19950100 Ver 1_Complete File_19951130

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas, Permit Coordinator
Raleigh Office, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
?a
U
DATE: November 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Review of a revised application by NCDOT to fill 0.88 acre of wetlands along
Bledsoe Creek in conjunction with construction of the Sparta Western Loop,
Alleghany County, TIP #R-3117.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a letter of
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404
permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Biological staff of the NCWRC previously
commented on the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for this
project in memoranda to Ms. Melba McGee of the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of
1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U. S. C. 661-667d).
In response to concerns raised by resource agencies, the NCDOT revised project plans by
lowering the grade of the project in order to reduce wetland impacts from 0.99 acre to 0.88 acre.
In addition, the NCDOT proposes the following mitigation measures to compensate for impacts
to wetlands and Bledsoe Creek:
1) Wetland Parcel No. 1 - The NCDOT has obtained an option on this site, which Dr. Dennis
Herman ranked as the highest quality wetland in the project area. This site contains
Gray's lily Lilium grayi, a state threatened species. This site will not be directly impacted
by the road project. The entire site is 4.38 acres in size, including 1.3 acres of wetlands.
The NCDOT will examine the feasibility of blocking old ditches on this property.
RECEIVED
NOV 1 71995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
TIP #R-3117 Page 2 November 14, 1995
2) Wetland Parcel No. 2 - The NCDOT also has obtained an option on the second ranked
site, which will be divided by the road project. The entire site is 0.72 acres, with 0.57 aces
of wetlands. Approximately 0.33 acres of wetlands will remain following construction.
Ditches will be constructed at the edge of the roadway to convey runoff during storm
events; however, these ditches have been designed to avoid draining adjacent wetlands.
3) Wetland Parcel No. 3 - The NCDOT has also obtained an option for the fourth ranked
site, a 5.61-acre parcel containing 1.4 acres of wetlands. The wetlands will not be directly
affected by the road project. The NCDOT will evaluate the feasibility of filling old
drainage ditches at this site. The property owner will have an easement to allow cattle
access to Bledsoe Creek. This easement will be 20 feet wide and will be fenced along the
property line to prevent cattle from entering the rest of the parcel.
4) Bledsoe Creek Buffer Areas - The NCDOT has also identified four parcels of land
adjacent to Bledsoe Creek that were purchased during right of way acquisition. Although
these parcels do not contain wetlands, they will be protected as a buffer for the stream.
Biological staff of the NCWRC commend the NCDOT for minimizing wetland impacts
and for developing this mitigation plan. This proposal will preserve a total of 16.16 acres of
wildlife habitat along Bledsoe Creek (Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water), including approximately 2.94 acres of wetlands. We appreciate efforts made by the
NCDOT to make this project more acceptable to resource agencies.
We have no objection to the issuance of this permit application with the above mitigation
measures, provided the following conditions are included:
1) The access site for cattle should be constructed so that cattle cannot walk up and down
the stream; instead, access should be limited to the watering site. The land owner or the
NCDOT may want to contact the National Resources Conservation Service for
information on constructing an access site for cattle.
2) Buffer areas along Bledsoe Creek should be planted with woody vegetation where none
exists to provide shade to the stream and bank stability. We suggest that two rows of
willows be planted along the toe of the bank on 2.5-foot centers and sycamores or river
birch be planted along the top of the bank on 10-foot centers.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT
Ms. Stephanie Briggs, NCDOT ; ?t-tiY4
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Eric Galamb, DEM
RECEIVED
NOV 1 71995
ENVIRONMENTAL 80 C%Fs
. 1 ,r

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 1, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Alleghany County, TIP No. R-3117, State Project No. 9.8112515,
Proposed Sparta Western Loop, from SR 1172 to US 21 North.
As you are aware, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to constfuct the Sparta Western Loop, a 2-lane facility on new location, from
SR 1172 to US 21 north of Sparta. The NCDOT applied for permit authorization for this
project on January 31, 1995. This cover letter in this application included extensive
information on the wetland impacts of the project and a copy of this letter is attached. A
great deal of coordination has taken place since the submittal of the application.
The State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for this
project was approved by the NCDOT in September 1994. The document was then
distributed through the State Clearinghouse for comments. The agencies that commented
through the State Clearinghouse felt that the NCDOT did not adequately address viable
alternatives, including wetland avoidance alternatives. Consequently, the NCDOT
submitted additional information to the Clearinghouse on )March 20, 1995 which
addressed these concerns. The Clearinghouse notified the NCDOT on April 12, 1995 that
no further review was needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act.
As part of this coordination, the NCDOT has lowered the grade of the project in
order to further minimize wetland impacts. Consequently, the total wetland impact was
reduced from 0.99 acres to 0.88 acres. The permit drawings have been revised to show

A .,
pipes and culverts along the project as well as the wetland impacts. A revised permit
application and permit drawings are enclosed. The impact sites have been re-numbered to
include the culverts and pipes.
The NCDOT has investigated mitigation opportunities along the subject project in
accordance with agency comments. A great deal of emphasis was given to the
recommendations of Dr. Dennis Herman. Dr. Herman submitted a report to the NCDOT
on July 10, 1995 which evaluated the general habitat quality of the wetlands in the project
area and the potential of those wetlands to support the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenberaii).
The report also identified a rare plant, Gray's lily (Lilium grai), in the project area. The
report discussed 12 sites, and concluded that only four sites had high potential as
mitigation sites. Acquisition of the third ranked site was found to be infeasible. The
NCDOT has pursued the acquisition of the three other sites.
The NCDOT has obtained an option on the two best sites identified by Dr.
Herman's analysis. These sites are currently owned by Alleghany County. The highest
ranked site is the only location where the Gray's lily was identified. This wetland area will
not be directly impacted by the road project, and consequently the population of Gray's
lily will be preserved in place. The NCDOT will evaluate the feasibility of blocking old
drainage ditches on this property. This site consists of about 1.3 acres of wetlands. The
site is contained in Wetland Parcel No. 1 depicted in the attached Figure 1. This parcel is
4.38 acres in size, and also contains one of the remnants of the second ranked site.
The second highest ranked site will be divided by the road project, and is identified
as Site 9 in the permit drawings. Lateral v-ditches will be constructed at the edge of the
roadway fill to convey roadway runoff during storm events. However, these ditches have
been designed to avoid draining the adjacent wetland remnants. Consequently, it is
expected that the remnants will retain wetland status as shown on Sheet 6. The existing
site consists of 0.57 acres, of which 0.33 acres will remain. The second remnant of the
site has also been secured by option as part of Wetland Parcel No. 2 in Figure 1. This
parcel includes 0.72 acres.
The fourth ranked site is privately owned, and occurs across Bledsoe Creek from
the project. An option has been obtained for a 5.61 acre parcel which contains the site.
This wetland site is about 1.4 acres in size, and will not be directly affected by the road
project. The NCDOT will also evaluate the possibility of filling old drainage ditches at
this site. This site is included in Wetland Parcel No. 3 in Figure 1. The NCDOT granted
the property owner an Easement for Access to provide a means of access to water for
cattle from the remainder of their land to Bledsoe Creek. This easement will be 20 feet
wide, and will be fenced along with the property line to prevent cattle from straying onto
the remainder of Wetland Parcel No. 3.
In addition, the NCDOT has identified four parcels of land adjacent to Bledsoe
Creek which were purchased during the right of way acquisition for the project. These
parcels are also shown in Figure 1. Although these parcels do not contain wetlands, they
will be protected as a buffer for Bledsoe Creek. It is the NCDOT's intention that all of the
protected parcels of land will remain in NCDOT right of way unless a suitable agent is
found to receive title and management responsibilities who will ensure their long-term
preservation. This will preserve 16.16 acres of habitat along Bledsoe Creek, including
about 2.94 acres of wetlands.
A revised permit application for the project is enclosed. The NCDOT hereby
requests that you continue to review this project for authorization under the Clean Water
Act. Copies of this letter have been sent to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and
the N.C. Division of Environmental Management for their review. If you have any
questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin at (919)
733-3141, Extension 315.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. N. L. Graf, FHWA, attn: Mr. Roy Shelton
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer

. 01 1 F.. 0 NI FOR,
ationwide pelmaits that rC:qtll.re nod'I.lcatiou to the ":orps of En0jIleers
Nationwide permits that r equlr. e application for Section =COI cer tit.lcation
, Il_' tIl`CTCN DISTRICT ENGINEER
C'.'" Us OF NGITI\rEERS
:!::'_iil?lOll, tiL 2.84102- IS90
DI`-iS.O\ OF L-_Yi%I:R.Oi`1ti :?i I'AL yIA?iAGr\fEti
NC 'DEP:.1^v(E?y vTF:.ON'LEN"I,
?._ : 1D .`/ .•?. _ ,1.1? Rj:S (.J T.i R LrS
\i'. 27625-05
\i C'i "'iIIIS COiv1i?LETED ;1I'DLiC ?'.ilOi? ?IiOt)LD 13i? SENT?'O':I' CORPS Or L_NG:vI,EZ
'i : "T' COPIE's SHOULD BF_- SENT TO OF ` vIP?OIr'?tF`IT i \T_? ?. r? S
Ncrth Carolina Department of Transportation
P. ox
);vre:s Address: _Ra1pigh, Tr __27_6 U
;;`a 7i : l'.cl)c \ulnbcr (Hom.c): [phone]
. piicabic: Agent's aaluc or respousiblc cor,;LraLe on--c--'_ai, addre:;s, i)horic ouIp.be-r:
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
%?_..;? _. ';vor. ?,fUST r? t aCu';Lap, C ur!ty: alleghany
rest ...vn or ?'. Sparta
From US 21 to SR-1172.
atnc Of Closest Si-ra_rn/Rivc;: Bledsoe Creek
;aver 3;L5in: Little River -
:s :i).:, 770'C:-_- ted in a w'atclshed class ficn is Trout, ,. ? H07Y ORW, WS L or WS Ell? 7C HS 'Hc X
L T t !
::Ui f P;-= is b=n p:?.'vlo'usl;y ic.7::::ste" :i)rUse on ihis ?)ILDCii?'? v'ES r 1 i; j
?. .
Ell_lIIli;er of acres of ,:alc: s of :?iC 1J.5., :IlCillCilil ;C
Q LlaI1d.S, IGc::liGd On 7rolC::t 51f::: Q.?AC
\t r o::Icres cf `,Vatc:?; of the U.S., incIL'():,n5 ?•VC il?^'" i'I1p:1Ct.^:.' ov !flc proposed pro'
C....
Filled: 0.88AC
Drained: None
1= i &C'if, None
I:-ica,,'aNone
0.68AC
. _.. , ;-., .? .:ir,i ? i? prc,?.;s;_:i ,;?:,1.. ?..tu:::h l'I-.... ,:?- 1.'_" :?:. l li.,.•.: iii{:s .,,.'?' --?-------_. N/A . -- _._---
I3. 1'ui pose of proposed work: Public Transportation
4. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
1o!:-_n to rl;iniinize wetland impacts. This is the most practicable roadway alternative per
planning-document. Fill slopes of 2:1 were used to minimize fill.
15. You are requu-ed to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
?i ; ?tI S) rcttarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposcd for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
h""bitat in the permit area that may be affected by the prop-osed project. Have you done so`? YES [ ?] NATO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NM FS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Hare you done so? YES [?] NO [ ]
P.ESPONSE FROivi THE S11PO SHOULD BE FORWARDED 'FO CORi'S.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wedand delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
li. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. W hat is land use of surrounding property? Residential and Commercial/Industrial
F'. if applicable, ,!hat is proposed method of sewage dispc.)sal`? N/A
Owner's Signature
/o .?d 9s
Date
- -1-4_
1? 1 .? ? ..i1\1 1 1 Ivi v rr
? ? r 711?? V•?1 1
C?^ (? - - - U! l ?o v® Y N.
il > / ??_ ' V S ??? t ?? -tom •?`, U Lh OI?O
S(ITO--- _fl-. _j F-w '
Iwo
LLJ
O O =c awN
-'`nw a
It j Q)
LLJV) W
o o
U rn U O . ??
??1, ,, N Q z M ? ,
/
'LmN c? 1 ?y + CO
0<0
s- o-
< ' ? O
-j CL. V) co
Lr)
Ln co
33. m _ Q h

Q

r
F
M
O w

I
°

x
z
?

.. a

z

w
`?
x
I z U 2 Q o
v )

I w
° z
O x
C7
U
a'
O

Q ,-?
*?
° .-
cn O
I CO' CL4
z w

I u ? TV
30d
(n
Ln Ov
cc
+ ,.
a ?A °' ? o rD
05(D M
l? Q m z
< C, 03 V
(1)N / Z O C) L
/ -! Ul o \
?l ?q a
------ -------
i o- 331E -? -,C- -_---- ------ ---
?` OR. -
kC)
c3lb
Z, "3

1//

N
N
a
v

N
N
t^ Q
U

I
Lc)
Ln
°
a

1 L
m =
F
Imo-
,
I 1=
LLJ
'{ m o
a
1
I U
I
N
/ q

\ .

W
`
I iLn I
\
C ? ?
O .
N

I co

M / .?

/ co
I
o a I N
I L
!.MATCH LINE
0
N
W
a
U
Az
a m
rE? ? F
R o ?
z px
? ax
z zzz
A A O
\Xll
I I O
A
lij b I I ?? H M S
I I o. x ., z
I I z ? v wAO
? I x ?, zz
? I I w w? a o ??? ??
I I a? ?? a H
I I v Q a ?' o ?
I w z w
I
I
? I iw
I I
x3- I I
? I w
I w
I ? I I
x I w ?w
I U I
?' I I
x? I I w
I I
I I
I ? W
a o
I I .., R
?. I I a ? x
I I o o z
?I I A A O
? I
I
Q'i
I
T
s cv I ! v?l Q7_- \ O
•Y'
c A
W OjlMl cr- O z W
Ld C)
v H
I p :" rri ?C) 'P 1 cn U' O 'J r ?r
cr_- In IS
h
n ! U I / l ' _ = ?j• V W Y r ?1 Cl)
t. i ! N`n O z Ca Ny
u` W `?' 3 - O O O C7 ti
a a
?• ``? _ 1 a
40,
-0 In
i i rr U i t G ,, J ,,, ,
C-i
?D lD v ti r ,FS \ ?. 1 r CO
LAJ -:1
ASP
dC. I?? inn - -
?, .? `nom. t??`" ?, ` bb Z9-Lb-ft, ols oocy -/1
PPE
IGO
cSr ?'j?
>O?
a N ?s,6`S g ?s 0Y
/ J \
oc, -CPO
_ o S:' Chi ya C
b I
f
I
- _ - X
1
A
rn
Ln W
ccn
?AI
+ I
I
I
? I
LL.?
I
I?
U?
0
w
H

I
i
c)
m I
U
Q: I
CO
x I
o I
I
cy') I
I
- r
oSP?jA
(colt
?•
II
I?
1
J ?
H ?
CD
0

I
I
I
1
1
I
Ju-
I
I
I
U
I
1
Q
W
w F
?c
a
a ax
a
d ?x
w w ?,
0 0 z
a A o
i
NI
t
i
?I
i
i
i
I
i
i
W
b
N
N
z
o

E-
0

z
.?
H

a

o

o

?

z

U

a

U

i

a

?

W

?

o

?

A
z

?

x

H
o
z

h

I

A
U
z
a
A ).J 0
P
a

`?'

?'

cWa

\ r.
? T

• w
H
\ cn

I a
?
Ld
LLJ cs?
°?
++
w
I co -.Y,'
0O
o a R
?? A ' 'n s ° % p x
I Lr)? a a
I
I z z 0
A A O
I
I L O
n co
v
I ' + \
? k
I
(CD
P-4'
'x
i
IM
X
X
X
s?
I I I I

/ z
o
o
a
z

H

H

e
x

x

o

°

z

z

w

?

?
z

H w
>
?

A

0-4

x

o

AA
C-4
x
o
F

O
A
U A a ?
a4 _ ?
44 W
?w
/ I
/ I
ri , I

Q

0
,?3
O
kn
Q
U
A
F7 q 7'
C7
;x
H F
zz zA
a 41
0
04
r
-75
?c?) V? 05 49 I 30J P c?, 4
co _
M z v x
?M O?
x ?z.F
M Oo '??b -6 a, ?D
CDO
° z U c
to q a a E-
46 z
Lr)
.,/¢?; Imo, cn
l
?1T -30
U
v
co j r _
/v + m Y,?,!vCp OD ! I Ln V)
LL-
MATCH LINE `vC)
o
71
OWN
U) a:
c I O I Zzd
?. _ co
?? p I ~ ? V QO? I
cl?
W I ?` 1 U Q v) w I
CC U < F-
I r - ?
J
UE:
O w
V Ml z ?' r`? /
CO CO
LLJ
?? I r _ '
LL-
?o N I 1
I `
w I 1
?
+ O N
?v ? I I
U
H
J?
t` ?
L
Z x
o
z
x U .??
?
C- : A

z o

z
N o z H
w

° °
0

z
x
Cf)
rl-
Co (Y) LO LO LO
cl: co
U N ? co
N co N co co

C) v t2
-

cz
W W j (n
W Z U) Z (n Z U) N
U
CL z? Q LO w r Q
? O CD O CO O co U

0..

W U) c

2 _

c'
C) ca

LO N
LU ? O O O O O O O O
L
O
O
a
D
O
Z

Cn
N C\j
(
0
co N ? ? ~
. CD (D Co
N
? Z
? U
Z co
CO U

z U

Z U

Z U

Z
O cv m c? cu (73

C)
C) CD
? ?N
x O o
0 ?T
Q O N
0 U? Ui? U
n_? cL
m x
? x x
? }. x }- x >- x
Z? Q- cn Qm m Qm Qm Qm

Q cc: U) cC ? cC w ?i ? o w a: W M W M
Q Q Q ? O 2 J J J
Q Q m W Q Q Q.

U Co
O
O
O
N

N
O
W

Q ?

W J
<
F_- N to CO I-- ? r N O
C
O
L
a

0
v
a+
V
U
v
s.
d
L.s_.
K
d
d
3
u
, a' 2
3
C C
¢ n
t a
V
-9
J !
? qx
6 d
U W
cr)
0
J
m a
3 ?-

' \
V M

a

?
a.. 1
:
? 2
° u
S -?
L. ?. O 14
L
a v
V w `-
a Q-
N_ s

2
?
a ?4 3 . F

JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
January 31, 1995
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
WArnington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SL713JECT: AlleQlianv County, TIP No. R=3117, State Project No. 9.8112515,
Proposed Sparta Western Loop, from SR 1172 to LS 21 North.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the
Sparta NVestem Loop, a 2-Lane facility on new location, from SR 1172 to US 21 north of
Sparta. The project is located in Ueghany County, and is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9
Ian) in length. The environmental impacts of this project were studied in a State
Environmental Assessment - Finding of No Significant Impact document which was
approved September 30, 1994.
The proposed project is intended to provide improved access to proposed industrial areas
south of town and reduce traffic volumes on segments of US 21 and NC 13 in do%vntown
Sparta. The project consists of a two-lane roadway partially on new location. Three lanes
mill be constructed at the intersections with LS 21, NC 18, and SR 1172 to allow for left-
turning traffic. Kemp Street will be realigned to connect to the proposed roadway.
The proposed project generally parallels Bledsoe Creek and crosses die stream twice. This
creek has a water quality classification of C-Trout. However, the stream has been
degraded by sedimentation as a result of development, and the trout present are primarily
stocked. The project also impacts eight jurisdictional wetland sites. The general location of
these sites is depicted on Sheet 1 of 8. The total wetlands impacted by the project is 0.99
acres, with none of the impact sites exceeding 0.33 acres. A description of these impacts
is given below.

t
_ Site 1: This site is located in a meadow appro.Yimateiv 200 ft north of Cranford Road.
This site is dominated by herbaceous vegetation including ironweed Verona
noveboraeensis), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), milkweed (Asclepias incamata
ulehra , Queen Anne's Lace aucus carota), soft needle-rush (Juncus effusussedge
(Caret sp.), black-eyed Susan ubeckia hirta) and tall fescue (Festuca sp.). This site has
a DEM wetland rating of 43.75, according to NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.03 acres of
this site are affected by the project.
Site 2: This site consists of a roadside drainage 10 feet south of Cranford Road, near the
crossing of Cranford Road over Bledsoe Creek. This site is dominated by red maple (Acct
rubrum), touch-me-not (Impatiens sp.), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidos), sedge
(Caret sp.), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum).?and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
This site received a DEZI wetland rating of 52.25 by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.01
acres of wetland will be impacted at this site. .
Site 3: This site consists of a depressional wetland dominated by scrub.'shrub vegetation
including black «illow (Salle nigra), knotweed (Polvgonum sp.), tearthumb (Polvgonum
sagittatum) and multiflora rose. This site received a DEM wetland rating of 25.0 by
NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.07 acres of wetland %Nill be impacted at this site.
Site 4: This site consists of a drainage area just west of Kemp Street at the end of Combs
Street. It is dominated by emergent vegetation including leather-flower (Clematis sp.),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), ironweed, soft-needle rush. wool grass (Scimus cvoerinus),
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and sedge. This site received a DEM wetland rating of
20.75 by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.07 acres of wetlands will be impacted at this site.
Site 5: This site consists of a bog-like area located appro.unately 500 feet cast of NTC 18
surrounded by pasture. The site is dominated by emergent vegetation including tag alder
(Alnus serrulata , silky dogwood (Corpus ammonium), duck-potato (Sagittaria sp.) cardinal
flower, knotweed, tearthumb, multiflora rose, touch-me-not, soft-needle rush and sedge.
This site received a DENA wetland rating of 70.25 by \CDOT biologists. A total of 0.20 .
acres of wetlands will be impacted at this site.
Site 6: This site is located in a pasture 300 feet north of Grandview Drive and 100 feet
west of Bledsoe Creek. The site consists of an emergent wetland dominated by soft-needle
rush, sedge, and a variety of graminoides. This site received a DEM wetland rating of 30.0
by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.15 acres of wetlands will be impacted at this site.
Sites 7 and 8: These sites are located close together approximately 300 feet north of
Grandview Drive and 100 feet north of Bledsoe Creek They are part of the same pasture
as Site 6. They consist of emergent wetlands dominated by soft-needle rush, spike-rush
(Ecocharis obtusa), sedges Carey lurida and C. stricta), skunk cabbage, duck-potato and
goldenrod. This site received a DEM wetland rating of 25.75 by NCDOT biologists. A
total of 0.08 acres will be impacted at Site 7 and 0.33 acres at Site 8.

3
It is anticipated that this project can be authorized under Department of the Army
?Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and NationMde Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26?.
Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, we are aware that the concurrence of
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission is required. A copy of this information has been
provided to the Commission for their review. A copy of this information has also been
provided to the N.C. Division of Environmental Management for their review. If you have
any questions or need any additional information, please contact L In Gordon Cashin at
[phone].
Sincerely,
J.
O?
Assistant Z-Ianaaer,
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC
Attachments
CC: 'NIs. Stephanie Goudreau, NCVVRC, Marion
'.%,ir. David Cos, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mir. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
iVir. John Dorney, NCEHI-NrR, DEIvI
ldr. N. L. Graf, FHWA, attn: Mr. Roy Shelton
ivir. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
.Mr. Don :Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
lair. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
I%Ir. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 30, 1995
Alleghany County
DEM Project 4195100
TIP No. R-3117
State Project # 9.8112515
COE # 199401753
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITION ? `i
Mr. Franklin Vick w rJ
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.88 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of
constructing the proposed Sparta Western Loop From SR 1172 to US 21 N, as you described in your application
dated 1 November 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 2733. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14
when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. The mitigation as described in your 1
November 1995 letter shall be completed. In addition, 1) the access site for cattle shall be constructed so that
cattle cannot walk up and down the stream channel and 2) stream banks shall be planted with woody vegetation.
Two rows of willows shall be planted along the toe of the bank on 2.5 foot centers with sycamore and river
birch planted along the top of the bank on 10 centers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding
unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sin el
esto , Jr. P. .
DD?
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Stephanie Briggs; DOT
Stephanie Goudreau; WRC 95100.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmativ© Action Employor 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumor papor
late of North Carolina
uepartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Managemer
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 N of pages ?

December 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swih rt
From: Eric GalameC
Subject: EA for Sparta Lstern Loop from SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County
State Project DOT No. 9.8112515, TIP #R-3117
EHNR # 95-0253, DEM WQ # 10769
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project as
proposed would impact up to 0.59 hectares of wetlands.
Alternatives to avoid the mountain bogs are not presented in the document. DEM requests
that the FONSI present these alternatives. DEM does not concur with the preferred
alternative until DOT has surveyed and failed to locate Bog Turtles.
In the December 16, 1993 interagency meeting, the COE stated that Bledsoe Creek is below
headwaters and therefore will require an Individual Permit and Certification. DOT should
develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. - The mitigation plan should be submitted to
DEM for review and comment. DEM requests that Mr. Dennis Herman with Zoo Atlanta be
contacted to locate and preserve high quality mountain bogs in Alleghany County. In addition,
DEM requests that DOT investigate restoration/enhancement/creation options. One possible
location would be between wetland site 1 and 2 on the north side of the road. In addition,
mitigation options to improve Bledsoe Creek such as planting of strearnside buffers and
"dechannelization" should be investigated.
Any stream relocations/channelization should be completed using DOT's guidance document.
DOT should revegetate along stream relocations/channelization associated with this project.
DOT is requested to explain the design and functions of the equalizer pipes (page 26).
Please be advised that this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
spartalp.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pcpe!
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 10, 1995
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certification
Proposed Sparta Western Loop, from SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County
DEM # 95100, TIP # R-3117
3 J
On 31 January 1995 you wrote to the Division of Environmental Management requesting a
401 Water Quality Certification for your project to fill wetlands for construction of the Sparta Western
Loop State Project # 9.8112515 in Alleghany County. We have been informed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that this project will require a Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. We cannot continue to process your application until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
begins the permitting process. Therefore I must hereby place this project on indefinite hold until you
and the Corps gather the necessary information to develop an acceptable individual permit application.
In the meantime, DEM will review the project to accelerate our approval process. As discussed in our
5 December 1994 letter as well as the 26 April 1994 letter from the Corps, mitigation will be required
for this project. We believe that ample opportunities exist in the immediate area for this purpose and
will be glad to work with you to this end.
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss the
matter.
4eSSin erel y,
R. Dorney
r Quality Certification Program
95100.rev
cc: Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Office
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

r?J 1, u J ? -
,c

il:II SEt,I'Su :lJ lii.??

NNa:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTADON
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1995
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, ITC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Alleghany County, TIP No. R-3117. State Project No. 9.8112515,
Proposed Sparta Western Loop, from SR 1172 to US 21 'North.
Dear Sir:
g51oo
The 'North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the
Sparta NVestern Loop, a 2-lane facility on new location, from SR 1172 to US 21 north of
Sparta. The project is located in Alleghany County, and is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9
km) in length. The environmental impacts of this project were studied in a State
Environrnental Assessment - Findin; of No Si-a.ni.ficant Impact document which Nvas
approved September 30, 1994.
The proposed project is intended to provide inlproved access to proposed industrial areas
south of town and reduce traffic volumes on segments of US 21 and NC 13 in downtown
Sparta. The project consists of a two-lane roadway partially on new location. Three lanes
«:ll be constructed at the intersections with US 21, NC 18, and SR 1172 to allow for left-
turning traffic. Kemp Street will be realigned to connect to the proposed roadway.
The proposed project generally parallels Bledsoe Creek and crosses the stream twice. This
creek has a water quality classification of C-Trout. However, the stream has been
degraded by sedimentation as a result of development, and the trout present are primarily
stocked. The project also impacts eight jurisdictional wetland sites. The general location of
these sites is depicted on Sheet 1 of 8. The total wetlands impacted by the project is 0.99
acres, with none of the impact sites exceeding 0.33 acres. A description of these impacts
is given below.

Site 1: This site is located in a meadow approximately 200 ft north of Cranford Road.
This site is dominated by herbaceous vegetation including ironweed (Verona
noveboracensis), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), milkweed (Asclepias incamata
ulp ehra), Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), soft needle-rush (Juncos effisus), sedge
(Carex sp.), black-eyed Susan (Rubeckia hirta) and tall fescue (Festuca sp.). This site has
a DEM wetland rating of 43.75, according to NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.08 acres of
this site are affected by the project.
Site 2: This site consists of a roadside drainage 10 feet south of Cranford Road, near the
crossing of Cranford Road over Bledsoe Creek. This site is dominated by red maple (Acer
rubrum), touch-me-not (Impatiens sp.), skunk cabbage (Svmplocarpus foetidos), sedge
(Cares sp.), Joe-pye-weed (Eulatorium maculatum), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
This site received a DENI wetland rating of 52.25 by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.01
acres of wetland will be impacted at this site.
Site 3: This site consists of a depressional wetland dominated by scrubishrub vegetation
including black willow (Salix WRra), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), tearthumb (Polvgonum
saQittatum) and multiflora rose. This site received a DENA wetland rating of 25.0 by
NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.07 acres of wetland will be impacted at this site.
Site 4: This site consists of a drainage area just west of Kemp Street at the end of Combs
Street. It is dominated by emergent vegetation including leather-flower (Clematis sp.),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), ironweed, soft-needle rush, wool grass (Sci us evnerinus),
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and sedge. This site received a DENM wetland rating of
20.75 by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.07 acres of wetlands will be impacted at this site.
Site 5: This site consists of a bog-like area located approximately 500 feet east of NC 18
surrounded by pasture. The site is dominated by emergent vegetation including tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), silly dogwood (Corpus ammonium), duck-potato (Sa2ittaria sp.) cardinal
flower, knotweed, tearthumb, multiflora rose, touch-me-not, soft-needle rush and sedge.
This site received a DEM wetland rating of 70.25 by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.20
acres of wetlands gill be impacted at this site.
Site 6: This site is located in a pasture 800 feet north of Grandview Drive and 100 feet
west of Bledsoe Creek. The site consists of an emergent wetland dominated by soft-needle
rush, sedge, and a variety of graminoides. This site received a DEM wetland rating of 30.0
by NCDOT biologists. A total of 0.15 acres of wetlands will be impacted at this site.
Sites 7 and 8: These sites are located close together approximately 300 feet north of
Grandview Drive and 100 feet north of Bledsoe Creek. They are part of the same pasture
as Site 6. They consist of emergent wetlands dominated by soft-needle rush, spike-rush
(Eeocharis obtusa), sedges (Cares lurida and C. stricta), skunk cabbage, duck-potato and
goldenrod. This site received a DEM wetland rating of 25.75 by NCDOT biologists. A
total of 0.08 acres will be impacted at Site 7 and 0.33 acres at Site 8.
It is anticipated that this project can be authorized under Department of the Army
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26).
Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, we are aware that the concurrence of
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission is required. A copy of this information has been
provided to the Commission for their review. A copy of this information has also been
provided to the N.C. Division of Environmental Management for their review. If you have
any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin at
[phone].
Sincerely,
B:.J_ O?uinn._P?
Assistant Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
GEC
Attachments
CC: 'IMs. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, IMarion
Xfr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
'Ir. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEti1
IN/Ir. N. L. Graf, FHWA, attn: Mr. Roy Shelton
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
N,-Ir. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
i1lr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Ir. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer

NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP 7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
-per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
N'NVP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
'Jse of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
;oncurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
urthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
3. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6. NWP 12, NWP 15, NW 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWT 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWT 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued genera certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
'4-WP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
,die following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
ss than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
.rabic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-thud acre fill of waters or
:.c.tlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Bor. 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: Ni r nPnartment nf_ Transrnrtati nn - ni yi si nn of Hi gays P .O. Box 25201
2. Owners Address:Attn: B.J. O'Quinn, PE, Planning and Environmental Branch Raleigh, NC 25201
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): N't (Work): [phone]
1. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
N/A
. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Alleghany
--crest Town or City: Sparta
i:ecific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Prnnnsed Sparta ll .s n noR, from SR 1172
to US 21 North
Name of Closest Stream/River. Bledsoe Creek
River Basin: Ncj-i Rivor
Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS 11? YES $A NO [ ]
Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO 94
1f yes, explain.
'. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: N, A
Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: SPP P1 Pn ShPPts
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: n 0.99. at 8 sites
O
H G C O
O
E-
r
r-4 E-4
ci E.,
E?-I o z O a P4 ?
C, c7 ?, .?, cAl
O C7 U 'L' N O
01-14 .4
Q uo
a a
\ a a
I III I i [ o \ d
1 _ 1 J '.y
a ?o co.
i
i c?

