20011808 Ver 1_Complete File_20011211

p I I 1?9 o'g
W a-A etc,?5q
a's STA7t u?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FEB ,
/yyg
21
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 29, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FROM: W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3483 Jones No. 19 SR 1004 Bill Goodwin
B-3481 Johnston No. 94 NC 96 Karen Orthner
B-3210 Montgomery No. 45 NC 109 Karen Orthner
B-3534 Watauga No. 209 SR 1508 Karen Orthner
B-3529 Wake No. 124 SR 2006 Karen Orthner
B-3527 Wake No. 437 SR 1831 Dennis Pipkin
B-3377 Watauga No. 168 SR 1217 John Williams
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
March 4, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). These
scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown above.
You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or
e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3534
DIVISION: Eleven
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1508(2)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2751501
COUNTY: Watauga
ROUTE: SR 1508
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508 over Level Fork Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Deep Gap and Maple Springs Quad Sheets
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 405,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 33,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 438,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) *600 or 1600 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 2 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: One lane shoulder section, 14 foot gravel
road, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 15.5 METERS WIDTH 4.0 METERS
51.0 FEET 13.0 FEET
COMMENTS:
* Estimated ADT is based on one and two entrances, respectively, to a proposed resort in the
vicinity of the bridge.
0
1569', 1576
1570
i 1508
. 1:
>.._ 1508
1510 Triplett ;. _
1510 ' 3.3
- ' A
i ._.._..;1583 '\
1646 ,i
i
1508
1 1645
1. 0
1511

%r •,.""
1511

_

1651 °- ,
1578 `' -
1 ? % T

J ,.
- DUGGER
M TN.

RO CKY KNOB

1526 .LITTLE
DUGGER MTN.

_ Penley - ,'

1526 '
. ,_._.
1505 1502
1500
S ' `0
1505',
1500,-)
9 1501'` i
i 1504
i
i
Bridge No. 209
N
O
S

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
'\ a Planning & Environmental Branch

Watauga County
Replace Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508
Over Level Fork Creek
B-3534
Figure 1

FILE COPY
TO: Jean Manuele, USACOE
Raleigh Field Office
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, DOT Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 19, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT bridge replacement of No. 209 on SR 1508 over Laurel Creek, Watauga
County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1508(2), State Project No. 8.2751501, TIP No.
B-3534.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a concurrence
letter from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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 Bridge No. 209 over Laurel Creek with a new bridge on new
alignment 50 feet northeast of the existing bridge. We concur with the recommended alternative
as proposed provided that NCDOT adhere to the project commitments stated in the permit
document and the following conditions are implemented:
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.
2. 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.
TIP No. B-3534
2 December 19, 2001
3. The existing approach fill to the old bridge should be removed. The area should be
graded and planted with native vegetation to match surrounding conditions.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Heather Montague, NCDOT
FILE COPY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICI IAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 4, 2001
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 011:80 8
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele
Regulatory Specialist
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Application for the proposed replacement
Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508 over Laurel Creek in NCDOT
Division It, Watauga County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1508(2),
State Project No. 8.2751501, T.I.P. No. B-3534.
Dear Madam:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 209 will be replaced with a new bridge on new alignment 50 ft
(15 m) northeast (downstream) of the existing structure. The new structure will be a
95-foot (29-m) bridge. The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two
11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure during construction. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the
construction of the proposed project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 209 is located on SR 1508 over Laurel Creek in
Watauga County. It has one span totaling 51 feet in length. Bridge No. 209 is composed
entirely of timber and steel. Therefore, Bridge No. 209 will be removed without
dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of March 9, 2000 (65 FR 12817, 12899).
Since the proposed project is located in a designated mountain "Trout" county, 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
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT. STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests
that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
41
William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: w/attachment
Ms. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Bryan Cole, USFWS, Asheville
Ms. MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC, Elkin
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. David Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Carl McCann, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, PD & EA Planning Engineer Unit Head
Watauga County
Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508
Over Laurel Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1508 (2)
State Project 8.2751501
TIP No. B-3534
01 1 808
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3.2e -00
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Ja J10 ` 0 .
