20021914 Ver 1_Complete File_20021218

4
G Z/9(`l /Uivo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 31, 2003
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120

Raleigh, NC 27615 wA[EN (JUHU fy SECTION
ATTN: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Modification Application for the replacement of
Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over the Watauga River, in Watauga County.
Federal Aid Project No. MA-BRZ-1200(2). State Project No. 8.2751101.
TIP Project No. B-3263.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
On March 6, 2003 the USACE issued a Nationwide 23 (AID 200320504) and Nationwide
33 (AID 2000320505) for the above referenced project. This project is currently under
construction. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to modify the
construction plans for the subject project. Impacts to jurisdictional waters will not chan>?e
by use of these modifications. The purpose of this letter is to request a modification to
the original permit. The revised sheets of the original permit drawings and the revised
Design Plans are attached.
The revised design was needed to address maintenance concerns. The project as originally
designed would have subjected end bent No. 1 to scour since it would be subject to
continuous washout due to the low elevation of the bridge. High water elevation occurs
an average of 2 to 3 times a year. The revised design includes shifting the grade to zero
percent, raising end bent no. 1, and installing new railings. In addition, by creating a more
even distribution of water flow, debris collection would be reduced by the more level
approach and bridge. The modified rails will also have openings designed to allow small
debris and water to pass. Moreover, the new bridge rails and zero percent grade will
allow water to flow directly off the bridge deck into the water. The revised design does
not compromise NCDOT's compliance with the existing permit conditions.
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETI A"" ' I rPf)UP
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at
[phone].
Sincerely,
1 ?
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
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. 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.
Mr. Heath Slaughter, DEO
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
\ 1 \
\ 1 \
C)LLJ
f- 1 \ \
0 1 \ \
Ja \
F- 1
H
J LJ
a
w
CD
? N J
LJ U J
~ O 3
J
IPJ
N
d3AId dondlvM
? of
?w
w?
>?
? ~ r
?w
Z Z i
W
JW pl- r
i-ti Ova i
?a oo
V
ZO
0- r
r
r
'r
r
r
t
D
?n
Q'

1
f-
F'-
LL
cr
H
a
J
J

I III
I
3
Ci
' s a•
F

Ow
0- N
a
w F-
F-

Q
J
_J
?
E--

/
k?

?w
av
?Q
0
w
?Na
NZ3
w
f- J
O J
Z li
w
0
W
a
U
0
b
kD v E E
Ln LCD Ln N O
ti Ln
ti
O
\ E
v
c
Ln
ti
•??2, w
Y J
U W
O
tr O
H
tY ?
QQ
ix 3
Cm \ CL N

Q
E -J \ w U
pp N
I w
W
I-
O Ln O
NU 3
I
+ I Y

> a E
m E v) o
p
I
a
H J N M 'O O

(n
W
N U) + I I
I I
? I
I I
I I

v I I-
I I
I I -

O I I
I I
(n
Q V
O I I I
iO
o al
0 CL
Z Z

?
W
F-f
I
r N
tY X '
0 W
v -1 1 O
Q /
N I-
Lij
Q 0 O

O W
CID
Z W
O ?

? Q
O W
Z n
m
O Q
. '
/ W
Q O
Z W
O

V)
0 W

In
E
E
E
E
OO

Ln CL

O 17

Ln
N
Ln 0

Ln
I`- N Of r` N ti

O
v
+
O
N
t I
O
O
w
0
^eo
o
00
O
W
+
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 31, 2003
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
WEILM . c,.ROUP
n 003
WATER UuHufiY SECTION
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Modification Application for the replacement of
Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over the Watauga River, in Watauga County.
Federal Aid Project No. MA-BRZ-1200(2). State Project No. 8.2751101.
TIP Project No. B-3263.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
On March 6, 2003 the USACE issued a Nationwide 23 (AID 200320504) and Nationwide
33 (AID 2000320505) for the above referenced project. This project is currently under
construction. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to modify the
construction plans for the subject project. Impacts to jurisdictional waters will not change
by use of these modifications. The purpose of this letter is to request a modification to
the original permit. The revised sheets of the original permit drawings and the revised
Design Plans are attached.
The revised design was needed to address maintenance concerns. The project as originally
designed would have subjected end bent No. I to scour since it would be subject to
continuous washout due to the low elevation of the bridge. High water elevation occurs
an average of 2 to 3 times a year. The revised design includes shifting the grade to zero
percent, raising end bent no. 1, and installing new railings. In addition, by creating a more
even distribution of water flow, debris collection would be reduced by the more level
approach and bridge. The modified rails will also have openings designed to allow small
debris and water to pass. Moreover, the new bridge rails and zero percent grade will
allow water to flow directly off the bridge deck into the water. The revised design does
not compromise NCDOT's compliance with the existing permit conditions.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBS/TE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
1
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at
[phone].
Sincerely,
1
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
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. 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.
Mr. Heath Slaughter, DEO
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
1
\ 1 \
\ 1 \
JQ \
U-5 l\
J l \ \
I-
F-
J w
Q ?
F- I-
w
C)
Q (Dv) :2 C ? J
w U J
f- 0 3
J ?
Q d-)
i
lDJ
d3nId vonvlvM
? of
? L
?w
w?
>?
w
ZZ
w
-Jw
1-?-- Otn /
?Q 00
~ QD
N i i
ZC
r
r
r
r
r
r ?
O
U
v

1
w
Q
J
J

(i
0=

I
/
U
2
V

ow
0- N
:2::D
w Q r-
F-
w

Q
J
J
?
E

r
?w
Q U
?Q
Ow
Lew
w??.
F-`na
N ? ?
w
!- J
O J
Z LL-
w
C)
W
W
U
0
M
E E E o
co cD IT
N O i
~ Imo-
M f A
O
Q0 4,40 w 0 Q! "I
M "
W O w

\
Q 44
z
E
Q
z
C
o

H ti ?

w IT
a
x

??x Y J

U LLI

+
0-0

a

a

In

H
w O I-+ W
? A w

\ rA
3
co \ a-N
Q

\
?
v
00N
E
lOp
CD -
J 00 O
N ? O I N
Q Ln V) I I• +
I Z W I
E p I Z
> In
W
I- J N M 'O O+

(n
W
N (n a) I I

I I -
I 1
I I
I I-
-
O
Lr I I

1 I

+
CD
+

Lf- I I
1 I IL
V) =
I I a U
I O
O s!?
I?
- - - tr
O
LL ILC
a'
a
Z Z w k?
F-
r o N
W ' Z
J '
/ C
N 00
U
W
+
/ ?
Q
Z
? O
tY
/ O IL
co
i z Z
O W
1- ?

i Q W
O Z CO
Q O
W

z LLJ O?