N
N
a
cr

N
N
a
i
?a
U
I<
II
I?
N I
w I
H I
? \
° a _ o
a ,- ? A o
w
x
C3' (?3
C3 ? F z z
?. F O c 9
C7
z x
F U H 4 o
y; o ??H NI
A a c H
_ o x
y

` `•
\ Op
?
?
p

00

>.

N

LLJ

i I
0
xn
W
W
U
cn
a
z
F W
c
R o ?
z
"' C7 w
U W ?
oz
w w
a a O
b
0
m
x

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U

m
w
U)
O ?
vii Cx7 O ,r, '`?
z x ?zz
E-+ w O z cq U ?; v
? Q, ??? cal
ozxF
o v ??o 0
w c94a ?
U O a ti W
W
W z ? chi)
' W
I I
W
i
N
Iw 04
i d
I u
Iw
I I
Iw
I
I W
I I
IW
I ?
I z
I w
I W a a i
I w z o x
c?
I a a x
I o cz
I A a o
I
i
X 1 /
X / I
I f l 1
?- - % Nr

boof uz w
S

I

?,
i I I
I w
`n
-c.
I I I 1 \
I I I
I
I
I I
I I`'
I
I
I I I
85T I BCD
0
it
I?
I1I?
U
110

-V fj
N
Ln
B?T
/
. I
v
I
1
I I
11
i
,I
0
0
J
? J
J
I Q ^ry?Q
co
IIII,
I Z Y
m
/, I J
Py??
i
) 10
z
W
o

? > z M a ?
x

z 0 0 z A o

o CO w ,., GV
C,

o u
w
> l o
A A
04 ? ? v
?a
Z w x

I
I ?
I
0
W
a
U
A
z
W ? F
q x
j a x
x w ?
o z
A A p
00<
00<
00<
00<
y
I H
b I I ? ?, ?? o a
o ???rr rrz?? ? w Lx,
I cn C7 O A O
?x zz
(?3 F 0 ? ? FAO O
' - I (C3 Q o ..? o
I \ C3(
? I
/• \ U
? I
? LO \-
w
I ?- I
I I
I I
?- I 1 A
I 1 ? ?
CD I I w ??
I I yy? ?g
a A p
? I?
r. ?
I I ??
I I z za
U' ?1 U A A p
\ I
1

b

C\j
CO

il
-il 1

1
IN

` 1
\

LL. ?I
I
V
O
0-4
r
z o v ?Ao
x .? w
U A ? R. P4 e, W
ca
z ? x
0
U
a ?
F ?
z a x
CO
o
F
?
o z
°
a c ?

LLJ
I
I
? W

W

\ I
LL
z
I M O
?

0 o z > ?
?
z z
F o

O z
w
O C7 U 4' O

?
V °
v a w

a ?

-Ci3

(?8
0
t
w
a
U
zA
a W
O ?
? b x
c?
d a x
w (q c
H
z za
a a o
iz
O w

0 z a~N
z O
" -a ? Q O
?w Ln ?:l,zz
H o c+ ?)
o z x N ?-
U ?. O
a o

U a+ "' ? Ca ?
z ? ?I
rl-
U) co N CO N cN0 ? ? ? ti

U
? IL Z MQ? Q ? w T Q
UNC?TU ? U CD U
N
M CD Q mow
M
Cp
cp
n
n
L?

EL U) a: x
00 xz X0

c
? y U -
X

U
c
?}U.

0

W
W
Cc:

i _

?

W
U
co
LO
N c0
co co
co (D
co C\j c0
N
Z
? Z U
Z ?
00 U

Z U U U U

O ?
ca
m • N
? cn
? Z
c? Z
c? Z
c? Z
c?

w ?¢ w ?cn w zcn zcn zcg zcn
? N
C
C
w
¢
?
}
f- m ? m ¢ m ? m m Z M Z m m
ww w N ¢T rtO ¢,- O O O O
¢= cnoC ?rr w o Wa: Wa: W na Wri
? O ? J J J J
_ _

aU
¢ ? 0 0 o chi r co
? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

w ¢
I_- T N M d' In CO r?- 00 f'-'

A 4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
February 27, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199401753
Mr. Franklin Vick, P.E,. Manager
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
(f2
Reference is made to your request received on February 6, 1995, for
Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge fill material within
the waters and wetlands of Bledsoe Creek associated with the construction of
the proposed Sparta Western Loop West (State Project No. 9,8112515, T.I.P. No.
R-3117). The proposed project calls for a two-lane road on new location
adjacent to Bledsoe Creek, from S.R. 1172 (Grandview Drive) to U.S. 21 North,
Sparta, Alleghany County, North Carolina. Reference is also made to my letter
to you dated April 26, 1994, concerning your request for comments.for this
project.
As was discussed in the referenced letter, the project area is located
adjacent to and below the headwaters of Bledsoe Creek. This being the case,
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(x)(26) does not apply to your proposal and can
not authorize the project's proposed impacts to jurisdictional waters and
wetlands. The individual DA permit required for your project, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, will demand the submittal of an
application and processing of that request in accordance with 33 CFR 320.4.
Again, we must stress the fact that Bledsoe Creek is a Designated Public
Trout Water and also that the proposed project could involve impacts to
potential mountain bog habitat. As this project has been a high priority in
the region since its inception, we continue to strongly recommend that you
make application as soon as all necessary information is available. As an
individual permit will be required for the work, please be reminded that any
proposal authorized must fully comply with the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines as well as the memorandum of agreement with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that established procedures to determine
the types and levels of necessary mitigation.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Printed on 6 Recycled Paper
.w ?
-2-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ir. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Dr. Charles Bruton
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning and Research Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Habitat Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
Division of Boating & Inland Fisheries
Route 2 Box 278
State Road, North Carolina 28676
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau
Mt. Region Coordinator
320 South Garden Street
Marion, North Carolina 28652
Ms. Janice Nicholls
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
a
PS?f NT' OF TyF
"ym United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE: SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
April 12, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
0
TAKE
PRIDE IN -,
AMERICA
C3
o v
4p R?c???Fo
9
'?2,?0??o tiT )199s
C
eo
Subject: Sparta Western Loop, from SR 1172 to US 21 North. Alleghany
County. North Carolina, TIP No. R-3117
This is to follow up on the March 13, 1995, meeting held in Raleigh to
discuss the subject project. The purpose of that meeting was to address
specific agency concerns regarding the Environmental Assessment/Finding
of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) released by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on November 15, 1994. The following
comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
First, we would like to express our frustration with the NCDOT's
processing of this project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), along with other agency representatives, expressed concern
regarding potential adverse impacts to mountain bog wetlands when this
project was first introduced at the monthly permit review meeting in
December 1993. At that meeting it was strongly recommended that NCDOT
consider avoidance alternatives when designing the project. Thus, the
Service was dismayed to receive an EA that not only did not adequately
address possible avoidance alternatives, but included a FONSI. In our
December 13, 1994, comments to you, we highlighted our concerns about
proposed impacts to the mountain bog wetlands in the project area and
specifically stated that "the Service believes that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is inappropriate due to unacceptable impacts to a
particularly rare and unique habitat type in North Carolina." Instead
following up on our comments, the NCDOT submitted a request to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on January 31, 1994, to receive
nationwide permit authority to impact 0.99 wetland acre (0.83 acre of
the
we
of
r
which is identified as mountain bog wetlands) to construct the proposed
project.
The project was again addressed at the February 16, 1995, permit review
meeting and at a separate meeting with representatives from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(Natural Heritage Program) and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, both of which we were unable to attend. A third meeting was
held on March 13, 1995, specifically to allow the Service an opportunity
to again voice concerns. At that meeting, which was attended by
representatives from the NCDOT; Service; North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission; and North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, we discussed avoidance alternatives
(primarily Alternative D) in detail. The additional detail on
Alternative D was recently provided to us through a copy of a March 20,
1995, letter to Ms. Chrys Baggett of the North Carolina Department of
Administration, State Clearinghouse, regarding the project. Due to the
additional information provided by NCDOT at the meeting and in the
above-mentioned letter, the Service now concurs that avoidance
alternatives have been satisfactorily evaluated.
At the March 13, 1995, meeting we also discussed possible mitigation for
the proposed wetland impacts. In the March 20, 1995, letter to
Ms. Baggett, you stated that "...due to the concern over impacts to the
mountain bogs, mitigation will be considered as a part of the application
package." The Service appreciates this consideration but does not agree
with some of the mitigation options as described in the letter, which
include "purchase of mountain bog remnants, adjacent to the project
limits; placement of rip rap along severely eroding stream banks;
elimination of manmade devices, such as ditches, in the project area."
In our opinion, the latter two options do not constitute acceptable
mitigation for the loss of rare mountain bog habitat. The first option
needs further clarification, as we suggested that the NCDOT consider the
purchase of a relatively intact bog near the project area, and we are not
sure what is meant by purchasing "remnants." The other option we
suggested was to provide cost-share funds to allow for the restoration of
bog habitat on private lands, similar to what the Service provides in the
Partners for Wildlife program (the Service has provided cost-share money
to implement bog restoration activities on three privately owned tracts
in western North Carolina). Both the acquisition and cost-share
suggestions would obviously be considered off-site mitigation.
The Service will concur with a FONSI only if there is a commitment by
NCDOT to develop an appropriate mitigation plan--a mitigation plan that
is acceptable to the affected resource agencies. We would appreciate the
opportunity to review the proposed mitigation plan prior to resubmission
of a permit application and/or notification to the Corps. We hope the
NCDOT is serious about developing a mitigation plan that adequately
compensates for the loss of these rare mountain wetlands. We also hope
that future projects of this nature can be handled more effectively and
efficiently, by addressing resource agency concerns in the initial stages
of project planning.

Please give me a call at 704/665-1195, Ext. 223, if you would like to
further discuss our concerns.
Si rely,
e P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Ken Jolly, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Office,
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105, Raleigh, NC 27615
Mr. Frank McBride, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Route 3,
Box 295, Nashville, NC 27856
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
Mr. Eric Galamb, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, 4401 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607

r
141,
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Supplement to Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact for Sparta Western Loop, Alleghany
County, TIP #R-3117.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments regarding the supplement to the Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the
proposed Sparta Western Loop in Alleghany County. These comments
are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to construct a new two-lane facility 1.2 miles in length
partly on new location from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21
(Main Street) north of Sparta. The purpose of this project is to
provide access to Bristol Compressors manufacturing plant south
of downtown Sparta and to reduce traffic volumes on segments of
US 21 and NC 18 in downtown Sparta. The Sparta thoroughfare plan
adopted in 1992 involves extending the loop southward for 0.8
mile to tie into US 21 south of Sparta; however, this segment is
not proposed at this time.
Our two major concerns with this project include adverse
impacts to mountain bogs and to Bledsoe Creek, which is Hatchery
Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water at the project
site. As we stated in our previous memorandum to you,
approximately 500 acres of mountain bogs presently exist in North
Carolina, compared to almost 5,000 acres in the past. We are
committed to protecting this vanishing habitat type. Mountain
bogs support diverse assemblages of plant and animal species,
including many rare species. Gray's lily Lilium grayi has been
TIP #R-3117 Page 2 April 3, 1995
collected in the project area, and habitat also exists for the
bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii. Both species are listed as
threatened by North Carolina and are candidates for federal
listing.
The NCDOT examined additional alternatives in the supplement
to the EA/FONSI in response to concerns expressed by review
agencies over lack of a wetland avoidance alternative. Four
alternatives were examined in the supplement, including
Alternative C (same as lA in EA/FONSI) which impacts 0.99 acre of
wetlands and Alternative D, which impacts 0.34 acre of wetlands.
The NCDOT rejected Alternative D because it does not meet the
purpose of the project. Alternative C is preferred by the NCDOT.
At this point, we believe that the NCDOT has addressed
avoidance of wetlands to the extent possible; therefore, we are
now interested in exploring mitigation options to compensate for
adverse impacts to wetlands. We will concur with the findings of
the EA/FONSI only if the project includes an acceptable
mitigation plan. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to,
the following:
1) Purchasing mountain bog remnants adjacent to the project
limits, if they will still be functioning as mountain bogs
following roadway construction.
2) Stabilizing eroded stream banks along Bledsoe Creek using
bioengineering techniques such as root wads, logs, and
native vegetation.
3) Purchasing nearby Sparta Bog, a high quality mountain bog,
to protect this site from future development.
We expect the application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for a 404 permit to include a mitigation plan
regardless of the type of permit (nationwide or individual)
required, and look forward to commenting on the permit
application when available.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
CC: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Coordinator
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
,,-Ifr. Eric Galamb, DEM, Raleigh
Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
IMPORTANT

To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
1
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
Messag '`
!'
G? rd ??t
Signed
q/ P74,107?
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL

WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dgpt. of EnvironmeFL H Ih, an Nataal Re ources

State of North Carolina E
Department of Environment, ?-9-'V
Health and Natural Resources o
.? Q 0 o
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt Jr. Governor
r1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary tl ?
ED IF= I- I-] tl N :.! n
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 3, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
Monica Swiha
From: Eric Galamb`- J`7
Subject: Sparta Western Loop from SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County
State Project DOT No. 9.8112515, TIP #R-3117
EHNR # 95-0253, DEM WQ # 10769
DOT submitted a letter to the State Clearinghouse dated March 20, 1995. This letter has
been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental Management is responsible for
the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact waters
of the state including wetlands. The subject project as proposed would impact up to 0.59
hectares of wetlands.
DEM is satisfied that alternatives to avoid the mountain bogs have been adequately
considered. DEM remains concerned that a survey for bog turtles was not completed prior to
selecting a preferred alternative. However, DEM has been informed that Mr. Dennis Herman
will be surveying for the turtle on site in May. DEM appreciates the effort that DOT is now
undertaking for the turtle. Mr. Herman should also be requested to evaluate the potential for
bog mitigation in this area.
DEM has contacted DOT regarding the wording of the first point on page 5 of the letter. DEM
wishes that DOT state explicitly that purchase of mountain bog remnants adjacent to the
project limits does not necessarily preclude the purchase of property not adjacent to the
project limits (i.e. the Sparta Bog). Remnant bogs bisected by the road may not function
properly and thus they may not be suitable mitigation. DOT should develop a mitigation plan
for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to DEM for review and
comment.
Please be advised DEM may deny the 401 Certification upon application if wetland impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental
Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
sparta2.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumor paper
. ,

r
i
N. C. I)IIPAI?TMJL OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMI ?AL SLIP
3- 22_?s
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM R ROOM, BLDG.
REP, Vo. OO
)J?? -
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME R YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS R YOUR APPROVAL
/
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS YOUR INFORMATION
I..
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURC
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

• -©`" • r" ME - ?''
e---
J
A' ?' SST^? ?N?.
4
Y? ?1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 20, 1995
Ms. Chrys Baggett
North Carolina Department
State Clearinghouse
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
RECEIVED
MAR 2 71995
Dear Ms. Baggett:
of Administration
27603-8003
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DD A K-ny
SUBJECT: Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North, Alleghany County,
State Project No. 9.8112515, TIP ID No. R-3117
The State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
(SEA/FONSI) for the subject project was approved by the NCDOT in September,
1994. The document was then distributed through the State Clearinghouse for
comments. The agencies that commented through the State Clearinghouse felt
that the NCDOT did not adequately address viable alternatives, including
wetland avoidance alternatives. This memo is to address the concerns of the
State Clearinghouse agencies and to provide these agencies with the necessary
information to concur with the recommendation in the SEA/FONSI.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The need for the project first grew out of traffic problems in downtown
Sparta. The close proximity of the buildings at the existing intersection of
US 21 and NC 18 in downtown Sparta has created a turning movement problem for
the truck traffic that travels from US 21 to NC 18 and visa versa (see Figure
1 for vicinity mapping). This has also created a periodic downtown traffic
congestion problem. There is inadequate space to widen this intersection and
solve this traffic problem.
In addition, Bristol Compressors has built a manufacturing plant south.
of this intersection on NC 18. The truck traffic from this facility will
only add to the existing traffic problem in downtown Sparta. The proposed
Sparta Western Loop will help to alleviate the problem by bypassing the
downtown intersection and provide a more direct route between US 21 and
NC 18.
rl?
March 20, 1995
Page 2
DOCUMENT BACKGROUND
The project began as a Division 11 design/construct project. The
SEA/FONSI was approved by this branch in September, 1994. The document
recommended Alignment lA (referred to as Alternative C in this memo).
COORDINATION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES:
The project was first presented at the monthly Permit Review Meeting in
December, 1993. Representatives of the NCDOT and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer (COE) met at the project in August, 1994 to delineate the wetland
sites; Sites 1-8 were identified. The permit application was sent to the
COE in January, 1995.
To address the concerns generated through the State Clearinghouse, the
project was presented at the February 16, 1995 Permit Review Meeting. In
addition, a meeting was held with the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, the Natural Heritage Program, and the Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) on February 27, 1995 and with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the WRC on March 13, 1995 to address their concerns.
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
During the life of the project, four alternatives were evaluated (see
Figure 2) ; they are referred to in this memo as Alternatives A, B, C, and D
(Alternative C corresponds to the recommended Alignment lA in the SEA/FONSI).
Alternatives A and B were first evaluated by the Division 11 design office;
due to anticipated impacts of wetlands associated with Alternative A and
terrain problems associated with Alternative B, both alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration and replaced with Alternative C. Two
variations of Alternative C were developed and evaluated in the SEA/FONSI;
they were identified as Alignments 1 and lA in the document. Alternative D
was developed as the best attempt to avoid prime wetland areas between NC 18
and SR 1172. Table 1 (see attached) lists the criteria used to evaluate the
four alternatives.
WETLAND IMPACTS
Table 2 (see attached) compares the wetland impacts associated with
each alternative. Alternative A impacts the highest acreage of
wetlands; of the 2.57 total acres listed, 2.41 acres are considered
mountain bogs. Alternative D has the lowest impacts; of 0.34-acres of
wetlands, 0.18 acres are identified as mountain bogs. The recommended
Alternative C impacts a total of 0.99 acres of wetlands; 0.83 acres are
identified as mountain bogs. Table 3 (see attached) gives a description
of each impacted wetland site, including a DEM rating for each site.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
Alternative A has the lowest relocatee potential, three residences.
Alternative D impacts the highest number, 14 residences. Recommended
Alternative C will impact six residences.
March 20, 1995
Page 3
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Alternative B follows a ridge that parallels Bledsoe Creek. The
elevation changes in this area would make tying to NC 18 difficult and
would require raising the grade along NC 18 (this would entail
additional disturbance to wetlands). Therefore, it was eliminated early
on by the Division.
To minimize impacts to residences and businesses, Alternative D
utilizes a portion of Duncan Street, tying to SR 1172 (Grandview Drive)
at the existing intersection of Duncan Street and SR 1172. The sight
distance at this intersection is limited due to the poor vertical and
horizontal alignment of SR 1172. The current conditions at this
intersection have already created a safety hazard; the hazard would
worsen if the truck traffic using the proposed loop were forced to use
this intersection. The curve on SR 1172 would need to be removed and
SR 1172 be realigned to reduce this safety hazard; this design revision
would require the relocation of additional homes along SR 1172.
INDUSTRIAL ACCESS
A primary purpose of this project is provide direct access to
Bristol Compressors, located between NC 18 and SR 1172. Bristol
Compressors plans to tie directly into the proposed roadway, thus
allowing trucks to follow US 21 north or south without having to access
NC 18. Alternative D defeats this purpose of the project by relocating
the proposed roadway farther north, away from the newly constructed
plant.
COMPATIBILITY WITH THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The latest Sparta thoroughfare plan was adopted in 1992. A portion
of the proposed loop was included in the original plan. An extension of
the loop to complete a US 21 bypass of downtown Sparta was added to the,
thoroughfare plan in 1993.
The southern terminal of Alternatives A, B, and C was purposely
located to allow for the extension of the proposed loop southward to
eventually tie back to US 21. Alternative D does not allow for any
future extension of the proposed loop without impacting additional
residences along SR 1172 and side streets.
COST
The recommended Alternative C is the least expensive alignment at
$2,878,000. Alternative D is the most expensive alignment at
$4,263,000. The additional expense for Alternative D is largely due to
the additional relocatees in the vicinity of SR 1172.
RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the planning and environmental studies of the four
alternatives, Alternative C is the best overall alternative that minimizes
both cost and impacts to the natural and human environment. Alternative C
March 20, 1995
Page 4
best meets the purpose and need of the project. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the NCDOT that Alternative C, known as Alignment lA in the
SEA/FONSI, be constructed.
GENERAL COMMENTS
In addition to the Clearinghouse comments addressing viable
alternatives, other general comments made during the coordination meetings
with the environmental agencies are addressed below:
MOUNTAIN BOG 14ETLANDS
NCDOT has made a commitment to avoid and minimize impacts to
mountain bogs, whenever practicable. The comparison
alternatives showed that attempts were made to avoid
possible, such as by recommending Alternative C over
B. In addition, the proposed roadway grade between
(where the majority of the impacted mountain bogs ar
lowered to further reduce impacts to the wetland sit
project.
PROTECTED SPECIES
of viable
the
mountain bogs where
Alternatives A and
NC 18 and SR 1172
e located) has been
es along the
The Grays lily Lilium ra i and the bog turtle Clemm s
muhlenbergii) are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
federal candidate species, which are not afforded federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act. Grays lily has been identified in the
project area, and habitat also exists for the bog turtle. As an effort
to minimize impacts to these unique mountain bog habitats and thus
minimize impacts to these species, NCDOT plans to contract with
Mr. Dennis Herman of the Atlanta Zoo to verify if either species exists
in the impacted bog sites and to offer mitigation advice on adjacent
degraded (grazed, filled, or drained) bog sites.
BRIDGING
Bridging some of the impacted wetland areas was evaluated as a
minimization option. If wetland Site 5 and Bledsoe Creek were bridged
together (just south of NC 18) and Site 8 and Bledsoe Creek were bridged
together (just north of the SR 1172 terminal), the cost increase for the
recommended Alternative C would be approximately $1.2 million. Since
bridging would still impact the bogs (due to shading impacts): NCDOT
believes protection of adjacent bog areas is a more-practical and
beneficial alternative.
PERMITS AND MITIGATION
The SEA/FONSI identified that 1.51 acres of wetlands would be
impacted by the recommended alignment. Since that time, a delineation
of the wetland areas have shown that 0.99 acres will be impacted. It is
anticipated that the project can be issued under a COE Nationwide 14
Permit. However, due to the concern over impacts to the mountain bogs,
mitigation will be considered as part of the application package. The
following are options that will be considered by the NCDOT Permit staff
to be included in a mitigation plan:
March 20, 1995
Page 5
- purchase of mountain bog remnants adjacent to the project limits
- placement of rip rap along severely eroding stream banks
- elimination of manmade devices, such as ditches, in the project
area
CLOSING
As was mentioned earlier in the letter, we have been coordinating with
several of the commenting environmental agencies, such as EHNR, DEM, WRC, and
USFWS. From the discussion with these agencies, we feel that we have
adequately addressed the concerns of the agencies. Based on the
environmental studies, we still recommend Alternative C (Alignment 1A in the
document) and are planning to pursue the proper permits with the COE. Please
circulate this letter through the State Clearinghouse as soon as possible;
Ms. Melba McGee of EHNR said she would work to help speed up the process. If
you have any additional questions concerning this project, please contact me
at 919/733-3141.
rranSn 1klin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Larry R. Goode, Ph.D., P.E., State Highway Administrator
Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Director of Planning and Programming
Whitmel H. Webb, P.E., Manager, Program Development Branch
W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11
tr
i
V ? Liy tw7
LSl
to
o -
n
L_f1.
^ U
7
113: ?
71 J
? ? J e
END PROJECT >? z
SPARTA
01? ?? h
1 J 111,1 ? ` 1 ?
tt1r..?.f]? I?y4 J: PQ? 0a.
ILL ?.ItO. .c 1 r ?' d•y 21
je
40
p? Zr
1177
- ? iTes 7Z nLlli
• C
llal ^ L t1d1 SO = ? ? - ? .. . LI.Zl .. -
\' ?? qtr, rx ?'?. I
w 06 BEGIN PROJECT
oal ^ L
100 ,T •? O .07 Aa 1.LJ. ? '?
IL•a C LL 60 'J1 ..
I?r7
- t
'o LZ .I! ? ? l 0 ?•..
1101 D t
s o6 ? ? .
1173
1a Lz?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
l ss TRANSPORTATION
v' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
J? PLAINNING AND ENVIRONbiE.1TA[,
`2nsu?'$ BR.S"NCH
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP FROM SR 1172
TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. R - 3117
F;GURF 1
4Q- ,
r+ 4z w
Boa-??? _... •- . .-'
I
-,... ? MAIN ST
QCAlq:
!rr '' " - GENTRY
'Ile
Q? ''??ttttt??tt>,? t?ittNitt? t 9? tt ttT7itttt?tt?tt?it .a yt:?
t -? -- ' 1 1 •? '
10
ti • t -___1? !f 1
jai ?.: - _• - _ _ ?_.. ? . \• ? = .
'?- .a-. '?-
fn X7.
1i
G7 7D
ftittttttttitttt ALTERNATIVE A
caat=ac=at2
aC= =-at3a
•/// --'r
0
ALTERNATIVE S
ALTERNATIVE C
(RECOMMENDED)
ALTERNATIVE D
WETL;UND SITE
?i

T.
t
S
TIP ID NO. R-3117
FIGURE 2
ALTERNATIVE LOCATION
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D
(RECOMM.)
TOTAL COST: $ 3,111,000 $ 3,780,000 $ 2,878,000 $ 4,263,000
CONSTRUCTION COST ($ 2,450,000) ($ 3,000,000) ($1,900,000) ($ 2,350,000)
RIGHT OF WAY COST ($ 661,000) ($ 780,000) ($ 978,000) ($1,913,000)

WETLAND IMPACTS (AC): 2.57 1.10 0.99 0.34
MOUNTAIN BOGS (2.41) (0.92) (0.83) (0.18)
OTHERS (0.16) (0.18) (0.16) (0.16)
CREEK CROSSINGS 2 2 2 0
TERRAIN PROBLEMS NO YES NO NO
DESIGN PROBLEMS NO NO NO YES
RELOCATEES 3/0 511 6/0 1410
(RESIDENCES/BUSINESSES)
ALLOW FOR COMPLETION YES YES YES NO
OF SPARTA LOOP
SUITABLE ACCESS TO YES YES YES NO
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS
IMPACTS TO SPARTA WELLS NO YES NO NO
Corrected 2/20195

TIP R73117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 2: WETLAND COMPARISON (IN ACRES)
WETLAND ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
SITE A B C D
(RECOMMENDED)
1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
2 0.01 n.a- 0.01 0.01
3 0.07 n.a 0.07 0.07
4* 1.38 n.a 0.07 0.07
5* 0.08 n.a 0.20 n.a.
6* 0.15 n.a 0.15 n.a.
7,8* 0.41 0.41 0.41 n.a
9* 0.39 n.a. n.a n.a.
10 me- 0.10 n.a. n.a.
11 * n.a. 0.51 n.a n.a.
12* n.a. n.a- n.a. 0.11
*Mtn Bogs 2.41 0.92 0.83 0.18
Others 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16
TOTAL 2.57 1.10 0.99 0.34
Chart Corrected 2/20/95

TIP R-3117. SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY. 1995
TABLE 3: WETLAND DESCRIPTION
LOCATION NWI MUNSELL SOIL HYDROLOGICAL DEM WETLAND
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION EVIDENCE RATING
SITE 1 50 ft. west of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Saturation, mottled 39.5
(pasture) Alleghany Builders soils, oxid.
Mart rhizospheres
SITE 2 Southeast quad of PSS6E 10 YR (3/2) Sat., inundation, 48
(seep) Cranford Rd.. Bleds. mottled soils, oxid.
Creek crossing rhizospheres, .
SITE 3 100 ft. east of Bled. PSS6E 10 YR (5/1-3/1) Oxid. rhizospheres 20.5
(remnant Creek. 300 ft west
bog) of Carson Blvd.
SITE 4 North of NC 18 and PEM1 E/PSS6E 10 YR (512-2/1) Inundation, satur., 71.8
(bog) west of Kemp St. mottled soils, oxid.
rhizospheres
SITE 5 20 ft north of Bled. PEM1 E 10 YR (512-3/2) Inundation, satur.. 71.8
(bog) Creek, and 500 ft oxid. rhizospheres
south of NC 18
SITE 6 50 ft southeast of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Oxid rhizospheres 54.5
(bog) Bledsoe Ck, 400 ft.
west of Duncan St
SITE 7,8 300 ft north of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundation, satur., 58.5
(bog) Grandview Dr.. 100 ft cxid. rhizospheres
north of Bledsoe Ck.
SITE 9 South of NC 18. PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundation, satur.. 65.5
(bog) 250 ft east of cxid. rhizospheres
abandoned store
SITE 10 200.ft north of Dog- PF01 E 10 YR (3/2) Saturation. 53.8
(bottomid wood Dr, west of
hardwood) Bledsoe Creek,
SITE 11 Pasture west of PEM1 E 10 YR (3/2) Inundation, satur., 62.8
(bog) Bledsoe Creek cxid. rhizospheres
SITE't2 North of pasture, PEM1 E/PSS6E 10 YR (3/2) Inundation, satur.. 69.8
(bog) west of Bledsoe Ck cxid. rhizospheres
P(1 Eri1 P• PUTL I[-. FHIP' P. 1.%1

t j ? j
! f f?, 1? i L ? + i ?
+
t

1 ?f I1 r67L1, ?! Hih 1

C?
j cr>
_, , .
-- -; - It=; ri? r?`?-+..
iS 1
_j?

-'.i -?= i -i 1 ??i•, ii H? _1-iTr^ I jr

NAP 71 ?_> t?=.:4=F'1 =Hf;? pUE!LIc ^rFFHIF."= ri1.t + r a - P. 7/14

1 itl iN
.,. _ - . c,,, c1„ .>c. ?;n barks
plus- :1?? VI P

with
it'7tC, and
rl the 1•?: -+?f .. ? ,:?;tll, Vii,;
fit; 7 1` .
ent~
r; iLrY
&A AS
_+ '
, rt
(i it
G
S
,.? : M .
't!c of Th t n i ';,
' 1 111 it
1
;
R • .,
_ i.
1
_
.1
1
rr
r:ll i '?( i
.
?I

a
-
•-
.
,..
-t 1
.:3
..
rt 1 , ,
1
sh, •
M! ., 1 Tow ;
fw- 7' -v
as 50

r ; ..dittyJ, t
;)ut?t` the ,t.?(,' t: I,
( „^:' 3:? . if
j ipil Lc' .
Ur
"0410 (
00L.:
j W
,
,, 1-10 A WIC 1; 0% ,
di
. Q_ ^??....,.. _0
it 1

"191: 0- oil:

J

t
1 ink, L . "J
.t 1 Il ? c
1?
,
,
Aal Branch
i} aw t1y ilC? FI.J ton
t `
s t + "0 P r y
wit si +
in a
='i '?- i - '1 rH',-•FL!c;LIC ?F?NIF.' 7.1 c+ P.1?114
a?
A 1,
J•
r
} .i a. ? . G.. ¢ 1.
of .?? r:. ` •? ??•`L 1, --, _ ^.? ? ?? ,
e
?? `` ? + ??, r- i 1 ? /... raj` ?:1?? L tl. ?,a ,?•r1YJ
' # r;GrOv?U .VE?TrrF?tJ LOOP FRV,4 58
1 F
NORTH
..:•.?.?a ,?+.? -?- Y ;;paFZTA, AuLGHAt?Y cnUt?'CY
T. !, P. pROJLCT tjt'). R • 3117
FIGU RI
P. `rhi?. ?r''.'ti` _?•._ -9i14
Fri - T,-
ski..' •\\ \ l? i/• •\ 4-?
44
tom.` .L`' \ `` / r " __ ') ., ; \ ` • / ? ''! ? ,•.
!r . •111 ??? ? /,__J_•J-? r!\ i..• .? ? ?_ t? ??`?
ORA
arm' ? P 1. Y;
fi
• • 4 ? Uj
• ? / I '- i ? I' ? t; .,,, n:G , ` ? '1st . _? ti..? ; , r , ? :'! t !? ? . ? 1 F•A .. r.M.-•
f l Ct : r Y 1 i l r t ? ?.?!
-?.- r.• i 1 t. 11 t 1 1 E 1: i t t r"' y' ?,'?3 -.:?' ti •°" , '`. {N
Nll
-•'? ??? ?.''•r? rte ?..,
Yr v! ./ -?
11 r
;-'-- _. ._?.»--._- ..?. Vii.. ?1 ,? ?/, r ?•,, ?? ?.
64
? i.ittllt;tt_t•.t ,..... .,. J? E I I "'`'?'?'?•??
-'3 a t:--.J a .,.rE. c
- r T I P I D -3117
„? ? •?r;>!:::,:.<._ . ;? ? ••? %' ? FIGURE 2 J
ALTERN4TIVE i,OCATIW

_ r

n?