Date Nicholas G af, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Watauga County
Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508
Over Laurel Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1508 (2)
State Project 8.2751501
TIP No. B-3534
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
-28-00 .,i' /u[r
Date Karen T rthner
Project Planning Engineer
3 28-Oa way?1a- f?
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
3-28-00 C?e? *v P""?
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 209
on SR 1508 over Laurel Creek
Watauga County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1508(2)
State Project No. 8.2751501
T.I.P. No. B-3534
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Eleven
Construction, Structure Design
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge .
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 209.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division
Eleven Construction
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
"Protection of High Quality Surface Waters" during the construction stages of
the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the
construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Eleven Construction
Due to the classification of Laurel Creek as a trout stream, NCDOT will
adhere to the following commitments as outlined by the Wildlife Resources
Commission:
1) In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone
will be prohibited during the trout spawning season of November 1 through
March 31 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
Toes If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete
not contact stream water.
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.
Tisturbed Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is
and maintained until project completion.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion
March 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1
Watauga County
Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508
Over Laurel Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1508 (2)
State Project 8.2751501
TIP No. B-3534
Bridge No. 209 is located in Watauga County over Laurel Creek. It is
programmed in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project. 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. 209 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new alignment 50 feet (15 m) northeast (downstream) of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The new structure will have a length of 95 feet (29 m). The roadway cross
section of the bridge will consist of two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
There will be 700 feet (213 m) of new approach work on each end of the new
bridge. The pavement width on the approaches will be 22 feet (6.6 m) including two I I -
foot (3.3-m) lanes. Additionally there will be 6-foot (1.8-m) grass shoulders on the
approaches. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately
40 mph (64 km/h).
The estimated cost of the project is $820,000 including $725,000 in construction
costs and $95,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 2000-2006 TIP
is $438,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will be required. The design speed for this project will be
approximately 40 mph (65 km/h). The road is not posted and therefore subject to
statutory 55 mph (90 km/h). However, the alignment in the project vicinity is typical of
SR 1508. In addition, the recommended alternate (Alternate 2) improves the alignment at
the bridge site.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1508 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Currently the average daily traffic (ADT) is 300 vehicles per day
(VPD). The projected ADT is 600 VPD for the year 2025. If a proposed expansion of the
Heavenly Mountain Resort occurs, this projected volume would be approximately
1600 VPD. There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge. The road serves
primarily local residential traffic, and is the only facility in this part of Watauga County.
The existing bridge was completed in 1950. It is composed of a one-span timber
and steel superstructure. The deck is 51 feet (15.5 m) long and 13 feet (4 m) wide. The
substructure is composed of two end bents composed of timber posts and caps with
concrete sills. There is approximately 14 feet (4.2 m) of vertical clearance between the
floorbeams of the bridge deck and streambed. There is room for one lane of traffic on the
bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 34.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight
restrictions of 11 tons for single vehicles and 14 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Vertical and horizontal alignments are fair in the project vicinity. The roadway
width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 14 feet (4.2 m). Shoulders on the
approaches of the bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported in
the vicinity of the project during a recent three-year period.
There are 4 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the
Transportation Director for Watauga County, closing the road would be a major
inconvenience.
No utilities are located at this site.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate l: Replace Bridge No. 209 with a 95-foot (29-m) long bridge at a slightly
improved alignment. Maintain traffic on-site using a temporary detour to
the northeast during construction. The temporary structure will consist of
2 @ 10' 8" x 6' 11" pipe arches at an elevation six feet lower than that of
the existing bridge.
