20010994 Ver 1_Complete File_20010703

TO: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
Raleigh Field Office
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, DOT Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 27, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT bridge replacement of No. 123 on SR 1549 over Grassy Creek, Ashe
County. Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1549(2), State Project No. 8.2711401,
TIP No. B-3302
This correspondence responds to a request by NCDOT for our review and comments on a
permit application and Categorical Exclusion for the replacement of bridge No. 123 on SR 1549.
Biologists on staff with the NCWRC have reviewed the proposed improvements and are familiar
with habitat values of the project area. 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 Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.).
NCDOT proposes to replace the current bridge with a con-span bridge on approximately
the same alignment. An offsite detour will be used during construction. The project location is
very close to the confluence of Grassy Creek and the New River. We sampled a 200m section of
Grassy Creek upstream of bridge no. 123 on July 24, 2001. Fish species identified included:
smallmouth bass, rock bass, brown trout, sculpin, dace, shiners, suckers, darters, chubs, and
catfish. The smallmouth bass, rock bass, and brown trout fish samples included young of the
year fish indicating reproduction. It is imperative that fish passage be maintained at the bridge
site because smallmouth and rock bass migrate up Grassy Creek from the New River to spawn.
Brown trout will likely stay upstream of the bridge project in the cooler waters. We are pleased
that the bridge will be replaced with a con-span bridge. This will minimize impacts to the
aquatic community. Therefore, we do not object to the project as proposed provided that the
project commitments listed in the Categorical Exclusion and permit application are adhered to
and the following conditions are implemented:
1. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the smallmouth bass spawning season of May 1 through June 30 to
protect the egg and fry stages from off-site sedimentation during construction.
Replace Bridge #123 on SR 1549 2 November 27, 2001
Grassy Creek
2. Disturbance of the stream channel must be limited to only what is necessary to install
the bridge. Bridge replacements should maintain above and below stream conditions
at pre-construction widths and depths for bedload self-scouring and aquatic life
migration. The stream has been widened at the current bridge location to 2x its width
upstream and downstream (see attachment). Where disrupted, natural floodplain
benching should be restored.
3. Use of riprap to armor the inlet and outlet ends of the bridge should be kept to a
minimum. Natural bank sloping and native plant revegetation should be used to
stabilize disturbed banks where practical.
4. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion.
5. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
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)
527-1549.
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Eric Black, NCDOT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
June 29, 2001
010994
LYNDO TIPPE IT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Ashe County. Replacement of Bridge No. 123 on SR 549 ver Grassy Creek. Federal Aid Project
No. MABRZ-1549(2). State Project No. 8.2711401. IP P ject No. B-3302.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 123 over
Grassy Creek (DEM Index # 10-3), a Class "C-Tr +" waters of the state. Construction of the proposed project will
consist of replacing the current bridge with a three barrel box culvert on approximately the same alignment. An
offsite detour will be used during culvert construction.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Permanent stream impacts associated with the project will consist of culverting 59 feet (0.066 acres) of Grassy
Creek and excavating an additional 45.8 feet of flood plain associated with the stream. Bridge No. 123 is composed
of a timber and steel superstructure and a reinforced concrete substructure. Removal of the substructure should be
possible by pulling the bents over and lifting them out, however this could still constitute a temporary fill depending
on the water level. The maximum resulting volume of fill would be 7 cubic yards. There are no wetland impacts are
associated with the project.
FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of March 22, 2001, there are seven species listed as federally threatened or endangered for Ashe County,
North Carolina (See Table 1): A resurvey of the North Carolina Natural Heritage database on June 11, 2001 revealed
no population within one mile of the project area. An in-stream moratorium is required from January 1 to April
15.
Table 1. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species for Ashe County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbergi Bog turtle T(S/A)
Geum radiatum Spreading avens Endangered No effect
Helonias bullata Swamp pink Threatened No effect
Houstonia montana var. montana Roan mountain bluet Endangered No effect
Liatris heleri Heller's blazing star Threatened No effect
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened No effect
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Endangered No effect
* T(S/A)-Threatened (due to similarity of appearance). Species with designation are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not effect any historical or archaeological resources within the project area (See
attachments 6 and 7 of the Categorical Exclusion).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f) for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). NCDOT requests these activities be authorized under a Nationwide 23 (65
FR 12817, 12899; March 9, 2000). Additionally, we anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter, NCDOT requests NCWRC review. NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the
Corps of Engineers.
Other required approvals include a NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification. We anticipate this project
requires a 401 General Certification and are providing one courtesy copy of the permit application to the NCDWQ
for their review. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919)
733-1176.
Sincerely, /
9t William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Ms. Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. David Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Carl McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P. E., PD&EA

Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
TIP No. B-3302
010994
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9-21-7-00
Date

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
8-3D-oo . ?
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
TIP No. B-3302
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
-ZB-c,U