.
GJ?
? NCO`

tl a ?a
,.

i I'll i\+ H-,•V U- 11 ? If?? .?

V'-

;,u

• r
.

-r,

,.? r ? U
.:.I r- -- - - P. 1111:,

h L,
n •

.. - --,- ? ? a ?
....'^?Y?r L. ?`. _
__ ?. ____

T - .
,. ?
-• _>.

_ _
---. - -
_- _- .3 ..?

? - ? ? . .. - r ,.. ? ., it

?.:.1^ . I

- .. .. "?'

? . ti

.? I

?'. ?' t
?
. ?,
. . .. ?
?,o:e;? c? ?._. ?• ?
?

__ _
., ?, ?? _
.,

;
.. .?...,. _ t,
? `

,.., .;
.. ,..
.iii. _..J -.. ,. ??
:.?? ., .. ..).. .?
.f
?
.
?

•
. . . .
1 I '
1 - ? f .- ' III /
' ... ? .i , ?
..
?-

... .r- .Y.-.J
V...- .? __. _ - --__-__' ._ ._

_. ,
,. ,'7??
` ,? , ? ,,
,?, , ..
., ? _ ,vT / / ?0
,? ,? - ;; t; ?;

.. ., .;

IAADADTAKIT
To
Date _ Time 1 ' O T`
HILE YOU WERE OUT
M_ -
of
Phone _
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
-
RETURNED YOUR CALL I T
Message (?? V1lJ?? __
Sg d
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health. and Natural Resources
? ?/, -..- - RwrvrlwA Pwnwr
sd-.40bh 8? 0 ?
C'7)-Z'a L
J
L
n2°o _S
LQ'o ?
lo,( z
30 "o l
S !?
P(q
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: Ptak. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
F Mt REP. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
Q RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS POR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
, 'D
RECEIVED
Ar?? MAR 2 01"s
ENVIRONMEp TALuCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMGS B. HUNT, JR. R. SAMUEL HUN] III
GOVPANOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 S1001ARv
March 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Charles R. Cox, P.E., Project Planning Enginee
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North,
Alleghany County, State Project No. 9.8112515,
TIP ID No. R-3117
A meeting was held on March 13, 1995 at 11:15 am in Room 434 of the
Transportation Building. Those in attendance were:
Janice Nicholls USFWS
Stephanie Goudreau NCWRC
David Cox NCWRC
Eric Galamb DEHNR- DEN
Julie Hunkins NCDOT- P&E
Randy Turner NCDOT- P&E
Hal Bain NCDOT- P&E
Gordon Cashin NCDOT- P&E
Charles Cox NCDOT- P&E
Janice Nicholls and Stephanie Goudreau could not attend the February 27
meeting that was held to address the Clearinghouse concerns; therefore, this
meeting was scheduled.
Janice Nicholls wanted to go on record saying that the USFWS was
disappointed with the NCDOT's handling of this project. The state and
federal environmental agencies that reviewed the SEA/FONSI felt that two
separate documents, an EA and a FONSI, should have been written; the two
part process would have allowed for agency concerns to be addressed in the
second document. They were concerned that adequate alternatives, especially
avoidance alternatives, were not addressed in the document. They were also
concerned that NCDOT had applied for a nationwide permit rather, than an
individual permit; the USFWS had been emphatic in earlier correspondence
that they felt an individual permit would be needed due to anticipated
mountain bog impacts.
M
March 15, 1995
Page 2
After a discussion of the four alternatives and impacts associated with
each, all environmental agency representatives present at this meeting agreed
that adequate alternatives had been evaluated, including avoidance
alternatives.
Once the issue of alternative recommendation was resolved, the next
issue addressed was mitigation opportunities. Although mitigation
opportunities of adjacent sites were discussed, the agencies seemed to favor
the purchase of mountain bog sites that may not be as degraded as the
adjacent sites. The Sparta Bog southwest of Sparta on NC 18 is a privately
owned bog site; this may be a prime candidate as a mitigation site.
The issue of br
earlier coordination
increase to bridge a
when compared to the
bridging would still
of piers and piles.
idging was briefly discussed. Bridging was identified in
meetings as a minimization option. The anticipated cost
portion of the bogs (an estimated $ 1.2 million) is high
total cost of the project ($ 2.8 million). Also,
impact the bogs due to the shading effects and placement
It had been discussed at earlier meetings that a mountain bog expert
should visit the project site to evaluate the bogs that will be impacted and
to determine if any bog turtles inhabit the sites. NCDOT is strongly
considering contracting Mr. Dennis Herman, a bog expert, of the Atlanta Zoo.
Mr. Herman already plans to be in the Sparta area the week of May 8;
therefore, he would be available to evaluate the bogs in the project area.
It was mentioned that V-ditches should not be located at the toe of
fills in bog sites since they would result in secondary impacts by draining
these valuable habitat sites.
At the close of the meeting, I commented that our branch would be
sending a letter to the State Clearinghouse soon, addressing the agencies
concerns. The letter will also include the type of permit that the COE will
allow (nationwide verses individual) and any information concerning our
mitigation plans.
CRC/plr
cc: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E.
B. J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Meeting Participants
ll?
ToloPo PROJECT R-31117
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
PERMIT REVffEVI
MEETfffJ\G
FEBRUARY 169 1995
CONTENTS:
AGENDA
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
WETLAND INFORMATION
LOCATION MAPPING

T.I.P. PROJECT R-3117
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
PERMIT REVIEW MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 1995
AGENDA
I. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS -US 21/NC 18 INTERSECTION
B. INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
C. SPARTA THOROUGHFARE PLAN
II. DOCUMENT BACKGROUND
M. STATUS OF PROJECT
IV. ALTERNATIVES NOT EVALUATED IN DOCUMENT
V. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
A. WETLAND IMPACTS
B. SOCIAL IMPACTS
C. OTHER IMPACTS
VI. DISCUSSION

I
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL COST:
CONSTRUCTION COST
RIGHT OF WAY COST
WETLAND IMPACTS (AC):
MOUNTAIN BOGS
OTHERS
CREEK CROSSINGS
TERRAIN PROBLEMS
DESIGN PROBLEMS
RELOCATEES
(RESIDE NCESIBUSINESSES)
ALLOW FOR COMPLETION
OF SPARTA LOOP
SUITABLE ACCESS TO
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS
IMPACTS TO SPARTA WELLS
ALT A ALT B ALT C
(RECOMM.) ALT D
$ 3,111,000 $ 3,780,000 $ 2,878,000 $ 4,263,000
($ 2,450,000) ($ 3,000,000) ($1,900,000) ($ 2,350,000)
($ 661,000) ($ 780,000) ($ 978,000) ($1,913,000)

2.57
C? 0.99 0.34
(2.41) t?4.1=91.IS?, (0.83) (0.18)
(0.16) (0.08) (0.16) (0.16)
2 2 2 0
NO YES NO NO
NO NO NO YES
310 511 610 1410
YES YES YES NO
YES YES YES NO
NO YES NO NO
2

TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 2: WETLAND COMPARISON (IN ACRES)
WETLAND
SITE ALTERNATIVE
A ALTERNATIVE
B ALTERNATIVE
C
(RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATIVE
D
1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
2 0.01 n.a. 0.01 0.01
3 0.07 n.a. 0.07 0.07
4* 1.38 n.a. 0.07 0.07
5* 0.08 n.a. 0.20 n.a.
6* 0.15 n.a. 0.15 n.a.
7,8* 0.41 0.41 0.41 n.a.
9* 0.39 n.a. n.a. n.a.
10 n.a. -sa) 10 v n.a. n.a.
11 * n.a. 0.10 .O) n.a. n.a.
12* n.a. X151" J, n.a. 0.11
TOTAL: 2.57 t 0.99 0.34
??
n
Note: *Mountain Bog
3
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 3: WETLAND DESCRIPTION
LOCATION NWI MUNSELL SOIL HYDROLOGICAL DEM WETLAND
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION EVIDENCE RATING
SITE 1 50 ft. west of PEM1 E 10 YR (512-3/2) Saturation, oxid. 39.5
(pasture) Alleghany Builders rhizospheres
Mart mottled soils
SITE 2 Southeast quad of PSS6E 10 YR (3/2) Sat., inundation, 48
(seep) Cranford Rd., Bleds, mottled soils.
Creek crossing oxid., rhizospheres
SITE 3 100 ft east of Bled. PSS6E 10 YR (5/1-3/1) Oxid. rhizospheres 20.5
(remnant Creek, 300 ft. west
bog) of Carson Blvd.
SITE 4 North of NC 18 and PEM1 E/PSS6E 10 YR (5/2-2/1) Inundation, satur., 71.8
(bog) west of Kemp St. mottle soils.
oxid. rhizospheres
SITE 5 20 ft north of Bled. PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 71.8
(bog) Creek, and 500 ft. rhizospheres
south of NC 18
SITE 6 50 ft southeast of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Oxid rhizospheres 54.5
(bog) Bledsoe Ck, 400 ft.
west of Duncan St
SITE 7,8 300 ft. north of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 58.5
(bog) Grandview Dr., 100 ft. rhizospheres
north of Bledsoe Ck.
SITE 9 South of NC 18, PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 65.5
(bog) 250 ft. east of rhizospheres
abandoned store
SITE 10 200 ft. north of Dog- PF01 E 10 YR (3/2) Saturation 53.8
(bottomld wood Dr, west of
hardwood) Bledsoe Creek
SITE 11 Pasture west of PEM1 E 10 YR (3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 62.8
(bog) Bledsoe Creek rhizospheres
SITE 12 North of pasture, PSS6E/PEM1 E 10 YR (3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 69.8
(bog) west of Bledsoe Ck rhizospheres

- -%- t *- -
u

113}
00
`L?? ? I e y
END PROJECT

Lw ?a

SPARTA

` r
i ?'b
1rlt-,.f.?l 3321
'off a.

l i?q o
71 ?t 21
` 1 ;15 3,
O 01
If 11
11 ?Il/f
' ?

1111 `ti +131 ,0
` Liu .. . 12L rf-U+.
o.+ o L I1.. , BEGIN PROJECT
o .07 .01 ,
60
i LSIL

3231
3!12

i+ [roe
? Gi?oe
V?Iley
? Cnen
,k 211 )
Goo-'
4
h

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONNIENTAI,
BRANCH
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP FROM SR 1172
TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. 1. P. PROJECT NO. R - 3117
FIGURE 1
i
I
j?

No

?r
L

MAIN •* ?oA
ST
f
?1-- I GENro., _
IIII® ?-? ///?
IIIQ? .F /
?® III ? ? .....- / / •: r ?i
? ttltttt a tttttttttn ttt ttttttt tttttttttttttt?tttt?ttry???- !
?L_/ ' .__ - _ I`• ••Y.\ ?1"?_.\? ? " ?;• {?.? fir( ? "t -
LEGEND
1131111111111111. ALTERNATIVE A
® a t= a t= o ® ALTERNATIVE B
a t n t? a ALTERNATIVE C
(RECOMMENDED)
ALTERNATIVE D

TIP ID NO. R-3117
FIGURE 2
•' ALTERNATIVE LOCATION
F6 z7?s
s?;t Ls? ?- 3?n
-7cc ?/3 Cce N
? rn??1?'S?i cosfs
we .(?r.?'Z IPeM +f ?[ ) and Ukr Yom:, rE
,?? `f
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO
: ItE . NO. OR ROOM, S
L
DO.
,? ////??--wl ,._--
: ,
Dc
FRROMs REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLDG.
/)
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
?
??
//
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT THIS ?j 'OR YOWR INFORMATION
"
? PLEASE ANSWER FOR YOWR COMMENTS
/?
? PREPARE REPLY POR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTI4ATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

RECEIVED
dr SiA? .y,'
?: s ?lQR 091595
ENVIROWENTAL SCIENCES
aae&WrN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201• RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: File /}
FROM: Charles R. Cox, P.E., Project Planning Engine/ I
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North,
Alleghany County, State Project No. 9.8112515,
TIP ID No. R-3117
A meeting was held on February 27, 1995 at 3:00 pm in Room 470 of the
Transportation Building. Those in attendance were:
Franklin McBride
David Cox
Melba McGee
David Foster
Eric Galamb
Mike Schafale
Steve Hall
Julie Hunkins
Hal Bain
Logan Williams
Gordon Cashin
Charles Cox
NCWRC
NCWRC
DEHNR
DEHNR
DEHNR-DEM
Natural Heritage Program
Natural Heritage Program
NCDOT-P&E
NCDOT-P&E
NCDOT-P&E
NCDOT-P&E
NCDOT-P&E
The purpose of this meeting was to address State Clearinghouse comments
that were generated in response to the circulation of the approved SEA/FONSI
for this project. Most of the environmental agencies that sent in comments
felt that NCDOT did not fully evaluate viable alternatives, especially
wetland avoidance options. Melba McGee said that the State Clearinghouse
could not approve the environmental document until these issues were
addressed.
During this meeting, I gave the same presentation that had been given at
the Permit Review Meeting held on February 16, 1995. In the presentation, I
showed how the project alternatives had evolved and how the recommended
alternative (Alternative IA in the document, Alternative C in this
presentation) was chosen. This presentation gave a review of four
alternatives, A, B, C, and D, and included a comparison of the various
impacts and design constraints associated with each. Due to the concerns of
the environmental agencies, Alternative D had been developed as a wetland
avoidance alternative. The attached handout gives a summary of the four
alternatives with impacts and wetland information.

March 7, 1995
Page 2
Mike Schafale with the Natural Heritage Program spoke on the different
types of mountain bogs for this region. He discussed three types: southern
appalachian bogs; swamp forest bog complexes; and meadow bogs, which are
converted from the other two bogs. Mike had not been on this project site;
however, based on information given to him, he felt that the mountain bogs in
the project area were meadow bogs.
Following the presentation, several issues were discussed regarding the
project:
1. Although the bog turtle is only a federal candidate species, the
status may be upgraded soon. The concern is not knowing if the bog
turtle inhabits any of the proposed impacted mountain bogs. Dennis
Herman with the Atlanta Zoo is the best qualified person in the
area to give this answer. It was suggested that he be hired to
perform a survey of the bog turtle at the proposed project site as
soon as possible. He may also give advice on potential mitigation
sites.
2. Bridging wetland areas is viewed by environmental agencies as a
viable option. This should be addressed, especially if the bog
turtle is discovered in the bog areas, which may be traversed by
the proposed alignment.
3. The environmental agencies would like to see more control of access
along the project to protect the wetland areas.
4. DEM wanted NCDOT to look at dechannelization of Bledsoe Creek
(restoration to the original hydrology) as a mitigation option.
This appears to be difficult, because raising the bottom of the
creek would impact the floodplain area and render the land
immediately adjacent to the creek useless due to increased
flooding potential. However, the placement of stone/rock along
severely eroding streambanks may improve the quality of the creek;
this should also be considered as a mitigation option.
5. Land management opportunities, such as elimination of manmade
devices which drain soil (i.e. ditches), may be incorporated as
mitigation options, provided affected land owners are amenable to
such mitigation.
6. Equalizing pipes, which are currently under consideration, may not
be the best design for bogs; bogs generally receive hydrology from
groundwater sources, not from floodplain/river overflow. NCDOT
will reevaluate the need for such pipes.
The written comments submitted through the State Clearinghouse and the
verbal comments during this meeting will be addressed in some type of
'. documentation and circulated through the State Clearinghouse for review.
CRC/plr
Attachments
cc: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E.
B. J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Meeting Participants
T.I.P. PROJECT R-3117
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
1. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS -US 21/NC 18 INTERSECTION
Truck traffic turning from US 21 to NC 18 and visa versa have
problems maneuvering the turns due to the close prommity of
the buildings. There is inadequate space to widen this intersection and solve
this problem. The Sparta Western Loop would help to alleviate this
situation.
B. INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
- The Town of Sparta worked to bring in Bristol Compressors as
an economic boost to the area's economy (this plant is now in operation).
This portion of the Sparta Loop will aid both this facility and other future
facilities by providing an alternative to downtown Sparta for the truck
traffic. Bristol Compressors plans to tie the facility's main entrance directly
to this roadway.
C. SPARTA THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The latest Sparta thoroughfare plan was adopted in 1992. Most of the
Sparta Loop was included in the original plan. An extension of the
proposed loop to the west was added to the thoroughfare plan in 1993.
This project is the first phase of the full loop.
H. DOCUMENT BACKGROUND
- The project began as a Division 11 design/construct project. The Division took
the lead role in determining which alignments to study.
- The SEA/FONSI was approved by the Planning and Environmental Branch in
September, 1994. A variation of the Alternative C was recommended.
III. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT
- The project was first presented at the Permit Review Meeting in December,
1993.
- NCDOT met with the COE on site in August, 1994 to determine wetland sites.
- The permit application was sent to the COE in February, 1995
R-3117
Pg 2
IV. ALTERNATIVES NOT EVALUATED IN DOCUMENT
Division 11 originally considered two alternatives: Alternative A and B. Due to
anticipated impacts of both alternatives, a decision was made to replace these
alternatives with Alternative C.
- Alternative D was developed as an "avoidance" alternative.
V. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (See Tables 1, 2)
A. NVETLAND Iii iPACTS
- Alternative A has the highest wetland impacts; of the 2.57 acres total, 2.41
acres are considered "mountain bogs." Alternative D has the lowest
impacts at 0.34 acres. The recommended Alternative C impacts 0.99 acres
of wetlands, 0.83 acres of which are considered "mountain bogs."
- Table 3 shows the DEM rating for each wetland site.
B. SOCIAL IMPACTS
- Alternative A has the lowest number of relocatees (3). Alternative D has
the highest (14). The recommended Alternative C has six relocatees.
C. OTHER IIVIPACTS
Alternative B has major design problems with tying back to ITC 18 due to
terrain variation; this alternative would also impact the Sparta wells.
Alternative D would not allow for completion of the Sparta Loop and does
not provide adequate access to Bristol Compressors.
VI. CONCLUSION
Alternatives A and B were developed by the Division and later were replaced
with Alternative C, due to anticipated impacts.
- Alternative D is the best attempt to minimize impacts to wetlands; however,
impacts to homes and businesses increase, there are design restraints at the
intersection with SR 1172, and the full purpose and need of the project is not
met.
- Alternative C was fully studied in the SEA/FONSI. Alternative C best meets the
purpose and need of the project and minimizes overall impacts.
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D
(RECOMM.)
TOTAL COST: $ 3,111,000 $ 3,760,000 $ 2,878,000 $ 4,263,000
CONSTRUCTION COST ($ 2,450,000) ($ 3,000,000) ($1,900,000) ($ 2,350,000)
RIGHT OF WAY COST ($ 661,000) ($ 780,000) ($ 978,000) ($1,913,000)
WETLAND IMPACTS (AC): 2.57 1.10 0.99 0.34
MOUNTAIN BOGS (2.41) (0.92) (0.83) (0.18)
OTHERS (0.16) (0.18) (0.16) (0.16)
CREEK CROSSINGS 2 2 2 0
TERRAIN PROBLEMS NO YES NO NO
DESIGN PROBLEMS NO NO NO YES
RELOCATEES 310 511 610 1410
(RESIDENCESJBUSINESSES)
ALLOW FOR COMPLETION YES YES YES NO
OF SPARTA LOOP
SUITABLE ACCESS TO YES YES YES NO
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS
IMPACTS TO SPARTA WELLS NO YES NO NO
Corrected 2/20/95
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 2: WETLAND COMPARISON (IN ACRES)
WETLAND ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
SITE A B C D
(RECOMMENDED)
1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
2 0.01 n. a. 0.01 0.01
3 0.07 n.a. 0.07 0.07
4* 1.38 n.a. 0.07 0.07
5* 0.08 n.a 0.20 n.a.
6* 0.15 n. a- 0.15 n. a.
7,8* 0.41 0.41 0.41 n.a.
9* 0.39 n.a. n.a. n.a.
10 n.a 0.10 n.a. n.a
11* n.a 0.51 n.a. n.a.
12* n.a n.a. n.a 0.11
TOTAL: 2.57 1.10 0.99 0.34
Note: * Mountain Bog
Chart Corrected 2/20/95
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 3: WETLAND DESCRIPTION
LOCATION NWI MUNSELL SOIL HYDROLOGICAL DEM WETLAND
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION EVIDENCE RATING
SITE 1 50 ft. west of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Saturation, oxid. 39.5
(pasture) Alleghany Builders rhizospheres
Mart mottled soils
SITE 2 Southeast quad of PSS6E 10 YR (3/2) Sat., inundation, 48
(seep) Cranford Rd., Bleds. mottled soils.
Creek crossing oxid., rhizospheres
SITE 3 100 ft. east of Bled. PSS6E 10 YR (5/1-3/1) Oxid. rhizospheres 20.5
(remnant Creek. 300 ft. west
bog) of Carson Blvd.
SITE 4 North of NC 18 and PEM1 E1PSS6E 10 YR (5/2-2/1) Inundation, satur., 71.8
(bog) west of Kemp St mottle soils,
oxid. rhizospheres
SITE 5 20 ft. north of Bled. PEM1 E 10 YR (512-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 71.8
(bog) Creek, and 500 ft rhizospheres
south of NC 18
SITE 6 50 ft. southeast of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Oxid rhizospheres 54.5
(bog) Bledsoe Ck, 400 ft.
west of Duncan St
SITE 7,8 300 ft. north of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 58.5
(bog) Grandview Dr., 100 ft. rhizospheres
north of Bledsoe Ck.
SITE 9 South of NC 18, PEM1 E 10 YR (512-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 65.5
(bog) 250 ft. east of rhizospheres
abandoned store
SITE 10 200 ft. north of Dog- PF01 E 10 YR (3/2) Saturation 53.8
(bottomld wood Dr, west of
hardwood) Bledsoe Creek
SITE 11 Pasture west of PEM1 E 10 YR (312) Inundat, satur, oxid. 62.8
(bog) Bledsoe Creek rhizospheres
SITE 12 North of pasture, PSS6E/PEM1 E 10 YR (3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 69.8
(bog) west of Bledsoe Ck rhizospheres
trat I
1
U 1 1771
+I?i
eo .x'..
r • I c,.°s
Ifta I
Glaoe
Yallt}
Chen
Y_21
t )
} Gaov.'
e
.
ROJECT IA17 U
ENO P -
LAU
`, d« J l w
SPARTA
J 1!i3
.tJ L:1 ' UL ? N
I
11. -•Q Ili + y1 d'• 11 ?? ,Q??'F
- rT7 11 js1111
a, 11 16 LUA
oel L. BEGIN PROJECT
} w O
o .01 At L!!1 yy r
{
11]1 rF LI=1 60
` ..?.?_?... 1 ill. t4
v 'o
o o 0
o ?lYi ,
t?
+a llZ.1 I? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OI
} JS - TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
v
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP FROM SR 1172
TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. R - 3117
FIGURE 1
n Q
er co
1N s•T•
slo
MAIN
2 ; ......- `- NrRY S -?
12- p ry r
0 ? ? 9 zai(
° tttrttt?tttttt?ti?tT•rit? t?w t? it Tf '?, to
?ttttlttt?? ?`
fly-
_ 10 ti
cl)
tt rtttttttttttr ALTERNATIVE A i ??. '?_ r.:,,.t._-: :.z:• ..?,
ALTERNATIVE B ???'? 4'
cza E= =3 C,
ALTERNATIVE C
(RECOMMENDED)
ALTERNATIVE D TIP ID NO. R-3117 ;
O WETLAND SITE f,•''i FIGURE 2
' ALTERNATIVE LOCATION

T.I.P. PROJECT R-3117
SPARTA WESTERN? LOOP
I. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. TRAFFIC PROBLEMS -US 21/NC 18 INTERSECTION
- Truck traffic turning from US 21 to NC 18 and visa versa have
problems maneuvering the turns due to the close proximity of
the buildings. There is inadequate space to widen this intersection and solve
this problem. The Sparta Western Loop would help to alleviate this
situation.
B. INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
- The Town of Sparta worked to bring in Bristol Compressors as
an economic boost to the area's economy (this plant is now in operation).
This portion of the Sparta Loop will aid both this facility and other future
facilities by providing an alternative to downtown Sparta for the truck
traffic. Bristol Compressors plans to tie the facility's main entrance directly
to this roadway.
C. SPAARTA THOROUGHFARE PLAN
- The latest Sparta thoroughfare plan was adopted in 1992. Most of the
Sparta Loop was included in the original plan. An extension of the
proposed loop to the west was added to the thoroughfare plan in 1993.
This project is the first phase of the full loop.
H. DOCUMENT BACKGROUND
- The project began as a Division 11 design/construct project. The Division took
the lead role in determining which alignments to study.
- The SEA/FONSI was approved by the Planning and Environmental Branch in
September, 1994. A variation of the Alternative C was recommended.
III. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT
- The project was first presented at the Permit Review Meeting in December,
1993.
- NCDOT met with the COE on site in August, 1994 to determine wetland sites.
- The permit application was sent to the COE in February, 1995
R-3117
Pg 2
IV. ALTERNATIVES NOT EVALUATED IN DOCUMENT
- Division 11 originally considered two alternatives; Alternative A and B. Due to
anticipated impacts of both alternatives, a decision was made to replace these
alternatives with Alternative C.
- Alternative D was developed as an "avoidance" alternative.
V. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (See Tables 1, 2)
A. NVETLAND M PACTS
- Alternative A has the highest wetland impacts; of the 2.57 acres total, 2.41
acres are considered "mountain bogs." Alternative D has the lowest
impacts at 0.34 acres. The recommended Alternative C impacts 0.99 acres
of wetlands, 0.83 acres of which are considered "mountain bogs."
- Table 3 shows the DEM rating for each wetland site.
B. SOCIAL a1PACTS
- Alternative A has the lowest number of relocatees (3). Alternative D has
the highest (14). The recommended Alternative C has six relocatees.
C. OTHER IMPACTS
- Alternative B has major design problems with tying back to NC 18 due to
terrain variation; this alternative would also impact the Sparta wells.
- Alternative D would not allow for completion of the Sparta Loop and does
not provide adequate access to Bristol Compressors.
VI. CONCLUSION
- Alternatives A and B were developed by the Division and later were replaced
with Alternative C, due to anticipated impacts.
- Alternative D is the best attempt to mi_nimLe impacts to wetlands; however,
impacts to homes and businesses increase, there are design restraints at the
intersection with SR 1172, and the full purpose and need of the project is not
met.
- Alternative C was fully studied in the SEA/FONSI. Alternative C best meets the
purpose and need of the project and minimises overall impacts.
A I v?
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
U 0G
? t
TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D
(RECOMM.)
TOTAL COST: $ 3,111,000 $ 3,780,000 $ 2,878,000 $ 4,263,000
CONSTRUCTION COST ($ 2,450,000) ($ 3,000,000) ($1,900,000) ($ 2,350,000)
RIGHT OF WAY COST ($ 661,000) ($ 780,000) ($ 978,000) ($1,913,000)
WETLAND IMPACTS (AC): 2.57 1.10 0.99 0.34
MOUNTAIN BOGS (2.41) (0.92) (0.83) (0.18)
OTHERS (0.16) (0.18) (0.16) (0.16)
CREEK CROSSINGS 2 2 2 0
TERRAIN PROBLEMS NO YES NO NO
DESIGN PROBLEMS NO NO NO YES
RELOCATEES 3/0 5/1 6/0 1410
(RESIDENCES/BUSINESSES)
ALLOW FOR COMPLETION YES YES YES NO
OF SPARTA LOOP
SUITABLE ACCESS TO YES YES YES NO
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS
IMPACTS TO SPARTA WELLS NO YES NO NO
Corrected 2/20/95
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 2: WETLAND COMPARISON ON ACRES)
WETLAND
SITE ALTERNATIVE
A ALTERNATIVE
B ALTERNATIVE
C
(RECOMMENDED) ALTERNATIVE
D
1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
2 0.01 n.a. 0.01 0.01
3 0.07 n.a. 0.07 0.07
4* 1.38 n.a. 0.07 0.07
5* 0.08 n.a. 0.20 n.a.
6* 0.15 n.a. 0.15 n.a.
7,8* 0.41 0.41 0.41 n.a.
9* 0.39 n.a. n.a. n.a.
10 n.a. 0.10 n.a. n.a.
11 * n.a. 0.51 n.a. n.a.
12* n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.11
TOTAL: 2.57 1.10 0.99 0.34
Note: * Mountain Bog
Chart Corrected 2/20/95
1)
TIP R-3117, SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FEBRUARY, 1995
TABLE 3: WETLAND DESCRIPTION
(G
LOCATION NWI MUNSELL SOIL HYDROLOGICAL DEM WETLAND
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION EVIDENCE RATING
SITE 1 50 ft west of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Saturation, oxid. 39.5
(pasture) Alleghany Builders rhizcspheres
Mart mottled soils
SITE 2 Southeast quad of PSS6E 10 YR (312) Sat., inundation, 48
(seep) Cranford Rd., Bleds. mottled soils.
Creek crossing oxid., rhizospheres
SITE 3 100 ft east of Bled. PSS6E 10 YR (511-3/1) Oxid. rhizospheres 20.5
(remnant Creek, 300 ft. west
bog) of Carson Blvd.
SITE 4 North of NO 18 and PEM1 E1PSS6E 10 YR (5/2-2/1) Inundation, satur.. 71.8
(bog) west of Kemp St mottle soils.
oxid. rhizospheres
SITE 5 20 ft north of Bled. PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 71.8
(bog) Creek, and 500 ft rhizospheres
south of NO 18
SITE 6 50 ft. southeast of PEM1 E 10 YR (5/2-3/2) Oxid rhizospheres 54.5
(bog) Bledsoe Ck, 400 ft.
west of Duncan St
SITE 7,8 300 ft. north of PEM1 E 10 YR (512-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 58.5
(bog) Grandview Dr., 100 ft. rhizospheres
north of Bledsoe Ck.
SITE 9 South of NO 18, PEM1 E 10 YR (512-3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. 65.5
(bog) 250 ft east of rhizospheres
abandoned store
SITE 10 200 ft.-north of Dog- PFOI E .10 YR (3/2) Saturation 53.8
(bottomld wood Dr, west of
hardwccd) Bledsoe Creek
SITE 11 Pasture west of PEM1 E 10 YR (3/2) Inundat, satur, oxid. I 62.8
(bog) Bledsoe Creek rhizospheres
SITE 12 North of pasture. PSS6E/PEM1 E 10 YR (3/2) Inundat, satur, cxid. 69.8
(bog) west of Bledsoe Ck rhizospheres
:--7--- T'1--
tr
h
•' 1 a
tL?
71 SS
1503
' /I? sJ
END PROJECT LIZ - sz e?
Uu
Liu
SPARTA
rl 11?. ?° 1171
ly n .? .. AAA
i
F tln
_ .? t1 ?e1111 (
r llll `? s t, . L'.Z.l It,
ilu
BEGIN PROJECT
0
t ? ? ? o .o? .at u
i, !11!
1171 40
o'
LM
u
k
i
i
1
1177
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTJIENT OF
J) I R y "
irta ?
? Ci1lCt '
Yallty
Chen
Gao V•'
h
,` C.1
T[2.1.\SPOF
r TRA.\SPORTATION
?. j DIVISION
C? - DIVISfOI?I OF HIGHWAYS
PLL?NWG
PLA.vNING AND ENVI[RONi•IE.'TAL
r ?@R_ BRANCH
BR.I?NCH
t PROPOSED WESTEf
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP FROM SR 1172
TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. 1. P. PROJECT NO. R - 3117
FIGURE 1

/•. t'
?:F I NCR
s :7q

`. - elm
it '
10
MAIN ST
GENT'P
ev,
?A ? J /_ .,•,?\
f ?

