20050133 Ver 1_Complete File_20041215

I 'k
p@mWq
DEC 1 5 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 10, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for Mitigation Confirmation for replacement of Bridge No. 113
on SR 1179 over South Fork New River, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1179(1),
State Project No. 8.3711301, WBS Element No. 32751.1.1, Ashe County,
Division 11, TIP No. B-2905
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory
mitigation for the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed July 22, 2003 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
The NCDOT proposes to replace the 122 foot Bridge No. 1! 3 with a new pre-stressed
concrete girder, 390 foot bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 17 feet higher
than the existing bridge and will have two bents in the water. The newly proposed
alignment improves the horizontal alignment in the project vicinity. There will be no
permanent impacts to the South Fork New River. In the southeast quadrant of the project
area there will be a new driveway constructed which will impose 121 linear feet of
impacts to an unnamed tributary (UT) to the South Fork New River.
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest
extent possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application
can be found at http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. Impacts
to jurisdictional resources, 121 linear feet to UT South Fork New River will be
compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699
S
as STNF o- D
DEC 1 5 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
p ° WE RANDS AND STORA WATER BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 10, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for Mitigation Confirmation for replacement of Bridge No. 113
on SR 1179 over South Fork New River, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1179(1),
State Project No. 8.3711301, WBS Element No. 32751.1.1, Ashe County,
Division 11, TIP No. B-2905
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory
mitigation for the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed July 22, 2003 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
The NCDOT proposes to replace the 122 foot Bridge No. 113 with a new pre-stressed
concrete girder, 390 foot bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 17 feet higher
than the existing bridge and will have two bents in the water. The newly proposed
alignment improves the horizontal alignment in the project vicinity. There will be no
permanent impacts to the South Fork New River. In the southeast quadrant of the project
area there will be a new driveway constructed which will impose 121 linear feet of
impacts to an unnamed tributary (UT) to the South Fork New River.
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest
extent possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application
can be found at http://www.nedot.org/Manning/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. Impacts
to jurisdictional resources, 121 linear feet to UT South Fork New River will be
compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699
This project is located in the New River Basin (050701 sub-basin, Hydrological
Cataloguing Unit 05050001).
Compensatory mitigation is proposed to consist of mitigation provided by the
EEP for 121 linear feet of surface water impacts to UT South Fork New River (a
cold water stream).
Please send the letter of confirmation to John Thomas (USACE Coordinator Division 11)
at U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of the
Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27587. Mr. Thomas's FAX number is (910) 876-
5823. The current let date for the project is April 19, 2005 for which the let review date is
March 1, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality) requires a formal letter from EEP indicating
their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work requested by NCDOT. The
NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr. John Hennessy of
NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Carla Dagnino at
[phone]
Sincerely,
, Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. John Thomas, USACE, Division 11
Mr. Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
Ms. Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management
a(?d ?°o+s
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 0 5 V 1 3 3
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Application for replacement of Bridge No.
113 on SR 1179 over South Fork New River, Ash County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1179(1), State Project No. 8.3711301, WBS Element No.
32751.1.1, Division 11, TIP B-2905
Dear Sir:
January 7, 2005
Epm@f-my", 5
JAN 2 1 ?01'5
DENR - M' QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORNWATER BRANCH
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Ecosystem Enhancement
Program mitigation acceptance letter, Categorical Exclusion, permit drawings and design
plans for the subject project. The NCDOT proposes to replace the 122 foot "low water"
Bridge No. 113 with a new 5-span, steel, I-beam 390 foot bridge. The new bridge will be
built on the same alignment with a roadway elevation approximately 17 feet higher than
the existing road. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction. Due to a farmer's
driveway relocation, there will be a 42 inch pipe installed on the southwest section of the
project site imposing 121 linear feet of permanent impacts to the UT South Fork New
River (on the south west side of the road). There will be 0.17 acre temporary fill in the
South Fork New River due to temporary work pads needed for the bridge construction.
The new bridge will have two interior bents in the water. The bridge and approach ways
will be widened and lifted, minimizing the current overtopping and washing out of entire
sections of the bridge, ultimately resulting in safer traffic passage. The South Fork New
River is designated as High Quality Waters and is also an excellent small mouth bass
fishery and will be subject to all Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds. There are no
jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27699
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project area has three perennial streams on site. The South Fork
of the New River, an unnamed tributary (UT) South Fork of the New River and Pine
Swamp Creek. Impacts from this project will be associated with South Fork of the New
River and UT South Fork of the New River. The project is located in the New River
Drainage Basin (DWQ subbasin 050701). The DWQ index for this section of the South
Fork New River is 10-1-(20.5) and the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is 05050001. The
South Fork of the New River and the UT are classified WS-IV HQW.
Permanent Impacts: There will be 121 linear feet of permanent impacts to the UT South
Fork New River. These impacts are due to the installation of a 42 inch pipe for the
relocation of a tree farmer's driveway on the southwest side of the road (see sheets 6 and
7 of 15 of permit drawings). The driveway is being relocated due to the alignment of the
new road. The existing driveway and 42 inch pipe will remain, although there will be no
access to the road at this location.
Temporary Impacts: There will be a total of 0.17 acre of temporary impacts in the South
Fork New River due to temporary workpads constructed into the river to aid in both the
removal of the existing bents in the water and placement of the new interior bents. There
are three existing bents in the river (see sheet 8 of 15 of the permit drawings). To remove
the existing bents, the causeways will be installed one bank at a time and at no time will
there be greater than half of the river impacted from the causeway. The causeway will be
installed in phases:
• Phase 1. The causeway will be installed from one bank out to the nearest existing
interior bent. As soon as the two existing bents on that side are removed, the
causeway will be removed, except that part which will be necessary for construction
of the new bents.
• Phase 2. The causeway will then be installed from the other bank around the
remaining interior bent to remove it. After removing the last bent the second
causeway can be removed except the part needed for construction. The remaining
causeway will be removed as usual when the project construction is completed.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 59 has a superstructure composed completely of timber
and steel and will be removed without dropping components into the river. The
substructure is composed of three concrete bents protruding approximately 1 foot from
normal water levels. The majority of the bents are submerged and therefore not
considered as fill. These bents will be removed with the use of a workpad extended out
into the river. NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, as supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal.
Utility Impacts: There will be no jurisdictional impacts associated with relocation of
utility lines on the project site. In addition there will be no relocation of water or sewer
lines due to the construction on this project site.

Schedule: The project schedule calls for an April 19, 2005 LET date with a date of
availability on May 25, 2005.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list 7 species under federal protection for
Ashe County: rock gnome lichen, Roan Mountain Bluet and spreading avens are listed as
endangered and swamp pink, Virginia spiraea and Heller's blazing star are listed as
threatened. The bog turtle is listed threatened with similarity of appearance and does not
require a biological conclusion. Site surveys were conducted in 1998 and Virginia spiraea
were identified near the bridge approximately 20 feet downstream. The NC Natural
Heritage database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in December 2004
and there is no documentation of any other federally protected species within 1 mile of
the project area. See Table 1 for a summary of the federally listed species in Ashe County.
Tnhle 1 _ Ferierally-Protected Species for Ashe Countv
Federal Habitat Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Present Conclusion
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) N NA
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E N No Effect
Roan Mountain Houstonia montana E N No Effect
Bluet
Spreading Avens Geum radiatum E N No Effect
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T N No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T Y May Affect,
Not Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Heller's Blazing Liatris helleri T N No Effect
Star
The threatened Virginia spiraea is present in the project vicinity at two locations. The first
location is immediately off the northwest corner of the bridge on an alluvial spit. The
second location is about 50 feet downstream. The species will be flagged by NCDOT
biologists prior to the beginning of construction. The plan for construction activities is to
be designed and implemented such that no impact to the plant will result. The USFWS
has concurred with the biological conclusion for the Virginia spiraea (see letter dated
February 27, 2004 in the back of the CE document). As part of the concurrence, the
USFWS has required adherence to seven conditions to protect the Virginia spiraea. See
below Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation section.
3
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable
and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to
provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
• Best Management Practices will be followed for this project as outlined in "NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
• There will be no deck drains allowed to discharge directing into the South Fork of the
New River.
• NCDOT will implement Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds to protect the
fishery for small mouth bass.
• To minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the protection of surface waters will be followed.
• To minimize impacts to the Virginia spiraea on the project site, construction will be
avoided at the spiraea site noted on the construction plans and the following
conditions will be adhered to:
1. Limiting instream activities
2. Installation of erosion control measures such as matting and crushed stone will
occur within 5 days after grading is complete. Revegetating the river banks will
occur closer to project completion (within the time given according to Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds)
3. Flagging or fencing areas where Virginia spiraea is growing, so equipment
operators know to avoid those areas
4. Reducing or eliminating river bank disturbance such as clearing and grubbing as
much as possible. Where clearing is necessary, stumps should be retained where
possible to stabilize soils and provide some early, native re-vegetation. Grubbing,
where unavoidable should occur immediately prior to construction activity to limit
the duration and extent of bare soil
5. Impacts to the bedrock on the west bank will be minimized to the best extent
possible. The shelf of bedrock along the west bank provides a diversion for water
flow which protects the Virginia spiraea downstream. If during construction, it is
determined that the bedrock will be disturbed causing a change in flow, then the
Division will contact the Office of Natural Environment (Mary Frazer,
Environmental Biologist). Protective measures such as rip/rap bank stabilization
will need to be implemented to protect the spiraea located downstream from the
bridge site
6. Holding a pre-construction meeting so that the contractor knows what must be
done to protect the spiraea
7. Restoring the bed and banks of the river to their original contours as soon as work
is completed
ion:
Mitigation:
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide stream mitigation for the 121
linear feet of stream impacts. (Please see attached EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
dated January 4, 2005.)
4
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary work pads will be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33. We are therefore requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33 for this diversion. The remaining aspects of the project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be
authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15,
2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water quality Certifications will be
met. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC
213.0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
notification.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Carla Dagnino at
[phone] if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Grego ?J. Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marla Chambers, Division 11 NCWRC
Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA - Whittier, NC
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Ms. Marella Buncick, Division 11 USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Michael A. PettAohn, P.E. , Division 11
Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division 11 DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John Williams, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
5
Office Use Only' Form Version May 2002
?05U133
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not tippiicanie or NSA-.)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW23, NW33.
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 (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1.
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleipll NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: (919)-733-3141 Fax Number: (919)-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant 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: NA
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 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: Replacement of bridge No 113 on SR 1179 Over South Fork New River
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-2905
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Ashe Nearest Town: Idlewild
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From 421, take 221 north
towards West Jefferson Take a right onto Idlewild Road (SRI 179). Follow until road is
called Dick Phillips Road project site will be soon after road name change.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36° 18.78N. 81 ° 27.94'W
(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. Property size (acres): 0.22 mile * 120 feet = 3.17 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South Fork New River
8. River Basin: New River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is located in a rural area of Ashe County. There is a
tree farm site adjacent to the project area The site is primarily surrounded by fallow field
roadside shoulder and mesic forest.
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project will consist of replacing the old bridge with a new 390 ft 5-span span steel I-beam
bridge at the same location The new bridge will be longer, wider and 17 feet higher than the
existing bridge. The traffic will be detoured offsite during bridge construction. Construction
equipment will consist of heavy duty trucks, earth moving equipment, cranes, etc.
Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is narrow and according
federal guidelines is considered to be functionally obsolete. The existing bridge is a low
water bridge design that results in frequent overtopping and washing out. The replacement of
this bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
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.
NA
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
NA
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
Page 7 of 13
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.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: This project will have temporary impacts
due to a workpad constructed to remove the existing bridge and for construction of the new
bridge There will be 1211inear feet of permanent impacts associated with this project coming
from a driveway relocation over a UT South Fork New River.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
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)
Type of Wetland***
NA