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 209 with a 95-foot (29-m) long
bridge on new location to the northeast. Maintain traffic on the existing
bridge during construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE I Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches 172,900
6,630
167,325
208,250 172,900
6,630
249,600
0
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 249,895 192,870
Engineering & Contingencies 120,000 103,000
Total Construction $ 925,000 $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 30,000 $ 95,000
Total Cost $ 955,000 $ 820,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 209 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new alignment 50 feet (15 m) northeast (downstream) of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The new structure will be a 95-foot (29-m) bridge. The roadway cross section
of the bridge will consist of two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-m) offsets. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
There will be 700 feet (213 m) of new approach work on each end of the new
bridge. The pavement width on the approaches will be 22 feet (6.6 m) including two 11-
foot (3.3-m) lanes. Additionally there will be 6-foot (1.8-m) grass shoulders on the
approaches. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately
40 mph (65 km/h).
Once construction of the new bridge and approaches are complete, the existing
bridge will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
Alternate 2 is recommended due to lower cost. Each alternate would provide a
40 mph (65 km/h) design speed. The environmental consequences are essentially the
same. Each alternate maintains traffic on site, since there are no alternate routes available
in the area.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in the Project Commitments sheet of this document. In addition, the use of current
NCDOT standards and specifications will be implemented.
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 U. S.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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 is located in Watauga County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In the vicinity of this project, Watauga County has no zoning. This project will
impact no soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are no
known historic structures in the project area. Therefore, the SHPO recommended no
architectural surveys in connection with this project. However, the SHPO recommended
an archaeological survey if a new alignment was considered.
NCDOT staff archaeologists on November 2 and 3, 1999 surveyed the project
area. Megan O'Connell, Archaeologist, submitted an Archaeological Survey Report
indicating that no significant cultural resources were found. In addition, the survey did
not locate any archaeological sites that meet the National Register of Historic Places.
The SHPO concurred in the recommendation that no further archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project as shown in the letter dated March 3, 2000
(see attachment).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
1. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soils
and the availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
The project lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic province.
Topography within the project area can be described as hilly and mountainous with many
mountain peaks. The elevation in the project area ranges from 1400.0 ft (427.0 m) to
1440.0 ft (439.0 m) above mean sea level (amsl). The project region is largely composed
of mountain and forested landscapes. The town of Boone is the largest municipality
within the project region.
Soils
Four major soil phases occur within project boundaries. Table 2 presents general
information on project area soils.
Table 2. Proiect Area Soil Phases and Characteristics
Map Unit
Symbol Specific
Ma Unit Percent
Sloe Drainage
Class Hydric
Class
2A Reddis Loam 0-3 moderate] well Non h dric
3A Dellwood very ravel] loam fine sand 2-5 moderate] well Non h dric
34E Chestnut-Edne ville complex 30-60 well Non h dric
70F Ashe-Chestnut complex 50-95 well Non h dric
Reddis Loam are moderately well drained soils that are found on floodplains in
the Southern Appalachian Mountains. The soils have a loamy surface layer and subsoil.
Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and in the underlying material with
seasonal high water tables within 2.0 to 3.5 feet. Reddis loam, 0-3 percent slopes, are
subject to frequent flooding.
Dellwood very gravelly loamy fine sand are nearly level to gently sloping, very
deep, moderately well drained soils on floodplains in the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and rapid or very rapid
in the underlying material with seasonal high water tables within a depth of 2.0 to 4.0 feet
of the surface. Dellwood very gravelly loamy fine sand, 2-5 percent slopes, are subject to
frequent flooding.
Chestnut-Edneyville complexes are steep to very steep Chestnut soils and
Edneyville soils on upland ridges and mountain slopes in the Southern Appalachian
Mountains. These soils have a loamy surface layer and subsoil with moderately deep and
very deep well-drained soils respectively. Chestnut-Edneyville soils, 30 to 60 percent
slopes, have a moderately rapid permeability. Seasonal high water tables are below 6.0
feet.
Ashe-Chestnut complexes are very steep Chestnut soils and Ashe soils on
mountain slopes of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They have a loamy surface
layer and subsoil with moderately deep, well-drained, and somewhat excessively drained
soils respectively. Ashe-Chestnut soils, 50 to 90 percent slopes, have a moderately rapid
permeability. Seasonal high water tables are below 6.0 feet.