Date John(L. Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
CAROB
E /0 SEAL
022552
e Zk W k/ei &n e- ,, ///-
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
g'- 2 9-no ??-??? v
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3302, Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project NIABRZ•1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
Resident Engineer
Trout County: NCWRC requires the following to be implemented to minimize impacts to
aquatic resources:
• Where concrete is used, work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
• Where possible, heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than in the
stream channel to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
• Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control.
pt
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition &
Removal will be implemented on this project.
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented on this project.
Structure Design
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition &
Removal will be implemented on this project.
Hydraulics Unit
The NCWRC generally prefers a spanning structure. This particular site does not support
trout but NCWRC is concerned about fish passage through the structure. Therefore, the
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with NCWRC to address this concern.
Roadside Environmental
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented on this project.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
August 4, 2000
Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
TIP No. B-3302
Bridge No. 123 is located in Ashe County over Grassy Creek. It is programmed in the
Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement
project due to deteriorating structural integrity and a deficient cross section. This project
is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
(HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial
environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 123 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a three barrel box
culvert on approximately the same alignment. Each barrel of the culvert will have a cross
section of 12x9 feet (3.6x2.7 meters). Traffic will be maintained with a temporary
onsite detour during construction.
There will be 328 feet (100 meters) of new approach work to the southwest and 278 feet
(85 meters) of new approach work to the northeast. The pavement width on the
approaches will include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 6-foot
(1.8-meter) wide grass shoulders [9 feet (2.8 meters) wide where guardrail is required].
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
The estimated cost of the project is $640,000 including $575,000 in construction costs
and $51,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2002-2008 TIP
is $525,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There is no posted speed limit in the area and therefore subject to statutory 55 mph (90
kph). A design exception will be required due to vertical curvature which would limit the
design to 50 mph (80 kph). Given the low volume of traffic, the lack of accidents, and
the topographical constraints, it is not practical to improve the vertical alignment.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1549 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. It is an unpaved road located in the northeast corner of Ashe County. Currently
the traffic volume is less than 100 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 500 VPD for
the year 2025. There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge. The area is
largely rural forest with scattered residential development.
The existing bridge was completed in 1960. It is composed of a two-span timber and
steel structure. The deck is 71 feet long and 12 feet wide. The bridge carries one lane of
traffic. There is vertical clearance of approximately 13 feet between the floorbeams of
the bridge deck and streambed.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is
20.4 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 10
tons for single vehicles and 14 tons for truck-tractor. semi-trailers.
Both vertical and horizontal alignment are fair in the project vicinity. The width on the
approaches to the existing bridge is 12 feet (3.6 meters). Shoulders on the approaches of
the bridge are approximately 2-4 feet (0.6-1.2 meters) wide.
In an analysis of a recent three year period no accidents were reported associated with the
bridge or its approaches.
There is one school bus crossing the bridge twice a day. According to the Transportation
Director for Ashe County the school bus using the road crosses over the bridge and
immediately turns around and make a return trip. Provided there is an option for turning
around, closing the road would pose no burden.
There are no utilities which would likely be impacted by this project.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 123 on approximately the same location with a box
culvert. Traffic would be detoured offsite during construction. The
design speed would be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 123 on approximately the same
location with a box culvert. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary
onsite detour to the southeast during construction. The design speed
would be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
"Do-nothing" is not practical. The eventual closing of the road would be required as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. STUDIED DETOUR
The studied offsite detour for this project includes SR 1546, SR 1545, SR 1547, and SR
1550. The average motorist would likely travel an additional 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers)
along the proposed detour per trip. Given a six month construction period, the cost
incurred by road users due to the additional travel would be approximately $15,000. The
condition of the offsite detour is very poor with multiple hairpin turns and gravel roads
frequently with only one lane of travel.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge
Temporary Detour Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches 103,000
N/A
6,000
151,000 103,000
108,000
6,000
151,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 90,000 132,000
Engineering & Contingencies 50,000 75,000
Total Construction $ 400,000 $ 575,000
Right of Way 51,000 $ 65,000
Total Cost $ 451,000 $ 640,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 123 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a three barrel box
culvert on approximately the same alignment. Each barrel of the culvert will have a cross
section of 12x9 feet (3.6x2.7 meters). Traffic will be maintained with a temporary onsite
detour during construction.
There will be 328 feet (100 meters) of new approach work to the southwest and 278 feet
(85 meters) of new approach work to the northeast. The pavement width on the
approaches will include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 6-foot
(1.8-meter) wide grass shoulders [9 feet (2.8 meters) wide where guardrail is required].
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
The temporary onsite detour will consist of a 500-foot (155-meter) long roadway utilizing
two 96x66-inch (2410x1700-mm) corrugated steel pipe arches as a temporary structure.
The temporary alignment will include one lane 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide with 4-foot
(1.2-meter) shoulders. This one lane detour is appropriate considering ample sight
distance, low volumes of traffic, and the physical constraints of the South Fork New
River approximately 50 feet (15 meters) downstream of the bridge and a mountainside
approximately 70 feet (21 meters) upstream of the bridge.
Although Alternate 2 costs $189,000 more than Alternate 1 it provides a substantially
greater factor of safety. The offsite detour is reasonable from a cost standpoint but
presents a substantial safety concern as discussed in Section V of this document.
NCDOT therefore, recommends Alternate 2 and the Division Office concurs.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this
document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project
will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have
any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on
noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will have no impact on soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
On April 29, 1998, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject
project. Subsequently, the SHPO determined that this project is not likely to affect any
resources of architectural significance (see attachments). They did request an
archaeological evaluation. NCDOT conducted an archaeological investigation and
determined that the project would not have an effect on any resources of archaeological
significance. (see attached letter).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and
availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in
any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Ashe County is hilly and mountainous. The entire county is
drained by the New River and its tributaries. Project elevation is approximately 755.9 m
(2,480.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
Soils
Two soil phases occur within project study area: Tusquitee loam and Evard loam.
Tusquitee loam with 15 to 25 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that occurs in coves,
drainage ways and slopes. Permeability is moderate, runoff is rapid, and the seasonal
high water table is low. Tusquitee loam's main limitations are slope and erosion.
Evard loam with 15 to 25 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that occurs on the upper
side of slopes and ridgetops. Permeability is moderate, runoff is rapid, and the seasonal
high water table is low. Evard loam's main limitations are slope and erosion.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource,
its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization methods are
also discussed.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Grassy Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed
project. Grassy Creek is located in sub-basin 05-07-02 of the New River Basin. The
average baseflow width is approximately 7.6 to 9.1 m (25.0 to 30.0 ft). The average
depth is approximately 0.3 m (1.0 ft). Grassy Creek has a silty, cobbly substrate.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of Water
Quality. The classification of Grassy Creek (DEM Index No. 10-1-14) is C+. Class C
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. The + symbol on waters in the New River Basin
identifies those waters that are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A
NCAC 2B .0225 the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) rule, in order to protect
downstream waters designated an ORW. The South Fork New River, a High Quality
Water (HQW), occurs within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area. The Division of
Water Quality had no specific requests in initial coordination.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There is not
a BMAN station located on Grassy Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study
area.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six
months to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until
the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to
pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by
population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa).
Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of
long-term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. No point source discharger is located on Grassy
Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during
construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new location usually results in more
severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of 24.4 in (80.0 ft), anticipated impacts to
Grassy Creek will be 24.4 m (80.0 ft) and 36.6 m (120.0 ft) for Alternate 1 and Alternate
2 respectively. Alternate 1 impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.38 ha (0.91 ac).
The area of aquatic and terrestrial environments impacted is 0.02 ha (0.06 ac) and 0.36 ha
(0.85 ac) respectively. Alternate 2 impacts for both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.47 ha
(1.16 ac). The area of aquatic and terrestrial environments impacted is 0.03 ha (0.08 ac)
and 0.44 ha (1.08 ac) respectively. Alternate 1 is preferred from a Natural Systems
standpoint due to fewer impacts. Usually, project construction does not require the entire
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Although Ashe County is designated a trout county by the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), Grassy Creek does not support trout at this location (WRC 1998).
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal,
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas,
and/or
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
The NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are not limited to minimizing built upon
area and diverting stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as
possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and
flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past
and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow descriptions
presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al.
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980) and Webster
et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name
only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be
present within the project area.
Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Acidic Cove
Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, maintained yard and
maintained/disturbed roadside. Community boundaries within the study area are well
defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to
occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging
opportunities or as movement corridors.
Acidic Cove Forest
The Acidic Cove Forest is located northwest of the existing bridge. The canopy is
composed of white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), chestnut
oak (Quercus prinus), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). The shrub layer consists of saplings
of the canopy trees, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild strawberry
(Fragaria virginiana), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), violet (Viola sp.), grass (Festuca
sp.),.yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina).
Wildlife associated with the Acidic Cove Forest include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), deer
mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus).
Avian species utilizing the Acidic Cove Forest likely include: broad-winged hawk
(Buteo platypterus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis) and red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis).
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This riparian community includes mowed and non-mowed areas that are present along the
South Fork New River. Flora within this riparian community includes sycamore, yellow
birch, sugar maple (Ater saccharum), black walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), red maple (Ater rubrum), wooly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), henbit,
violet, blackberry (Rubus sp.), wild garlic (Allium vineale), yellowbell (Forsythia sp.),
and spicebush (Lindera benzoin).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting this community will be largely those
species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest.
Maintained Yard
The maintained yard is located southwest of Bridge No. 123 along SR 1549. Flora within
this maintained community includes field garlic (Allium vineale), chickweed (Siellaria
media), fescue (Festuca sp.) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely
those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest.
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community
The maintained/disturbed roadside community occurs along SR 1549 and includes the
same species present in the maintained yard community. Flora includes fescue, field
garlic, chickweed, and dandelion.'
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely
those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Grassy Creek will be impacted by the proposed project.
Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence
faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. No submersed or emergent aquatic
vegetation was observed within this section of Grassy Creek. Vegetation along the bank
of Grassy Creek includes sycamore, yellow birch, sugar maple, black walnut, wooly
mullein, henbit, violet, blackberry, wild garlic, yellowbell, and spicebush.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish species likely to occur in Grassy Creek include brown trout
(Salmo trutta), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
9
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus punctulatus). Invertebrates that would be present
include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera),
dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies (Odonata).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft)
minus the area previously impacted by the existing road. Alternate 1 is preferred from a
Natural Systems standpoint due to fewer impacts. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated impacts from the proposed project to biotic communities.
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Acidic Cove Forest 0.05 (0.13) 0.05 (0.13)
Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.06 (0.16) 0.10 (0.24)
Maintained Yard 0.17 (0.41) 0.21 (0.50)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.08 (0.21) 0.08 (0.21)
Total 0.36 (0.91) 0.44(l.08)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 123 and its associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related
10
work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may
be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and
may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce
siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile
filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can
also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover
or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes.
Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic
communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause
the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the
growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration
and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
JURISDICTIONAL Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues-"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United
States" as defined in 22 CFR Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill
material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the
growing season.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland. Wetlands are not present within the project
area.
Grassy Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all
surface waters in the project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW
width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Considering Alternate 1, impacts to Grassy Creek will consist
of a 24.4 in (80.0 ft) width and a 9.1 m (30.0 ft) long crossing of Grassy Creek, for an
area of 0.02 ha (0.06 acre). Alternative 2 impacts to Grassy Creek will consist of a 36.6
m (120.0 ft) width and a 9.1 in (30.0 ft) long crossing of Grassy Creek, for an area of 0.03
(0.08). Alternate 1 is preferred from a Natural Systems standpoint due to fewer impacts.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW, therefore, actual surface
water impacts may be considerably less.
Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies charged with protecting the water quality
of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
"waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part
by another federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act the activity, work, or
discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment, and that the office of the Chief of Engineers
has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification
allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or
other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
certification is required prior to'the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit. Since
the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a
12
nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the WRC
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of "waters of the United States", specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to "waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical
mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters of the United States" crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved
in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
performed for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
13
restoration, creation and enhancement of "waters of the United States." Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject
to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 13 March 2000, the FWS lists the following federally protected species
for Ashe County (Table 3). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impacts follows Table 3.
Table 3. Federally protected species for Ashe County.
Scientific Name Common Name' ` Federal Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle Threatened (S/A)
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Endangered
Geum radiatum Spreading avens Endangered
Helonias bullata Swamp pink Threatened
Houstonia Montana Roan Mountain bluet Endangered
Liastris helleri Heller's blazing star Threatened
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened
Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Threatened (S/A) is threatened due to similarity of appearance; a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: December 1, 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) in
length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow
14
blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog
turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western
Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In
June or July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs
hatch in about 55 days.
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This is
due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed for protection. T
S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation, and a biological conclusion for
this species is not required. The NCNHP database was checked on 27 March 2000 and
revealed no records of bog turtles in the project area.
Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) Endangered
Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This lichen is
a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity
environments occur on high elevation >1,220.0 m (>4,000.0 ft) mountaintops and cliff
faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation <762.0 m (<2,500.0 ft) deep
gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical
rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet
times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in
these vertical intermittent seeps. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of
Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be
found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
The terminal portions of the rock gnome lichen resemble strap-like lobes, having a
blue-gray color on the upper surface and generally a shiny-white color on the lower
surface. The color of the fungi near the base is black. The squamules are nearly parallel
to the rock surface and are generally 1 to 2 cm (0.39 to 0.79 in) in length. The fruiting
bodies are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found at the tips of the
squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July through
September. The primary means of propagation appears to be asexual, with colonies
spreading clonally.
The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. The thinning and death of these
forests occurs from exotic insect pests, trampling of hikers and associated soil erosion and
compaction from hikers. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. Drastic changes in microclimate (including
15
increased temperatures and decreased moisture) result from the impacts to these forests.
These alterations of the microclimate lead to the desiccation of the rock gnome lichen.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen, in the form of high elevation coniferous
forests, are not present within the project study area. The high humidity environments
required by this species occur on high elevation, >1,220.0 m (?4,000.0 ft), mountaintops
and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation, <762.0 m (<2,500.0
ft), deep gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The study area is dominated by
maintained communities and is at too low of an elevation to support this species. A
review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats,
on 27 March 2000 revealed no record of rock gnome lichen within the project vicinity.
Project construction will not affect the rock gnome lichen.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
This species is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been extirpated and
populations in any other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 2.0 to
5.0 dm (7.9 to 19.7 in). The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets
are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves
are smaller than the basal, rounded to obovate, with irregularly cut margins. Fruits are
hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7 to 9 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in) in diameter.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and
ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1,535.0 to 1,541.0 m (5,060.0 to 5,080.0 ft), 1,723.0 to 1,747.0 m (5,680.0 to 5,760.0 ft)
and 1,759.0 m (5,800.0 ft). Other habitat requirements for this species include full
sunlight and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found in soils composed of
sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers
on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for this species, such as scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges, was not present in the project area. A review of the NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000
16
revealed no record of spreading avens within the project vicinity. Project construction
will not affect spreading avens.
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) Threatened
Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1988
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Helonias bullata, a fresh water wetlands plant, once occurred in wetlands from New York
to Georgia. It is now believed to be extirpated from New York. Of the 60 known
populations, seven are found in North Carolina. The North Carolina populations are
limited to bogs in the southern Appalachians in Transylvania, Jackson, and Henderson
counties.
This perennial plant grows from tuberous rhizomes. It has lance-shaped, smooth,
evergreen leaves that grow in basal rosette. The 3 to 6 dm (11.8 to 23.6 in) hollow stem is
topped with a short, dense, spike-like raceme of pink or purplish flowers. The fruit is a
three lobed, papery capsule, 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) long and 8 to 10 nun (0.3 to 0.4 in)
wide.
This species is found in freshwater wetlands areas including spring seepages, swamps,
bogs, meadows, and along the margins of meandering streams. Soils that it occurs in are
described as being slightly acidic (pH: 4.2-4.9), having a thin layer of decomposed
organic matter, underlain by a black to dark gray silt loam that is slightly sticky, with
many small roots and fine mica chips. Populations are found in areas with varying
amounts of shade but populations in open areas are less vigorous due to increased
competition from other species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of wetlands, including spring seepages, swamps, bogs and
meadows were not found within the project area. A review of the NCNHP database on
27 March 2000 revealed no known occurrence of swamp pink within the project vicinity.
Project construction will not affect swamp pink.
Houstonia montana (Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Houstonia montana is known historically from seven populations in the southern
Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. These populations of
Houstonia montana are threatened by land use as well as natural succession.
This perennial species is shallow rooted and grows in low tufts 1 to 2 dm (3.9 to 7.9 in)
17
tall. The median cauline leaves are 1 to 3 cm (0.4 to 1.2 in) long. It has several bright
purple flowers arranged in a terminal cyme. The seed capsule quickly follows the flowers
that form in July and early August.
This plant can be found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the
gravelly talus associated with cliffs. It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full
sunlight and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and
metasedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of high elevation, 1280.2 to 1920.2 m (4200.0 to 6300.0 ft),
and steep slopes was not found in the project study area. A review of the NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats, on 27 March 2000
revealed no record of Roan Mountain bluet in the project vicinity. Project construction
will not affect the Roan Mountain bluet.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: late June - August
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue
Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Of nine historic populations only seven remain in
existence.
Heller's blazing star is a short stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise
from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are acuminate and diminish in size
and breadth upward on the stem. Stems are 4 dm (15.7 in) tall and are topped with a
raceme of small 7 to 20 cm (2.8 to 7.9 in) lavender flowers. Fruits are present from
September to November.
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can be found growing on high
elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It
prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Known populations of this plant occur at elevations of 1,067 to 1,829 m (3,500 to 6,000
ft). The population in the study area is only 755.9 m (2,480.0 ft). High elevation ledges
and rock outcrops do not occur within the project study area; therefore, there is no
potential habitat for Heller's blazing star. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of
rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 and revealed no records
of Heller's blazing star within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project
will have no effect on this species.
18
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) Threatened
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July
Virginia spiraea is presently known from 24 locations in six different states. In North
Carolina it is found on the South Fork of the New River, Ashe County, the Little
Tennessee River, Macon County, the Nolichucky River, Mitchell and Yancey counties,
the South Toe River, Yancey County, and the Cane River, Yancey County. It is only
known from historic collections in Buncombe and Graham counties.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to three meters tall. It
sprouts readily and is often found in dense clumps. The leaves are alternate and vary
greatly in size, shape, and degree of serration. They are green above and usually
somewhat glaucous below. The cream colored flowers occur in branched, flat-topped
inflorescences that are approximately ten to twenty centimeters wide.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats consisting of scoured banks
of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, or braided
features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not
extreme enough to completely remove small, woody species. This species occurs in the
maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various other
disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in areas with full sunlight, but can
survive in shaded areas until it is released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NCDOT environmental biologist Dale Suiter conducted a survey for Virginia Spiraea in
the project study area on 27 June 2000. No Virginia Spiraea plants were observed within
the study area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats was checked on 24 August 2000 and there are no records of Virginia
Spiraea in the project study area. This project will not affect Virginia Spiraea.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are sixteen Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Ashe County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these
species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species
of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration for listing but for
which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms, which
19
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded
state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species
may be upgraded in the future. Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. Surveys for these species were not
conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000 revealed no
records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Ashe County.
Scientific Name Common Name State Habitat
Status Present
Loxia curvirostra Southern Appalachian Red Crossbill SR Yes
Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha minnow SC No
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail SR No
Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren E No
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E Yes
Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail SR Yes
Speyeria Diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR* Yes
Speyeria idala Regal fritillary butterfly SR* Yes
Stenelmis gammoni Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle SR Yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Euphorbia purpurea Glade spurge C No
Gymnocarpium appalachianum Appalachian oak fern E No
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass E No
Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage C No
Cladonia psoromica Bluff Mountain reindeer lichen C No
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are
also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its
20
range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or
the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"*" - Historic Record - the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
21
16 VA.
Grassy
1573' Creek tsar N
3
1535 '1546
? • 1551 1535
• v 1 ?9 Bndge No. 123
1547 _ • 1
,? __. Weovsrs
Ford
N 1'5'30 -4
.9 ?
1554.5
73 1593 J
w1552
N ? 1549
1559 1.2 Q
O 1556 1555 7J
'CGS p 15W
-1 0 1560
7
0
1 1
49
V) 1553 1557 5
QQ 1558 I 1560