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
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 htty://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.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acre
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
la Permanent 121 UT South Fork New
River 5-10 feet Perennial
1 Temporary fill 0.17 (acre) South Fork New River 100 feet Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify 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.
Page 8 of 13
** 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.topo7one.com,
www.maguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
NA

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
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.
See Permit Application.
Page 9 of 13
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.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
hLtp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
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.
Mitigation for 121 linear feet of stream impact will be provided by EEP.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wlp/index.htm. If use of
Page 10 of 13
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 121 linear feet
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
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 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify, )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 11 of 13
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

Total
* Zone I extends out 30 teet perpendicular from near banK of cnannel; Lone L extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
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 ? No
Page 12 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).
NA

App%cant/Agent's Signature ` bate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
r
S
Eccls Stem
PROGRAM
January 4, 2005
Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-2905, Bridge 113 over South Fork New River on SR 1179, Ashe
County; New River Basin (Cataloging Unit 05050001); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1,210 feet of stream preservation as compensatory mitigation at a 10:1 ratio
for the 121 feet of unavoidable stream impacts of the subject project. The preservation site that
will be debited for this mitigation is:
Little Tablerock Site (Mitchell, McDowell and Avery Counties) 1,210 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated
July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with
Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
VOtik?iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-2905
NCDENR
u-ti, r,.,,1;„-3 Frncvctam Fnh.mrPmPnt Program. 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N( 21699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www•nceep.net
4V { 4
O-
Eco stem
PROGRAM
January 4, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-2905, Bridge 113 over South Fork New River, Ashe County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated December 10, 2004, the impacts are located
in CU 05050001 of the New River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 121 feet (cold)
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the
subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
Ic- full
iliam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. John Thomas, USAGE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-2905
AA
NCDENR
Nnrth firnlinn Erosvstem Enhancement Program. 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, N( 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT- 8.2711301 (B-290S)
VICINITY
BRIDGE NUMBER 113 OVER
MAPS SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
ALONG SR 1179
(DICK PHILLIPS RD.)
SHEET OF 15 8 / 31 / 04
NORTH CAROLINA

1

i. J.
?/i='' • ??, ? 1. . ,
NOT TO SCALE
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
TOPOGRAPHIC VIEW
U
I
X- r-X
I
N
11
i

a
\\ .
°o
3 ?
Y3AIY M3N
??o.? Hlnos
w -
w <
w
~ = RIVER IS T
a
3
ca ?W
???
QNi Ln ,e
a r- z
Oam
a
QtDo
0..
J 0?
J
Q
LL
A
X? . N
1 \ny
-- V) VT 0 640 0
JELO %%%44 to
nv)= 641-4 a I-1.4 o a Cv P, a? k W g
?° r 1 a LL >> 0 ?. o XU)W
o a s N .? w z
z ?caz -31 -77- F
r4 u c! a.
a6 w C
vazH
> wwWp o
09
?
\ V? / 9
1 ® ?•' ?
U awW w
e
Q
' ?<1 ?P z ow
0 ?-? -J ?
33 O mm0
;I wz to
U
H
A

? U
I ?
t 1
I I
` I
+I II ?,

LL
LL
Q\ o
Y
az
oa
H co
N
a
CL
Y w
? c7
O
Li WA!).
?I
N
Q
w
a F-
a
3
o
--- Fri r-d
I
Y
0 `I
0- z
A?
1 \ CL4 - C
1 O
1 \ U \ 0
\ s 1 J .
11 1 .?.I I I Q
LL
{ 1 r i
1 1 r t
\ lL-
1 \ I J '
1 \ i O
\ E t 5,2? O
1 t
\ \ ` tn
1 I : N
YV f o o a\
1 / 1 .\ V)
v Q ?1+ ;A tAw
, >
>
u o as
a O U aC W
C\j z x Z x I
E O 's" (y
1 o
_ aG 1
w E_
> w
'O 2t
'H (p
Oi .III\Y l,'I I YY Cn LJL
- ?' %? 1 N a z
' i. J I Zazs y?i? F_ co
11? 1 J ? ?i //s \
,Y3AIN M3N a
)I8oj Hlnos.
00
N o N
w
C o/ W
W IS p Cie.
~ = RIVER ?L ° ?-
3 Br
0
Q oo
CD
till
0", ZL
x`
cam . i A
/
1
0 m(oq \ 11 l d 1'1 irj 11 1 J /, s _ -
? p0~\ \? lit li .•? % If i ?/ L
Q \ ? ??1``il 19 t 1, I ?'----
' •` , 1 1 I + ?, \ ? ? / / ym 1, / ??`' _ sN -
LL_
1 1 ? r
)
N
/
/
W
C
/
•j ?/ i
i
i
o cn,
ED '
/' ? ? ?L?•' _" ?Gj ? l 11

P IX
/
/
/
i

pU
c?
z

Ir
Q .
Lli
L'i
z
W
V)

W
O

b
N
N
N
w
w
F-
a
J
LL W
V
Na
W
F ?
O =
zN
Ill,
0
Ln
0
N

U? \ ;I
I ' f
/ I I I T
rll
/ tv I t f
/ IiLll i iT ``I
/ III ?/111f ?Ir
i II
,/+r1/1.1111 f\ ,Irl
rrr,11
/ lyml Illml I '
lit
1Z
Lj_j 4
cr_
ca
, Of
C: n
r ,
Ifi{i11,11IIi{I
I Ir'?'ill?l?l'?'
,Ily',o,I,l„ II,
"/,+/1I0 1
11+/, //, /1/ ill /, '
' ?71?1.1`?' ICI . lrIl
IIi1 ?'t?rl II
17 'n',11 111
//// /I
7„' 1 1 444 { / \ 1 1^ , , _
1
Il+rll+ 1,? - - ?, \ \ I ' ill/,T
1 Y ' y0 ,/ Y- ??/
I/ l t ' ? - • m' i? / /'j,
u
t0
/+a
r; h
rj'!
+'1
1'I
1
-i
/l+r

/ \ ?, ?/' tea, ' , '' ' •, 'i, \0, r, r /, r ?, ,
, ?, Vii/ p [,?•,y.1,T?rv ? , \'? -r/( 'i, /? i ? / / r "r ? . W
W
Aa,
4J?.•1 I 1 //??v/C??f.'a' r/r'_ - ? y?0, /-, ,// , ,r/, r / 'r,:? ? /rr,'r
Lu
z
H r4
O x
a?
H O
4. z
OO
14
A q
z
H
O
U
W
a?
W
O0,> ?-'
oE•:aa
vv r
a? 4:1 CA
M?0W
M a
Go W~4-
i
p0
W W w
so O
00
a0Mw
4ww w
O
N
N
IX
W
/-
Q
J ?
J
?y W
U
Na
V,
?M
O =
Z N
W
o?
rm?
w
co
O
to
!'1
1.
to
N

p ? ? Ip N O o o °
a \
N N N N N i F Oo•?`?''

64 \
1-1 v? 1-4 to
?z
\ ° w w o
xW two
w
\ o
+ a a c? z u
z
\ N z m p o
z
1"4 < 0W

o Wow
w p
o o a
I W cn w
I f-
F 1

.;
w w
:
:)

-j C\j
i w N I Q
1-4
Q" > ti
0
?? A O
s I N c o aoaa
or
-
(Pi co Z
Lf) N N o w
+ it I
m F-
I
I
o
?Ll- V, 00
I

°
II oa w
rn W J
+, r-
I
z N
m W `f a
a u w I ?
F- .. w co >
I cn
N o l?

_1 O Q Of

co =)

L
N
uj W m Of N N I r? ?
0 LL W 0
O - II
- Ln FN z 11 0-)
-J N
I ~
y w N
m y: r
tY l? 3 3

co w I
_ O -?
N J
L°1 (D -C m
C=?J N M (n U N
3 CO
i pq./
2

z N
I`
U Z
r
a
x
I I
y.?
C)
o N

°a
Q
d 3 a
W N R.
N 01 ?l w Q
i v a
-? N
I ? W Q F-O
~ ® z ? W2
O .

Q7 /
co
i / a
o- O
(
I +

1 W
Q
W
N a
U

Q J N
z Q
(
/ z N U
i
W
/ Q
CL p W
_ >
c/
?
O
a
-
O ; z5
I
?o o

( 0 0
O O c) p
O p
N N N
N N Ln Ln
N
! ? o
O o o,
z
z m 0w
o KT. U N0.-40
ioQo o ++ E. o w GoM .
CO pip oN P6 O F zm
v? U A F
Oo?]o 0 z p E-H W ti?Wa
O w A. o0 0
CD aoav`?
0? O? O +- c c
O QO ZM U a?w E-
16 C) popa Jrn z o Z
(P C C,
N Do C) ?]od Ll)
! p O
0d
O- O J
I S % ?, U CL
~o a
Y I ?? o
d
w
o Q j Q fi d
w ai o h?
o w
ao! a a. co cc a °
0 001 -3:: a.e m U
co m N j O
U O- LQLJ N m C
p Q >I
N Y? J! + YN N J N
O wj U J A U QLr)
O ?U NI U {? ® w U
N
E=4 O LL.
? O °
i D Q E
>aw
i ? O? p v
o QOQp?a + d T a
N 1 p Qoo
Qa? O Z Ln °
O LLI O o 0, a
11 o -
bC70opo QT < 1
0:
0p?0 o ? ?
? v
0
U
O ?Q Q a
UO O o CJ a f- - U)
ii O V)
in p:p?OO I w N_ E
Q N
j P S % 1 p U Q Lr)
i N LL U
L w O a)
H O °
?z I Z Q E
Q J w +-
O cr co
i o > a w

