20021527 Ver 1_Complete File_20020923

N
W.
549
1547
i
Beech
'untain
i
s

.66
0"?N
1638
F?
art , - ? /' Lc/
Sj
t
r
r
r
r
221
321
?',? 151
vitle?
T A/-,U G A t roea •,
,a
even' M_<m ??118 ?`? ?
evils ? ??
. 2?'.•??BtotvinH Rock
-j
J
000,
?J
BOONS AND 'ACINITY
)U' I- a?-) W
WS-Wt
N e,?j K 3 N? A/"/?.
.. North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
k4p, ?? Planning & Environmental Branch
WATAUGA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 324 ON SR 1542
OVER MIDDLE FORK CREEK
B-3067
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
i --4 Figure 1
0 miles 0.25 miles 0.5
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
B-3067
8.2750901
MABRZ-1542(1)
DATE: March 2, 1998

DIVISION 11

COUNTY Watauga

ROUTE SR 1542
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542 over Middle Fork
Creek in Watauga County.
EXISTING T FN(,TT-T 15.2 METERS; WIDTH 7.0 METERS
STRUCTURE: 50 FEET 23 FEET
U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET: Boone
TRAFFIC: 1996 - 50 VPD, 2020 - 100 VPD, I% DUAL, I% TTST
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................

225,000
20,000
$ 245,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
Min
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS_'
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 20, 1998
Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer
MAY 2 1998

SR 1542, Watauga County, Replacement of Bridge No. 324 over
Middle Fork Creek, State Project 8.2750901, F. A. Project
MABRZ-1542(1), B-3067
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on April 29, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin
Jay Bennett
Tony Houser
Ramesh Fofaria
Lanette Cook
Ray McIntyre
Jerry Snead
Elton Crutchfield
Peggy Seymore
Jeff Ingham
State Historic Preservation Office
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Program Development
Program Development
Hydraulics
Location and Surveys
Traffic Engineering
P&E
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Cyndi Bell of DWQ commented that the waters of Middle Fork Creek are
Class WS 4+ and are in the New River Basin.
Joe Mickey of the Wildlife Resource Commission ()h'RC) noted that Middle Fork
New River is Public Mountain Trout Water. He requested a moratorium on in-water
work and land disturbance within the 25 foot wide buffer zone from November 1 to April
1 of the construction year. He requested that the existing bridge be replaced with a bridge
and that heavy equipment be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel.
Wet concrete should not contact stream water, stringent erosion control measures should
be used, and vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground
disturbing activities.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge with a
4 barrel 3.7 meter (12 ft) by 4.3 meter (14 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on
new location to the west (upstream) of the existing bridge, maintaining approximately the
same roadway elevation. If the replacement structure were to be a bridge, it would have
to be approximately 40 meters (130 feet) long.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO requested that the bridge be evaluated for eligibility for
the National Register of Historic Places. No other architectural or archaeological surveys
are needed for this project.
The Division Construction Engineer noted that the bridge is on a dead end road
with no available off-site detour. The existing US 321 embankment to the east prohibits
any alignment considerations downstream (east) of the existing bridge. The alternative
preferred by the division is to replace the bridge on new alignment just upstream (west)
of the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on the existing structure. This alternate
would also improve the poor sight distance at the intersection of SR 1543. Utility
relocation costs will be high.
Elton Crutchfield of Location and Surveys agreed that utility relocation could be
costly. He also mentioned that constructability could be a concern given the limited
working area available between the creek and SR 1543.
Jay Bennett and Tony Houser of Roadway Design agreed that a new alignment
alternate is the best option available. A temporary detour alternative would require
approximately the same amount of land as a new alignment alternative without offering a
better design alignment. Any alternative for bridge replacement at this location will have
a low design speed. They felt that replacement with a bridge and replacement with a
culvert should both be evaluated.
SR 1542 is classified as a Rural Local Route. Statewide Planning reports the
following traffic projections:
Current - 50 VPD, Year 2020 - 100 VPD, Dual - 1%, TTST - 1%
Bridge No. 324 is 50 feet long and 23 feet wide.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
This project is scheduled to be done using the plan-design process. Location
and Surveys will furnish DTM information to Roadway Design by September 1998.
Roadway Design will furnish P & E with preliminary designs and cost estimates by
December 1998.
Right of way is scheduled to begin in June 2000, letting is in June 2001.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 324 with 4 barrel 3.7 meter (12 ft.) by 4.3 meter (14 ft.)
RCBC on new location to the west. Traffic would be maintained on the existing
structure during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 324 with abridge approximately 40 meters (130 feet)
on new location to the west. Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure
during construction.
TIP ESTIMATE: $ 245,000
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE: not available yet
0
0
D
yyyy- ?n?a
S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
? 215 ??G.
September 18, 2002
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road / Suite 120 SEA 2 3
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
WErU?yDS
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele W, 11A UP
Regulatory Specialist sf?
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 324 over Middle Fork New River at SR 1542 in Watauga
County, Division 11. Federal Project No. MA-BRZ-1542(1), State Project
No. 8.2720901, T.I.P. No. B-3067.
Dear Madam:
Please find enclosed three copies of the CE document (plus addendum) for the above referenced
project, along with a protected species survey memo, project site map, permit drawings, PCN
form, and roadway design plan sheets. This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 324
on new alignment. The project, as proposed, will require the use of a temporary workpad to
facilitate the construction of the new bridge.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
One perennial stream, Middle Fork New River [DWQ Index No. 10-1-2-(14)] Class WS-IV+,
will be impacted by the proposed project. The construction of the new bridge will result in
temporary impacts of 0.012 acre (55.78 linear feet) for the use of a workpad. Impacts are
depicted in the attached drawings. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted as a result of the
proposed project.
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed when removing
Bridge No. 324. Therefore this bridge will be removed without debris dropping into waters of the
United States.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC
Wo Apad Restoration Plan:
The material used, as temporary fill in the construction of the workpad will be removed after its
purpose has been served. The temporary fill area will be restored to its original contour.
Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed workpad are available from field survey
notes. The project schedule calls- for a January 21 , 2003 let.-date. It is expected that, the.. .
contractor will choose to start construction of the workpad shortly after that date. The workpad
will be in place for approximately twelve (12) months. After the workpad is no longer needed,
the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove all material. All workpad material will
become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation
plan for removal of and disposal of all material off-site.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
43f1?
.z n t ..,.aa
Plants and anim#lith, federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proed'Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species-Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 07, 2002, the United States Fish and
Wildlife SerMeW1 sts six federally protected species for Watauga County (Table 1): bog turtle,
Carolina flying squirrel, spruce-fir moss spider, spreading avens, Roan Mountain bluet, and
Heller's blazing star. The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to similarity of
appearance to other rare species that are listed for protection. This species is not biologically
endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation. Therefore, no biological
conclusion is required. The Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" for the other five species
remain valid. Although no mussel species are listed for Watagua County, the TVA requested that
a survey be conducted for rare mussel species. NCDOT biologists surveyed the project area in
August 2002 and no protected mussel specimens were observed (See attached memo).
Table 1. Federallv-Protected Snecies for Watauga Countv
Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name Federal or Biological
Status Survey Tnfonnation Conclusion
bog turtle Clemmys T N/A N/A
muhlenber 'i S/A
Carolina northern Glaucomys sabrinus E No Habitat No Effect
flying squirrel coloratus
Spruce-fir moss Microhexura E No Habitat No Effect
spider montiva a
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E No Habitat No Effect
Roan Moutain bluet Hedyotis purpurea E No Habitat No Effect
var. montana
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T No Habitat No Effect
"T (S/A)"- denotes Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
(a species similar in appearance to another rare species and listed for its protection).
"E" denotes Endangered
(a species that is 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).

SUMMARY
This project will take place in a mountain trout county. Thus we anticipate that comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review: NCDOT requests that NCWRC.
forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
It is anticipated that the construction of the workpad will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore,
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the workpad. All
other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095;
January 15, 2002). We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3361 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their records.
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,
V. Charles Burton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
VCB/hwm
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Carl McCann, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division 11 DEO
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael Easley
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Lyndo Tippett
SECRETARY
September 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
John Williams, P.E., Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
Jeffrey Burleson, Environmental Biologist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
SUBJECT: Mussel survey results for bridge replacement of Bridge No. 324 on
SR 1542 over Middle Fork Creek; Watauga County: Federal Aid
Project No. MA-BRZ-1542(1), State Project No. 8.2750901, TIP
Project No. B-3067.
The following memorandum addresses the Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
ravaneliana), a federally protected endangered species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
for Watauga County. A beaver dam impounded the creek just below the SR 1542 bridge of
Middle Fork Creek. Suitable habitat was present just below the project crossing downstream of
the beaver dam. The impounded reach was relatively deep and had 1-2 feet of unconsolidated
silt/sand on top of a cobble/gravel/boulder substrate. The impounded reach had little to no
Appalachian elktoe habitat. A mussel survey was conducted on August 19, 2002 by NCDOT
biologists, Jeffrey Burleson, Tim Howell, and Tom Dickinson below the impounded reach, using
visual methods (batiscope). No mussels were found during the 1-hour survey interval. However,
snails (Elimia sp.) were abundant.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The NC Natural Heritage Program does not list any Appalachian elktoe within the project
vicinity and no mussels were found during the survey. Project construction will not affect this
species. If you have any questions or need any additional information about this project, please
contact Mr. Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
cc: Heather Montegue, NSS
File: B-3067
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
N Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
N 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: N
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Proiect Development & Environmental Analvsis Branch
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: V. Charles Bruton Ph.D.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548_
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be attached
if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation: N/A
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
M. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542 over Middle Fork New River_
Watauga County
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3067
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Watauga Nearest Town: Boone. NC
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): US 321/221 to SR 1542 over
Middle Fork New River
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36.19°N Lat 81.66°W Long (Note - if
project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the coordinates for each
crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Existing
land uses include maintained communities such as roadsides, yards and fields and forested
communities. SR 1542, a Rural Local Route runs through the project area with Bridge No
324 serving residential and agricultural use.
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Middle Fork New River
9. River Basin: New River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Replacement of Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542 over
Middle Fork New River Watauga County
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: heave construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Existing land uses include maintained
communities such as roadsides yards and fields and forested communities SR 1542,
a
Rural Local Route, runs through the project area with Bridge No 324 serving; residential and
agricultural use.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 8
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
(indicate on ma) (acres) (es/no) (linear feet)
N/A
* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized cleating, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http_//www_fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on ma) (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
Site 1