AOC1==C3
•///////
ALTERNATIVE B
ALTERNATIVE C
(RECOMMENDED)
ALTERNATIVE D
WETLAND SITE

v-

ua
J
- TIP ID NO. R-3117 ;
FIGURE 2
ALTERNATIVE LOCATION
.
.r i

t
S ?`?T L?"` s lJ
North Carolina
Department of Administration v
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor December 15, 1994 Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Mr. Whitmel Webb
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Webb:
RE: SCH File #95-E-4220-0253; Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact for Improvements to the Sparta Western Loop,
From SR 1172 to US 21 North (TIP #3117)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed through
the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina
Environmenal Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) in the course of this
review. It has been suggested by DEHNR that its concerns be adequately
addressed prior to their concurrence with the Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact document (EA/FONSI).
Therefore, pursuant to 1 NCAC 25 .0506(c) this office reccommends that
supplemental documentation addressing the concerns of DEHNR be submitted
to the Clearinhouse for review and comment by that department prior to
Department of Administration's concurrence of the EA/FONSI for this
project.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
attachment E1y?? i 14111 FO
cc: Region D
Melba McGee, DEHNR
FS
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00 rf?p QOV
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
- State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 3 ` o
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs"
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor I?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ® I?? lI [l
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Pl#?
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0253 - EA/FONSI Sparta, Western Loop Allegheny County
DATE: December 15, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed EA/FONSI. There continues to be a number of concerns from our
reviewers which should be dealt with in order to produce an acceptable document.
According to review comments the project area provides suitable habitat for several
rare species of plants and animals. More specifically, we are concerned that the
Department of Transportation has not conducted appropriate biological surveys prior
to issuing the Finding of No Significant Impact. It is our opinion that proper surveys
will need to be conducted and other alternatives examined before this department
can approve the Finding of No Significant Impact.
Because of the nature of the attached comments this department fines the
EA/FONSI inadequate. This department ask that every effort be made to reevaluate
the issues and if necessary meet with our divisions prior to final state review.
Attachments
ro?-
P.O. Eox 27687, Rcleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone 9TP-733 '
An Equcl C?:pcrtun'ty Attirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10,. post-consumer paper
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
November 29, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee I
FROM: Stephen Hall Sl?
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI -- Sparta Western Loop
REFERENCE: 95-0253
The Division has significant concerns about the proposed project.
Mountain bogs are among the most endangered types of natural
communities occurring in the state, and, as mentioned in the
document, the wetlands present within the project area provide
habitat that is potentially suitable for a number of the rare
species of plants and animals known to occur in the vicinity of
Sparta (p. 20, Table 6). One of these species, the bog turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii), is currently under active consideration
for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act and may very
likely be listed before this project begins construction.
Several other of these species are also candidates for federal
listing and may be proposed for listing at any time.
Although the Natural Heritage Program database does not contain
records for rare species or significant communities from the
project study area, we believe this is due at least partly to a
lack of sufficient survey efforts. We therefore strongly
recommend that a thorough biological survey be conducted,
particularly before a FONSI is issued.
In order to give more protection to these communities, we also
recommend that additional alternatives be considered,
particularly on alignments that avoid impacts to both the
wetlands and aquatic habitats of Bledsoe Creek (such as proposed
for consideration by S. Goudreau, NCWRC, 3/9/94). If no other
alternatives can be found, then we strongly recommend that the No
Action Alternative be selected.
P•, .
Q'C,HCP,FALLS LAKE
i
TEL:[phone]
Nov 30,94 13:58 ld0.007 P.02
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 91.9-7333391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 30, 1994
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0253, Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for Sparta
Western Loop, Alleghany County, TIP ;#R-3117.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments regarding the Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the
proposed Sparta Western Loop in Alleghany County. Site visits
were conducted by staff field biologists on 7 March and 29
November 1994. These comments are provided in accordance with
the provisions of the Fish and wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1
NCAC 2 5) .
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to construct a new two-lane facility 1.2 miles in length
partly on new location from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21
(Main Street) north of Sparta. The purpose of this project is to
provide access to proposed industrial areas south of downtown
Sparta and to reduce traffic volumes on segments of US 21 and NC
18 in downtown Sparta. Long-term plans involve extending the
loop southward for 0.8 mile to tie into US 21 south of Sparta;
however, this segment is not proposed at this time.
The NCDOT examined two alternatives in the EA/FONSI named
Alternatives 1 and 1A. Both require approximately 13 acres of
additional right-of-way; however, Alternative 1 would impact 0.76
acre of wetlands (mountain bogs) and Alternative 1A (preferred by
the NCDOT) would impact 1.51 acres of mountain bogs. Both
alternatives involve two new stream crossings in Bledsoe Creek
(Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water).

`JRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Nov 30'94 1-0:59 No.007 P.03
95-0253 Page 2 November 30, 1994
Approximately 500 acres of mountain bogs presently exist in
North Carolina, compared to almost 5,000 acres in the past.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) are committed to protecting this vanishing
habitat type. Mountain bogs support diverse assemblages of plant
and animal species, including many rare species. Gray's lily
Lilium grayi has been collected in the project area, and habitat
also exists for the bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii. Both
species are listed as threatened by North Carolina and are
candidates for federal listing.
The NCWRC does not concur with the findings of the EA/FONSI.
We have the following comments regarding the project:
1) The NCDOT should examine at least two other alternatives in
the EA, one that completely avoids impacting any mountain
bogs and another that avoids impacting Wetlands 1 and 2 and
others by shifting the alignment around these areas.
Discussiori in the EA/FONSI regarding other alternatives was
limited to one short paragraph on Page 11. At this time we
are not convinced that the NCDOT has no feasible
alternatives to impacting 0.76-1.51 acres of mountain bogs.
2) The NCWRC is not satisfied with either alternative at this
time; however, Alternative 1 would be preferable to
Alternative 1A. Alternative 1 would impact half the acreage
of mountain bogs that Alternative IA would impact.
3) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted ao to
what type of 404 permit would be necessary for this project.
During the scoping meeting on 16 December 1993, we were
given the impression that an individual permit would be
required for wetland impacts. At this time we would not
comment favorably on an application for a 404 permit,
whether nationwide or individual.
4) The NCDOT should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) regarding the current federal status of the
bog turtle. It is our understanding that a draft rule has
been submitted to the Washington D.C. office of the USFWS
that would either list this species as threatened throughout
its ran-e or would list the southern population (includes
North _-4rolina) as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with the northern population. The imminent
lisLiug of th_s species may have ramifications for this
projc-ct.
Thank you fL)-,- the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Coordinator
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestinns rennrdinn these nermits should be addressed to the Reaional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)

? Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
A
discharging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (N,
I
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
I
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NiA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days I
? Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 nays)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
C
NIA 60 days
(90 da
s)
21H.06
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCA y
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-7330820. (90 days)
? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20 00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 ca s)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of.1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
? Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

? 90.120 days
A
N
Oil Refining Facilities NIA /
)
(
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.

? Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to. prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 1200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
P,,,,; Continued on reverse
Normal Process
Time
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
C
w
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 1520 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification N/A (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(919) 8967007
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources r?
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COW-EENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: 95-/02:53 County:
Project Name: S?4rA WB5rQYn "2p
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
Xodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic .survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer`, ( Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date

P.O. Box 270,97 • Ratelgh, N.C. 27611-7687 0 Telephone [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources . 4 0 0
Division of Environmental Management,
- ?i
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swih
From: Eric GalamkC`
Subject: EA for Sparta estern Loop from SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County
State Project DOT No. 9.8112515, TIP #R-3117
EHNR # 95-0253, DEM WQ # 10769
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project as
proposed would impact up to 0.59 hectares of wetlands.
Alternatives to avoid the mountain bogs are not presented in the document. DEM requests
that the FONSI present these alternatives. DEM does not concur with the preferred
alternative until DOT has surveyed and failed to locate Bog Turtles.
In the December 16, 1993 interagency meeting, the COE stated that Bledsoe Creek is below
headwaters and therefore will require an Individual Permit and Certification. DOT should
develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to
DEM for review and comment. DEM requests that Mr. Dennis Herman with Zoo Atlanta be
contacted to locate and preserve high quality mountain bogs in Alleghany County. In addition,
DEM requests that DOT investigate restoration/enhancement/creation options. One possible
location would be between wetland site 1 and 2 on the north side of the road. In addition,
mitigation options to improve Bledsoe Creek such as planting of streamside buffers and
"dechannelization" should be investigated.
Any stream relocations/channelization should be completed using DOT's guidance document.
DOT should revegetate along stream relocations/channelization associated with this project.
DOT is requested to explain the design and functions of the equalizer pipes (page 26).
Please be advised that this'review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
spartalp.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501 recycled/ 101 post-consumor paper
IMPORTANT
To
Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
Signed
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

rv m ice.
Tl* M-3
k6yn o) 4?
0 49- 14 S j'JQ? ?
I N '
Sb ?
S
0-?- 45 b, L)
1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
June 7, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: J. Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning
FROM: Hal Bain, Environmental Biologist ?•?'
Environmental Unit
.?r
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report..for
Proposed two-lane connector road on new
location in Sparta from SR 1172 (Grandview
Road) to US 21 North, Alleghany County, TIP
No. R-3117; State Project No. 9.8112515.
ATTENTION: Charles Cox, Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
c: V. Charles Bruton,
N1. Randall Turner,
File: R-3117
Ph. D.
Environmental Supervisor

r-

Proposed two-lane connector road on new
location in Sparta from SR 1172
(Grandview Road) to US 21 North
TIP No. R-3117
State Project No. 9.8112515` "r
Natural Resources Technical Report
R-3117

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONbtENTAL,;BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT.--
HAL BAIN, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
07 June 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Methodology ...................................1
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils ..........................................2
2.2 Water Resources ................................3
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters .............3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ....... ..;,,o..3
2.2.3 Water Quality .........................3
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts......... 4
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................4
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................5
3.1.1 Man-dominated .........................5
3.1.2 Mountain Bog ..........................5
3.1.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest .................6
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................6
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................7
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ...............................8
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................8
4.1.1 Study Area Waters of the U.S........... 8
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......... 9
4.1.3 Permits .............. 9
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation... 10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................10
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............ 10
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ..............10
5.0 References .........................................13
Appendix A: Species Observed List ....... Al
Appendix B: Comments from Resource Agencies ............ Bl
?.
M
MEL
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a State Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. The project lies
in Alleghany County, on the west side of Sparta, the county
seat (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project is a two-lane connector road on new
location and will run from SR 1172 (Grandview Road) to US 21
North. The proposed cross section includes a 8.5 m (28.0 ft)
paved roadway including two 3.6 m (12.0 ft) lanes with 0.6 m
(2.0 ft) paved shoulders and 1.8-2.4 m (6.0-8.0 ft) gr ssed
shoulders. One main alignment is to be studied (A-17i nt
1). However, Alignment 1A is a partial alignment` to be
studied in the Kemp Street area. Alignment 1 is anticipated
to minimize wetland impacts, while Alignment lA is
anticipated to minimize relocates.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Sparta west, Sparta east, Glade Valley, and
Whitehead), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps, NCDOT
aerial photographs of project area (1:2400) and Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of Alld?viany County.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis publication of the Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Alleghany County. Information
concerning the occurrence of federal'?and state protected
species in the study area was gathere(f..f,om the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected.-and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
_ 'r ! ineYCreek u? Enmce•
tratlaai93
! w Sparta
*(, 221'1 Y clad e
/r Valley
?Utah
i Gap
ti to
Ito?
L113
71 IfOI
SS ? 0l
Jt 11 ^ l?
END PROJECT iuz
Q'
Liu :0
MoN Q LSl %
{
SPARTA
1 a `f
7 ?
7 ^,
.13
11 ?.? ? I ?].y •4 Ia,y G'. .
m, - ao Ilnl Ad
?• ?' 71 Jq -P
0 7e
is
• •. ins }? oe=Lt1
llr2 ` ti 1114 )o a .. . LLL -
_ -LLLL
o? '" .. BEGIN PROJECT ,
1CO ?t o .07 .0a Itg / ?.
Lll! . 11ZL e0 1 JJ E
- ? lee [
° rS W I O
L71
0
h
1. Lu LLLi NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 0
,» E TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
N.-
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP FROM SR 117'
TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. I: P. PROJECT NO. R - 3117
FIGURE 1

2
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Hal Bain on December 3, 1993 and
May 31, 1994. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation
techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory studies
for aquatic organisms were conducted using a hand held dip
net; tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered
as well. Organisms captured during these searches were
identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria
prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environment Laboratory, 1987). r
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Alleghany County lies in the Northwestern portion of the
Mountain Physiographic Providence. The topography of
Alleghany County is a mix of sharp mountain ridges and steep
valley slopes. Elevation in the subject project area ranges
from 848.5 m (2800.0 ft) to 909.1 m (3000.0 ft).
2.1 Soils
Table 1 provides an inventory of soil series which occur
in the project area. The soil map of Alleghany County
contains 5 general soil associations. The Chester-Ashe soil
association is the only one to be crossed by the proposed
project alignment. This association contains well-drained
to somewhat excessively drained, rolling to very steep,
micaceous soils on narrow ridgetops and side slopes of the
uplands.
Table 1. County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification;.,
Ad Alluvial land, wet - A
CeE Chester loam 10 to 15 -
Cx Codorus complex A
TaC Tate loam ,O 10 -
TIC Tusquitee loam 6.i-o 10 -
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
3
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, "best
usage" standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Bledsoe Creek and 5 unnamed tributaries to Bledsoe Creek
will be crossed by the proposed project construction.
Bledsoe Creek flows north to south into the Little Riv9.r
south of the proposed project alignment. This creek
parallels the proposed project alignment for the'majority of
the projects length. Two crossings of this creek will take
place along the project alignment. Creek characteristics at
these two crossings are similar and include a width of
approximately 3.6 m (12.0 ft), and depth of 0.3-0.6 m (1.0-
2.0 ft). Substrate in Bledsoe Creek is comprised of rock,
sand, and silt. Scoured creek banks are a common feature
along this water resource.
The unnamed tributaries of Bledsoe Creek range in width
and depth from 0.3-0.9 m (1.0-3.0 ft) and from 0.1-0.3 m
(0.5-1.0 ft) respectively. A rock, sand, silt substrate is
common among these unnamed tributaries.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Bledsoe
Creek has a "best usage" classification of C Tr. Unnamed
tributaries of Bledsoe Creek carry the same classification as
that water body to which they are tributary. Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Class Tr (Supplemental Classification of Trout Waters) waters
are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of
stocked trout.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area. `
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate AA-1qt Network (BMAN)
is managed by DEM and is part of an ongo),ng ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
T
4
fixed monitoring sites. Some macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN information is available for the immediate
project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. NPDES lists no
permitted dischargers for the project area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area w' 1
result from sedimentation and turbidity, as well as, on-
point discharge of toxic substances from increased roadway
surface area (engine fluids and particulate rubber).
Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead
to reduced depth of light penetration in the water column,
reduction in the water's oxygen carrying capacity, and
changes in water temperature. Some degree of sedimentation
has already occurred as a result of development in the
subject project area.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best
Management Practices and Sediment control guidelines) should
be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project. Grass berms along construction areas help decrease
erosion and allow toxic substances to be absorbed into the
soil before these substances reach waterways. Poorly managed
application of sedimentation control policies will result in
serious damage to the aquatic environment.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study are-ii-?- Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described`
and discussed. A complete listing of fauna known to occur in
the study area can be found in Appendix A.
Scientific nomenclature and common,yiames (when
applicable) are provided for each animal.-and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study area: Man-dominated Community, Mountain
Bog Community, and Mixed Hardwood Forest Community. Many
faunal species which utilize these communities are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed.
3.1.1 Man-dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes roadside, lawn,
and pasture habitats. Many plant species, characteristic of
the mowed roadside and pasture, are adapted to disturbed and
maintained habitats. The intensely maintained (mowed pr
grazed) areas are dominated by fescue (Festu'ca sp.-)- YSd
plantain (Plantago sp.) as well as'a variety of 1`andscape
ornamentals. Less well maintained areas exhibit dense
herbacious and scrub/shrub growth including buttercup
(Ranunculus sp.), clover (Trifolium pratense), chickweed
(Stellaria graminea), sourweed (Rumex sp.), blue-eyed grass
(Sisyrinchium sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), leather-flower (Clematis viorna), and rose
(Rosa sp.).
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of forage
resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, seeds,
and fruits) to animal matter (living and dead). Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) are
examples of species attracted to lawns and roadside habitats.
Also, several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.) inhabit the
less maintained margins or ecotones of road shoulders.
Mortality among animals which migrate across roadways
provides forage for opportunistic species such as turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura) and Virginia opossum which may in
turn become fatalities and subsequently forage items
themselves.
3.1.2 Mountain Bog Community
This wetland community type occurs at 4eVeral locations
along the proposed project alignment. Many of these bog
communities have been degraded by attempts at ditching and
impacts from cattle. Dense stands of herbacious species such
as sedges (Carer lurida and C. stricta), spike rush
(Eleocharis obtusa), soft needle rush (Juncus effusus),
arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus
foetidus), and sensitive fern (Onoclea"sfnsibilis) are found
in varying combinations at each bog site.- Graminoids are
also prevalent. Gray's lily (Lilium grayi) a federal
candidate (C2) species is a federal candidate species known
from bogs in the vicinity of Sparta (See Section 4.2.2).
6
These bog habitats are ideal for amphibian reproduction
due to the lack of flooding conditions which support
predatory fish species. Amphibians such as the four-toed
salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and
pickerel frog (Rana palustris) are likely to be found in and
around these wetlands. The bog turtle (Clemmys rnuhlenberti),
a federal candidate (C2) species is also likely to be found
in these bogs along with red-winged blackbird (Agelaius
phoeniceus), common snipe (Gallina,o gallinago) and a variety
of invertebrates including crayfish (Cambaridae).
3.1.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This community is small and probably a remnant of the
forest type typical of the upper floodplain of Bledso? reek.
White oak (Quercus alba), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), red
maple (Acer rubrum), Ash (Fraxinus americana), locust
(Robinia sp.), and black cherry make up the canopy. A
diverse shrub/vine/herb layer includes species such as
rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.), Solomon's seal (Polygonaturrt
sp.), false Solomon's seal (Maianthernum canadense), Indian-
physic (Gillenia trifoliata), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia
nudicaulis), galax (Galax aphylla), and greenbrier (Smilax
sp.)
Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), nest and forage in this forest
habitat along with the more secretive northern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda). Other vertebrates which may use
this community for foraging, shelter and/or nesting include
such species as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus),
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), rufus-sided towhee
(Pipilo erythrophthalaius), and redback salamander (Plethodon
cinereus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, Bledsoe Creek and its
tributaries, will be impacted by the proposed project.
Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of
the water resource reflect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacit to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
These waterbodies have been degraded by sedimentation asp`
a result of development. Creek banks, which are steep and
heavily eroded exhibit a narrow buffer of vegetation which
includes black cherry, red maple, tam alder (Alnus
serrulata), silky dogwood (Cornus amomuml, blackberry (Rubus
sp.), rose, touch-me-not (Impatiens sp.)r- and yellowroot
(Yanthorhiza simplicissima).
7
Animals such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) may reside
along the waters edge, along with northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), crayfish, segmented worms
(Oligocheates), and larvae of other invertebrates which exist
under stones and other debris on the creek beds. Some fish
species likely to be found in this section of Bledsoe Creek
include rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), stocked rainbow
trout (oncorhynchus mykiss), chub (Nocomis spp.), darter
(Etheostoma spp.), and shiners (Notrpis spp.) (memo dated
March 8, 1994 from WRC bit. region coordinator).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any constr etion
related activities in or near these resources have,.-t
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 30.3 m (100.0 ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE lA
Man-dominated 4.7(11.6) 4.4(10.9)
Mountain Bog 0.3(0.8) 0.6(1.5)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.2(0.5) 0.2(0.5)
TOTAL IMPACTS 5.2(12.9) 5.2(12.9)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres)-:*"
Few natural communities occur in the project area and
those communities have been highly fragmented and reduced as
a result of previous development. The man-dominated
community component of the project area will receive the
greatest impact from habitat reduction, resulting in the loss
and displacement of plant and animal lifg, regardless of
which alternative is chosen. Impacts to ~,..terrestrial
communities will result in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement, as well as, mortality of animal species
currently in residence.

8
As mentioned previously, the aquatic component of the
project area has already been altered by siltation from
erosion due to development in and around Sparta. Project
construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads
to the Bledsoe Creek and its unnamed tributaries.
Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are important parts of the
aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of
the filter feeders may be covered and smothered by
sedimentation resulting from construction related erosion.
Local fish populations can also be harmed by construction-
related sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish
eggs.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS'
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology.
Mountain bog Wetlands are located alongk he subject
project alignment (Figure 2). These depressional wetlands
are located upslope of the floodplain of Bledsoe Creek, and
are in varying stages of degradation as a result of cattle "
grazing and attempts which have been made over the years to
drain them. Soil, vegetative, and hydrological
characteristics all meet the COE 1987,,wetland delineation
manual criterion for wetlands. These weV ands fit the NWI
classification for Palustrine Emergent Persistent (PEM1).

9
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Mountain bogs, which have been declining in number as a
result of attempts by man to drain them, are highly valuable
reservoirs of rare plant and animal species. It is important
to preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of these communities
so that the rich diversity of plant and animal life, which
the North Carolinas mountains have become famous for will not
be lost. Anticipated impacts to mountain bog wetlands are
listed in Table 3 by wetland site (See Figure 2 for site
locations).
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
COMMUNITY TYPE SITE ALTERNATIVE 1' ALTERN TIVE lA
Mountain Bog 1 0.12(0.30) 0.12(0.30)
2 0.08(0.23) 0.08(0.23)
3 0.004(0.01) 0.03(0.07)
4 0.004(0.01) 0.07(0.17)
5 0.008(0.02) 0.13(0.33)
6 0.05(0.13) 0.13(0.33)
7 0.02(0.05) 0.03(0.07)
8 0.002(0.005) 0.002(0.005)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.29(0.76) 0.59(1.51)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters
are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." Since the
proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county,
the authorization of a federal permit by the COE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resource
Commission (WRC).
Nationwide 14 Permit
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) is likely to be
applicable at creek crossings found in the project study
area. This permit authorizes construction provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited
to a filled area of no more than 0.1 hectares
(1/3 acre);
, ?i'11?1110
0

/--?J '?; (?ti •' * / l / ? ?-?_-/` ? _ it i , , . `-- - _ \ _:.?:0??; ?((i '\1 ') (_,? ;',v _' I ??' I ?' '• ? ? .
??/? (?) `? -'i1 ?11 l ('? ?? ?'???- r? /?*?=? '?- - \? _ \ ??''?• ?Il?'? 11' ?/ •C,`°,• . •. i ; , ?? il?i??? 1 I
`b f ' ?`-='' `'-` ,`P '\?` ,,t1?,1 1 ,: ,'•.1
(/ '' {l1 I ??^ ? 1 I ~JJ ? ? \ / 1l Ilr? I - ! _ 1 r , (?i? ,.? ?/ ` .,T? • b y
' 1 "i ? (/ ( i '°'?•.?-, l? .3`Tl /? -'-1^\ \ l( l`I\ .1 \`?^,t111???">,i.• /. +I"t, °{°?.?• .? 'J ,\,o '(- e.
`\ ,\( +l!(I ?•??l`r .` ', ,. S `'? ~1-y\. .I /
,j))?,?; ?y J1!?J!? ?-? _? -ll,?L?.?_ ?,?? - _?f, i/_ 1,// 'l? '( -'i )`f' ?? ?'") ).??'????:,?.1 ..1 ^,_ '•Y.• ? 1) '? _ l
=?? -.? f?-.w:i .i ?`_../? '?`.,?`---'! J? ?l -f-J% l?'r ?` ` ?-_ ,\I,'•! 1?(•\,? \?'; ?'•.?.-?,•1`11?1 -1,.; ?``.1\l.•',•? !' ?°..l ?.' 'L.--
'(\-? I / ' ?y?` _' 'r ? ?-, - t' ? f --S' / ?? l - ? -" ? '?•.?????\l .. ?? fit. ,h t.?lf.._ `• ,?? ?,\?^ , , 1? 1' p ,, ?
'+ l /? /rte-?lJ''?J' -a - I f?' .l /??-?'_ `'\?- //`,), ` ,1 e 1 A('. "~???' ;?\?:?1 `)•'i'-?0 ,
\ )?f-=?'= 'i:..?. ::-;?7tV.. ?:,.,• ,?/ / .? 1= ??-_,? t l,? 1•'\., 1 `•1`.•''t_ _- •- .?I• i.?l;?(i,'' It)`7,r)- ?, ?1//
-I'?l" ' f /. _ v._?-- a,.:dr-.?-: ?, s ? _ , J ?.? '???. _ _?. r -?- _ II ?l'"• \ \, ? .,, ? ?• ? • ?.I _., ' - l ? t '';'_ ?/? `' ,1 ems! ? • .
w r
(' ? ? (']/ ; /, n K hJ •\'''_-- •?. a??y• ? i/%_ -?:?? "•\?/r\?`-?.A1 \? \ ?'•1 \ ??`, •J, -jf? +-'' !1 I??i ll.'•'•1 1 '\ ? .?'.\,;L/
` t j `' ; ?fil, )??:1/) 1???
.G• .-? ?? t-` ?' [? / ??-w :,/ ? /..,, .\ , I ? ? 1 ?. ` , C t i? I' t •i'i ?'i:% ji ?.l ( /? g'- -
?'? to w x - _ -'?' ?; ?';;>? ????.?i' / ( r ;?'?? r;/1 ,,?- \':- ,(;((cl S ?`? p:
-71 ?v
v\N
N H ( , I ??'.. !\L?JI?>?? ?? > ( ' _ ,??? `j? / \\'` \`'"1 :;-•i ?at,I..l/ J? !?' r,?-??r `tr
C__ m
1 41
ct fl) co
ca in 0
01'
r ro ro C i? p ?, I r' ,? mss: ( Y??, t t ?:
-- - .,-? .l? , ? •?? :?? .yam -:?-- ?' _ +?:, _? ' ' ,:'/;' -? 1 l i?.? ^ar
1 i., ?, ' ? •?r '' ? (??1, fit. / ' O
44
1 1 , I ! , ° 1 1t\y j. I' Y} ?°' s.?• _\' 1? [.:?• 1? • ?\ ?' 1f 1? ?'
t:d
1?Pr?. f?'?. f i e ).,..?yi.?-? /11j
1 ' ,~ 1•ti 1 I I i 'I+ 1 :\
. , ! II 1.11 ) ?• 4 ?• ?..? `=?•.1 1 t z ?;?. • ?,;' '?'. `'1` .?, ( ? ? f ??` i ?":'-',; ) c;I ?"-/' •'?---?` _• •i
?_?' ,e _ ? L. _J--J .\I .. i1 i\-i,?'..? O ?'?_, i ??• ?\ o`• 1 \\.%• ? \\JIf"J =`??-. ..?.??'1 ( .`i ?. `
' , ' / ? ? ,' " ?; ? ,,\ _.,?„Jj, ,.?:-?._... ? - \, ? .:'mil . •.I .', )
:J ;-
. ,°'''• r •_ •Y 'tip I _ )', \ ; ' /? ? '?,'z"?? ?l!- ? ?-'' - -; x? :;i? i.
/A AF
> Fld M !. o,u ??iP•''1 ,x,eZ-•'. :' ?1+ .I ` \ I'o ' , ?,• /,. il... mow..-`` .._ I '? ',N /?,sy,.: _? > 1 . ????
0 AA
Pa I'd
L7 A,
foo
FA ca L4 I-CV
? O N bd ? '• ? 1 '?J •?, ? r.? I;??: ?{ 1,'?. .:' ?-•%:?'-•. ? j ( l1 ,° l l.;?if .?' 1'? !
x f-3 x r 'f , • lid I I i f ?. ,; i'% j,.p ` i l `\.) )'1 ti. 1 `,'?I Y 'Al
hJ' i
)-3 0
cn O N
lit
1i ). r) ? ?. '? + I- ; ))\•.•`\? - , ,'(`' ,,•',. .! ( )' / Wig , ? I \ !)
1 t ? ?` `'°,. ?-?'??.? +. J I ? ` ` \\?//.?'i,/, ' ' .' / , , •, ? \ ... of
01
.. ^?!'m ... ' %`, ? .-- _._?? ; ?.??` rl t ?// \ I ?1...^•-. ,", '- .iJ. 'tl.?\\ -/ (;.Vj-'??(`??-?.\\ •!Q '?' Y/IJ??1\??- _ J,
10
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill
for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed
to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand,
expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of
aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project for crossing of a Water of the United
States.
Nationwide 26 Permit
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is--likely to be
applicable for all impacts to mountain bog'wetlands
associated with the proposed project. This permit authorizes
discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and
isolated jurisdictional wetlands provided the following
conditions are met:
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than
4 hectares (10 acres) of Waters of the United States;
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the
discharge would cause the loss of Waters of the United
States greater than 0.4 hectare (1.0 acre) in accordance
with the "Notification" general conditions (for
discharges in special aquatic sites, including
jurisdictional wetlands, the notification must also
include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including jurisdictional wetlands), and;
(3) the discharge, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification•»ror any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge.
into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401
permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section `
404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) prior to the issuance of the Nati.oAwide permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state
11
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the
Waters of the United States.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Wetland impacts authorized under Nationwide Permits
usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to
the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army.
However, final decision on mitigation requirements lies with
the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been,dn- or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FNS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of May 12, 1994, the FWS lists no
federally-protected species for Alleghany County.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no occurrence of
federally-protected species in or near the project study
area.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 10 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Alleghany County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Specs Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as `
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listeds Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) bi the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
12
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as these
species may be upgraded to a protected status in the future.
Table 4. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Alleghany County
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON NAME
NC
STATUS-HABITAT
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis
Phenacobius teretulus
Ophiogomphus howeii
Speyeria idalia
Stenelmis gammoni
Delphinium exaltatum
Lilium grayi
Atonotropsis odorata
Saxifraga caroliniana
bog turtle
hellbender *
Kanawha minnow
Midget snaketail
dragonfly
regal fritillary
butterfly
Gammon's stenelmis
riffle beetle
tall larkspur
Gray's lily
sweet pinesap
Gray's saxifrage
T YES
SC NO
SC YES
YES
YES
YES
T-SC YES
NO
NO
NOTE: Population not documented in Alleghany County in
the past twenty years;
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Federal Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare
species and unique habitats revealed no recci?Us of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
5
13
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program.jj'It of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina".-,North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List o,LNorth Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell$ 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
14
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Soil Survey of Alleghany County. 1973. North Carolina
Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Car?lina
Natural Heritage Program. "
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.

