, and Developed Land Types, but some of the
designations are fairly arbitrary. These communities and land types are described below.
The undeveloped types with the greatest coverage in the study area, and which could
potentially receive the heaviest impacts from project construction, are Open Pasture and
Stream. A substantial part of the study corridor consists of developed land types, i.e.,
Barnyard and Paved Roadway.
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each species
are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing importance and
abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant, common (frequent),
uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare species are sometimes
described as being present only. Each stratum in a vegetated community is usually
treated separately. Sometimes, only a general statement about relative importance is
given, e.g., important or not important.
Natural Communities
Semi-Wooded Slope. A cliff-like, semi-wooded fringe of a hillside pasture
occurs above Roaring Fork Creek on the west side. The few trees present include
northern red oak, sugar maple, red maple, yellow buckeye, hawthorne, ironwood, and
serviceberry. Witch-hazel and Dutchman's pipe are present. The herbs noted were
10
stonecrop, false Solomon's seal, and false hellebore. This area is highly disturbed from
animal use.
Riparian Thicket and Slope. Some of the steeply sloping areas above the
streambank are covered in thickets that are occasional maintained, while some other
sections include young sapling trees and have not been recently disturbed.
In the more intact areas, most of which is only adjacent to the study corridor on
the north side, yellow buckeye is abundant, and black locust and black cherry are present.
Common shrubs are witch-hazel, silky dogwood, and coralberry, while blackberry is rare.
Abundant herbs are knotweed and golden ragwort. Common herbs include virgin's
bower, jewelweed, aster, and bluegrass. Some other herbs present are soapwort, yarrow,
cinnamon fern , and Christmas fern. The lower section of the slope here is very rocky.
At streamside in this area, the shrub vegetation includes frequent silky willow and
hydrangea; and the herbs include frequent jewelweed, golden ragwort, bulbous buttercup
and infrequent daylily, goldenrod, wood nettle, and fancy fern.
Within the study corridor, the riparian community parallels the road at the bottom
of a steep bank. This section is maintained in open condition. Blackberry is abundant;
elderberry and silky willow are common. There are just a few small saplings of tuliptree,
red maple, and black walnut. Golden ragwort and bulbous buttercup are the most
abundant herbs. Queen Anne's lace, jewelweed, bluegrass, fescue, and bedstraw are
frequent.
Wet Spot. A very small riparian wetland occurs in a pocket adjacent to the creek
on the west side of the bridge. Canary grass is most abundant; common herbs are lamp
rush, sedges, jewelweed, bulbous buttercup, obedient plant, and mint.
Stream Channel. Vegetation was not noted in the stream because of high waters
present at the time of site investigation. The streamsides, where not eroded or
submerged, were often covered with mosses.
Maintained Communities
Open Pasture and Structure. A steep hillside pasture is mostly bare and eroded.
Only weedy plants are present, including abundant curly dock, common bulbous
buttercup, and infrequent soapwort, wintercress , peppergrass, jewelweed, and thistle. An
old shed is present in the pasture within the study corridor.
Christmas Tree Plantation. A portion of a young plantation of Fraser fir is
included in the study corridor.
Yard. A portion of a yard falls within the study corridor. Some woody landscape
plants are present, including a hedgerow of hemlock, a clump of rosebay rhododendron,
and individual specimens of spruce, cedar, and sugar maple. Some other plants present
are daylily, flowering dogwood, and rose. There are some piles of yard waste, a stack of
lumber, and some large rocks.
Maintained Roadside. A grassy berm is regularly mowed. Fescue is dominant,
and bluegrass and orchard grass are frequent. Rare forbs include common plantain,
bulbous buttercup, dandelion, ground ivy, white clover, hawkweed, sow thistle, and
golden ragwort.
11
Roadside Treeline. A row of six large white pines separates the Christmas tree
plantation from the maintained roadside. An old fenceline is included, with the
vegetation consisting of blackberry, virgin's bower, and tall cinquefoil.