workpad temporary fill 55.78 Middle Fork New River 90.00 Perennial stream
i.isi oacu uupacL Separately ana taenuty temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
* * Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
)Nww_mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 80.0 linear feet
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U. S. N/A
Open Water Impact Area of
Name
Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact p
(if
applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands.
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Page 4 of 8
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices BMPs) for "Bridge Demolition and
Removal" during the removal of Bridge No 209 NCDOT will adhere to the BMPs for
"Sensitive Watersheds" during the construction stages of the project NCDOT will adhere to
Stream Relocation "Guidelines for Mountain Stream Relocation in North Carolina". NCDOT
will also adhere to the requirements of NCWRC to be implemented to minimize impacts to
aquatic resources.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, ,or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strmizide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
Page 5 of 8
I
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/w!p/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Page 6 of 8
r
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact

(square feet)

Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
?V..? cA 'iiub VUL Jv IML pcTpenuicuiar from near =1K 01 channel; Lone Z extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Guidelines for the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds includes minimizing project footprint 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
XH. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 7 of 8
I

Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
? I_l?llltU/? 9-L ??.
- 14' Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

X
NORTH CAROLINA
WATAUGA
COUNTY
BOONE
PROJECT
SITE
NCDOT
DIVISION OF ]HIGHWAYS
VICINITY WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2750901 (B-3067)
A?( ? d?':1 ll/? j[?S REPLACE BRIDGE NO.324
OVER MIDDLE FORK NEW
RIVER ON SR 1542
L_ ISiHEET 1 OF $ 6/'18/02
I \
BOONE
(CITY LIMITS
l I
105
1549

Bamboo ', W'
I_
1524
165 532
/ R
l 1525
153:
11?
Aho
1664
NCD®T
VICINITY DIVISION ,®F HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2750901 (B-3067)
AlAPS REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 324
OVER MIDDLE FORD NEW
RIVER ON SR 1542
SHEET 2 OF t 6/18/021
r
A

_ fj d
??V??
a \\
67,
tee" ':? ? ?i' ? / ? `?J:\,?.? ? •?
L?J
inkler.'e ubst \ R?. •• •?? . ff ?? ,/
6 •1' 11 ? ??! o? ? ??
'yCh if-t'
(\D/)? r ' •'/? ii Boone,G41f CoNrse??
ark • • l? ,` , ( Trailer
???'•? n _` Trailer ? \park • it
%
?WaleF ~ - 4 `?•
Project Site
p_ i
,-\\\(l
•? / . n s'
CnX
tk(D
1000 0 1000 2000 'A,? '? •'? ? ??..??ll_` ;? ??----?\ `-'1'1
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
V ICINITY WATAUGA COUNTY ?
PROJECT.- 8.2750901 (B-3067)
MAPS REPLACE BRIDGE NO.324
OVER MIDDLE FORD NEW
RIVER ON SR 1542 ?
SHEET 3 OF g 6/18/09

I
WETLAND LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48"
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® R=ACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
Cu
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
T'' T DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
E, DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
?fS %TS FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* •„?•? DENOTES MECHANIZED
••• CLEARING
-? FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-Z_ TOP OF BANK
- WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-A
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - 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
x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
-? `---_ WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
- 'J ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
O OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
El PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREAD
R
(L S)
E
DITCH
RASS SWALE
X G
?. `Y ` _ . _l it `0, 1.l
III
PROJECT: 8.2750'901 (B-3067)
REPLACE BRIDGE \0.32<
'O'Vf-R MIDDLE FORK NEW
RIVER ON SR I IiJ2
? u
I
4
'O "O ?O *,O
i I(.)'1 Ut O? O?
Oo p N
3 3 °
+
° I
0 o p I?
I
CIO
1
I
r
3 @ I
C 2 1
e7 0 1
+ 1
z o =bD
r .; ::D(/) )L >
a
n r =
a © ' I
m r ? ?
?- I
I------ -
I
' I
' ? I I
+ ? I I
I
O c?,
? I
?7 0
0 ??7 n n n
? ? h ?, ? C DD N?o
CIO
® °
t? z N
v
o
oe z >
0
?z
Ir v
O
N'

o z ?1?
D ° rn
r
T
O

? O
+
?l (n

n O
O
w
N r O j

C
E
D m m

o ?m T
v d
CL
m

? m -o rn z
o
-n
ca.
z
m
v ?
m 3
g0 v
0 o?i n
CL
? D
N n

n 0 N
CD
5 CD =r C
M
o vo
n,
.
.nom N.
CD
D
Z- CL X

T
Z

o d
m c ?
?v

0-
05

C
T
o >0
o
t
CZ g o d U) a
o 0 dt?0
oo
> v, -n m
m
N)
t/? t4
d ?11
o
'U ?O
'u "OCrJ?C? O

x
x1 OZ

? ? . v
ov
3 m 0-?

?
c
c
NZZQ?„?CG B .
vCD

L71 W
CO
N
?
W
.4
c
? 0(nz
y N C
Oo O
N

r
, ,
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O Robert Joseph Toppi
William J. Dixon
1420 ZELMA ROAD
KENLY9 NC 27542
2422 Hwy 321
BOONE9 NC 28607
y

k
\,--dwa \b 3767\djn\ tans\b3767.tsh
K. & Associates, P.C. 9l79i99
[PRO[ECT: 8.2 750901 B-3067
.? o
O '-'
M
T r to
m = n
m N y ?.
D N Z
F D
am* DD
v m v v Cj
pz * ?
- oo

< <?v<NN
Z f
q
n
T
A II + II II II II II

mm
DN
W a
V, N
O c
?
G) r
Zz?e*o y
a

:4 In
O b O
n V ?
y !sf y
0o y
N
N
r?
11 I II
0 0 0
sso
N
3
W ?
o?
N !y
o llj
N
3
m
rn
° a
o ?
M
M
?Z
M
b 7O
m
D
X
om
?z
?-n
?W
m
.bb
?O
n
y
Y ?
ti
}
a ?y
a b
N ? L Q
? A W
? } Vy
gxb
o°n
N
V
P
P
b
I
to
Noll,
"G M
N
a
xx
ti
y
z
CII)
?b
R7 R1
?y
z
Q
0
n
O
z
D
M
Zm
mZ
< to
m?
CA m
M
z
0
z
m
M
X
z
0
n
°O
30
v_
z
Z
y
yam'
?y
O
b?
h
it
coo
a
O
°o
°o

b

o O

?O

II U II
I
l
rl! il
1
1
X1
?l
!
!
1
j
11 1111
I 1
1
1
1?
1
l
11 g
g li
Owl
r?
ti
O
-F
0
O

MW PLANS
a
n
y
PO
N
0
2.1
Ilo
II?
II
II
III
I I?
I l?
i
11
it
II
II
/I
?I
a n' a b .

0
w

00
I 1
! \` l l
i II I
y
m° I
I
? ? III
II
I
II
II
Oy I
/
z
°o by
?r
a l?
o?
H?
b
zz
1
El I 1a
0 0
a a
bb
?a
N
O
n O
y
y
NN
o
ti

NA4
b
0
C7
yb
b
Cq
n
y
?J
O
H
VJ
z
? O
O
rb ~
b
N
Op
O?
ry
0
(.n U)
k
t? n
o?
n ?
o
Qy
d
y
00
d
C)

