20001326 Ver 1_Complete File_20001018

aF wa rF -
ot 9QG Michael F. Easley
vj Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
4 Y
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
April 19, 2001
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E.'
NC Dept of Transportation -
P D and E A Branch 2 5 2001
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Subject: TIP #: R-21000
COE Permit 2,00120090
DWQ #: 9912,@6 pc/3,2,6
County: Ashe
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has received
a check in the amount of $ 51,250.00, check number 1145804, as payment for the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permit and 401 Water Quality Certification issued for the subject
project. This receipt serves as notification that the compensatory mitigation
requirements for this project have been satisfied. Please note that you must also
comply with all other conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or
local government permits or authorization associated with this activity.
The NCWRP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the
NCWRP is responsible for the compensatory mitigation requirements associated
with the subject permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as
specified in the permit. The NCWRP will restore 410 linear feet of stream in
Cataloging Unit 05050001 of the New River Basin.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Crystal
Braswell at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell
Program Manager
REF/cvb
cc: ?sRob Ridings, DWQ
Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
File
VCDENR
Customer Service Division of Water Quality 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Wetlands Restoration' Program [phone] Fax: ,[phone]
1 800 623-7748
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director NCDEWR
December 21, 2000
Ashe County
DWQ Project No. 00-1236
TIP Project No. R-21000
Widening of NC 16 from Blue Ridge Parkway to south of SR 1158
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
widen NC 16 from the Blue Ridge Parkway to south of SR 1158 in Ashe County. The project
should be constructed in accordance with your application dated 21 September 2000. After
reviewing your application and the response to the hold letter, we have decided that this project
is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3289. This certification corresponds
to Nationwide Permit Number 14 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should
acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project including
(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying §404 permit, unless otherwise
specified in the Water Quality Certification. The following additional conditions will be
required:
• In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
during the trout spawning season of November 1 through March 31 to protect the egg and fry
stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
• Any culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original
stream profile is not altered (i.e. the depth of the channel should not be reduced by a
widening of the streambed).
• All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
• The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized.
• Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized for
storm water sheet flow.
• Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be
planted when practical.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless
modified below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If the proposed
fill is in excess of 150 linear feet of stream length or 1 acre of wetlands, compensatory mitigation
will 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 above.
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 that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C.
27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
Pc:
Wilmington District Corps of
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
V
fkfCOPy
Sincerely,

s
?b yao.?-AZOI
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 22, 2000 a r t t
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Attention: Mr. John Dorney 6
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Subject: Ashe County, NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to of south SR 1158, State
Project No. 8.1710901; Federal Aid Project No. STP-16(1); TIP No. R-2100 C;
NCDWQ No. 001326
Dear Sir:
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to improve an existing two-lane section of NC 16 in Ashe County, from Blue
Ridge Parkway to south of SR 1158 (TIP No. R-2100 C). The NCDOT submitted a
Section 404/401 permit application in a letter dated September 21, 2000.
The N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) submitted a letter dated October
23, 2000 that stated NCDOT"s permit application was "lacking necessary information
required to making an informed permit decision". The project was therefore place "on
hold". This letter responds to this letter so permit processing of the project may continue.
Comment 1 involving Hazardous Catchspill Basins
The letter states that "NCDWQ requires hazardous catchspill basins on bridges
crossing streams classified as WS-I, WS-II or in the critical areas (CA) of WS-III, WS-
IV or WS-V. The unnamed tributaries to South Fork New River are classified as WS-IV
CA+. The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the design of the
bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the
stream."
There are not any bridge crossings associated with TIP No. R-2100 C. The only
bridge mentioned in the permit application involves a bridge constructed in 1986. All
stream crossings on TIP No. R-2100 C are either culverted or piped. Since there are no
bridges, NCDOT will not install any catchspill basins.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
„ 40
Comment 2 involving Installation of Floodplain Culverts
The letter states that "Condition 6 of the 401 Water Quality Certification,
corresponding to Nationwide Permit 14, carries the requirement that floodplain culverts
must be provided to "maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well prevent
construction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands" if
the project is located in a FEMA floodplain.
The NCDOT will retain and extend two culverts as part of project construction.
These two culverts are not located in a FEMA floodplain.
The NCDOT believes that this information satisfies the areas that NCDWQ
described as being deficient. If this is not the case, please let us know. The NCDOT asks
that NCDWQ commence processing this permit application.
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this
project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of my staff at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
v.
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Jennifer Frye, NCDWQ, Winston Salem
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. R. C. McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Section 404/401 Permit Application
TIP No. R-2100 C
September 21, 2000
Page 2 of 7
T ,
Vb
I-Z 2?

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Clrtrles R. Fulhi ood, Exc:curive Dffector
TO Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
Raleigh. Field Office
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator,
Habitat Conservation. Program "
l
DATE: October 28, 2000
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), NC 16, TIP R-2100 C, from
Blue Ridge :Parkway to south SRI. 158, A.s.he County
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; NCAC 25). The NCDOT proposes to improve ail existinc= two-
lane section of the referenced highway. Improvements will widen the road pavement to 24 feet with 8-foot
usable shoulders. A Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been completed for the project
although the Environmental Assessment (EA) identified numerous potential impacts to waters (325 linear
feet) and wetlands (0.02 acres) of the United States, specifically tributaries to Obids Creek and the South
Fork of the New River. Brown Trout have been documented in portions of these waters.
Maintaining stream and wetland hydrology and functions must be an integral part of any wort;
accomplished during this road. project. With that primary goal insured by NCDOT, we will not object to the
project provided the following conditions are implemented:
1. Culverts or pipes should be designed and constructed large enough so that they can. be installed
approximately one foot below streambed. grade so that all waters can flow through. uninterrupted and
without damming or freefalling on either end in order to maintain existing aquatic life passage during low
flow conditions.
2. The dimension, pattern, and profile of the streams above and below the crossings should not be modified
by widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Rosgen methodologies should. be used
for all relocations and stream impact areas in order to mimic naturally occurring conditions, including
dimension, pattern, and profile to the extent practicable.
3. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
4. Reavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order to
miniin.ize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
5. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until
project completion. NCDOT will utilize "Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds". Native riparian
trees and shrubs will be planted along affected stream channels for shade and habitat enhancement. As
appropriate, livestock should be fenced out of stream sections wherever possible to prevent degradation of
riparian vegetation.
Mailing Address: 1.?.ivisiori. ol: Inl.an Fishevies; L 17 21 7%?.ail <,rv;c Cc r±t:e.r a Bale%?.h, NC 27699-1721
"I clephonc (1) 1 y) 733-363_> --x-L- 281 m Fa : [phone]
A
TIP R-2100 C 2 10/28/00
6. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 5 clays of
ground disturbing activities to provide long-tenn erosion control. We encourage NCDOT to utilize onsite
vegetation. and materials for streambank stabilization when practicable.
7. Curbing and guttering of stormwater should be avoided in order to provide sheet flow from the road.
8. NCDOT should seek to purchase or acquire a conservation easement for the wetlands and waters
adjacent to Site 3, If possible, this site should be restored and preserved for habitat and water quality
purposes.
9. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the brown
trout spawning season of October 1.5 through March 31 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from off
site sedimentation during construction.
I0. The use of riprap should be minimized along new channel sections. Riprap should be limited to the
outside banks of meanders or to very steep slopes. Instead, natural materials such as woody vegetation,
boulders, and root wads should be used to stabilize the new channel.
The NCDOT proposes to utilize the Wetland Restoration Program to mitigate for the 410 linear
feet of stream impacts. The payment to this Program will be $51,250.00. If item 8 above is successful, this
payment amount should be reduced by the costs associated with this on site effort, which is preferred.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early planning stages. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ
William D. Gilmore, NCDOT
R. C. McCann, NCDOT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director NCDENR
October 23, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Permit Application for Ashe County, NC 16 from Blue Ridge Parkway to south of SR 1158,
State Project No. 8.1710901, Federal Aid Project No. STP-16(1), TIP No. R-21000,
DWQ No. 001326
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification
for the aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary
information required for making an informed permit decision. The permit application was
deficient in the following areas:
The DWQ requires that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a
stream classified as a WS-I, WS-II (automatically classified as HQW), or in the critical
areas of WS-III, WS-IV or WS-V. The unnamed tributaries to South Fork New River are
classified as WS-IV CA+. The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the
design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into
the stream.
Condition 6 of the 401 Water Quality Certification corresponding to Nationwide 14, carries
the requirement that flood plain culverts must be provided to "maintain the natural
hydrology of the system as well as prevent constriction of the floodway that may result in
destabilization of stream or wetlands" if the project is located in a FEMA floodplain. Please
review your plans to ensure that this requirement is satisfied.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a)(4), we will have to place the permit application
on hold until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is
received by the NC Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US
Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on hold.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele at
919.733.5715.
Sincerely,
f
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
pc: Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh Field Office, USACE
Jennifer Frye, DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Central Files
Friends of Highway 16
PO BOX 178
Glendale Springs, NC 28629
November 10, 2000
Cynthia VanDerWiele
NCDENR
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetland/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Re: Pr --Discharged Notification (PCN)
NCDOT/TIP R-2100/NC 16 Improvements/Ashe County
Dear Ms. VanDerWiele:
1 ?Ql? 1 n, 2000
Please find attached for your information our letters to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the US
Army Corps of Engineers of November 10, 2000 and March 16, 1999. We are requesting
that all permits including the section 404 and 401 be denied for this project.
In our March 16, 1999 letter, our comments are directed to the issues and flaws in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) report for project R-2100, especially items 15, 17 and
18 that address the exception we take to articles A and D pertaining to wetlands and
water quality.
We respectfully request that you review your Agency's position on this project taking
into consideration these important issues and concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ver truly s,
Bebe An erson Hennessy
Ph: 336-838-4858/ 336-982-9441
Fax: [phone]
Friends of Highway 16
PO Box 178
Glendale Springs, NC 28629
November 10, 2000
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Certified Mail
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Thank you for the FAX copy of the NCDOT's R2100 Section C permit application and
agency notification which we received on November 6, 2000. We have reviewed the
application with its accompanying letter from Mr. William D. Gilmore dated September
21, 2000.
We respectfully request that all permits and certifications under Section 404 and 401 be
denied on the following basis:
The Environmental Assessment (EA) performed for this project is deficient and is not
correct in its statements. One major problem was pointed out by Dr. Wayne Wright,
Chief of the Wilmington District, in his letter of June 7, 2000. Referring to the
NCDOT's justification for this project as set forth in the EA, he wrote "... the Summary
states that the `primary benefits are economic gains resulting from the improvement in
highway transportation.' These economic gains are not addressed at all in the body of the
EA, including the `Need for the Project' and `Economic Impact' sections." Dr. Wright
goes on to say the EA does not support this "Economic Gain" as a basis for the project.
Mr. Michael Penny's September 22, 2000 response brushes this major mistake aside by
stating this was a transpositional error in wording. We do not believe the NCDOT can
change the EA basis in such a cavalier manner to justify in excess of $22,000,000 for the
expenditure of public funds.
The EA did not address the obvious alternative of NC 163 to US 221 as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act. We submit that this alternate route if investigated
would demonstrate a lesser impact to the waters of the United States.
Finally, the FONSI which was issued in the Fall of 1995 did not adhere to regulations in
its development in at least one major aspect. Amanda E. and Larry E. Smith, owners of
the Glendale Springs Inn, which is listed on the Registry of Historical Sites, were not
contacted as required by Title 36 Section 800.5 of the Code of Federal Regulations and
thus were not allowed to comment before the letters were written by NC and federal
officials stating "there were no impacts on historic sites by this project".
We request that the EA and FONSI be rewritten for comment prior to any further
processing of their permit request.
Yours ve truly,
?, _
Bebe derson He sy d Larry E. S h
Friends of Highway 16 Owner, Glendale Springs Inn
cc: Col. Terry Youngbluth
Dr. Wayne Wright, Chief of Regulatory, US Army Corps of Engineers
KSY A

FRIENDS OF HIGHWAY 16
P.O. BOX 178
GLENDALE SPRINGS, NORTH CAROLINA 28629
March 16, 1999
Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer
Regulatory Project Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Ralel?h, NC 28694
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Per our recent telephone conversation and your request for information on the
"Environmental Assessment" (EA) for NC DOT Project R-2100, we have attached the
following comments on the EA. Each of our comments is referenced to a specific statement
in the EA. Most of our remarks challenge the validity of the EA statement while others simply
point to the "out-of-date" characterizations of the EA data. These remarks are by no means
all inclusive. There are many other factors which have been completely omitted from the EA
which should be addressed. In 1 rying to be brief, we have not included all of these points.
We wish to point out tl gat Section A of this project (that section which serves the
Jefferson Landing Development) is now under construction and should not be considered in
our comments on the EA as it pertains to Sections B & C. Traffic counts and other factors
considered support the completion of Section A. This section ofthe project will "tie into" NC
DOT's future plans to improve NC 88 from the Town of Jefferson to the Laurel Springs
section of Ashe County.
As I explained to you, the EA is more than nine (9) years old in its preparation basis
and as such is out of date with the changed conditions in Ashe County. There have been
significant changes during this period. Glendale Springs in particular has changed dramatically
with expanded tourist based businesses. We feel this document contains numerous flaws and
should be rewritten before any further work is done on Sections B and C of R-2100. If we
can be of further assistance or there are additional questions, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely, •-
Ms. Bebe Anderson Hennessy
cc: Colonel Terry Youngbluth
Representative Rex Baker

COMMENTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR NC DOT PROJECT R-2100
TITLE PAGE
I . The report was prepared using 1989 data and in now more than 9 years old. The report
was approved by DOT and the FHWA on June 12 and 14, 1990.
S1.JMMAg'y
2. Article 4 "Description of Action" - The project cost has now soared to $29.435 million
from its original cost estimate of $9.01 million, an increase of 323%.
3. Article 5 "Summary ofBeneficial and Adverse..." -"One home is expected Contrary to this assertion, many homes will be displaced or adversely affec ed by this project
4. "• •.This historic site should not be adversely impacted by the project."- While the site of the
Inn's property will not be acquired, the direct economic impact will be adverse to the
continued operation of this facility to serve its guests. There will be a large drop in guests
during the 12 to 24 month construction phase of R-2100. In addition, the NC DOT plans to
take additional right-of-way from the front of the Inn's Guest House. This action will take
away parking now used by the guests using this annex facility. The bent of this Guest
House also serves as the laundry for all of the Inn. This impact should be considered under
review requirements affecting National Register of Historic Places before this project goes
any further.
5• "The primary benefits are economic gains resulting from the improvement..." - This
statement is unsupported in the body of the EA. Sections B and C only support the local
people in the Glendale Springs area and the tourists who travel to Glendale Springs. There
are no existing or planned industrial or major commercial businesses served by Sections B &
C.
6. Article 6 "Alternatives Considered" - The EA did not consider the most obvious alternate;
that of designating NC 163 to NC 16. This would reroute traffic from the beginning of
Section C at the south end ofR-2100 via NC 163, an existing higher design speed highway,
to its intersection with US 221 in West Jefferson,.then with US 221 to its intersection with
NC 16 at the north end of Section A of R-21 OD. This alternate route, which is only 1 mile
further than the R-2100 route, is existing and serves that part ofAshe County where most of
its industrial and commercial businesses are located. This simple action would then precerve
Sections B & C for use by destination tourists to Glendale Springs and conserve funds for
other, projects.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
7. Article A. "General Description" - INC 16 is' classified as a rural major collector."
The NC DOT is inconsistent in their designation of this highway. They have termed NC 16
as a minor rural collector in other documents. We are unsure of their terminology and its
significance in this designation.
8. Article C, 2. "Traffic Volumes"- The projected traffic vo umes for Sections B & C used
as the basis for R-2100 are not accurate. They are grossly )verstated. Measured volumes
taken by the DOT during the latest eight years have shown . rate of 2200 to 2400 vehicles
per day. These volumes have not increased during this period. Their stability demonstrate the
local nature bfthe traffic using these Sections. NC DOT's owe models show a marked decline
in and the advance in years beyond 2020 in'projected traffic voumes for Section B & C.
9. Article C, 5. "Design Speed..."- It is anticipated that the proposed speed limit (as opposed
to design speed) for the facility will range from 35 mph to 45mph for its entire length with the
exception of...25mph...in Glendale Springs ..." This statement appears to be inaccurate. The
current speed limit ,is now 55mph except in Glendale Springs which is 35mph and 45 mph
over two other short sections. Does the NC DOT plan to spend $29+ million on highway
improvements and"then lower the speed limits?
10. Article C, 9 " Stage Construction" " Stage construction is not recommended for this
project". The NC DOT did not even follow its own recommendation. They immediately broke
the project into three stages, Sections A, B, and C, each with a different completion date.
While it is not known for certain, we suspect this was done when they began to look closely
at the middle, Section B, of the project. This Section runs parallel and in close proximity to
the New River. It is our firm belief that Section A, on the south end, will be completed and that Section B will ever be north leaving the on the
with a missing middle Section. g project
EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
I I . Article A, 11 "School Buses"-"... At the present time, twelve buses carry students to and
from school on ...NC 16" - This statement is not accurate today. Only 3 buses regularly use
these portions of NC 16, while 3 others travel less than a mile on NC 16.
12. Article C "Traffic Volumes and Level of Service"- "...will operate at level "D" in the
design year if no improvements are made"- While Level of Service, used by highway design
engineers, involve many factors, the primary influence in determining this factor is traffic
volume. As stated above, the traffic volumes have remained stable for the past 8 years. We
do not believe the level of service will drop on Sections B & C.
13. Article D. "Accident Investigation"- " This high rate of accidents at this intersection
(Glendale Springs and Trading Post Road) caTi probab,y be attributed to inadequate signing
4k .
and pavement marking of the intersection" If this is true, then why does NC DOT now take
the position that a turning lane is required at this intersection. Signs and markings cost a lot
less than turning lanes. The EA goes on to state that the accident rate is 1/3 that of other
similar NC roads. Then how can safety be the basis for improvement?
14. Article E. " Benefits..." "Indirect socio-economic benefits..." What are these benefits?
We can not identify any benefits beyond the construction funds expendi uure for this project.
PROBABLE RVIPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
15. Article A, "Wetlands..." page 9, "Construction will impact ...a portion of one bog"-
Unfortunately part of this bog was destroyed by the land owner in 1997/98; however, a
significant portion on an adjoining landowner's property still exists and as such should be
protected even more since this loss has taken place.
16. Article C, "Animal Life" page 11, `Brook trout are the only salmonid fish native to North
Carolina, and are subject to habitat loss in many areas". We agree with this statement and
point out that both streams affected by this project are hatcheries and nurseries for these very
same brook trout. In 1997 NC Wildlife personnel conducted a population survey in the
tributary to Obids Creek and found a large number of native brook trout in this stream. They
are concerned aboui the impact of this project on this and the other tributary to the New
River. The EA contemplates channelization of these streams. The EA does not adequately
address these concerns and should not be used as a basis for any permit by the US Army
Corps of Engineers.
17. Article D, "Water Quality" page 11 - We do not believe the EA adequately addresses
the additional run-off into the trout streams from the added I acre/mile of new pavement laid
down by the project. We are concerned not only about the impact of volume but the heat and
leached oil from this pavement.
18. Article D, page 12- "...parallels 1 % miles of the South Fork of the New River..."
Section B of R-2100 is adjacent to the New River. The EA does not address the issues now
raised by the July 30, 1998 designation ofthe New River as an American Heritage River. This
action was taken by the President and was endorsed by Governor Jim Hunt and the Ashe
County Board of Commissioners. .There must now be an assessment of this project on the
New River. It should take the form of an Environmental Impact Study before any more
money is spent on this project.
19. Article E, "...Endangered Species"page 12- It would seem that an updated Threatened
and Endangered Species list must be considered. There have been numerous changes since
1989.
20. Article J, "Economic Impact"- As we stated above the EA does not adequately assess the
impact on the tourist business and thus on the businesses in Glenda] . Springs during and after
construction of the project. Data should be presented on the imp, 3t of similar construction
in mountain tourism communities. Tourism will most assuredly be impacted long term with
loss of the natural beauty along the exist'
Glendale springs area to be u' n roadwaY' There are at least ten businesses in the
during the impacted. Most, if not all, of these businesses have expanded
p 5 Yeas, each with a significant investment, creating
communitY• None of these businesses have.been considered, g more jobs for the
21. Article K, "Social Impact"- The EA
makes and thus the ' makes no mention of the "Church of the Frescoes"
prolea's impact. This church, which has a small congregation, relies on tourism
for a major portion of its upkeep. These tourists will not come
during does the EA address the demise ofthe Glendale General Store, a community gat o Neither
since the 1930's. ty gatherin
ng place
C
22. Article M,'?rime...Farmland,- Choose and Cut Christmas Tree farms will be n
impacted. The marketing of this multi- egatively
loss of to
ist during the
million dollar crop could be severely impacted by the constru assessmen t has been done on thesetionphaSe and to a lesser degree after construction. No
salong and adjacent to R-2100.
?J
ie
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 22, 2000
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
RE: NC 16; From the Blue Ridge Parkway to US 221 in Jefferson; Ashe County;
TIP Project No. R-2100 B & C bwa Do - 13Z0
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Enclosed are NCDOT's responses to Ms. Hennessy's comments regarding the above
referenced project. The format is; Ms. Hennessy's comments are in regular font style with
NCDOT's responses following in an Italicized font style.
The Department believes it has addressed all of Ms. Hennessy's concerns. It is our belief
your office will concur that the project and these responses meet regulatory requirements.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at 733-7844,
Ext. 226.
Sincerely,
Michael Penney
Project Development Engineer
MP:r
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Sam Erby, Jr.
Mr. Ben Borda
Mr. E. David Franklin
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Roy Shelton
Mr. Carl McCann, PE
Mr. Bill Gilmore, PE
Mr. Carl Goode
Ms. Bebe Anderson Hennessy
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
• r 09/22/00
0
NCDOT'S RESPONSES TO MS. HENNESSY'S COMMENTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR NCDOT PROJECT R-2100
TITLE PAGE
1. The report was prepared using 1989 data and is now more than 9 years old. The report
was approved by DOT and the FHWA on June 12 and 14, 1990.
Response: The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the referenced project was completed in
March 1990 and was approved on June 14, 1990. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
was issued on November 27, 1995. The North Carolina Department Of Transportation
(NCDOT) believes these documents to be valid and in force.
Concerns over the age of these documents will be discussed with regards to several of the
following issues/items.
SUMMARY
2. Article 4 "Description of Action" - The project cost has now soared to $29.435 million
from its original cost estimate of $9.01 million, an increase of 323%.
Response: The original estimates for the total project (R-2100) were developed in 1988
(most likely on a per mile basis) and authorized at $2.015 million for right-of-way and $7.100
million for construction, totaling $9.115 million. These unit costs were based on the average
cost of right-of-way and construction for widening projects in Division I1 in 1987 and 88, these
numbers did NOT account for extraordinary design/construction requirements, change in
right-of-way or inflation. A substantial amount of guardrail and retaining walls have been
used on the project to minimize environmental and aesthetic impacts.
The total authorized for planning and engineering for R-2100 was $650 thousand, see
Attachment I - Cost Table.
The first phase (R-2100 A) of the project was completed in December 1999. The total authorized
for the first phase (R-2100 A) inclusive of planning, engineering, right-of-way and construction
(includes construction contract, inspection, and construction engineering) was $7.725 million,
see Attachment 1 - Cost Table.
The second phase (R-2100 B) of the project will start in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 or later. The
total estimated for the second phase (R-2100 B) inclusive of right-of-way and construction
(includes construction contract, inspection, and construction engineering) is $12.6 million, see
Attachment 1 - Cost Table.
1

09/22/00
The third phase (R-2100 C) of the project is currently in right-of-way acquisition process with
construction planned to start in FY 2005. The funding authorized for the third phase (R-2100 C)
is $2.25 million for right-of-way and $6.8 million (estimated) for construction (includes
construction contract, inspection, and construction engineering), see Attachment I - Cost Table.
3. Article 5 "Summary of Beneficial and Adverse..." - "One-home is expected to be
displaced" Contrary to this assertion, many homes will be displaced or adversely affected by this
project".
Response: An EA is only an estimate of displacement(s) with regards to a project and should
only be used as such. The actual impacts and displacements are determined during the "design "
of a project. These impacts include anyone or more of the following:
Temporary Drainage Easement
Permanent Drainage Easement
Construction Easement
Right-of-Way
Based on the type and amount of impact(s) determines if there is displacement. For those who
are displaced NCDOT has many programs to assist with/ease the relocation process.
By phase this project has the following claims and displacements:
Phase Claims Displacements
A 80 3
B
C 103 3
*Actual unknown at this date. This phase, R-2100 B, is not schedule to go to Right-of-Way until
FY 2007.
4. "...This historic site should not be adversely impacted by the project." - While the site of
the Inn's property will not be acquired, the direct economic impact will be adverse to the
continued operation of this facility to serve its guests. There will be a large drop in guests during
the 12 to 24 month construction phase of R-2100. In addition, the NCDOT plans to take
additional right-of-way from the front of the Inn's Guest House. This action will take away
parking now used by the guests using this annex facility. The basement of this Guest House also
serves as the laundry for all of the Inn. This impact should be considered under review
requirements affecting National Register of Historic Places before this project goes any further.
Response: The project has been designed to have NO construction impact and thus NO
CLAIM on the Glendale Inn property. It should be noted that the roadside trees (within the
Existing Right-of-Way) in front and along side of the Inn ARE NOT TO BE DISTR UBED per the
roadway plans. With all roadway projects there will be some inconveniences during
construction, however NCDOT tries to minimize these.
2