Developed Land Types
Barnyard and Structure. An old barn and infrequently used barnyard occur
between the creek and the road on the west side. The barn sits just above and at the edge
of the creek, and the rear of the barn is connected to pasture fence. Barn waste falls
almost into the creek, and animals access the barn from the backside. The backside
appears to stay rather wet and mucky. To the side of the barn, outside of the pasture,
there is a huge pile of boulders and a pile of concrete blocks.
The vegetation of the barnyard outside of the pasture is weedy and has not been
mowed in a while. Orchard grass is dominant; curly dock and burdock are common.
Other taxa present are fescue, bluegrass, sweet vernal grass, dandelion, bulbous
buttercup, tall buttercup, yarrow, ox-eye daisy, goldenrod, tall cinquefoil, hawkweed, and
Queen Anne's lace. Some flowering dogwood and forsythia have been planted.
The back of the barn in the pasture and the edge of the creek where it is much
wetter, includes vegetation similar to the above, but also some smartweed, lamp rush, and
bedstraw.
Paved Roadway. This category includes all of the roadway except for the section
lying over the bridge.
Gravel Driveway. Two gravel driveways to residences outside of the study
corridor fall within the boundaries of the project. A large hemlock occurs at the corner of
the uppermost driveway.
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating
the expected fauna of a given area.
There is low diversity of habitat types in the project area. The habitat types of
greatest extent in the project vicinity are forests, mostly intact and contiguous, though
largely in young second growth; but, within the project area, open pasture, Christmas tree
plantation, and residential landscapes cover the greatest area. Large thickets and early
successional areas are not extensive in the project area. The most important habitat types
in the study corridor are the Stream, the Riparian Thicket and Slope, and Christmas Tree
Plantation. No substantial forested areas fall within the project boundaries. The ecotonal
zones of these communities and the small wooded portion of the pasture are important
intermediate habitat types. The presence of cattle and horses and proximity to roads and
residences are factors that influence habitat quality for some organisms.
Overall, animal diversity is expected to be low to moderate. The mix of habitat
types and ecotonal areas is beneficial for some species, but the small size of some of the
habitat units is detrimental for others. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be
generally good for birds of open and intermediate habitats and poor for birds of forested
habitats, but avian fauna were not found to be abundant. No ponds were noted in the
12
project vicinity, therefore, the distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent
lentic environments is not expected in the project area. However, the stream and riparian
system provide excellent habitat for a number of animals. The relatively low human
development of the vicinity and the nearby large forested areas should allow the
occasional presence of some species that are generally intolerant of human intrusion and
that require larger expanses of habitat.
Lists of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available and
the human population density and development, are given below.. Without direct
observation or documentation that certain animal species occur in an area, the safest
prediction that can be made is that the most common species for a particular region will
be those found in a project area if appropriate habitat is available. Hence, the following
lists may not be particularly informative, and the same suite of taxa might be constructed
for other regions with minor exceptions.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups.
Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
ubiquitous in a number of terrestrial habitats. The specific habitat groups are as follows:
more open areas, consisting of open pasture and maintained roadside areas; intermediate
habitats, consisting of semi-wooded pasture and riparian thickets and most ecotones;
forests and other wooded areas; and aquatic habitats of the streams.
Amphibians. Those generally ubiquitous amphibians that should be expected in
the project area are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland chorus frog, and spring peeper.
The slimy salamander and the redback salamander are expected in the moister wooded
habitats. Seal salamanders, mountain dusky salamander, and red salamanders may be
present at the edges of the stream and in seepages, and some other Desmognathus species
may also be present. Gray treefrogs should be present. Ambystomid salamanders are not
expected because of the absence of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Reptiles. Among the ubiquitous reptiles, those occurring here probably include
eastern fence lizard, the five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, and
copperhead. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern garter snake and
eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box
turtle, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake. Timber rattlesnakes may
possibly occur in the vicinity on wooded slopes.