N
M ?
v
O
m
H
O
Z N
Z

N 1 E
O

W
0 1
V1
V_ ,
N ? Q
N N ? z

70 ?
m ?j zm
y

08/14:2001

08\ I9/7UOI
..\h'3lAF?\?inn\nlnnc\h3P.C.7.tsh
K. $ associates, P.C.
Go -go c w N v 2 M 14
M M M we ° ?c (7 ?c c? W mM M K C) m
W W
p_ p_ O O p p 0 4- -0 <D O O O H• O a• O O O m• y N < C O rt O O O O O O /p
fp ?n fD 3' 'O p 'a 'O 'O :+ 3 a 'r = ID (D Q 'p 'd 'C 'O p' N
a ° -`° 7O o '0
n In v? o
c c ?' -a `° m D 3 -v -? -? m C) n 3! 3 zo ?? In W O O co
-+ W W a Q fD c p S ""
rn c lD W 3 O O 3 3 /D 3 :3 ID 3- 3 3 N p
p p_ Q 3 ? <D 6 p < O v O
3 7 3 7' 'D 3 IC ('1 .'O C Q W W 7' O o o O
<D rn ?^ c0 O C O C 7 W p- p D ^ r 3 N N O
Cn 3- o_ v (? o o ?- c o== o c a
= 0 C W t' <C' O N N r 'O r r 0 O, 1^?? p Q T= T T n ?1.
m O N W 3 CD .3.. A1y V 3 n = rt 1?Zr'
CL n C.. ! D O c (D m (D
c<o C ° O CD c s n T o O
CD (D
tA -0
r r ID f-D,
fD ID
t
I I I I I I I V
f-l ? j ) I I I I I I f I I, I
`?' I I ! i j LL I i I I
I ? I ? ? ? I ° -I m ? Ivan ? p ? ? I. ? I -? I? ; I
? IzI ? I ; I m m i \? I ? I I I I
?? Inl j i ? `L i I I I I
? ? i , I i I j I I I I I
Sn c _I 'fl _I _I N y -1 "0 S r -I N R1 N = C) -1 -0 X X -0 % X C 0 T = 3
3- W D O j ° 3 0 (D lD tpn Q W T S Q N w tD ?- S O 'C rt '? ,y? '6 ,-N? ,N? < p °i. fD p Z
N
r o 'O y N = O < r (D O_ 3 3 3 C) O N -i 7 0. 0. N (D p O O to rp c R°
N 3 n• U3 3 fD N 0 N S O 0 <D O W 0 < N -Q? 0 (D fD n W A N
rn y Q ?yi+ 3: G ° p W p 3 < S Q (per uCi a O O 'v S X p..
C1 r O ` f'D O p A O O (D O W p O_ C, CD N 3 3 O °
jr C PC lD
0 -0 0 (D f3D d W 3 S N 7 O S N S rt <D G G O O •? Q
6c) O W r ° cD N O O N
T c x 7 o `D `D y
O W tD
p H (D x
N O
c3o ?
w
n
I
1, I Y
T I i II o
I? it g
® ED s? O o O ®O o® I O S Q Q+ ® CS b p O+} o-
I ? II
I I !!
1t
x -v m -n v. -v ?o --I N rn m 7o A C O D 7o O 7o N p p A N 0 70
N
X ID C X ' ' m A ° n a 3 D x v m 0 1D fD (D -? (D 1D M a a
?• O H' 3 O O O O O to G p_ p H ^ H A W- N O H. O OM O 0 0 CD ° _ no 3 to O
rt m
3• p W CD 0 CD 0 ( W (D r y 3 O O p- 3 C. 3' O. O 3• d 3 C. 3' Q 3 3? C. 3 d p 3• d
M W 0 r Z p ' r 3 .0?^. C ?. C. CL 7 Q p a ° Q N Q d Q a Q
m rn Q_ -C 3
7 c <D W a 0 ID O O y W
Q d fD a' C 3 ° 'O A 7 N /D O ° 3 T 6T''' C -, N O m ° N j W ` C
m m 3 ?'?y D ce cD m = m o o C" Q --4 0
<D A p- 00 3 a ?+ 3 p- C O rn' 7• to A W O 3 r 3 7 /D `? N r 3
CL CL W 0 o c m y s N
H C) [? fl V s C) o CD H m
(D
Q 3 O o p IT O O cr N C CD N
3r C C ?• S Cr _N W 0 C T p C
W iT ID <D C) fD 'T1 T
C W H. H <D N G 3 n ID v
C N
c H C a C o
p
p p b ° C rn r -s rn
p 3
N O ? N
iT,
V m
y i ? i ? ? I I I I I 1 I I I
I ' I - m, I I I -al I I I I I I It
m m f F RI O W ? ?? I ' I I I I I ? -I e cl, I I I I .b I I I I .6 .? I ? ?a I I I I
m ? m m mx ( I I 1 I I I 9 O O < < C A A ? ?' N N 2 Z
I I I ?I + ? I I I ? ? i ? ? I I I I N I I ? I I
I i I I I
n
0
Z
rn
z
O
Z
D
r
N
3Z
DO
Q
r
N
N 7o rt <
0 = N N r -{
- T
O n m w W
(D O M 'a
Q 0 n 0 n
c S =
o C N N N
to
3 Q ()
p (D 'C N (l 0
a e S
p 0
Q ? ? W

-
^ < O
O p_
cC
c3Q co
rt
2•
rt c
.
< X L
N G (p
Q
o. O
m O
3' 0 3
3 3 y
7r p
D fD
p c
3
n
..
S tC' O O C 0 A D fD = Z1 a. C ID Q. Q_ °i. N N 3 3
' O S c O Ort U3•
3
O •?
Q_ Q p- r- N
S -1
N O
N O
0 C
3 <
ID C
Q -0
N `
`
3' G
p y
c
k 3
3
CD 3 c

. G
3 rn
I-1
W c O N p .r W & 3
N
(D c r ° N O N
°
0 1°
m c 3 °- y o Z

i A O

o a
'
O
I•l ti 0 y

n
h
21 ? ? ? k fo m0 ICI I I ? ? ? ? ? I? I
0 o
? 1,
I 0 ( ..
I I I ? 1 1 1 1 \
J
s ? IA
p l ?
['^. ? ' I I I
I ;
I
8
N

N
C
T
II
N
C
W
N
C
T
m
T
r
z
0
m
m
A
Cff ?
?a
00
it
W-4
PP??
I?
IZP'
08:!4/2001
poodn ssoc\b,'067\d n\plons\6306/.TYP
K\, & Aiates.
O O
tai m
11
D 1 n
N D
1 <
1
rrl ra, ca -ai zm?D? ? m ¢? sz .0 AZ ?
z 1 z
1 -"
0 1 (y o m G) D za ?
-0 M C14 m 7o p ry D O y0
a Z3 11 0
C> .4 o
M ? myNx o to x D o o
m - ?T N
"a 71 S?CA7iv Na ?N'y0 03 m 3
m N \ m r ?
O
_ \ -
Q --I m
L/) mc Z
N G7 1 N mi
N rn N az a z z
C) Cl \ C
co
WO D
=O\\
m m
M mam so m?? ?m ym C
3E ?'"` ? ?? y z o o Cl)
C> CD r
m +m - m D y m
0
m =.i 30 3
Z3 ? = m
Z3
cZ) 3 1
M O
N
OO
?
OA C-
OE) z
Z? v?
.ti
m s ms'., a
O f O
?
co i
O ?. z
m N m
r 'r N c bo yy
Al
A> < m ti m O
c) N A N
o r n V O+ y a v
nomr (n r o
25 o IC, 0
+ N 0 M N m ?m
Z C-) FF) o oz c) a
OO N C) + D p C
om n Z m - - Z ' I ;W F-
N r I N 7 C N
N N 0 ? g
Z a O C
n n o O 14 •°o o C)
00 ro _ o ZD ? C
+ E N ° 0 ?Z
00 L
O
mp IO N?
W ?IJ N
N Z A
-4 y p
O 1 -!y '-4
NO
c
Z
M
y?
o of
M m
m
p0 m g2!
c0 co n A
Z' ° i
T
X
O A
`0 7C? 0s
Z7. ti O gr mm A
n o- 1?1p
PN Q z
d C» ?i N m m
o. b 8O 01 O
ny $ a",b m2
na p?? .`?3 y a o r" G17' S
O v? X11 y 4y 'O t?ii m z
y c b 0
N n
?O
N
O_O
I N 'T? O
LLL n
I° ? N
m ? N
A

?
c
?
m
N
m W
n
N
1
a x =?<s z? ?z? D
?
z D 9
> -
i
¢
? yoo m o m m
r Z g of.<
m aD
?+a D
¢v
D ?
??
zyDya
m?
?
'10
-t 3 D• ma m• as y a

? < D zm
V ?x m?m mx m x
_ ; O 0
aT-i m co am-i a
CO
D z vz• D T zTD m y
?
B g a ?
0
?
?y OOr V ? ? C
? y?
V ?? m 7C `? ND V
ND m
M r th
D - 0
-4 m
•? ?
n ? ? ?

zo
° mo moa" mo
? • ?
Z F, ? ?
- ymvD
i I 0p7C0 O y Cn
m O O C) A
=

m
z mm
m
y 3C
y
m
y zm? ...gy -
i ?

m x a -f m x c c

O
o tan
z 330M
m j
m
o
mi
N M mm ?<
p ii
t
D-
m v to ? v
D m
° N -i?o
m
m
1o
o
O? ? (T ?
„y

v a

D O

?

D
`
y
o
y
0
-
i
? cn
D Cn
D
z ? m
08/14/2001
Pn R,,&,o, le067\ as\pl-s\b3067,h2..d.l
lb-
NA
n 2
mm AG A m mx '? c c
o? 'nm I az?m + o ? n o
O A Za
<D O-?
-
mZ 10 I fm2 O O r 3C0
0o mz i z m + z I r P _IT7
03 A4? ;IN I voimX ITi m m ''gym I ..O - '?\' zC?
?o o i -oivl Door I 'vp w \ °,D?
v i?l < I Am 1 o m r'
aN o I- _ri ?-0 r mbmir nA I ?? -.? O oon?
m -I mfl I O y_(A DOD K o--r
- i rt o o(Tir "+ Ty mC7 D
otn M
a^ T l i o +N? N '0-0
I m SOW oXO^ 2
s o - --u o ?D ?' -?A I m z + 7 mh
czi 0 L i o Z (- r ^1 N v '!1? N p
'^ czi 9'P ; o L7 A 1 01 rr-00
onA m m 1 3 N •a Ino
fcl ! C n v 'r'1 01 p+O
=1mz mo 3 3 mjy,
Az? R
n-0 Z
Ka=1
z
ozo
f
0 0
1D 0 Z
1 A c
m o? n
0 1 V
+
A -A m a?0 w
r _ m D
O 7 OT d X r :V
0ZO?
+ m Q aC ? I 4>m
0 n o^Z? v op-i
l +0m D
4o-a o a ?«
°?D s s vo
NIIIN 9 p=r g •' n 0
O H?OO 3 mrM 1 ; S
r o
o+ ;oA 0 `? m 1 •o c
u?i v a cPOz A 'm ten,
A
X a ' ic 3
v o cc
A "I A n1?
m
A 3
n
7o Cl
Z
W2
rb m? m
pD
z? Zj JOW m
zrri mm O m
I.. Z = z
?7 m m
o ^? z
o? p
z
?r zo
z? zc m
y MI n M
a z
0
?:?.
o o?dvny?63057?dqn?plans\83Q6?shP3sum
& asscmaces, P.l.
0 T C r C X
j,
O II 3
II II II

tZi? r v
=p m
4T-
Z
m

p O

+ O

+ O

+ O

+ OD 0
0
0
N
0
9i

N
a
o 9 c
6?Z z
4T
C
W
? m
a
w
D D 11 A m D
°„ o a y ZD=O?A 3
0?0'N'3 ?