1 7 p 1563 1361

rumpler p i i • 6 •6 Oo
Chestnyt ^. 1'52
1565
. T
1573 1 0' • ? 1566
'-
'567 1567
1549
1567
1573. 2.5
1673
6
N
ti

I-
V ?e``+1? North Carolina
t Department of Transportation
J;L"
Division of Highways
o?
Planning & Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
13-3302
Figure One

Looking Southwest
Across Bridge No. 123
Lookin=No. Across BNorth Caroli
na Department of
Transportation
Division of High ways
Project Develop ment &
?° Environmental Analysis Branch
Ashe Count y
Replace Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
B-3302
Figure Three

`s
1
Southeast Face of
Bridge No. 123

View
reek
rk New Rive
of
Division of Highways
Project Development &
4%".,
T, "O4° Environmental Analysis Branch
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
B-3302

Z North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont R ion Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 1998 ( 4'_
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for bridge replacement project B-3302, Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549 over
Grassy Creek, Ashe County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the above referenced
project. We have reviewed the scoping sheet for the above referenced nrojec: and have nog identified any special
concerns regarding this project. Although Ashe County is designated a trout county by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Grassy Creek at this location does not support trout at this location. Our comments on the 404 permit
process will reflect this fact.
Since project plans have not been finalized, we offer the following general recommendations during this
scoping phase of the project for minimizing adverse impacts to aquatic resources:
1. We prefer that the existing bridge should be replaced with another spanning structure to maintain fish
passage and minimize disturbance to stream substrate.
2. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
3. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
4. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of
ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982.

?? SU7r ?
.MBA
-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 19, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 123 on SR 1549 over Grassy Creek,
Ashe County, B-3302, Federal Aid Project
MABRZ-1549(2), State Project 8.2711401, ER
98-8639
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On April 29, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
An archaeological survey will be necessary if replacement is to be on a new
alignment.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
-OCII
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 RXV
Nicholas L. Graf
May 19, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
6vi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: -A F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
STATE s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook e4Lt%la (oZErk___
`iii Preservation Officer
Deputy State 1H sto
Re: Bridge #123 on SR 1549, B-3302, Ashe County, ER 98-8639
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Shane
Peterson and Megan O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey, one archaeological site located within the project area the authors
have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conduced in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4801
, STAT! o
d ••
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1
Qu'
From: David Brook
D eputy State Hlsto Preservation Officer
Re: Bridge #123 on SR 1549, B-3302, Ashe County, ER 98-8639
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Shane
Peterson and Megan O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey, one archaeological site located within the project area the authors
have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conduced in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/7334763.
DB:kgc
cc: Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] - 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994618 [phone] - 715-4801
e,,. STA7r
? 1- '
aw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
June 29, 2001
01099.
LYNDO TIPPETI'
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Ashe County. Replacement of Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549 over Grassy Creek. Federal Aid Project
No. MABRZ-1549(2). State Project No. 8.2711401. TIP Project No. B-3302.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 123 over
Grassy Creek (DEM Index # 10-3), a Class "C-Tr +" waters of the state. Construction of the proposed project will
consist of replacing the current bridge with a three barrel box culvert on approximately the same alignment. An
offsite detour will be used during culvert construction.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Permanent stream impacts associated with the project will consist of culverting 59 feet (0.066 acres) of Grassy
Creek and excavating an additional 45.8 feet of flood plain associated with the stream. Bridge No. 123 is composed
of a timber and steel superstructure and a reinforced concrete substructure. Removal of the substructure should be
possible by pulling the bents over and lifting them out, however this could still constitute a temporary fill depending
on the water level. The maximum resulting volume of fill would be 7 cubic yards. There are no wetland impacts are
associated with the project.
FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of March 22, 2001, there are seven species listed as federally threatened or endangered for Ashe County,
North Carolina (See Table 1). A resurvey of the North Carolina Natural Heritage database on June 11, 2001 revealed
no population within one mile of the project area. An in-stream moratorium is required from January 1 to April
15.
Table 1. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species for Ashe County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbergi Bog turtle T(S/A)
Geum radiatum Spreading avens Endangered No effect
Helonias bullata Swamp pink Threatened No effect
Houstonia montana var. montana Roan mountain bluet Endangered No effect
Liatris heleri Heller's blazing star Threatened No effect
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened No effect
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Endangered No effect
* T(S/A)-Threatened (due to similarity of appearance). Species with designation are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE.NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not effect any historical or archaeological resources within the project area (See
attachments 6 and 7 of the Categorical Exclusion).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f) for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). NCDOT requests these activities be authorized under a Nationwide 23 (65
FR 12817, 12899; March 9, 2000). Additionally, we anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter, NCDOT requests NCWRC review. NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the
Corps of Engineers.
Other required approvals include a NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification. We anticipate this project
requires a 401 General Certification and are providing one courtesy copy of the permit application to the NCDWQ
for their review. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919)
733-1176.
Sincerely, _
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Ms. Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. David Henderson, P. E.,. Hydraulics
Mr. Carl McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P. E., PD&EA
. % ,
Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
TIP No. B-3302
010,994
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
8-29-00
Date