Birds. The avifauna of an area are more easily observed. OPEN: American
kestrel, turkey vulture, field sparrow, brown-headed cowbird, mourning dove, eastern
meadowlark, eastern bluebird, American robin. INTERMEDIATE: least flycatcher,
wood peewee, eastern kingbird, gray catbird, northern mockingbird, common .
yellowthroat, American goldfinch, indigo bunting, chipping sparrow, swamp sparrow,
song sparrow, white-throated sparrow. FORESTS: broad-winged hawk, barred owl,
whip-poor-will, hairy woodpecker, certain wood warblers, wood thrush, tufted titmouse,
eastern phoebe, warbling vireo, red-eyed vireo, and northern oriole. UBIQUITOUS: red-
tailed hawk, eastern screech owl, American crow, northern cardinal, Carolina wren, ruby-
throated hummingbird, yellow-billed cuckoo, blue jay, rufous-sided towhee, downy
woodpecker, common flicker, ruby-crowned kinglet, and Carolina chickadee. Green-
backed heron and belted kingfisher may utilize the stream.
Mammals. OPEN AND INTERMEDIATE: southeastern shrew, long-tailed
weasel, meadow vole, groundhog. OPEN, INTERMEDIATE, and FORESTS: northern
short-tailed shrew, masked shrew, hairy-tailed mole, star-nosed mole, gray fox, red fox,
white-footed mouse, meadow jumping mouse, pine vole, eastern cottontail, spotted
13
skunk. INTERMEDIATE AND FORESTS: opossum, eastern chipmunk, golden mouse,
deer mouse. FORESTS: smoky shrew, rock shrew, raccoons, woodrat, southern flying
squirrel, red squirrel, gray squirrel.
Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis, eastern pipistrelle, and red bat
might be expected foraging over the stream and semi-open areas. Mink should be present
occasionally in the riparian areas. White-tailed deer, a typically mid-successional
species, were not observed in the project area as judged by the lack of tracks and browse
evidence, but they are likely present in the vicinity. Burrows of some type, apparently
mammalian, were noted in the semi-wooded cliff-like area above the stream.
Aquatic Life
Aquatic animal life was difficult to assess because of the high waters present at
the time of site investigation. No observations were made, but fauna typical of upper
mid-elevation, medium gradient mountain trout streams are expected.
Good turtle habitat is not present. Northern water snake and queen snake are the
most likely water snakes of the area. The streams and adjacent habitat could support two-
lined salamander, shovelnose salamander, northern dusky salamander, green frog, and
pickerel frog.
There are 20 native fish and several introduced fish known in the North Carolina
portion of the New River Basin, with four endemic to the upper New River and four
others native to the state only in the New River Basin. The project area on Roaring Fork
Creek is well upstream of the North Fork New River and should not be influenced by the
ichthyofauna of the river. Taxa likely to be present in such a stream include rainbow
trout, creek chub, mottled sculpin, darters, and rosyside dace.
Snails should be expected, but habitat is unsuitable for mussels. Some
crustaceans, such as stream crayfish, should be abundant. Aquatic insects should be
present, but diversity may be low in the area because of possible lower water quality
resulting from land disturbance nearby. Various midges, larvae, and nymphs are
probably present.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems
The land and community types present in the study corridor and the surface area
of each type that is potentially affected by direct impact due to project construction are
presented in below. Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications
available and the precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on
an aerial photograph onto which the study corridor was drawn, and land and community
type boundaries were mapped. The undeveloped types with the greatest coverage in the
study area, and which could potentially receive the heaviest impacts from project
construction, are Open Pasture [0.08 hectares (0.20 acre)], Stream [0.04 hectares
(0.09 acre)], and Christmas Tree Plantation [0.03 hectares (0.07 acre)].
The Maintained Roadside community most likely will be completely destroyed.
It should be possible to avoid large-scale direct impacts to the Riparian Thicket and Slope
community. The on-site detour will take most of the Barnyard and much of the Open
Pasture, but these are not especially important habitats. The Wet Spot will likely be
destroyed. No forest communities will be affected. Mature terrestrial communities
14
should not be impacted. The most serious potential impacts will accrue to the stream
ecosystem.
The data in the table below suggest only the potential direct impacts on land and
community types due to construction. It is likely that the actual impacts to biotic
communities will be less than those indicated, because the calculations are based on study
corridor limits, all of which will not be utilized in construction.