?
{ m 3
y
o C ? T A II 0 3
+ + Z t
n1
-i Z T
m
x
A + + W w p p
C m p y
0 v
?
O
C O A IJ
P P
OND D D~
A
7O0 O Z
0
Z O O Z
Z
; r m T
N C?
> m
m O
0 -4 T
W m 0 0
r-I Z ; T
0 m n
z W C)Zclm
0 0000
T

x D ? T yyC
T ? 5p
A r
-
i O r
Z r
n m C
N
pW. ;0
N
A O
.ap d
.p N
P ;0
N a
O =

O Z p AC -d

O e9 O
O O A O O O O O O x rY
C S
O
0
m r

m
m p O
Z
m
` p A
p r 0 W
T
b c
I I
< ?.
I v
0
7a A + + a z

m
m 0
p
D
C)
m m ,p
N N =
i O P
t
?

I
{ r
8 mZ° o Z 4

H a
O Gl
m O
m +
g p Z

H
V
W Gl
o m

N 1.f IJ IJ P ;-I Zs

N
N
N
N
o N
x
Q
a a m u in u u i O
C s
1 I p S ? F
C
25 0

O ° N
u
C,
a
m
O n
? C 2
V ^
N N m r O
(p 3 a r a Z x
0 o O
N

a D
3 n
o
W
0
W
27Op
,y
"
x v D fW
O p W Je
O S
: \_
O C k
a
a z
P aO
N

O

O

Z r

''

p Z
?
`
CO)

O
?
?
a Zt 1?.
?
v7
?

a y O ?

N
0

x_
0
s ?
?
O
n
y

O C

Z
0
O
.0
C T N
X X X X o m o

9 O S*
c 'A

EZ40

P
Y
D () X
DZ N
I
m 1
O

O
O
O CN
C)
N Z
P W a O O
.rl 1 LOCATION (LT, RT, OR CL)
a w FROM
STRUCTURE NO
.
N TO

N
'
°G
N
TOP ELEVATION

:o v
^' N
iv N
iv
INVERT ELEVATION
N N
m N INVERT ELEVATION
x SLOPE CRITICAL
W
w
C
2:
w
O N n
0
O Z
_
v O-
A

g ? m
o

N
O
1.63 c
00
a °0
a 1.63 g

0 m
c 1.63 c
m
1.63

O ZZ
N?N0
N N
2.01 Z n
o °
D
2
p r7i
v
O n
2.01 ? N
p
g A ?
m
N

2.77 m
g

O m
2.77
N
O
0
A 0
A 400mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE
450mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE
600mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE

R.C.P.
n o
l z' o
c
Oz?.26

C.S.P.
v,
°
PER EACH (0 THRU 1.50) CIUANTmES: STRUCTURES
1.50 THRU 3.00 D FOR --
'TOTAL M FOR PAY
3.00 AND ABOVE m
?i OUAMRY SNAIL BE COL
'A' i (1.3 X COL'81
x BRICK A
O

x
BLOCK mz
X CONCRETE O
v"
p
x PRECAST Z
C.B. STD. 840.01 OR 840.02
m ?T
m
T 0

0
m
7°
0
W 0
0N

STEEL GRATE AND FRAME STD. 840.37
- TRAFFIC BEARING DROP INLET STD. 840.35
CORR. STEEL ELBOWS NO. & SIZE
a o N
a PIPE REMOVAL (METERS)

?m;m ??ozn
L D S O O- 0 m

p 15
ss
n ri p
@y
? Z i r? O? yy
r
Z
L^
Z°
Z
X r0$$ p
Z Z
L7 ?ZZ
=11
? a
o
Z
21
2
S
vJ
O
z
a
V?
n
N
O

O
L
7 N
z 'C°
m rKSr
+
o O
? L1
+
P +
? o
tIl
H H
0
U
N W
U ?
V W
a
O
?
_ A
Z!:;
_ o
0 p
y
?0
O
S?
?+7W
y
C
V,
C
11
D
a w N ? On
m
r

O
_ A
' v
O

O
Z
x m
E1 ` O Z
0 X 2 O
Z Z p C
`
m
:2 N

m
N
m
N O
m O W

ON. O
N W
O .?
? 7D0
3 ? 3 Z?
r?On
N A
Tn
D
? ?Z

N
A A
N O m
G7
A
0
m z
Z ?a
1
?Cm
Z
.
?n 3
-Z•1 m A
4

a

o N

°.^

ZO
T

mm
?

O `
? N
C

Q m

m
m a

C 0

T P_ +
y
1N C T
?j +
+ C
G
O w °o

O
0 0
0
0
O
p T O E
a O
z
m
0
a7 +
V

O,
V
Q G
+
w

O

.
z

.01
ca
w
w

N A
S
O V V ch H
z mp
C
Z
O
n
s

O
O a N
VD
O O
VG N N

0
0 10
0
O N N N W o
U ? N
m
C
n
?a
y
n,Av
x0
n?
m
v
Im ? I
MJ
y
_J
N a
a
a
00
? Imo,
O?

\\ r
1.6 5.4 1.6
SHLD. P T SHLD.

r
m
m
Z

x
.6
2.7 2.7
.6 r m an
o
m"+ Inz +o
?= 02 P w=
°z0 6.6 (A m °D
°z
c ?m
z F-F o m
?
(^
° o

I
m0 I-z
O
(Am I o
N
o Dp
n
c? pM
m< >
°
m m
6

6
00 w .
mn
0,0 o
c
=
J N o
o r
°n
a)

1.6 5.4 1.6
SHLD. PVMT SHLD.
4 CD 1 Z 1 /
3 N n,p ?j
?n+/ j
3 \ +
? + a
wa
m

0 •
BE O o
C) III
Am" ?m tg III co
I I
U,?? n o Ij M I I I
30_ ?o ?, Z I? I Z I
iz,s1"$-0'??ill
a =`, " ?IINi d
>
^ KEN 0 10, III M II/
N 1
C3 co (A 0
m
Rf ,V? OO /l
3\ \ X000 WO
of
a v /i z o
r
0
:ifu A \ // D P. m
\a a ? -ooro ? o o
/ j y n
%/ oY
sc
an mm9a`O
7 NCOD ?,
ON
01oi q4
r mzozi y?9/boy
j/ tJC7z 0
/ D m
?Y/ OZ OR S.
??
li,/ / 4 a/ a z nm "vrvmm
/ O
// .?NOZ"D / ?-mIV ?yZtJ
// ?s(n(^iZ j / ?n2V("vo
SPZ
-40
-
10
N7 t
T Nyy9 TQ? ''p?u
C . j
m71? .A N? a ?tNOW O. r
/ / / ocl { 01 „? b
W m mm i tiytl?oys T
/ / y29'9/ • mo
* ?F
LOO-Or In- W l m
i w-oo
Z", Tom
env
I
/ f
/
/ a
a'
ay
yam v
In'

' ? 31 ;' 00\yp '
J? 1 yt9`
/ 6
?Zl
$ fob
b k^a: ?
a ? . oy
oxkh'1 no ?ti?v
?iNC? a C
Q N ?
N n
(f
?y
O /
00

{
I
0
O
m m
00 1"

m

°
C
m
m mo 0 0 0
nZ Cpz z z z
v Zo 0 0 0
Z
0 M ro N ((A (/1
M 31-
m
0
m
Z
r
b
D
n
( l
m N ° m
m
N 3
r
- D
2
Z(
O

0 m T

r

m
it
(
M4 M D
(n x n m o
Z
?O 1 D
x r_n z r
m • c?
m

;K -4
mCD W
mm
7 m
n
nC
rC
Q
o v T
m f
- o
o z
mm
A
N
Z on
m? ?O
W Z
or -?
a• D
N o r
m
>.>.!_
M,g5,25.685

/ 1 •
0
1//?
/ p
/ 199'99 _ ?--
?e M711
x
19
j? ? 6p ISti . °Np° ww
e ?0
/ o
f
?+ Zma l
O "> y^
7O N Dmorn O
D {Zy.
OIZ,
?mvo in0"'O
m;? I'3 v
mm -----------J
.. .. z 571-03?
RObei
1+ R 220
;lC 8220ppi
m - O
m"
ro Do z>0
X+ xo mmm
w n
rag"VEW
Ew ROE 7WSP &
CIE

m
Fit," ao
`
mo
z; m-+ o 0
?°1ti -im 7
1
v-n?1

71 m0
Al
r
ov O

n
O
T7
aZ fm 0 tD -
-
n0 =Z o 0
wg mm N
J
D 1
mt-
=r
mo
o?
0
l<
CL
v7
71
z3
a0
?m
n 7
of
co
m
m
7
O