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 these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize those impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources within the project area are located in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin. The project corridor contains one subbasin of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin,
specifically, subbasin 03-07-01, southwest of SR 1508 (Fords Road). The Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin is the second largest river basin in the state covering 7,213 sq. mi
(18,681 sq. km), and 21 counties. The Yadkin River originates on the eastern slopes of
the Blue Ridge Mountains, flows northeasterly for 100 mi (161 km) and then turns
southeast until it has confluence with the Uhwarrie River in Montgomery County to form
the Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee River continues south, crossing into South Carolina.
Project area surface waters drain to the Pee Dee River (NCDENR-DWQ, 1998).
Laurel Creek is the only stream located within the study area. Physical
characteristics of the stream include a 30.0 ft (9.1 m) wide and 5.0 ft (1.5 m) deep stream
channel; and a 30.0 ft (9.1 m) wide and 24.0 in. (61.0 cm) deep stream. The stream
substrate is composed of boulders, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Laurel Creek drains into
Elk Creek. The stream confluence is approximately 300.0 ft (91.4 m) downstream of the
bridge location.
Best Usage Classification
Laurel Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of Class "C Tr ORW"
(index #12-24-8, 3/1/89) by the Division of Water Quality (DENR-DWQ, 1998). The "C"
classification denotes freshwaters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The Trout "Tr" supplemental
classification is intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival
of stocked trout. The Outstanding Resource Waters "ORW" supplemental classification is
intended to protect waters with quality higher than state water quality standards.
Additionally, the ORW designation implies proximity to a state or Federal Park, or
containing an outstanding resource.
High Quality Waters (HQW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study area.
The HQW classification is intended to protect waters with quality higher than state water
quality standards. The following stream classifications are HQW by definition: WS-I,
WS-I1, SA (shellfishing), ORW, and waters for which DWQ has received petition for
reclassification to either WS-I or WS-II.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal, 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
(managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
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. Previous benthic macroinvertebrate sampling did occur on
Laurel Creek at SR 1508. The sampling event was part of a special study to evaluate the
suitability of the headwaters of Elk Creek for an ORW designation. Laurel Creek
received a rating of Excellent (DEHNR-DWQ, 1997a).
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing fish communities.
The index incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic
composition, fish abundance, and fish condition (DEHNR-DWQ, 1997b).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the
cumulative assessment of 12 parameters (metrics). The values provided by these metrics
are converted into scores on a 1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5 represents conditions expected
for undisturbed streams in the specific river basin or ecoregion, while a score of 1
indicates that the conditions vary greatly from those expected in an undisturbed stream of
the region. The scores are summed to attain the overall NCIBI score (DEHNR, 1997a).
The NCIBI score is then assigned an integrity class, which ranges from'No Fish' to
'Excellent'. A NCIBI rating of'Good' was assigned to Laurel Creek for a sampling event
that occurred on May 23, 1996 (DEHNR-DWQ, 1997a).
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. There are no permitted dischargers within the project
vicinity.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms
of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where
they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is
the most widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides,
chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff
to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project bridge and temporary corrugated arched
culvert will impact water resources. The estimated linear impact to Laurel Creek is
80.0 ft (24.0 m) for Alternatives 1 and 2. Estimated impacts are derived using the
maximum proposed ROW of 80.0 ft (24.0 m). Project construction usually does not
require the entire ROW; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
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 removal of streamside vegetation.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills, and increased vehicular use.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of High Quality Surface
Waters must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions
to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval must also
be strictly enforced.
II. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered in the study area as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these communities. 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 Burt and Grossenheider (1976), Conant (1986), Lee,
et. al, (1982), Martof, (1980), Menhinick (1991), Peterson (1980), and Webster, (1985).
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna
observed during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Spoor evidence or tracks
equate to observation of the species. Published range distributions and habitat analysis are
used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
Biotic Communities
Three biotic communities are identified in the project study area: acidic cove
forest, maintained/disturbed, and mountain perennial stream with the communities
grading from higher elevation to lower elevation respectively. Community boundaries
within the study area are generally well defined without a significant transition zone
between them. Many faunal species likely to occur within the study area may exploit all
communities for shelter and foraging opportunities, or as movement corridors.