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
8-30-00 ?,tti
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
r,
Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
TIP No. B-3302
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
J 10bmeo
Date John L. Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
%% tV11111111111,1
%%% %A CAR9Z
OFESS/0
SEAL =
022552
p GINE
,f- 7- 60 Al 14 Y' " C - " ? t
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
$_ 2 9-an
Date

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3302, Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
Resident Engineer
Trout County: NCWRC requires the following to be implemented to minimize impacts to
aquatic resources:
• Where concrete is used, work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
• Where possible, heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than in the
stream channel to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
• Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control.
1 m
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition &
Removal will be implemented on this project.
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented on this project.
Structure Design
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition &
Removal will be implemented on this project.
Hydraulics Unit
The NCWRC generally prefers a spanning structure. This particular site does not support
trout but NCWRC is concerned about fish passage through the structure. Therefore, the
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with NCWRC to address this concern.
Roadside Environmental
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented on this project.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
August 4, 2000
Ashe County
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1549(2)
State Project 8.2711401
TIP No. B-3302
Bridge No. 123 is located in Ashe County over Grassy Creek. It is programmed in the
Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement
project due to deteriorating structural integrity and a deficient cross section. This project
is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
(HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial
environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 123 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a three barrel box
culvert on approximately the same alignment. Each barrel of the culvert will have a cross
section of 12x9 feet (3.6x2.7 meters). Traffic will be maintained with a temporary
onsite detour during construction.
There will be 328 feet (100 meters) of new approach work to the southwest and 278 feet
(85 meters) of new approach work to the northeast. The pavement width on the
approaches will include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 6-foot
(1.8-meter) wide grass shoulders [9 feet (2.8 meters) wide where guardrail is required].
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
The estimated cost of the project is $640,000 including $575,000 in construction costs
and $51,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2002-2008 TIP
is $525,000.
11. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There is no posted speed limit in the area and therefore subject to statutory 55 mph (90
kph). A design exception will be required due to vertical curvature which would limit the
design to 50 mph (80 kph). Given the low volume of traffic, the lack of accidents, and
the topographical constraints, it is not practical to improve the vertical alignment.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1549 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. It is an unpaved road located in the northeast corner of Ashe County. Currently
the traffic volume is less than 100 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 500 VPD for
the year 2025. There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge. The area is
largely rural forest with scattered residential development.
The existing bridge was completed in 1960. It is composed of a two-span timber and
steel structure. The deck is 71 feet long and 12 feet wide. The bridge carries one lane of
traffic. There is vertical clearance of approximately 13 feet between the floorbeams of
the bridge deck and streambed.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is
20.4 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 10
tons for single vehicles and 14 tons for truck-tractor. semi-trailers.
Both vertical and horizontal alignment are fair in the project vicinity. The width on the
approaches to the existing bridge is 12 feet (3.6 meters). Shoulders on the approaches of
the bridge are approximately 2-4 feet (0.6-1.2 meters) wide.
In an analysis of a recent three year period no accidents were reported associated with the
bridge or its approaches.
There is one school bus crossing the bridge twice a day. According to the Transportation
Director for Ashe County the school bus using the road crosses over the bridge and
immediately turns around and make a return trip. Provided there is an option for turning
around, closing the road would pose no burden.
There are no utilities which would likely be impacted by this project.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 123 on approximately the same location with a box
culvert. Traffic would be detoured offsite during construction. The
design speed would be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 123 on approximately the same
location with a box culvert. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary
onsite detour to the southeast during construction. The design speed
would be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
"Do-nothing" is not practical. The eventual closing of the road would be required as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. STUDIED DETOUR
The studied offsite detour for this project includes SR 1546, SR 1545, SR 1547, and SR
1550. The average motorist would likely travel an additional 2.6 miles (4.2 kilometers)
along the proposed detour per trip. Given a six month construction period, the cost
incurred by road users due to the additional travel would be approximately $15,000. The
condition of the offsite detour is very poor with multiple hairpin turns and gravel roads
frequently with only one lane of travel.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge
Temporary Detour Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches 103,000
N/A
6,000
151,000 103,000
108,000
6,000
151,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 90,000 132,000
Engineering & Contingencies 50,000 75,000
Total Construction $ 400,000 $ 575,000
Right of Way 51,000 $ 65,000
Total Cost $ 451,000 $ 640,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 123 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a three barrel box
culvert on approximately the same alignment. Each barrel of the culvert will have a cross
section of 12x9 feet (3.6x2.7 meters). Traffic will be maintained with a temporary onsite
detour during construction.
There will be 328 feet (100 meters) of new approach work to the southwest and 278 feet
(85 meters) of new approach work to the northeast. The pavement width on the
approaches will include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 6-foot
(1.8-meter) wide grass shoulders [9 feet (2.8 meters) wide where guardrail is required].
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
The temporary onsite detour will consist of a 500-foot (155-meter) long roadway utilizing
two 96x66-inch (2410x1700-mm) corrugated steel pipe arches as a temporary structure.
The temporary alignment will include one lane 12 feet (3.6 meters) wide with 4-foot
(1.2-meter) shoulders. This one lane detour is appropriate considering ample sight
distance, low volumes of traffic, and the physical constraints of the South Fork New
River approximately 50 feet (15 meters) downstream of the bridge and a mountainside
approximately 70 feet (21 meters) upstream of the bridge.
Although Alternate 2 costs $189,000 more than Alternate 1 it provides a substantially
greater factor of safety. The offsite detour is reasonable from a cost standpoint but
presents a substantial safety concern as discussed in Section V of this document.
NCDOT therefore, recommends Alternate 2 and the Division Office concurs.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this
document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project
will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have
any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on
noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will have no impact on soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
On April 29, 1998, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject
project. Subsequently, the SHPO determined that this project is not likely to affect any
resources of architectural significance (see attachments). They did request an
archaeological evaluation. NCDOT conducted an archaeological investigation and
determined that the project would not have an effect on any resources of archaeological
4
significance. (see attached letter).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and
availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in
any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Ashe County is hilly and mountainous. The entire county is
drained by the New River and its tributaries. Project elevation is approximately 755.9 m
(2,480.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
Soils
Two soil phases occur within project study area: Tusquitee loam and Evard loam.
Tusquitee loam with 15 to 25 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that occurs in coves,
drainage ways and slopes. Permeability is moderate, runoff is rapid, and the seasonal
high water table is low. Tusquitee loam's main limitations are slope and erosion.
Evard loam with 15 to 25 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that occurs on the upper
side of slopes and ridgetops. Permeability is moderate, runoff is rapid, and the seasonal
high water table is low. Evard loam's main limitations are slope and erosion.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource,
its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the
resources. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization methods are
also discussed.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Grassy Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed
project. Grassy Creek is located in sub-basin 05-07-02 of the New River Basin. The
average baseflow width is approximately 7.6 to 9.1 m (25.0 to 30.0 ft). The average
depth is approximately 0.3 m (1.0 ft). Grassy Creek has a silty, cobbly substrate.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of Water
Quality. The classification of Grassy Creek (DEM Index No. 10-1-14) is C+. Class C
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving
human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. The + symbol on waters in the New River Basin
identifies those waters that are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A
NCAC 2B .0225 the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) rule, in order to protect
downstream waters designated an ORW. The South Fork New River, a High Quality
Water (HQW), occurs within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area. The Division of
Water Quality had no specific requests in initial coordination.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There is not
a BMAN station located on Grassy Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study
area.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six
months to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until
the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to
pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by
population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa).
Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of
long-term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. No point source discharger is located on Grassy
Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during
construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new location usually results in more
severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft), anticipated impacts to
6
Grassy Creek will be 24.4 m (80.0 ft) and 36.6 m (120.0 ft) for Alternate 1 and Alternate
2 respectively. Alternate 1 impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.38 ha (0.91 ac).
The area of aquatic and terrestrial environments impacted is 0.02 ha (0.06 ac) and 0.36 ha
(0.85 ac) respectively. Alternate 2 impacts for both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.47 ha
(1.16 ac). The area of aquatic and terrestrial environments impacted is 0.03 ha (0.08 ac)
and 0.44 ha (1.08 ac) respectively. Alternate 1 is preferred from a Natural Systems
standpoint due to fewer impacts. Usually, project construction does not require the entire
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Although Ashe County is designated a trout county by the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), Grassy Creek does not support trout at this location (WRC 1998).
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal,
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas,
and/or
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
The NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are not limited to minimizing built upon
area and diverting stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as
possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and
flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past
and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow descriptions
presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al.
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980) and Webster
et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name
only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be
present within the project area.
Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Acidic Cove
Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, maintained yard and
maintained/disturbed roadside. Community boundaries within the study area are well
defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to
occur within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging
opportunities or as movement corridors.
Acidic Cove Forest
The Acidic Cove Forest is located northwest of the existing bridge. The canopy is
composed of white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), chestnut
oak (Quercus prinus), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). The shrub layer consists of saplings
of the canopy trees, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild strawberry
(Fragaria virginiana), henbit .(Lamium amplexicaule), violet (Viola sp.), grass (Festuca
sp.),.yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra), and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina).
Wildlife associated with the Acidic Cove Forest include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), deer
mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus).
Avian species utilizing the Acidic Cove Forest likely include: broad-winged hawk
(Buteo platypterus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis) and red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis).
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This riparian community includes mowed and non-mowed areas that are present along the
South Fork New River. Flora within this riparian community includes sycamore, yellow
birch, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), wooly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), henbit,
violet, blackberry (Rubus sp.), wild garlic (Allium vineale), yellowbell (Forsythia sp. ),
and spicebush (Lindera benzoin).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting this community will be largely those
species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest.
Maintained Yard
The maintained yard is located southwest of Bridge No. 123 along SR 1549. Flora within
this maintained community includes field garlic (Allium vineale), chickweed (Stellaria
media), fescue (Festuca sp.) and dandelion (Taraxacum ofcinale).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely
those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest.
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community
The maintained/disturbed roadside community occurs along SR 1549 and includes the
same species present in the maintained yard community. Flora includes fescue, field
garlic, chickweed, and dandelion.'
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas
and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely
those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Grassy Creek will be impacted by the proposed project.
Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence
faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. No submersed or emergent aquatic
vegetation was observed within this section of Grassy Creek. Vegetation along the bank
of Grassy Creek includes sycamore, yellow birch, sugar maple, black walnut, wooly
mullein, henbit, violet, blackberry, wild garlic, yellowbell, and spicebush.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish species likely to occur in Grassy Creek include brown trout
(Salmo trutta), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus punctulatus). Invertebrates that would be present
include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera),
dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies (Odonata).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft)
minus the area previously impacted by the existing road. Alternate 1 is preferred from a
Natural Systems standpoint due to fewer impacts. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated impacts from the proposed project to biotic communities.
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Acidic Cove Forest 0.05 (0.13) 0.05 (0.13)
Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.06 (0.16) 0.10 (0.24)
Maintained Yard 0.17 (0.41) 0.21 (0.50)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.08 (0.21) 0.08 (0.21)
Total 0.36 (0.91) 0.44 (1.08)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 123 and its associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related
10
work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may
be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and
may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce
siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile
filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can
also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover
or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes.
Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic
communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause
the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the
growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration
and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues-"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United
States" as defined in 22 CFR Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill
material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the
growing season.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach is used where
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland. Wetlands are not present within the project
area.
Grassy Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all
surface waters in the project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW
width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Considering Alternate 1, impacts to Grassy Creek will consist
of a 24.4 m (80.0 ft) width and a 9.1 m (30.0 ft) long crossing of Grassy Creek, for an
area of 0.02 ha (0.06 acre). Alternative 2 impacts to Grassy Creek will consist of a 36.6
m (120.0 ft) width and a 9.1 m (30.0 ft) long crossing of Grassy Creek, for an area of 0.03
(0.08). Alternate 1 is preferred from a Natural Systems standpoint due to fewer impacts.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW, therefore, actual surface
water impacts may be considerably less.
Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies charged with protecting the water quality
of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
"waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part
by another federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act the activity, work, or
discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment, and that the office of the Chief of Engineers
has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification
allows surface waters to be temporarily, impacted for the duration of the construction or
other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Individual Permit. Since
the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a
12
nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the WRC.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of "waters of the United States", specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to "waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical
mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters of the United States" crossed by the
proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the
protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of
runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved
in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
performed for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
13
restoration, creation and enhancement of "waters of the United States." Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject
to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 13 March 2000, the FWS lists the following federally protected species
for Ashe County (Table 3). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impacts follows Table 3.
Table 3. Federally protected species for Ashe County.
Scientific Name Common' Name' Federal Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle Threatened (S/A)
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen Endangered
Geum radiatum Spreading avens Endangered
Helonias bullata Swamp pink Threatened
Houstonia Montana Roan Mountain bluet Endangered
Liastris helleri Heller's blazing star Threatened
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened
Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Threatened (S/A) is threatened due to similarity of appearance; a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: December 1, 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) in
length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow
14
blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog
turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western
Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In
June or July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs
hatch in about 55 days.
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This is
due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed for protection. T
S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation, and a biological conclusion for
this species is not required. The NCNHP database was checked on 27 March 2000 and
revealed no records of bog turtles in the project area.
Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) Endangered
Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This lichen is
a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity
environments occur on high elevation >1,220.0 in (>4,000.0 ft) mountaintops and cliff
faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation <762.0 m (<2,500.0 ft) deep
gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical
rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet
times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in
these vertical intermittent seeps. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of
Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be
found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
The terminal portions of the rock gnome lichen resemble strap-like lobes, having a
blue-gray color on the upper surface and generally a shiny-white color on the lower
surface. The color of the fungi near the base is black. The squamules are nearly parallel
to the rock surface and are generally 1 to 2 cm (0.39 to 0.79 in) in length. The fruiting
bodies are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found at the tips of the
squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July through
September. The primary means of propagation appears to be asexual, with colonies
spreading clonally.
The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. The thinning and death of these
forests occurs from exotic insect pests, trampling of hikers and associated soil erosion and
compaction from hikers. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. Drastic changes in microclimate (including
15
increased temperatures and decreased moisture) result from the impacts to these forests.
These alterations of the microclimate lead to the desiccation of the rock gnome lichen.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen, in the form of high elevation coniferous
forests, are not present within the project study area. The high humidity environments
required by this species occur on high elevation, >1,220.0 in (>4,000.0 ft), mountaintops
and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation, <762.0 in (<2,500.0
ft), deep gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The study area is dominated by
maintained communities and is at too low of an elevation to support this species. A
review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats,
on 27 March 2000 revealed no record of rock gnome lichen within the project vicinity.
Project construction will not affect the rock gnome lichen.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
This species is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been extirpated and
populations in any other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 2.0 to
5.0 dm (7.9 to 19.7 in). The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets
are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves
are smaller than the basal, rounded to obovate, with irregularly cut margins. Fruits are
hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7 to 9 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in) in diameter.
Spreading avens. occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and
ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1,535.0 to 1,541.0 in (5,060.0 to 5,080.0 ft), 1,723.0 to 1,747.0 in (5,680.0 to 5,760.0 ft)
and 1,759.0 in (5,800.0 ft). Other habitat requirements for this species include full
sunlight and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found in soils composed of
sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers
on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for this species, such as scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges, was not present in the project area. A review of the NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000
16
revealed no record of spreading avens within the project vicinity. Project construction
will not affect spreading avens.
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) Threatened
Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1988
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Helonias bullata, a fresh water wetlands plant, once occurred in wetlands from New York
to Georgia. It is now believed to be extirpated from New York. Of the 60 known
populations, seven are found in North Carolina. The North Carolina populations are
limited to bogs in the southern Appalachians in Transylvania, Jackson, and Henderson
counties.
This perennial plant grows from tuberous rhizomes. It has lance-shaped, smooth,
evergreen leaves that grow in basal rosette. The 3 to 6 dm (11.8 to 23.6 in) hollow stem is
topped with a short, dense, spike-like raceme of pink or purplish flowers. The fruit is a
three lobed, papery capsule, 3 to 5 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) long and 8 to 10 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in)
wide.
This species is found in freshwater wetlands areas including spring seepages, swamps,
bogs, meadows, and along the margins of meandering streams. Soils that it occurs in are
described as being slightly acidic (pH: 4.2-4.9), having a thin layer of decomposed
organic matter, underlain by a black to dark gray silt loam that is slightly sticky, with
many small roots and fine mica chips. Populations are found in areas with varying
amounts of shade but populations in open areas are less vigorous due to increased
competition from other species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of wetlands, including spring seepages, swamps, bogs and
meadows were not found within the project area. A review of the NCNHP database on
27 March 2000 revealed no known occurrence of swamp pink within the project vicinity.
Project construction will not affect swamp pink.
Houstonia montana (Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Houstonia montana is known historically from seven populations in the southern
Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. These populations of
Houstonia montana are threatened by land use as well as natural succession.
This perennial species is shallow rooted and grows in low tufts 1 to 2 dm (3.9 to 7.9 in)
17
tall. The median cauline leaves are 1 to 3 cm (0.4 to 1.2 in) long. It has several bright
purple flowers arranged in a terminal cyme. The seed capsule quickly follows the flowers
that form in July and early August.
This plant can be found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the
gravelly talus associated with cliffs. It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full
sunlight and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and
metasedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of high elevation, 1280.2 to 1920.2 in (4200.0 to 6300.0 ft),
and steep slopes was not found in the project study area. A review of the NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats, on 27 March 2000
revealed no record of Roan Mountain bluet in the project vicinity. Project construction
will not affect the Roan Mountain bluet.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: late June - August
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue
Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Of nine historic populations only seven remain in
existence.
Heller's blazing star is a short stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise
from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are acuminate and diminish in size
and breadth upward on the stem. Stems are 4 dm (15.7 in) tall and are topped with a
raceme of small 7 to 20 cm (2.8 to 7.9 in) lavender flowers. Fruits are present from
September to November.
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can be found growing on high
elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It
prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Known populations of this plant occur at elevations of 1,067 to 1,829 in (3,500 to 6,000
ft). The population in the study area is only 755.9 in (2,480.0 ft). High elevation ledges
and rock outcrops do not occur within the project study area; therefore, there is no
potential habitat for Heller's blazing star. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of
rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 and revealed no records
of Heller's blazing star within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project
will have no effect on this species.
18
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) Threatened
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July
Virginia spiraea is presently known from 24 locations in six different states. In North
Carolina it is found on the South Fork of the New River, Ashe County, the Little
Tennessee River, Macon County, the Nolichucky River, Mitchell and Yancey counties,
the South Toe River, Yancey County, and the Cane River, Yancey County. It is only
known from historic collections in Buncombe and Graham counties.
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to three meters tall. It
sprouts readily and is often found in dense clumps. The leaves are alternate and vary
greatly in size, shape, and degree of serration. They are green above and usually
somewhat glaucous below. The cream colored flowers occur in branched, flat-topped
inflorescences that are approximately ten to twenty centimeters wide.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats consisting of scoured banks
of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, or braided
features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not
extreme enough to completely remove small, woody species. This species occurs in the
maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various other
disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in areas with full sunlight, but can
survive in shaded areas until it is released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NCDOT environmental biologist Dale Suiter conducted a survey for Virginia Spiraea in
the project study area on 27 June 2000. No Virginia Spiraea plants were observed within
the study area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats was checked on 24 August 2000 and there are no records of Virginia
Spiraea in the project study area. This project will not affect Virginia Spiraea.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are sixteen Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Ashe County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these
species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species
of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration for listing but for
which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms, which
19
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded
state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species
may be upgraded in the future. Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. Surveys for these species were not
conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000 revealed no
records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Ashe County.
Scientific Name Common Name State Habitat
Status Present
Loxia curvirostra Southern Appalachian Red Crossbill SR Yes
Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha minnow Sc No
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail SR No
Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren E No
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E Yes
Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail SR Yes
Speyeria Diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR* Yes
Speyeria idala Regal fritillary butterfly SR* Yes
Stenelmis gammoni Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle SR Yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Euphorbia purpurea Glade spurge C No
Gymnocarpium appalachianum Appalachian oak fern E No
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass E No
Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage C No
Cladonia psoromica Bluff Mountain reindeer lichen C No
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are
also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its
20
range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or
the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"*" - Historic Record - the species was last observed in the county over 20 years ago.
21
V.
16 VA.
Grassy
• N. C.
1573 Creek 1545 I
3 '546
?yy 1535 ?
C?
?• 1551 ? ,535
v Bridge No. 123
1547 1 1549
Weavers
Ford
N 1550
.9 ?
1554 . `? 6` _
73 1553 <4,
w?
N ? 1549
? 1559 1. 2
1555
O 1556 0 ?.
J 15.5' 8
1560
0
1 1549
v> 1553 1557 1 ?? \ ?c
Ups •' 1558
. ? 560
\
• ?
o
1 7 v 1563 1561