1-
7.7.11
<ID m r - D v
u It It u •n
w O w °
N 3 3 3 C W
? wm
r I
..I r
I
<m r -1 D v
N II II II •11
II II W V1 Qf N
-P O (n Q0 N O
° 0 O to w to .r
N 0 3 3 to 0
3 3 I w
5: -
r
E? N o 0 0 00000
0
Vim z Z Z 1 I 1 1 1
o N w ? r r r ? r

c
W w v
-? v
n v
1 v
n v
O
p OOj r O O O O

~
W
w O
O •O CD V: M 1
O l
O N O
z
n
N io
O b
W iv
C?
p p
O
to -1 N O
W o
m
.°

m
?? yam. • ?q( W\ Q ? ? -
/ _ ?
3 ? f
0 StlW 9 ? S I ?.?? ARK ? B ° .?-'101- M p 7/D__ GR. -__k``kR( PT WqZ g 7 -
- 4 ?43
at o i A
;D 0
7 F C-
N Ekl ..
im o W m c _ 0 S7
CD
in Oa m o?
r 7
00 0.
;o 57776'IS•E y twil tD c) j m
'n 76.178•1? {L . tC O 0 C `D a
_ '1 1 ? VI-d
• m ro F
r -S77
2E
675S6
0.76
0
Zmoo D
'I + v
In to N + ITO 0 0 0 0 000000000 d Z Z N VI 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
Ql 11
Ln --4
a) dN ? ° 1 0 -4 0 -1 0 -i
O O
N 0180 ON I. N - r3 - Z W N W 0 p -4 + J w W O A O w N
O N w
m q w W
ip •.1 N 01 OD N ITIMM
En & Ln (A
D ?-
?n
?- m
N Q v
o ?
c C-
re 0
-I Z
g A y
\p W ? ? ? O
I
o
A /v
Zo5•oo
M.bZ.9b.96N
m-41-DT m-1rDv m-arDT Z-arD•-v m -r- >T
11 11 11 it N 11 11 tI 11 (A 11 11 11 11 N It 11 11 11 N 11 It 11 11 W
Cn((A-4 7 NNaWp -hZ-4 tw00 F:4 1)0 per
p W/NO (a0+ ovOi.Nm? p?NN'F O?l?-oJ} C)-J <
0-4L" a s O 0 w O -1 c° 00 w. 0 1 -4 4
m o m
?m
xo
0
o
u U.

3 <m
on =0
O
min

10+64
600 0

B z?
?D
.

C7?I ICI 1 M
Ztl
?"" z
my
m
7O
1O 1? ?? r ,n N
V1 z77
MO.1 3 1 ry Z m

i? 0

zo
Z=
w m pN
o ? cn
O

•
2
X00
xZ I?/// ?ma°?'1•?C

/ T- amen `i

X E
A in
W O D

S
I ,
_
ro 'O to stn
m
.
;
y 0 .
X

zm4 10
z i
0
xa=i
+ -4m=
'
o Zs
or

<
G) L
-

78/14/2001

j
I j
I KO-025-DC

I I

I

I I I

i
I
I I

(

I I
I

I
I
I ?
o
+
0)
rn i
o
+
o
0
?

w
0
y

r ? ?
o
+
rn
I o ,
0 0 0
+ +
o to 0
0
0 0 ,
o
+
o
0
y

r

I
I
I
l
i 0 0 1
o 0 0
0
I 0

I

I

I

i

I

,

I

?

i
I

I

,

I
I
'
?

I l i

I
I?

l !
I
I

I

I I

I

I

c C
ID ??
m
W x
? ?

i

I
,

C

m
? x
?

I I
? !

I

I I
?
?

I
I I i
I
I
I I
?
I
I
I
I
3 T
?_?
j
I

I c
T
?_?

I
I
I

I I
I
I
I
t
I
i

I I

I
?

I I

I
I
I
i I
' I
! I
I

I
?
'

I w
( co O
vl I I
? I l
? I(OD I
I I
l j ? V IIT
?
I
I I O

i
I

I

'

I

I

I

I
I

?

I

I I
I

I

I

I

j

I

I

I

I I

I
I

I I' ?
I I
i
i I

II
I ? i
I'

I

?I
l

j I

I

l
i

i I
i

I

I

? I ;
I' I
I
? I I

I
l

I

I I
i i
I
I I I
?
ii

'

j I
I j

i I
? I

!
I
I

I
I
I

i I I

I
I
I I I
j I
? I I
i I
I
I I

i I

I ! I
I? I
I I I I
?
j ' I i l
I I I
i i I I

I I I I
I

I

?
I I I I

I

i
I

I
I

I
I I

I

I

I I
I
I
I II
i l

I
I I
i
I

? j
I l

I l

I
I ??I
I

i l
I I i

I
j il
I

I I I

I I
I i
i
I ?
I
I '
I
I I I
I i I
i ;
I
? I ? (
i ? j I
I I
I
V?

I i j I I j I I I i j l i I I I CO) E"'' 'TJ

o
co
I I
I I I lj I
? I
j ? I II
i II y Z Z
I I I I ? I j i? ; j lil y ?-7
I I
I I ? I ! I I I I
I I I i i i ? ?
I I i I I i I ' I i ?
I I i ' I I I I I I a ?` l 1

I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
i
I'
j
!
I
I
j I
i
i

I
i
I
I

I
j
I
j
I
l l j co)

? F'
i i I i'
? I I ?
I I I (
I ! I I
! i I C
? ? .o

I

?

I

I

I

i

I
j
I
`I
j I
I

,

I
'
I

j?
fj

i
il
I
;lj
?i!

n?
?
I I I

I I
I
I
I ii
II I
I j I Ij
I ?
I

i - I

I

I

j i ?

it
j l II'
I
III
? I

Ii I

I

I
l

I
i

i li

?I
11

l
1

i I

1 I!

ljl
11 i

?
i
r
oro z
o 00
m i i

I
-mo

D
n
v_
Z v

x

l

I
I
I

I
I I
I
I I

I
I I

l I

i I I

I!
l i
I I

I
> TO

I
=
0
Z rn
c
Z
I
I
;
;

I
I
;

li
j
ll
ZI W y I I I I
j I l
i

C
c
? W
D
?
m
O

0
?
y
I _
i
I
-0
t
i?
i
j
n
m
-

O m

? I

I

I
n
0
-n i
Z
O
O
I I I I' I
! i
I
( I I !
I i I o0
w m
"

I
i I
I l
i l
i l l
I l
j ;
j ! I
I I
I i `' z
m
j
j
z I i ( I c
I ' i I ! I I I I I I I j i I l i I
11
I
? I ? i j l I ?
I IjI
' I

I I
I
I ,
I
? i I j I
I i
l i
i I
l
i i
? j I ;
I I ,
l i
i
t
I
x _
m

i I

I i
I (
I
l
i
I I I
? I
I I
i ,
I
l I
I
I I
j
I
j ';
( ? I I
I j j
I I I

I
I
I
?

081W2001
e_\ooadway\63067Idgn\p1...\b3057,pl

v
00 ??adn,:,?b3957?da?\P1ons?F,3?57.Yp1
<o & assoc?aces. P.C.
. ? r
08/17/2001
p,:\,_p.d gay\63067\A.n\plens\b3067.>pl
-Y
? f•
a

Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542 (1)
State Project 8.2750901
TIP No. B-3067
2152?
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Z9-
Date
ate Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
I It/.

Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542(1)
State Project 8.2750901
TIP No. B-3067
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
? -Z ? (]"'L) la,, W??
Date John . Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Date William T. Goodwin Jr., P. E., nit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
$ - 2q-D Z G l/
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542(1)
State Project 8.2750901
TIP No. B-3067
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on August 18, 2000.
The document recommended replacement of Bridge No. 324 with a new bridge
approximately 250 feet (76 meters) west of its present location. Traffic was to be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. This will now be referred to as
Alternate 1.
II. DISCUSSION
Since the time of the original document, it has been determined that the proposed
plan of replacement would present difficulties in construction. Construction would
require shifting traffic away from the north end of the new bridge and into an area on
which a house is currently situated. This would also require blasting into a rock terrace
on which the house is founded.
A new design was developed to place a new bridge on a location immediately to
the west of the existing bridge. This location was originally discounted due to the
opinion that a better location was available upstream. However, it is now evident that the
currently proposed location has the smallest environmental and economic impact..
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
With either alternate proposed, a design exception is expected due to horizontal
and vertical curvature. Further improvements to the design speed are not feasible given
the hydraulic and topographic parameters of the project.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
A summary of costs is presented below.
COMPONENT Alternate 2
New Bridge Structure $ 433,000
Bridge Removal 7,000
Roadway & Approaches 115,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 75,000
Engineering & Contingencies 95,000
Total Construction $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 34,000
Total Cost $ 759,000
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
All general impacts including air and noise, land use, historical and
archaeological, and general natural systems are the same as documented in the original
Categorical Exclusion. Below is a modified table for natural systems impacts and an
updated T&E species summary.
B. NATURAL SYSTEMS UPDATE
COMMUNITIES IMPACTS UPDATE
Table 1. Anticipated imnactc from the nrnnnearl r+rninnt t.,
Community, Wetland Upland Totals
Acidic Cove Forest - 0.004 ac (0.002 ha) 0.004 ac (0.002 ha)
Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest - 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) 0.13 ac (0.05 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed - 0.04 ac (0.02 ha) 0.04 ac (0.02 ha)
Middle Fork Creek - - 0.06 ac (0.02 ha)
Total 0.00 ac (0.00 ha) 0.174 ac (0.072 ha) 0.234 ac (0.092 ha)
THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES UPDATE
Table 2. Federallv Protected Sneciec for Watanan Cannty
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Microhexura montivaga
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Bog turtle
Spruce-fir moss spider
Carolina northern flying squirrel Threatened (S/A)
Endangered
Endangered
Geum radiatum Spreading avens Endangered
Houstonia montana Roan Mountain bluet Endangered
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star Threatened
•...?+....?.. ,F..a.- -a aFw?ca uiaL me uncty w umume enaangerea witnin 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 3.00 to 4.00 in (7.62 to
10.16 cm) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright
orange or yellow blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable
2
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 December 3, 2001
and revealed no records of bog turtles in the project area.
Microhexura montivaga (spruce-fir moss spider) Endangered
Family: Dipluridae .
Date Listed: January 27, 1994
The spruce-fir moss spider is the northern most representative of the family Dipluridae
(Tarantulas). It is also one of the smallest spiders in this primitive group, 0.25 to 0.45 in
(0.64 to 1.14 cm). Coloration ranges from light brown to dark reddish-brown, with no
abdominal markings. Field identification characteristics include a pair of long posterior
spinnerets and the presence of a second pair of book lungs, which appear as light patches
posterior to the genital furrow. Males of the species mature during September and
October, and females are known to lay eggs in June. The egg sac usually contains seven
to nine eggs. The life span of these spiders is unknown although it has been estimated
that maturity may take four years.
The spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders. These mats are found in well-shaded areas of mature, high elevation
[5,000.00 ft (1,524.00 m)] spruce-fir forests. Individuals are very sensitive to desiccation
and require constant high humidity. Constant high humidity helps to maintain the
necessary level of moisture in the moss mats. The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs
in the interface between the moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have been found
to extend into the interior of the moss mat. No prey has been found in the webs, but the
probable prey for the spruce-fir moss spider is the abundant springtails found in moss
mats.
The continued existence of the spruce-fir moss spider is related directly to habitat
loss/alteration of the spruce-fir forest from air pollution and exotic insect pests,
particularly the balsam wooly adelgid. The loss and reduction of the forest canopy results
in localized changes in microclimate, including increased temperatures, increased light,
and decreased moisture on the forest floor. These alterations of the microclimate lead to
desiccation of the moss mats on which the spider and, possibly its prey base, depend on
for survival.
3
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of mature, high-elevation [5,000.00 ft (1,524.00 m)] spruce-fir forests
does not occur within the project area; therefore, there is no potential habitat for the
spruce-fir moss spider in the project area. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of
rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on December 3, 2001 and revealed no
records of spruce-fir moss spider within the project area. Construction of the proposed
project will have no effect on this species. The spruce-fir moss spider was not observed
upon site inspection.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Family: Sciurdiae
Federally Listed: July 1, 1985
The northern flying squirrel is widely distributed in northern North America and was not
known to exist on the east coast south of New York until well into the 20th century.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of
North Carolina along the Tennessee border. These populations occur in Yancey and
Haywood counties and in the vicinity of Mt. Mitchell.
The northern flying squirrel is a small gliding rodent that measures 10.20 to 12.20 in
(25.91 to 30.99 cm) in total length and 0.20 to 0.30 lbs (0.09 to 0.14 kg) in weight. This
squirrel has a large well-furred flap of skin along either side of its body. This 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. Juvenile squirrels have a uniform dark gray
back and an off-white underside. Adult squirrels are characteristically gray with a
brownish, tan, or reddish wash on the back, and a grayish-white underside.
This squirrel is found above 5,000.00 ft (1,524.00 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. Northern flying squirrels feed on lichens,
fungi, seeds, buds, fruit, staminate cones, insects, and animal flesh. The northern flying
squirrel occupies tree cavities, woodpecker holes, and less often leaf nests in the winter.
Leaf nests are most often occupied in the summer. The inside of their nests is lined with
lichens, moss, or finely chewed bark. A West Virginia study has preliminary results that
show the use of burrows by northern flying squirrels.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Elevation in the project area, approximately 3,200.00 ft (975.36 m), is too low to be
suitable for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, which is typically found above 5,000.00
ft (1,524.00 m). The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
4
habitats was reviewed on December 3, 2001 and revealed no records of Carolina northern
flying squirrel within the project area. Construction of the proposed project will have no
effect on this species. The Carolina northern flying squirrel was not observed upon site
inspection.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June to 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 all other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 7.90 to
19.70 in (20.07 to 50.04 cm). 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 0.30 to 0.40 in (0.76 to 1.02 cm) 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
5,060.00 to 5,080.00 ft (1,542.29 to 1,548.38 m), 5,680.00 to 5,760.00 ft (1,731.26 to
1,755.65 m) and 5,800.00 ft (1,767.84 m). 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, and clay loam. Most populations are
pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and escarpments on mountains, hills, and
ridges does not occur within the project area; therefore, there is no potential habitat for
spreading avens in the study area. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed on December 3, 2001 and revealed no records
of spreading avens within the project area. Construction of the proposed project will
have no effect on this species. The spreading avens was not observed upon site
inspection.
Houstonia montana (Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June to July (peak is mid June)
5
s
Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial species with roots that 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
4,600.00 to 6,200.00 ft (1,402.08 to 1,889.76 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
The elevation in the project area is only 3,200.00 ft (975.36 m) msl - too low to meet the
habitat requirements of 4,600.00 to 6,200.00 ft (1,402.08 to 1,889.76 m) for the Roan
Mountain bluet. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats reviewed on December 3, 2001 revealed no records of Roan Mountain bluet
within the project area. Construction of the proposed project will have no effect on this
species. The Roan Mountain bluet was not observed upon site inspection.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: late June to 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 acuminate 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 3,500.00 to 6,000.00 ft (1,066.80 to 1,828.80 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
High elevation ledges and rock outcrops do not occur within the project area; therefore,
there is no potential habitat for Heller's blazing star. Known populations of this plant
occur at elevations of 3,500.00 to 6,000.00 ft (1,066.80 to 1,828.80 m). The elevation in
the project area is only 3,200.0 ft (975.36 m). The NC Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on December 3, 2001 and
revealed no records of Heller's blazing star within the project area. Construction of the
proposed project will have no effect on this species. The Heller's blazing star was not
observed upon site inspection.
6

l
7
324,
..

b 1
t 1
4
~ • •
52
61
¦ ' + ;b, i

f
?• • ?, 1
Sol .?
191 ?- i ?1
`. 0
.• 1531
16g-
# IL t? ?b
278 '•
2 Alga
?.
• 1?
•1
ti
`1607
AL
x32
W "AT,:AUGA
Shen a: ? Io00
loose __? ?,???.?°^`.
- "• - s k V
-..._ ? ..._._..-_, .. .. ..mac. ,?. Y