Acidic Cove Forest
The Acidic Cove Forest is located in sheltered low and moderate elevation sites,
primarily narrow, rocky gorges, steep ravines, and low gentle ridges within coves
(Schafale and Weakly, 1990). Observed canopy vegetation associated with Acidic Cove
Forest include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white pine (Pinus strobus), and
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Shrub/sapling species include ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), red maple (Acer rubrum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), hemlock, witch-
hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), and mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia). Herbaceous species include violet (Viola sp.), Japanese grass
(Microstegium vimineum), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), lady slipper (Cypripedium
sp.), hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), Canadian blacksnake root
(Sanicula canadensis), ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), loosestrife (Lysimachia sp.),
and yellow crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis).
Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community consists of two types of habitats. Those
habitats included in this description are road shoulders and residential landscapes. Road
shoulders are irregularly maintained, receiving only periodic mowing and herbicide
applications. Residential landscapes receive more frequent mowing, general maintenance,
and disturbance.
Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities
by filtering storm water run-off and reducing runoff velocities. Woody vegetation
observed in the road shoulder includes American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple,
tulip poplar, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American
holly (Ilex opaca), ironwood, and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Herbaceous/vine vegetation
include fescue (Festuca spp.), Japanese grass, dayflower (Commelina sp.), horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense), broadleaf plantain (Plantago rugleii), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium
frstulosum), jewel weed (Impatiens capensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), Queen Anne's Lace
(Daucus carota), milkweed (Asclepias sp.), Christmas fern, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), aster (Aster sp.), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Vegetation associated with the residential landscape include flowering dogwood
(Corpus Florida), Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), and Leyland cypress
(X Cupressocyparis leylandii). Lawn areas are dominated by fescue, Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon), plantain (Plantago sp.) and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.).
Perennial Mountain Stream
The perennial mountain stream community includes the vegetation located along
the stream banks of Laurel Creek. Canopy species observed include hemlock and
flowering dogwood. Shrub/sapling species includes sycamore, Bradford pear, persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata). Herbaceous species include New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), and
fescue. Nonvascular plant species observed includes sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.).
Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire
range of biotic communities discussed. Generally, community boundaries are abrupt, with
little transitional area between them. Forested tracts and drainageways provide habitat for
species requiring a forest community, and also provide shelter and movement corridors
for other species of wildlife within the project vicinity.
Terrestrial Fauna
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project area include
the least shrew (Cryptotis parva), woodchuck (Marmota monax), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). The hispid cotton rat thrives
in dense vegetation associated with field edges. The striped skunk occupies a variety of
habitats ranging from high mountain forests to old fields, cultivated lands, and suburban
neighborhoods. The Virginia opossum* (Didelphis virginiana) is a very adaptive
mammal which frequents areas of human settlement. The gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus) preys heavily on cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) and other rodents
that can be found within the project area.
Forests and forest edge habitats provide opportunities for foraging and shelter for
a variety of avian species, such as the rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis).
Birds found foraging within the project area include the Carolina chickadee* (Parus
carolinensis), wood thrush* (Hylocichla mustelina), northern cardinal* (Cardinalis
cardinalis), and rough-winged swallow* (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis).
Reptiles that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities within the
project area include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus). The diets of the rat snake and copperhead (Ankistrodon contortrix) consist
primarily of rats and mice. Worm snakes (Carphophis amoenus) and ringneck snakes
(Diadophis punctatus) occur in moist environments of project area forests. Earthworms
are a major prey item of these snakes.
The forest communities near hillsides or surface water provide excellent habitat
for amphibians such as the mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus),
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor), and American
toad (Bufo americanus).
10
Aquatic fauna
Aquatic fauna present within the project area are dependent upon physical
characteristics of the water body and overall condition of the water resource. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Fauna associated with the aquatic communities include various invertebrate and
vertebrate species.