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on how much
of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction. There will be little net loss of
habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas such
as roadsides and pastures. There should be no reduction in the available habitat for
animals that require forest and only minor reduction in intermediate habitats. Some of
the communities will re-establish themselves following construction.
Area estimates of community and land types located in study corridor.
hectare (acres)
Wooded Slope <0.01 (0.02)
Riparian Thicket and Slope 0.01 (0.03)
Wet Spot <0.01 (<0.01)
Stream Channel 0.04 (0.09)
Open Pasture and Structure 0.08 (0.20)
Christmas Tree Plantation 0.03 (0.07)
Yard <0.01 (0.02)
Maintained Roadside 0.03 (0.06)
Roadside Treeline <0.01 (0.01)
Barnyard and Structure 0.04 (0.11)
Paved Roadway 0.04 (0.10)
Gravel Driveway 0.01 (0.03)
TOTAL 0.32 (0.75)
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change substantially. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase.
The existing roadway already disrupts natural stream corridor movement, so bridge
replacement, in and of itself, may not introduce a substantially new factor, except during
the construction phases of the project.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and
injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and
skinning of trees by machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be
avoided.
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It appears
that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing roadway boundary.
Aquatic Systems
Construction of an on-site detour, installation of culverts, and removal of the old
bridge are potential sources of serious stream modifications, and utmost care will have to
be taken during these activities. Impacts on fishes should be low, if construction is done
15
carefully to reduce sedimentation and channel alteration and if no barriers to fish
movement are introduced. Culverts that are installed to channel streams can cause
behavioral inhibition of movement for some species. The use of culverts instead of a
bridge on this project has the potential to introduce greater ecological impacts to the
aquatic system.
Removal of streamside vegetation will (1) increase stream temperature and
irradiance, thus lowering available dissolved oxygen and increasing the oxygen demand,
(2) cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources, altering the food chain dynamics of
the stream, (3) increase the amount of sediment reaching the stream in the surface runoff
by reducing the filtering function, and (4) change the habitat structure in the stream by
reducing the amount of insert debris and number of debris dams. These effects will
negatively alter the stream characteristics for many aquatic organisms. Roaring Fork
Creek could be substantially modified by removal of significant sections of the riparian
fringe community that now stabilizes the banks and provides for the functions listed
above. Effort should be expended to minimize the extent of vegetation removal.
Sediment deposition and stream substrate alteration will have negative effects on
sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. Sediment adversely affects organismal
physiology, behavior, and reproduction. Sediment deposition will adversely affect
periphyton communities and thus affect stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate upon which grazing benthic invertebrates depend. Sediment runoff is the
greatest potential threat to off-site aquatic systems. Because SR 1320 is located in some
places on sloping land adjacent to the stream, the potential for impacts to the stream from
sediment influx is high.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs. Any
impacts to aquatic systems off-site and in the project vicinity could be serious, if
construction is not done carefully to reduce sediment runoff.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking and by
alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are
important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species;
maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal;
sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater
hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in
some cases. Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these
functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgment
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine system in stream channel and one small pocket
wetland are the only jurisdictional waters present in the study corridor, to which
16
construction will be limited. The stream channel area is only approximately 0.04 hectares
(0.09 acre) and the pocket wetland is <0.01 hectare (<0.01 acre). Large jurisdictional
wetlands are not associated with this project. The minor alluvial systems in the project
area do not meet the wetland criteria. Some jurisdictional wetlands may be present
downstream of the bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from road construction.
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters, except for
potential takings in a study corridor. Until the particular design requirements are known
for the terrain in question, it appears that it will be impossible to completely avoid
impacts in project design and construction.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. A Section 404
Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)] should authorize this project. This
permit authorizes approved Categorical Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded
from environmental documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment." Individual or General Permits are required for situations where the criteria
for Nationwide Permits are not met.