'T
N

APPENDIX A

?N .
Species observed List
Scientific Name
FISH
Notropis spp.
AMPHIBIANS
Rana palustris
BIRDS
Gallinago gallinago
Cathartes aura
Zenaida macroura
Sphyrapicus varius
Hirundo rustica
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Sialia sialis
Turdus migratorius
Dumetella carolinensis
Bombycilla cedrorum
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
bfelospiza melodia
Junco hyemalis
Agelaius phoeniceus
Quiscalus quiscula
MAMMALS
Didelphis virginiana
Blarina brevicauda
Tamias striatus
Sciurus carolinensis
Procyon lotor
Odocoileus virginianus
Common Name
shiners
pickerel frog
common snipe
turkey vulture
mourning dove
yellow-bellied sapsucker
barn swallow
American crow
Carolina wren
eastern bluebird
American robin'
gray catbird
cedar waxwing
rufous-sided towhee
song sparrow
dark-eyed junco
red-winged blackbird
common grackle
Virginia opossum
northern short-tailed shrew
eastern chipmunk
gray squirrel
raccoon
white-tailed deer

. y
r
?r
APPENDIX B

N
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
. ' P.O. BOX 1890 _
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 26, 1994
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199401753
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E,..Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department s
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
C E
O
APR 2 9 1994
2 DI'V'S'CN OF z"
H1GHV14yS 6
P_e
11: " - r
Reference is made to your letter of February 9,•1994, requesting comments
concerning potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
construction of the Sparta Western Loop (State Project No. 9.8112515, T.I.P.
No. R-3117). The proposed project calls for a two-lane road on new location
adjacent to Bledsoe Creek, from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21 North,
Sparta, Alleghany County, North Carolina. The proposed roadway will provide
access to the new industrial facilities that are presently under construction.
Reference is also made to the site visit of November 17, 1993, conducted
by Mr. John Thomas of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Staff at the
aforementioned site . The site visit revealed that the preferred new road
alignment had not yet been determined. However, the site review showed that
the corridor for the proposed road was located within a flood plain pasture
adjacent to Bledsoe Creek. 'This open pasture had a predominate cover of
fescue and orchard grass. It also contained small pockets of wetlands that
ran at 45 degree angles adjacent to the creek. These wetlands were easily
identified by the dominated ground cover of spike rush (Eleocharis obtusa). A
close look at these wetlands showed that they had been degraded by past
attempts of ditching and impacts from cattle. i'he potential read alignment
located west of NC 18 presented a special concern in that the site review
indicated this area to be potential mountain bog habitat. It was also noted
that Bledsoe Creek is a Designated Public Mountain Trout water and the project
area is located adjacent to the below head waters of Bledsoe Creek.
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant. to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be ra,guired for the discharge
of excavated or fill material into waters of the United States and/or any
adjacent or isolated wetlands during construction of this project, including
disposal of construction debris. Regarding processing of individual
Department of the Army permit applications, on February 6, 1990, the
Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
. ti

-2-
signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine
the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts
to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical
alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize
impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining
unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To process any
application submitted for the proposal in full compliance with this MOA, the
following additional information mist be provided:
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are
available only if the proposed work is the least environtuer-,tally uaiua9iri9, .
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for tVI-;ith you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan--is-the least'
damaging to water or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for.you to have taken all appropriate and practical
steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done,
especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed
construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be
required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate
and practical minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to
mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical measures.
Mr. John Thomas is the point of contact for processing of your Department
of the Army permit for the proposed project. Should you have questions,
please contact Mr. Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, at telephone (919)
8?0'-8441.
Sincerel?,
k!G. e Wri
ie Regula ry Branch
r-

-3-
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management-
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Rescurces
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

1„
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
John G. Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGee A_-
Project Review Coordinator
.?
94-0601 Scoping Sparta Western Loop, Alleghany County
March 15, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments

. ti
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Afflrmctive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pcper

•,,.,.,,,. ter' ` . ' / , .i ` ' :-,
State of North Carolina ?'- ?• I ?_r • -
Department of Environment, Health, and Natu ral Resources
DM5ion of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COK4MNTS Charles H. Gardner
Wllllarn NV. Cobey, Jr., Seaetary Director
Project Number: cl Y`6? O? County: ?? LG ??f?f}? 1 i
Project Name: •G co
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
c/ This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
/`?-All 2.- z.i- 9 y
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control hi
Ila comment
` v
This project will require ap._?_'
of ari,erosip and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginni?" ' any k?fd-cistu? ing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disX, bed.
If an environmental document is regal to satisfy Environmental .
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control4plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transpd'rtation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quakity Section at [phone].
N
O2122?5z¢
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Oppcnunlty AtHrmatNe Action Employer
DEPAR'TTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, (-[(::\l..11-(. 1'rojecc Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ?
Coun ,.
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
1 b? ?
41 ype of Project
Project Name T
'The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
f--? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
?-J state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the .shcfis?i sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
?--? The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
L-J For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should:
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
-? The applicant should be advised that prior to the 'removal or demolition of dilapidated
L--J structures, an externsive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information. concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public. Health Pest Management. Section. at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
?-? requirements .for septic. tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,. contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
?-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
?-J facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
Reviewer
_'? Date
Section/tcanch
l? ?y
Drf-i,,h 3193 (Rcviscd 3/93)
Division of Environmcncal F(calrh
• State of North Carolina
Npartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office: 60 6'eo
Project Number. Due ;Da te:
0rLb
After review of this project it has been dattrmirrad that the EHNR rmit a and/or '
p e() () approvals Indicted may treed to be obtained In
order for Otis project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions rogarding these permits should be addressed to the Regionil Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
AU apptrcai!ona, tmiormalion and guidelines relatir3 to these plans and permits are available from the tune
Regional Office. Normal Process
T
. rme
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS alatutory twat
limit)

0 Permit to construct A operate wastewater trawnrant Application DO days before begin c; nsiructiore or award of days
. Iaelllti•3, atwtr system tal•naions, t otwtr construction contracts on-site inspection. Post•applitation
aystems not afatharging into state surface waitrs. technical conftranct usual t?0 dens)
NPDES • permit to aischarpt into auria:t water viiiipor A.pplrcation 100 oars before burn =rritr. Oo-stte tnspect?on. !34120 days
L7 permit to operate and construct wastewater tac$4105 Pr••apptiulion conference usual Addilionaliy. attain permit to
drsowgin9 into stale surfamae tsars. construct waste•wstsr 1 .al:ntnt fxility-granI&C after NPOES Reply (NIA)
time. X days after racerpl Of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichty r tY later.
D water tJaa PlmN1 Pia application tachnKaf conference usually netesa•ary -1 days
(NIA)
D
welt Conafrueiron Permit
Complete application mu 1 be ratrivd arsC permit tswad
rior t
th
ll 7 days
p
o
e insta
ation at a will. (15 days)
A;plication copy must be "-ltd on each sdla:•nt riparian property 55 days
edge aria FLU Flamut owner On-silt inspection. Pre•appliulrore conferenct waaal Filling
may reguirt Easement to Fill from N.C Oe;arlmtnt of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
emit to construct L Dpe:ate Air Pollution Ataltrnent
f
il
' 60 days
ac
ities and/o
Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H M!A (90 days)
y open burning assYii!ed with sutlecl proposal
must bi in eomp(,ance with 1SA NCAC 20.0529.
Cemof not rano,ai.ons of structures containing
+tstos ma!tria' must be in compl.an:t with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D 0525 which raqvites notification and romovat NIA
Prior to demolition Contact As:.tsios Control Gait;
919 733.0820 (9C aays)
Complete Source Permit required under 1SA NCAC 2DAb00
At Sed;menlalron Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturtins activlly An erosion 8 seGmentalio
LJ conlrof plan will N required If one or mote acres to be dislurued Plan fife: with propmef Re;;dnai Office (Land Ouslity Se-.1.) at least 30 20 days
da:s before be^-nn•n a:hv;t A fee of S3^. tot the first acre and 52000 for earn addrtrona• A-te or art mss! accom am the plan 30 (la sl
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must bt addressed with respect to the re!efrenced Local (>dinanea: 430 days)
On site inspection usual. Surety bona filed write EHNR Bond amount
Mining Permit vafies with Type mine and nurnt4r of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permite9. The appropriate bond t63 days)
must (k received teroie the ptimit can be issued.
D North Carolina Burning perms On-site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
eiceeds 4 oars a:.rT (NIA)
n Sp,e:ref Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22
i On-site inspection by N D. Division Forest Resources required -11 more 1 day
A
count
es in costa! N.C. with organk solid than five acres of ground clearing activities see involved fnspecftons (NI
)
should be tequcsted at least ten days before actual burn is planned-
• 60 120 days
Oil Refining Facilities _
WA (NIA)
If permit required, appr;cat;on (L,?ays before begin construction.

D 0
! Applicant must h;rt N C. qual,f,t?_tng neer to ptepaie plans.
' 30 days
.m Sa
ely Permlt. inspect cons(ruc•
•.:, cc:':`;•• Onslruct;on (s accord;ng to C10N11 approve
ed;tans. May afsv ruqu;ic ptimit under mosquito control program. And (60 dArs)
a AU ptirnit from Corps of Eng;racers An inspect;on of site is naees•
sa•y to verlfl I{a:ard C41sif;cal;on. A minimum fee of i2?^ 00 must ae•
corn;any the a;;l ca!ion. An add;l;unat processing Net based on a
?..r.nra-? Or tilt tC!af Or0*-ttl COST r;I: is re^.,;rrA ., .r.n rnmorelion

1401"16, house

PERMITS GPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REQUIREMENTS autwory time
la?,il)
Fat surtty bond 01 85.000 wtth EKNR running to sure of t4.C. d+ys
Permit to Om exploratory olt or I;= awl condilic'U, that any well aperiad pr drill operator "I' W;1"
?14iA).
- =&Mdonment. t* PIv9W wc:ording to EKNR rules land ri;V"ioru.
Goophrylcd Espbrmion Permll Application riled with EHNR ail ,aril 10 days prior to fasus of pwarmit 10 Gays
Application by ,attar. No alanCard Appticstan form. (N!A)
State Lztn Corwryetion Parmjt Application fet ,speed 0n structure size is charged blast Mclube 1520 dare
1 a "-.riptions & tlrawings of structure t proof of ownershup (NIA)
of n; arias prowy.
W Gays
4701 Mraser cubilty Cvflif Cw *r ) CUA (100 aays)
ss cars
CAUA Pvmul for MAJOR ce,efogrnertt s2W-00 rot must =zornpany =plrcmion , (150 says)
27 cars
21
CA1.tA Permit for MINOR Cewlopmenl T50.0c fart must oc=rnpany appliraiion Gays)
Severaf p*WelK monuments are located in or heal the project area tf any monuments nerd to Dt moved or destroyed% prose notify.
N.C Geodetic Survey, Boi 27637, R.ateign, N.C. 27'611
Ahand-nrnent of any wefts. If requiraC, must be in accordance with Tjtk 1SA, Sut4hapter 20.0100.
Motifrulron of tht pro,;+r regional office is rsQuested If 'Drphnn' undtrground storage tanks (115TSI are drsr.-vered during any eicart+Iron operation.
ComplranCe with 15A NCAC 2M 1000 (C-utai Storr+rater Rules) is npuired. 45 cars
(NIA)
Other Comments (attach adertronar ps;,es As necessary, toting certain to cite comment authonty):
AI`IY CO?`iSTP.UCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEAP.ING, GRADING, AND
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES ESULTIiiG IN THE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES OF TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBT::Ii,1 A NPDES ST0P?,itd2-.TER 7R:dIT
PRIOR TC BE'. IINil`iING THESE ACTIVITIES. 0 ?2

L
C
w
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be'addiessed to the Regional Office marked below.
tJ Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional office
59 Woodtin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 2°801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(70<I 251-6208 (9191 485.1541 _
t_1 Mooresville Reflionat Office
•919 North Main Street, P.O. Box M'
Mooresville. NC 28115
(7051 CZ3-164
?Y.ashington Regional Office
1A24 Carolina Avenue
Y'?shinnton. NC 27&89
ClRa'eiph Reg;onal Office
3870 Earrelt Drive, Suite 101
Ra'eigh, NC 27609
(9191 7332314
?1':itminglon Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive E.icn5ion
Y:ilmineton. NC 25A05
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources d a
Division of Environmental Management. .
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
® IF= U
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee,'Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihar Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review 7#94-0601; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Sparta, Western Loop, TIP No. R-3117
The Water Quality Section of the Division of E;Tvironmental
Management requests that the following topics be-discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed. 4
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlancriit-
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
ti
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equcl OpportunityAiffirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pcper
Melba McGee
March 11, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following: yr
1. Compensatory mitigation .will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10540er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
4
.0.;;e .

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources a Q
Division of Forest Resources
F..
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
LF-d
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520 ???? :=
March 1, 1994 A
J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development Gf ti?
61??91 Sib??\
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forested, r
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for the Sparta Western Loop on New Location in Alleghany
County
PROJECT: #94-0601
DUE DATE: 3-10-94
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the Environmental
Assessment should contain the following information concerning the proposed right-of-way
purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a
result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by die, soil series, that would be involved
within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to be
removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need,f piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and
regulations pertaining to debris burning.
?H
1 n.Y
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equcl opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% pcst-consumer pcper

Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #94-0601
Page 2
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way
and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury,by heavy_equijlment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and related resources in
that area.
DHR:gm
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
File
4

Y
I
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment .
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 9, 1994 0
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0601, Scoping
comments for proposed Sparta Western Loop, Alleghany
County, TIP OR-3117.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding the proposed Sparta Western Loop in
Alleghany County. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) plans to construct a two-lane road on new
location from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21 North. The
proposed roadway will provide access to planned industrial
facilities in Sparta.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) conducted a site visit on March 7, 1994 to
assess fisheries and wildlife resources of the project site.
According to the map provided with the scoping request and wooden
stakes observed at the site, the proposed alignment begins near
SR 1172 where it cuts through a sizable wetland area and crosses
Bledsoe Creek twice. The proposed alignment then crosses NC 18
and parallels Bledsoe Creek northwest to US 21.
This project has the potential to significantly impact
wetlands in the project area and wildlife dependent on these
habitats. The large wetland near the beginn.u of the project is
a high quality pasture wetland that provides`'eeding habitat for
amphibians. In addition, the wetland has the potential to
support the bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii and Gray's lily
Lilium grayi, both state threatened species and candidates for
federal listing. Bledsoe Creek is Hatchery Supported Public
Mountain Trout water and is somewhat degraded from various land
uses. This stream does not support a self-sustaining population
of wild trout; instead, gamefish species are limited to rock bass
. r-
Sparta Western Loop
2 March 9, 1994
and stocked trout. The stream also provides habitat for various
nongame fish species such as chubs, dace, darters, and shiners.
The NCWRC has the following specific comments regarding this
project:
The proposed alignment that goes through the headwaters of
the large wetland has the potential to impact a significant
amount of wildlife habitat through actual construction
activities and also through changes in wetland hydrology.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) should evaluate
alternatives that do not impact this wetland, such as an
alignment that begins farther south on SR 1172 and crosses
Bledsoe Creek only once near NC 18. We object to impacting
this high quality wetland when feasible alternatives exist.
The following information should also be included in the EA
that will be prepared for this project:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources whin the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. The NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species Section
maintains databases for locations of fish and wildlife
species. While there is no charge for the list, a service
charge for computer time is involved. Contact is:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
A listing of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with the following agency:
Natural Heritage Program ?
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
N
i?
? r
Sparta Western Loop 3 March 9, 1994
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps
has been contacted to determine the need for a 404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Ken Jolly at
919/876-8441.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each ind' idual's
professional background and qualifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Allen Boynton, Mt. Region Nongame Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
4
a?`wtt

y
13
TAKES ,
United States Department of the Interior PRIDE IN
-AMERICA
FISH AND WILDLIFE S.FRVICE
Asheville Field Office p 13
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 _
March 2, 1994 G E I
-? MAR 0 7 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

?r
Subject: Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North,TSparta, Alleghany
County, T.I.P. No. R-3117
In your letter of February 9, 1994 (received February 16, 1994), you
requested information regarding potential environmental impacts that
could result from the subject project for your use in the preparation of
an environmental assessment. The following comments are provided in
accordance.with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed project could have on listed or
proposed endangered or threatened species, and on stream systems and
associated wetlands within the project area. Preference should be given
to alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The Service is familiar with the general habitat values of the project
area and is particularly concerned about potential construction related
impacts to a sensitive mountain bog located near the proposed industrial
site on NC 18 within the general project area. This bog is known to
contain at least one Federal candidate species--the Gray's lily (Lilium
ra i)--and may contain others (e.g., bog turtles [- mm s
muhlenbergii]). The Service requests that any potential direct and/or
indirect impacts to this unique mountain wetland be addressed in the
environmental analysis.
Additionally, the Service's review of th6 subject environmental
assessment would be greatly facilitated if the document contained the
following information: ?-
I
? • 1
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional.rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road
construction.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of the
proposed road improvements. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with
the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4854), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
1
(4) Linear feet of any'water courses that will be rel'o'cated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
- . T
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description.of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e
spanning structure, culverts) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered and
threatened species known,from Alleghany County that may occur within the
area of influence of this proposed action.. The legal responsibilities of
a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration
and the.North Carolina Department of Transportation. The enclosed page
also contains candidate species that are currently under status review by
the Service which may occur in the project impact area. Candidate
species are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until that' are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response to give you advance notification.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and..
request that you continue.to keep us informed as to the progress of this
M

r
r
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-052. L-
Sinc ly,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section Manager, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife and
Permits Section, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-118$x'
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
t

?i

IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-052
MARCH 2, 1994
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
REPTILES
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) - Candidate
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) -.Candidate*
FISHES
Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus) - Candidate
INSECTS
Midget snaketail dragonfly (Ophiogomphus howei) - Candidate
Regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) - Candidate
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle (Stenelmis ammoni), - Candidate
PLANTS
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum)-- Candidate*
Gray's lily (Lilium ra i) - Candidate
Sweet pinesap (Monotrops.is odorata) - Candidate
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifraga caroliniana) - Candidate*
* Indicates no specimen from Alleghany County in at least 20 years.

.t'
I"
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ?'
Health and Natural Resources 10
Division of Environmental Management ??,,,
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.,-Director
December 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn' KP
Monica Swilldrt
From: Eric Galam!)?
Subject: EA for Sparta Lstern Loop from SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County
State Project DOT No. 9.8112515, TIP #R-3117
EHNR It 95-0253, DEM WQ It 10769
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. Tho Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the Issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project as
proposod would Impact up to 0.59 hoctaros of wetland s.
Alternatives to avoid the mountain bogs are not presented in the docuITlent. DEM requests
that the FONSI present these alternatives. DEM does riot concur with the preferred
alternative until DOT has surveyed and failed to locate Bog Turtles.
In the Docombor 113, 1993 intoragoncy mooting, the COE Stated that Modsou Crock IS 1)010W
headwaters and therefore will require an Individual Permit and Certification. DOT should
develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to
DEM for review and comment. DEM requests that Mr. Dennis Herman with Zoo Atlanta be
contacted to locate and preserve high quality mountain bogs in Alleghany County. In addition,
DEM requests that DOT investigate restoration/enhancement/creatiorl options. One possible
location would be between wetland site 1 and 2 on the north side of the road. In addition,
mitigation options to improve Bledsoe Creek such as planting of streamside buffers and
"dechannelization" should be investigated.
Any stream relocations/channelization should be completed using DOT's duid,'IIIc() cfoc;uril(!rlt.
DOT should revegetate along stream relocations/channelization associated with this project.
DOT Is requested to explain the design and functions of the equalizer pipe (l)rl(lo 26).
Please be advised that this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have riot been avoided arid minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Cortification should he direclnd to
Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
spartalp.ea
P,n, Rnx 2953;, Rnlninh, Nnrih C(irolinn 27626-0535 TnIgihotin 919-733 7015 FAX Q19 731 24W,
An LcluolOppuiIt nllyAIhimullvoAc Iicqilnir>luyur "4)11ur:yc1(.d/I04.1)O,Jcoll'.iumi.rl'(11w,

1
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Site n _1 R- 31.1'7'
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: _US 21_and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 0.5 acres
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
x on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR_5/2-3/2
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
_x_ predominantly mineral
predominantly sandy
Hvdraulic Factors
(non-sandy)
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
x wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation _60 0
agriculture 10 0
urbanized _30_ o
Adjacent special natural areas:
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Vernonia noveboracensis
(2) _Festuca sp.
(3) _Juncus effusus
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_x_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
_x_ Other: Wet Pasture (highly modified system)
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _2_ _8_ x 4.00 = _32_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
4
0 4 x 1.50 = 6
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _0_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _1_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _0_ _1_ x 1.50 = _1.5_
RECREATION/EDUCATION _0_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ _0_ x 0. 25 =
WETLAND SCORE = 39.5

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
1)
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 13
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 0.10 acres_
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
soils
Soil Series _10YR_3/2
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
_x_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation 60_ o
agriculture _10_ v
urbanized _30_ o
Adjacent special natural areas:
Site tt _2 A- 3117
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Acer rubrum
(2) _Symplocarpus fetidus
(3) _Impatens sp.
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_x_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
_x_ Other: seepage
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _2_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _3_ _9_ x 4.00 = _36_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
4
1 S x 1.50 = 7.25
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _0_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _2_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _1_ _3_ x 1.50 = _4.5_
RECREATION/EDUCATION _1_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ _1_ x 0.25 = 0.25
WETLAND SCORE = 48

3
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Site # _3 R-3 1-7
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: - US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 0.10 acres
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location: Adjacent Land Use:
on sound or estuary (Within 1.0 mi upstream)
on pond or lake natural vegetation _60
on perennial stream agriculture _10_ %
on intermittent stream urbanized _30_ %
within interstream divide Adjacent special natural areas:
_x_ other _pasture depression
_x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR
predominantly
(humus, muck
_x_ predominantly
predominantly
-5/1-3/1
organic
Dr peat)
mineral (non-sandy)
sandy
Hvdraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Rosa sp.
(2) _Salix nigra
(3) _Polygonum spp.,
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
_x_ seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
_x_ Other: Pasture depression
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _1_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _2_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _1_ _4_ x 4.00 = _16_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
2
0 2 x 1.50 = 3
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _0_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _1_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _0_ _1_ x 1.50 = _1.5_
RECREATION/EDUCATION _0_
ECONOMIC VALUE 0 _0_ x 0.25 = -0.0-
WETLAND SCORE = 20.5

4
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation 60 %
agriculture 10 %
urbanized _30_ %
Adjacent special natural areas:
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 2.00 acres_
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
x on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR
_x_ predominantly
(humus, muck
_x_ predominantly
predominantly
Hvdraulic Factors
-5/2 and 2/1
organic
or peat)
mineral (non-sandy)
sandy
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
x wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
&J 0J
Site n _4 fi- '3117
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Scirpus cyperinus
(2) _Vernonia sp.
(3) _Solidago spp.
Flooding and Wetness
_x_ semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _2_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _5_ _11_ x 4.00 = _44_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
_5_
x 1.50
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _5_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _3_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _4_ _12_ x 1.50 = _18_
RECREATION/EDUCATION _3_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ _3_ x 0.25 = 0.75
WETLAND SCORE = 71.75
5
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
M ?e?
Site N _5 A-.311
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
Alleghany
County: Wetland Area (ac): _< 1.00 acres_
_
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan W illiams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location: Adjacent Land Use:
on sound or estuary (Within 1.0 mi upstream)
on pond or lake
01
natural vegetation _60_ %
_x on perennial stream agriculture 10_ %
x on intermittent stream urbanized _30_ %
within interstream divide Adjacent special natural areas:
other

_x_ Hydrologically connected Hydrologically isolated
soils Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series _10YR_5/2-3/2 (1) _Sagitaria sp.
•: _x_ predominantly organic (2) _Polygonum spp.
(humus, muck or peat) (3) _Carex spp.
_x_ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and Wetness
_x_ semipermanently to
Hydraulic Factors permanently flooded or
x freshwater brackish inundated
steep topography regularly flooded or
x ditched or channelized conveys stormwater during
x wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1. and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or '
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _2_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _5_ _11_ x 4.00 = _44_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
5
2 7 x 1.50 = 10.5
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _5_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _2_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _4_ _11_ x 1.50 = 16.5
RECREATION/EDUCATION _2_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ 2 x 0.25 = 0.5_
WETLAND SCORE = 71.50
?JJ
Vito
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Site # _6 -317
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: _US 21_and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 2.00 acres-
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
soils
Soil Series _IOYR_5/2-3/2
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
. _x_ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hvdraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation 60 o
agriculture 10 0
urbanized _30_ o
Adjacent special natural areas:
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _graminoides
(2) _Juncus sp.
(3) _Carex spp.
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
_x_ seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _2_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _3_ _9_ x 4.00 = _36_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
_4_
_1_ _5_ x 1.50 = 7.25
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _5_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _1_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _1_ _7_ x 1.50 = 10.5
RECREATION/EDUCATION _1_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ _1_ x 0.25 = 0.25
WETLAND SCORE = 54.5
7
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
S i t e tt -7-and-8.- 31?
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 2.00 acres-
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR
predominantly
(humus, muck
_x_ predominantly
predominantly
Hvdraulic Factors
-5/2-3/2
organic
or peat)
mineral (non-sandy)
sandy
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation 60 o
agriculture 10 0
urbanized _30_ o
Adjacent special natural areas:
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Eleocharis sp.,
(2) _Juncus spp.
(3) _Carex spp.
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_X_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _3_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _3_ _9_ x 4.00 = _36_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
_4_
_1_ _5_ x 1.50 = 7.25
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _5_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _2_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _3_ _10_ x 1.50 = _15_
RECREATION/EDUCATION
ECONOMIC VALUE
1
x 0.25 = _0.25
WETLAND SCORE = 58.5
8
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Site n _9 -.3117
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 2.00 acres_
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
soils
Soil Series _IOYR_5/2-3/2
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
_x_ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation _60_ %
agriculture 10_ %
urbanized _30_ %
Adjacent special natural areas:
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Solidago sp._
(2) _Juncus spp.
(3) _Carex spp.
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_x_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _3_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _4_ _11_ x 4.00 = _44_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
_4_
_1_ _5_ x 1.50 = 7.25
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _5_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _2_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _2_ 9_ x 1.50 = 13.5
RZECREATION/EDUCATION _1_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ _1_ x 0.25 = 0.25
WETLAND SCORE = 65.5
9
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation _60'
agriculture _10_ o
urbanized _30_ %
Adjacent special natural areas:
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 1.00 acres_
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
x on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR
predominantly
(humus, muck
_x_ predominantly
predominantly
-3/2
organic
or peat)
mineral
sandy
(non-sandy)
Hvdraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Site n _10_43//7
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Acer rubrum
(2) _Lindera benzoin
(3) _Xanthorhiza simplicissima_
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_x_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _2_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _3_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL 3 8 x 4.00 = 32
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
3
3 6 x 1.50 = 9
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _0_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _3_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _5_ _8_ x 1.50 =-12-
RECREATION/EDUCATION _1_
ECONOMIC VALUE 2 _3_ x 0.25 = 0.75
WETLAND SCORE = 53.75
10
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Site r" 11 X-31"7
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 2.00 acres-
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
x on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
_x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR
predominantly
(humus, muck
_x_ predominantly
predominantly
Hvdraulic Factors
-3/2
organic
Dr peat)
mineral
sandy
(non-sandy)
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation _60 0
agriculture 10_ o
urbanized 30_ o
Adjacent special natural-areas:
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _Juncus sp.
(2) _Carex spp.
(3) _Graminoides
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_x_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE _2_
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _4_ _10_ x 4.00 = _40_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
4
2 6 x 1.50 = 9
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _5_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _2_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _2_ _9_ x 1.50 = 13.5
RECREATION/EDUCATION _1_
ECONOMIC VALUE 0 _1_ x 0.25 = 0.25
WETLAND SCORE = 62.75
11
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET
Site n 12 /x-3117
Project Name: _Sparta Western Loop_ Nearest Road: -US 21-and NC 18
County: _Alleghany Wetland Area (ac): _< 2.00 acres_
Name of Evaluator: -Hal Bain, Logan Williams- Date: _02-02-95
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
on pond or lake
_x_ on perennial stream
-x-'on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
`x_ Hydrologically connected
Soils
Soil Series _10YR
predominantly
(humus, muck
_x_ predominantly
predominantly
-3/2
organic
Dr peat)
mineral (non-sandy)
sandy
Hydraulic Factors
x freshwater brackish
steep topography
x ditched or channelized
x wetland to stream ratio > 3 to 1.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1.0 mi upstream)
natural vegetation _60_ %
agriculture 10_ %
urbanized _30_ %
Adjacent special natural areas:
Hydrologically isolated
Dominant Vegetation
(1) _rubus sp.
(2) _Carex spp.
(3) _graminoide spp.
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
_x_ regularly flooded or
conveys stormwater during
and after storms
seasonally flooded or
Wetland Type (select one) inundated
Bottomland Hardwood Forest intermittently flooded or
Swamp Forest _x_ Bog/Fen temporary surface water
Carolina Bay Wet Flat no evidence of flooding or
Pocosin Shoreline surface water
Pine Savannah Brackish Marsh
Freshwater Marsh Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
DEM RATING
(The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes)
sum
WATER STORAGE
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION _4_
POLLUTANT REMOVAL _5_ _11_ x 4.00 = _44_
SENSITIVE WATERSHED
TRAVEL CORRIDOR
5
3 8 x 1.50 = 12
SPECIAL ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES _3_
WILDLIFE HABITAT _3_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE _3_ _9_ x 1.50 = 13.5
RECREATION/EDUCATION _1_
ECONOMIC VALUE _0_ _1_ x 0.25 = 0.25
WETLAND SCORE = 69.75

Sparta
Proposed Sparta Western Loop
From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County, State Project 9.8112515
TIP Project R-3117
.
I
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
9 30-94 r
Date -; ` H. Franklin Vic, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