Representative species of fish that may be found in the project area stream include
red breasted sunfish (Lepomis auritus), small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui),
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
The project area stream provides habitat for a variety of reptiles. Species which
may be present in these streams include the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), queen
snake (Regina septemvittata), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Turtle species
are omnivores. Northern water snakes forage chiefly on crayfish (Cambaridae).
The green frog (Rana clamitans) can be found near streams in the project area.
Salamanders likely found in these streams include the mountain spring salamander
(Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) and two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata).
Invertebrates that would be present include crayfish; nymphal and larval stages of
dragonflies (Odonata), stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies
(Trichoptera), and horseflies (Tabanidae); and snails (Gastropoda).
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 biotic 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 3 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the proposed ROW of 80.0 ft (24.0 m). Usually, project construction
does not require the use of the entire ROW or study area width; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less. Surface water impacts are presented in the "Water Resources"
section of this document.
Table 3. Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts (ac (ha)]
Community Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Acidic Cove Forest 0.10 0.04 0(0)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.12 0.05 2.5(l.0
Perennial Mountain Stream 0.12 0.05 0.12(0. 5
Total 0.34 0.14 2.62 1.05
Plant communities found along the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife species. Project construction will reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some
wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more
early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will
repopulate areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals may
result in an increase of competition for the remaining resources.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-related
work would effect 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.
Alterations in the aquatic community will result from the installation of bridges or
temporary arched culverts. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization of water and scouring of stream channels. Water movement
through these structures becomes concentrated and direct, thereby increasing the flow
velocity.
In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and
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. Turbidity reduces light penetration thus
decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the stream bank 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, which may impact
many species.
Bridge demolition
The superstructure of Bridge No. 209 is composed entirely of timber and steel and
no component of the substructure is located in or above the water. Therefore, Bridge No.
209 will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
12
III. 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
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands"
under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into Waters of the
United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory
provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland 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. No jurisdictional wetlands are locateTin
the project area.
Jurisdictional surface waters present within the project area include a single
perennial stream. A detailed description of Laurel Creek is presented in the "Water
Impacted and Characteristics" section of this document.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to surface waters were derived from aerial photographs of the
project area, onto which surface water locations were mapped in the field. The proposed
ROW width and length for each Alternative were used in the calculations. Usually,
project construction does not require the use of the entire ROW or study area width;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Estimated linear surface water
impacts are 80.0 ft (24.0 m) for each Alternative. No stream impacts associated with
bridge demolition are anticipated for the project. Additionally, there are no anticipated
wetland impacts associated with the project.
Permits
Encroachment into the jurisdictional surface water because of project construction
is inevitable. Factors that determine a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP)
applicability include hydrology, juxtaposition with a major resource; whether the impacts
occur as part of the widening of an existing facility, or as the result of new location
construction. Although an individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall,
cumulative impacts from a single and complete project may require authorization under
an Individual Permit (IP). A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is,
however, likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States 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
13
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) That 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;
(2) That the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the section 404 nationwide #23.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
Additionally, since the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county,
the authorization of a nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence
of the Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC).
Mitigation
The USACE 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
USACE, 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.
14
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 required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
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.
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 (USFWS). 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 provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
March 2000, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for Watauga County
(Table 4). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
i able 4. r ederall rrotected ecies for Watauga Uoun
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMONNAME STATUS
uiemmys muntennergn tsog turtle i t?iA)
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Roan Mountain bluet E
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T
"E" denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection). The
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Federally listed: May 2, 1997
Clemmys muhlenbergii is a small semiaquatic turtle, usually with a bright orange
or yellow blotch on the side of head; carapace elongated, brown to black, often with a low
median keel and concentric furrows or traces of them. The bog turtle measures 7-10 cm
15
(3-4 in) in length. It is found in damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the mountains
and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy 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
fifty-five days.
Clemmys muhlenbergii is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance with
other rare species that are listed for protection. Species listed as threatened due to
similarity of appearance are not subject to a Section 7 consultation. A July 7, 1999 review
of the NCNHP database indicated that there is no known occurrence of bog turtle within
the project area.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Federally Listed: July 1, 1985
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well-furred flap of skin along
either side of its body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at
the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying
squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the
western part of North Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above
5000.0 ft (1517.0 m) in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous
forests. Both forest types are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of a high elevation 5000.0 ft (1517.0 m) transition
zone between hardwood and coniferous forests is not present in the project area.