rumpler a . im s 6

52
Chestnut ^. 15
, m
'1??• t' Hill•;?. !
, 1565
1573 a • ' 2
1566 7?
542 1567 1567
6 1549
1567
?
1573• 2.5
1673
6
I
N

*4 North Carolina
t Department of Transportation

N Division of Highways
?77
Planning & Environmental Branch
I
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
B-3302
Figure One
ti
r
Looking Northeast
Across Bridge No. 123
Carolina Department of
? Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549
Over Grassy Creek
j B-3302

Southeast Face of
Bridge No. 123
I F;
nv?ronmenta Ana vsis Branch
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 123 on SR 1519
Over Grassv Creek
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development &
E 1 I
View of Grassy Creek
Flowing Into
South Fork New River
i
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont Rion Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 1998 ( 4 "
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for bridge replacement project B-3302, Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549 over
Grassy Creek, Ashe County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the above referenced
project. We have reviewed the scoping sheet ti)r the above referenced project. and have nog identified any special
concerns regarding this project. Although Ashe County is designated a trout county by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Grassy Creek at this location does not support trout at this location. Our comments on the 404 permit
process will reflect this fact.
Since project plans have not been finalized, we offer the following general recommendations during this
scoping phase of the project for minimizing adverse impacts to aquatic resources:
1. We prefer that the existing bridge should be replaced with another spanning structure to maintain fish
passage and minimize disturbance to stream substrate.
2. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
3. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
4. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of
ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982.
vJ
e??o
-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 19, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 123 on SR 1549 over Grassy Creek,
Ashe County, B-3302, Federal Aid Project
MABRZ-1549(2), State Project 8.271 1401, ER
98-8639
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On April 29, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
An archaeological survey will be necessary if replacement is to be on a new
alignment.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
May 19, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, '
66avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: "1l. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
?? Q wSTAi^ u
W-t P
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and. History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brooket?LLt%Z%
Deputy State Histo ' Preservation Officer
Re: Bridge #123 on SR 1549, B-3302, Ashe County, ER 98-8639
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Shane
Peterson and Megan O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey, one archaeological site located within the project area the authors
have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conduced in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: kgc
cc: Tom Padgett, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] - 733-8653
[phone] - 715-2671
[phone] - 715-4801
[phone] - 715-4801
STATE o
a
WY ?/
Mir
ly Pw+vro„ . •
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 10, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1 ????/
From: David Brooke` L L Ik.R tJ?..( i'
to l
Deputy State Hlsto i Preservation Officer
Re: Bridge #123 on SR 1549, B-3302, Ashe County, ER 98-8639
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Shane
Peterson and Megan O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey, one archaeological site located within the project area the authors
have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conduced in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Addr Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Se r, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Se r, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail S r, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail r, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4801
f,
y w o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETr
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 9, 2001
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office C 1<
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615 ?'t-11 - '
Raleigh, NC 27615 it .''
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator

SUBJECT: Ashe County. Replacement of Bridge No. 123 on SR) 549
No. MABRZ-1549(2). State Project No. 8.2711401. ?JI•F
Dear Sir:
13'
3 s}i Creek. Federal Aid Project
No. B-3302.
This permit application replaces the previous permit application dated June 29, 2001. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 123 over Grassy Creek (DEM Index # 10-
3), a Class "C-Tr +" waters of the state. Construction of the proposed project will consist of replacing the current
bridge with a con-span bridge on approximately the same alignment. An offsite detour will be used during
construction.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
There are no permanent stream impacts associated with the project. Temporary impacts could potentially
occur during bridge removal. Bridge No. 123 is composed of a timber and steel superstructure and a reinforced
concrete substructure. Removal of the substructure should be possible by pulling the bents over and lifting them out.
This may result in a temporary fill depending on the water level. The maximum resulting volume of fill would be 7
cubic yards. There are no wetland impacts are associated with the project.
FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of March 22, 2001, there are seven species listed as federally threatened or endangered for Ashe County,
North Carolina (See Table 1). A resurvey of the North Carolina Natural Heritage database on June 11, 2001 revealed
no population within one mile of the project area. An in-stream moratorium will be required from the NC
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) from May 1 to June 30.
Table 1. Federal Threatened and Endangered S ecies for Ashe Coun , North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
ctaw? i Bo turtle T S/A "
Gann radiatton Spreading avens Endangered No effect
Helonias br&ta Swam ink Threatened No effect
Houstonia nxnW a zrrr. nwntana Roan mountain bluet Endangered No effect
Liat h&n Heller's blazing star Threatened No effect
S iraeat ' mgmwu Virginia s iraea Threatened No effect
Gymxi6m 1maim Rock gnome lichen Endangered No effect
'? T(S/A) -Threatened (due to similarity of appearance). Species with designation are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
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.DOTSTATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
7
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not effect any historical or archaeological resources within the project area (See
attachments 6 and 7 of the Categorical Exclusion).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is the permit drawings for the proposed project. A copy of the Categorical
Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f) for the subject project was distributed previously with the June 29, 2001
permit application. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance-with,;3 CFR 771.115(b). NCDOT requests these activities be authorized under a
Nationwide 23 (65 FR 12817) 12899, March 9, 2000). Additionally, we anticipate that comments from the NCWRC
will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter, NCDOT requests NCWRC
review. NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
Other required approvals include a NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification. We anticipate this project
requires a 401 General Certification and are providing one courtesy copy of the permit application to the NCDWQ
for their review. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919)
733-1176.
Sincerely,
54 William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Ms. Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. David Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Carl McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P. E., PD&EA
M1 ? 1 :' I '.?'<I ' r - I I t (I.".. 1 !_cN ?y V-1?`-???? I r ' ' ???'` ?•3 `?/ "`r ? R` t
r J , e 1't:: ? _....?? ` -f 1 •It, /` } ;"r t T?? ( v / `S l 1 ?I ? `?;.'1' ? I -
-.,"'? l'= ,??[ k r ?;?? .?^'V•`1 i { ' '' ~?? :/ , ,7 ?? ` f \v t t 1 ?Y Cett?
? <, ^ +.? I 1 " I t G. r-7.a `./ r4? J * t ' f
?---, Q?
,4` ?) v ?,Y ?.: 1 '"?`.:....? ^'•( ? ,. W r 1 V t` S - P?l trjllON it ? ? ?( ? ?U"??'VV' . ?y ? iJta f ,-+.
I 1` ` \ SE,``l fv v ?( ` Y,
??t -?rJ l t? ti r rJ Y. V
1 ?V
?? ?. „? ? v ! L•.V rl? t? F ??- v??? I??'` ? rr, ? ? ? r >? r "'lt ?[ r," 1 ,.
6N
?f i 1 qP? i ?J ?r
???? r .?? ? .+ ? r ?rwr7 ?'L •.I , E? ,.??i /'_-??? F l P R ? ,? 1 'T ? ? 1 JI IV r ?" rr ? I•?'
?.,I . . ? ? ) ?l l - ?:? I ?-?I ?? - rr f 1.• _/ 4-,? rte: ' ?'o, ``? I -? t"`?,?,?: fi ?;?
+
?^? r•I `- -1 ! ??p-""` %?)r. „' J ? l ?1 ? ? t ii4?( ?, 1't 4?• ti? ?/;?a•l•??} 'll l? ??rJ?? ? 1? 1???? r''?- ?ti7.?
/. l 1 ? ? ?:? vti 1 1 ? L'T - I r t r ? / r>?? V.- r t ,' . J\A%'? _ ? t ? l ?.
V''? ti ,` 1 iti `v 11 r ?- ,. \t ?-..?1 ' r `? ? 4? ?' ; / ?? ? - , ?`'-? r ?l ? l -' ? 7 14 ? ? ? ?-.
+ t . rN, et' ti f 1 /? tti 1 E r is I I I Awv ?. r /?
v r 2 ? ._?It' r?l t L. 4 r,/ t V`• 7S' t., S ?l ?! r
? ??ti •?-/ ? 1 ? Q? ?. ? 1 t' ( t +E d. r ?? u J 't t? ?7- t 1 r ? r,? i )..?;
?• -'.? f .."??` t.C; ?(?? .?i \? ?} r T{ "r? ? r1}j FII? ,--? 11 ? V - ?
q 9j akNi.
4? _ i r ? r ?fl i 7 a /- f l A) ( + I Il / S
p ?! c y.. ` e 1 f I`? F
?11 r. Gt ??• °.3> . 'l i 1 r ' ? tt ? 1 ! ?4? ?? ?f?+f• f ! i .. t Ir 1 r 1 C ? ,-+ 1 ? ? \ ? ? ? ? ,,(--'' f
op,
? - ?I'? ? _..
?M•\ i.y ? ??p'?.(^? 1 ??v ? ?r.,???.; - 1 I,, t ??
1 ij ', ? r ,x ? al \\ Z 1 Il' ??Y i 1 1 L 't... ? ._ / r f ?? ?1?,? '`J'' ?' fi t` ' .
11 ? 1 t, a Est ??.3rs +?,? may'' ii ` ^?,;I r1tM ?\ v
1 t w :? .?„ } y :? S I r
i ??dl ? ;( ? '\ L ?? ? v`'iF.?'ll' t r ' l 1 `o\ J, I f+ i .Jd I 1 Y ? f.
Rio ?Qt1?r? ?" ?^'? ?` i ` `? 1 t r ?" ?' \,r ?I ?v? ? i; ?I (? ?t\:: a? 4, ; • ` {;. - ? .t?. ? ? ? \) {? , ?; {
??...! ?.1 •? ? V f l ? t <? . ? ' ? ' 3 ? \ ?? v1 ? _ .: ? ` ? C?? _ a?,-?rf?e??*-°-? ' c?il? ? `
,•irl t1 r ?.,fj'a ::.`- , ^. r` ? - ? t?.?\?b?? t ? C V..y ` \` ` 1
r
F 44,???lw r 5 ? •gx? S'l j 1`7 l?J ??`r++ira"I/ C i -
J A `V. `? ???•--? l 1! v. 'tv ? ,y:. _ i ?l 1N,. t - 1 r0.`@?\? 'V, r-F"-^?}'' , 1 ?•___,?:
? .., l , ? ..??ft1 ?@., ..GS!'L, r! Si' - ' ?. < ' , `i _-, a ' r`.1 ?1 .. . C. .'0->? _ ."? ., r•.. _
N.C.D.Oo Jl o
VICINITY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
MAP
PROJECT a 8.2711401 13-3302
Traph
pmC04 r
Ir W
l "h:
xMounta'in
r-? A
lV o`l. .D.O.T.
SITE
MAP
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT a 8.2711401 B-3302
El
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

L WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL
® SURFACE WATER
R
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® D ENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
-
-
?^-
ROOTWAD
WATER

NIZED
DENOTES MECHA
NG
CLEARI
FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
TB
---
- TOP OF BANK
WE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
-
- - EDGE OF WATER O OR PARCEL NUMBER
C IF AVAILABLE
- -
- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL BZ1 BUFFER ZONE 1
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -- - -- - WATER SURFACE
X X
X Xx x X LIVE STAKES
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
BOULDER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
-- CORE FIBER ROLLS ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2711401 8-3302
SHEET 3 OF 8 DATE:10/3/2001
I
I
r
I
I
? L
II
II
I?
I'
-,
--------------
M W II I
x ?
a cn
oo IX
W I
°
06 I I
X I I
LL- 11 1
vi a Ii II
II 1
II 1
1 I
? II 1
O IS III II
? ? II 1
II
I
I
I
1 I
I
I
I
I
I If
II
I
I
r
I
I
I +
I
I
I
o I C O
+
I -,
cssv&D W O
W
? z
1 ?
00
c c I 0
I I
I
¦ I I
Y I I
I
I I O
I I Q0
w
a
U
O
.r GR?Q
? M S
W M
94
10 n 11 n n n In
?' P z H
tl m e x o A
1 co 0 U Gp
i c) W it
it > O
a °°
I I x F?1 W Ix.
O
o > O
N A a
a?
=• x
? N
o
>
D +
O
I ?,
lain ?o
I
n
l o 10
C? I o°; I I ti
?I IW N N
til N IJ Nu
Lfl, I,w o U) r-
>' >I 1 Z ti
a > o
WI W, 'r ?O Q Z +
U O w
? U
N
r O
OI O' 1 Z LL ?,
O' OI o
in' ?r a w J
OI O r `? O Q N
a O I Ol
N d. +
co
I ?? F-Z
W
OIL
W uj Y
J o U a
CIO
ED W d
0
U i U + ? `? Cn
pr I W E"' a
z 1 > QI
al O U
r
rl a + ® W
>
aD 10 Y J N O
to n vi J h h
n n n a r. n
0 0
o 4
.-? 04
c
? o

® x ? tm, A

= u
w
o ?
U
o
06 p ? ti °
w
m > O

Ld a a w
i
U)
>-
E CD
Z
N I
I v
i
NM
o w `r a-
o Ui C
z I
I
° rn CD co ?- I

N C) Ln.
t` O
O
w
"
I
X
M
17 co >

O J

W i
I
F-
ww
E ?
cr- Q
CD
Z
J ?
N NWtn i ;
Q
Nvj °

I
i
v
-
U
)
LnMo

F- ? ? I N Imo- O
Fri

J ,
i
Lf)' I
N N I I

L
w
NI 1
l ti I` W

0-
^I o ; (2)CD o
CIO CO Lk- V)
J Z , ' J' I
t o X I
?I
° I
o l
w I N
I o L
co I l; I
I

Ln

?;

'
w
w

J I
l

/'
Ln

??
(n
J; w w u
?w wl wl ?I
?; co

0
o
A

I J

?I Lu I N ®

N ~
0
Ln o N. 10. i N ,

o
o
/ o
?
? ® W
? f f ' f ? ? x ?
CD 00 Qo N
Qo u) a
0 0

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND A DDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
DB 197 PG 1437 GEORGE P. ARNOLD 1008 WEST RIDGE RD.
GREENSBORO NC, 27410
DB 197 PG 1437 & ROBERT G. KELLEY 707 PEBBLE DRNE
GREENSBORO NC, 27410

N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2711401 B-3302
SHEET 7 OF 8 DATE: 10 / 3 / 2001

0

? 20-
U ° o

a
IL

N
W
LL
LL

m
M
H °
N
?S?E o
W0
O

8i - Q
? >
E

U
? v o g
Z = _ ? Ng
¢ ? O y ? M
= Q m
LL LL
O
O

W U E r
F
Cl) a
a
< z'0¢-
3 - ZOUdI-
W oF. ? ?
g s; Q
25
c
IE
F
o0
LL
O
z
n
$ OD
?
n
LL v _
?
3^ g

N
?
IL (D
°
d?
3
-? o
rL
E
r- ?

CL y o
3

E
n
N
X

0

cii
J
O
Z F
O
F

c
N S ICATE o?
4?
a.w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Gov ERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
November 9, 2001
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECKETARY
SUBJECT: Ashe County. Replacement of Bridge No. 123 on SR 1549 over Grassy Creek. Federal Aid Project
No. MABRZ-1549(2). State Project No. 8.2711401. TIP Project No. B-3302.
Dear Sir:
This permit application replaces the previous permit application dated June 29, 2001. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 123 over Grassy Creek (DEM Index # 10-
3), a Class "C-Tr +" waters of the state. Construction of the proposed project will consist of replacing the current
bridge with a con-span bridge on approximately the same alignment. An offsite detour will be used during
construction.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
There are no permanent stream impacts associated with the project. Temporary impacts could potentially
occur during bridge removal. Bridge No. 123 is composed of a timber and steel superstructure and a reinforced
concrete substructure. Removal of the substructure should be possible by pulling the bents over and lifting them out.
This may result in a temporary fill depending on the water level. The maximum resulting volume of fill would be 7
cubic yards. There are no wetland impacts are associated with the project.
FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of March 22, 2001, there are seven species listed as federally threatened or endangered for Ashe County,
North Carolina (See Table 1). A resurvey of the North Carolina Natural Heritage database on June 11, 2001 revealed
no population within one mile of the project area. An in-stream moratorium will be required from the NC
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) from May 1 to June 30.
Table 1. Federallv Threatened and Endangered Species for Ashe County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Clayw i Bo turtle T S/A
Gaon ra&iwn Spreading avens Endangered No effect
Helonias bullata Swam ink Threatened No effect
Houstonia mmtaw wr mmuna Roan mountain bluer Endangered No effect
Liar heleri Heller's blazing star Threatened No effect
S iraea ' iana Virginia s iraea Threatened No effect
Qymodmw Imam Rock gnome lichen Endangered No effect
'F T(S/A) -Threatened (due to similarity of appearance). Species with designation are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
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
v
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not effect any historical or archaeological resources within the project area (See
attachments 6 and 7 of the Categorical Exclusion).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is the permit drawings for the proposed project. A copy of the Categorical
Exclusion and Programmatic Section 4(f) for the subject project was distributed previously with the June 29, 2001
permit application. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). NCDOT requests these activities be authorized under a
Nationwide 23 (65 FR 12817, 12899, March 9, 2000). Additionally, we anticipate that comments from the NCWRC
will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter, NCDOT requests NCWRC
review. NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
Other required approvals include a NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification. We anticipate this project
requires a 401 General Certification and are providing one courtesy copy of the permit application to the NCDWQ
for their review. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919)
733-1176.
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Ms. Mary Ellen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. David Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Carl McCann, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P. E., PD&EA