0-DEC-2004 10:24
:\pro,I'.Alteb\des-e..-b2905s4.psh
ogomber AT
ir °y =
a?.a
s
itn?v:
ti ZIA
03 -4
b /
m rn ?, pt = ., n 07 / , / C? \Qa . / / / / fl'I't3 it
N N N ?j?pa , / / , \q` / fly, / /E3 E
O C , Qi: E3 / 1 /.
Qt a
183 z
LS 2$ o a$ A. ;p p e 4
ca 0^
A. ?. Mp.
? n? I a ? Ur
. I• ' • I' N 1 Q
S'A
c
o a // /EFp /pI 11!
m a Q of
h
G4a\e k' / / /?/ off"' IQ'a I 1It E
_ + ,? //? `t1`? / •// / ??p ? I I "' v // 1111 %\
_ 1 r 1 1 C?
p
00
o ¢3 i > i
Alt.
qj,
J \ / g 30`056'E o 1n ?gzesg -
?o ? ' I ? a0 cjl
I 1{I 1 rl F?? ? '? w ?'/EArgeiH??'
I ? 1 r; s
Q? \ 1 0 1 sv'r? o>i
rri
?.:j a r I ca d Yj D M u ?i gym.. 1
3 G3 1a ! 1 ?e? 0OSp
<? Q l r 22 m i$?ut" IQ
- 7 D u 1 Wv r?ei :'?a?.`I'?''6'?
A o.
= m p
h wo:, s7.o+•
m
s ro•oJ•gs•w
ppiq
cg
8z.+
nl ?_ i X12 ?0 '4 r,lC
SOUTH FORK NEW RIV.' -? a a ~ P Ids Y Z9
y 51 u3AIB 1O .gyp ^1 `? 3.9Y .14 .M N
n zl• or or E OF RWER IS t a ° 5' r A a a3N2J M3N HNO? H1I105
oNa
l o It .p z >
t-3.4 P3
O'1'O I
\ \ fl r -sal G3 G3 r , d l'? r
goo X3;7 . - - - - -
4•
z
N
m ° a
S
•ye tis
o p
I Z

a
Z

? eob.
-F+/ S COf
t;o
r" i?
c by
e'
N
r
R Z
1'r
n 0$ -0 R it R "v1

ay l4 • 1
pip 2 y
= I
Cn

?uppu??t?ll?Ia °??
??1 G?V?\
Q •P. D
D
e Iy
u ?cNn,?1QR?.

J
m ?o
I E
S

1 s JZ?O.8s-
1 SO'U•w R II It 11 II
O?89?",

4+?(0 I

?
ddN :a -iroD-o r?l
£? d 11 11 11 'I to

?
QQ?? pp?? o
o
?
?
n
D
04
i
?(
plppN
llp
?wco
y
s l9•s9•rrw
?11.8i• ?
118.79• `
5 17.25• S
•
, B
M
NN J\ l
cc) >
RR X
I I N ,7 w ...., h G3\ ? N d ? s ?
fl K \ I /? fJ / M to to
E2p
rn o r y ' ?,? seilx o R x a ?!
4 , r E ' 9 , o Y ?? 1 I? IV 1. caa p
v
•.? ? ? wom ? - ? w? ? ? ? o ? $ ? Z i
L- Po f76S3 a $ +
l G „ , D2- ?I I fQp i
$ 0 0
MATCH UNE SEE SHEET NO.5 ? -L STA22f50
? s
o '
e
E
c
0
a
7 $e' ;
1
a RR
i ?
? i
It c
r z e
I ? ?

V+ R it 11 R 11

? d ?
z c ??`Q?o2tn

c? w
1
a
' Rl 25 n
3 > x C,
o ? ? to

?z` can

I y ttoa to ::t
tNp

o ?, ra

i

T
l ,
7
7
'
?
F
{?:t
t{
{,'
F? rFr

._.. .. , .

rT- m .Ij:f

h 1 r
44 Ii

T I

r i 4}

r

f

I

I
f
r?
?Ff
r•

r Fr -rrY
r }t
IT:
- rr

HP-1
flif To T
- IT r .• - ?
::::.:::: : , ` ;.i r-{• i? i ffir

.
rri.. tt. i??
...
{
1 I' -{
r
41
1
1
4
-
M

. - -

. - - - -

. _ - -

-

r

" -

i -

_

't

-

. r

t

i-

f T
y
` r

,"'r
4
.
rr
r
T
1
-
F
.
.
.. 7t Yr
_
T T-r
r
r
r
-
r r T-r

-
rr T .
r .
_

r

r

?
=i-r'.S

T.,.

,TF. 7T
4+47

7 _

_

Z

_

FF

_

r

r
if

.

r 4.
TTf-

_q
T t r
T
T m
tt
ri Tr

r

r
r

L

.

it

1.1

1

1

+

_..

r
fl
"T,T 4.

r
1 1

i I
1

{
I
r 1
I,
T-Pi. YTr

Fr

.

:

.:

:
1

r
{

'
_.._. il - . _.. .. '1 r . {
.F.r Frt r , t r. .?
.
.... . ... __.._ _._? -. ._.--', :,-._
i .-.,.... _
fill
t t t , t i

i
1 _

I

I I

t
[[

:f.
J .,.•
• • r
r :
t
fi
#
It
rrr
r
rr
: :: :::: :• ,.
ti I: _k - - -
-- r- - - It

rTT

r r
-rrrr

r T
4--
T

.

.

1
_
Al
i- rT

'
.... .... .... ....
,
t
r
',:;;4

i
T
-

y _

fit
- -

T

r-r
ri;

....
....
....
.....

r
-T -1
..... -.... ... ,

'T, i TIT

7 7t
-T I t ' } .]?.-.?J..jt

_
-1

_

-

- -

r^r

r

rr 7- r , ^-
4
T
i'
'1
-
-
-
FT

rT

^r rr

..:
- v-r .

_4

1414
_

_
.

-

?

iqf -H-r+ -

y r rrr

r,'.r_ . t -

r4T .1p,
t-r T
4
,. _t

'

- _ r }
rr
?F
• T'Fj r
-
•-F
it r .. rT r 41 I,:

?? ,rj
,

1 --_-

I

-

-

W

T

1
O -

_
1

.

_

_

-

4-44

t
}t

T'T?Y

Tr

rr t
lT Tit YY +
TT
?
Tr T
r
fif

- _

- -

' -_

--_

f '
t
r- T; .
-TIT- T
r
r'I
'rrT- rr- t
r
-r• T

_. _ U _ _ _
T-•.... ... _
_ __
rr
f Tf1
_ _
_ w w T la- l:

......... ......._. 1 , ,. in ?'
= ... r t : _ _ :. ._ .. :_ -- - - '- r."' ft
r ,+
ri{ i { R, r r}.
1 - _ _ R r .

:..
T F
t-
V! :t7
1

.........
... ..
.... r
.-. ...
, ...:. ,, .. :
•-1-:. 1
,.t, 1- I. 1 T
i..
{. .. _
_ _.

.
_ _
-
r "
?f

F
T'.T • r T -

r
TIT
_ T n_ _ q: r - - H
r}rT

-44 rJTT ?T

U
1 _ 4TJ +4-
.... .. ... ..,, ...,? .,, , ..., rr T"t TI T
4
1
4:-
7
rr r
rrr }
1 17, _ 4m

., r. .... ?..

.
4

14 _

till
r
} +f

L
tr".'r
rt
Tr
1.4 . .
: . {
? ...

- ... ...
... . r,
141

1

1(
Yi •

_

.}

',..i'

t

'1

,

•-• • iTr _..

T' -TT

r

T t

,

r

""

ri-
T'YT r

••"YY"rr

: - f 1 -Tr
r
r

- - - •?T r r•- r TT } , - r? rrr T

------ -- --- --
7
Gpt ? rr r
..' . - - 4 rr
_ , *Z , _ ,_TT' '1' • rr t_. ,
1 _
-
- -
---
--
-
-
--
-
-
---- - - - -

r r

rrr r
I _ _ _ I TT r
I.- T 7
itit i-?.
1 _ _ _ - r ir TF +r rr T
p
ir
rr[T

..

7

= ? 1

:
„ 1

111
1
1 1
-

{

...

..

..r.t.

.

r?
, ri

-

T
pip

.T

.

i• „ -
•1

{

I

. -- -
-
------ - -
--- ---
- -- --- ---- -- -- --
-

_-rn
1
T

t, '-?
,r
F rr rT - ? -r-
1 f

..
.

' 3d Tit
z
, t , .. .. __

IT
Tjl'jT -1
I: i 11 1 T
M

-
T_ _T :
fl I- Hit i f..

_ .
. _ .
_
..
...
. - - - -- - --
r - r' ri F htr
'

r
? T 'IT r
1

m T_r
fl T Tfl17 :.
r
I 4 +11
," ? 1' TrT 1-T'1- Yr
_ + r
A

{ F- - I
H
h
q
R

;.
.
i +
'
1
i
F
?
• ,,,. .,
, I1, +111 ?:1 '''I ? : ? I I _ _ i?
h
1+ A.
-
1

,

;. Jil l

_1

4

-

-

-

r

-

rr -rFCp
r
TI 11 o

_7 T
S
,• - - 7 ,
:.;.
t{1t 'T
1 . .. 1-11 11- 1 + H - -I I is _ ... .. .. . i,.
' 1 ? ? x
}i
r.. ,
:; 1 ! I I f
l C
l
r r
7 T,
F
-' _.
T
r
I:
T
t
i
i
I
,
i
f
i
i
f
i
i ?
;, ,
Project No. 8.2711301 (B-2905)
Property Owner List
For
Each Site
Site Station Parcel Name Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg

-L- 18+14 Lt.
to
O Dale M. Shepherd
DB T4 Pg 492
2219 NC Hwy 88 West
-L- 18+74 DB C6 Pg 75 West Jefferson, N.C. 28694
1

-L- 19+35 to

O Roy R. Church

Sally H. Church
5375 Idlewild Rd.

L- 20+03 Lt.
-
DB 163 Pg 751 Fleetwood, N.C. 28626
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2711301 (B-2905)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 113 ON SR 1179
OVER -"RK NEW RIVER
/
,y 6F 15'
01
3/29
SHEET

m d ? ° o

U N N

rn
m
R N N cc ° R
W
LL
LL

m N
C U
O '- l6 °

. N
Z
O
N C Q ? N
V N ° R Q O W

r
U
W }

m
?,, ~ ?
o
_ = N 2
L
.O d

a M LL O
¢
U a
0
o
r ° W OF
F-
O
U Q 0O
F F
p
CL a:
a
a o,m z
oo
j X N N U
w ul0 E Z
F

U CL 0) ° (C
m
E c
o
0
0 f
L F (4. i

h ?C
.
0 o w
1
LL

N
C :3
I
O
O
«.
s O O

U N C `J
^Q O U
N - A
° 7
4 U

U
rN
0
Q

W C y

g LL c t - -
w °7O o y
3 F ?
E (t

c

ii •?

v o?