09/22/00
The Inn's Guest House is NOT on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
impacted parking is currently within the NCDOT Right-of-Way and no encroachment permit has
been found (by NCDOT or the property owner) allowing the use of the NCDOT Right-of-Way for
on-street parking for the Guest House, therefore the parking of concern is illegal. The Inn's
owners Larry and Amanda Smith have settled with NCDOT regarding the additional right-of-
way at the Guest House tract.
5. "The primary benefits are economic gains resulting from the improvement..." - This
statement is unsupported in the body of the EA. Sections B and C only support the local people
in the Glendale Springs area and the tourists who travel to Glendale Springs. There are no
existing or planned industrial or major commercial businesses served by Sections B and C.
Response: This was an inadvertent transposition error. The primary benefits are safety and
tra is operational improvements ... The secondary. benefits are economic gains. See
Attachment 2, a letter from Secretary Garland B. Garrett, Jr. to Mr. and Mrs. Bill A. Watson
dated February 24, 1997, regarding this issue.
"Economic gains " do not require planned industrial or major commercial business. These gains
can be obtained through better driving/safer roadways. The benefits of improved roadways
include decrease in accidents (i. e. decreases in loss of life, property damage and lost man-
hours), improved travel time (time is money), improved access by motorists (local, through, and
tourist) and the improvement of services (the. movement of goods, etc.).
6. Article 6 "Alternatives Considered" - The EA did not consider the most obvious
alternate; that of designating NC 163 to NC 16. This would reroute traffic from the beginning of
Section C at the south end of R-2100 via NC 163, an existing higher design speed highway, to its
intersection with US 221 in West Jefferson, then with US 221 to its intersection with NC 16 at
the north end of Section A of R-2100. This alternate route, which is only 1 mile further than the
R-2100 route, is existing and serves that part of Ashe County where most of its industrial and
commercial businesses are located. This simple action would then preserve Sections B and C for
use by destination tourists to Glendale Springs and conserve funds for other projects.
Response: This issue was reviewed by NCDOT in the fall of 1998. Based on a feasibility
review it was determined that NC 163 would NOT be an acceptable substitute for NC 16 As
noted in the November 13, 1998 letter from Secretary E. Norris Tolson, see Attachment 3, to Ms.
Linda Goforth the following reasons were provided:
"NC 163 is in better condition and has a higher design speed than does NC 16 From a
safety and level of service viewpoint, NC 16 has greater needs than does NC 163.
Currently, NC 16 shoulders and pavement are substandard given its minor arterial
classification and there are several areas along NC 16 which warrant guardrail. In
interviewing local residents we found, without exception, that NC 163 is not viewed as an
alternative to NC 16 since NC 163 is 10% longer than the NC 16 route. "
3
09/22/00
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
7. Article A. "General Description: - "NC 16 is classified as a rural major collector." The
NCDOT is inconsistent in their designation of this highway. They have termed NC 16 as a
minor rural collector in other documents. We are unsure of their terminology and its significance
in this designation.
Response: The EA did denote NC 16's classification as a "rural major collector". Based on
the current functional classification maps NC 16 in both Ashe and Wilkes Counties was
upgraded to a "minor arterial" in 1993.
It should be noted that NC 16 is one of three (3) main routes [the other two are NC 88 and US
221] into%ut ofAshe County.
In researching responses to Ms. Hennessy's concerns NCDOT did not find the "other
documents "' that denote NC 16 as a minor rural collector.
-8. Article C, 2. "Traffic Volumes" - The projected traffic volumes for Sections B and C
used as the basis for R-2100 are not accurate. They are grossly overstated. Measured volumes
taken by the DOT during the last eight years have shown a rate of 2200 to 2400 vehicles per day.
These volumes have not increased during this period. Their stability demonstrates the local
nature of the traffic using these Sections. NCDOT's own models show a marked decline in and
the advance in years beyond 2020 in projected traffic volumes for Sections B and C.
Response: Regarding phases B and C of the NC 16 project NCDOT has three traffic data
collection locations between NC 88 and the Blue Ridge Parkway:
Count Location Number Location
61 Between NC 88 and SR 1628
60 Between SR 1634 and NC 163
57 Between NC 163 and Blue Ridge Parkway
With the EA being completed in March 1990, traffic count data from 1983 to 1988 would have
been used in the development of the document. The traffic count data for the above reference
locations from 1983 to 1999 can be found in Attachment 4 - NC 16 Traffic Volumes. These
counts show an annual average growth rate of 4.27 %. The following excerpt is from a letter
dated February 5, 1997 from Mr. Joseph N. Springer of NCDOT, see Attachment 5, to Ms.
Hennessy regarding traffic growth and trends on NC 16:
"The travel trends on NC 16 through the area indicate that the traffic increased at an
average annual rate of approximately 4% from 1986 through 1995. The population in
the area remain relatively steady during the same period. This indicated that through
trips made up a significant portion of the traffic increase. "
4
09/22/00
The most recent traffic projections, see Attachment 6, reflect a decline from the original
projections in the EA, however the forecasted volumes still warrant the recommended
improvements. It should be noted that the forecasted volumes continue to reflect an increase, the
only change is the rate of increase.
9. Article C, 5. "Design Speed..." - It is anticipated that the proposed speed limit (as
opposed to design speed) for the facility will range from 35 mph to 45 mph for its entire length
with the exception of...25 mph...in Glendale Springs..." This statement appears to be
inaccurate. The current speed limit is now 55 mph except in Glendale Springs which is 35 mph
and 45 mph over two other short sections. Does the NCDOT plan to spend $29+ million on
highway improvements and then lower the speed limits?
Response: There is a difference between Design Speed and Posted Speed Limit on a
roadway. Per the NCDOT Roadway Design Manual the Design Speed is based on "roadside
development, vertical and horizontal alignment, terrain, functional classification, traffic volumes
and other contributing factors... ". The Posted Speed of the roadway will be determined upon
completion of the project, these new speed limits maybe lower than current limits.
10. Article C, 9. "Stage Construction" "Stage construction is not recommended for this
project". The NCDOT did not even follow its own recommendation. They immediately broke
the project into three stages, Sections A, B, and C, each with a different completion date. While
it is not known for certain, we suspect this was done when they began to look closely at the
middle, Section B, of the project. This Section runs parallel and in close proximity to the New
River. It is our firm belief that Section A, on the north end, and Section C, on the south end, will
be completed and that Section B will never be completed, leaving the project with a missing
middle Section.
Response: The R-2100 project was "Phased" and NOT "Stage Construction ".
An example of staging is acquiring the right-of-way for a four-lane highway and building two
lanes today with remaining two lanes being constructed as warranted by volumes or in
predetermined out year.
Phasing a project is the construction of a portion of the entire four lanes today with the
additional portion(s) to follow. Phasing can be due to funding constraints, right-of-way issues,
etc.
EXISTING ROADWAY INVENTORY
11. Article A, 11 "School Buses" - "...At the present time, twelve buses carry students to
and from school on ...NC 16" - - This statement is not accurate today. Only 3 buses regularly
use these portions of NC 16, while 3 others travel less than a mile on NC 16.
5
09/22/00
Response: At the beginning of every school year each county school district reviews the
number of students who will be attending school, where they live and redistrict the schools
accordingly. Along with redistricting the bus routes are changed. Based on the school bus
information when the EA was completed, 1990, there were twelve buses using NC 16
Currently the Ashe County School District is anticipating four (4) bus routes[8 trips] and several
Special Needs buses utilizing NC 16 from NC 163 to NC 88 in the 200012001 school year.
12. Article C "Traffic Volumes and Level of Service" - "...will operate at level "D" in the
design year if no improvements are made" - While Level of Service, used by highway design
engineers, involve many factors, the primary influence in determining this factor is traffic
volume. As stated above, the traffic volumes have remained stable for the past 8 years. We do
not believe the level of service will drop on Sections B and C.
Response: As discussed in Issue Number 8 above the traffic volumes along NC 16 are
increasing at an average annual rate of 4.27%. It should be noted that in Climbing Grades the
following factors along with volume are used in determining Level of Service:
Percent Grade,
Length of Grade,
Average Upgrade Speed,
Percent No Passing Zone,
Width of Lanes, and
Width of Usable Shoulder
Based on the continued increase in volume and the above listed factors with regards to the
existing roadway, NCDOT stands by the statements in the EA.
13. Article D. "Accident Investigation" - "This high rate of accidents at this intersection
(Glendale Springs and Trading Post Road) can probably be attributed to inadequate signing and
pavement marking of the intersection." If this is true, then why does NCDOT now take the
position that a turning lane is required at this intersection? Signs and markings cost a lot less
than turning lanes. The EA goes on to state that the accident rate is 1.3 that of other similar NC
roads. Then how can safety be the basis for improvement?
Response: The current accident data, 1996 - 98, for the referenced intersection indicates
factors other then signage and pavement markings as the causes of accidents. The above
referenced intersection has many roadway design challenges/deficiencies. The addition of
turning lanes is one of many geometric improvements proposed at the intersection of NC-16 and
Trading Post Road (SR-1632).
NCDOT does not understand Ms. Hennessy's above statement "The EA goes on to state that the
accident rate is 1.3 that of other similar NC roads." since there is no statement to that effect in
the EA. Attachment 7, NC 16 vs. Statewide Accident Data, shows the comparison of NC 16 and
Statewide accident data as listed in the EA (1986-1988 period) and current data (1996-1999
6
09/22/00
period). Since the EA was completed the accident rates on NC 16, all categories, have increased
from 148 to 280 percent. During the same period the Statewide Average for fatal accidents
decreased by 21 percent while total, non fatal, night and wet accidents only increased from 1 to
14 percent Currently NC 16 exceeds the Statewide Average in Total, Fatal, Non fatal and Night
accidents. The current data itself clearly justifies the proposed improvements.
14. Article E. "Benefits..." "Indirect socio-economic benefits..." What are these benefits?
We can not identify any benefits beyond the construction funds expenditure for this project.
Response: As denoted on Page 3; Issue Number 5, above, "The benefits of improved
roadways include decrease in accidents (i.e. decreases in loss of life, property damage and lost
man-hours), improved travel time (time is money), improved access by motorists (local, through,
and tourist) and the improvement of services (the movement goods, etc). "
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
15. Article A, "Wetlands..." page 9, "Construction will impact ...a portion of one bog" -
Unfortunately part of this bog was destroyed by the land owner in 1997/98; however, a
significant portion on an adjoining landowner's property still exists and as such should be
protected even more since this loss has taken place.
Response: The bog has not been destroyed, although it has been impacted/ drained/
degraded further by the landowner's actions in 1997198. The bog is located in an area
(hydrologic unit) that the NCDOT and N. C. Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP) have
agreed that the NCDOT will not undertake mitigation activity. We would suggest that you
contact NCWRP about the potential of restoring the bog.
16. Article C, "Animal Life" page 11, "Brook trout are the only salmonid fish native to North
Carolina, and are subject to habitat loss in many areas". We agree with this statement and point
out that both streams affected by this project are hatcheries and nurseries for these very same
brook trout. In 1997 NC Wildlife personnel conducted a population survey in the tributary to
Obids Creek and found a large number of native brook trout in this stream. They are concerned
about the impact of this project on this and the other tributary to the New River. The EA
contemplates channelization of these streams. The EA does not adequately address these
concerns and should not be used as a basis for any permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Response: It is true that improvements to NC 16 will require culvert extensions and some
stream relocation. The referenced streams have been impacted by channelization in the past, are
stable but entrenched and yet still retain a trout population. During afield review of the project
in July 2000, there were shrubs growing along the unnamed tributary' of Obids Creek. It was
noted in August 2000 that the landowner had cleared the stream of this vegetation that had
afforded better trout habitat.
7
09/22/00
The NCDOT will relocate a portion of a tributary of Obids Creek and will match the channel
width bottom of the existing stream. Vegetation will be planted along the stream bank. Baffles
will be installed at the culvert inlet where culvert extension will occur to assist trout passage
through the culvert. The NCDOT also plans to provide compensatory mitigation for these
impacts to the stream.
17. Article D, "Water Quality" page 11 - We do not believe the EA adequately addresses the
additional run-off into the trout streams from the added l acre/mile of new pavement laid down
by the project. We are concerned not only about the impact of volume but the heat and leached
oil from this pavement.
Response: As noted in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the NCDOT will
implement "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds " as its Best Management Practices. The
NCDOT has also committed to avoiding/minimizing non point source discharges of toxic
substances and harmful particulate materials by utilizing appropriate catchment structures,
turfed buffer zones and/or other provisions throughout the life of the project. These measures
will minimize both short-term and long-term impacts to study area water resources.
18. Article D, page 12 - "...parallels 1 %2 miles of the South Fork of the New River..."
Section B of R-2100 is adjacent to the New River. The EA does not address the issues now
raised by the July 30, 1998 designation of the New River as an American Heritage River. This
action was taken by the President and was endorsed by Governor Jim Hunt and the Ashe County
Board of Commissioners. There must now be an assessment of this project on the New River. It
should take the form of an Environmental Impact Study before any more money is spent on this
project.
Response: Upon review of the Action Plan submitted with the New River American Heritage
River application and discussions with the New River Community Contact, Mr. Patrick Woodie -
New River Community Partners, and the River Navigator, Mr. Ben Borda - US Army Corps of
Engineers, NCDOT believes the project is in concurrence with the national legislation. NCDOT
will work closely with the New River Community Partners, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and all other regulatory agencies regarding the design and construction of phase B of the
project (the phase in closest proximity to the river) to minimize all impacts to the South Fork of
the New River.
19. Article E, "Endangered Species" page 12. It would seem that an updated Threatened and
Endangered Species list must be considered. There have been numerous changes since 1989.
Response: The NCDOT has an obligation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to
ensure that its projects do not jeopardize the existence of species listed as Threatened and
Endangered. The NCDOT evaluates a project's potential impact to these species with its
environmental documentation per National Environmental Policy Act requirements and
8
09/22/00
consultations prior to right of way acquisition and construction. The topic is also reviewed as
part of the application for a Section 404 permit.
Threatened and Endangered species were evaluated as part of the EA. At that time, the only
listed species was Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri). As noted in the FONSI, several
additional species have been listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Ashe
County. These species were evaluated and a finding of "No Effect" was rendered. The NCDOT
has worked with USFWS with regard Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), and a biological
conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Effect" has been rendered for this species. Therefore, all
species currently listed for Ashe County have been evaluated with findings of either "No Effect"
or "Not likely to Adversely Effect".
20. Article J, "Economic Impact" - As we stated above the EA does not adequately assess
the impact on the tourist business and thus on the businesses in Glendale Springs during and after
construction of the project. Data should be presented on the impact of similar construction in
mountain tourism communities. Tourism will most assuredly be impacted long term with loss of
the natural beauty along the existing roadway. There are at least ten businesses in the Glendale
Springs area to be impacted. Most, if not all, of these businesses have expanded during the past
5 years, each with a significant investment, creating more jobs for the community. None of these
businesses have been considered.
Response: Due to the weather conditions in Ashe County the construction season is expected
to be from mid April to mid October, based on previous roadway projects. It is estimated to take
between 2 and 3 construction seasons to complete the roadway improvements to phase C. It
should be noted that both the length and number of construction season is weather dependent.
As denoted above NCDOT will maintain traffic while construction is ongoing, however there will
be some inconveniences.
The local Chamber of Commerce was contacted regarding the widening of NC-16 from the
intersection of NC-88, NC-16 and NC-16-88 to US 221 (R-2100 A) and the impact to tourism.
The Chamber indicated that they had not received any reports regarding loss of business during
the construction, to the contrary the local merchants and businesses were in favor of the project.
There will be some impacts to the current landscape as a result of proposed widening, however
the impacts have been minimized every place possible. One method implemented in this project
to minimize the impacts of cut and fill sections has been the use of a large number of retaining
walls.
The Glendale Springs Community and the businesses therein have been aware of this project for
a long time. A Public Hearing was held regarding the project in 1993, project staking began in
1994, Right-of-Way staking began in 1995 with Right-of-Way acquisition beginning in 1996 All
businesees within the project limits, that are being impacted, are either in Right-of-Way
negations or have settled with NCDOT regarding their Right-of-Way issues.
9
09/22/00
21. Article K, "Social Impact" - The EA makes no mention of the "Church of the Frescoes"
and thus the project's impact. This church, which has a small congregation, relies on tourism for
a major portion of its upkeep. These tourists will not come during construction. Neither does
the EA address the demise of the Glendale General Store, a community gathering place since the
1930's.
Response: The project has been designed to have NO construction impact and thus NO
CLAIM on the Holy Trinity Episcopal Church property for the Church of the Frescoes. With all
roadway projects the will be some inconveniences during construction, however NCDOT tries to
minimize these.
The Glendale General Store has been acquired by NCDOT in right-of-way negotiations. This
acquisition was necessary due to sight distance and sight triangle issues. Upon acquisition
NCDOT had to perform environmental remediation due to prior soil and groundwater
contamination. Due to the age of the structure there exists the potential for further
environmental remediation and/or containment issues upon demolition.
22. Article M, "Prime... Farmland" - Choose and Cut Christmas Tree farms will be
negatively impacted. The marketing of this multi-million dollar crop could be severely impacted
by the loss of tourism during the construction phase and to a lesser degree after construction. No
assessment has been done on these businesses along and adjacent to R-2100.
Response: The project construction season is expected to be from mid April to mid October,
based on previous roadway projects. The "Choose and Cut Christmas Tree " season. begins in
November through December and should not be impacted by construction activities.
10
z
U
H