0%v rAn
WOWNG ROCK
POP. IM
rwATAumk 1213
• CND WELL 43
r
oe NORTN`ca NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
s ?
q? oL9 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o ?
" PROJECT DEVELOPMENT R,
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WATAUGA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 3240N SR 1542
OVER MIDDLE FORK CREED
B-3067
Scale 1 in.= 1 mi. Figure One
r
11 v
Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542(1)
State Project 8.2750901
TIP No. B-3067
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMwIISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
g-12-0a ?/,
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542(1)
State Project 8.2750901
TIP No. B-3067
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2000
0
Date
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
6
1 1b
Jofin L. Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
CA
' 2Q?oFESS
I SEAL =
022552
v tc Q? •??
Wa.V??••
e -/x40 b16 cZ y s, e- Z'!/-. #-
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
00 ? ?f al
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
t
PROJECT COMAUTMENTS:
B-3067, Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542(1)
State Project 8.2750901
Resident Engineer
Trout County: NCWRC requires the following to be implemented to minimize impacts to
aquatic resources:
• There will be a moratorium on "in-water" construction from November 1 through
April 15 of any construction period to protect spawning and early growth of trout.
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.
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented.
Best Management Practices for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented on this
project.
Structure Design
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented.
Hydraulics
Stream Relocation: Guidelines for Mountain Stream Relocation in North Carolina will
be implemented on this project
Best. Management Practicesfor Sensitive Watersheds. will be implemented on this
project.
Roadside Environmental
Best Management Practices for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented on this
project.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
July 5, 2000
Watauga County
Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1542(1)
State Project 8.2750901
TIP No. B-3067
Bridge No. 324 is located in Watauga County over Middle Fork 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. 324 will be replaced with a new 130-foot (40-meter) long bridge on new
alignment approximately 250 feet (76 meters) west of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The cross section of the new bridge will include two 9-foot (2.7-meter) wide
lanes with 2-foot (0.6-meter) wide offsets (shoulders). Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. Afterwards, the existing bridge will be removed. In
addition, the southern approach will have the asphalt removed and be removed from state
maintenance up to the location where the new road ties in.
There will be 490 feet (149 meters) of approach work on the new alignment. The
pavement width on the approaches will be 22 feet (6.6 meters) including two 11-foot
(3.3-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be grass shoulders up to 7 feet (2.1 meters)
wide where guardrail is required. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should
be approximately 30 mph (50 kph).
The estimated cost of the project is $744,000 including $700,000 in construction costs
and $44,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2002-2008 TIP
is $820,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
The statutory speed limit is 55 mph in the area. The proposed design speed of 30 mph
(50 kph) is due to the vertical alignment and will result in a design exception. Given the
low volume of cars and the nature of the topography in the vicinity, it is not prudent to
improve the vertical alignment any further.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1542 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. It is located immediately south of Boone, N.C. Currently the traffic volume is
50 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 120 VPD for the year 2025. There is no
posted speed limit in the project vicinity. The area has mixed residential and agricultural
use.
The existing bridge was completed in 1922. It is composed of a one-span reinforced
concrete girder on reinforced concrete abutments. The deck is 50 feet (15.2 meters) long
and 23 feet (7 meters) wide. There is vertical clearance of approximately 21 feet
between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and streambed. The bridge carries two lanes
of traffic.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 2
out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 16 tons
for single vehicles and 20 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Vertical alignment is fair and horizontal alignment is poor in the project vicinity. The
pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 16 feet (4.9 meters).
Shoulders on the approaches of the bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide.
In an analysis of a recent three year period the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that
one accident was reported. The accident was not associated with the bridge.
There are no daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge.
Bell South Telephone and New River Power have multiple aerial cables at this site crossing
parallel and west of the bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Because SR 1542 is a dead end road, traffic must be maintained during construction. It is
not practical to build a bridge any closer to the existing alignment than the one shown in
Figure 2 because the approach alignment would be poor. Also, the topography of SR
1542 is closely associated in with US 221/US 321 above it by virtue of a steep slope.
Any attempt to tie in closer than the location shown would necessitate undesirable
impacts on US 221 /US 321 There is only one practical "build" option considered in this
document as follows:
(Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 324 on new location to the west. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The design
speed will be approximately 60 mph (100 kph).
"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
New Bridge
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches 198,000
8,000
231,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 153,000
Engineering & Contingencies 110,000
Total Construction $ 700,000
Right of Way $ 44,000
Total Cost $ 744,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 324 will be replaced with a new 130-foot (40-meter) long bridge on new
alignment approximately 250 feet (76 meters) west of the existing structure (see
Figure 2). The cross section of the new bridge will include two 9-foot (2.7-meter) wide
lanes with 2-foot (0.6-meter) wide offsets (shoulders). Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction. Afterwards, the existing bridge will be removed. In
addition, the southern approach will have the asphalt removed and be removed from state
maintenance up to the location where the new road ties in.
There will be 490 feet (149 meters) of approach work on the new alignment. The
pavement width on the approaches will be 22 feet (6.6 meters) including two 11-foot
(3.3-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be grass shoulders up to 7 feet (2.1 meters)
wide where guardrail is required. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should
be approximately 30 mph (50 kph).
There is one prominent natural environment issue at this location. NCWRC has
identified Middle Fork Creek as Public Mountain Trout Water. So long as NCDOT
adheres to the Project Commitments listed in the attached Greensheet, the project will
adequately address environmental concerns.
The Division concurs in the recommendation.
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 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 substantial 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 bridge replacement project will result in the loss of 0.82 acres of active farmland.
This impact is unavoidable since traffic must be maintained. This is the only
topographically practical location for the bridge and new alignment.
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 archaeological significance (see attachments). They did request that Bridge
No. 324 be evaluated. NCDOT completed an evaluation of Bridge No. 324 and SHPO
4
agreed with the determination that the bridge is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
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 Watauga County is hilly and mountainous and is drained by
the South Fork New River. Project elevation is approximately 975.4 meters (3,200.0
feet) above mean sea level (msl).
Soils
Watauga County does not have a published soil survey. Most of the soils are mapped,
but the information on these mapped soils is limited. Two soil phases occur within
project boundaries: Reddies loam and Ashe-Chestnut complex.
Reddies loam with 0 to 3 percent slopes, is a moderately well drained soil that occurs on
flood plains of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Permeability is moderately rapid to
rapid and the seasonal high water table is located within 0.6 to 1.1 meters (2.0 to 3.5 feet)
below the surface. Frequent flooding is a major limitation for this soil type.
Chestnut-Edne ille complex with 30 to 60 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that
occurs on upland ridges and mountain slopes of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid and the seasonal high water table is located
greater than 1.8 meters (6.0 feet) below the surface. Soft bedrock is within a depth of
50.8 to 101.6 centimeters(20.0 to 40.0 inches).
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 impacts. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization
methods are also discussed.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Middle Fork Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the
proposed project (Figure 2). Middle Fork Creek is located in sub-basin 05-07-01 of the
New River Basin. East and west of Bridge No. 324 the average baseflow width is
approximately 15.2 to 16.8 meters (50.0 to 55.0 feet). The average depth is
approximately 0.6 meters (2.0 feet). The substrate of Middle Fork Creek at Bridge No.
324 consists of cobbles and silt.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality. The classification of Middle Fork Creek (DEM Index No. 10-1-2-(15)) is
WS-IV CA+ (NCDWQ 1995). The WS-IV classification denotes waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds: point
source dischargers of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to rules .0104 and .0211
of 15A NCAC 2B .0100; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater
discharge of pollution are required. Critical area (CA) is the land adjacent to a water
supply intake where risk associated with pollution is greater than from remaining portions
of the watershed. Critical area is defined as land within one-half mile upstream and
draining to a river intake or within one-half mile and draining to the normal pool
elevation of water supply reservoirs. The + symbol 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. This project is not located within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of the
river intake or normal pool elevation of the water supply reservoir.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS41: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
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. A BMAN
station on Middle Fork Creek is located on SR 1522 within approximately 1.6 km
(1.0 mile) downstream from the project study area. This station was sampled once
in July 1993 and received a rating of excellent.
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. One point source discharger, Boone Waste Water
Treatment Plant, is located on Middle Fork Creek within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)
upstream of the project study area and releases approximately 3.20 MGD.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW
width of 24.4 meters (80.0 ft). "The Middle Fork New River is designated by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as a Public Mountain Trout Water.
6
This section of river is managed as Hatchery Supported, receiving spring and summer
stockings of brook, brown and rainbow trout. Also, some wild brown and rainbow trout
inhabit this section of river. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot buffer
zone is prohibited during the rainbow trout spawning season of November 1 through
April 1 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout." (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,
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 Sensitive
Watersheds must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are not limited to minimizing project
footprint 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.
This bridge project could result in temporary fill due to demolition of the bridge. The
resulting fill would amount to no more than 33 cubic yards. Siltation is not a concern at
this site; therefore, a turbidity curtain will not be required.
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.
7
Terrestrial Communities
Five distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Acidic Cove
Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, maintained non-agricultural field,
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 present southwest of the bridge. The transition from Acidic
Cove Forest to maintained/disturbed roadside is abrupt due to road shoulder maintenance
activities.
The canopy is composed of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), black oak (Quercus
velutina), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white pine (Pinus strobus), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The understory layer consists of saplings of the canopy trees, Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota), blackberry (Rubus sp.), white ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), yellow
buckeye (Aesculus octandra), yellowbell (Forsythia sp.), foxtail (Setaria sp.), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula), and
fescue (Festuca sp.).
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), Eastern kingsnake* (Lampropeltis getulus)
and timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus).
Avian species utilizing the Acidic Cove Forest likely include: American robin* (Turdus
migratorius), broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus),
rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) and gray
catbird (Dumetella carolinensis).
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Forest is located along the Middle Fork Creek corridor.
The canopy is composed of sugar maple and black walnut (Juglans nigra)..The
understory consists of violet (Viola sp.), rose bay (Rhododendron maximum), wooly
mullein (Verbascum thapsus), viburnum (Viburnum sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum
off cinale) and grass (Festuca sp.).
The riparian 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 Piedmont/Low Mountain Forest will
be largely those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest. .
Maintained Non-agricultural Field
The open field community is located southwest of the existing bridge. This community is
primarily composed of goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and grass.
Forested and non-forested areas surround this open field habitat within the project area.
Therefore, faunal species frequenting this community will be largely those species
inhabiting the Acidic Cove Forest as well as woodchucks* (Marmota monax), white-
footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) and eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Maintained Yard
The maintained is located along SR 1542. This community is composed primarily of
fescue (Festuca sp.).
This maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by forested and non-forested
areas, and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the
project vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained yard community
will be largely those species inhabiting the open and forested areas.
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside
The maintained/disturbed community includes road shoulders along SR 1542 that is
present along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained
community includes Japanese honeysuckle, daisy flea-bane (Erigeron sp.), broomsedge
(Andropogon sp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), blackberry, yellow buckeye,
and white ash.
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by forested and non-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 alluvial forest.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Middle Fork 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 Middle Fork Creek. Vegetation along the
bank of Middle Fork Creek includes sugar maple and black walnut, violet (Viola sp.),
rose bay, wooly mullein and grass (Festuca sp.).
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish species likely to occur-in Middle Fork Creek include brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis).
Invertebrates that would be present include: various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera),
mayfly* (Ephemeroptera), crayfish (Decapoda), dragonflies 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 meters (80.0 ft).
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 ro'ect to biotic communities.
Community
Acidic Cove Forest 0.02 (0.06)
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.10 (0.26)
Successional Field 0.30 (0.73)
Maintained Yard 0.03 (0.07)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.06 (0.14)
Total 0.69(l.26)
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. 324 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
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, which may impact many species.
10
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.
Middle Fork Creek is 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 meters (80.0 ft). Impacts to Middle Fork Creek will consist of a 130 foot
long bridge crossing of Middle Fork Creek, for an area of 0.02 hectares (0.06 acre).
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.
II
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
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
practicable. It is recognized that "no netToss of wetlands" functions and values may not
12
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 performed. 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 whenever
practicable. 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 listed the following federally protected species
for Watuaga County. 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 Watauga Countv.
°Scientific Name Common Name Status ;
Clemm s muhlenber ii BO turtle Threatened S/A
Co norhinus townsendii vir inianus Virginia big-eared bat Endangered
Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel Endangered
Geum radiatum S readin avens Endangered
Houstonia montana Roan Mountain bluet Endangered
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star 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 centimeters(3 to 4
inches) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange
or yellow 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
13
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.
Plecotus townsendii virginianus (Virginia big-eared bat) Endangered
Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: October 30, 1979
Plecotus townsendii virginianus is widespread in the western United States, but the range
of the eastern subspecies is fragmented into several populations. These populations are
found in caves near Potomac tributaries in eastern West Virginia, Tazwell County,
Virginia, and in Lee County, Kentucky. It was not known in North Carolina until the
early 1980's when small populations were discovered in Avery and Watauga counties.
The Virginia big-eared bat is most easily recognized by its large ears (more than 2.5
centimeters(1.0 inches)) and large glandular masses on its muzzle. The ears are held
erect when the bat is awake and are curled around the head when it is hibernating or at its
summer roost. This bat has an overall length of 92.0 to 112.0 mm (9.2 to 11.2 cm) and
weighs from 9.0 to 12.0 grams (0.3 to 0.4 ounces). The fur on Virginia big-eared bats is
long and soft, it is brown in color and darker on the dorsal side. The hair on the feet does
not extend beyond the toes.
Virginia big-eared bats occupy caves in the summer and winter. Hibernating colonies are
typically located in deep cave passageways that have stable temperatures and air
movement. The temperature in these hibernacula may be lower than that tolerated by
other bats (6.0 tol2.0 C (42.8 to 53.6 F)). Maternity colonies form in the spring and
require warm caves. Roost sites are generally located in mines or caves in oak-hickory
forests. They will use alternate roost sites but there is no record of long migrations.
Virginia big-eared bats are nocturnal and leave their roost to forage on moths, beetles,
and other insects. Bats mate in the fall and winter and a single young is born in June.
The young grow rapidly and reach adult size in one month's time.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of mines or caves is not present within the project study area.
The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was
reviewed on 27 March 2000 and revealed no records of Virginia big-eared bat within the
project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Family: Sciurdiae
Federally Listed: July 1, 1985
The northern flying squirrel is widely distributed in northern North America and was not
known to exist on the east coast south of New York until well into the 20th century.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of
North Carolina along the Tennessee border. These populations are in Yancey and
14
Haywood counties and in the vicinity of Mt. Mitchell.
The northern flying squirrel is a small gliding rodent that measures 26 to 31
centimeters(10.2 to 12.2 inches) in total length and 95 to 140 gm (3.4 to 4.9 oz) in
weight. This squirrel has a large well-furred flap of skin along either side of its body.
This 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. Juvenile squirrels have a
uniform dark gray back and an off-white underside. Adult squirrels are characteristically
gray with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash on the back, and a grayish-white to buffy
white underside.
This squirrel is found above 1,517.0 meters (5,000.0 feet) 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. Northern flying squirrels feed on
lichens, fungi, seeds, buds, fruit, staminate cones, insects, and animal flesh. The northern
flying squirrel occupies tree cavities, woodpecker holes, and less often leaf nests in the
winter. Leaf nests are most often occupied in the summer. The inside of their nests is
lined with lichens, moss, or finely chewed bark. A West Virginia study has preliminary
results that show the use of burrows by northern flying squirrels.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Elevation in the project area, approximately 975.4 meters (3,200.0 ft), is too low to be
suitable for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, which is typically found above 1,517
meters (5,000 ft). The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 and revealed no records of Carolina northern
flying squirrel within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project will have
no effect on this species.
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 all other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 2 to 5
dm (7.9 to 19.7 inches). 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 inches) 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 meters (5,060.0 to 5,080.0 ft), 1,723.0 to 1,747.0 meters (5,680.0 to
5,760.0 feet) and 1,759.0 meters (5,800.0 ft). Other habitat requirements for this species
15
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
Habitat in the form of scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and
ridges does not occur within the project study area; therefore, there is no potential habitat
for spreading avens in the study area. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 and revealed no records of
spreading avens within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project will
have no effect on this species.
Houstonia montana (Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (peak 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
1,400.0 to 1,900.0 meters (4,600 to 6,200 ft). 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
The elevation in the project study is only 975.4 meters (3,200.0 feet) msl - too low to
meet the habitat requirements of 1,400.0 to 1,900.0 meters (4,600 to 6,200 feet) for the
Roan Mountain bluet. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats reviewed on 27 March 2000 revealed no records of Roan Mountain bluet
within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed project will have no effect on
this species.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
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 acuminate 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 1,067 to 1,829 meters (3,500 to 6,000 ft). 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
16
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. Known populations of
this plant occur at elevations of 1,067 to 1,829 meters (3,500 to 6,000 ft). The elevation
in the study area is only 975.4 meters (3,200.0 ft). 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.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are seventeen Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Watauga 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
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. A review of the NCNHP database of
rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000 revealed one record of Phenacobius
teretulus (Kanawha minnow), a Federal Species of Concern, within 1.6 km (1.0 mile)
project study area.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Watauga County.
Scientific Name Common Name State
Status Habitat
Present
Neotoma ma ister Alle en woodrat Sc No
Sorex alustris Southern water shrew SC Yes
S lvila s transitionalis Appalachian cottontail SR No
Ae olius acadicus Southern Appalachian northern saw-whet owl SR No
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR No
S h ra icus varius a alachiensis Appalachian yellow-bellied sapsucker SR No
C tobranchus alle aniensis Hellbender SC Yes
Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha minnow Sc Yes
Lasmi ona subviridis Green floater E No
S e eria Diana Diana fritillary SR Yes
Cardamine clematitis Mountain bittercress C No
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Eu horbia ur urea Gladespurge C No
Geum eniculatum Bent avens T Yes
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Poa aludi ena Bo bluegrass E No
Saxi a a caroliniana Carolina saxifrage 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.
17
"T"- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an 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 which may be
taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes.
"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 has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but
which exists in the state in small numbers and has been determined by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program to need monitoring.
18
549
1547
1 9
Se
¦ wel
¦