O
+
N
Q
/ CO
(n
?
O W
4,
N
E O E E
?D CL

O IT
N

Ln
Ln
p- In
ti Of
I`-

^r

"101
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
November 25, 2002
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTN: Ms. Jean Manuel
Dear Madam:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
?E
IA1P' "
SUBJECT: Watauga County, Replacement of Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over the Watauga
River. Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1200(2). State Project No. 8.2751101.
TIP Project No. B-3263.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 271 over the Watauga River (Index # 8-(16)), a "Class B-HQW" water of the state. The
proposed project will consist of replacing the current bridge with a two span 1 10-foot cored slab
bridge at the existing location. All traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
Bridge Demolition: The NCDOT will adhere to Best Management Practices for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of bridge 271. The superstructure of Bridge No.
271 is composed of timber and steel and will be removed without dropping the contents into the
water. The substructure affecting the water is composed of two reinforced concrete pier each 8
feet tall and 3 feet over the water. There is potential for components of the substructure to be
dropped into waters of the United States during construction. The resulting potential temporary
fill will be 2.5 cubic yards.
Temporary Causeway Construction: This project will require a temporary causeway to be
installed in the Watauga River during the replacement of bridge no. 271. The proposed
temporary construction causeway can be seen on sheets 3-5 of the attached permit drawings.
The temporary causeway consists of boulder size rip-rap with approximately 1.0 foot of Class A
rip-rap as a riding surface for construction equipment. It will cover approximately 0.06 acres.
Approximately 250 cubic meters (2,690 cubic feet) of the rip-rap will be below the ordinary
water surface. In order to maintain water volumes during construction, a series of 7 @ 36.0"
pipes will be installed in causeway.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Restoration Plan: The temporary causeway will be removed by excavating equipment as soon as
construction is complete. The streambed will be restored to its pre-construction contours. It is
anticipated that the causeway will remain in place approximately twelve months. After
construction, all causeway material will become the property of the contractor. To ensure the
proper disposal if any construction related material, the contractor is required to submit a
reclamation plan for approval by the NCDOT Resident Engineer.
THREATENED AND/OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of March 02, 2002, the following species are listed as Federally Threatened or
Endangered species listed for Watauga County, North Carolina.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Watauga County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion
Clemmys muehlinbergi Bog Turtle TS/A Not subject to section 7.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E No Effect
Geum radiatum spreading avens E No Effect
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Roan Mountain bluet E No Effect
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E No Effect
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T No Effect
"E" - Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T'- Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within th e foreseeable future
throughout all or a significan t portion of its range).
It should be noted that the spruce-fir moss spider has been added to the species list for
Watauga County since the PCE document was prepared. However, the elevation requirement is
not met for this species in the project area. Therefore, a biological conclusion of No Effect is
given for this species.
Summary
This project will take place in a mountain trout county. Therefore, by copy of this letter
the N.CDOT requests that the NCWRC review the proposed project and submit any comments to
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
It is anticipated that the construction causeway will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). Therefore, we are
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the causeway. All
other aspects of the project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we propose to
proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of January 15,
2002. We anticipate a 401 General Certification number 3361 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.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] extension 304.
cc: w/attachment
w/o attachment
Sincerely,
W, QMA7??O/
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Heath Slaughter, DEO-Division 11
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. David Rhodes, P.E., Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Carl McCann, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
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
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW33 & 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: F-I
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
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:
Mailing Address:_
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
III. 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: TIP No. B-3263 replace bridge No. 271 over the Watauga River
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3263
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Watauga Nearest Town: Boone
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):_ SR 1200 in Watauga County,
North Carolina. See attached map.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/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:
Roadway, bridge
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): The Watauga River
9. River Basin: Watauga
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at littp://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed project is to
replace a substandard bridge with a new structure.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
HeavyHighway Construction Equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: some
agriculture, some residential, forested
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.
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: No
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 5 of 13
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland
Impact
Site Number

(indicate on
map)

Type of Impact*

Area of Impact
(acres)
Located within
100-year
Floodplain**

(yes/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream

(linear feet)

ype of Wetland***

*
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, 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:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream
Impact Site
Number
(indicate on
map)

Type of Impact* Length
of
Impact
(linear
feet)

Stream Name** Average
Width of
Stream
Before
Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)

total
* List each impact separately and identity 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.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 323.0
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
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 map) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
Page 6 of 13
1 Temporary work pad .06 Watauga River River
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
Hooding, 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): E] uplands [-I stream wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
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.
Temporary work pad is necessary for equipment to access the river to construct the bridge
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
Page 7 of 13
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/ncwetlands/strmgide.htm1.
1. 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
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.
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/wrp/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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 8 of 13
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes X 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 X No D
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 X 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
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
Gone I extenos out Su feet perpendicular trom near bank of channel; Gone 1 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 9 of 13
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.
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.
Proiect will construct a new bridge. NCDOT will use Best Management Practices and Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
X11. 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
X11I. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
Page 10 of 13
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).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 1 1 of 13

Peoria..,,, -
r,.
120
O
u t
>- 321 /
W
> ?r 1 \
112k
f r 125
OFF SITE DETOUR
VICINITY
MAPS

NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2751101 (B-3263)
BRIDGE NO.271 OVER
WATAUGA RIVER ON
SR 1200 (GIT FORD RD.)
SHEET I OF 7 7/,/24///02
? NORTH CARODNA
WETLAND LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
D PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
CL:? WETLAN
DENOTES
WETLANDL IN PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
- - C - - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* * DENOTES MECHANIZED
* * *« * » * CLEARING
? FLOW DIRECTION
? TB _- TOP OF BANK
---- WE EDGE OF WATER
F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? 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 xx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
2`48"
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE
w SINGLE TREE
- ? - - _ WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD

RIP RAP
05 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (L)
DITCH
GRASS SWALE
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2751101 (B-3205)
BRIDGE NO. 271 OVER
WATAUGA RIVER ON
SR 1200 (GUY FORD RD.)
SHEET Z OF 7 7/24/021
1 ,
o w f? 1
Z> 1
Q? 1
0 1
o
J Q I
U
-' 2
1
J w I
a ? V
w
>- 1 1
? a
V> -?
w cj J
?- o
J
Q G
f01 ?
?/.
\71 r- \
HlAld V)rIv1dM
W _
>
> cr o(I
Q / rr\Cfl, V
Z ?
LLJ L J
a
_?W LJI- / /
G
F
C)
L
Li
cr-
1 _a
I -'
J_
N 1k-I
os O-t
_ Iv

\ LLI

LLJ

x
Q L CD C

I Q N if
J

.1
LLJ
LA I- Q
U1L'
W
f-- J
U J
LL-
W
ED

W
a
U
A
p
e
N
E E E E E
00 (.O N O
Ln Ln Ln Ln L[)
ti ti ti
F r-

E
v
O
v
Ln
r--
.6'q
?/• L
Y -1
/x u w
\ O
Q? O
H
\ ?r
CO \ o w
.. Q a In
J \ wa
00 V) HU
E
J lD
L.Li
(PJ

-
Ln
O U) U ?9:
+ ~ Z W
a E Y I

a >
w w E
cn cn
L/
W r? o
0 N
?
I I

v I I
I I
E + I I- -

M
rn I
Lf) V)
Q } U
O I
a0
O cn

C? z o
Ln
r r O
O J CL X
O W c7 W
cn o

/
n
J 0 U
>
I-

/ ?

O W
z O

?i
o n

Z
o W
?

Q W Z
O Z m
?• O
/ 0 z
cn O
/ <
r,r
W

/ W
/ W

E E O E E
co a- IT C\i
Ln Ln

w
E
O
rn
O
N
+
O
O
P4
O
0
+
O
Q0
C4
0

® ?" d
a
o
o" ? '? ® w
CD LULJ

W O ?•
WQ Ic"', z
?U In

J
x a ?
L 0
>- w
C
A w
c
co
O fcr
CL LJ0
n
W Q N
I- ?
W W
O U F:
Q
W ?- J
Q
J ? C:?
O O
z
z
>
W
E ?
G-) Q
? U

1.4 1-4
>4 >9
?- z Q
Y W
W O1

b ouo
O

D?
Z LL
0<
n
CL

Q
In=W:7?)
cn O
0
?UQ
E
- Qc303
J
Z
L.n W Q
W
WUS?
- = F- W
CL
LL- G-
O Q
m
CL
E
D
W
O O W
J
O C Q
C O Co
In oom?-Vl
W n
z F-zWQ
00=_1
z?i-cj

a
z ? m
a _
n
N Q
p ? 3z?>o
O ?po?,
0
E O xU
0
C) Z
Q
€?? o U o?°°w¢0 0
4? 1-4
3 a
? o m

N
Z
a

C I c o
W 2
A
z cv
z s c

- v
(i c
m
F m o
? c
N
C ?
= W IVO

O
LL j
m
d N UJ
U ~ w Q
fn f) N w
0 co
N
C O
O J
9 o
c v O
$
LL
d

N Z

r

N

h
J

F-
H

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
WILLIAM G. TRIVETT
HENRY TRIVETT
JANET G. TRIVETT
272 TRIVETTE CIRCLE
SUGAR GROVE,NC 28679
451 TRIVETTE CIRCLE
SUGAR GROVE,NC 28679
?? 021914
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3263
State Project No. 8.2751101
Federal Project No. MABRZ-1260(2)
A. Project Description:

Replace Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over the Watauga River in Watauga County.
The new structure will be a curved bridge 341 feet (104 meters) long. The cross
section will include two 10-foot (3.0-meter) lanes and 3-foot (1-meter) offsets.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction. The design speed will be
approximately 30 mph (50 kph).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 271 has a sufficiency rating of 38.1 out of 100. The structural
integrity of the substructure in particular is degrading rapidly. Therefore, Bridge
No. 271 should be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic

j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
- k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit -
30. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
2
,t
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 875,000
Right of Way $ 27,000
Total $ 902,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 400
Year 2025 - 800
TTST - 2%
Dual - 1%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approaches will include two 10-foot lanes with 4-foot shoulders and
curb & gutter with no guardrail. This design is proposed due to physical
constrains of mountainous terrain on one side of the road and a stream on the
other side.
Design Speed: The design speed will be approximately 30 mph (50 kph).
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Design Exception: A design exception will be required due to horizontal and
vertical curvature. The ADT is not exceptionally high and the topography is very
mountainous. To improve beyond the recommended design speed would be very
costly with serious impacts to the environment.
Division Office Comments: The Division Office supports the recommended
design.
Bridge Demolition: The superstructure of Bridge No. 271 is composed of timber
and steel and will be removed without dropping the contents into the water. The
substructure affecting the water is composed of two reinforced concrete piers
each 8 feet (2.4 meters) tall and 3 feet (1 meter) over the water. The resulting
temporary fill will be 2.5 cubic yards. There may be some disturbance at the base
of the pier when removing it.
i I
E. Threshold Criteria
- The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X -
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
4
I
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X _
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? _ X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on ?
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
5
I
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or-listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Reauired for Unfavorable Resnonses in Part E
sion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
The Watauga River is classified as High Quality Waters. NCDOT will implement
Best Management Practices for protection of Sensitive Watersheds.
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
The project will involve relocating approximately 114 feet (35
meters) of a stream It will be relocated as specified by Stream
Relocation Guidelines..
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?
NCDOT has received a great deal of interest in establishing a canoe access at
this location. However, North Carolina laws regarding NCDOT's power to
obtain or use Right of Way does not permit for the establishment of a public
canoe access at this location.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3263
8.2-751101
MABRZ-1200(2)
Replace Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over the Watauga River in Watauga County.
The new structure will be a curved bridge 341 feet (104 meters) long. The cross
section would include two 10-foot (3.0-meter) lanes and 3-foot (1-meter) offsets.
Traffic would be detoured offsite during construction. The design speed would
be approximately 30 mph (50 kph)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
7-1 D-o0 C v tz?
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
7-7-cO
Date
q-01-00
Date
r
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch

Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
7 i O 0 ivision Date Admini.
Federal Highway

Administration
7
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3263, Watauga County
Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200
Over Watauga River
Federal Project MABRZ-1200(2)
State Project 8.2751101
Resident Engineer
Trout County: NCWRC has no special concerns for this project.
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented. A turbidity curtain is required for any areas of work in the stream.
Streant Relocation: Guidelines for Mountain Stream Relocation in North Carolina will
be implemented on this project
High Quality Waters: Best Management Practices for Sensitive Watersheds will be
implemented on this project. A turbidity curtain is required for any areas of work in the
stream.
Structure Design
TVA: This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the
replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval.
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented. A turbidity curtain is required for any areas of work in the stream.
Hydraulics
Stream Relocation: Guidelines for Mountain Stream Relocation in North Carolina will
be implemented on this project
Roadside Environmental
High Quality Waters: Best Management Practices for Sensitive Watersheds will be
implemented on this project.
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented. A turbidity curtain is required for any areas of work in the stream.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
June 26, 2000
J j 1 Zia 4
0 . ?• ?
A / 1207 _
'? ,? S?pNE.. r12? 1221
? ? '' • 1201 - '
0 0 / 1206 ?• 1207 1208 n
Dc?fr?l
1 ` ,/ W b 6 • = 2 12-01 -
0 1204
?• 1229 6 Pocria ` 1204 120 12? 0 .6 1240
-io TnrlCOum a 321 q>. 1235 'a
2.) 1203 12a4
??Q,J / ?? ? C.9 ? • ? 201 1203
? . Gca" Fop 1211
??/?= n \
123c l2 121
/ ?o? l t ; RIVER
200 ?? 237 - N
Bridge No. 271 . = ?. S 1202 n? 209 1238
1129 s,5 321 E
?L
1125
N ?• p ?
4 /

Kml6r vil6 c9
1123 1 121 001
-'
C
.
?? 1 150 V i
..? !
1125 1128
(-=
f t-
121
:'----. 1153, 1154' 3.0
'

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
^ ? 1 1
1 125
KNOB
IILLEV4 -'•? \,
4293 . t % 17
z? j
A UGA
r.,
rr..•e•/ M
c,q ow.>•? +
_ •r;,•, tonne ;• ?°
VS4
zit'
j.- v?
NORTiI CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
!•+ :', TRANSPORTATION
(? t:r DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
\y oo• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCII
\°R TAMS
WATAUGA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 271 O.N SR 1200
OVER WATAUGA RIVER
B-3263
I Figure, One I
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams,"Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont R pion Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over
Watauga River, Burke County, TIP B-3263
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the above referenced project. Please note that the scoping sheet lists the
stream as Clark Creek, however, the bridge in question appears to cross the Watauga River
The Watauga River at this location supports smallmouth bass, rock bass and some brown
trout. Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
scoping sheet for the subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this
project as long as the bridge is replaced with a spanning structure.
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 meat 336/366-
2982.

3 A, _
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 271 on SR
Watauga County,
MABRZ-1200(2),
98-8642
1200 over Clark's Creek,
B-3263, Federal Aid Project
State Project 8.2751 101, ER
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archive`s and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
GEIV O
MAY 1 5 1998
DIVISIOP OF QQ
?n HIGHWA.'S
?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, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
0;-_"r
109 East Jones Strect . Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 T9

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 271 ON SR 1200
OVER THE WATAUGA RIVER
WATAUGA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3263
State Project No. 8.2751101
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98-LM-12
LandMark Design Group Project Number 1960024-212.00
Prepared for the
NORTII CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attn: Phil Harris
Issued: May 2000
LANDMARK
Engineers . Planners . Surveyors . Landscape Architects . Environmental Consultants
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [phone] FAX: [phone] [e-mail]