W
O
W
ti
,O
w
0
H
O

O kr) O k o
kn N O `O
Q; ? ? 11-C 00 00
CN ON
00 61,
csk
N
H
O kn O O kn
p m O O M
M r- 00 00
U .,
to .,
r--+ ., n
M
? N

O

l O
O
O
c d' `O
N (=>
N
N N to
0

bbi)

bA
O
O
O
O
O
o

th 00

? w
U
?
N
.p c

-!?

=

u

a? c) c)
a
0 0 0 0

? N N N N O

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GovERNOR February 24; 1997 SECRETARY
Mr. and Mrs. Bill A. Watson
5558 Alma Drive
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Watson:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the improvements to NC 16 from the
Blue Ridge Parkway to US 220 near Jefferson in Ashe County (TIP No. R-21 00).
The primary purpose for widening NC 16 is to improve the safety of the roadway.
The majority of the shoulders along NC 16 are inadequate and do not provide enough space
for motorists to pull off safely in the event of a breakdown. The pavement width in some
areas on NC 16 is 18 feet wide. The Department wants to increase the pavement to a uniform
width of 24 feet, with a 2-foot paved shoulder on each side. An additional 6 to 8 feet of grass
shoulder will be included on each side. These shoulder widths are based on standard widths
needed for this type of road with traffic volumes of more than 4,000 vehicles per day. The
projected traffic for NC 16 in the year 2010 is 6,500 vehicles per day.
I understand your concerns about widening NC 16 and the potential impacts to the
environment. However, these improvements will provide a better and safer roadway for the
traveling public.
Again, thank you for taking time to write and for sharing your concerns with me. If
you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
410-A"

Garland B. Garrett, Jr.
GB G/hfv
cc: Fred Eidson, Member, Board of Transportation
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
?--?? Its.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORR1s TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 13, 1998
Ms. Linda Goforth
Post Office Box 758
Millers Creek, North Carolina 28651
Dear Ms. Goforth:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the NC 16 project in Ashe County, TIP Project
R-2100. I appreciate your concern about this project.
As I promised, we studied the feasibility of improving NC 163 as an alternative to the
planned NC 16 work. Our study indicates we should continue with our plans to upgrade
NC 16 for a number of reasons. NC 163 is in, better condition and has a higher design
speed than NC 16. From a safety and level of service viewpoint, NC 16 has greater needs
than does NC 163. Currently, NC 16 shoulders and pavement are substandard given its
minor arterial classification and there are several areas along NC 16 which warrant
guardrail. In interviewing local residents we found, without exception, that NC 1.63 is
not viewed as an alternate route to NC 16 since NC 163 is 10% longer than the NC 16
route. As you are aware, a portion of the R-2100 improvements are currently under
construction at the US 221 end of the project. A significant portion of the right of way
needed for R-2100 improvements has been acquired. The portion of the NC 16 project
under construction does not present significant adverse impacts. There is sufficient
buffer between the planned project and the South Fork of the New River to protect the
river during construction. Finally, as was mentioned during our meeting, project
R-2100 improvements in Glendale Springs will be shifted to minimize effects on the
church property.
I appreciate your interest and pride in this beautiful area. Please be assured we will
construct NC 16 in a manner sensitive to the environment and the area residents.
Sin rely, '
rris Tolson
ENT/wdg
cc: Samuel L. Erby, Jr., Member, Board of Transportation
As. Linda Goforth
November 13, 1998
Page 2
bc: Len A. Sanderson, P. E., State Highway Administrator
Donald R. Morton, P. E., Deputy Administrator - Preconstruction
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager, Planning and Environmental
1 1
ATTACHMENT 4
NC 16 Traffic Volumes (AADT) by Count Location
(Ashe County)

YEAR #61
(NC 88 - SR
1628) #60
(SR 1634 -
NC 163) #57
(NC 163 -
Blue Ridge
Pkwy)
1983 1900 1000 1600
1984 2000 1200 1300
1985 1500 1300 1500
1986 2100 1400 1600
1987 2200 1400 1600
1988 2600 1900 1700
1989 2600 1800 2000
1990 2700 2000 2200
1991 2500 2000 2000
1992 2800 1800 2100
1993 2600 1800 2200
1994 2900 2000 2300
1995 2700 2000 2400
1996 2800 2100 2500
1997 2700 2000 2300
1998 3100 2300 2900
1999 3300 2100 2400

f
'wa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
February 5, 1997
Ms. Bebe Anderson-Hennessey
P.O. Box 178
Glendale Springs, NC 28629
Dear Ms. Hennessy:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Re: Criteria for developing travel forecast for the NC 16 project through Glendale
Springs
Per your telephone request on Tuesday, February 4, 1997, the following is offered in
response. There are two major methods that NCDOT use in developing travel flow
patterns on the highway system.
1. The four stage modeling process
2. The trend line analysis in areas where models do not exist
The four stage method is primarily used.in urban areas and the trend line analysis in
rural areas where there are no models. In both cases substantial data about the area
through which the project passes is required before a forecast can be done. The trend
line analysis method was used in the forecast of the traffic on this project. This a
mathematical process in which the past traffic trends are projected into the future
while considering the current and future land use, population and employment
fluctuations.
Preliminary work was done on this project, in the mid to late eighties,on which a trend
analysis was used to project the traffic from 1990 to the year 2010. More recently
(1996),a traffic study was done on this project to ensure the accuracy of the forecast.
During this study the following data was collected.
Travel trends from 1986 through 1996 on the main line and the `Y' lines
(intersecting Streets)
2. Turning movements at the major intersections and
3. Inventory of the housing and employment in the area

W
The travel trends on NC 16 through the area indicate that the traffic increased at an
average annual rate of approximately 4% from 1986 through 1995. The population in
the area remain relatively steady during the same period. This indicated that through
trips made up a significant portion of the traffic increase. The turning movements
provide information of the distribution of traffic through the area. Again, our trained
Engineers and Forecasters projected these trends into the future while considering all
the data collected from the turning movements and the inventory.
It is anticipated that the traffic on NC-16 will increase, over the riext twenty four
years, as shown on the straight line diagram attached. This indicate an increase of a
much lower rate than the increase over the last ten years.
If I can be of further assistance in helping you to understand the process please do not
hesitate to call me at 919-715-5737.
Sincerely,
7o h N. Tinge
Senior Travel De nd Forecaster Transportation Engineer.
NS/
Attachment:
c: Tom Newnam, PE
Byron Brady, PE
,, i
ATTACHMENT 6
NC 16 Traffic Volumes (AADT) with Projections
by Count Location (Ashe County)

YEAR #61 (NC 88 -
SR 1628) #60 (SR 1634
- NC 163) #57 (NC 163
Blue Ridge
Pkwy)
1983 1900 1000 1600
1984 2000 1200 1300
1985 1500 1300 1500
1986 2100 1400 1600
1987 2200 1400 1600
1988 2600 1900 1700
1989 2600 1800 2000
1990 2700 2000 2200
1991 2500 2000 2000
1992 .2800 1800 2100
1993 2600 1800 2200
1994 2900 2000 2300
1995 2700 2000 2400
1996 2800 2100 2500
1997 2700 2000 2300
1998 3100 2300 2900
1999 3300 2100 2400
2000 3200 2400 2700
2005 3600 2700 >100
2010 4000 3000 3500
2015 4400 3-300 3900
2020 4800 3700 4300
2025 5200 4000 4700
U *
z
H
c
C?
? U
U 0.
c
0
3
? y
U
r- M ,zt r--i
' 00 C\ r N `O
N
•? 00
N N N
O kr)
r-
?

O? N M l? O? `O
?t Cl O O0 I:
M M O 00 d'