N - N W W Uj
3 N a o o F ? ?i
m m
in v ti

d

J J J S
tO
O
v°
.?- ?
+
co ?
O
.r
`
..m O + + co +
N
.
- .i-
? LL
....
_j O
?'
J O
J O
w
L
a) O
fQ Z co

'146
E
o,
k
GUt
i
d
f?
tVO
h
N
?g
F?
LL. LL.
^m
a
0
U
N
c0i
Q

U
W
y
c?
w
w
y
0 "?1
F°1 0
h
o a
h

m W
I
4 ;. ?
I

w ? v

co ,. W v e

NI

506Z-f[
_r To IDLEW'Lo-"-
EE
?
S

O ? 0
11

W

SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER

N j
1
J S

W
?1

II^ d
/

2 /, l R M. ?ZDv10?Id dI.L

0
O
A a
E
m
.a
°o
rl
C
IV
00
U
ti
Q
a
F
A
0
P 2 -
O
d? O
W
2
? UUO
W W
H
J
3!
W
I
J
W Vi
F W
A
Z
m

v ? U
d W
d Z
t
V1

W
m
O J

a?

N
Z
F- N
OG

°
a
N

U

W
0
Z
56IIOZO
y e
a
k. _N
y 0 ? y
y ? o
y w
a?
0
ui u;
W
(? J
?I
? ? •? LU Q
n
C ,? x
V?
v r
U ° b
a O-Z" pp
a N Q N
Q tl
0 0 0
E E E
V co
N Q
N
G C
G
II II II
W
W
P P P
U O O
a- d d
Q1 (_ F F
? o
3 ? _
IOL N Z
V V F
? W O
'a
eC r
h _
oo??R2R Z
ooooMO 0 D
N ? r O W
? n n n n n n ? ?
w C4 cv Z
NLN??
Q ? ` Q •
0 0 0
y Q N
Z
-on-, OW 0
h H N
U g = z
d V J
W
J
U.
O
r? N N OC ?
V n.
R- in
oZOVULL11 OO

m M Q S N w p M N -0 M -o 7 M T IF LF /7a m a Y`m.- a -0 -o -o v -o A rn
fl- In ° p c 2- Q ° A o' o' F) -- o' o o' 0 ` C P o 'o o' 0 0 0' c n.
7 m n O a rcn 3 3 D n •a 7 O O O O 0 fl 'a 'a a• O
O_ qC m O Q 7 a O 3 'o -i --1
nN m A A m 3 Z° ?O- m 3 O c1 0 `` m A ? to to ?.
m` C O a O n O W O O O IQ n Cf In O p C C S 0 S p O O
>> 7 n. ? p 7. O 4 3 3 W y, 3 g S? S S 70 ? to n n o ?- ?. < a ?
0. 3 a a .? ?3 N 0 'fl 3 O rt O '? rt(a 0 7p d 0 W 7 W O O g Q
C05 cr
n O n 0 a ?. -w Q? Q? ` OHO 1C? ° - - O 3 a A? O
O = 0 ?. b m p ?' a A n rt `G 3 `? ? ? a "^? n Q O .n W ? bn -«
W C r 0 O I• l q A
rt
A pp
a- c
D O ?J ?' Q W W ? O A ? S A S ? ? Q W O
_ ? [r1 m I? m m a Ti ? n -,
W
`, H Fc rt 3 pr a Q o
r q W a a
p Q Q ? v
W y
I I I
Fl H
0 11
I I y I I I I
o 13
I I j I I I ', ? I i i t I
M! q -1 M V N N M -4 O O •O a = -1 M N N A V -o a a M p „ M _ 3::
R 3. ° o a Z
A O < t n I 0 O 0- a O
o' •o vi -? y o o n r 3 0 o A 3 0 0`, a o o p o o_ 1°Q o. c R? ?O
3 p = t0 n n O p 7
N 0 0 O < 3 7 O W Q 3 D IC rt 3 C O fn
0 O A Q pr a O O 1 O to O C S S 7 W 'O O C C S S O S °° O O p
A ?,o v, o n 0 o < S W. a O o p o n
C C O O 3 0 p O m O C ono- a O O 3 3 p O ,n O C
EL 3" a ; Q ? 0 O S C < rt O 'O Q O O W 1P O a
0 0 O O_ S W -« W 0 a o O a 0
O O O O
S3 O X 3 a O O C
aq ? x O O y
n?
A
®15 ®AQ8 ®m0®oo® t0 ®00®CS ap ® o- I I II
r I of
I I I II
? I
Q s Q -v •?o n o A ti
3 0 3 s o 0 0 o o o q_
1 ? 3 O
1n m p n r- Z ?G O n T C
CL a< 0_ O S C 0 0 y 7 3 3 O !_ O Q
O 7 rt 0 O ? C 3 3 O O !? O
In ao n Q ?_ O ? O
Q. Q_ O O a
C 3
-o ? o c
+ C
O 7.
p?
C N `
C C (Z7
A n
NW -
I I I I ?? I I ? ? ? I( y
1!1.,. ?
I
i I I O W f I;o re I I I I I
m m m m mx I i i I 1
I I I M? i
I I I I 'F + ? I I I
N N
O
n N 3
S Ip C
7 Q.
n
3 G
o• c
O O
Z N N
O =• O n• m m
Q 0 ? p A W
S
2 W
o-
o
r -i C
In a 00
O
W a
s

3M tr g! ;a
O Q 3 q0 7o Q ow Q 7o N Q M Q q N 1
O- 7 M ='• AO 1. ? q- O O O O O 3 ? O

C
--I tQ
7
0 -%
0_
W m
3
O. 3
0 m
7
?.
0 m
3 -?
Q
O t0
3
Q
O m
p
a.
W m
3
a. 0 •
/D
7
d

0
fl O
Q O O
O_ 0
d 0
A
O. 0
p
O_
N n
D_ n
O O
Q 0
O q
0d
m -n
c CL 1 C Q. C "I 0_ a O a N O 0-
a > A 0 O C p 3 O O O
;
0
EA::
C . O O
3 3 C W O ° O O O N m
3 to
° A o
Lr Q
M a
0 " ? o
- ?
O '
0
C•
IP
O q A
O p C itl
"n C C
O m .... O
?p to ? Q t/f O •-?
p C in c in e

a.
n 3

O

O

<

<

y I
I
l~9

n I

i I

1 I

? ? I

N I

? ? I ??

N N I

?
.i
I
?
I
I
I
(
I
I
I
I
? fCn ? 0 CO
t7 'n w w a a a n A 2 -
C X C. C (0 3 0 O
m a ?? Q
°' a
? A
C m m
`
` ? -ri O C C
?

O ?
O A
? N O
0
3 O C
O
O
I
f ?

?p A
C)
0
Z
M
Z
O
z
D
r
N
3Z
0
r
to
40 CA
3 m CA
m' o c th
c n s C) o o c

n o _
n
a
:r
-

7
"
02
o?
7 7 ? •p O O

O
o

A y
c
c•

x
E°
N° ?
I~ ?I
I I
I y
.
\I

N
C
m
II
N
C
CA
N
C
n
z
c?
m
m
X
5/28/99
00

0
i

D
-A
?n ?
cr) {? N
' I
? D
? I
1
C/) 0
+ m
o? D m
0 CA
O D N
rn
-l 0
O 1 m '-r
°1 0 - D
z z?
C/) z c? m
z 70
c/l p Z D
0 O 0
m
p o r, J
_ + N
O O
LO
? -1 Q? N
(l)
r
D
D
1 I I
Qpo
N ?7 Cnl
I W I
N D +
o wo
0o O
p+0
0 0
0
I O ?
0
N I W
I DT
V,
p I p
N (A +
+ Cn
O-)° O
=0
+ O
0
?o
C°
N
m

C
N
m
--I
n
D
r
m
n
O
Z
Z
O
W

D
r-

rn
C7

O
Z

Z ?
m
O

W 0

G,

F -
F
4
--
m
Ul
FF)
I
I
sp
Ol
I
-p
I
I
N
I
O
W
r'
Qo
W
I
a
O
I
N ?
rnD
y
O ?j 0
r-
rI
? ?
1
?cm c„N
ymy po
0~ Z O~ O
z?a o mr
r l
oo
Oyu ?N
I ?? Dp
yrnA m-?
O ; +
O ?I C) 0 0
o+o O O
0 1! y r aj
yl0 m
O
p
N W
II u y N) 70
+A ?
y 0 + cn im
0 .?
(YI
O
0
O
rn
t
2
rri
rn
Q)
O
rn
nN
rn
i
2
Q
0
m

-I L
W L
N j n
N n
-?
m

o v

O p r s-u
rs?
?
s

4
A
•v
:0 O
v
ms -0
o t
-
o
ms-0
x Mz mz•
s a, -0 a N < Nav

m M rn -u
rn >
0
0 ;D ;D
C) mm

m
m 0
m x
m ox
m•
0
s G)
s C7
s m N
s mN
s D
m n _
m m
M Na N m
n s D -n -ni
m m m N m
_ -°
-• -a Z

O
O
O a
O
r
NA
?
?
N o

m
m
N V)
m (A ? r
;o N
z
z
m m
m
mm n

2
:ID m
m
"'
4LA N
(AC
o
n C

v > s
vm r
m
m
r• m
_
Z A zc
O
m c
mv+
m
= N =
m
• o
n
? -V

-4 ( m

N
o m O c
O
N
t0 U
rA

00
D
N
m -?
- I C)
? D
r
(7
r m
N n
m ?
n
:j O
0 z
Z
z
z O
ICI D
FF?
I
I
0

i
4 ?
I I r
r 1
p
w I I
I
Cn N
C/1 -i ---I
? D D
D
+
0+0
+00
cn O
_IJ + + -+O O
O _
0 c o
O 0
I rI
r
D D
N ?
w +
+ w
(-n o
0
-+ r
o -+
N v
O
O
-I

CD
O 0
-+
C C
-T-1 a o

1- Q n
?
n
ti N
m0
z
0 C) F71

C) p r D

D
N O n f
x C

ai
0
CO,
0 0
C)
. _
Q ?
ao
II II
- ?
Cpl o -?
lol 0 o + O
-n -Tl -U n
(D :T
-I
?
cD -Tl
-' c? o
-+
0 (D
a ?
-

r
-TI I
1
CD Q
-1 , 1 ZDm

r D
D
cn -
O m F-

V) co
- n D

°° D Z
(D (m

C) m
r Z
D -I

N
i
r
N
D
N
0
0
O
N
m
0

_
0
N C7
?-
(DD 0 a _

0

Q CD
N ° ?=o

0
`D z m

Z

O F- ?
>
C 0 r-
70 00

?
cD m 1
-T-1

O
?
O r
D
C ?
Z Z

rI rI
I I
N (/1
D D
N
+ 6)
O
O
O
?C
0 i' °,cn
n
::F -; Q
n
N I
cD I i? f 0
I zfTl
-
I Tl
D -?
°
1 D
+ (A
I o O m i-