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ...........................................................................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ...............................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................2
2.1 SOILS ............................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .....................................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................................................................5
3.1.1 Acidic Cove Forest ..............................................................................................................................................6
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside ...........................................................................................................................6
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................. .7
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................... .7
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ........................................................................................................................................8
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................................................................. 8
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................................................................................. 8
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 9
4.1.3 Permits ................................................................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................................................................ 15
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................17
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Watauga County and Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Bridge No. 271 Project Area Map (Topographic Quadrangle)
Figure 3. Impacted Biotic Communities (Aerial Photograph)
6.2 RESOURCE AGENCY LETTERS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ....................................................7
TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WATAUGA COUNTY .................................................................................. 11
TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR WATAUGA COUNTY ..................................................................................... 16
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandAlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
May 2000
Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated in western Watauga County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over the Watauga River
with a new bridge at a higher elevation on approximately the same alignment (Figures 2 and 3). Detour
information is currently not available.
The existing right-of-way width is approximately 12.2 in (40.0 ft). The proposed right-of-way width is
24.4 in (80.0 ft). Project length is approximately 152.0 in (500.0 ft).
Bridge No. 271 is 27.4 in (90.0 ft) long. The superstructure is composed of a timber floor on steel I-
beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete piers. Because the piers are largely
submerged, there will be no temporary fill resulting from demolition debris. However, the removal of
the piers will result in disturbing the streambed. Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns
and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various natural resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and estimate the
probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map for Watauga
County (Elk Mills, 1994), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (Elk
Mills, 1989), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service)
soil maps, and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1":100'). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR
1997). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of
concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by LandMark Design Group
environmental scientists Mary-Margaret McKinney and 'Vendee Smith on 28 March 2000. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), and identification of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page I
0_
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory
1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance provided by N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding (Environmental Lab 1997).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Mary-Margaret McKinney, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., May 1996 to Present
Education: MS Forestry, Minor in Ecology,
North Carolina State University, 1996
BS Botany, North Carolina State University, 1994
Certifications: Registered Forester (NC Board of Registration for Foresters)
Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists)
Experience: Research Assistant, North Carolina State University,
Department of Forestry, June 1994 to April 1996,
Plant Identification Specialist,
North Carolina State University Herbarium
Expertise: Wetland mitigation, NEPA documentation, plant community
ecology
2) Investigator: Wendee B. Smith, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/ Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 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 directly by Watauga River.
Project elevation is approximately 755.9 m (2,480.0 R) above mean sea level (msl).
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAlark Design Group, hic. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 2
Q.
2.1 Soils
Three soil phases occur within study areas: Reddies loam, Chestnut-Edneyville complex, and Ashe-
Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex soils. They are as follows:
O 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 a depth of 0.6 to 1.1 m (2.0 to 3.5 ft) below the surface.
Frequent flooding is a major limitation for this soil type.
O Chestnut-Edneyyille 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 m (6.0 ft)
below the surface. Soft bedrock is within a depth of 50.8 to 101.6 cm (20.0 to 40.0 in).
Y Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex, with 50 to 95 percent slopes, is a somewhat excessively
drained soil that occurs on mountain slopes of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Permeability
is moderately rapid and the seasonal high water table is below 1.8 in (6.0 ft).
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to
surface water resources and minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Watauga River will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed project
(Figure 2). The Watauga River is located in subbasin 03-04-01 of the Watauga River Basin. The
average baseflow width is approximately 27.4 m (90.0 ft). The average depth is approximately 1.2 in
(4.0 ft). The Watauga River has a rocky, cobbly substrate.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of Water Quality. The
classification of the Watauga River (DEM Index No. 8-(16)) is B HQW (NCDWQ 1997). Class B
refers to waters suitable for primary and secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife and agriculture. Primary recreation includes swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and
similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized
manner or on a frequent basis. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses
involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities,
however, discharges must meet treatment reliability requirements such as backup power supplies and
dual train design. The HQW designation indicates waters that are rated as excellent based on
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 3
L,
biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies. The
Watauga River is considered a High Quality Water (HQW).
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal, the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
There is not a BMAN station located on the Watauga River within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project
study area.
Many Benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year,
therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long-term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register.for
a permit. No point source discharger is located on the Watauga River within 1.6 l:m (1.0 mile) of
the project study area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
replacement on a new location usually results in more severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of
24.4 m (80.0 ft), anticipated impacts to the Watauga River due to the bridge replacement will be 24.4 m
(80.0 ft). Project impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.4 ha (0.9 ac). The area of aquatic and
terrestrial environment's impacted is 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) and 0.3 ha (0.7 ac) respectively. Usually, project
construction does not-require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
The Watauga River at the project location is designated a trout water by the Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), but they have not identified any special concerns regarding this project as long as
the bridge is replaced with a spanning structure (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,
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The Landdfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 4
LI
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas, and/or
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Sensitive Waters must be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are
not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface water
supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances
during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 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) in Classification of Natural
Communities of North Carolina 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.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Acidic Cove Forest,
Montane Alluvial Forest 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.
Norlh Carolina Deparbncni of Transportation Afay 2000
The LandAfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-211.00 Page 5