U
•U

O O O O O

? N

00
00

? N N C N
-+ 00 C?
l--i r- r- 00

•? U
U `z

N

•
'? N
^' U
•
N Q C Q U
U 0 b
A N
?-+ C)
z ?
z
cv
00

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
September 21, 2000
e? STATE

z s=-,

L

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ES B. LUNT JR.
"`610ITERNOR
001626-
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
Subject: Ashe County, NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to of south SR 1158, State
Project No. 8.1710901; Federal Aid Project No. STP-16(l); TIP No. R-2100 C.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
an existing two-lane section of NC 16 in Ashe County. The improvements include
enhancing horizontal and vertical alignment of NC 16 in several areas, placement of
guardrail and to increase pavement width to a twenty-four (24) foot pavement section
with eight (8) foot usable shoulders. These improvements are proposed from Blue Ridge
Parkway to south of SR 1158 (TIP No. R-2100 Q.
NEPA Documentation
An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject project has been completed,
and the document was signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June
14, 1990. This document includes studies pertaining to impacts to natural systems and
protected species for the project. The EA also identified numerous potential adverse
impacts to waters of the United States, including stream relocations, bridge replacements
and impacts to a mountain bog. Following coordination with resource agencies, the
NCDOT completed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed project.
The FONSI was signed by the FHWA on November 27, 1995. This document expounds
upon the work of the NCDOT to reduce and minimize project impacts to waters of the
United States. Efforts that have led to a determination of "not likely to adversely affect"
a population of Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) are also included. This species is
located in the project study area for Section B.
MAILING ADDRESS:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC
f*
Project History and Let Schedule
For construction purposes, the subject project has been divided into three sections.
The following table includes the construction schedule of the project and a description of
each section's terminus.
Table 1. Construction Schedule for TIP No. R-2100
SECTION LET DATE DESCRIPTION
A = 'June 1998 East of US 221 to west of South Fork New River
B ' October 2007 Southeast of NC 88 to southeast of SR 1158
C August 2001 Southeast of SR 1158 to the Blue Ridge Parkway
The bridge that crosses the South Fork of the New River is not included in the
project. The existing bridge structure was constructed in 1986 as TIP No. B-1031.
Section A of the project was completed in December 1999. This section of the
project involved installation of culverts, installation and extension of pipes as well as
stream relocations. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorized the project
in June 1997 under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 and General Permit 31 (Action Id
# 199700817, 199700840 through 199700842). The N. C. Division of Water Quality
(NDDWQ) authorized the project in May 1997 (NCDWQ # 960853).
Independent Utility
It is the opinion of the NCDOT that the proposed improvements of NC 16, from
Blue Ridge Parkway to south of SR 1158, has independent utility from the remaining
section of the project. The NCDOT believes that this section can be considered
independent of the remaining section because it meets the following objectives of
"independent utility" as defined by the FHWA:
• this section of the project connects logical termini since it ties into an existing
alignment;
• this section of the project is of sufficient length that environmental matters have been
addressed on a broad scope (EA and FONSI);
• this section of the project has independent significance such that it is usable and of
reasonable expenditure even if no other improvements are made in the area; and,
• this section of the project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other
reasonable forseeable transportation improvements.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
The project cannot be completed without impacts to waters of the United States.
The project lies in the New River Basin (Hydrologic Unit # 05050001), affecting the
drainage of Obids Creek and its unnamed tributaries, as well as unnamed tributaries of an
unnamed stream that flows to South Fork New River. Impacts to wetlands result from
widening shoulders of NC 16, and stream impacts are from culvert extension, pipe
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 2 of 7

extension and installation, as well as stream relocation. There are 0.02 acre of fill in
wetlands, 0.12 acre of fill in surface water (natural), 0.07 acre of fill in surface water
(pond). There are also 790 feet of impact to existing stream channels including 465 feet
of relocation and 325 feet of stream loss.
A NCDOT biologist has conducted determinations for wetlands and streams.
Wetlands were delineated using criteria outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual. The stream delineation was performed. using guidance provided by
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), "Field location of streams,
ditches and ponding: Revision Number Six, Working Draft, dated February 10, 1997."
Wetland Impacts
There are two wetland impacts associated with the project totaling 0.02 acre.
These wetland impacts are to the outer limits of mountain bogs. The site numbers are 9
and 12.
There is also a wetland adjacent to Site 3. The wetland is also a mountain bog
that has been impacted in recent years by the property owner attempting to drain the
wetland. There is now a complete connection of drainage ditches and an entrenched
stream (Site 3).
The NCDOT must relocate the drainage ditch that lies parallel to NC 16. We
believe that relocating this drainage ditch will not affect the hydrology of the bog for two
reasons. First, within the past four years, the landowner has deepened these ditches and
connected them. Second, the NCDOT will, in fact, be raising the elevation of the
roadside ditch as depicted on a detail on Sheet 5 of 16.
The NCDOT believes that these two sites can be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14.
Stream Impacts
There are a total of twelve impacts to streams. Table 2 includes information
related to site number, stream name, existing stream length (ft), relocated channel (ft) and
channel loss (ft). All of the stream sites are perennial streams except for Site 11 which is
an intermittent stream.
Section 404/401 Permit Application
TIP No. R-2100 C
September 21, 2000
Page 3 of 7

Table 2. Impacts to Streams from improvements to NC 16 (TIP No. R-2100 C)
Site
No.
Stream Name Existing Stream
Length (feet) `Relocated Channel
Length (feet) Channel Loss
(feet)
1 UT of Obids Creek 25 N/a 25
2 UT a of UT 1 Obids 45 N/a 45
3 UT b of UT 1 Obids 50 N/a 50
4 UT 1 Obids Ck 135 100 35
5 UT c of UT 1 Obids 35 N/a 35
6 UT c of UT 1 Obids 100 100 N/a
7 UT al of UT c 180 155 50
8 UT 1 of UT SFNR 45 N/a. 20
10 UT 2 of UT SFNR 75 N/a 5
11 UT 3 of UT SFNR N/a N/a N/a
12 UT 4 of UT SFNR 30 N/a 15
13 UT 5 of UT SFNR 70 55 15
Total Impacts 790 435 325
Notes: "UT" refers to unnamed tributary.
"SFNR" refers to South Fork New River.
Site 1 involves the headwater of an unnamed tributary of Obids Creek.
Sites 2 and 3 are streams that drain to an unnamed tributary (#1) of Obids Creek
(Site 4). The existing pipe crossings are being extended to accommodate road
construction. The pipe extension at Site 3 will connect with an existing pipe system that
is located approximately 35 feet upstream of the pipe crossing at NC 16 (Sheet 5 of 16).
Site 4 involves unnamed tributary (#1) of Obids Creek. The stream reach is
entrenched, but does provide good trout habitat.
Sites 5 and 6 involve impacts to the same stream, unnamed tributary (c) to UT 1
of Obids Creek. Impacts at this site total 135 feet, of which 35 feet will be lost to culvert
extension. The NCDOT has avoided some impacts to this reach of stream (see section on
avoidance/ minimization). Brown trout have been found in this reach of stream.
Site 7 involves an unnamed tributary to (al) to unnamed tributary (c) to UT 1 of
Obids Creek. At Site 7, there is a drop between the existing pipe and the stream that is
greater than 3 feet; trout migration above Site 7 is impossible. The upper portion of Site
7 involves an entrenched stream that is pinched between NC 16 and a filled area.
Site 8, 9, 10 and 12 involve streams that are unnamed tributaries to an unnamed
tributary of South Fork New River. At Site 8, the pipe outlet has a canopy and then the
stream flows through a maintained yard. This site does not likely contain habitat for
trout.
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 4 of 7
to
Site 10 is to a small stream that is located along a property boundary upstream.
This portion has likely been channelized in the past.
Site 11 involves an intermittent stream. There is a pond located upstream, and
water from the spillway will be diverted into a new drainage configuration.
Sites 12 and 13 are likely to contain habitat for trout. The existing pipes will be
extended at both sites. At Site 13, however, the stream channel will be relocated for
hydraulic conveyance purposes. These relocations are too short for "natural channel
design".
The NCDOT believes that each of these sites can be authorized under a Section
404 Nationwide Permit 14.
Avoidance/Minimization
The NCDOT has undertaken several steps to avoid and minimize impacts to
streams. The NCDOT has committed to installing a retaining wall and/or steepening side
slopes along Station Numbers 41+00 to 51+00 (Right) to avoid impacts to a pristine high
gradient mountain stream with a canopy of rhododendron.
The culvert at Site 4 will be extended such that the bottom of the culvert is placed
one foot below the stream bed. Excavated stream bed materials will stockpiled and
placed on the floor of the culvert.
The NCDOT has avoided further relocations along unnamed tributary (c) to UT 1
of Obids Creek by steepening the fill slope as much as possible. The original drainage
plans depict two additional relocations other than the one that is proposed at Site 6.
The NCDOT will utilize "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" for erosion
and sedimentation control during project construction. Trees/shrubs will be planted along
relocated stream channels.
Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT has reviewed impacts to waters of the United States. The NCDOT
does not propose to mitigate for impacts to wetlands due to the small amount (0.02 acre).
The NCDOT recognizes that some of the impacted streams are trout streams,
although they are not designated as such by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Therefore, the NCDOT proposes compensatory mitigation for
streams found in Table 3.
Section 404/401 Permit Application
TIP No. R-2100 C
September 21, 2000
Page 5 of 7
4
Table 3. Summary of Compensatory Mitigation for Stream Impacts
Site Number Mitigation Ratio Length of Stream Mitigation' Required
4 2:1 35 feet 70 feet
4 1:1 100 feet 100 feet
5 2:1 35 feet 70 feet
6 1:1 100 feet 100 feet
13 1:1 70 feet 70 feet
Total Mitigation Required 410 feet
The NCDOT proposes a 2:1 mitigation ratio for portions of Site 4 and Site 5
because these stream reaches will be lost due to culvert extension and contain brown
trout.
The NCDOT proposes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for portions of Sites 4 as well as for
Sites 6 and 13 because the stream reach will be relocated in an open channel. The
proposed relocations do not have "natural channel design" nor buffers (50 feet top of
bank either side). The NCDOT will replant those areas obtained as part of a temporary
easement. Therefore, the NCDOT believes the ratios and mitigation proposals are
justified.
The NCDOT proposes to mitigate for 410 feet of stream. The NCDOT has
requested use of paying into the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP).
Total costs would be $51,250.
The NCWRP has expressed a willingness to accept this compensatory mitigation
work. The acceptance letter from the NCWRP has been attached.
Summary
The NCDOT believes that each of the sites can be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14. There is 0.02 acre of fill in wetlands, 0.12 acre of fill in surface
water (natural), 0.07 acre of fill in surface water (pond), 790 feet of impact to existing
channels, 465 feet of relocation, and 325 feet of stream loss. The NCDOT proposes to
mitigate for 410 feet of stream mitigation from the NCWRP for $51,250.00. The
NCDOT requests authorization from the USACE to construct the proposed project as
described. Application is also made for 401 Water Quality Certification from the
NCDWQ. The NCDOT asks that the NCWRC provided a letter of concurrence to the
USACE.
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 6 of 7
Thank you for your assistance with the project. If you have any questions or need
any additional information concerning this project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of my
staff at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
.v' G '?
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. N. L. Graf, P. E., FHWA
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr. R. C. McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 7 of 7

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
TIP No. R-2100 C
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 14
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; Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 1548 Mail Service Center
SUBDIVISION NAME
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
27699-1548
(IF DIFFERENT
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , 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: Glendale Springs
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
NC 16 from Blue Ridge Parkway to SR 1158
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: New 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:
most of the streams being impacted carry "Tr" designation
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?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X NO [] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): See Cover Letter
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X} NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
see cover letter
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
<0.01 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: <0.01
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: See Cover Letter FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: .
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
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): see cover letter
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: improvements of public roadway
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):
Impacts to wetlands have been avoided to extent practicable
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: see FONSI (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: see FONSI
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [
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? Forested, single
family residential, agricultural, commercial
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.
c - a., ? IM4-VU
OWNER'S/AGE T?S SIGNATURE
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
AGENCY ADDRESSES

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Mr. John Dorsey
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,. North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Dorney:
August 11, 2000
Subject: Project Name: NCDOT
TIP #: R-21000
County: Ashe
"r?A. Na
- n.:
..?? '`J.ItF -01
Vf
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP) will accept payment for stream impacts associated
with the subject project in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding
between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998. Based on information
supplied by the applicant in a letter dated July 12, 2000 an application requesting
authorization to impact 410 linear feet of stream channel has been submitted for the
subject project. The NCWRP will provide mitigation as specified in the 401 Water
Quality Certification and/or Section 404 permit (up to 410 linear feet of stream
restoration) for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit
05050001 of the New River basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Crystal Braswell at [phone].
Sincerely,
/Oe_to???
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
REF/cvb
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
file
.-.rM?.nwFFrCFr'-
2 0 1 0
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1619
WebSlte: h20. enf. State. nC. US PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
?J'AI EJ.;q ?kUNT' JR N
,.J
44021 C8R1 , i; ?? .
20'
L ^-4
Q
4 2 j?
O
Z
Q
3200 \
X19
8
c?
? I
'Q.
y
V)
3
W F}O e
nQ .. \
?a 1
IU .1
4018. C
4017\r O
t
i
17'30" 4016

V IQ
Qo
- f ?Y
??-
`
I? I 1 x2380
-P-4 iey ?
-VI ^) lie,..
J ILA /i \ \ X2539
1 22-
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
?J .
?I'Qg? Ashe County
1
.zz00 TIP No. R-2100 C
l t
' NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
L\ ?/ i? J\? Sheet of IUD
4015
rw I?. ?, /,ice i / ?' ._.• ? _ ???/ 1 -. ? M .lam. ! -

V N ?-
f
??1>
/J.
NORTH CARO-:NA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
25' 463 1 290 000 FEET 464 DCX 2 V1 465 °66 81 °22'30"
_- _? - -?----(-7--77 36°22'30„
6 ,
PEAK J
?-R, E E
o
141125
Cem
_ ?, - s^ :I
?- /J? 960000
FEET
00
30
1\ ` _ / ?
?Xem
Lt-
' 2800 /077 / 4023
alvary Chi /
• °'\. 16 /
p _ - I Blue Ridge Ch
11\ _ IF. ^ = - ; ?? ?? •'13060
Holy Trimtyl ". ,?j o
14, Cem
Springs^:
2 13
T ?
T' \ ' ?? ?i ?ooo ?? r ,0 w22
em
Z
?; \?? \I m r C/ j
)(/0 =7 / r 4021
r-
h
%
F'
l `\
I\
v? c 5t`i?.?
t020
000

J- I C . i
FILTER FABRIC
L YPICAL . SECTION
r
FROM STA, 2 2 +00:t - L- LT, TO
•STA; 24 +00 - -L- LT,
MARY SHAW LUKE
t
'6()CFAC-E WATEP-5 \
W /FILTER.q g R--?_ 7Ort/`
lit
\y
? f

try
1101,

//Z.
WOODS
4,c 16.
\ \ 5G
-I
\ ct)
Zr n j
QV
• v' d?
r
r
?S
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site JUW& X000
Sheet 3 ofo
A\
WOODS
SATE _ 1?
N
ia:
N C
' W
• W
N
in
W
n
IU-: U
r3?'G ST,O. 72 f?D_ . -
-+75 ??AL!- 35Q - --- 4k '
95 .
+55 7 S' E/tI?S7K' 75,175
O 425 70 50/
50
50'
E E
00