Elevations within the project area range from 1400.0 ft (427.0 m) to 1440.0 ft (439.0 m).
Additionally, a July 7, 1999 review of the NCNHP database indicated that there is no
known occurrence of northern flying squirrel within the project area. Therefore, the
project will not affect this species.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of
bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from
June to early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately compound;
terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are
reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. 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 5060.0-5080.0 ft (1535.0-1541.0 m), 5680.0-5760.0 ft
(1723.0-1747.0 m) and 5800.0 ft (1759.0 m). Other habitat requirements for this species
16
include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of sand,
pebbles, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky
outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of high elevation scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and
escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges are not present in the project area. Elevations
within the project area range from 1400.0 ft (427.0 m) to 1440.0 ft (439.0 m).
Additionally, a July 7, 1999 review of the NCNHP database indicated that there is no
known occurrence of spreading avens within the project area. Therefore, the project will
not affect this species.
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana (Roan Mountain bluet or mountain purple) Endangered
Plant Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial species with roots and grows in low tufts.
Roan Mountain bluet has several bright purple flowers arranged in a terminal cyme. This
plant can be found on cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the gravelly talus associated
with cliffs. Known populations of Roan Mountain bluet occur at elevations of 4600.0-
6200.0 ft (1400.0-1900.0 m). 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 cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and
gravelly talus are not present in the project area. Elevations within the project area range
from 1400.0 ft (427.0 m) to 1440.0 ft (439.0 m). Additionally, a July 7, 1999 review of
the NCNHP database indicated that there is no known occurrence of Roan Mountain
bluet within the project area. Therefore, the project will not affect this species.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: late June - August
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 accuminate and diminish
in size and breadth upward on the stem. Heller's blazing star has small lavender flowers
and its fruits appear from September to November.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the
northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Known populations of this plant occur
at elevations of 3500.0-6000.0 ft (1067.0-1829.0 m). Heller's blazing star is an early
pioneer species growing on grassy rock outcrops where it is exposed to full sunlight.
Heller's blazing star prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of high elevation rock ledges is not present in the
project area. Elevations within the project area range from 1400.0 ft (427.0 m) to
17
1440.0 ft (439.0 m). Additionally, a July 7, 1999 review of the NCNHP database
indicated that there is no known occurrence of Heller's blazing star in the project area.
Therefore, the project will not affect this species.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 20 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Watauga County as of
May 13, 1999. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are
defined as those species, which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered,
Threatened, Significantly Rare, or Special Concern by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered. Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists Federal Species of Concern, species state status, and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the 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. A July 7, 1999 review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
database of the rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina
rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for Watausa Coun
Scientific Name Common name NC Status Habitat
Aegolius acadicus Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl SC No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender SC Yes
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR No
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E No
Loxia curvirostra Southern-Appalachian red crossbill SR No
Neotoma magister Alleghany woodrat Sc* No
Parus atricapillus practicus Southern Appalachian black-capped SC No
chickadee
Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha minnow Sc No
Sorex palustris punctulatus Southern water shrew Sc* Yes
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary SR Yes
Sphyrapicus varius Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied SR No
appalaciensis sapsucker
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail SR* Yes
Abies fraseri Fraser fir C No
Cardamine clematitis Mountain bittercress C No
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Euphorbia purpurea Glade spurge C** No
Geum geniculatum Bent avens T No
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5 No
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Poa paludigena Bo bluegrass E* 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.
18
"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
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 l-
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.
"W2" --A Watch Category 2 species is a species rare to uncommon, but probably not in trouble.
"W3" --A Watch Category 3 species is a species that is poorly known; perhaps needs listing in
upcoming years.
"W5" --A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat;
populations may or may not be known to be declining.