3.1.1 Acidic Cove Forest
The Acidic Cove Forest is present along the Watauga River corridor, landward of the Montane Alluvial
Forest. The transition from acidic cove forest to maintained/disturbed community is abrupt due to use
of the road and parking area.
The canopy is composed of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), and white pine (Pinus strobus). The understory consists of yellow root
(Xanthoriza simpllclssnna), rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracijlua), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) and fetterbush (Leucothoe axillaries var. editorum).
Herbs within the acidic cove forest include: Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), violet (viola
spp.), toothwort (Cardamine diphylla) and hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia puntilobula).
Wildlife associated with the Acidic Cove Forest include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon
lotor) and timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus).
Avian species utilizing the Acidic Cove Forest likely include: broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus),
ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthabnus), ovenbird (Seiurus
aurocapillus) and gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis).
3.1.2 Montane Alluvial Forest
The Montane Alluvial Forest community is present along the Watauga River corridor. This is area is
sparsely vegetated. The canopy is composed of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tuplipifera). The understory consists of
yellow root (Xanthoriza slnlplicissinia), blackberry (Rebus sp.) and tag alder (Alms serrulata).
This riparian habitat within the project area is small in width and is surrounded by extensive Acidic
Cove Forest areas, the largest community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove
Forest.
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside
The maintained/disturbed roadside community includes road shoulders along SR 1200 that are present
along the entire length of the project and a parking area/trail head located southeast of Bridge No. 271.
This is area is sparsely vegetated.
This maintained habitat within the project area is small in width and is surrounded by extensive Acidic
Cove Forest areas, the largest community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Acidic Cove
Forest.
North Carolina Department of Transportation hfay 2000
The Landhfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 6
L,
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, the Watauga River, 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 the Watauga River. Vegetation along the bank of the Watauga River includes sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), yellow
root (Xanthoriza simplicissinia), blackberry (Rubus sp.) and tag alder (Abius serrulata).
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in the Watauga River include brown trout (Sabno trutta), redbreast sunfish
(Leponiis auritus), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu).
Invertebrates that would be present include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayflies*
(Ephemeroptera), dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies (Odonata).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed 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 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width
of 24.4 m (80.0 R). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticinated impacts from the pronosed nroiect to biotic communities.
-Community Project Impacts
Acidic Cove Forest 0.19 (0.47)
Montane Alluvial Forest 0.05 (0.13)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.03 (0.06)
Total 0.27 (0.66)
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. 271 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
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The Landdtark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 7
L?
wildlife by the creation of an 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 would 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. Due to the negative effects of siltation, it is
recommended that silt curtains be used during construction.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation
carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
4.0 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.
4.1 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.
4.1.1 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.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 1000
The Landbfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-211.00 Page 8
EL `
The Watauga River is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the
project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW width of 24.4 m
(80.0 ft). Considering the proposed project, impacts to the Watauga River will consist of an 80 linear
foot width and a 28.2 in (92.5 ft) long crossing of the Watauga River, for an area of 0.07 ha (0.17 acre).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW, therefore actual surface water impacts
may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "waters of the
United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "waters of
the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
is required prior to 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.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 9
L=
4.1.4 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.
4.1.4.1 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.
4.1.4.2 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; reductionlelimination 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.
4.1.4.3 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
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been 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 possible.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 10
4.2 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.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 13 March 2000, the FWS lists the
following federally protected species for Watuaga County. A brief description of the characteristics
and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts
follows Table 2.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Watauga County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Clennn s rnuhlenber h Bo turtle Threatened S/A
Co norhlnus townsendii vir lnlanus Virginia big-cared bat Endanger d
Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel Endangered
Geum radiatum Spreading 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 uruhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: December 1, 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) in length. It has a
dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow blotch on each side of the head
and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and
marshes in the mountains and western Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when disturbed. The bog
turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In June or July, three to five eggs are
laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about 55 days.
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This is due to its
similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed for protection. A T S/A species is not
subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 1000
The Landhlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960014-111.00 Page II
L?
NCNHP database was checked on 27 March 2000 and revealed no records of bog turtles in the project
area.
Plecotus toivttsendii 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 cm (1.0 in)) 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 (3.6 to 4.4 in) 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 hibemacula 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
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 colorattts (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
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandAfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960014-212.00
play 2000
Page 12
L?
populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of North Carolina along the Tennessee
border. These populations are in Yancey and Haywood counties and in the vicinity of Mt. Mitchell.
The northern flying squirrel is a small gliding rodent that measures 25.9 to 31.0 cm (10.2 to 12.2 in) in
total length and 95.0 to 140.0 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 1,524.0 m (5,000.0 ft) 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
The project elevation was not above 1,524.0 in (5,000.0 ft), which is a habitat requirement for the
Carolina northern flying squirrel. The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000 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 2.0 to 5.0 dm (7.9 to
19.7 in). The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers.
Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the
lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent. Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and are serrate,
with long petioles. Stem leaves are smaller than the basal, rounded to obovate, with irregularly cut
margins. Fruits are hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7.0 to 9.0 mm (0.3 to 0.4 in) in
diameter.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 13
L-
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges.
Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of 1,535.0 to 1,541.0 m
(5,036.1 to 5,055.8 ft), 1,723.0 to 1,747.0 m (5,652.9 to 5,731.6 ft) and 1,759.0 m (5,771.0 ft). Project
elevation is approximately 755.9 m (2,480.0 ft). Other habitat requirements for this species include full
sunlight and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found in soils composed of sand, pebbles,
humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No scarps, bluffs, cliffs, or escarpments occur in the project area, nor is the elevation high enough for
spreading avens habitat. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1,535.0 to 1,541.0 m (5,036.1 to 5,055.8 ft), 1,723.0 to 1,747.0 m (5,652.9 to 5,731.6 ft) and 1,759.0 m
(5,771.0 ft). The NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was
reviewed on 27 March 2000 revealed no records of spreading avens within the project vicinity.
Construction of the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Houstouia moutana (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 1,402.1 to 1,889.8 m (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
No cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, or gravelly talus associated with cliffs occur-therefore habitat
requirements for the Roan Mountain bluet are not present. The NC Natural Heritage Program database
of rare species and unique habitats was 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
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandAlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 14
LI
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 1,066.8 to
1,828.8 m (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
Known populations of this plant occur at elevations of 1,066.8 to 1,828.8 m (3,500.0 to 6,000.0 ft).
Project elevation is approximately 755.9 m (2,480.0 ft). There are no high elevation ledges of rock
outcrops in the project area therefore habitat for Heller's blazing star is not present. The NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on 27 March 2000
revealed no records of Heller's blazing star within the project vicinity. Construction of the proposed
project will have no effect on this species.
4.2.2 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 arc 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 3 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 Crytobranchus alleganiensis (Hellbender), a federal species of concern, within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) project study area.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The Landdlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 15
L
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Wataut?a Countv.
Scientific Name. Common Name State'
Status Habitat .
Present
Neotoma ma 'ster Allegheny 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 hvra 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 dana Diana fritillary SR Yes
Cardamine clematitis Mountain bittercress C - No
Del hiniunz exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Eu horbia ur urea Gladespurge C No
Germ eniculatum Bent Avens T Yes
Lilium ra i Gray's lily T-SC No
Poa aludi ena Bo bluegrass E No
Saxi ra 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.
"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.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The Landhfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
May 2000
Page 16
L?
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEM. 1997. Watauga River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. September 1999 Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, Willliam M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3`d. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The Landhlark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
play 2000
Page 17
L
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA.2000. Unpublished soils data from the Watauga County NRCS. US Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1998. Scoping comments letter submitted to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (included in Appendix 6.2).
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandAfark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
play 2000
Page 18
?AT A UGA
line