A 401 General Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity in surface waters and
wetlands where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
Other permits or authorizations may be necessary. Because the project area lies in
a trout county, discretionary authority by the COE requires that the NCDOT must seek
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to
the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits (pursuant to 33
CFR 330.8). As discussed earlier, designated trout waters occur in the impact zone of the
project; all the streams in the vicinity support wild trout populations. Nationwide Permit
No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23) (31)] should authorize the project following review and
concurrence by the NCWRC.
Mitigation
The project is likely to cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters
and wetlands. The only other alternative that may be feasible for crossing Roaring Fork
Creek at this point is replacement with a new bridge, rather than a culvert, which might
result in reduced impacts. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report.
Until recently, compensatory mitigation has generally not been required where
Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. However, a
1997 revision of permit conditions for Nationwide Permit No. 23 by the COE specifies
that mitigation for impacts to wetlands exceeding 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) will be required,
and mitigation for impacts to surface waters may also be required. As previously noted,
the jurisdictional waters in this project are less than required for these permit conditions.
Final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. lies with the COE and
DWQ. Depending on impact acreage, waters of the U.S. may also need to be delineated
prior to permit application submission. Final discretionary authority in these matters
rests with the COE.
17
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of
drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion
control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges, and
soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after
construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil
will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands. Likewise, borrow locations should not be placed in wetlands. When the on-
site detour is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect the waters from
pollution discharges.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 1, 1997, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these classifications for Ashe
County.
Federally protected species in Ashe County, with state category also given.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT.
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Roan Mt. bluet Houstonia montana E
var. montana
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T
Virginia spiraea S12iraea vir ing iana T
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state); T = Threatened, likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future
The spreading avens, a vascular plant in the Rosaceae, is found on high elevation
rocky summits and balds. It has been reported from eight mountain counties. Flowering
is from June to August and.fruiting from July to September. No plants of this genus were
located in the study area, and the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat
for the spreading avens do not exist in the vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Roan Mountain bluet, a vascular plant in the Rubiaceae, is also found on high
elevation rocky summits or on grassy balds in five mountain counties. This plant flowers
in late spring and early summer and fruits in late summer. There were no bluets found
during the field study, and the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for
the Roan Mountain bluet are not present in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Typical habitats for Heller's blazing star, a vascular plant in the Asteraceae, are
high elevation rocky summits, ledges, and cliffs. The plant has been reported from six
mountain counties. The plant flowers in late summer and fruits in early fall. No plants of
the genus were found during the study, and the elevational requirements that produce
suitable habitat for this species do not exist in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
18
The Virginia spiraea, a vascular plant in the Rosaceae, has been found on
riverbanks in six mountain counties. This plant flowers in early summer and fruits in late
summer. The streambank and floodplain in the project area were carefully searched.
This easy to identify plant was not found in the study area, nor were any other spiraeas
located. Habitat in the project area appears to be marginal for this species. Natural
Heritage Program files were not searched, but available information did not indicate the
existence of any populations in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
19
$tufgills
tEl west Jefferson
? \ BalOwin?
?•? l 9
• • lee Ic
?? ?•
ftw-ft
N
? t <; North Carolina Department Of
s: Transportation
' Planning & Environmental Branch
A.,
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 339 ON SR 1320
OVER ROARING FORK CREEK
B-2907
0 kilometers" 1.6 kilometers 3.2
i Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
EAST APPROACH LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
NORTH FACE OF BRIDGE NO. 339
FIGURE 4

A-1 a
;"-f
l n NVAdife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program C?L,L t C Z•t??--
DATE: July 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for Bridge #339 on SR 1320 over an unnamed stream to
Big Laurel Creek, Ashe County, TIP #B-2907.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project.
Big Laurel Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water
downstream of the project site. We have the following recommendations regarding this project:
1) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and
causing a fish kill.
2) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into the stream.
3) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.