PFD
T G5
L+Z?Zr TEL

---- --
----
' C8 - ---- ----
-
\ -
fIt1 I ?
32' W1Y I W 42'

•40/'
70
BEG, 73?25
, ?, STA.
..
69 WOODS

PD E3
IS BK D

'Y 0174-41' :kll.
.BEJ C? "/,5//-RIP RAP
??? F/GTEF' A
E?'T,'p 4B To.r/S
Sa

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
a aooo
Site
Sheet 4_ of
3
3 C3
L ?1T ? 3
L
+-
S 9SB yy ?
LUCY WALKER OSPR/NG
? 1 -7 r)r A C 7 W p
23-Y Rip
RAP 3 k \
F/GL sLG ? W 11-7EW / 7W/C \ 5
\ 5 ?i? 3
r 92V ,1D t To 94? 75r
+15, 4 x-45 0 I
GR 4o kC?
l
3SBW + + .r + 1 +45BW + Q+? .
77
?(3

( _ .
Wawa
cr%
O 673 , o
? 40 o53.
57PDE .tisa
+ s?- PC 92+75.27o a p
. W i.-s3
R1P RAP

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
a,ooo
3 ?WL
Site
Sheet 5 of

I.
P C . 11+ 41 J' x.,35-?
., C.L,I'RItj .RAP q?
s ... T Y NIC?:L SECTION ; 5' BASE CHANNEL. CHANGE .+ -
CLo"I. FLIP-.RA.P;..RT; QI= STA. i 15+00 ,i•r''
c-I
TO STA, 116 +20
st E'S GUARDRAIt . ?- k .
SPECAL D
(SEE PF0
3 26
ww + l ITC
o
r
240 0::? .10
4 x'
.01
7 C- / G? s` f? 51.9, - •?- -tRLV^ .
aG / - p mac' / ?3 S' .
r f'9.j -? Rev-
. s . ? y. \ ''? ?• ice' .. • ? .
/P F :Z i•P RAP
?, /w I.F?tV'P JC .5+2. -L-REV, :
Q 1 Y X4 I?O 14•'24:01. w
bi;
t_-Ri:
4 2.0
END o'
-? -.l T. S?f? . 1! 5 d
029?9
'STOCK Pi LE NAT VE BEDDING MATERIAL FROW
EXI S-T ING CHANNELTHAT IS TO BE OBLITER91E?
AND PLACE IN.BED OF RELOCATED CHANNEL'

cST DDE. = 20 CY 9:5-?? -? S
_4 rt 13 Tri_I + oT
c\j
a
\SgN k Ns
q8. k
1 R 2S BLK 7?OD
94M CURING NUSE
X BS` _ CON?ry - _!
?Fc .i6 7x8
i
' - ? ? I I I?Ie?lll?l
• \ h
C
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site
Sheet of
,o X73
SITES
X
X
0 k
S X
?- + SSBW.
\ f75 ?'+-
8 7' GR 74
20. ??_ .mss 6c
F_ T P TbNS/ TER FHBRI
x 'B
??: -
S? r5 GONG 9 ~
C/.,
t`a=C RE -; ?,a l
? 11
-LRC-V-
PRA

PROPOSED
\ k4L SLOPE

N
Z?-
Class
R1P KEY
7-,IP14fAL of 5'.64sE
87A-. Ae6 ,?oo:t R7: TD !29 Sao
X SITE
GATE/.
X/
36. 1L <1
C H.
D.S
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site j
Sheet of ILo

H
RCp? ? '
.?<
O
//C3
CUBRIR RAPj '%
- ?s 7' To,(lS
NOTE % STOCKPILE NATIVE BEDDING MATE F L FROM
EXISTING.CHANNELTHAT IS TO B BLITERATED
AND-PLACE IN, RELQC TED.CHAN,NEIOBED.
EST DAD E =• 25 CY
C?

n vv/J -
87'15'37'E
\\? N 8,'49'E N4* 39'23-E
t
calf,.
9
•? L?jJ Bw 91.21 -
11s6'., .
.36
? ? X58 ?0
9S 3C• C
? \ M
a r• ? ?d
I?
;??o ,aDE ?. - X
. 7D
OSE

7 ..\` `x
x? '
'S8w X O/ 72
?P G
diT?y ????94
<5P,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site Sheet of l.0
J
x
4D?
0
ti

Y F C.
5F- ZA-7
.ass ?3 ? RI
NOTE" STC
IS
EST
TYP/CAS ' B?ts? LA7 Ee,,Il-
Y11'?
c = VARIES ?%rT
GLASS /3 /RIP RAP
. 2'
LT 1->18-35:f- To /.SOS 50
S
LO& t-35 t 0DE- ±40 c-,
JOHN F. WOODS FAMILY TR?ST
\ ! 7 ITS g
\\ tI
a \ \? I k
V ISFD -D
Lo
\? ''k s
N ? I \ 01
N 48` CM w/ FCLASS 1 gip-RAC.
00
_ N FA""
Q N N ?L7ER G
`+n ?`" ? +gOCI' -EOV- +5o TA 2
,s Poi -
-71
V) ?, X03 +35
R r Q
TIP,
\ 3
c CS .40
0 2
,/N
=XISTING - l f T I \ \ /
2a BST N .
4 tTT - -q - - ' BST \? \ \
I f ,?? \
45' EXISTING
1 1IIY I 1 / O?
L'? ?Ko -1 z jam/ ?B /
,\V "TAIL OI TCi4 J w --?/ 40., c
NO co/v
clyw
?-' S° ANC w
C3 0?
. w0oD5
k\ p/
0 A-
III
`?/ TREE FARM
-SITE
.. ? - ?11J? tN
S
5 / Wit-
--k St?l
LOS
co 7
*?.!g
48, W
PEA
i
Liz ,
UP 5SSW 48 Wa ` T
RENIDV.E
--- ------- -- 4'-X 3' CO -? ---- ------ -
_ 1 I I' 1 j I ? I l ? 1 I ?.f 011, 011, I? i 1 I 111 45' EXISTING
Ica+??
Ca-
•?QO X54 + `" - - •-- ..
5s?
\\ WQOOS ?if V N
Q0
?' -
fn I.StKD
BOG
- L .
C
n6B A
AL
f NM?L? kSf?l??K
•
308,sDDE _ -+I IOcY
S ? FF- I d
Sr92p2?•y1,
' ?S BK O _
} \ CER,
6-11
N \\? --? -
f oo GR 4-93- POE
10 /-6/
FILL.
Q
AIL QITrHw? E
CL T RIP RAP f85 - _
o , - of 5 i ± 90 Tcxqs ,,,O
H T. 47
gssw : ?.- y
NC ww - GR- \
?- REr1??iE N7010 4 r#E coNC
11 S
9' CONC . Hw - - - -'-
i_ --
REI
5W +
9 a 0' WD RA
? 72
I_
EIP
??2.5p H p 93 I 'co _
. IS BK D C?..=•,R1P I-{jr CATTLE' ?
RAP I GUARD
i f?ToNS• I l TS '217+82.8?
1 DECK - _ ° c`??, I ! Z5
80
TIMOTHY W
ROBIN CAR -ER 'R
74 ER _ I ?Q t
•. ?or?5 i
El T/ON I
--
-Y? ST-4 75.58 ± I
111 (2? 1, Oil' 0 111 000,11o
ro I
?`COR 3 59 Sl7 /9b, 03- w I t
29 3q•i! ? cb?
i
WoODJ Cj I ~I
St-
BB +4
WILLIAM' D. MILLER
N co
82 -" Ww ?ROBERT A. MILLER
' 54' CM
C? jr
f
7Z?
11j? N
S
5
5 11125FD
+
-1 kV0 ?` IS BK D Q ?, 7
?.
HTR -F Z Z ?? X 0
C-L
JSB,
E`1r If IS` pk4 STIC i D -40 f- LD T -ow
.5 f
YE 24• BK
--Ztpl E A _ X21 /?(' CONC HW 2 r
7 CONC HW1-'
- E LA 4-05 5c
t c? L
W 4G.
J I >; PpE 40'60'Ln
L N ' 651 CS 225+
N•
x JL HTR
I GEORGE C.-SHEETS
D'
70' n? r?1 W? CL
-J O ? nn
" ? IT? ?. ? `. ? DECK
z
4LO ;t,
LA cr)
40
h
?ml\\\
WOODS,
N

'SITF
227528 E z _
k N L
_ C-n O
O o
` 7 cD
WDY
"' POND
MILLER ?• -??` y3 ?,
POND
50 ? ?
MET,yL
;, fS0
rr
M `
358W EIP
+ m 45 Ex?sTfrtc Rny O' CONC HW
N o TEL PED ---;--- GR `
wws
\ - WC
U ?N?'? h
A a 40'3z
y<</ a ' N ylf S
S T ?,, a r
:0
LARRY JOE BARKER
EIP \ 89
`N
1? ' n
ISF(
T QL I \\
?n i T rILAL,-5TA,24? 75
1.3 GRADE ppE LT STA 252 - +5.- v If-11 t k?KUJ . (R'2
_ ioo ?Y QEND -
S 72 13 -?
f55
40-60-110
'
?IS.6' TDE
B97 ?S9'q•", RIP RAP
'RHINE MASH EST, +1880 _TONS
SD' 47 !• ???_ ,
• N64'6'14•E '
21.3 7' '\•_ .-??. •?
? o.
Xi,
+-_.
12 +13.2 + + zsew +
`"rJ TOTW
5 4 CM
.. R ETA! ?
N EXT Nm
C TEMsnN? -
N?191r1` .__ --
.r+. -?
?y
`,'
D E ESP TUNS 1 I ?:?' r
o TDE, -?-
w? IFA T 30- 40' -
CONC
-80 N?
.\ - \ 1
In 0. WOODS ?2? ? CONC
;4 C)USO
` IS 8K D ,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site 13 Jva?-?
Sheet ks- of 11-0

0
0

U)

m 0
N
M
N
CD

w

co
N
O fA

O
Q Cl)
~ Q N
= Y
0
aid? a ao
?Z{ x
a LL m O
u 0 :O_
LL Z m r
O O co
?
m
T
F•
a > c E w
o°00 0 0 9

Z c? L)
Q Z LL
O
9

LL -
w
w
x
m

R ca

L 19
C

+ + + + t t t +
LL O O L. + t

0
N
Q m
N
a

? o

N
LL
N
m
N O M N O O N N N W
?? IT N ? Cl) N N N
N C
O
?

C
...
co
L
W U
? O O ? M ? Lf)
(D
G1
C
?
?
L
?
U
?n ?n o in u? o o ?n in

? o 0
0
O

? N ? N M co
O co
?
I
M
f?
r
c c
W N d?
h
V W U E
d
o

nm ?
W

w 3 0 0
U m .o 0 0

3.-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m? o o c o o c o o c 0 0 0

m ?.
Z
LL

? v = o
Q _
N ? 'O
c
L L
N
L ?

U y O
Q C
0 c
p
, m

Q o
w c
? 3
_ F
W y o

N
y O O O
C ? O O O
? N
LL j
m
7 y
U !N
?N U U
in m m
y d o U U m m a) 0 m Q m
a n n n _n _a _a _a _n n
_
a n n ? ? y a a a a a a a

'v
o
o
?<
X c
o -
o
'v
v
co
io
bo
"v
N M M aD f? C M N 04 v M v W)
O
O ?
r
r
N
? O Ni O O O O N 0 0 0
O
? O O O N (O O O CO O O O t0 D

v + + t (O ?- aD O) (O ? t0 LO N Of
co
N sf
h C
0 ? ? ? ?l O
N
N
N N
N CO
N I
N
J
.- N M v t0 t0 h co O O ?- N M

!q z p
Z
U o y`Oa
F
lu.
r

JA1S03. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
September 21, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
Subject: Ashe County, NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to of south SR 1158, State
Project No. 8.1710901; Federal Aid Project No. STP-16(1); TIP No. R-2100 C.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
an existing two-lane section of NC 16 in Ashe County. The improvements include
enhancing horizontal and vertical alignment of NC 16 in several areas, placement of
guardrail and to increase pavement width to a twenty-four (24) foot pavement section
with eight (8) foot usable shoulders. These improvements are proposed from Blue Ridge
Parkway to south of SR 1158 (TIP No. R-2100 Q.
NEPA Documentation
An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject project has been completed,
and the document was signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June
14, 1990. This document includes studies pertaining to impacts to natural systems and
protected species for the project. The EA also identified numerous potential adverse
impacts to waters of the United States, including stream relocations, bridge replacements
and impacts to a mountain bog. Following coordination with resource agencies, the
NCDOT completed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed project.
The FONSI was signed by the FHWA on November 27, 1995. This document expounds
upon the work of the NCDOT to reduce and minimize project impacts to waters of the
United States. Efforts that have led to a determination of "not likely to adversely affect"
a population of Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) are also included. This species is
located in the project study area for Section B.
MAILING ADDRESS:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