"*"--Historic record (last observed in the county more than 50 years ago).
"**"--Obscure record (the date and/or location of observation is uncertain).
(Amoroso, 1999; LeGrand, 1999)
19
1508/
i
I
i
i
,
1569'•, 1576
1
?',, :t: ? 1570
li
1508 1
_ -
1510 Triple" _ -
2 1-
.7
?
O p
1505 612 \ 1 503
`
4• 1505 1502
1504' 1500
? 1510 ?•3 ?.
- A
1646 _._..-..'1583
1 1645 1508
1.0
1511 3 1511 50
` 1651 _ 6
1
1578
181• '
DUGGER ;
M TN.
{.
ROCKY KNOB
1526 LITTLE tF
DUGGER MTN.
A
Penley - /•'
1526
:n
---------------------------------------------
• •? 1505••
1505 i 1500
,1 1
l 1501
:n„ 1504 i?
A i i
1508
i
Bridge No. 209
N
O
S
W;AT fA/UGA
yu Go•<;.
tonne
VV .11t
.11
c
s..., u -
low.
y
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Watauga Count}
Replace Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508
Over Level Fork Creek
B-3534
Figure 1
FIGURE 3.A
Looking n4orrn,vcross me nnage I ;
Looking South Across the Bridge
FIGURE 3B
West Face of Bridge I
East Face of Bridge

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 24, 1999
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ?G E I V6
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ,?i7?-LLB 6'° ' " 7 w
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer MAR 3 1999
c
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508 over Level Fork A? o?vi?t?v ?z
Creek, B-3534, Watauga County, ER 99-8182 rG eC j;'
N AL aN a 't5\5
Thank you for your letter of January 29, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed our files and are aware of no historic structures in the project area. We,
therefore, do not recommend an architectural survey be conducted for this project. We look
forward to checking the aerial neaps and photographs.
With regard to archaeological resources, we recommend a survey be conducted if the bridge
requires a new alignment.
The above comments are made pursuant tb 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:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Z
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
s'
1? ? ? X 1
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
March 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook66??_
Deputy State Histor c Preservation Officer
l,
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508 over Level Fork Creek, B-3534, Watauga County, ER 99-8182
Thank you for your letter of January 19, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Megan
O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Megan O'Connell has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 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.
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEYS 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
4619 Mail Service Center,
4613 Mail Service Center
4618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 7
Raleigh NC 27699-4619
Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 3
Raleigh \C 2 7699-46 1 8
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 733-8653
[phone] 715-2671
[phone] 715-4801
[phone] 715-4501

L North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Ms. Karen T. Orthner, Planning Engineer
NCDOT Planning &. Environnn.cntal Lranch
FROM: Joe Mickey, Stream Mitigation Coordinator b? ?
WRC Habitat Conservation Program `
DATE: July 21, 1999 ?--?
SUBJECT: NCDOT proposal to replace Bridge No. 209 on SR 1508 over Laurel Fork, TIP 13-
3534, Watauga County
This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the use of a temporary crossing
structure in association with the replacement of Bridge No. 209. These comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. I I3A-I through I I3A-10;
NCAC 25).
Two alternatives are being considered for this bridge replacement, with Alternative One
requiring the use of a temporary corrugated arch culverts for the detour. Based on our review, we would
not object to the use of two 10'8" (base) x 6'11" (rise) culverts for the detour provided the following
conditions are implemented:
1. Instream work and land disturbance to place the culvert in the stream within the 25-foot wide
buffer zone is prohibited during the trout spawning season of November 1 through March 31 to
protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
2. Disturbance of the stream channel must be limited to only what is necessary to install the
culverts. The temporary culverts should maintain above and below stream conditions at pre-
construction widths and depths for bedload self-souring and aquatic life migration.
3. Use of riprap to armor the inlet and outlet ends of culverts should be kept to a minimum.
4. Once the temporary culverts are removed, streambanks should be sloped to original contours and
revegetated with native streambank plants to minimize thermal impacts (stream warming due to
loss of riparian vegetation).
5. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 10
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
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 phone [phone].