cr }O'rti ??
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
l Division of HighNays
Planning & Environmental Branch
Watauga County
Replace Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200
B-3263
Fi,ure One
3EqT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 2:30PM; PAGE 10/59
•JIJT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE 1SN•ERN; 919 570 0661/; MAR-10-00 2:31PM; PAGE 11/59
_*• .r !t / ) /! ,. \`l?..J'- ~~ - rr? ?/ / r. .yam •. ?/"?, .?? ?1?,. _, r , /•)1 (` /J
/ / I . n 1 1 : t . ? .\,? ?( ?! ,, -1\.+'7? ?? - i i?! ?..1 ' /?? ? ??` ?? ` \ \ _ '? ?/'?'f •i1\ J j? 1 \ • t/. ??. J I
,
///v.D'?. J? ?ci?-" r ra\ ! \% •\ ''.%" I'`'ii ,.:'r1 r 1
, I \ r , _. _' ! •-r r../i f ?,/ / e-5 I /I _r/!1?\ l?. / 1 _,'I /, •\r \..`` (?.y, r ? /h+
:2? /?? .Z?r,/, (rr %/ p •??i J ? r'''?.?'? (.?`I /(r^ \??11`),?t, r /h 1 ? {n. •`I?? ? I" ??•
?,.!-? /J ' .'? 1 r f /%. ? 1' r
t :?? '?•? -•C,''//r %'T\\ 1J./.S L-+ ? •?• /??! ?'r /\?J'r ?`J ?a? -Jr? f
J 1 I /? ,.I / , "^. '/ +?Ji /'??\ `•.[Y/'/,! ,/j• ate/ , •L e ) i t' v .?''S(?`•C , i ! 1..
'l lq'?"' 1 1 _c•? -i /, / l1, ? ill , SI \ ?.'' ) 'a?
'•,Jr i.? ` 7 ? mil' /t .. ;.,^, ': ??? / ?J i \l f' •i/ r,. ? V '•'ys r?'•'!!' L tr'/ i
/? r ,11,',1 /:'r /?'r`l, /JL -;.•tir 1/ r1 t •?? ,'`; \ } _ /• '??1 r- .y'`/ ,L,??tJ ?7 1 -?;; - /
' J^'? ''S' ,:• ? / !,/-'??j/ •.? ? J{ ` , ?Al 1. ?( ' 1 _ \',:.•? ;%. 1 ' 'f OF \ 11' 1 / r /???7_-1 ? y'
IL //i ?. ,. .ir ,.7" '. Jr _ ? f? .,` \,. :,/ (?Jj/ /.1 ? ,; ,' •4 i.,r ? 1 f f'G'-•' J {I
'/ I , •ir ?JJjj(rr??'?-C? /',\:.??^ J '!'- _ J ? I, .t ? 11 ?• / \? ? r ' \ !; i'1' 1 1 •i :`?(/ ' ??? S '\
l
1 S ?.? J. •. ?, '•, ?,1 r '._.J r ? ;.` \ ?• i ?q \ I li? ? tt•_? / Jtr r 1, (,.. / ..+..
'•'1 `----?? ?\f` •?? .; ' , ? ? ? ' , ..,'(rL,'?(/, ??.?3 !. `gym , , \.` .` J
! I ,
,? •:?- ..? j? •?ty .\ ? ? ?-N `? 1 _ ? i ', ' / I.?? s m. G?a VgII(? ? ? i •., ?r i L..? -rl/
\`., -? '^- • /E?t')% 111 ./ / ?\ , ?. =Sy'!'1. 4%? {? a 1 O)1O /' :r ,
%rr' Ir:,((; t?,l? \J`'?%1 l) / II
tt(.l`? 1'; '/: :Ii,' ! r <.._.•?::'?,• c, ..?/? /1!I \ .ill) ,t - /(_ ?•; r
,?%/? lr? ., ? ? ,` C _., ? /t -l '' ? / ! - ehs?. (r iY ? i,i ?' r J.:, ,I ` 1 ''T ' I .
„
Al
I •,•??/~/f??ppp' ??..\? (1,?Q' ?? I(? __•? C.??. - - 1 i. .1 ^' ...loll /'^.\:
•/I-/ 'h!? ../.mot,',,. _ ,V..•.?. ,;?i \/ 1.t'• `!\ `?`` \...,,.,
GA,
/r / ?Y4?'`''I 1\? .S'. ,) il'.` o` /J ?'. /l "•. 1 `? )? _? \ ?; ?l tt4?.; `'? r .,'BM N?t?
II ?,\ ?? . ? !f F•' \J? r El I}l'') l ? ? sane Cem (I
jr,
-`\'•\:1 \
Cem
.772
? \ _ ,? _ 1?? \• ',tom r _,??J r t? ?? ?? /> ,;•?oe ? 1` ' ??`-' , r _5.. : ° ;?? 1 ° ??, AttyYT K L li , C R F MI
-'. •
/. •/ul ?> \ ? ,{/ : ? • ? ? `., _j_ ??:?:? r,ACF'Ch Y?? • _ I `1 \1 i \? \/1 , .
• G
jAv
Mo?Pt?lln_• l; ?l r T. \ J' /?l i'^ i? `f' / ,'•' ?? J
't J J ?. <, -..i `cam ((\\ '( _/'h.,t.r:n C tf) `-
r, ap ecn, Inc.
cPYf19 ) ?U? N I LLAI
LEGEND zI y
04 p Maintained / Disturbed Roadside
Montane Alluvial Forest
Acidic Cove Forest ;' ': Tl?
Y?x t,
31
Fr
Y
a y
- •?' F?
f, ?5 a a} a!
' ?t 5 CL
6 i4` {
_ i '.fL f 1 ,t om-rz3 1` ' L '? 4% `-
v.y
Lt. -
Y1ty' t I" - ? - ? d r ?4r
4-1
LLJ
? rr c
N SOURCE: Aerial Photo provided by NCDOT NOT TO SCALE
8.3263
LANDMADV
o WATAUGA COUNTY
SR 1200 D sC?. Q
Engineers Flamers 3wveycx Land--ape Archttects Frnironmentd Con Ulanh
Q? Over the Watuaba River Vn- =1111:. E :'I;.H. '': ?'iILLV4LEURG. VA Ri•LEC-H. I1C
CONTINUE FROM PRE UIOUS PAGE 001\ l
__ •\ l ppYfl'9 )MT 1- 3 TC f1C
ELK r?1,ic.? ?L??o
l Nr
LU North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission t?z
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
' Charles R. Fullw6od, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont PUP= Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over
Watauga River, Burke County, TIP B-3263
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the above referenced project. Please note that the scoping sheet lists the
stream as Clark Creek, however, the bridge in question appears to cross the Watauga River
The Watauga River at this location supports smallmouth bass, rock bass and some brown
trout. Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
scoping sheet for the subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this
project as long as the bridge is replaced with a spanning structure.
Thank you for the opportunity to review Ind comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-
2982.
-"JT BY: LANDMARR`KDEESIG?NGR\)OU?P r?JAMIE` SHERN\; 919 570 0661;
X D"d-sMAR-10-00 2:37PM; PAGE 12/59
4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James S. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 13, 1998
10
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 271 on SR
Watauga County,
MABRZ-1200(2),
98-8642
1200 over Clark's Creek,
B-3263, Federal Aid Project
State Project 8.27 51101, ER
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jefftey J. Crow, Director
G E I V O
MAY 1 5 1998
DIVISIOI`t OF
HIGHWA :'S
?/ROt?fME`?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, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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 t1st Jcncs Street - Ralcigh, North Carclina 2760 1-2S07 C?V
'•JT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 2:37PM; PAGE 13/59
Nicholas L. Graf _
PAay 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,
- /CtI
David Brook
Deputy'State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