001326
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART MNT OF TRANSPORTATION
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC
1*
Project History and Let Schedule
For construction purposes, the subject project has been divided into three sections.
The following table includes the construction schedule of the project and a description of
each section's terminus.
Table 1. Construction Schedule for TIP No. R-2100
SECTION LET DATE DESCRIPTION
A June 1998 East of US 221 to west of South Fork New River
B October 2007 Southeast of NC 88 to southeast of SR 1158
C August 2001 Southeast of SR 1158 to the Blue Ridge Parkway
The bridge that crosses the South Fork of the New River is not included in the
project. The existing bridge structure was constructed in 1986 as TIP No. B-1031.
Section A of the project was completed in December 1999. This section of the
project involved installation of culverts, installation and extension of pipes as well as
stream relocations. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorized the project
in June 1997 under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 and General Permit 31 (Action Id
# 199700817, 199700840 through 199700842). The N. C. Division of Water Quality
(NDDWQ) authorized the project in May 1997 (NCDWQ # 960853).
Independent Utility
It is the opinion of the NCDOT that the proposed improvements of NC 16, from
Blue Ridge Parkway to south of SR 1158, has independent utility from the remaining
section of the project. The NCDOT believes that this section can be considered
independent of the remaining section because it meets the following objectives of
"independent utility" as defined by the FHWA:
• this section of the project connects logical termini since it ties into an existing
alignment;
• this section of the project is of sufficient length that environmental matters have been
addressed on a broad scope (EA and FONSI);
• this section of the project has independent significance such that it is usable and of
reasonable expenditure even if no other improvements are made in the area; and,
• this section of the project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other
reasonable forseeable transportation improvements.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
The project cannot be completed without impacts to waters of the United States.
The project lies in the New River Basin (Hydrologic Unit # 05050001), affecting the
drainage of Obids Creek and its unnamed tributaries, as well as unnamed tributaries of an
unnamed stream that flows to South Fork New River. Impacts to wetlands result from
widening shoulders of NC 16, and stream impacts are from culvert extension, pipe
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 2 of 7
extension and installation, as well as stream relocation. There are 0.02 acre of fill in
wetlands, 0.12 acre of fill in surface water (natural), 0.07 acre of fill in surface water
(pond). There are also 790 feet of impact to existing stream channels including 465 feet
of relocation and 325 feet of stream loss.
A NCDOT biologist has conducted determinations for wetlands and streams.
Wetlands were delineated using criteria outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual. The stream delineation was performed. using guidance provided by
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), "Field location of streams,
ditches and ponding: Revision Number Six, Working Draft, dated February 10, 1997."
Wetland Impacts
There are two wetland impacts associated with the project totaling 0.02 acre.
These wetland impacts are to the outer limits of mountain bogs. The site numbers are 9
and 12.
There is also a wetland adjacent to Site 3. The wetland is also a mountain bog
that has been impacted in recent years by the property owner attempting to drain the
wetland. There is now a complete connection of drainage ditches and an entrenched
stream (Site 3).
The NCDOT must relocate the drainage ditch that lies parallel to NC 16. We
believe that relocating this drainage ditch will not affect the hydrology of the bog for two
reasons. First, within the past four years, the landowner has deepened these ditches and
connected them. Second, the NCDOT will, in fact, be raising the elevation of the
roadside ditch as depicted on a detail on Sheet 5 of 16.
The NCDOT believes that these two sites can be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14.
Stream Impacts
There are a total of twelve impacts to streams. Table 2 includes information
related to site number, stream name, existing stream length (ft), relocated channel (ft) and
channel loss (ft). All of the stream sites are perennial streams except for Site 11 which is
an intermittent stream.
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 3 of 7
Table 2. Impacts to Streams from improvements to NC 16 (T1P No. R-2100 C)
Site
No.
Stream Name Existing Stream'`
Length (feet) Relocated Channel
Length (feet) Channel Loss
(feet)
1 UT of Obids Creek 25 N/a 25
2 UT a of UT 1 Obids 45 N/a 45
3 UT b of UT 1 Obids 50 N/a 50
4 UT 1 Obids Ck 135 100 35
5 UT c of UT 1 Obids 35 N/a 35
6 UT c of UT 1 Obids 100 100 N/a
7 UT al of UT c 180 155 50
8 UT 1 of UT SFNR 45 N/a. 20
10 UT 2 of UT SFNR 75 N/a 5
11 UT 3 of UT SFNR N/a N/a N/a
12 UT 4 of UT SFNR 30 N/a 15
13 UT 5 of UT SFNR 70 55 15
Total Impacts 790 435 325
Notes: "UT" refers to unnamed tributary.
"SFNR" refers to South Fork New River.
Site 1 involves the headwater of an unnamed tributary of Obids Creek.
Sites 2 and 3 are streams that drain to an unnamed tributary (#1) of Obids Creek
(Site 4). The existing pipe crossings are being extended to accommodate road
construction. The pipe extension at Site 3 will connect with an existing pipe system that
is located approximately 35 feet upstream of the pipe crossing at NC 16 (Sheet 5 of 16).
Site 4 involves unnamed tributary (#1) of Obids Creek. The stream reach is
entrenched, but does provide good trout habitat.
Sites 5 and 6 involve impacts to the same stream, unnamed tributary (c) to UT 1
of Obids Creek. Impacts at this site total 135 feet, of which 35 feet will be lost to culvert
extension. The NCDOT has avoided some impacts to this reach of stream (see section on
avoidance/ minimization). Brown trout have been found in this reach of stream.
Site 7 involves an unnamed tributary to (al) to unnamed tributary (c) to UT 1 of
Obids Creek. At Site 7, there is a drop between the existing pipe and the stream that is
greater than 3 feet; trout migration above Site 7 is impossible. The upper portion of Site
7 involves an entrenched stream that is pinched between NC 16 and a filled area.
Site 8, 9, 10 and 12 involve streams that are unnamed tributaries to an unnamed
tributary of South Fork New River. At Site 8, the pipe outlet has a canopy and then the
stream flows through a maintained yard. This site does not likely contain habitat for
trout.
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 4 of 7
Site 10 is to a small stream that is located along a property boundary upstream.
This portion has likely been channelized in the past.
Site 11 involves an intermittent stream. There is a pond located upstream, and
water from the spillway will be diverted into a new drainage configuration.
Sites 12 and 13 are likely to contain habitat for trout. The existing pipes will be
extended at both sites. At Site 13, however, the stream channel will be relocated for
hydraulic conveyance purposes. These relocations are too short for "natural channel
design".
The NCDOT believes that each of these sites can be authorized under a Section
404 Nationwide Permit 14.
Avoidance/Minimization
The NCDOT has undertaken several steps to avoid and minimize impacts to
streams. The NCDOT has committed to installing a retaining wall and/or steepening side
slopes along Station Numbers 41+00 to 51+00 (Right) to avoid impacts to a pristine high
gradient mountain stream with a canopy of rhododendron.
The culvert at Site 4 will be extended such that the bottom of the culvert is placed
one foot below the stream bed. Excavated stream bed materials will stockpiled and
placed on the floor of the culvert.
The NCDOT has avoided further relocations along unnamed tributary (c) to UT 1
of Obids Creek by steepening the fill slope as much as possible. The original drainage
plans depict two additional relocations other than the one that is proposed at Site 6.
The NCDOT will utilize "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" for erosion
and sedimentation control during project construction. Trees/shrubs will be planted along
relocated stream channels.
Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT has reviewed impacts to waters of the United States. The NCDOT
does not propose to mitigate for impacts to wetlands due to the small amount (0.02 acre).
The NCDOT recognizes that some of the impacted streams are trout streams,
although they are not designated as such by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Therefore, the NCDOT proposes compensatory mitigation for
streams found in Table 3.
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 5 of 7
Table 3. Summary of Compensatory Mitigation for Stream Impacts
Site Number Mitigation Ratio Length of Stream Mitigation Required
4 2:1 35 feet 70 feet
4 1:1 100 feet 100 feet
5 2:1 35 feet 70 feet
6 1:1 100 feet 100 feet
13 1:1 70 feet 70 feet
Total Mitigation Required 410 feet
The NCDOT proposes a 2:1 mitigation ratio for portions of Site 4 and Site 5
because these stream reaches will be lost due to culvert extension and contain brown
trout.
The NCDOT proposes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for portions of Sites 4 as well as for
Sites 6 and 13 because the stream reach will be relocated in an open channel. The
proposed relocations do not have "natural channel design" nor buffers (50 feet top of
bank either side). The NCDOT will replant those areas obtained as part of a temporary
easement. Therefore, the NCDOT believes the ratios and mitigation proposals are
justified.
The NCDOT proposes to mitigate for 410 feet of stream. The NCDOT has
requested use of paying into the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (NCWRP)
Total costs would be $51,250.
The NCWRP has expressed a willingness to accept this compensatory mitigation
work. The acceptance letter from the NCWRP has been attached.
Summary
The NCDOT believes that each of the sites can be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14. There is 0.02 acre of fill in wetlands, 0.12 acre of fill in surface
water (natural), 0.07 acre of fill in surface water (pond), 790 feet of impact to existing
channels, 465 feet of relocation, and 325 feet of stream loss. The NCDOT proposes to
mitigate for 410 feet of stream mitigation from the NCWRP for $51,250.00. The
NCDOT requests authorization from the USACE to construct the proposed project as
described. Application is also made for 401 Water Quality Certification from the
NCDWQ. The NCDOT asks that the NCWRC provided a letter of concurrence to the
USACE.
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 6 of 7
Thank you for your assistance with the project. If you have any questions or need
any additional information concerning this project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of my
staff at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
-;/' C- &?
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. N. L. Graf, P. E., FHWA
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr. R. C. McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Section 404/401 Permit Application September 21, 2000
TIP No. R-2100 C Page 7 of 7
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: TIP No. R-2100 C
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 14
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; Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 1548 Mail Service Center
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27699-1548
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK):
919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , 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: Glendale Springs
1

SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
NC 16 from Blue Ridge Parkway to SR 1158
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: New 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:
most of the streams being impacted carry "Tr" designation
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?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X NO [] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): See Cover Letter
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X} NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
see cover letter
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
<0.01 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: <0.01
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: See Cover Letter FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: .
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
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): see cover letter
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: improvements of public roadway

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):
Impacts to wetlands have been avoided to extent practicable
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: see FONSI (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: see FONSI
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
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? Forested, single
family residential, agricultural, commercial
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.
r? ? UJ ' ':. cl
C - i
U /ml zt
OWNER'S/AGE T'S SIGNATURE
=ul Z(r 2e-oo
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
AGENCY ADDRESSES
0.00111 J NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR/Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,. North Carolina 27699-1621
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Subject: Project Name: NCDOT
TIP #: R-21000
County: Ashe
7 rte. t r
tir
-... ?`L3n BAN
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program (NCWRP) will accept payment for stream impacts associated
with the subject project in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding
between the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998. Based on information
supplied by the applicant in a letter dated July 12, 2000 an application requesting
authorization to impact 410 linear feet of stream channel has been submitted for the
subject project. The NCWRP will provide mitigation as specified in the 401 Water
Quality Certification and/or Section 404 permit (up to 410 linear feet of stream
restoration) for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit
05050001 of the New River basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Crystal Braswell at [phone].
REF/cvb
cc: William Gilmore, NCDOT
Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
file
August 11, 2000
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
2 0 1 0
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM
1619 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1 6 1 9
website: h2o.ennstate.nc.us PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
4021 20' r\? _
L
r
2800
co
\
fQ c\ ?? ,
Q
4 W . \ ?i't !
O I 1 9Ct'? 4\t? l
R' ? 0
\ ff, 1
Q
3200 \ \
4019
e
z .? J S
.{ Fto 9
4018 ^?•. \
4
A
4011 O
n
17'30"
40
X2766 57
1
ag,
w 12 ? \
4015 /' ) ?- 3?/ice/j ' \?1 ? \?
( '? _ \??. >p. 111 i\\
41
ZC?
?? \11
A \"I
?N?Li

NORTH CARO__:NA JP?`
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) \?P
25' 463 1 290000 FEET 464 ?u.DCX 2;r.. 465 °,66 81°22'30"
0?_ ;.;ryc - - % \ ? PEAK
-- • - - _?? A
E K?
REEK
4025
r. ?c
( ti,/? a
? J
' J -3052 //n // 960000
Ju FEET
?3^M' o I ? c ??-
/ $% - --
\
3 (V
\\\ - o
77
28p0 4023
~ _ - _ ?c L c 11 alvary hi
. o
G1 ?\\ _ ii ^ _ f = ?,\ n Blue Ridge d, 93060 .'
Holy Trinity ' • ??/ o
s eridale $prings?; p
- - 1_'':?= r (`? ??? \??_- Jam/ _, _ ?sll•'? .f,;?_--T ??. \ _ ,/ o°° \ j?' t• 4022
3 . ?__? • I'Cem
v4b?
300 °J
4021
%
N
u
II
p\
11' ?
r?