¦
- - \ .`

F?
Foa? - 522
i.
166002
1542

41
enlil5 v?.t?% ? /
?U
221 e'rWe¦ Rack
00. '0 c
00, •

BOONE AND VICINITY
• Sl ,
Nort
h Carolina
t
= F; Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
WATAUGA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 324 ON SR 1542
OVER MIDDLE FORK CREEK
B-3067
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
Figure 1
0 miles 0.25 miles 0.5
??_ ; P . r
x :s
e [fi f ?1 ?'J r
r i
?g "Y`• l z y ,i
--
r r <:yr
t ? r
y .?
P 'r' ?i> r ?r?• ? ?, t
T• , r
r
F
t?? if1 f
r i
d
4f
ti?°d?a sr4
? `
V
?
C
ar ? "

1 ? z 4
.NQ e'? t
,: ,
C/)
n
IJ
O

s ."
n
L a
C
W n
o •
o, 'T1 w ?
z ?-
7" O
h ?
7" vl
tJ
z n z o (•;
? O o z
J
o ? z z
z r- = C
G z 1
s _
s
z
n
I®
,r-•

d
a
w
'lam
a
U? o
o r?
N (*
(10

West Face of
Bridge No. 324
Southern Approach of
Bridge No. 324
oF"°"•"North Carolina Department of
'? oLZ\ Transportation
Division of Highways
'I Project Development &
P~'
OF TR?.? Environmental Analvsis Branch
Watauga County
Replace Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
B-3067
Figure Three
Looking South Across
Bridge No. 324
Looking North Across
Bridge No. 324
?PA6i NORTHC OG North Carolina Department of
h Transportation
Division of Highways
ptir;
Project Development &
?OF.R,410- Environmental Analysis Branch
Watauga County
Replace Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542
Over Middle Fork Creek
B-3067
Figure Four
- ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
?j
DATE: May 8, 1998
t<7
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for bridge replacement project B-30*, Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542 over the
Middle Fork New River, Watauga County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the above referenced
project. The Middle Fork New River is designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission as Public
Mountain Trout Water. This section of river is managed as Hatchery Supported, receiving spring and summer
stockings of brook, brown and rainbow trout. Also, some wild brown and rainbow trout inhabit this section of river.
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. The existing bridge should be replaced with another spanning structure to maintain fish passage and
minimize disturbance to stream substrate.
2. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the rainbow
trout spawning season of November 1 through April 1 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
3. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete noes not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
4. 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.
5. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
6. 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.

r ?Tn
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
May 13, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 324 on SR
Watauga County,
MABRZ-1542(1),
98-8641
Dear Mr. Graf:
1542 over Middle Fork Creek,
B-3067, Federal Aid Project
State Project 8.2750901, ER
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
GEty O
p MAY 1 5 1998 z
Zy DIVISION OF QQ
?
HIGHWAYS
P
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, Bridge 324 is the only structure within
the general project area that is over fifty years old. We recommend that an
architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for National Register
eligibility and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. ' Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
s
Nicholas L. Graf
May 13, 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,
&kuz? ZIIV?A
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
w r 01-
Federal.-lid # i'AABRZ-1-542(1 ) TIP = B-3067 County: Watauga
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
/).,r. 'U, 1117
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 324 on SR 1542 over Middle Fork Creek
On November 20, 1997, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
F? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as Bridge #324 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no
further evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
NCDOT
FHWX/for the Divi'';ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
2 f f?
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.