n rsun'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR June 4, 1998 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1200, Watauga County, Replacement of Bridge No. 271 over
Watauga River, State Project 8.275110 1,
F. A. Project MABRZ-1200(2), B-3263
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 SHPO
Ray McIntyre TIP Unit
Ramesh Fofaria Structure Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics Unit
Elton Crutchfield Location Surveys
Lannette Cook Program Development
Anna Pennisi Statewide Planning - Traffic Forecasting
Phillip Culpepper Traffic Control
Jay Bennett Roadway Design
John Williams Planning & Environmental
The following are scoping meeting comments:
Debbie Bevin of SHPO stated that neither an architectural or archaeological survey
would be required.
Wade Hoke (Division 11 Engineer) wrote in the following comments:
The existing structure is a one lane, low water bridge on an unpaved rural road. A
small creek runs parallel to the west of SR 1200 and will most likely prevent any
alignment improvements. Accordingly, the Division recommends to utilize an offsite
detour and replace the structure on the existing alignment at a higher elevation of at
least the 50 year storm event.
Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit made the following two recommendations:
1) low water bridge replacement (preferred) - 30 meters (100 feet) long at approximately the
same elevation as that of the existing bridge
2) Bridge appropriate to a 25-year frequency storm event - 82 meters (270 feet) in length at an
elevation approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet) higher than the existing structure. The bridge

should be located sufficiently to the east of the existing bridge location to avoid impacts to the
tributary aong the west side of the north approach.
Jason Robertson of Whitewater America called to express his association's interest in
the project. Apparently, different whitewater rafting companies frequently use the bridge site
to launch groups of rafters through the later winter and spring. He is concerned that the design
of the new bridge would be prohibitive of this sort of activity. He requested that the design of
the new bridge make allowances for whitewater rafters in the future. He further noted that his
and other organizations like his would be writing to support the concerns expressed.
Joe Mickey of the Wildlife Resource Commission has written that there are no special
concerns with the project so long as the bridge is replaced with a spanning structure.
Bridge No. 271
[Built in 1962] [91 feet long] [12 foot wide deck] [11 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 9 feet] [Posted 30 tons for SV and NP for TTST's]
[Sufficiency Rating 48.6] [Estimated useful remaining life 10 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1200 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Land use is largely undeveloped around the bridge. Residential and agricultural away from
bridge.
Current ADT is 400 vpd, Projected 2025 ADT is 800 VPD
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1% TTST)
Accident Information: (May-94 through April-97)
Two accidents have been reported in the vicinity. Curvature of the bridge approaches contributed to
both accidents.
Bus Information: One trip a day. Road closure is not a problem.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE
Cross Section of New Bridge: Bridge width: 24 feet, two 10-foot lanes, 2-foot offsets
Bridge No. 271 will be replaced on approximately the same alignment and at a higher
elevation. The specifics of both will be determined during evaluation of the digital terrain
mapping data.
B-3263 is a Plan-Design Project with the following schedule:
Digital Terrain Mapping from Location Surveys Due 10-98,
Cost Estimates from Roadway Design Due 2-99,
Document from Planning & Environmental Due 2-00
Right of Way: July 2000
Construction: July 2001
A T ..A )`U G A .r
j ood
+ 114
• ? ? vane ? ,,""!;- .. -'( .-- `z
c, : r ?i
1 r• ?,\
/

• _s
of ORTN ?,
North Carolina
'.` Department of Transportation
z
0 I Division of Highways
0 Planning & Environmental Branch
OFTPAHSQ.
Watauga County
Replace Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200
Over Clarks Creek
B-3263
FiL'Ure One
U-?f L B
B-3263
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
State Project No. 8.2751101 Right of Way 7-00
Federal Project No. MABRZ-1200(2) Construction Let 7-01
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 271 on SR 1200 over Watauga River in
Watauga County, B-3263.
Will there be Special Funding Participation by a Municipality, Developers, or Others?
YES NO __-X
EXISTING LENGTH 27.7 METERS; WIDTH 3.4 METERS
STRUCTURE 194: 91.0 FEET 11 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 375,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 38,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 413,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
11
0
0