I '
CA C
C)
o I N F-

0
m
0.15m
0. m? Min.
?- O 0.3m
0 Max.
3
I
r
I I
p r
N I
-i D
D _
N +
+
Cal
O +
r0
FO
N
cn
I I I 1 r
p p p
LA N N I
I I I
Cn
(/1 Cn Cn -i
-I -I D
D D D '
+ N N
+
0 + + }
O O O Cn
0
0 + +
O O
N
+ N N Cal
O cn cn O
000
--1
D
Cn
N
-F-
O
-J
0
Z
0
0-+
C C
D 1
G7 Q 0
-
? r
?D?
Z -I
0
m ---?

o D
D
+?
O r

n

o + m SID

00 N
0
cD -
c? z
I 0
0-1.
O C: C
n o
u
no -,

Q
O (Tl

O 2 (-

7 Cn f7
n =
o ?z p
n 0 CD
-+
cC
C) :)I
Qo

O
Z o m0
C) F71
-F D ---I
rD

O C I-

?o0-ti p 2
? N n
N
? n
o =

I
-Ti 0D
(D ::T +

A

r ?
5 RNO 2A0 265b2905s4.psh
hlL?ttle AT R02036,
t ~6O. ys?
ew C).ore 'C
} Oy p?'? IV •1
Vf ? ?"ma ? ? ? r
O } ay Ad ????? ry m
m?
Z IN?1?RyjT '3? a r
h1fl117I? - ?. + y ?m
<n h a ?" by Z "
ZIt
c 2` ? pQr ro z L // \• Qa i // o m
14 r?D
r,l
10 lh
O O y X0? / / ?a / /? Pa - 1 I - 2
vm to
Q?i //\• ;a°y , \ qSi A3 bI •X4`5 I Av,?r9 07,w
1w / Q ?3•z3•Si'M? ??1 IQ`'S : CS -0 NNNNN?
?o
inp 4 Cr1 3?'t? ?!
??'` F y p? / `?P?/Gj• , t f?1 ? Sas•zs•y.w 2?g yp?I??il??i?41?a
/ ?/-p "? ," „f? / ??'' //' W + d L•3 /al Ilt- Ia.ze• fd Vi? `^'ti?
.oo 9?a'y i. / 3 $2 ' lJr II W ?4? 1
Aar A :
I 11 11 (/? n
^UZ/' p /p n I / - \ 1 /.3 N rlD' 11 IU
u'V11?y?` a
w
Mgt
_ r
c, 98
?+ , I ?i ? / / ? ? 2?r? ?L nl?j 1 ?. N 7, 9, 95•E `? i ,9v t6 N
agE Q ?IQ 1.A6' N ej, .84.0
M y m 1 a s I S
cp qQ' /?3 i + S2 S p z's? °szyy? b
?$^ f5o a y
n P 1 1 0o y ( '? - p' 0'S 'br H M.L> •L%s 5 0.,, ,Ly
/, f \ 1 t z ° Q ,??\?b_ ny (7, ( s 3z?o.8s' N N 11 N N l?
° I 1\ 1 ' F e. S c4s< w v
$ $ EtJ 1 \ 1 ?, ' , vas o?ti °c j
elr? ! \ T 1 ?D V o,.s.yG mo No
c
7'.cZ=O 1 ?N? vrZ°
Opp,
C \ / $? n wiC7t ?t*1 "`,OF ass " p?l"IO?Q?S °
ro p ti? ?? ? s. ( Opw ?lp ?
b ?O 1 Al
? ? ?o ?? ? ?i3'?c?(.p?? i; w AQ? ?'s `4`400
I * O $ $`?' ' • R as
57.01' 5 IB' S9' 7
?' • S 19.03' 15• W 214.81' /6.79•
- ?- - Js4 •38' W
a ? ?4 w yZ°
s
SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER ? r > a ? H .ob•zes
322.72' yp 3
51 tl3AW 30 2,' ?y "'1 3.8b •li • N _?_ ps?•E
N 2r02.02•E OF RKft IS it
197 to nx 2i3Nb M3N N?/0g HJDOS
ro
')A Vo
_- fl © a + ro 1 2 `? 1 1,,1 Q I Q'I Q,Ir D 1
'?\ \ ? ? z 1 z ti * w-' r\` ' 1 , H? II N N II N
\ m © © ;°' aQl'-!? I G?'I_?3'1' ?'hC3 harlr? ? ?
?• r
1 1 ? b ? N ?' fJ ?} a C3 01 ? ? ? z
21V d z
I I T 8 m n
14
??? le, $ 1.,\+ a p. R? m 4% 32 W? y m m ?i tzi '? a
n *1 I ?I m 0 0 0
'? 1 a. ,t3 < _ .,Irdrlr a iv F?' 7,J g r z £ C0 a '??
Z x ''l °z l / '? _ _ caaet - _ - a Q+1 IW? b: y 4A ?q+ •11 !R?l
q p 1' rA _
OrL x r -- bo r5 o m z o C17
° o - gam x x fl r? ,/,Q I_ C e ?e i ee z
a ,? " •, ` (o '3 sewx-%` ?^ x o 6 z 'end '' q1
U q1 jy
i? ;P. 43
z 0-4
+ , , x c r< $ < H y ,717 ?
y x 'b ?':.. p1 fv
?oy? ral €(n?
i• --[wood _1_' w ?iZO ?1MN?$ca
21t7693
° +X 1 -D2- t /D fOD.fX) a v o m
[b
Ilk
MATCH UNE C
SEE SHEET X0.5 -L- STA.22+50 E a
sh
MAO ,LY .Li
,t1b617
N
Z
P
?zn
mia O
4Z? C? N
A\ A?.
A
5znO
y?CC
Z
V S
t gZ O
a
?rrrrrcni
N
a
z
h5/
N ?
? R1
HZ
m?
y ~
v, iv
v2
ti

O
4.00 IEZ JZ 5
,YB'm
o m 00 O
? ? tlW N N N N N N N
Z s:
11
t
ill
t
i
ll

P HI I t I t ill

g

r

t i ll
W
:I

S Wi ?e
'

"Z ?'.
N
a .4I
s=
qq
nn
N rl???"Tg
?
N ? kw
a
o
Q p NN?'JNtt
x
' W
r
11 11 Y III N N q. a 11 .
-
A
LQ
:
it

Q 2 W¢ W
J
¢ W t W W O W
W
^ W
?
Z W
I
a ° a?a o

x z 2
o W

t il l 1 1

I ?
:a

f

I t Ir 1 1

ti ll
C4 °
I
u7i h l;

?
'