I/'? J 1.o l' ??I / ?'? I ?I• 11 t } `?l??M.j? ? l?':. ?? /. :,,v I? _ r alb "?P ? 1? ??`.? .
l t ? ., ?,YM1I ? ? / + f, 1 f"ff..4•..-` \ r?. ? ?o ?1p'/? '.L I(/, o '4c.?
?'t )! ' ^I i , y V O ? ? + y?l ,'^'."1%Y /Z `i ? 1 - ` fll 'l I f C ?,. /"it"'Z . •, . r 4. ?.. 'i ?r
,'\'?i'?i'??1 •?II ??,?\. /1?'`.i li?? 1 Vtr t , ' *t.?.o ys./,'r 7? J '? ?y t ??J? ., ? ?r1 ??.? '. s ?-i)t65 .,? ?.`.
.^ -,1 ?.v, 1 "1..._..?.r ,.%( 1 4.. W' , j ? ? '??- ? ? I?1310X /rti '•`,, ?? E?\. ? f 7/Y k' ?? I?x \I? ??
•./•' +r[''r y /. ? _ _ 'C, /•?.`` ' ?! ? " 'y. Ct ) 0 ?h;. _ ' ,....,F ? ?t ??p"''! }'? y. ,J + {?', Cr ??` I^
t. V + c+'i ,+ a ? t t 1 + ...k
v
v' t •t t ?1 t A^ t t "11// t }? r y c f: j t lC:, ( t r^
??:- ? ,, .. ,, - .3 • ?. ? V ?-` ?, ?? '? ?'''--? ? -? 117 `? ? ?\J t -
?ytj? , .' /J ? i'. ,a'r? ? •`,t ? xf??? ? ?J?:'(^ 1 .o ?.q? r•-,? t?'>. ? t t 1 f I 1'S+i ?'
•.:I. '. ? ? "l 1? 1 ?'? 1?-? I, r` ? j? ?! ? r '? _r•? + =? 1?r "?a'a. "`„ ? r ?? ?? ??,?• Ft'?/
k7r
6',;r? ? ? ?, ?. ??? 'V`im ?l, -'"'!?I' SIFT r??ri ?.; i b? ?. ???? •? it ?? ?_-?.A •?f
Ta s ? r' •) ??-L'?1 t \ 't. ..l tit ,•, `... \ `..h ' , ?.,`t3` 7'?. - • ?s?:. ? ,
?' 1 J ;ti . ' It f ( \? 2 r , IC ??'`•,- + ` -, ?`?
ti• I? t. ??? r ( ?'at r ( 'r . -tt'? A??, r5
{? )) (, t , ? >t jq Y . , ? t I (1 f it r k'w?????yy? wE l? I i ,• ? I ? /? rte" ? f
'` ?. ti S •-.? 1 \_.. F t _. it Y t +EL''., i i l u .•]7?1i.. \ i. t
O"iel
f \\ \,\i L, - ?' ????, ', ? I ,? t %?/ S??Ir ?I ?? l? ??F•I.IQ , i?l' 1 ?- ?rf 1'.
,?: 3 it ?? \ i t 'lr? ?- I t f? t 1 l J. 'vim y I :, r l
of/
h u? •o- 1.?' ?.'t '4 ' f I??" ?? Fl.A Y \ r Irl y
S} (. ?i?kf t(.?t?
1?_ ?i? V l1 t
\t l I•\ ?_, J \wa •.. \?? 'LF? , ,_ j. t s ?i ?? .?? ? ?. J -• _ \y
x.,V + ?'? 1, \ t 'L,,r /', 1 1 'Ca?.{tH- / - y r., 1 ` •t I f''; ?r r
wIt
\t'f W'?i??? e \?\r iM?Y is ?•,??b, , \: \?.., yi ?? - O-
'?? a
,??`O r.M
2' f
..t• i 1 . 1 tl_,', - ?,. r ( t 1. „fir '??
` i1 I t f 4 Z7
47
4 q, 1514 1 ?
t' ????? 1?,?.. ` I ? ? !y?qL';`? ?'`??za Sil;? I l _??a? `?R??4?'r„ {i ? i tT
??•? ?.4? f??t, '\Ly? ?-• l II'? c?\ y?? 'j `) J ,h?`ttil 't ,""'Q,\1` ?, r-r;? ;', 1?J:
71,
i `a .C.De®•.To
VICINITY
MAP
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT tt 8.2711401 B-3302
SHEET I OF 8 DATE: 10/S/:001
ItMounlain-
r? e4

SITE
MAP
Hays E
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT is 8.2711401 B-3302
Traph

I[allsGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
•• •• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
? TB - TOP OF BANK
WE_ - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - P4 - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - - - WATER SURFACE
X X X X
X XX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
W SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
0 DRAINAGE INLET
-?V? = ROOTWAO
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE 1
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.271.1401 13-3302
L I SHEET 3 OF 8 DATE: 10/3/4001

I
I
I
I
t
r
I
I r
I '
r
I
--------------
M w U- ' II I
X
Q?
00 Q? NNE
I-
e, u
?- U u m ? I I
`` I b
? 'ON00 I 1
° U > 1 I
X
11 1
? a 11
II 1
II 1
1 ?
? II I
l o I, It
.I
r r
1 I
r
r r
? r
r r
r r
r
r
r
r
r IE
?I

I
I
I ? O
I +
I
I
I
I
+
C\j
I
r
ISSVYS W O
> +
1
1 LLJ
1 z
1 ?
133 I 0
CXD
1
I I
I 1
s I
I I
I I I O
w
w
U
a
0
11
GROR

?) W M
C4 co C4 0
an Ln W) W) W)
a
x? A
1 co
Lt, U 00
o
? ?, rr \\• O W It
> ZO cxn
I a ~j ,.., 4' t ao
Q? F? p4
? o I-4 ti O
` o > O
b
?, ?n A a ?
, W
x
0
> w
D +
J
F
O~ 1 a
I I I I Icn
to ?'Ln
O
p pi ' 'ui
1 Ln 10
O I ? Ir- +
p, [?,> 1-
°' Ln 00 Ln
, Iw N I` N ?
1` r 1J N
I ' W ? Ul ti
l! 1 1, Z
>' >I r ? a >
wl w; >I 'O J z w +
o
OI O, ? p Lf Y
U
O' OI I I Q LL. J
OI O I N O Q N
a O 1 +
N ?
I ` Z
m
LLJ
[O ` ?7
I J ??
..1
N r?
o U .?
r co
co
Q o d
01 W F'
z' > z a
)j w 9 U
i o O 10
z +
I
CJ
CO O < J N O
Kl Ln N J h b
n n n a r. n
0 0
J 1
.r N

E4
® x x ?
A

o °

o ?
Z U o
d$ o ? ti

w w
co > O
= c a w

?- (n O
Z
(V J
' J
I
o w? o z I
0 Ir"? C7 l.4 ? ' I
N Lz)rl- D
O
cr W
X
- Q> >
O J
W i I
I-
ww '
? ° a
= J Y i
O N NWtN i
Q
Z
N Q?J

I
i

un Ln o

- - , I NNQ
?
f

J ,
Ln, I
NN n
In n
F
7

?

w i

'

NII
I
DI
tit- W
d

?
N o D. O(DO
W f- J
it CO Li- V)
J ' J I
I o X l
!I
I I l N
O N O, w
C?
10 O. O; Zlr
I W
co I Ul MI r .a
un

n.

?'
r
W
I
> >

!
d'
>
J
w J I
w W,

L f?
9)
! l wl A ?! z w
'
co a
! f l r l r ?wl N
o
U-) o ?n
V); O E-"
10 ? o ?
I I f ? ! x
O 00. C\j
O
Ln Ln
I`
~ U ?
r
6
r
r
O O

It
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND A DDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
DR 197 PG 1437 GEORGE P. ARNOLD 1008 WEST RIDGE RD.
GREENSBORO NC, 27410
DB 197 PG 1437 & ROBERT G. KELLEY 707 PEBBLE DRA/E
GREENSBORO NC, 27410

N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2711401 B-3302
SHEET 7 OF 8 DATE: 10/ 3/ 2001

O

y
O

N N O

m
y ^ ^
(LO O
N
? E O
O

CC
U Z==?
? O N
y W
?
a m
F _
ScE =
LL
O ?
I
x $+ E ° O rz
w? w y
a
ki
< ulU E e
N a
U, o¢.
3 - Z o o 6. F-
WU
< LL
a to '?
8
U. E C
D O
W

sa
o O
X
m
Q
N
g
o
0
Q ?g

12
8 0
1 3

O w c
-
N O
3 d3

3

E
n
N
X±F7,
fh

J
(1) Z H
O
F-