Sparta
Proposed Sparta Western Loop
From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County, State Project 9.8112515
TIP Project R-3117
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
September, 1994
r?rrrrnrrrrryr
C A R01
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environme4;Oq?jNh
• l
' SEAL
i 19328
? i
C s R. Cox, . E. 'S-'•..NGIN?;..• G
Project Planning Engineer
jt?"z'
J Wi son trou
Pr?jett Planning Unit Head
V? U/2
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Summary
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
This is a State Administration Action, combined State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of Significant Impact.
t
2. Additional Information
The following person can be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Mr. H: Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Transportation Building
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
3. Actions Required by Other Agencies
The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Nationwide Permits 33
CFR 330.5(a)14 and 33 CFR 330.5(a)26.
4. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
the Sparta Western Loop, a two-lane facility, 1.2 miles (1.9 km) in length
partly on new location, from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21 (Main
Street) north of Sparta.
5. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide access to proposed industrial
areas south of downtown Sparta and will provide an alternate route for
truck traffic. The proposed facility will improve the traveling safety
and traffic operations in the vicinity of downtown Sparta by reducing
downtown traffic congestion.
Approximately 13 acres (5.3 ha) of additional right of way will be
required. Approximately 1.51 acres.(0.59 ha) of wetlands will be
impacted. It is anticipated that six residences will be relocated as a
result of the project.
6. Alternatives Considered
One main alternative (Alternative 1) was originally evaluated. In
addition, a variation of the main alternative (Alternative 1A) was studied
in the vicinity of Kemp Street. Alternative 1A is recommended because this
alternative minimizes impacts to homes and is the most cost effective.
The studied alternatives are discussed in greater detail in Section III of
this report.
7. Federal2 State, and Local Agencies Contacted at the Beginning of This
T
- -
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Appalachian Regional Commission
Region D Council of Governments
Alleghany County Commissioners
Town of Sparta
8. Special Project Commitments
Impacts to wetlands (including mountain bogs) will be minimized
during construction, including utilizing strict erosion control measures.
Since the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county,
the project will be coordinated the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (WRC).
9. Basis for Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated
this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in
nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the
project were voice at the Citizen's Informational Workshop held on
March 8, 1994. For these reasons, it is concluded that a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to
this project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project ......................... 1
B. Project Status and Historical Resume ................... 1
C. Existing Conditions .................................... 1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ................. 1
2. Route Classification .............................. 1
3. Existing Cross-Section ........................... 1
4. Existing Right-of-way ............................. 2
5. Access Control .... .........:...................... 2
6. Speed Limits ..... ..- 2
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures .................... 2
8. Traffic Data ...................................... 2
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature ................. 3
10. Intersecting Roadways ............................. 3
11. Degree of Roadside Interference ................... 3
12. Railroad Crossings ................................ 3
13. School Bus Data ................................... 3
14. Airports .......................................... 3
15. Greenways ......................................... 3
D. Capacity Analysis ..................................... 3
1. Mainline Analysis .............................. 4
2. Intersection Analysis ............................. 4
E. Accident Analysis ..................................... 5
F. Project Terminals ..................................... 6
G. Thoroughfare Plan ....... ........................... 7
H. Benefits to the State, Region and Community ........... 7
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................... 7
A. General Description ................................... 7
B. Length of Project ............................... 8
C. Cross-Section Description ............................. 8
D. Design Speed .......................................... 8
E. Right-of-way ........................................ 8
F. Access Control ... ................................. 8
G. Intersection Treatment .. ........................... 8
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures ....................... 9
I. Special Permits Required .............................. 9
J. Changes in the State Highway System ................... 9
K. Bikeways/Sidewalks .................................... 9
L. Greenways ............................................. 9
M. Landscaping ........................................... 9
N. Noise Barriers ... ............................. 9
0. Degree of Utility Conflicts ........................... 9
P. Cost Estimates ................ .... .......... 10
Q. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area ....... 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... 10
A. Design Alternative 1 .................
... 10
B. .
............
Design Alternative 1A, Recommended ................... 11
C. Other Design Alternatives ............................ 11
D. Complete Bypass of Sparta ............................ 11
E. Postponement of Project .............................. 11
F. "Do Nothing" Alternative ...... .................... 11
G. Alternative Modes of Transportation .................. 11
H. Conclusions .......................................... 12
IV. SOC IAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............... 12
A. Social Effects ....................................... 12
1. Land Use ........................................ 12
a. Existing Land Use .......................... 12
b. Proposed Land Use .......................... 13
2. Neighborhood Characteristics .................... 13
3. Relocatees .................................
4. Public Facilities ............................... 13
14
5. Social Impacts .................................. 14
6. Historic and Cultural Resources ................. 14
a. Architectural/Historical Resources ......... 14
b. Archaeological Resources ................... 15
B. Economic Effects .................................... 15
C. Environmental Effects ................................ 15
1. Biological Resources ............................ 15
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 15
b. Aquatic Communities ........................ 17
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............. 18
d. Federally Protected Species . ... ... 19
e. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species.. 19
2. Soils .........................................
3. Wetlands ........................................ 20
21
a. Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters ... . .................... 21
b. Summary of anticipated Impacts ............. 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
4. Permits .......................................... 22
a. Nationwide 14 Permit ........................ 23
b. Nationwide 26 Permit .. 24
C. 401 Water Quality Certification ............. 24
d. Minimization and Mitigation of
Wetland Impacts ........................... 24
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation .......................... 24
6. Water Resources .................................. 24
a. Characteristics ............................. 24
b. Water Quality ........................... 25
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............. 25
7. Farmland .. ... ............... 26
8. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction
Noise Analysis ................................. 26
a. Characteristics of Noise .................... 27
b. Noise Abatement Criteria .................... 28
C. Ambient Noise Levels .................. 28
d. Future Noise Level Predictions .............. 28
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ............... 30
f. Highway Alignment ........................... 30
g. Traffic System Management Measures .......... 31
h. Noise Barriers ............................. 31
i. "Do Nothing" Alternative .................... 32
j. Construction Noise .......................... 32
k. Summary ..................................... 32
9. Air Quality Analysis ............................. 32
10. Stream Modification .............................. 35
11. Hazardous Materials .............................. 35
12. Construction Impacts ............................. 35
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................. 37
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and
Local Agencies . .......................... 37
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ....................... 37
C. Public Hearing ........................................ 38
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLES
Table 1A - Mainline Capacity Analysis ..................... 4
Table 1B - Intersection Analysis .......................... 5
Table 2 - Accident Rates .. .. ..... .... .. .......... 6
Table 3 - Cost Comparison of Alternatives I and IA ....... 10
Table 4 - General Comparison of Alternatives 1 and 1A .... 12
Table 5 - Summary of Anticipated Biotic Community
Impacts ... ....... ........................... 18
Table 6 - Federal Candidate andN.C. Protected
Species (Alleghany County) .................. 20
Table 7 - County Soils In the Project Area ............... 21
Table 8 - Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands ................ 22
Table 9 - One Hour CO Concentrations ..................... 35
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3A- Projected Traffic Volumes (With Improvements)
Figure 3B- Projected Traffic Volumes (No Improvements)
Figure 4 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5 - Aerial Mosaic of Project
Figure 6 - Proposed Cross-Section
Figure 7 - 100-Year Floodplain Limits
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Relocation Reports.. .. . ..... .. .. A-1
Appendix B. Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation
Programs ...... ... ............... B-1
Appendix C. Comments Received from Federal, State,
and Local Agencies ......................... C-1
Appendix D. Citizens Informational Workshop Information... D-1
Appendix E. Traffic Noise Analysis Tables ................ E-1
Appendix F. Air Quality Analysis Results ................. F-1
Sparta
Proposed Sparta Western Loop
From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County, State Project 9.8112515
TIP Project R-3117
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
construct the Sparta Western Loop, a 2-lane facility on new location, from
SR 1172 to US 21 north of Sparta. The project is located in Alleghany
County and is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) in length. The project
area is shown in Figure 1. The proposed improvements are shown in
Figure 5.
For the purpose of this document, US 21 will be described as a
north/south highway, NC 18 will be described as an east/west highway. The
proposed western loop will be described as a north/south facility.
B. Project Status and Historical Resume
The 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for the construction of a two-lane facility on new location. Right of way
acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995.
The TIP includes a total funding of $ 3,450,000 for the project, including
$ 1,200,000 for right of way and $ 2,250,000 for construction. The total
cost of improvements recommended in this report is $ 2,428,000. The TIP
funding exceeds the estimated cost of the project by $ 1,022,000.
C. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of the proposed roadway is
approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km). Photographs of existing conditions
along the project are shown in Figure 2.
2. Route Classification
US 21 is classified as a Minor
project. NC 18 is classified as a
(Grandview Drive) and Kemp Street are
Arterial in the vicinity of the
Major Collector. SR 1172
local streets.
3. Existing Cross-Section
The proposed facility follows existing Kemp Street for a
distance of approximately 600 feet (183 m) in the vicinity of where
Kemp Street has a 90 degree turn. This section of Kemp Street is a
two-lane roadway with a pavement cross-section of 19 feet and
two-foot (0.6 m) grassed shoulders. US 21 (Main Street) is a
two-lane, 21-foot (6.4 m) wide roadway at the northern terminal of
the proposed project. NC 18 (Whitehead Street) is a two-lane,
22-foot (6.7 m) roadway where the proposed loop crosses it. SR 1172
(Grandview Drive) is a two-lane roadway with a pavement width of 22
feet (6.7 m) at the southern terminal of the proposed project.
4. Existing Right-of-way
The only existing right of way along the proposed project is
along Kemp Street; this right of way is approximately 40 feet (12.2
m) in width. US 21 has approximately 30 feet (9.1 m) of existing
right of way. The existing right of way along NC 18 is approximately
40 feet (12.9 m). SR 1172 has approximately 36 feet (11.0 m) of
existing right of way.
5. Access Control
There is currently no control of access along Kemp Street,
US 21, NC 18, or SR 1172 (Grandview Drive).
6. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit on Kemp Street is 25 mph (40 kph). The
existing speed limit on US 21 in Sparta ranges from 20 to 35 mph
(32-56 kph); at the north project terminal the speed limit is 35 mph
(56 kph). The existing speed limit is 35 mph (56 kph) on NC 18 and
Grandview Drive where the proposed project crosses those highways.
7. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are no existing bridges or culverts along the proposed
alignment.
8. Traffic Data
The proposed roadway is expected to generate a maximum of
approximately 1,912 vehicles per day (vpd) in the construction year,
1995. The traffic is expected to increase on the proposed roadway to
2,493 vpd by the design year (2015).
US 21 is expected to generate 7,728 vpd in 1995 and 12,265 vpd
in 2015 near the north terminal. Traffic on NC 18 is expected to
increase from 5,292 vpd in 1995 to 8,810 vpd in 2015 where it crosses
the proposed Sparta Western Loop. SR 1172 traffic is expected to
increase from 1,528 vpd in 1995 to 2,178 vpd in 2015 near the south
terminal of the project. These volumes are based upon the proposed
roadway being in operation.
Truck traffic is expected to be approximately five percent of
the total traffic volumes in 1995 (three percent DUALS and two
percent TTST) and increase to eight percent of the total traffic
volumes in 2015 (five percent DUALS and three percent TTST) along the
proposed roadway. Projected traffic volumes, major turning
movements, truck data, and design hour data are shown in Figure 3.
3
9. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
The terrain surrounding the proposed roadway is rolling. Sight
distances along US 21, NC 18 and Grandview Drive where the proposed
facility crosses those routes are limited.
10. Intersecting Roadways
The proposed roadway will follow the same alignment as Kemp
Street for a distance of 600 feet (183 m). The existing at-grade
intersection of Kemp Street with NC 18 is not currently signalized.
11. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside interference is light along existing Kemp Street and
moderate along Grandview Drive and US 21 at the project terminals.
12. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings along the route of the proposed
facility.
13. School Bus Data
Three school buses (six trips per day) traveling to two schools
(Sparta Elementary and Alleghany High School) utilize this section of
US 21 each day. Five buses use NC 18 (10 trips per day), two buses
use Grandview Drive (four trips per day), and three use Kemp.Street
(six trips per day).
14. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located within the
project area.
15. Greenways
The proposed project does not cross any greenways.
D. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level-of-service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic system and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A
level-of-service definition generally describes these conditions in terms
of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety. Six levels are defined
for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available.
They are given letter designations from A to F, with level-of-service A
representing the best operation conditions and level-of-service F
representing the worst.
4
1. Mainline Analysis
A capacity analysis was performed to determine the
level-of-service at which the proposed roadway, US 21, NC 18, and
Grandview Drive will operate. The results of these studies are shown
below in Table 1A.
TABLE 1A
MAINLINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
SECTION OF PROPOSED 1995/2015 LOS
WESTERN LOOP
From US 21 to NC 18 A / A
From NC 18 to SR 1172 A / A
The analysis shows that the proposed roadway will operate at
level of service of A through the year 2015.
2. Intersection Analysis
Capacity analyses were also performed on the three major
intersections (US 21, NC 18, and Grandview Drive) with the proposed
roadway. These intersections were assumed to be unsignalized. See
Table 1B for the results of these analyses.
The results of the intersection analysis shows that all of the
intersections will operate at a level of service of D or better for
both 1995 and 2015, with the exception of the intersection of the
proposed loop with US 21. The predicted level of service of E in
2015 for that intersection shows that signalization may be required
in the future. Signalization is not recommended at this time.
5
TABLE 16 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES
INTERSECTION MOVEMENT 1995/2015 LOS
(WITH IMPROVEMENTS)
Western Loop EB Left C/E
Right A/A
US 21NB Left A/A
Western Loop NB Left B/C
Through C/C
Right A/A
SB Left D/D
Through A/C
Right A/A
NC 18 EB Left A/A
WB Left A/A
Western Loop SB Left A/A
Right A/A
SR 1172 (Grandview Dr) EB Left A/A
E. Accident Analysis
A comparison of accident rates along US 21, NC 18, and Grandview.
Drive with average statewide rates for similar highways is shown below in
Table 2. Accident rates along US 21 are compared with the statewide rates
for urban two-lane "US" routes. Accident rates along NC 18 and Grandview
Drive are compared to statewide rates for urban two-lane "NC" routes. The
accident rates for US 21, NC 18, and SR 1172 are based on the period from
November, 1990 to October, 1993. The statewide averages were generated
from data for the years 1991-1993.
The comparison shows that total number of accidents along the section
of US 21 near the project's northern terminal is somewhat lower than the
statewide average. Both NC 18 and SR 1172 have considerably higher
accident rates than the statewide averages.
6
TABLE 2 ACCIDENT RATES
(PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE MILES)
ACCIDENT TYPE RATES ALONG AVERAGE STATEWIDE RATES
US 21 FOR ALL URBAN "US" ROUTES
All Accidents 213.5 255.8
Fatal 0.0 1.2
Non-fatal 90.9 105.0
Nighttime 45.4 42.3
Wet Conditions 40.9 54.3
ACCIDENT TYPE RATES ALONG AVERAGE STATEWIDE RATES
NC 18 FOR ALL URBAN "US" ROUTES
All Accidents 455.4 251.4
Fatal 0.0 0.8
Non-fatal 170.8 103.9
Nighttime 94.9 48.7
Wet Conditions 56.9 54.6
ACCIDENT TYPE RATES ALONG AVERAGE STATEWIDE RATES
SR 1172 FOR ALL URBAN "US" ROUTES
All Accidents 364.2 251.4
Fatal 0.0 0.8
Non-fatal 224.1 103.9
Nighttime 168.1 48.7
Wet Conditions 112.0 54.6
F. Project Terminals
The southern terminal of the proposed facility is located at the
intersection of Grandview Drive (SR 1172) and the entrance to an NCDOT
maintenance facility. Grandview Drive is currently two lanes at this
location.
The northern terminal of the proposed facility is located at US 21,
just east of Swenk Construction. US 21 is currently two lanes at this
location.
7
G. Thoroughfare Plan
The Sparta Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in February 4, 1992 (see
Figure 4). The thoroughfare plan shows a proposed roadway, US 21
Alternate, connecting US 21 north of Sparta to US 21 south of the town.
This future roadway is designated a future major thoroughfare.
The proposed Sparta Western Loop (TIP Project R-3117) is similar to
the "US 21 Alternate" from US 21 north of Sparta to SR 1172. The proposed
Western Loop is situated just east of the thoroughfare plan alignment and
utilizes part of existing Kemp Street rather than staying west of Kemp
Street.
The proposed project is intended to provide improved access to
proposed industrial areas south of town and reduce traffic volumes on
segments of US 21 and NC 18 in downtown Sparta. The continuation of the
loop southward to tie into US 21 south of Sparta is beyond the scope of
the subject project.
If the remaining segment of the bypass between SR 1172 and US 21
south is programmed in the TIP at some future date, detailed environmental
and preliminary design studies will be required to determine the most
suitable location.
H. Benefits to the State, Region and Community
The primary benefits of the project will be economic in nature. The
construction of the proposed roadway will allow more efficient vehicle
operation and reduced travel times, resulting in reduced road user costs.
The proposed roadway will improve access to homes, businesses, and public
services in the area, resulting in indirect economic benefits. Bristol
Compressors, as well as other future industries south of Sparta, will
directly benefit from the improved access to NC 18 and US 21 that will
result from the proposed project.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
The proposed project calls for the construction of a two-lane roadway
partially on new location from SR 1172 to US 21 north of Sparta. Three
lanes will be constructed at the intersections with US 21, NC 18, and
SR 1172 to allow for left-turning traffic. Kemp Street will be realigned
to connect to the proposed roadway. The recommended improvements are shown
in Figure 5.
The 800-foot (244 m) section of Kemp Street that parallels the
proposed roadway will be removed; the existing driveways along Kemp Street
will be extended to tie to the proposed roadway.
8
B. Length of Project
The length of roadway to be constructed is approximately 1.2 miles
(1.9 km).
C. Cross-Section Description
The proposed cross-section of the western loop will consist of a
two-lane roadway with a 28-foot (8.5 m) pavement, including 2-foot (0.6 m)
paved shoulders and 6 to 8-foot (1.8-2.4 m) grassed shoulders. At both
ends of the project, a pavement width of 40 feet (12.2 m) with three
12-foot (3.7 m) lanes plus two-foot (0.6 m) paved shoulders will be
provided to accommodate left-turn lanes onto US 21, NC 18, and SR 1172.
The proposed cross-section is shown in Figure 6.
D. Design Speed
The design speed for the proposed roadway is 45 mph (73 kph). The
anticipated posted speed limit along the project is 45 mph (73 kph).
E. Right-of-Way
The proposed right of way width will be 100 feet (30 m) along the
entire length of the project. Approximately 13 acres (5.3 ha) of
additional right of way are needed for construction of the project.
Temporary easements will be needed for construction of cut and fill
slopes.
F. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for this project.
G. Intersection Treatment
The proposed facility is to intersect with SR 1172 (Grandview Drive)
at the southern terminal. SR 1172 will not be widened as part of this
project.
The proposed facility will intersect NC 18 (Whitehead Street) at the
existing NC 18/Kemp Street intersection. NC 18 will be widened to a
three-lane, 36-foot facility in order to accommodate left-turning traffic
onto the proposed roadway.
The proposed roadway is to intersect with US 21 at the northern
terminal. This segment of US 21 will not be widened under this project; '
it will be improved under TIP Project R-2302 (see Section II.Q for more
information on Project R-2303).
Kemp Street will realigned to tie to the proposed roadway (see
Figure 5).
Note that all intersections will be at-grade and unsignalized.
9
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are no existing bridges or drainage structures along the
proposed alignment. The proposed roadway will cross Bledsoe Creek at two
locations south of NC 18 (see Figure 5). It is recommended that these two
crossings be accommodated by box culverts. Based on a preliminary
hydraulic analysis, the estimated sizes are 2 culverts at 10 x 8 feet
(3 x 2.4 m) and 2 culverts at 11 x 8 feet (3.4 x 2.4) for the northern and
southern crossings, respectively, of Bledsoe Creek.
I. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated that the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit
33 CFR 330.5(a)(14) and Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) will be
applicable. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required by
NCDEHNR for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to the Waters of the United States.
J. Changes in the State Highway System
No changes in the state highway system are anticipated.
K. Bikeways/Sidewalks
No bicycle accommodations or sidewalks are recommended for this
project.
L. Greenways
No greenways are recommended in conjunction with this project.
M. Landscaping
No special landscaping is recommended for this project.
N. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are recommended for this project (see Section
IV.C.8 of this report).
0. Degree of Utility Conflicts
Utility conflicts are considered medium. The proposed project
crosses various utilities, such as sanitary sewer, water, underground
telephone, and cable lines. Telephone and water lines follow existing
Kemp Street. Sanitary sewer runs along NC 18. Cablevision lines follow
SR 1172. Both water and sanitary sewer lines run parallel to US 21 at the
northern terminal of the project.
10
P. Cost Estimates
A comparison of the costs for Alternatives 1 and 1A are listed below
in Table 3:
TABLE 3 CONSTRUCTION/RIGHT OF WAY COST
COMPARISON - ALTERNATIVES 1 AND IA
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE IA
ecommen e
Roadway Construction $ 1,233,000 $ 1,322,600
Culvert Construction 117,000 117,400
Total Construction Cost: $ 1,350,000 $ 1,450,000
Right of Way Cost: 1,311,000 978,000
Total Cost: $ 2,661,000 $ 2,428,000
Q. Other Proposed Hi hwa Improvements in the Area
There is one other TIP project in the project area:
- TIP Project R-2302: US 21, from Charles Street in Sparta to
US 21-221 in Twin Oaks, Alleghany County. This project is
scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year 1996 and
construction in Fiscal Year 1998. The TIP calls for upgrading
the existing facility. It is anticipated that widening US 21 to
three lanes in this area will be considered under Project
R-2302.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternative 1
This alternative calls for constructing a two-lane facility partially
on new location, beginning at SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) and ending at
US 21 (Main Street) north of Sparta. This alternative would utilize 1300
feet (396 m) of existing Kemp Street, beginning at NC 18 and ending where
Kemp Street turns 90 degrees east (see Figure 5). Table 4 shows a
comparison of this alternative with the recommended improvement,
Alternative IA.
11
B. Alternative 1A (Recommended)
Alternative 1A is identical to Alternative 1, except in the vicinity
of Kemp Street. Alternative lA utilizes the existing intersection with
NC 18, then diverges from Kemp Street and runs parallel to it to the west.
The proposed facility then ties back into Kemp Street for approximately
500 feet (152 m) where Kemp Street turns 90 degrees east (see Figure 5).
See Table 4 for a comparison of Alternatives 1 and IA.
C. Other Design Alternatives
Other alignments were evaluated to the east and west of the
recommended alignment, most utilizing the recommended terminals at US 21
and SR 1172. Due to heavier development to the east toward downtown
Sparta and more wetland potential to the west, other alignments were
considered less desirable than the recommended alignment and were
eliminated from further consideration.
D. Complete Bypass of Sparta
As discussed in Section I.G., the Sparta Thoroughfare Plan shows a
western US 21 bypass of Sparta (see Figure 4). The total length of the
full bypass is approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 km). The proposed project
will provide the northernmost 1.2 mile (1.9 km) segment of this bypass.
The proposed project is intended to aid future industrial development
between SR 1172 and NC 18 and reduce traffic volumes on segments of US 21
and NC 18. Constructing the full bypass is beyond the scope as currently
programmed in the TIP.
E. Postponement of Project
Postponement of the project would not provide improved access to
proposed industrial areas west of Sparta. In addition, postponement would
result in a continuing deterioration of traffic and safety conditions in
the future as traffic demand in downtown Sparta increases. Therefore,
this alternative is not recommended.
F. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse
environmental impacts that are anticipated to result from the project,
there would be no positive effect on access to proposed industrial areas
or on the traffic capacity and safety of existing US 21. Therefore, this
alternative is not recommended.
G. Alternative Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the project area, and the project involves widening an
existing highway.
12
H. Conclusions
As noted earlier, one main alternative (Alternative 1) and a partial
alignment shift (Alternative 1A) were evaluated (see Figure 5). These two
alternatives are compared below in Table 4. Although it will result in
the loss of more wetlands (approximately 0.75 ac/0.30 ha), Alternative 1A
is recommended since it will impact fewer residences (3 fewer residential
relocations) and minimize costs (a savings of $ 233,000).
TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 1 AND IA
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1A
(Recommended)
LENGTH 1.2 mi (1.9 km) 1.2 mi (1.9 km)
TOTAL COST $ 2,661,000 $ 2,428,000
RELOCATEES 9 / 0 6 / 0
(Residential/Business)
WETLAND IMPACTS 0.76 ac (0.29 ha) 1.51 ac (0.59 ha)
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The project area is characterized by urban development,
with a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and
industry. The project's southern terminal at SR 1172 (Grandview
Drive) is directly across from a NCDOT maintenance facility.
Residential development fronts the rest of SR 1172 in the
immediate area. Near the project's southern terminal, a new
industry, Bristol Compressors, Inc., is currently under
construction. The main entrance of the compressor plant will
access the proposed roadway.
Most of the land directly affected by the proposed roadway
is currently used by small farms. Land immediately north of the
proposed roadway supports single family residences. Two small
Christmas tree farms are located on Kemp Street. Two day care
centers are located near the intersection of Carson Boulevard
and Cranford Road near the north terminal of the project.
13
Commercial development dominants land fronting NC 21 (Main
Street) in the vicinity of the project's northern terminal.
b. Proposed Land Use
The Town of Sparta's zoning ordinance and map serves as its
land development policy guide. According to the official zoning
map, all of the land from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) north to
NC 18 (Whitehead Street) and south of Bledsoe Creek is zoned
I-1, Light Industrial. The land north of Bledsoe Creek in the
vicinity of Carson Boulevard and west beyond Cranford Road is
zoned R-12, Residential. The remaining land along NC 18 is zoned
NB, Neighborhood Business, as well as a district at the
intersection of Kemp Street and Whitehead Street.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
Alleghany is located in the northwestern section of the state
and is bounded by the state of Virginia and Surry, Wilkes and Ashe
counties. The population of Alleghany county according to the 1992
Estimates published by Linc System - N.C. State Data Center is 9,786.
Alleghany County is a mountainous rural county with a population
density (person per square mile) of 40.88. Whites make up the
largest racial group in the county with a population count of 9,338.
The non-white population is 252 (1990 Data).
The proposed project is located in the town of Sparta. Sparta
is located in the center of the county, and has a current population
of 1,957.
The proposed facility begins in Sparta on SR 1172 (Grandview
Drive) near an NCDOT maintenance facility and goes on new location in
a northwest direction. The proposed alignment continues in a
northwest direction on new location crossing a large pasture.
Bristol Compressors is currently constructing a facility just south
of the proposed alignment between SR 1172 and NC 18. The alignment
stays clear of any structures and residential dwellings until it
comes close to NC 18 (Whitehead Street) and Kemp Street. Two homes
and Christmas tree farm are located near the intersection of NC 18
and Kemp Street. Once the proposed roadway crosses NC 18, it
parallels Kemp Street to the point that Kemp Street turns 90 degrees
east. Eight homes and one manufactured home are located on Kemp
Street.
Where Kemp Street makes a 90-degree turn to the east, the
proposed alignment leaves Kemp Street and heads northwest on new
location across an open field. It then crosses Cranford Road and
terminates at US 21 just south of Swenk Construction Company.
3. Relocatees
It is anticipated that the proposed project will result in six
relocatees; one dwelling on SR 1172, three on the south side of Kemp
Street, and two on Carson Boulevard. Demographic profiles of
anticipated relocatees for Alternatives 1 and IA are presented in the
relocatee reports in Appendix A (see pages A-1 and A-2).
14
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
1) Relocation Assistance
2) Relocation Moving Payments, and
3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
See Appendix B for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs (pages B-1 and B-2).
4. Public Facilities
There are no public facilities along the proposed alignment.
There is a retirement home situated east of the proposed project on
Combs Street. The proposed action will not have any significant
adverse impact on it.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed two-lane connector road will provide increased
comfort, convenience, and safety of travel for motorists. Reduced
road user costs and reduced travel times will also result. Bristol
Compressors will be relocating to Sparta and will benefit directly
from the proposed roadway by having more direct access to US 21 north
of Sparta. Other future industries will benefit by the same direct
access to US 21.
As noted above in Section IV.A.3, the proposed project is
expected to relocate approximately six homes. The proposed action
will not disrupt community cohesion and will not interfere with
facilities and services.
6. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
This project is subject to compliance with the North
Carolina Executive Order XVI and General Statute 121-12(a). The
area of potential effect (APE) for the project was delineated,
and the maps and files of the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) were consulted. This search
revealed no properties within the area of potential effect that
were listed in the National Register. This completes compliance
with GS 121-12(a).
Due to anticipated federal permits associated with the
Bledsoe Creek crossings, the permit areas were also checked for
properties over 50 years of age. No properties over 50 years of
age were identified in the permit areas.
15
A copy of this document will be sent to SHPO for
concurrence. Previous correspondence with SHPO is included in
Appendix C (see pages C-25 and C-26).
b. Archaeological Resources
For the purposes of compliance with the North Carolina
Executive Order XVI and General Statute 121-12(a), and at the
request of the SHPO office, an archaeological survey was
conducted. No archaeological resources were found within the
APE. Since the project area has been previously greatly
disturbed, it is extremely doubtful that any significant
archaeological resources would be found if additional testing
were performed. Therefore, no additional testing is
recommended. Correspondence from SHPO is located in Appendix C
(pages C-25 and C-26). This completes compliance with GS
121-12(a).
B. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates
(preliminary data from March 1994) indicated that Alleghany County had a
total labor force of 4,770. Out of this total, 4,480 persons were
employed. This left an unemployment total of 290, or 6.1 percent.
The proposed roadway will be an asset to the business community.
Commercial trucks and other commercial vehicles will have a shorter route
between NC 18 west of Sparta and US 21 north of Sparta and vice-versa.
This will save money and time for those business people who must get to
their various destinations. Employers and employees in the general area
of the proposed new alignment will realize a positive social impact
because of the proposed new highway facility. Bristol Compressors is in
the process of constructing a compressor assembly plant adjacent to the
proposed roadway between Grandview Drive and NC 18; the roadway will
provide direct access to US 21 and NC 18 for this business. The town of
Sparta will, in turn, benefit from the addition of Bristol Compressors to
the area.
In addition, some emergency vehicles will benefit from the proposed
new highway facility due to reducing the travel time to their
destinations. All who use the proposed new facility will realize an
improvement in travel safety.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: Man-dominated Community, Mountain Bog
Community, and Mixed Hardwood Forest Community. Many faunal
16
species which utilize these communities are highly adaptive and
may populate this entire range of terrestrial communities.
Table 5 presents a comparison of Alternatives 1 and lA with
regard to impacts on the above communities.
Man-dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes roadside, lawn,
and pasture habitats. Many plant species, characteristic of the
mowed roadside and pasture, are adapted to disturbed and
maintained habitats. The intensely maintained (mowed or grazed)
areas are dominated by fescue Festuca sp.)l and plantain
Planta o P_-? as well as a variety o lam scape ornamentals.
Less we 1 maintained areas exhibit dense herbacious and
scrub/shrub growth including buttercup Ranunculus s clover
pratense), chickweed Stellaria raminea ? soueed
Rumex sp.) blue-eyed grass tSisyrinc ium spy goldenrod
So ida o s t black cherry Prunus serotina), leather-flower
Clematis virona and rose Rosa sp.).
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of forage
resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, seeds, and
fruits) to animal matter (living and dead). Virginia opossum
Didel his vir iniana), American crow Corvus brach rh nchos
an mo'urnin'g dove Zenaida macroura are examples o species
attracted to lawns an roadsi e a hats. Also, several species
of mice Perom scus sPP) inhabit the less maintained margins or
ecotones o road shoulders. Mortality among animals which
migrate across roadways provides forage for opportunistic
species such as turkey vulture Cathartes aura and Virginia
opossum, which may in turn become fata sties and subsequently
forage items themselves.
Emergent Wetland Community
Wetlands communities occur at eight locations along the
proposed project alignment (see Figure 5). Many of these wetland
communities have been degraded by attempts at ditching and
impacts from cattle. Dense stands of herbacious species such as
sedges Carex lurida and C. stricta spike rush Eleocharis
obtusa sot nee a rus-i Juncus effusus arrowhead
a ittaria s skunk cabbage S m ocar us foetidus and
sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis are oun in varying
combinations at eac og site. Graminoids are also prevalent.
Gray's lily Lilium ra i a federal candidate (C2) species, is
known from Fogs in t e vicinity of Sparta. These boglike
habitats are ideal for amphibian reproduction due to the lack of
flooding conditions which support predatory fish species.
Amphibians such as the four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium
scutatum spring peeper
Pseuacris triseriata H la crucifer
an pic ere frog uplan
Rana d chorus frog
alust
s are
likely to be found in and around these wetl ands. The o turtle
g
17
Clemm s muhlenbergiL a federal candidate (C2) species, is also
likely tome of and in these bogs along with red-winged blackbird
A elaius phoneiceus), common snipe (Gallinago allina o and a
variety of invertebrates including crayfish (Cambari ae).
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This community is small and probably a remnant of the
forest type typical of the upper floodplain of Bledsoe Creek.
White oak uercus alba scarlet oak (Q. coccinea red maple
Acer rubrum Ash Fraxinus americana), locust Robinia sp.),
an lac cherry make up the canopy. A diverse s ru vine erb
layer includes species such as rhododendron Rhododendron sp.),
Solomon's seal Pol onatum sP.false Solomon's seal
Maianthemum canadense Indian-physic Gillenia trifoliate _,
wild sarspari a Ara is nudicaulis), galax Ga ax a la and
greenbrier (Smilax sp.)
Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis) and eastern chipmunk
Tamias striatus nest an forage in this forest habitat along
with t e more secretive northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
brevicauda . Other vertebrates which may use this community?for
foraging, shelter and/or nesting include such species as
white-tailed deer Odocoileus vir inanus gray catbird
Dumetella carolinensis rufus-sided towhee Pi ilo
eryt rop talmus , an red back salamander (Plethodon cinereus).
b. Aquatic Communities
Bledsoe Creek and its tributaries will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water body
and condition of the water resource reflect faunal composition
of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to
a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
These waterbodies have been degraded by sedimentation as a
result of development. Creek banks, which are steep and heavily
eroded, exhibit a narrow buffer of vegetation which includes
black cherry, red maple, tag alder Alnus serrulata silky
dogwood Cornus amomum blackberry Ru us s rose,
touch-me-not Im atiens sp.), and yel owroot Xanthorhiza
simplicissima).
Animals such as bullfrog Rana catesbeiana may reside
along the waters edge, along wit nort ern dusky salamander
Desmo nathus fuscus crayfish, segmented worms Oli ocheates
an arvae o of er invertebrates, which exist under stones an
other debris on the creek beds. Some fish species likely to be
found in this section of Bledsoe Creek include rock bass
Amblo lites ru estris stocked rainbow trout Oncorh nchus
m iss c ub Nocomis spp.), darter Etheostoma s an
s iners Notrpis s (5-as-ea-upon memo ate March 8 p., 1994 from
the Wild il'fe Resource Commission Mountain region coordinator).
18
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 5 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities expected to
result from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived
using the entire proposed right of way width of 100 feet
(30.3 m). Usually, project construction does not require the
entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
TABLE 5
COMMUNITY
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Man-dominated
Emergent Wetlands
Mixed Hardwood Forest
TOTAL IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE 1
11.6 (4.7)
0.8 (0.3)
0.5 (0.2)
12.9 (5.2)
ALTERNATIVE IA
(Recommended)
10.9 (4.4)
1.5 (0.6)
0.5 (0.2)
12.9 (5.2)
Note: Values cited are in acres (hectares).
Few natural communities occur in the project area, and
those communities have been highly fragmented and reduced as a
result of previous development. The man-dominated community
component of the project area will receive the greatest impact
from habitat reduction, resulting in the loss and displacement
of plant and animal life, regardless of which alignment is
chosen. Impacts to terrestrial communities will result in the
loss of existing habitats and displacement, as well as mortality
of animal species currently in residence. As mentioned
previously, the aquatic component of the project area has
already been altered by siltation from erosion due to
development in and around Sparta. Project construction is
likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to the Bledsoe
Creek and its unnamed tributaries. Construction-related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of
19
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food
chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of the filter feeders
may be covered and smothered by sedimentation resulting from
construction related erosion. Local fish populations can also
be harmed by construction-related sedimentation. Increased
sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to the
smothering of fish eggs.
d. Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. As of May 12, 1994, the FWS lists no
federally-protected species for Alleghany County.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no occurrence of
federally-protected species in or near the project study area.
e. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are no federally protected species listed for
Alleghany County. There are 10 federal candidate (C2) species
listed for the county. Federal Candidate species are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms
which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 6 lists federal candidate species, the species state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as these
species may be upgraded to a protected status in the future.
20
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of
the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species
and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare
and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
2. Soils
Table 7 provides an inventory of soil series which occur in the
project area. The soil map of Alleghany County contains 5 general
soil associations. The chester-Ashe soil association is the only one
to be crossed by the proposed project alignment. this association
contains well-drained to somewhat excessively drained, rolling to
very steep, micaceous soils on narrow ridgetops and side slopes of
the uplands.
TABLE 6 FEDERAL CANDIDATE/N.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ALLEGHANY COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NC
NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Cl?emmys_ muhlenber ii
Cr tobranc us
a e aniensis
Phenaco ius teretulus
Ophiogomp us oweii
Speyeria idalia
Stenelmis ammoni
Delphinium exaltatum
Li1ium grayi
Monotro sis odorata
Saxi raga Caro- iT ana
bog turtle T YES
hellbender * SC NO
Kanawha minnow Sc YES
Midget snaketail
dragonfly + YES
regal fritillary
butterfly + YES
Gammon's stenelmis
riffle beetle + YES
tall larkspur *
Gray's lily T-SC YES
sweet pinesap + NO
Gray's saxifrage * + NO
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Alleghany County in the past
twenty years;
Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
21
TABLE 7 ALLEGHANY COUNTY SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Ad Alluvial land, wet - A
CeE Chester loam 10 to 15 -
Cx Codorus complex - A
TaC Tate loam 6 to 10 -
TIC Tusquitee loam 6 to 10 -
Note: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major
component.
3. Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code
of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
a. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
Various pockets of wetlands are located along the subject
project alignment (see Figure 5). These depressional wetlands
are located upslope of the floodplain of Bledsoe Creek, and are
in varying stages of degradation as a result of cattle grazing
and Agempts which have been made over the years to drain them.
ie a ive, and hydrological characteristics all meet the
7 we and delineation manual criterion for wetlands.
fit the NWI classification for Palustrine
t"Persistent (PEM1).
b. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Mountain wetlands, which have been declining in number as a
result of attempts by man to drain them, are highly valuable
reservoirs of rare plant and animal species. It is important to
preserve and/or mitigate for the loss of these communities so
22
that the rich diversity of plant and animal life, which the
North Carolina mountains have become famous for will not be
lost. Anticipated impacts to mountain bog wetlands are listed
in Table 8 by wetland site (See Figure 5 for site locations).
As was noted earlier in the document in Section
other alignments were
recommended alignment,
at US 21 and SR 1172.
toward downtown Sparta
other alignments were
recommended alignment
consideration.
evaluated to the east and west of the
most utilizing the recommended terminals
Due to heavier development to the east
III. C,
and more wetland potential to the west,
considered less desirable than the
and were eliminated from further
TABLE 8.
SITE N
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WETLANDS
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 1A
(Recommended)
1 0.30 (0.12) 0.30 (0.12)
2 0.23 (0.08) 0.23 (0.08)
3 0.01 (0.004) 0.07 (0.03)
4 0.01 (0.004) 0.17 (0.07)
5 0.02 (0.008) 0.33 (0.13)
6 0.13
(
) 0.33 (0.13)
7 0.05 0.02 0.07 (0.03)
8 0.005 (0.002) 0.005 (0.002)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.76 (0.29)
1.51 (0.59)
Note: Values cited are in acres (hectares).
Also, as mentioned earlier, one main alternative
(Alternative 1) and a partial alignment shift (Alternative 1A)
were evaluated (see Figure 5). These two alternatives are
compared in Table 4. Although it will result in the loss of
more wetlands (approximately 0.75 ac/0.30 ha), Alternative IA is
recommended since it will impact fewer residences and minimize
costs.
Final qualitative determination regarding each wetland site
rests with the Corps of Engineers.
4. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the
COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
23
United States." Since the proposed project is located in a
designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a federal permit by
the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resource
Commission (WRC).
a. Nationwide 14 Permit
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) is likely to be
applicable at creek crossings found in the project study area.
This permit authorizes construction provided the following
conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary
for the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited to
a filled area of no more than 0.1 hectares (1/3 acre);
(3) no more than a total of 200 linear feet (61 m) of the fill
for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic organisms,
and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project for crossing of a Water of the United States.
b. Nationwide 26 Permit
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (26) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to mountain bog wetlands associated
with the proposed project. This, permit authorizes discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated
jurisdictional wetlands provided the following conditions are
met:
(1) the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres
(4 ha) of Waters of the United States;
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the
discharge would cause the loss of Waters of the United
States greater than 1.0 acres (0.4 ha) in accordance with
the "Notification" general conditions (for discharges in
special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands,
the notification must also include a delineation of
affected special aquatic sites, including jurisdictional
wetlands), and;
24
(3) the discharge, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete
project.
C. 401 Water ualit Certification
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. 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
into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit
from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) 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 the Waters of the
United States.
d. Minimization and Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
Wetland impacts authorized under Nationwide Permits usually
do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of the Army. However, final decision
on mitigation requirements lies with the COE.
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Alleghany County does not participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (FEMA); therefore, no flood study is available for
Bledsoe Creek in the project vicinity. Figure 7 shows the
approximate limits of the 100 year floodplain. Encroachment into the
floodplain of Bledsoe creek due to project construction will not have
any significant adverse affect.
6. Water Resources
a. Characteristics
Bledsoe Creek and 5 unnamed tributaries to 13ledsoe Creek
will be crossed by the proposed project. Bledsoe Creek flows
north to south into the Little River south of the proposed
project alignment. This creek parallels the proposed project
alignment for the majority of the projects length. Two
crossings of this creek will take place along the project
alignment. Creek characteristics at these two crossings are
similar and include a channel width of approximately 12 feet
(3.6 m) and depth of one to two feet (0.3-0.6 m). Substrate in
Bledsoe Creek is comprised of rock, sand, and silt. Scoured
creek banks are a common feature along this water resource.
25
The unnamed tributaries of Bledsoe Creek range in width and
depth from 1.0-3.0 feet (0.3-0.9 m) and from 0.5-1.0 feet
(0.1-0.3 m) respectively. A rock, sand, and silt substrate is
common among these unnamed tributaries.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Bledsoe Creek
has a "best usage" classification of C Tr. Unnamed tributaries
of Bledsoe Creek carry the same classification as that water
body to which they are tributary. Class C waters are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Class Tr (Supplemental
Classification of Trout Waters) waters are suitable for natural
trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1 mile
(1.6 km) of project study area.
b. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Some macro invertebrates are sensitive to very subtle
changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN information
is available for the immediate project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. NPDES lists no permitted dischargers
for the project area.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area will result
from sedimentation and turbidity, as well as non-point discharge
of toxic substances from increased roadway surface area (engine
fluids and particulate rubber). Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates can lead to reduced depth of light
penetration in the water column, reduction in the water's oxygen
carrying capacity, and changes in water temperature. Some
degree of sedimentation has already occurred as a result of
development in the subject project area.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management
Practices and Sediment control guidelines) will be strictly
enforce during the construction stage of this project. Grass
berms along construction areas may be utilized to help decrease
26
erosion and allow toxic substances to be absorbed into the soil
before these substances reach waterways. Poorly managed
application of sedimentation control policies will result in
serious damage to the aquatic environment.
Bledsoe Creek is designated a General Mountain Trout Stream
and will require special design considerations to minimize
environmental impacts. There are also "mountain bog" wetlands in
the vicinity of the project and therefore every effort will be
made to avoid or minimize impact to these designated areas. The
use of equalizer pipes in these areas will be studied by the
Hydraulics Design Unit during the final design phase of the
project. Due to crossing of this trout stream and encroachment
into the wetlands, it is anticipated that an environmental
permit will be required. The Hydraulic Design Unit in
conjunction with the Planning and Environmental Branch will
coordinate with the Corps of Engineers and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) during final hydraulic
design regarding permit application and approval. Existing
drainage and groundwater patterns will not be affected by this
project.
Alleghany County does not participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (FEMA) and therefore there is no flood study
available for Bledsoe Creek in the project vicinity. Attached
is a copy of the USGS Quad Map on which are delineated the
approximate limits of the 100 year floodplain. Encroachment
into the floodplain of Bledsoe Creek due to project construction
will not have any significant adverse affect.
Construction operations will be carefully planned to
minimize disturbance of existing stream banks. All runoff
crossing the construction area will be directed to temporary
silt basins via lateral ditches with rock check dams to slow and
filter the runoff prior to discharging into Bledsoe Creek.
Special attention should be given to proper installation and
maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control devices.
7. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order No. 96, Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to attempt
to minimize the impact of land acquisition and construction projects
on prime farmland soils. Although the proposed new connector does
impact farmland, the land is located within an urban area, and has
been zoned for future industrial and residential development.
Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to prime farmland
soils is required.
8. Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed Sparta Western Loop on noise levels in the immediate project
area (Figure 1). This investigation includes an inventory of
27
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from
the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is
emitted from many sources, including airplanes, factories,
railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of
noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel (0). Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A,
B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis
on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive
(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A
decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several
examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1
(see Appendix, page E-1).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in
urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from
many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the
noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made
28
to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane
noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise.
In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and
control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or
are not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth
in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772).
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix E, page E-2). The Leq,
or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which
in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound
levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady
noise level with the same energy content.
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of
the project to determine the existing background noise levels.
The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq
noise level along US 21, 0.2 mile north of Carson Boulevard, as
measured at 50 feet from the roadway was measured as 65.1 dBA.
Background noise along the project was found to range between 51
and 56 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with
the most current traffic noise prediction model in order to
calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated existing noise level was
within 0.8 dBA of the measured noise level for the location
where the noise measurement was obtained. Differences in dBA
levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic
volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
d. Future Noise Level Predictions
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of
the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be
made to predict highway traffic noise.
29
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this
study was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA
2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost
Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise
prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the
planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of
the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The
project proposes to build a two-lane highway on new location
from SR 1172 to US 21, 0.2 mile north of Carson Boulevard. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in
setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related
noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year
being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions
were used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during
all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than
those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be
impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2015. A land
use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50,
100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near
traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
location of these receptors were determined by the changes in
projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along
the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid
of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise
levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this
project are listed in Table N3 (see Appendix E, pages E-3 and
E-4). Information included in these tables consist of listings
of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their
ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise
level increase for each.
30
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category
that are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is
shown in Table N4 (see Appendix, page E-5). These are noted in
terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise
impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23
CFR Part 772, one business and eleven residential receptors for
Alternative 1, and one business and ten residences for
Alternative 1A, were determined to be impacted by highway
traffic noise. Other information included in Table N4 is the
maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land
use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the
roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the proper
information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses with the
predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N5 (see Appendix E, page E-5) indicates the exterior
traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors in
each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this
project range from +2 to +14 dBA for alignment 1, and +2 to +12
dBA for Alignment 1A. When real-life noises are heard, it is
possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5
dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is
judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic
noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria (with 'approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the
Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise
levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown
in the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in
either category. There are twelve impacted receptors in the
project area for alignment 1 and eleven impacted receptors in
the project area for Alignment 1A. A noise barrier was
evaluated; however, a noise wall would not be able to produce
sufficient reduction in noise levels in the project area, and
therefore, the cost per benefitted receptor was too costly to
recommend construction of a noise wall.
f. Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
31
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing
the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise
abatement.
g. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the
proposed roadway.
h. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct
access connections to the proposed roadway, and all
intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction,
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in
the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It is considered economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable
abatement measures in this case.
32
i. "Do Nothing Alternative"
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or
"no-build" alternative were also considered. If the traffic
currently using the network of roads in the project area should
double, the future traffic noise levels would increase
approximately 3 dBA. This small increase would be barely
noticeable to the people working and living in the area.
j. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are
expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected, particularly from
paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
k. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement
is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major
project change develops, no additional noise reports will be
submitted for this project.
9. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor
vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to
be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
33
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor closest to the highway project, two concentration components
must be used: local and background. The local concentration is
defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor
location. The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as
"the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of
emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at
the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality staff using line source computer
modeling and the background concentration was obtained from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were resolved, they
were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and
NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
34
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are expected to
decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these
reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume
used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within the project
limits. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for
the year of 1995 and the design year of 2015 using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be
receptor #18 at a distance of 55' from the proposed centerline of the
roadway for Alternative 1 and receptor #12 at a distance of 65' from
the proposed centerline of the roadway for Alternative IA. The
"build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor
for the years of 1995 and 2015 are shown in the Table 9. See
Appendix F for the results of the air quality analysis.
35
TABLE 9 ONE HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
RECEPTOR # 18
ALTERNATIVE 1
RECEPTOR # 12
ALTERNATIVE IA
(Recommended)
1995 2015 1995 2015
2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3
10. Stream Modification
It is anticipated that Bledsoe Creek will not be significantly
modified. The only modification will be due to the construction of
the culverts. Construction operations will be carefully planned to
minimize disturbance of the existing stream banks. Steps will be
taken to minimize impacts to the Bledsoe Creek. No problems are
anticipated with the existing floodway zones.
11. Hazardous Materials
Based on a field reconnaissance along
there are no potential hazardous materials
incidents have been recorded.
12. Construction Impacts
the proposed alignment,
sites. No hazardous spill
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of
the proposed project, the following measures, along with those
already mentioned, will be enforced during the construction phase:
a. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the
public's health and safety will not be compromised during
the movement of any materials to and from construction
sites along the project and that any inconveniences imposed
on the public will be kept to a minimum.
b. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent
endangering the safety and general welfare of the public
and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or
appearance of any public or private properties.
C. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with
all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees,
including those of the N.C. State Board of Health,
regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste will
be disposed of in accordance with the Standard
36
Specifications of the Division of Highways. These
specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Solid
Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of Health
Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
d. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
e. The construction of the project is not expected to cause
any serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities
serving the area. Before construction is started, a
preconstruction conference involving the contractor,
pertinent local officials and the Division of Highways will
be held to discuss various construction procedures,
including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken
during the time of construction that will minimize
interruption of service.
f. Prior to construction, a determination will be made
regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing
utilities in the project area. A determination of whether
the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this
work will be made at that time.
g. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be removed from the project, burned, or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
37
siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance with
the strict erosion control measures as outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1. Temporary
erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes,
dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.
i. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a
certification from the state Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to
the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. Comments were received from the following agencies:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
Division of Land Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Forest Resources
Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Alleghany County Public Schools
Alleghany County Board of Commissioners
Town of Sparta
Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix C.
B. Citizens' Informational Workshop
A Citizens' Informational Workshop was held on March 8, 1994 at the
Senior's Center in Sparta. Including representatives of the NCDOT, 68
persons attended the meeting. A press release advertising the meeting and
news articles are included in Appendix D (see pages D-1 through D-8).
38
Each attendee was given the opportunity to review maps showing
Alternative 1 and ask questions and make comments (Alternative 1A was
developed after the workshop to reduce potential relocatees). In addition,
handouts were made available to all meeting attendees (see pages D-2
through D-6 in Appendix D). Each handout contained a comment sheet which
could be completed and submitted to the division of Highways.
Comments received on the proposed roadway were generally favorable.
Those who attended the workshop felt that the roadway was needed.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following completion of this report to
provide additional information on the proposed project to local citizens
and to gather further input.
CRC/plr
R-3117
FIGURES