O

J TM I e
o
c. ._

sw

sWY

0
r

I I l it

? _
to

r
O a?
>
,

It
g"
Z O O
pry
w
a
+ FFF

44 4
I
TEF

co
%10
Go
th
Goo

Go

GGo

aNO

OR M

ao r

ao
N C N N N N N N N N

------orF?ia ? i'?
cc?cv?w u6p?t tlct"?s'y
6PSI b007-AON-98
Ashe County
Replacement of Bridge No. 113
On SR 1179 Over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1179(1)
State Project No. 8.3711301
W.B.S. No. 32751.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-2905
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Approved:
jlq?,? _
DATE
5A E
le,.Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Management Branch
John F. Sullivan, III, Divi'sion:rafni
11??-Federal Highway Administration
s
Ashe County
Replacement of Bridge No. 113
On SR 1179 Over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1179(1)
State Project No. 8.3711301
W.B.S. No. 32751.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-2905
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
March 2004
J L. Williams, PE
Project Planning Engineer
William T. oodwin Jr., PE nit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Ashe County
Bridge No. 113 on SR 1179
Over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1179(1)
State Project No. 8.3711301
W.B.S. No. 32751.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-2905
Hydraulics - High Quality Waters
South Fork New River is designated, as High Quality Waters and is also an excellent small mouth
bass fishery and will be subject to all Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds
Resident Engineer/Division Environmental Officer/Office of Natural Environment
Just prior to construction, the Resident Engineer and Division Environmental Officer shall
coordinate with Office of Natural Environment to insure that the Threatened Virginia spiraea is
flagged off so that the construction contractor may know what area is to be protected.
To the extent possible, clearing and grubbing, especially along stream banks, should be limited
Where clearing is necessary, stumps should be retained, where possible, to stabilize soils and
provide some early, native re-vegetation. Grubbing, where unavoidable should occur
immediately prior to construction activity to limit the duration and extent of bare soil.
Contractor/Resident Engineer
Should the contractor recognize beforehand that impact to the species would result from a
proposed activity, the contractor should alert the resident engineer who should then coordinate
with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
All Design Groups & Division Construction - Virginia spiraea
The Threatened Virginia spiraea is present in the project vicinity at two locations. The first
location is immediately off the northwest corner of the bridge on an alluvial spit. The second
location is about 50 feet downstream. The species will be flagged by NCDOT biologists prior to
the beginning of construction. The plan for construction activities is to be designed and
implemented such that no impact to the plant will result.
Design Services - Virginia spiraea
Design service shall coordinate with David Harris, State Roadside Erosion Control and
Vegetation Management Engineer, of Roadside Environmental to include a special provision for
a penalty intended to discourage any impact to the Virginia spires.
Roadway Design/Program Development - B-3805
B-3805 is on one of the potential detour routes for B-2905. The two projects are currently
separated by 18 months. A Greensheet.commitment will be included in the CE for B-3805 to
make sure that it is not Let to Construction until B-2905 is complete.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
March 2004
Ashe County
Replacement of Bridge No. 113
On SR 1179 Over South Fork New River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1179 (1)
State Project No. 8.3711301
W.B.S. No. 32751.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-2905
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 113 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
As of January 26, 2004, Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency
rating of 48.4 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge's deck is narrow according to
federal guidelines and is considered to be functionally obsolete with a deck geometry appraisal of
three out of ten. Bridge No. 113 is therefore eligible for federal replacement funds. In addition,
the bridge is a "low water" design that results in frequent overtopping which has on a few
occasions resulted in washing out entire sections of the bridge. The replacement of this
inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southern portion of Ashe County near Idlewood Crossroads (see
Figure One). Development in the area is scattered agricultural with a few residences.
SR 1179 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. It
is not on the Federal-Aid Highway System. This route is not a designated bicycle route and there
is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1179 is a 10-foot wide unpaved road with 2-foot (0.6-meter)
grass shoulders (see Figure Three). The roadway grade is in a sag vertical curve through the
project area. The existing bridge is on a horizontal curve. The roadway is situated approximately
7.0 feet above the riverbed.
Bridge No. 113 is a four-span structure that consists of a timber floor on steel I-beams. The
abutments and bents are reinforced concrete. The existing bridge (see Figure Three) was
constructed in 1964. The overall length of the structure is 122 feet. The clear roadway width is
11.2 feet. The posted weight limit on this bridge is 22 tons for single vehicles and 28 tons for
TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but overhead power lines cross the river
approximately 110 feet west of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
The current traffic volume of 220 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 320 VPD by
the year 2025. The projected volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
two percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity and therefore
subject to a statutory speed limit of 55 mph.
There have been no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 113 during a recent three
year period.
One school bus crosses the bridge daily on its morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a 390-foot long bridge. The proposed length is
substantially longer than the existing bridge length to address hydraulic clearance needs. The
structure will be of sufficient width to provide for two 10-foot lanes with 2-foot offsets on each
side.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 20-foot travelway to provide two 10-foot lanes.
There will be four-foot grass shoulders. This roadway will be designed as a rural local route.
B. Reasonable & Feasible Alternates
There were several constraining factors considered in the planning of this project. A species
listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Virginia spiraea) is located 10 feet off
the northeast corner of the existing structure. The south approach is paralleled on the west by
Pine Swamp Creek and on the east by a steep mountainside. A Christmas tree farm is located on
the northwest quadrant of the bridge. These issues eliminated several alternates described in the
next section of the document and left the alternate of replacing the existing bridge on it's existing
location and closing the road during construction.
Furthermore, the floodplain of this project is in a detailed flood study area that requires any new
work in the floodplain not to raise the backwater during a flood more than one foot. This issue
resulted in a careful study by the Hydraulics Unit who set an elevation for the deck of the new
structure approximately 17 feet (5.2 meters) above the existing bridge deck.
As a result of these constraints there is only one reasonable and feasible alternate. NCDOT
proposes to replace the existing bridge with a new 390-foot long bridge on approximately the
same alignment with a roadway elevation approximately 17 feet higher than the existing road.
Traffic would be detoured offsite during construction.
2
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
Do Nothing
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1179.
Rehabilitation
Bridge No. 113 is a one-lane structure and can not be widened. To be eligible for federal funds,
the bridge would have to reach a rehabilitated sufficiency of 80 percent. A one-lane structure
can not meet the 80 percent sufficiency rating and therefore rehabilitation with federal funds is
not possible. Furthermore, rehabilitation would not correct the frequent flooding and wash out
problems with the current structure.
Replace In Kind With Another "Low Water" Bridge
At this location, the current bridge floods a minimum of eight times a year and water rises nearly
to the level of the deck on several other rain events. As the water rises and debris rushes
downstream, whole sections of bridge can be taken out posing a severe risk to anyone using the
bridge at the time. In addition to these issues, the bridge does not have a guardrail because it
would impede flow of water during a flood and create further risk of damage to property owners
due to backwater and damage to the bridge due to the pressure. The result of no guardrail is that
there is no real preventative measure taken to prevent motorists from running into the river. For
these reasons, it is neither reasonable to maintain the existing bridge nor to construct a new one
of the same type.
Various elevations were considered for the replacement structure. Another low water structure
was ruled out due to the problems listed above.
Replace on New Alignment
At the earliest stages of planning, alternates were considered to maintain traffic onsite since the
detour is relatively long. However, Pine Swamp Creek parallels the project on the west side of
the south approach and a Christmas tree farm is located in the northwest quadrant. Realignment
of the road to this side would create an undesirable relocation of the stream and impacts to the
tree farm. Realignment to the east was originally developed as an alternate until it was learned
that a threatened species (Virginia spirea) was located immediately on the northeast quadrant of
the bridge. The topography limited looking at any alternates beyond an alignment immediately
east or west of the existing bridge. For these reasons, the only replacement options considered
were ones on the existing alignment.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 113 will be replaced at the existing location as shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be
detoured offsite during construction. This alternate is recommended because it is the only
alternative that meets all the design constraints and because it has minimal impacts to the
sensitive natural ecosystems in the vicinity of the site. Also, this alternative will have a minimal
impact on the floodplain and on adjacent properties.
The studied offsite detour would include SR 1176, SR 1169, SR 1003 back to SR 1179. The
majority of traffic would experience a ten-minute delay (2.2 additional miles travel) for a period
of one year during construction. This falls within the permissible range of delay for a project
with environmental constraints according to NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offshe
Detours.
The NCDOT Division 11 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred
alternative. A design exception for both vertical and horizontal alignment will be required. The
design speed is 40 mph. Improvement beyond this is not practical for this project.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows (does not include greenway culvert):
Cost
Structure $ 595,000
Roadway Approaches 769,000
Structure Removal 11,000
Eng. & Contingencies 225,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,600,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 47,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,647,000
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Physical Resources
Water Resources
Water resources within the study area are located in the New River Drainage Basin. The project
crosses the South Fork of the New River, a perennial stream (DWQ Subbasin 05-07-01). Streams
have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The DWQ Index Number for this
section of the South Fork of the New River is 10-1-(20.5) and it is classified as WS IV HQW.
WS-IV (Water Supplies IV) refers to those waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C
refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. HQW (High Quality Waters) refers to waters that are rated as
excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring
or special studies
4
Due to the location of this project in a High Quality Water Zone, recommendations set forth in
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) apply to this project.
Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading. No waters classified as Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
The South Fork of the New River at Bridge No. 113 on SR 1179 is approximately 100 feet wide
and ranges in depth from 2-4 feet. The substrate in the study area is composed mostly of rock
and cobble.
Biotic Resources
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define. The four communities identified
in the project study area include Fallow Fields, Roadside Shoulder, Mesic Forest and the South
Fork of New River. A Christmas Tree Plantation occurs just west of the subject bridge but will
not be impacted by this project, as currently proposed.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing and
paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 1 summarizes
potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to
terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Estimated impacts are derived based on a project length of 1550 feet, and a proposed
right-of-way width of 80 feet. However, project construction often does not require the entire
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Type Impacts (Acres)
Fallow Field 1.46
Roadside Shoulder 0.05
Mesic Forest 0.17
Total Impacts 1.68
Impacts to the aquatic community of South Fork New River will result from the replacement of
Bridge No. 113. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats
(i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitat has a detrimental
effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of
aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to
aquatic communities.
The bridge will be removed without dropping any portions into the water. The substructure may
require temporary pads in the water to remove the concrete sills. This will be determined during
final design.
5
Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory
issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular
significance because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section
deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project
construction.
Waters of the United States
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the project study
area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that
is located within the proposed right-of-way. Approximately 80 linear feet (24 linear meters) of
the South Fork New River may be impacted by the proposed project. However, since the river
will be crossed with a new bridge, its actual impacts to the substrate will likely be minimal.
Permits
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
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 Section 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404
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 Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC).
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of February 25, 2003, the FWS lists six
federally protected species for Ashe County. The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is listed
only because of its Similarity of Appearance to the northern subspecies of the Bog Turtle.
6
Table 2. Federally protected species listed for Ashe County.
Geum radiatum spreading avens Endangered
Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen Endangered
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Roan Mountain bluet Endangered
Helonias bulatta Swamp pink Threatened
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star Threatened
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened
SPREADING AVENS
ENDANGERED
The elevation of the subject project is 2840 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is well
below the required elevational requirements of spreading avens. The NCNHP database of rare
species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The
construction of the proposed project will not affect spreading avens.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
ROCK GNOME LICHEN ENDANGERED
The elevation of the subject project is 2840 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is well
below the required elevational requirements of rock gnome lichen. The NCNHP database of rare
species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The
construction of the proposed project will not affect rock gnome lichen.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
ROAN MOUNTAIN BLUET ENDANGERED
The elevation of the subject project is 2840 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is well
below the required elevational requirements of Roan Mountain bluet. The NCNHP database of
rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area.
The construction of the proposed project will not affect Roan Mountain bluet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
7
HELLER'S BLAZING STAR
THREATENED
The elevation of the subject project is 2840 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is well
below the required elevational requirements of Heller's blazing star. The NCNHP database of
rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area.
The construction of the proposed project will not affect Heller's blazing star.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
BLUE RIDGE GOLDENROD THREATENED
The elevation of the subject project is 2840 feet above mean sea level. This elevation is well
below the required elevational requirements of Blue Ridge goldenrod. The NCNHP database of
rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area.
The construction of the proposed project will not affect Blue Ridge goldenrod.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
SWAMP PINK THREATENED
A field investigation was conducted January 20, 2004 to determine that habitat is not present.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
VIRGINIA SPIRAEA THREATENED
A new population of Virginia spiraea was identified within the project study area during the field
investigation in 1998. The plants are located on the west side of the South Fork of the New
River, north of Bridge No. 113. One small clump of plants is growing on an alluvial spit near the
northwest corner of the bridge. Three larger clumps, occurring approximately 50 feet
downstream from the bridge, are growing on the steep riverbank from the river's edge up to the
top of the bank.
Project Related Impacts to Virginia Spiraea
Project related threats to Virginia spiraea can be separated into direct, secondary and cumulative
impacts. Direct impacts refer to consequences that are directly attributed to the construction of
the project, such as land clearing and paving. Secondary impacts are defined as those impacts
that are "caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still
reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). These impacts are not direct consequences of road
construction, but result from modifications to adjacent parcels of land (Mulligan and Horowitz,
1986). Secondary land use impacts include residential, commercial and industrial developments
and urban sprawl. Cumulative impacts are those impacts that result from "the incremental
impacts of an action when added to other past and reasonable foreseeable future actions" (40
CFR 1058.7). Direct, secondary and cumulative impacts to Virginia spiraea are discussed below.
Direct Impacts
The definition of a plant population is vague, however, for the purpose of this report,
"population" refers to the Virginia spiraea plants occurring within the vicinity of bridge 113.
This population occurs on the west bank of the South Fork of the New River for a linear distance
of approximately 50 feet from bridge 113. This population is made up of four clumps of plants;
the smallest clump is nearest the bridge. This population has not yet been assigned an Element
Occurrence record by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
The superstructure of the bridge is composed completely of timber and steel and is to be removed
without dropping components into the river. In addition to the removal of the existing bridge,
construction work in the river has the potential to impact the spiraea population. Piers will be
constructed in the river to place supports for the new bridge, which may require the temporary
diversion of water. Temporary work pads will be placed in the river in order to allow
construction equipment to operate. However, it is anticipated that the bridge replacement work
will not directly affect areas where the Virginia spiraea is growing.
Secondary Impacts
Project construction will likely require activities such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
in-stream construction, the use of fertilizers and pesticides for revegetation, and the placement of
riprap for riverbank stabilization. The following impacts are likely to result from the above
mentioned. construction activities.
Hydraulic/hydrologic alterations may include: increased sedimentation and siltation
downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the project area; alteration of water
levels and flows due to construction; increased nutrient loading during construction via
runoff from exposed areas; and increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as
fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles. These impacts could be
detrimental to population since it is located downstream of where construction will occur and
is close to the water's edge. Most of these impacts are anticipated to be temporary.
2. The substructure of the existing bridge is composed of three concrete bents protruding
approximately one foot above normal water levels. One of these bents occurs just upstream
of the spit of land on which the smallest clump of spiraea is growing. Currently all three of
the bents are proposed for removal, which could change the river hydraulics and eventually
erode the land spit. The removal of these bents is discussed further under the Mitigative
Measures Considered section, below.
3. Removal of woody vegetation along the riverbank for bridge construction may encourage
more predation by beavers on remaining shrubs and trees, including Virginia spiraea.
9
4. Stormwater from a proposed ditch running from SR 1179 to the river may cause scouring
and/or erosion of the riverbed and riverbank.
5. Extensive use of riprap to stabilize the end of the ditch and reduce erosion along river banks
may reduce the available habitat for Virginia spiraea.
6. Since the new bridge will be higher in elevation, it could shade the spiraea, which is located
to the north of the bridge site. A study was conducted by NCDOT to determine the extent of
shading. Computer generated 31) models of the site were created and then solar animations
were run and recorded. It was concluded from this study that there would be no threat from
shading to the spiraea population. The worst shading would occur in winter, when the
species is dormant, and would only last for two to three hours a day at most. However,
shading elsewhere along the riverbanks could possibly reduce the area that is suitable for
future colonization.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts include direct, secondary and long-term impacts. It is anticipated that there
will be no direct impacts to the Virginia spiraea population if the bridge work is conducted
carefully. A number of secondary impacts may be detrimental to the population, including
changes in water quality and flow regime. It is possible that improvements to the bridge may
allow for increased development in the future; the resulting changes in the watershed could
cumulatively affect the species over time. If development were to increase to such a point that a
wider bridge would be needed on SR 1179 in the future, construction impacts could again
threaten the population.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
NCDOT acknowledges that secondary and cumulative impacts to Virginia spiraea may be
detrimental to the species' habitat. Some of these impacts may only be temporary, while others
could slowly affect the population over a period of several years. With the exception of the
removal of the bridge bent, which may erode land on which a clump of spiraea occurs, most of
the impacts are assumed to be insignificant.
Mitigative Measures Considered
Mitigative measures include attempts to avoid, minimize and compensate for impacts to Virginia.
spiraea as a result of project construction. These measures address both the direct and secondary
impacts associated with construction.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be followed
during the construction phase of the project. To minimize potential impacts, a proposed
stormwater ditch has been re-routed to avoid the area where the spiraea is growing. In addition,
the location of the temporary causeway on the west side of the river has been relocated as far
from the spiraea as possible. Impacts can be further reduced by:
10
l . limiting instream activities,
2. revegetating river banks immediately following the completion of grading,
3. flagging or fencing areas where Virginia spiraea is growing, so equipment operators know to
avoid6ose areas,
4. reducing or eliminating river bank disturbance as much as possible,
5. avoiding impacts to bedrock in the river along the west riverbank,
6. holding a pre-construction meeting so that the contractor knows what must be done to protect
the spiraea, and
7. restoring the bed and banks of the river to their original contours as soon as work is completed.
The USFWS requested that NCDOT study how the removal of the old bridge and the
construction of the new bridge will affect a particular section of the stream bank, where the
spiraea occurs closest to the bridge. Two scenarios were assessed: 1) construct a new bridge at
the existing location, removing the old bridge and supporting bents, and 2) construct a new
bridge at the existing location, removing the old bridge but leaving the bents. It was thought that
one of the bents might be important in protecting the spit of land on which spiraea is growing.
The conclusion was that the removal of the bent may affect the spit. The USFWS has requested
that the bent be removed to restore the river to a more normal flow regime, even though it may
affect the spit.
The USFWS has requested that a penalty shall be placed upon the contractor should any harm
come to the species as a result of contractor error. Shoulder the contractor determine beforehand
that an action of theirs might harm the species, the contractor should alert the resident engineer
who should contact USFWS. The details are included in the Greensheet and shall be a contract
item.
No compensation is proposed by NCDOT.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A review of the project by the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) yielded no need for a
historic architectural survey (see attached letter)
11
C. Archaeology
During the review of the project, the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) indicated the
presence of known archaeological sites and recommended a survey be completed.
NCDOT staff performed a survey in April of 1998 and found no sites eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. NCDOT recommends no further archaeological work and
DCR concurs (see attached letter).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Brian Strong of
DENR Division of Parks & Recreation confirmed that this portion of the New River is not
designated Wild & Scenic. There are no other 4(f) resources in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage
within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
12
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC.2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Ashe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area
of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or
extent of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
All relevant agency comments have been incorporated in the development of this project. The
Project Commitments "Greensheet'summarizes these comments as received to this point.
In a letter dated March 6, 1997 the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) indicates
there are no trout concerns at this location but that it is an excellent fishery for small mouth bass.
Accordingly, he requested that NCDOT implement Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds.
They further requested consideration of a canoe access. In a project located several miles
downstream, NCDOT built a canoe access in conjunction with NCDENR who had previously
purchased a piece of property directly abutting the bridge approach for the purpose of developing
a parking area and launch site. NCWRC contacted NCDENR to determine if that might be
feasible here but because of economic limits and because of environmental constraints onsite
canoe access is not feasible at this location. NCDOT alerted NCWRC of other projects in the
area where they may wish to consider developing an access in conjunction with an NCDOT
project.
13
299
1144. 221 1145 1190
1141 .y 8` - .y i? 11SG 15?1
_s F? IIA? 194 1298 '
1147 lT 1222
1? 5 `. Othello •2 aD 1155
tt ,,11144 114b ' 41146 1 13 479 .0 1199 P447
1147
mi f?;} 466
. , 1ad8 g ?5 '•? • 059
1276 ? ? 1160
MULATTO 14 345 s
272 182 MTN. Ils1 . 1. 1192 1 T159
1145 ,1177 ?• Bethelch. 240 uti ° 1,96 75, ?
482 ?.? 1182 •?
112• 1210 1175
Old Oval
- ? 221 .0 : ?481
.? • • 1179 1384 1181 1201 k 1199
1177 1= .Q 2905 17
,S t1 ,, t ?• ? i3 1181 ??
I te , ; ' •`
3275.
o 417
•''- ,'•? 1176 355
121$ ?`' 11 •? ,
.s . 7
l I 11 ? 1• ?' ? ?.' ' 11$T ??.
Fleetwood 3341 1779 2 11 17$3
.? Uto .? P186
125
, 9 1268
Nom;
'? ? $IUe
1103 10
221 Yates . A tildge 2 4
•? L 116b h'
,, • . V 7. 1157
' Llberty Grove Ch. - 4 1000 1172 1169 1188 ,t;
103 l• •
380Y 156 1
0515 • - •
.? 1101 1149 I a Studied Detour Route
T. s 1100 1171
. z3170 231
• ?. ?.
• 229• i' " • PHILLIPS
?.
171 lift ? AP
NOR
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
\OFTit??
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 113 ON SR 1179
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
B-2905
ne
Figure 0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 27, 2004
Mr. John L. Williams, Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Williams:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for the Replacement of Bridge No. 113 over the
South Fork New River, SR 1179, Ashe County, North Carolina, Federal Aid Project
No. RZ-1179(1), State Project No. 8.2711301, TIP No. B-2905
We have reviewed the biological assessment for the federally threatened Virginia spiraea
(spiraea virginiana) for the subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 113 at its current location. Site surveys conducted
in 1998 identified two occurrences of Virginia spiraea near the bridge. One small clump of
plants is approximately 20 feet from the existing bridge on an alluvial spit of land, and three
other clumps of the plant occur approximately 50 feet downstream of the bridge on a steep bank,
just above the river.
Given the proximity of one of the plant clones to the existing bridge and plans for the new
bridge, we have concerns regarding the ability to construct this project without negative
consequences for this group of plants. After numerous discussions with Division 11 personnel
and PDEA in Raleigh, we believe this project can proceed as currently planned.
Page 5 of the biological assessment lists seven mitigative measures to avoid or reduce impacts to
Virginia spiraea. If all of these measures are strictly adhered to, we concur with your conclusion
of "not likely to adversely affect" for the federally threatened Virginia spiraea for this project.
We believe the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations
under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously

impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
As further precautions, we request that the following commitments be added:
1. To the extent possible, clearing and grubbing, especially along stream banks, should
be limited.
2. Where clearing is necessary, stumps should be retained, where possible, to stabilize
soils and provide some early, native revegetation. Grubbing, where unavoidable,
should occur immediately prior to construction activity to limit the duration and
extent of bare soil.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
8281258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-02-471.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. John Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of
the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands, Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
Looking East Across
Bridge No. 113
Looking West Across
Bridge No. 113
I North Carolina Department of
y ;•, Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 113 on SR 1179
Over South Fork New River
B-2905
Figure Three

??.. RATE o,lba
f r'A I`
y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and Histo
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Direct
June 11, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 113 on SR 1179 over South Fork New
River, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1 179(1), State
Project 8.271 1301, TIP B-2905, ER 97-8355,
ER 98-9143
Dear Mr. Graf:
GEIVEd
6 1998
0F ,
rimisION
Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Dr. Gerold Glover concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two archaeological sites were located within the
project area. Dr. Glover has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources. However, we request that Figure 2 be revised to provide accurate labels
to the site map. Please forward copies of the revised figure to our office.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: /-V. D. Gilmore
T. Padgett
inn r-# L...no QIr_+ne . Rnleioh Nnrth rnrnlinn 776(11-2R07 U_

.. ?a SrNFo

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor.
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 18, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 113 on SR 1 179 over South Fork New
River, Ashe County, B-2905, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1179(1), State Project 8.2711301, ER 97-
8355
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On February 25, 1997, 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.
Archaeological site 31 AH 192 is located one hundred to two hundred meters south
of this project area. We recommend a survey for this area of high probability.
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.
ino r.-, i....... c..-, . D 1 :..1 AL..r1
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above cc:mment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David -Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission KN
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
?.f
Habitat Conservation Program
- '' TA ',,'L.. Lt t_
DATE: March 6, 1997 l 1
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge # 113 over South Fork New River
along SR 1179, Ashe County, TIP #13-2905.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our preliminary comments
regarding the subject project.
David Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recently provided you
with the following comments:
• The South Fork New River supports an excellent smallmouth bass fishery.
• High Quality Waters erosion control measures should be used on this project.
• We prefer an alternative that does not involve relocation of the unnamed tributary that enters
the South Fork New River to the south of the existing bridge.
I have the following additional comments regarding this project:
1) We prefer that the bridge be replaced at its existing location but would not object to
replacing the bridge on new location to the north.
2) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
B-2905
Page 2 March 6, 1997
3) If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the river
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing
other pollutants into the river.
4) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of project completion to provide long-term erosion control.
5) Existing trees and shrubs along the river should be preserved as much as possible to
provide bank stability, shade, and a travel corridor for wildlife.
6) We are interested in increasing recreational access to the river, which is designated as a
national Wild and Scenic River. If feasible, our agency may want to construct a small
boat launch at the bridge, which would allow individuals to easily carry a canoe or other
small boat to the river bank for launching. We request that the NCDOT examine the
feasibility of either leaving a section of the old bridge approach in place for parking (if
the bridge is replaced to the north of the existing bridge) or constructing wide shoulders
to allow for parking near the new bridge (if the bridge is replaced at its existing location).
. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.