?dtlt 26
t
F? -
10 1-l",
i?r$fAr[o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 8, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 339 on SR 1320 over Creek, Ashe
County, B-2907, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1320(1), State Project 8.2710901, ER 96-9132
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
July 16, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prior to the scoping meeting to discuss the
project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs -and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, there are two structures over fifty years
of age within the general project area--a house and a barn. These two structures
do not appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and we
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
021,
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1 3
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett
F*
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas, Permit Coordinator
Raleigh Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 22, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT for bridge replacement No. 339 on SR 1320 over
Roaring Fork; Federal Aid Proj. No. BRZ-1302(1); State Proj. No. 8.271091; T.I.P. No.
B-2907, Ashe County.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a letter of concurrence
from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The NCWRC has rev'nformation provided by the applicant, and field
biologists on our staff conducted a site visit on October 20, 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 proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320 over Roaring Fork with a 3
@ 8-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on approximately the same location. Traffic
will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour located approximately 50 feet
north of the existing bridge. Foundation investigations will also be needed for this project.
Roaring Fork is classified by the Division of Environmental Management (DEW as a trout stream.
Roaring Fork is a tributary of Big Laurel Creek which is NCWRC Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water. Fish population sampling at the bridge replacement site (10/20/97) found wild brook trout
(Salvelinus fonti?alis), wild brown trout (Salmo Crum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), and fantail darter (Etheostoma,tlabellare).
Normally, with wild brook and brown trout present at the site, we would prefer that the bridge be
replaced with a bridge. However, since numerous private and NCDOT culverts already exist on this
stream, we have no objection to replacement of Bridge`No. 339 with a three barrell RCBC provided the
following conditions are implemented:

Bdg. No. 339
2
10/22/97
1) NCDOT notes (page 16) "that potential for impacts to the stream from sediment influx is high".
Therefore, instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the brook, and brown trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to
protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
2) The existing stable, right vegetated bank (rhododendron and other species) on the right side of
the bridge (facing upstream) should remain intact and not be disturbed during construction. This
area appears stable and provides habitat and stream shading.
3) Box culvert construction of multiple cells should have one cell a minimum of one foot below the
normal stream bottom to allow for fish passage. The second and third cells should be placed so
that their bottoms are at the stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). A baffle system
should also be installed through the culvert to trap gravels and provide resting areas for fish.
4) Disturbed banks at the culvert inlet and outlet should be replanted with low growing native
trees/shrubs' placed on three foot centers (space should be provided through bank ripraping if
necessary). Suggested species are silky (bushy) dogwood (Comus amomum), silky willow (Salix
sericea) and hazel (tag) alder (Alnus serrulata). Also, NCDOT should consider planting these
species for a distance of 100 feet below the culvert between the top of the road shoulder and
Roaring Fork. This section of channel, which appears to be on the NCDOT right-of-way, is
void of small shrubs. The addition of shrubs in this area will improve stream shading, fish food
sources and nutrient input.
5) Once the temporary culvert is removed,.this area should be sloped to natural contours,
streambanks stabilized up to the bankful stage (riprap or root wads) and banks sloped and
reseeded with grasses and then planted with the small tree/shrub species mentioned above.
6) The NCDOT should adhere to commitments 1 - 3 on page 2 of the CATEGORICAL
EXCLUSION, August 1997, to protect trout waters.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 910/366-2982.
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch
Mr. Kin Hodges, NCWRC District 7 Fisheries Biologist
? l
d4,s.5TAIF°
m?
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
June 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320
in Ashe County over Creek, B-2907
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 16, 1996 at 2:30 pm in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 236.
JI/plr
OSQIa?-
Attachment +?, ?;tk l Z 7
z5?fC
- ?y7cJ S 4? e`
fv 56?--
C? y ? Je?
C jr

9

U
as% z
S o
/9s9 ?6 O p 1- C
o W 'IW 9'6 31-71/1SN3UNVM -
0-M O M M B8 V-141-1021VO H1NON Ol 'IW S'1 'A r
V Lo
AV,
Ca Q
..., ?? -ter--? _ ? \ . ? i ? ??? r•? ?
r 41
z - ) - - -
i % _;??' V? 'Q
LLJ
LLJ
fill
' r
CIO
O U \? ?\?.?- , ? ?\,- ? - \?'? `I _ tit, \ ? Ir-?1. t-j I? //' ?%r` ?\.:
-7 -Z

Helton raV
Sturgills 2 3Creel
A, S l? H
FC Si
westI
t
` Baldwin _.o
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASBE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 339 ON SR 1320
OVER CREEK
B-2907
0 lulometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
r . .