d YR
p A.lwllY
y
A

PHOTOS OF EXISTING
CONDITIONS
TIP PROJECT NO. R-3117
GIRANDVIEW DRIVE (SR 1172),
AT THE SOUTH TERMINAL OF
THE PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP.
LOOKING NORTHEAST.
KEMP STREET, ALONG THE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF THE
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP
LOOKING SOUTHEAST.
[US 21, AT THE NORTH TERMINAL
OF THE PROPOSED
---
-------- --------- -
FIGURE 2
T. I. P.PRC
SPARTA W
PROJECT AVERAGE I
ESTIMATED
(WITH IMF
r R-3117
;RN LOOP
'TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1995 / 2015
EMENTS) US 217728 TTST 2%
t 12265 DUAL 1 %
DHV 10%
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP /
/ / 373
299
TTST 3% (1995) 5% (2015) / /
DUAL 2% (1995) 3% (2015) /
DHV 10% 1912
/ 2493

4550 737 I 885 5292
6716 81?
`525 8810
--
810 207

17081
?
- ?
NC 18
-
?- 238 x830 3821
TTST 5% 97 I 1475 4217
DUAL 1% (1995) 2% (2015)
DHV 9%
1356
1729
PROPOSED WESTERN LOOP--,,I
1528 244
2178 523

1060 867
I ?
294
1056
341
762
1132
SR 1172
TTST 3%
DUAL 1% (1995) 29/. (2015)
DHV 10%
DRIVE

6673
12934
342
514
2351
2378
12298
17309
1699
2716
11584
1429

NC 18
SHOPPING
CENTER
I 12809
16552
US 21
FIGURE 3A
ff {{
f I I; -? t I ,
T. I. P. PROJECT R - 3117
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ESTIMATED ADT 1995 / 2015
iwt/1 iABnrlrlt/r-Anrnrre%% US 21
NC 18
PRC
SR
US 21
NC 18
SHOPPING
CENTER
FIGURE 3 R
?Y
- ?'/ f $ J J W ? J ? C7
Pf yc .. ' t
10
1*0
t
• '?I ; , ^ Ill
?, f , ? • I ? 'dNR.. J
' . ? ' - +?i? - • F •`' ?/' i e?? >.y ?.- '-7? ? .,gyp
+?'' :.

T
Z
a0
ti0
r O v
r' J W
M to
'

I-- Z
W I
Cl) >
0
L)
W F-
Cl) 0

0
a•
a

• ?

? W

Cf)
O
--
•
~
cf) (L
O
M
CL
W
0
J
D
O
U)
0
W
Q
a.
W
F-
0
Z
W
Li.
g;T.?` •- ?' ., [, 1 Athlet! 1` _/r \? ` ?• .
END PROJECT =
?-r"? Schr• ?'I • , . :I'-. ?\ -aging t
403
• ', Imo- ?•>?? ? .?•. C;/ -?.W ? `'
TIP,
o ? ? `? - • i ??. \?• l' ?`??j? ??• 5939?/ .• \ • ?,? • ? \ / ??
82
_ :- \? ?• • I "•• 'y` 21106
Wis. •n_ °?/ v ,• •? ?
J \?? ? ? ? ??? -? ? ? • BEGIN PROJECT ., ?• -? ?
/ ? \ ° - '11\•1 '?\ - • , , '' • .??
' • .? ?-.-- - a , ? ? ?-?., t ? arty »?.
-2000
3? ?-'-?"?r. -? •? \? I?N.
3200
O X J350
\ w
3wo
\ LEGEND:
" ? a s
BYPASS ALIGNMENT /
100 YR FLOODPLAIN
e?q?=
n
1 _
R-3117
APPENDIX A
RELOCATION REPORT
R 1= L O C A T I O" R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 9__81.12515 COLNTY: ALLEGHANY Alternate 1 of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-3117 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SPARTA WESTERN LOOP FROM SP 11.72.. TO LIS 21 N
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Tvoe of
Disolacee Owners H Total Minor-
ities 0-1SM 15-25M 25-3SM 35-50M 50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 7
22 9 0 0 2 4 3 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 9; 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANS61ER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 2 150-250 0 20-40M 7 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 5 250-400 2 40-70M 17 250-400 2
X '1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 5 400-600 1
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 LP 0 600 LP 0 100 LP 22 600 LP 0
affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 7 2 51 3
be available after oroiect
x 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Reseond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. NO BIJSINESSES AFFECTED

employees, minorities, etc. .
X S. Will relocation cause a 6. VISLIAL SURVEYS, LOCAL NEWSPAPERS, LOCAL REALTORS
housing shortage AND M_S.
X 6. Source for available hous-
- ino (list) F. POSSIBILITY THAT LAST RESORT HOUSING WILL BE NEEDED
Y. 7. Will additional housino_
oro=rams be needed 9. POSSIBLY 1 OR 2 ELDERLY INVOLVED, HOWEVER, NOT
>( a. Should Last Resort Housing CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. NO PROBLEMS
be considered ANTICIPATED.
El l 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families 12. SEE #6
ANSWER TI-ESE ALSD FOR DESIGN
X 10. will public Housing a 14. SEE #3
needed for project
X 11. Is public housing avail-

able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
X equate DDS housing available

durlnm relocation period
x 1 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
x 14. Are suitable business sites

available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
como I ete RELOCATION jl-ry,mms?
BRADLEY D. BOWERS JULY 20, 1994 x`) 41
?,•-L?/ /- `f ?!
Relocation Agent Date Aocrove Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Coov: State Relocation Agent
2 Coov: Area Relocation File
A-1
R E L O C A T I O" R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 9.8112515 COUNTY: ALLEGHANY _ Alternate 1A of Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-3117 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SPAR'TA WESTERN LOOP FROM SR 1172 TO. US 21 N
ES TIMATED DISPIACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of

OisPlacee

Owners

Tenants

Total Minor
-
sties

0-15M 15-25M

25-35M

35-S M

50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 5 1 6 0 0 1 2 3 ?
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING 066 DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0
11 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit - 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 7 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 5 250-4.00 1 40-70M 17 250-400 2
X I. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 ? 70-100 5 400-600 1
services be necessary

-- X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 LIP 0 600 LIP 0 100 LP 22 600 LP 0
affected by displacement
x 3. Will business services still TOTAL 5 1 51 3
be available after oroiect
x 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, Indicate size
tvoe, estimated number of 3. NO BUSINESSES AFFECTED.
-- employees, minorities, etc.
X S. Will relocation cause a 6. VISUAL SURVEYS, LOCAI_ NEWSPAPERS, LOCAL REALTORS
- -- housing shortage AND M_S.
X 6. Source for available hous-
ina (list) S. POSSIBILITY THAT LAST RESORT HOUSING WILL BE NEEDED

X
7. Will additional housina_ .
--- programs be needed 9. POSSIBLY 1 OR 2 ELDERLY INVOLVED, HOWEVER, NOT
X R. Should Last Resort Housing CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. NO PROBLEMS
- --' be considered ANTICIPATED.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
---- elderly, etc. families
, 12. SEE #6
ANSLER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
X 10. i ou is ousing be 14. SEE #3
needed for project
X 11. Is Public housina- avail-
l
e
ab
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
X equate DDS housinq available

durinc relocation Period
X 13. Will there be a Problem of
housing within financial

means
x 14. Are suitable business sites

available (list source)
[ 0 15. Number months estimated to
come l ete PELOCAT ION llf '?_1 ?
BRADLEY D. BOWERS 00 JULY 20, 1994
Relocation Agent Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
Approved Date
Orioinal & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
A-2
R-3117
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons wi11,be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
B-1
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to -be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
B-2
R-3117
APPENDIX C
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 26, 1994
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199401753
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E,. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
C lF
O
A PR 2 ° 1994
i
DI'?ISIQ'V OF ??.
WAYS
Reference is made to your letter of February 9, 1994, requesting comments
concerning potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
construction of the Sparta Western Loop (State Project No. 9.8112515, T.I.P.
No. R-3117). The proposed project calls for a two-lane road on new location
adjacent to Bledsoe Creek, from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21 North,
Sparta, Alleghany County, North Carolina. The proposed roadway will provide
access to the new industrial facilities that are prebently under construction.
Reference is also made to the site visit of November 17, 1993, conducted
by Mr. John Thomas of the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Staff at the
aforementioned site . The site visit revealed that the preferred new road
alignment had not yet been determined. However, the site review showed that
the corridor for the proposed road was located within a flood plain pasture
adjacent to Bledsoe Creek. This open pasture had a predominate cover of
fescue and orchard grass. It also contained small pockets of wetlands that
ran at 45 degree angles adjacent to the creek. These wetlands were easily
identified by the dominated ground cover of spike rush (Eleocharis obtusa). A
close look at these wetlands showed that they had been degraded by past
attempts of ditching and impacts from cattle. The potential road alignment
located west of NC 18 presented a special concern in that the site review
indicated this area to be potential mountain bog habitat. It was also noted
that Bledsoe Creek is a Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and the project
area is located adjacent to the below head waters of Bledsoe Creek.
Prior Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material into waters of the United States and/or any
adjacent or isolated wetlands during construction of this project, including
disposal of construction debris. Regarding processing of individual
Department of the Army permit applications, on February 6, 1990, the
Department of the Army and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
C-1
-2-
signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine
the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts
to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical
alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize
impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining
unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To process any
application submitted for the proposal in full compliance with this MOA, the
following additional information must be provided:
a. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are
available only if the proposed work is the least environuienually iawayiriy,
practicable alternative. Please furnish information regarding any other
alternatives, including upland alternatives, to the work for which you have
applied and provide justification that your selected plan is the least
damaging to water or wetland areas.
b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical
steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done,
especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed
construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts.
C. The MOA requires that appropriate and practical mitigation will be
required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining-'after all appropriate
and practical minimization has been employed. Please indicate your plan to
mitigate for the projected, unavoidable loss of waters or wetlands or provide
information as to the absence of any such appropriate and practical measures.
Mr. John Thomas is the point of contact for processing of your Department
of the Army permit for the proposed project. Should you have questions,
please contact Mr. Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field office, at telephone (919)
876-8441.
Sincerely,
G. a Wri
Chie Regula ry Branch
C1-2
l'
:i
l'.
f
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, NE.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
-3-

C-3
i
tNT OF
PPtM... ry ?
¦
TE?
?% United States Department of the Interior PRIDE N
AMERICA ??
FISH AND WILDLIFE SER17CE
CH 9 Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 2, 1994
-? MAR G 7 19%
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch , IL!`,'?S?CV O
Division of Highways r;,H?-;,qy;; c
North Carolina Department of Transportation ,,?
P.O. Box 25201 10N1.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North, Sparta, Alleghany
County, T.I.P. No. R-3117
In your letter of February 9, 1994 (received February 16, 1994), you
requested information regarding potential environmental impacts that
could result from the subject project for your use in the preparation of
an environmental assessment. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed project could have on listed or
proposed endangered or threatened species, and on stream systems and
associated wetlands within the project area. Preference should be given
to alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The Service is familiar with the general habitat values of the project
area and is particularly concerned about potential construction related
impacts to a sensitive mountain bog located near the proposed industrial
site on NC 18 within the general project area. This bog is known to
contain at least one Federal candidate species--the Gray's lily (Lilium
ra i)--and may contain others (e.g., bog turtles [Clemmvs
muhlenberaii]). The Service requests that any potential direct and/or
indirect impacts to this unique mountain wetland be addressed in the
environmental analysis.
Additionally, the Service's review of the subject environmental
assessment would be greatly facilitated if the document contained the
following information:
C'-4
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road
construction.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of the
proposed road improvements. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with
the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4854), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from Alleghany County that may occur within the
area of influence of this proposed action. The legal responsibilities of
a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The enclosed page
also contains candidate species that are currently under status review by
the Service which may occur in the project impact area. Candidate
species are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response to give you advance notification.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
c-5
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-052.
Sinc ly,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section Manager, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife and
Permits Section, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611

Q-6
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-052
MARCH 2, 1994
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
r REPTILES
! Bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbergii) - Candidate
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Candidate*
FISHES
Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus) - Candidate
INSECTS
Midget snaketail dragonfly (Onhiogomphus howei) - Candidate
Regal fritillary butterfly (Speveria idalia) - Candidate
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle (Stenelmis ammoni) - Candidate
PLANTS
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - Candidate*
Gray's lily (Lilium ra i) - Candidate
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Candidate
Gray's saxifrage (Saxifraoa caroliniana) - Candidate*
* Indicates no specimen from Alleghany County in at least 20 years.
C-7
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
E
March 28, 1994
MAR 3' p 1"4
Mr. Frank Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Highway Building cf
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 ONN;
Dear Mr. Vick:
RE: SCH File #94-E-4220-0601; Scoping for Comments for the
Proposed Improvements to the Sparta Western Loop from SR
1172 to US 21 North TIP #R=3117
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies, after
reviewing this document, which identify issues to be addressed
in the environmental review document. For compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, the appropriate
document should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for
environmental review. Should you have any questions, please
call 733-7232.
Sincerely,

Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
CB:jf
Attachments
cc: Region D
C-8
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 2760348003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51.01.00
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
i Health and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
John G, Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
A '1??
74 J* LOA
00ftft 00=%
11? E I---E tom! f-: I
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee iA---
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0601 Scoping Sparta Western Loop, Alleghany County
DATE: March 15, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
0-9
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
/5
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina f
71,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -V
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: c1 y`6? O/ County: /-1 LC
Project Name: •G Co
Geodetic su-vev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
y This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more /information contact the Geodetic Survey office at (919) 733-3F36.
2 -Z/-si
Reviewer Date
S
Erosion and Sedimentation Control - Iq
No comment
This project will require ap foval of anL;ei?oszop and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginni any 3Ak-gistu?bing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be dist`?bed. i„//
If an environmental document is re Iu
qu a to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
?/ 02/2 2/9¢
Reviewer Date
A
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer -
CL10
DEPr.R'1'\li; ?7' Lei= ENVi':J??\?
AND NA'T'URAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1-1-E ALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project ?Fame Type of Project
?-? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior ta.the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
r--, This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
u state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
?J waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfis i sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
n The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should.
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the `removal or demolition of dilapidated
t-? structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adiacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management. Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
r-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
Reviewer Section/ ranch ' ?S: _? Dace
C
DEHNR 3198 (Revised 8/9)) C-11
Division of Environmental Health
1 11.._. .T.-_---
• State of North Carolina
Department of Environment. Health, arid" Natural Reaoitroes
WTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Due Date.
After review, of this proiect tt has been determined that the EMNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicted may need to be
order for Nis project to Comply with North Carolina Law. oDtalnse in
Ouestiotu regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated m the averse a, tine Soren.
All a9Dliealisrte Mrwrwt•t.ww Mi --- .
--. -- _- -. - _ - - ?.? wrt,?.trr?• ••r•rr•e ad" mess plans and permits are availANt from the same
Stegionef ?fflCe.
Normal *taeeas
•
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time
telatutory t+me

Ptrmtt b twoltret t operate wastearwit! 11"mertt
il
D f
Application so days before begin ofinsiructson w swam rG o
et armrt)
ac
ities, Minor system extensions, s etwtt fGOnatrYCtipn gentle: tG .'1n•titt inspection
Ibsl appl,a
f Gays
Systems not 1tlrfCharping into state wrttu rabbet. .
MChnCat oonlerena usual
• ? a+ys)
Nrot • permn to diathatpe into eurfa it rater Warp, Apolication IND days before begin activity Ot+ane inspection

D pr11nnrt to operate and construct wastewater faeiines

i .
Poe
ipDtrulipn Conference usual AGOrtionally obtain permn to
OD-120 says
arscharg
ng into state wriace targets. eonstruet wastewater traatn,em tocifrty.prantec stir, NODES Reply SWA)
lance. 30 Gays after recelpl of plans or lsaue of NODES
Pwmit+mrchevet is Year.
Water Lae Pernslf
f'reipplrCation IeChnrcat ftOnflrenCt irsuatly eettsaary, 30 says
fWA)
D Well Construction Permit COMPtetr UOI1Catron mu t be received and ptrmit isuitd 1 says
Prior to the imstallalron of a well. (15 Cat's)

?? ab Flu Mertip Application Copy must be nerved on each adjacent riparian property 55 Gays
owner On•aftt insf»ctioh. Preapplication Conference us"! Filling
they relivire Eastrrant it, Fill from N.C Department M M Gays)
Administration and Federal Drpoge one"Fill Perim.
'ft"Mrl to Construct t operate It" Pollution Abatement

facilities enmo' Emission Sources as per 154 NCAC 21N
fMIA W Gays
1110 daytl
r open burning associated with subject proposal
must pi in Compliance with 1SA NCAC 20.0520.
Demo! yet ffinOtalrons of Structures Containing
stos malaria' must be in Compliance with 1t1A
NCAC 2D 052: which requires notification and to moval NIA Gaye
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Groo
919 733.0920

Complies Source permit required under 11A NCAC 2D.Ot100 c9c days)
rte Sedimentation Polrulron Control Act of 197= must be properly a(Idressto. fa any land drstvrbim; activity An erosion i sedrmenlatro
ill b
e requrreC If one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslay Se:tI al feast 30
^ 20 days
e
-nnrn actrvrt A fee of 1130 tot the first acre and S?000 tot earn addmona' acts of an mus! accom an the fan as et
atron Pdlutron Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the Werrenced local Ordinance: (30 days)
r On slit Inspection usual Surety bond filed wdh EMNR Bono amount
v
ri
ith t
i
a
es w
ype m
ne and humbet of acres of affected land Any area W days
rained glister than oat 0011 must be pemrtted. Tne appropriate bond f60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
koinihCwolins
burning peaty On•alte Inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds A days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning PyrmM • 22
i On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required -I1 more 1 day
Count
es In Coastal N.C. with organic saute than five acres of gtovnd Clearing acfivlfit3 all Involved Inspections (NIA)
Should be requested at least fen days before actual burn is planned'
Oil Refining Fatttlliet WA
- 9o 120 days
(NIA)
If permit requited. aPptication W days before begin Conslructiors.