AG
26 _-
77
z?;• v
? ' 30/7
( - 4020
?_ 3 _?7 \\\fff ?\

Z
7
vV
.Q?
L1
V
Vll ? 1
is
•

I
FILTER SITE I
FAaRIC
TYPICAL SECTION
FROM STA'22+00± -L- LT. TO
E:? STA;24 +00 -L- LT,
MARY SHAW LUKE
'602Fi9GE WATEIPS \
W /FILTER ,q g R 7224oo '``
lit
t7l

z I i 0. ?--
J '. f

s v
. cn
• ? cry ?
8? .
!14

\ \ C
> 729
---?
M.
QV
\? r
/ -
t.3 S9g.
0
WOODS
f?
W & ISBW
1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
` Jb?£ aoo?
site
._ . ! ---
Sheet 3 of ?l l
.1\?
WOODS
TER F,WX
?.QQCJ: 3 S D
.d?'G STiO, 72 f?0:
4 +25
_-? 50
PDE
+55
70'

=- - ?S31v
M +G5
-SITE. _ I
N
W
L ! N
W
O
ci?
,5. GRAL!-350. - 95
51 ??t1ST•4::75 75
50
?. 50' E
? DD
c x
40
a.
.+= - :+ .
-7 r
l c8 III I ---- -- --------- -----? - -
-40/. t
?5. o S3 Aso
O
- BED, STiZ1. 73? 25.. 6c?}
% WOODS
PDE 86< i,
TDE
IS SK D
C3 0 ?
Z?7251-f'4-1 1Y / -DI 74-41
North Carolina Department of Transportation
•BEifl?f ?? B -R I P RA P Division of Highways
E$T o ?i B 7-OxIS ' Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C O
S 5
I I NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
LJ a? south of SR 1158
Site v? JJ?.1i adp0
Sheet -4 of ?? 3

z?iT ? 3
N
S8 W
\ S 9Tap k
LU CY WALKER oSPR/NG
.1 -7 nr AC7 WO
i%7DrP05ED - ?? 127 B' R I P RA P 3 k \ } .
F/GL .S'LG?4? W1L7-Eof / /C \ 5, s.
\ 5 in 3
h'r 92V qD t ro 75
+15• 4 ' \ 45 +h°
GR 44
t. -77
-- -,- - - 2 _ ._. -
------ 18r ---- F -- IS" ,
• - CK HW
S3 BW + + + .r + 4SBW+
,- I ------_ - -
?- I G ?
IL
?? `? 175.27 ::•.-? ? \ // fem.
-oil
r 53 .. '
PDE
PC 92+75.27
a p
,C Ct._._?B?;RIP RAP
lt/? Fi[r?e F?.?c
e5s

WZIB
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site 3 jowl QMQ
Sheet Jr of 1(0

rr, -
., C.L,I'R{fj .RAP 4{
% to
?,?.. TYf'ICF:L SECTION; 5?BASE CHANNEL. CHANGE .+
??i 5''aEP;'?:' CL.' J? FLIP-,RA P' ?..RT; OF STA, 115+00 -
TO STA) 116 + 20 ,;.
+ E?srsT Rl? o° * Scu m Es GuAIRDR:AIt
SPECIAL D'
i
_?. - .?: ?, : ,. ? ; ?? . - (SEE • PFaCN
o X F Q ,? 5 NC o v cup til) '? ...-
2
L RE V..;
j• PE ?• ! C N. EL:?
P.1'?" F ••1 t P RAP
L REV Roc I
Y4 POT 44-,,24-01
40
d?? ) '4 20
-T9 5
f;VD o ion/
S-rA - 11-+ 50
X 0 0 0 099
STOCKPi LE NAT,VE BEDDING MATERIAL FROW ,?o•
EXISTING CHANNELTHAT IS TO BE OBLITERgTE?C,S
AND PLACE IN:BED Or RELOCATED CHANNEL'
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site 4 JJNV
Sheet (0 of I(*

EST DD E, = 20 CY j+29.51 C
Csr?n 13 _A t :n 1 PnTJ
2
T E
XS X
N.
k?p X .
N A?
X
f 75 ?' +
5
01 74
k R 2S BLK 74OO \ 20. _ /? 6C
77 ?p S ?' F?/ J'B
?'??? M CURING HbUSE F? -
x _ CONC T TONS TER FH B R l
V AI
w
+1 5
F' 0
e
-L RC-v-
C/,
1 rl'e'?(r UNy?'C D
-0J 0--F RE

PROPOSO
\ FIL(..SLOPE

2.0 =
Ct_ass Z ??
R1P TT KEY
Tyo/?fAL of 5' BASE"
,S IA. ?ee,,.400 .:tR?, TD i29?ao

3\\_
? ? qSe ?\ \ \\\??? X . Sse? `'4
s =• -
C H.
.S`
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site tva'amo
Sheet of l u
SITE
GATE/.
x? C.
• M)
F
'Yoc
Rto
\?? ?
\ CLB' RI P-RAP/`?T - - 4?S 7-
NOTE To c/s
NOTE STOCKPILE NATIVE BEDDING MATEi L FROM
EXISTING.CHANNELTHAT IS TO B BLITERATED
AND-PLACE IN, REL TED.CHAN;N.F0BED,
EST. DAD E. 25 CYO' ?,c =?

11 V V U J
V 1
S) T
m
o
\ 87'15'37'E ?"'/?T IO +
N4'39,?vr
N 8.'49`E I
+I+ •136.14' 24' WW 8S4 BW + 9 ?' .
?/ LJ 3 /
=`? ? X58 '? •
\1\?, 40,x" /Z ,y
\ \.. ° 'y - M OSE 222 ?F c
5E LA-7
Ass /3 R1
'` NOTE ; STS
EST
l ?-
-mot.,' x \ \\ s; \\ y
_ x
s +,
'Sew x -• ?? ?? - ?'?,?? `? ,?`? -
£? PP? rp?
• IPICAL S? L?JTERAL
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site Sheet of U
0
S' 2
_ I'1t,?
VFIRItS /'?fT
J
GLASS /B RIP RAP
. 2' .
LT 7-0
S
Ift ZO& t35 t DDr- ±4.0c
JOHN F. WOODS FAMILY TR?ST
:)iTEg.
w \ ? m
J \ \?
\ o ? ISFD rs?
D
48' CM CIA55 1 RIf'-fdA
FILTER Fagg
. Q N
+5o TA"
?- ? ?S POE
40
n ?, -? D ? -x-35 •: ? .? ,
A Q (O ?, ?
\? \ o I o ?32 a- 0.
40
=XISTING R/XI -? - _ f r f \ /
NC 16 20' BST
BST \
vr(T
Q
45' EXISTWG 05
cvc ?e / ??\• 23\ .
4-? 4
,\V"
TAIL OITCN. --? w
coHW
NC
ANC ww' \
d k
WOODS
AD

TREE FARM
A/ A? ?-
_ Q
J ITc ??
T
72
?? -
00.
left
4 -+f4?
5 480
j POE
4 4S8W T--.
UP 5SBW 48' WO
REMOVE
---- 4'X3' CO -,-_--- ------
?? -- OX
f--l i _ 1?1 1•?I?Iti?l?\-.•''?1?'Il?i'}?I?.I?1?1?III ?III i I •_III •, I!}`??•?I•? i - '1' 1?5'EXIS?71N1C'
. Aso 40 ??
fD0 _ -x•50 + ? _ _ ., .
5.s,
\\ WOODS V N
Cl)
V) I. S tK D
?' roc
• 5.3'
C
n6BA f-'?VIILLA4 eAkNCK
?•n, DDE ? 10cY rr
306 S`9 2Q 27'W
> 2S SK D -
C"j
HT
N ?R 4-93 FDA
•1
4g WW
7010
91
5W
? 72 R? 01
• 22? ? ,yb4D .93
IS eK o CL??I WRAP
?I
I7 'rot-is,
DECK...
_N
ROBIN Y W. BARTER 8
CARTER
Elvo.
±
-Y2 ST-4 11-t- 75.,5:6
+? I t -r
i t
t; `tis
10
03
Rt ?COR 3.5q. 19,
Sl7•29,3 -
r?
r
WOL frl
C-
A I L Q I TC Hw 5
F CL?I RAP RAPP ?`.
90 TANS'
l 'iv ?5 i
-f- ?_'7g?o
CONC
g A =_=-___ 261
E
i

fit
LD
I N
'cork : c;
carTLE•..
' GUARD ,?-
? TS_ `217+82.E3?
-
? 25
-TO E

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site O ??.t4?o7lJ
Sheet Q of ALP
t'? -. 4SRk?

_1
\ WILLIAM' D. MILLER CID
N co
w 83
82 W w ?ROBERT A. MILLER \
' 54' CM? --- a 3' 1325'c
fl?
111 5 V) N
• ,1 N W. ?? .i
s '/2s?o I ?• ?D-
CID
k0 IS $K D V M 7//?3
HTR 42-L CID
?o IYL
aid N i
15' I' STIC D -.0% 1581
74 YE 24' 8K
-- 7 rl•
- ---------- -
Jr?
QTY ` _ +2t ??l' CONC HW 2 I? / 6B -? _
7 CONIC HW, -- TE . UNIT`
4-06
E -E m
-74
c? . 1 66? - JL?6' ?•?' /V.419i? HTR 65/ w ^ CS 225+
I GEORGE C.>SHEETS 1
Ln 'E
. ?+? ? l? ? \ DECK
Z
W -N
>1 t:
Ln CF)
i
7 fT1
WOODS, \
33'
H

cp 6,
si3 zg a Z q j{ T F-
22, 5? _
r- r,t
N Ln
. ? O O
7 cD -
WDY 3 f ? -
POND -
MILLER ??.-•_?1ti ?,
In.
M
Ln LO
_-=Ll-? L?
FOND
?' / • X05 \
_ _3S8w EIP
??=- • -
+ m 45' EX? Tt? y O' CONC HW - -
N TEL PED - GR --
N -CjaNf--WW - -
AT C u' _ - C ?- - - _
I P
?S
SH
N -`? 0 6 C Cp? \
'F A X 40, S0' ? _ N oN?yw S
sy<irF w p
/,-2/n RAID 0
r" LARRY JOE BARKER
EIP ? 89 ? eb
?A)
n
t
T AL
r
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
Site t a
Sheet 14 of
E

rI'I LAL,-STA. 249+75 LT -.. - - {HI C ?R--2
•3 % GRADE DoE . goo Y STA 252 +50 END - ,
- s JT.F- 3
;,c 55 ?n .
114
114. ' •
6 TDE
RIP RAP
MAINE MASH EST, +_ 80_7ONS
N64'6'14'E
`_E .. ._ 21.3 T. \_: •?_::?
Xi,
3 2SSW 12 ZS?"W
54 CM
RETAIN EXT ND , D
--------------
C TE tmsT?c- ' - ------- - _,-
AL"
'T DE ES?f?p TUNS
TD
/F{1_T
0 N $ FA coNe ' 40?
a.
te p
• .r i ? ?`1+ ? .? . ? W ., ? ? ??
Olt
I \
N A WOODS •` t CONC
- ( `
-
?K A -S
IS 8)( D
I \
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Ashe County
TIP No. R-2100 C
NC 16, from Blue Ridge Parkway to
south of SR 1158
13 Jv
Site
Sheet J? of I LP
11

0
Q
0
N
M
N

CL 0

LL Q

'D In ?t M 10 N
4) r
O
to
N
Z
0 N
F N O
~ Q
N
= Y
0

Cl)
v
M
r ?T ao
Z x

o m O
LL
O
to Z x
U.
OD Sao
m

IL
_
o F T
d C E w
C, 9
U ° (D a -?
z a z LL
O
.f?

O
s W
' w
x
N

Si

0

N y
R
N
N
Q

? o
a
m

t0
H O M O O O tp 1n ? ?
N

V

C t
W U

N

.-.
N L
x U

-o u,
N u?
v o
? v>
M ?n o
O o
ao u, u?
r 0 0 0
m c c d

V W U E

?
LL
W nh ?

~
3
W ? o
c
Q C C U O
O

N

.-.

O

O
r
0 N

0
.-
0

0

0

0

O

0

0
N
'-
N R? O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
r ?
v
Z

Q
C c ? U
M *O
C
? N
N
H

w c
? g

w N °
LL
N

? c
N
y O O O
c ? O O O
? N

N
3 N
U N
U)
U
U
fn OD o0
d d m U U m a) m d d
n a n ? x n n n n n a a
_
a n n ^ ? a> n n n a a a n

N
M c
C -
M
N
N
?
M
?
M aO r R
O
f0 ? O to 0 0 0 O In O O O
? O O O N 10 tf) O a0
+ 0
+ 0
+ O
+ 10
t co
+
LL O
t O
+ N
+ +
f0
!
? +
? t
aD
?2 +
W
: co
N ? (O N
N t0
N m
N
N ? W .
- N N N

4
% O ? N M V U? CO
r

?

N

M

J
F
_
N Z O
H
4?
LL w tp
o0(),
z LL
LL ch
Om
CO N
U
w W Z
OW??
z W
M
OD
Ln
O
?-i
O
Z
y..
C
cc
L
f?

O
O
z
O
O r
d,
Q
W

z
-

O _
' ?-
h?Fv.
O b.?CJ

'
O
/ s
Gle
w
LL 4
m,? Q
.. ..
H
Z

O
V
O
D
z o
m
0 Ln
r,
a ?

W
U_
O

z
U
Q
K

z
a 0
U
O
W O
O
Q O
O N
U_ ?
O N

Z 01
O
Q'
W
m

z
W
U_
O
Z