Eco StIrl
PROGRAM
Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Thomas:
January 4, 2005
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
D
D
'IN 0 6 2005
V??Erl'VCSA WAFER QUALITY
A dD STORMWATR BRANCH
B-2905, Bridge 113 over South Fork New River on SR 1179, Ashe
County; New River Basin (Cataloging Unit 05050001); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1,210 feet of stream preservation as compensatory mitigation at a 10:1 ratio
for the 121 feet of unavoidable stream impacts of the subject project. The preservation site that
will be debited for this mitigation is:
Little Tablerock Site (Mitchell, McDowell and Avery Counties) 1,210 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated
July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with
Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Hannon at [phone].
Sincerely,
AA
W-ii Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-2905
_. NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
L i
®s stun.
PROGRAM
January 4, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-2905, Bridge 113 over South Fork New River, Ashe County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated December 10, 2004, the impacts are located
in CU 05050001 of the New River Basin in the Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 121 feet (cold)
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the
subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
lliam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. John Thomas, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-2905
?.
ASENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
01-05-'05 08:11 FROM-DENS EEP
4197152001
.,sste
PROGRAM
January 4, 2005
Mr_ John T. Thomas, Jr.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh RegulatoryField Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
1-1tj'l 1,01 u-'31L
B-2905, Bridge 113 over South Fork New River on Sly 1179, Ashe
County; New River Basin (Cataloging Unit 05050001); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem, Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1,210 feet of stream preservation as compensatory mitigation at a 10:1 ratio
for the 121 feet of unavoidable stream impacts of the subject project. The preservation site that
will be debited for this mitigation is:
Little Tablerock Site (Mitchell, McDowell and Avery Counties) 1,210 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated
July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with
Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Hannon at [phone].
Sincerely,
?.' ?4?jLk of
at iam D, Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-2905
A
i\. ': j•. ?.1`,i i i..?.g:.f .?....YJ ./ y ,C....,. t. i:.. ?CW
{'
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, HC 27699-1652 / 9194150416 / www.nceep.net
P. 7
JAN-5-2005 WED 07:40 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
r.
Bridge
Project Scoping Sheet
TIP PROJECT B-2905 DIVISION 11
STATE PROJECT 8.2711301 COUNTY Ashe
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1179(1) ROUTE SR 1179
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 113 on SR 1179 over the South Fork New
River
Will faere be Special Funding Participation by a Municipality, Developers, or Others?
YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 37 METERS; WIDTH 3.4 METERS
STRUCTURE 122 FEET 11 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 30,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 380,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
? NV) SvJa-A ???e?

N
1146 7IS-1

_. ` 1222

Othello.
.2 00
' 11
\? S 1159
1147 ? O

1160
V O
.5
r
2 1181
1192
115
Bethel Ch. 7.0
1 177 1196

1178 1.7 i;: 1182, Q
?
12•S?? 1210 ?

. P , 2 Old Oval
221

2.2 19 y

•

3
v
s
• 3
1 179
1180 S 1181
1201
l 1
0
?
\ ' i 1 177 `'
y
-
> ?
C-) 1232
? a ?
p -' •\
1181
• 3 1 1 1 1\ • p \
1169
> 7
` • q 0
> 1176
, 6 I . tJ? F
1213 11 : S
'S ?'S
0 1181 ' Q
Fleetwood 0 0 , 1179 1168 1183
AN
2 1003 -IZ
S 1106 1216
• 1169 11.8
O ? - •' ?,
1003 126E
1103 r \ _ 4 Blue
221 • ' Yates • tv - Ridge 2
4
6 R.
(2? d ?Ph ?? ` • Idlewild , 1166 h• R?
1003 172 • S ?• g 167 ?l
69 l 1168 !t?
?elton rasa J /
Sturgills 2 ree
A S 9'_ H s \. T
r88 , West Jerre
¦ ` \ Baldwin.
¦ lee
¦
J
pF NOaTN G? North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
p?p Planning & Environmental Branch
OFTHAtySe
Ashe County
Replace Bridge No. 113 on SR 1179
Over South Fork New River
B-2905
Figure One
1

Cam,
32
femoral
BR
NA-
Oft
??- IT
t,c
tH-
2872

,? BP 2631

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, G ove m or
p E H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 26, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental Branch
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality :? L6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated January 21, 1997, in which you requested scoping comments for
five bridge replacement projects. As I was unable to attend the scoping meeting for these projects on
February 25, 1997, I am forwarding these comments to you and the appropriate project engineers in
writing. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following generic
environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ if impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Mr. H. Franklin Vick Memo
February 26, 1997
Page 2
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
H. If foundation test borings will be required, this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
I. If this project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wetland impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)}.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map references are not to be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qualified biologists.
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
Bill Goodwin
John Williams
B2903.DOC
r`
rn
N
a
c0
0_
Z
w
0
?E
(a

C
C
C C m
02 C
p 0
2 O
U
c U
3> y C U
3> c .
3> c
3
O V 3
7 L L m m
O m m m
0 0 0 CD
y
O
N O L
y
O
E
E cx a
Co C_ y rn$
H O c. a
C? C o. 0.

C_
C? n. G.
af

C
c
U
E y
O 'C O
c N
c N
c y
E 3
Z ? Z Z Z -
3 Z 3 (D
3
e
Y Y Y
m

Z

Z
C

C
C

> ¢ ¢ ¢
ir

A O
i R
N
H
U
U
U
3 ? U U)
3

? U

`
d Z N
C O

N d
O
O N
N N
N Lb
N

3 C II
- N
II N
N
II II II
?
A
C
f
6
L y Y
O Y
O Y
O
C
V Q U) m cn
Q

? Y

?
(D

d

R Y
m
U
m Q)
U at
U
Z U E m 3 Y
m m 3 0? c li

o P

m u) co
m
c
3
t

c
0 (D 0 (D (D CD
a 0 °c N ccaa

` H CL
? CL
c CL
¢ 0.
ac cx
aC
a
d a
0
o v n S LO rn
- v v co rn
¢ _
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
J U CO N Cl) cn
d
9
N
v
Z co
m
Z O O V, to

aL
N
N
cC i
cN 04
r?
F m m m m m
_' 1w
?d.ri STA7pq,
, r L
11%, eo!
4*/ , 991
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: PLAN-DESIGN PROJECT, SR 1179, Ashe County,
Replacement of Bridge No. 113 over South Fork New River,
State Project 8.2711301, F. A. Project BRZ-1179(1), B-2905
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on February 25, 1997.
The following people were in attendance:
Betty C. Yancey Right of Way
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
David Cox NCWRC
Theresa Ellerby Program Development
Roger Thomas Roadway Design
Dewayne Sykes Roadway Design
Steve Pearce Structure Design
Sid Autry Location Surveys
Anna Brigman Statewide Planning
Pate Butler Traffic Control
Meredith McDearmid Traffic Control
Lawrence Gettier Traffic Control
Ricky Keith Structure Design
John Williams Planning & Environmental
The following are scoping meeting comments:
Cyndi Bell (who wrote in comments) stated that Pine Swamp Creek is classified
as WSIV+. She also noted that NWI mapping shows wetland fringe throughout the
stream corridor in the project area.
Sid Autry of Location Surveys indicated that utility impacts would be light.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO indicated that there are no architectural structures of
interest in the area and therefore architectural surveys are not recommended. There is a
known archaeological site (31AH192) in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, an
archaeological survey is recommended.
Etc)
111L ''W,
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission indicated that South Fork New
River is a non trout water although Alleghany County is considered Public Mountain
Trout Water. He indicated that these waters are a "significant small mouth bass" fishery.
He recommended High Quality Waters Erosion Control measures and strongly
encouraged avoiding relocation of the intersecting creek to the south of the bridge.
Stephanie Goudreau wrote in the following comments:
1. We prefer that the bridge be replaced at its existing location but would not object to
replacing the bridge on new location to the north.
2. Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
3. If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the river
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing
other pollutants into the river.
4. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of project completion to provide long-term erosion control.
5. Existing trees and shrubs along the river should be preserved as much as possible to
provide bank stability, shade, and a travel corridor for wildlife.
6. We are interested in increasing recreational access to the river, which is designated as
a National Wild and Scenic River. If feasible, our agency may want to construct a
small boat launch at the bridge, which would allow individuals to easily carry a canoe
or other small boat to the river bank for launching. We request that NCDOT examine
the feasibility of either leaving a section of the old bridge approach in place for
parking (if the bridge is replaced to the north of the existing bridge) or constructing
wide shoulders to allow for parking near the new bridge (if the bridge is replaced at
its existing location).
SR 1179 is classified as a rural local route. It carries 200 VPD currently and
projected at 300 VPD in the year 2020. DUALS 2%, TTST 1%, DHV 10%, DIR 60%.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge on either
the existing location or new location down north (downstream) with a bridge. Three
elevations are to evaluated for each alignment. 1) a bridge with approximately. the same
clearance as the existing structure 2) a bridge with approximately. 3' more clearance than
the existing structure 3) a bridge which would pass the ten year flood. There is concern
that raising the bridge significantly would cause a floodway modification.
The new bridge will have one of the following cross sections:
If design speed is less than 50 km/h (30 mph): two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes
0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets
If design speed is equal or greater than 50 km/h (30 mph): two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes
0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets

DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 27 on the existing location with a bridge. Traffic
would be detoured along secondary roads during construction. Three
elevations will be explored: 1) Same as existing clearance 2) 3' more
than existing clearance 3) a bridge which would pass the ten year flood.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 27 on new location to the north with a bridge. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing structure during construction. Three
elevations will be explored: 1) Same as existing clearance 2) 3' more
than existing clearance 3) a bridge which would pass the ten year flood.
This project is to be evaluated using the plan-design process. According to the
schedule, Location Surveys is to have topos to Roadway Design by August 1997.
Roadway Design is to provide preliminary plan sheets and costs estimates by
November 1997. Planning & Environmental is to provide Roadway Design with a
recommendation by August 1998 and complete the Categorical Exclusion document
by December 1998.