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
B-2907
8.2710901
BRZ-1320(1)
DATE: June 7, 1996

DIVISION 11

COUNTY Ashe

ROUTE SR 1320
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 339 on SR 1320 over Creek in
Ashe County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 14 METERS; WIDTH 7.3 METERS
STRUCTURE: 46 FEET 24 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 225,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 245,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route

TO: REF. N .'OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: _ REF. NO-OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
El NOTE AND FILE - ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME. El. PER. YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR-YOUR APPROVAL
El NOTE AND SEE ME A13OUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
? PLEASE ANSWER 0 FOR. YOUR, COMMENTS
El PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE' 11 SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE-ACTION El INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:'
N.-C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE,_
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
d.?t S1?'0
Miters
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 29, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
SR 1320, Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 339 over Creek,
State Project 8.2710901, F. A. Project BRZ-1320(1), B-2907
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building on
July 16, 1996.
The following people were in attendance:
Dewayne Sykes
Bill Bunting
Betty Yancey
Ray Moore
Allen Raynor
Lanette Cook
Jerry Snead
Kenneth Cates
Sid Autry
Jeff Ingham
John Williams
Devin Smith
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right-of-Way
Structure Design
Structure Design
Program Development
Hydraulics
Traffic Control
Location & Surveys
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters of Roaring Fork Creek are Class C Trout in
the project area. He requested that if possible, there be no weepholes on the bridge. He
requested that if an on-site detour is used, then the area used be revegetated with native tree
species. High Quality Soil and Erosion Control Measures should be used due to trout water
concerns.
Stephanie Goudreau of the Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) commented that the
creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water at the project site. The
WRC made the following recommendations: wet concrete should not contact stream water;
heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than the stream channel to minimize
sedimentation; and temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare
soil within 15 days of ground breaking activities to provide long-term erosion control.
.r
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be replaced with a 3 @
2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 foot by 7 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at existing
location, maintaining approximately the same roadway elevation as that of the existing bridge. A
temporary on-site detour will be needed, and will require 3 @ 1700 millimeter (66 inch) pipes at
an elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing bridge, located north of the
existing bridge to avoid lateral encroachment into the stream.
The Division Engineer concurred with this alternate.
Dewayne Sykes of Roadway Design agreed with this recommendation. Relocation to the
south was discussed, and Dewayne commented that a structure relocated to the south is not
favorable because it would force the roadway to closely parallel the stream, causing serious design
and maintenance problems, and would probably require the acquisition of a house south of the
bridge.
Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) commented that a
architectural survey of the barn northeast of the bridge may be necessary. No further surveys are
required for this project.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Alternate 1:
Replace the existing bridge with a 3 @ 2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 foot by 7 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at existing location, maintaining approximately the same
roadway elevation as that of the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using a temporary on-site
detour. This detour will require 3 @ 1700 millimeter (66 inch) pipes at an elevation
approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing bridge, located north of the existing bridge.
JI/plr
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT B-2907
STATE PROJECT 8.2710901
DATE: 7-18-96 .
DIVISION 11
COUNTY Ashe

F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1320(1) ROUTE SR 1320
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
STRUCTURES
EXISTING BRIDGE NO. 339
LENGTH 14 METERS; WIDTH 7.3 METERS
46 FEET 24 FEET
NEW STRUCTURE
3 @ 2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8 foot by 7 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert
TEMPORARY STRUCTURE
3 @ 1700 millimeter (66 inch) pipes
COSTS
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ....................................... $ 225,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ....................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................... $ 245,000
Construction cost estimate not yet available.
TRAFFIC
Average Daily Traffic: (1996) 350 VPD, (2020) 500 VPD
2% Dual, 0-1% TTST, 60% DIR, 12% DHV
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route