1 D.m Sa!et
Perm11 Appficanf must hilt N C Quatrfred tngineer to prepare plans.
I
' 30 days
y
• nspect Consfruc.
.: ; ee':i•• onslruclipn (s according to CNNP approv-
ed plans. May slsv reQuire permit under mosquito control program. And (60 drys)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is haces-
ta•y to verity Hn:ard Cla:srGcation. A minimum fee of 1120.+00 must W.
Company the application. An addit;unat processing fee posed on A
t+•rr.nta•v or the tear project cost Mitt De reQvirtd upon comptelion
f=17 .. . ... ---- •2-
Reviewing Office: WOAD-0
Number.
1060/
' honor ?ranett

TtnK
i' IPEkmrrs SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREaeEy
RS aulutofy t,,,K
, ?r++rt)
Pik aumy bone ce fS.= ertth EMtdst wnninp to &we of NZ. D Perwal so OW esplpyto7 ON or on won co"llihona' that any Well trprtae by eriq operaro' 6"1
ikon «a
t
h ,
_ aq+neonnvns. 00 plugger acoorOrnp to EMNit fytat avte rpulationa. 1
f"1
iJ GaoOt Cat Lowation PWMI Applrutan Nine W)tn EMNR ar isul 1o" prior 1o kaw of MnNt

' Applimim by imler. No atw,oaro Appiretuan lean. O 0ays
OuA)

.p ? tune Lake; Corwruaion Palrtilt
Appliulren let baaaS on ttructun size is t:t?erpee Mull YiduOe
tLTJ a
t
Oescriplu?eu a Ora.irTs of struelWte i proof of o.nerviolp y

of npariar, property. 4WA)
act war Gxwgr C4rrtil4atxan 11119A
40 says
(130 says)
Gl>rta ?arwxrt for MAJOR tle..bontant ILYSO.W tae roust
aceon+panr appiamem 56 mays
f16e mays)
CAatA Psnnlt for at1N011t pe•eloptnnft
9W.00 lee 1hast accompany applxmen 32 coyt
Q's mays)
Seem' pleooelrt rhorwments are io"190 in or not, the pro)ecl amts K any thonllmentt h"ll to be rtlove0 or oesiroyac, plytt holly.
od.C arwelrc Surver, box IT"I, Raleigh, NZ. InIll

-771 Atoanoow wnl of any wells. K raquirs.-. thus; be in accWtshce with Title 154., &JWhaptar r0100
.
D hotihcalron of Bit proper np10nar dbee It M0,0sla0 K'rphan' untfagroune slorape tanks WS; off diaZo.ere0 OWnn; any axCavalim opersigm.
1D Complianu with t5A NCAC ??t 1000 (Coasts' StpRnrattr Rules) K ttqulraG, 45
says

•

OtheI nommenu

A)
#W/A
)
- - -- ------ - -.l ....,.,......?,u 411401nvrnrr.
>NY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CLEARING, GRADING, AND
EXCAVATION ACTIV=TIES -RESULTING IN THE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE (5) OR MORE
ACRES OF TOTAL LAND ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A NPDES STORMWATEP. ?EP.IrfIT
PRIOR TC BEGINNING THESE ACTIVITIES. . ;2

Questions regarding these REGIONAL OFFICES
permits should be•addiessed to the Regional Otiice marked below.
QAsheville Regional Office ?Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfrn Place - Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] (9191486•t541
? 1.tooresvitie Regional Office
•919 North Main Sticel. P.O. Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
(7041663-1699
?V'.'ashington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
• (9 t 9) 9:6 b481
? Ra'eiph Regional office
3&00 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Ra'eiph. NC 27609
(9191 733.2316
?1'.11mington Regional Office
CI-13 127 Ca-dinal Dove Calension
Wilmington, NC 28405
(9191395-3900
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary FE H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 11, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Offjfice of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart,"Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review t94-0601; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Sparta, Western Loop, TIP No. R-3117
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream bay?ks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channel ized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.

G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
C.'--14
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
March 11, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement., and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Ce.ttification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence.. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10540er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
C-15
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
f4
19 MIL
E) FE F1
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
March 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development

FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for the Sparta Western Loop on New Location in Alleghany
County
PROJECT: #94-0601
DUE DATE: 3-10-94

To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the Environmental
Assessment should contain the following information concerning the proposed right-of-way
purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production as a
result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series, that would be involved
within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is to be
removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning during
construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and
regulations pertaining to debris burning.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer M% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
C-16
Memo to Melba McGee
PROJECT: #94-0601
Page 2
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent
erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-cf-way
and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from
construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances
over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and related resources in
that area.
DHR: gm
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
C-17
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
?- /
lr?l?t?t c ?.?c
DATE: March 9, 1994 !!
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0601, Scoping
comments for proposed Sparta Western Loop, Alleghany
County, TIP #R-3117.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding the proposed Sparta Western Loop in
Alleghany County. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) plans to construct a two-lane road on new
location from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21 North. The
proposed roadway-will provide access to planned industrial
facilities in Sparta.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) conducted a site visit on March 7, 1994 to
assess fisheries and wildlife resources of the project site.
According to the map provided with the scoping request and wooden
stakes observed at the site, the proposed alignment begins near
SR 1172 where it cuts through a sizable wetland area and crosses
Bledsoe Creek twice. The proposed alignment then crosses NC 18
and parallels Bledsoe Creek northwest to US 21.
This project has the potential to significantly impact
wetlands in the project area and wildlife dependent on these
habitats. The large wetland near the beginning of the project is
a high quality pasture wetland that provides breeding habitat for
amphibians. In addition, the wetland has the potential to
support the bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii and Gray's lily
Lilium grayi, both state threatened species and candidates for
federal listing. Bledsoe Creek is Hatchery Supported Public
Mountain Trout Water and is somewhat degraded from various land
uses. This stream does not support a self-sustaining population
of wild trout; instead, gamefish species are limited to rock bass
C-18
Sparta Western Loop
2 March 9, 1994
and stocked trout. The stream also provides habitat for various
nongame fish species such as chubs, dace, darters, and shiners.
The NCWRC has the following specific comments regarding this
project:
The proposed alignment that goes through the headwaters of
the large wetland has the potential to impact a significant
amount of wildlife habitat through actual construction
activities and also through changes in wetland hydrology.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) should evaluate
alternatives that do not impact this wetland, such as an
alignment that begins farther south on SR 1172 and crosses
Bledsoe Creek only once near NC 18. We object to impacting
this high quality wetland when feasible alternatives exist.
The following information should also be included in the EA
that will be prepared for this project:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. The NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species Section
maintains databases for locations of fish and wildlife
species. While there is no charge for the list, a service
charge for computer time is involved. Contact is:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
A listing of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with the following agency:
Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
C-19
Sparta Western Loop 3 March 9, 1994
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps
has been contacted to determine the need for a 404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Ken Jolly at
919/876-8441.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Allen Boynton, Mt. Region Nongame Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
C-20
Q
- NORTH CAROLINA
N DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC IN
?T N
ST&
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BOB ETHER MD
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 February 28, 1994 State SuperWendu
I?AR 8 21994
r ?
DIVISION (IF
CP H ?;HV'1
MEMORANDUM WRON'
TO:
FROM:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways,
Charles H.- Wea
Assistant Sta?o' u ktendent
Auxiliary Services

RE:
Sparta, Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North, Alleghany
County, State Project No. 9.8112515, TIP #R-3117
Please find attached communication from Suzanne R. Mellow, Superintendent for
Alleghany County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
C'-21
ACCegFuzny County ScFi.oofs
cr. ?= R. Mer^w
t One Peachtree Street board a EdWatbn
c
AUWMt SupoMtenden Sparta, NC 28675-9699
(919) 3724345 ?, n
Bcoyw

SUP0
rVISW

FAX: [phone]
ter
stave CTV
cnomy mbm
Jomet Worrel
23 February 1994
FEB 4, B I994
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
NC DPI - Education Building
301 N. Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Dear Dr. Weaver:
In response to your letter of February 16, 1994,
regarding Sparta, Western Loop Road, Alleghany County, the
proposal is a viable one and will serve the.interests of
the Town of Sparta and Bristol Compressors.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Suzanne R.

Mellow

An E4ud opp Mntty Em#yrr
CI-22

TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS:
C.J. HENDRIX, MAYOR PRO TEM
BILL BLEVINS
GARY MURPHY
MILLY RICHARDSON
RANDY WILLIAMS
TOWN OF SPARTA
P.O. BOX 99
SPARTA, N.C. 28675 pro I e
919-372-4257
JOHN H. M R, M R
RICHARD D 0 Q?(iNEY
TOM DOUG W" Ii
FRANK M. SA CE
RAYMOND MOXL INTEND
KAY COX, TOWN CL !1J;EN
February 15, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your letter of February 9 to Mayor Miller
regarding the Western Loop for Sparta.
We are not aware of any potential environmental issues
relating to this project.
Thanks for the opportunity to respon
Sinc?rely,
Tom Douglas
Town Manager
TD/br
o\,
C-23
PUBLIC INVOLVEME14T
RECEIVED
Office of
Alleghany County Board of Commissioners s 1994
JOHN A. HAMPTON DANIEL F. WMILLAN
CHAIRMAN Post Office Box 366 COUNTY MANAGER
Sparta, North Carolina 28675
LEO J. TOMPIANs [phone] RICHARD DOUGHTON
VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNTY ATTORNEY
Fax [phone]
J. WALTER JONES
COMMISSIONER
February 15, 1994
Mr. Carl Goode
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Goode:
Be advised that the Public Hearing proposed for the Sparta
"Western Loop" is confirmed for the Alleghany Senior Center, 137 E.
Whitehead St., Sparta, NC for March 8, 1994.
The preliminagy meeting with the Town and County officials is
scheduled for 2:00`- 4:00 p.m., with the Public Hearing to follow
from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
Re a tfully
/Daniel McMillan
County Manager
cc: Alleghany County Commissioners
Sparta Town Council

CI-24

? ?)
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hint, Jr.. Govemor
Bent ftY McGin, S=tury
March 23, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ?'
FROM: David Brook ,?1f!",lbw
Deputy State Hiss ric Preservation Offiicer
E IC!?
MAR 2 4 1994
kC DIVISICKI OF QHIGHWAYS ?
Division of Archives'U
williarn S. Price. Jr.,
SUBJECT: Sparta Western Loop from SR 1172 to US 21 North,
Alleghany County, State Project No. 9.8112515, TIP
R-3117, GS 94-0030, 94-E-4220-0601
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no National Register-
listed properties located within the planning area.
We have previously recommended an archaeological survey for this project and
our recommendation remains the same at this time.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
C-25
109 Fast Jones Sara • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807
e' SIATE` 1
1 ? ? iy I
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
July 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM G 1 V F
TO: Thomas J. Padgett, Archaeologist Q
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tra ortation
FROM: David Brook ?- i -
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer ?y p??IlS1GN OF ?.
YS
SUBJECT: Sparta Western Loop from SR 1172 (Granview Road) EN RoNN??
to US 21 North, Alleghany County, State No.
9.8112515, R-3117, GS 94-0099
Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Anna Gray and John Mintz concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. The
authors have 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.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
' H. F. Vick
I
C-26
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
R-3117
APPENDIX D
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
INFORMATION

y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
PUBLICAFFAIRS DMSION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C27611-5201 R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE DATE: February 28, 1994
CONTACT: Hannah Daniel, [phone] DISTRIBUTION: 3
RELEASE NO: 76
NCDOT TO HOLD CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP IN SPARTA
RALEIGH -- Citizens can learn of the proposed construction of the Sparta Western Loop from
Grandview Drive to U.S. 21 North at a citizens informational workshop to be held March 8.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold this workshop
between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. at the Alleghany County Senior Center located at 137 East Whitehead
Street in Sparta.
All interested individuals may attend this informal workshop at their convenience.
NCDOT officials will be available to present information, answer questions and receive comments
about the project.
It is proposed to construct a two-lane roadway, part of which is on a new location.
Anyone wanting additional information may contact Charles R. Cox, P.E., Planning and
Environmental Branch, P.O.'Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 or call [phone].
The N.C. Board of Transportation member for this area is Fred Eidson of Elkin.
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and services for any
qualified disabled person interested in attending this workshop. To request this assistance, you
may call Charles Cox no later than seven days prior to the date of the workshop.
PSA: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a citizens
informational workshop March 8 to discuss the proposed construction of the Sparta
Western Loop in Alleghany County.
The workshop will be held at the Alleghany County Senior Center located at 137
East Whitehead Street in Sparta.
NCDOT officials will be available for questions.
*** NCDOT ***
NC DoTLINE D-1
1-80((1-526"2368 RUBIE BRITT HEIGHT
MEDIA INFORMATION UPDATES PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] DIRECTOROF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FROM SR 1172 TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. I. P. NUMBER R - 3117
MARCH 8, 1994
Citizens Informational Workshop
l}_,.
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FROM SR 1172 TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3117
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to discuss plans to construct a two-lane
road on new location from SR 1172 to US 21 North in Sparta. Comments and
suggestions concerning the proposed highway construction are appreciated
and will be considered during the project study.
The Division of Highways realizes individuals living close to a
proposed project want to be informed of the possible effects of the
project on their homes and businesses. However, exact information is not
available at this stage of the planning process. Additional design work
is necessary before the actual right-of-way limits can be established.
More detailed information will be available at a later date.
A comment sheet is provided for you to write down questions or
concerns so that the Division of Highways can fully consider your ideas,
comments, or suggestions. Please complete this comment sheet and leave it
with an NCDOT representative. If you desire additional information or if
you wish to comment further on this project, please contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1994-2000 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program calls for a
two-lane road on new location from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21
north of Sparta. The proposed roadway will provide access to planned
industrial facilities in Sparta.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994,
and construction is scheduled to begin Fiscal Year 1995. These schedules
are subject to the availability of sufficient highway funds.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Right-of-way/Construction Cost $2,000,000
CRC/sdt
o-3
COMMENT SHEET
SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FROM SR 1172 TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-3117
MARCH 8, 1994
(You do not have to answer all the questions on these sheets, but please
take the time to give us your comments and concerns regarding this
project. Please continue any responses on the back of this sheet.)
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT R-3117:
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDING
OUR CITIZEN INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP PROCESS:
WAS THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO YOU? WERE
NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR IN THEIR EXPLANATIONS?
PLEASE EXPLAIN:
WERE DISPLAY MAPS EASY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND? PLEASE EXPLAIN:
WERE NCDOT REPRESENTATIVES COURTEOUS AND HELPFUL?
PLEASE EXPLAIN:
HOW MIGHT WE BETTER PRESENT PROPOSED PROJECTS AND ADDRESS CITIZEN'S
CONCERNS IN FUTURE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS?
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY?
DO YOU FEEL THE MEETING WAS ADEQUATELY PUBLICIZED? PLEASE
EXPLAIN:
U-5
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS:
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION IN YOUR AREA AND NORTH
CAROLINA IN GENERAL.
WHAT IS YOUR AREA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
WHAT IS NORTH CAROLINA'S MOST PRESSING TRANSPORTATION NEED?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN YOUR AREA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
WHAT ROAD IN NORTH CAROLINA NEEDS THE MOST IMPROVEMENT?
WHY?
HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CONDITION OF THE ROADS IN NORTH CAROLINA?
GOOD FAIR POOR
WHY?
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY TRANSPORTATION RELATED r
SUBJECT?
Additional comments can be sent to Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager of
the Planning and Environmental Branch, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 21611.
D-6
Plans for new highway
to be unveiled March 8
By Lynn Worth,
The' N.C. Department of
Transportation is ready to show
Anyone interested the preliminary
flans for a new road connecting
Grandview Drive and U.S. 21
Forth.
170T has scheduled a public
meeting for the Sparta "western
loop" from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. on
March 8. This "citizens' infor-
huition workshop" will be held at
the Senior Citizens Center, located
in the rock building behind the
,gourthouse in Sparta.
"People can drop by during those
hours and see what we're doing.
Folks along the alignment can get
an idea of how it affects them," said
Division Engineer Wade Hoke. It is
a chance for people to ask questions
and make comments.
Those attending the hearing will
be able to see maps of the proposed
road's preliminary route, said
Charles R. Cox, project planning
engineer.
"What we try to do is have a
workshop' early on to let people
know what we're doing, and show
them the alignment of the road,"
Cox said.
The "alignment" is roughly the
center line of the highway, he ex-
plained.
As it is proposed now, the high-
way would intersect with Grand-
view Drive across the street from
the Department of Transportation's
Sparta facilities. It would continue
across the industrial park by the
(See HIGHWAY, Page 7)
Highway
(Continued from Page 1)
entrance to the future Bristol Com-
pressors plant, Cox said.
Then it would follow Kemp
Street to undeveloped property. It
would intersect with U.S. 21 North
somewhere between Alleghany
Builders Mart and Swenk
Construction, he said.
This is a preliminary alignment
that will be evaluated during the
environmental study, Cox said.
That study will take into account
factors like houses and other build-
ings, wetlands and other environ-
mental resources that may be af-
fected by the new road's construc-
tion. There may be modifications to
the alignment during the study.
Hoke said the preliminary route
does have some environmental
concerns, incldding wetlands along
Bledsoe Creek and mountain bog
land. DOT will have to work with
the Corps of Engineers, the
Wildlife Resources Commission
and other agencies t9 get permits to
build.
Cox said he expects to have the
environmental study done by
September, with right of way ac-
quisition to follow. Construction is
expected to begin in mid-1995.
A preliminary meeting with town
and county officials is also slated
for March 8 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
and it is open to the public.
D-7
Comments 'mostly favorable'
New road plans viewed Tuesday.
By Lynn Worth
Interested officials and citizens
got a look at plans for Sparta's
new western loop road Tuesday at
the Senior Citizens Center. An
aerial map of the road was spread
over a long table, with the pro-
posed road and right of way
marked by red lines.
N. C. Department of
Transportation officials talked to
people who dropped in at the
workshop Tuesday afternoon and
evening.
"We've had a really good
turnout, both at the 2 o'clock
workshop for public officials and
this workshop for the public,"
remarked Carl McCann, division
operations engineer. The public
workshop was held from 5 p.m.
to 8 P.M. Most comments were favor-
able, with some suggestions be-
ing made for changing the route
at each end, McCann said ddring
the citizens' workshop Tuesday
evening. It was. attended by
roughly 50 people.
One couple had their house on
the market but now can't.sen it
because of the uncertainty of the
right of way, he said. "We do put
them in a bind like that. I can
understand that," he said.
Another seven houses on
Kemp Street may be affected by
the 100 foot right of way. Mc-
Cann said it is uncertain whether
they will have to be removed.
"We'll be doing some adjust-
ments to the alignment to mini-
mize the effect... we really don't
know what we're going to?do," he
See ROAD, Page 5)
,ad
nued from Page Ili The map showed the route ex- He said that access to the new McCann added.
auntain bogs to the south- tending from Grandview Drive read will not be controlled. DOT officials plan to have an
e new road's path, which across the county industrial park to environmental study done by mid-
r environmental regula- N.C. 18 South, then directly across The workshop was a chance for September with right of way acqui-
ry keep the route from Kemp Street, leaving Kemp Street people to see the proposed route of sition to follow. Construction is
much. at a sharp curve and continuing the new road and make comments, expected to begin in mid-1995.
p showed the road begin- through undeveloped land south of
Grandview Drive across Carson Boulevard. It goes between
he Department of Allegheny Group Homes and AI-
tation facilities, with its leghany Builders Mart and enters
g directly across a house. U.S. 21 North on the southeastern
definitely get the yellow side of Swenk Construction.
Grandview,".he said. McCann said the access from
robably lost will be the Carson Boulevard to a nearby trailer
e and possibly the second park on Spring Street (Cranford
sn Boulevard from the Boulevard) may have to be graded
of U.S. 21 North, he said. and widened.
D-8
R-3117
APPENDIX E
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TABLES
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD

B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tam Heinz.)
E-1
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
E-2
TABLE N3
1/2
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Allegheny County, TIP N R-3117, Project N 9.8112515
Proposed Aligment 1
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.... _............. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
..................
SR 1172 (Grandview Dr ) to NC 18 (Whitehead Street)
2 Residence B SR 1172 70 R 56 " 105 R
3 Residence B " 50 R 56 " 0 R
NC 18 (Whitehead Street) to Parks Lane
6 Residence B NC 18 45 R 53 Sparta Lp 85 R
7 Residence B " 50 R 53 " 75 R
12 Residence B Kemp St. 110 L 53 " 90 L
13 Residence B " 120 R 53 " 130 R
14 Residence B " 60 R 53 " 70 R
16 Residence B " 70 L 52 " 60 L
17 Residence B 50 L 52 45 L
18 Residence B 55 R 52 55 R
21 Residence B " 55 R 52 " 40 R
22 Residence B 50 R 52 " 45 R
24 Residence B 50 R 52 65 R
26 Residence B " 60 L 52 " 70 R
Parke Lane to Cranford Road
35 Residence B Carson Blvd. 55 L 52 " 130 R
37 Residence B " 35 L 52 " 110 R
39 Residence B " 45 L 52 " 75 L
42 Residence B " 40 R 52 " 140 R
43 Residence B " 50 L 52 " 10 R
44 Residence B " 75 R 52 " 85 R
Cranford Road to US 21
46 Business C Carson Blvd. 70 R 51 Sparta Lp 100 L
65 Business C US 21 45 L 66 It 75 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -BNL- MAXIMUM
........................
62.0 56.0 63 + 7
------------------- R/W--------------
63.5 53.0 63 It + 10
64.3 53.0 64 It + 11
63.1 53.0 63 It + 10
60.2 53.0 60 + 7
64.8 53.0 65 It + 12
65.8 52.0 65 * + 13
------------------- R/W--------------
66.4 52.0 * 66 It + 14
------------------- R/W--------------
------------------- R/W--------------
65.3 52.0 65 It + 13
64.8 52.0 64 It + 12
60.2 52.0 60 + 8
61.7 52.0 62 " + 10
64.3 52.0 64 " + 12
59.6 52.0 60 + 8
------------------- R/W--------------
63.5 52.0 63 It + 11
62.4 51.0 62 It + 11
64.3 66.0 68 + 2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -BNL- Baseline noise level.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (par 23 CFR Part 772).
E-3
TABLE N3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Alleghany County, TIP M R-3117, Project N 9.8112515
Proposed Aligrmsnt 1A (Recommended)
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
SR 1172 (Grandview Dr) to NC 18 (Whitehea d Street)
2 Residence B SR 1172 70 R 56 " 105 R
3 Residence B " 50 R 56 " 0 R
NC 18 (Whitehead Street) to Parks Lane
6 Residence B NC 18 45 R 53 Sparta Lp 85 R
7 Residence B " 50 R 53 " 75 R
12 Residence B Kemp St. 110 R 53 Sparta Lp 65 L
14 Residence B " 60 R 53 " 105 L
16 Residence B " 70 R 52 25 L
17 Residence B " 50 R 52 " 15 L
18 Residence B " 55 R 52 " 85 L
21 Residence B " 55 R 52 " 75 L
22 Residence B " 50 R 52 " 95 L
24 Residence B " 50 R 52 " 110 L
26 Residence B " 60 R 52 " 120 L
Parks Lane to Cranford Road
35 Residence B Carson Blvd. 55 L 52 " 130 R
37 Residence B " 35 L 52 " 110 R
39 Residence B " 45 L 52 " 75 L
42 Residence B " 40 R 52 " 140 R
43 Residence B " 50 L 52 " 10 R
44 Residence B " 75 R 52 " 85 R
Cranford Rd. to US 21
46 Business C Carson Blvd. 70 R 51 Sparta Lp 100 L
65 Business C US 21 45 L 66 " 75 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -BNL- MAXIMUM
2/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
62.0 56,0 63 + 7
------------------- R/W--------------
63.5 53.0 63 * + 10
64.3 53.0 64 " + 11
65.3 53.0 65 * + 12
62.0 53.0 62 + 9
------- -------- ---- R/W----- ---------
------- -------- ---- R/W----- ---------
63.5 52.0 63 * + 11
64.3 52.0 64 + 12
62.7 52.0 63 " + 11
61.7 52.0 62 " + 10
60.9 52.0 61 + 9
60.2 52.0 60 + 8
61.7 52.0 62 * + 10
64.3 52.0 64 * + 12
59.6 52.0 60 + 8
----------------- -- R/W--------------
63.5 52.0 63 * + 11
62.4 51.0 62 " + 11
64.3 66.0 68 + 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -BNL--> Baseline noise level.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). " - Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
F
E-4
TABLE N4
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Allegheny County, TIP k R-3117, Project N 9.5112515
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. Sparta western Loop; Alignment 1. 66 62 56
2. Sparta Western Loop; Alignment IA. 66 62 56
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
<31' 47' 0 11 1 0 0
<31' 47' 0 10 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 50', 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Sparta Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North
Allegheny County, TIP 0 R-3117, Project N 9.5112515
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 - 25 Increasee(1) Criteria(2)
1. Sparta western Loop, 0 1 4 12 0 0 0 12 1
Alignment 1.
2. Sparta Western Loop, 0 1 5 11 0 0 0 11 0
A31jp ? l U ( ld")
(1) As defined in Table 92.
(2) As defined by both critria in Table N2.
E-5
R-3117
APPENDIX F
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop Al, Allegheny Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 45-MPH
DATE: 08/15/1994 TIME: 23:48:13.05
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXE - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
PAGE 1
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 146. 18.0 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 146. 18.0 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R18, 55'R CL, RES -14.9 .0 1.8
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop Al, Allegheny Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 45-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated an maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.3
5
F-1
J
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MOD-"L - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 2
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop Al, Alleghany Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 45-MPH
DATE: 08/15/1994 TIME: 23:48:42.87
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS • 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB = 1.9 PPM
blvn UZSUNIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 305. 10.6 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 305. 10.6 .0 9.6
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R18, 55'R CL, RES -14.9 .0 1.8
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop Al, Alleghany Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 45-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.3
DEGR. 2
A ,
F-2
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop ALA, Alleghany Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 45-MPS
DATE: 08/15/1994 TIME: 23:49:21.15
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
' VS . .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S 20 = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXB - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
PAGE 3
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF B W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 146. 18.0 .0 9.8
.0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 146. 18.0 .0 9.8
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R12, 65'R CL, RES -18.0 .0 1.8
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop AlA, Alleghany Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-1995, 45-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.2
4
r
,i
yf'
l?
F-3
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 4
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop AIA, Alleghany Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 45-MPH
DATE: 08/15/1994 TIME: 23:49:46.91
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
V5 - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U a 1.0 M/S CLAS = 6 (F) ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link I 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 305. 10.6 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -604.7 1609. 180. AG 305. 10.6 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y 2
1. R12, 651R CL, RES -18.0 .0 1.8
JOB: R-3117: Sparta Loop ALA, Alleghany Co. RUN: BUILD, 2-LN/12'LNS, YR-2015, 45-MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REM
MAX 2.3
DEGR. 3
F-4

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SLIP DATE
TO:
i
G
l REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Y
p,
c Dui- Dm
FROM; REEF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?.K?yiC.?t? f :
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITN MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS OR YOUR INFORMATION
F
? PLEASE ANSWER / YOUR COMMENTS
OR
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

..
MsTNfp D v l/ rf'....
?;. 3 1993
WETLANDS 1 pis
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -.!ArFlr
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JP. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEI. HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Sparta Western Loop,
Alleghany County, R-3117
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early meeting
of the minds as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. Division 11 is handling the
design of the project.
A formal scoping meeting will not be held for this project; instead,
the project is scheduled to be presented during the Permit Review Agency
Meeting on December 16, 1993 in the Photogrammetry Conference Room. The
seating for this meeting is limited, and attendance by the normal scoping
meeting participants will not be possible. Therefore, please provide us
with your comments prior to that date (reference page 4 of the scoping
sheets). This is a state funded project, and a State Environmental
Assessment/FONSI will be proposed.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Charles Cox, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
CRC/plr
Attachment
?ipnol*
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 12-01-93
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning 1994
Design 1994
TIP # R-3117
Project # (Not assigned yet)
F.A. Project # N.A.
Division 11
County Alleghany
Route New Roadway, from US 21 West to Grandview Drive
Functional Classification Urban Local
Length 1.5 miles
Purpose of Project:
To provide access to industrial areas south of downtown
Sparta. To provide an alternate route for truck traffic.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
Proposed Sparta Western Loop, from SR 1172 to US 21 North.
Two-lane facility, majority on new location.
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact
Environmental study schedule: SEA/FONSI - completion, Sept. 1994
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes X No
If yes, by whom and amount: County may donate R/W for project
How and when will this be paid?
Page 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Two-lane facility on new location
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: 28-foot pavement, including 2-foot paved
shoulders. 6 to 8-foot grassed shoulders.
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 2
Traffic: Current
% Trucks
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X
Design Year
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate: (Suppl
Construction Cost (including
and contingencies). . . .
Right of Way Cost (including
and acquisition). . . . .
Force Account Items. . . . .
Preliminary Engineering. . .
ied by D:.vision)
engineering
. $
rel., util.,
. $
. $
. $
3R
2,000,000
*
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,000,000
* Note: County may participate in R/W cost by donating R /W.
TIP Cost Estimate: Not yet available
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
ITEMS REQUIRED ( ) COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge X $
Widen Bridge X $
Remove Bridge X $
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Delineators . . $
Other . . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $ 2,000,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way:
Subtotal: $ 2,000,000
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost $ 2,000,000
(Includes R/W)
Prepared By: Charles R. Cox, P.E. Date: 12/01/93
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member,
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
Page 4
d1 D`Zc dZ-C
? 193
Ne
° el ?N
J-6 _7 c?z
A4
A) C
a a a c2? 7v
?-- 11-7

z"gel
PURPOSE OF PROJECT

The construction of this project will provide a more
efficient and safe facility to accommodate existing and
projected traffic volumes for Bristol Compressors new
facility and other future businesses in the Sparta Industrial
Complex. This project is the northern portion of the US 21
Alternate as recommended in the Sparta Thoroughfare Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project will provide a new roadway on new alignment. As
shown on the sketch, the project will extend from an
intersection with US 21 near the western corporate limit of
Sparta eastward across NC 18 and on to an intersection with
SR 1172 (Grandview Drive). The project will cross Bledsoe
Creek at two locations. The current crossing of Bledsoe
Creek at NC 18 is accomplished by 2-9x9 box culverts.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length 1.2 Miles
Typical Section 28 ft. paved roadway (2-12 ft. lanes
with 2 ft. paved shoulders). 6 ft. to
8 ft. grassed shoulders.
Right of Way 100 ft. Right of Way. Some
construction easements will be
required.
Estimated Cost $ 2,000,000 Construction and Right of
Way.
Tentative Schedule Complete Environmental Assessment,
Design Plans, Acquire Right of Way -
June, 1995.
Begin Construction - June, 1995.
Complete Construction - June, 1996.
c
Y
d
r•
L
r
1
w
40
a
ro
0
Lo
W
m
AA
J
° 90
,
\ Mo, ?
n
\
1'\ N
\
,
\
,
\
-o
CA
\
,
1137 'l 136

-7S
0

0
195
N
0
°
LO
0
D
1185
22 06
° 02
LO /
$? ? 1 1,34
C
0
V•
L
0

0
/ Sy
° a
n
09
G?

.? ? ,--
06 ° 1196 ,-'
_-1 197 --'-'

J /?Pc?
a
L
a

0
07 08 1198 SPARTA NC.
1195 ALL EG H Y CO l 17?

?hltpn
J?
Q O
0
Go
o?
°

t

'
,.-N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
G ?? J
LYIG ?wb ,yE#IV R DEM
FROM: F. ?R OM, BLDG.
RE
&L /r^/
A'CTI O N
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? OR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER OR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

D
FEB
1511 1!

W WETLANDS GkoUP ?
ATER UALITY SECTION ,.
r
A7Z
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. 1-WISION OF 11161 (WAYS
60VI KNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RA111611, N.C. 27611 5201
R. SAW JIT I IUNI I
S1CRI IARY
February 9, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: -H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
?__Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Sparta, Western Loop, From SR 1172 to US 21 North,
Alleghany County, State Project Number 9.8112515, TIP
#R-3117
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to Sparta Western Loop. The project
is included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1994 and
construction in fiscal year 1995.
The proposed project calls for a two-lane road on new location in
Sparta, from SR 1172 (Grandview Drive) to US 21 North, in Alleghany County.
The proposed roadway will provide access to planned industrial facilities in
Sparta.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a state funded
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. This document
will be prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. It
is desirable that your agency respond by March 25, 1994 so that your comments
can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Charles
R. Cox, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
0
Y
IENTOF
:NTAL
iR 1172
TO US 21 NORTH
SPARTA, ALLEGHANY COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. R - 3117
FIGURE 1

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPARTA WESTERN LOOP
FROM GRANDVIEW DRIVE TO US 21 NORTH
Project 9.8112515 R-3117 Alleghany County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
citizens informational workshop on March 8, 1994 between the hours
of 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm at the Alleghany County Senior Center, 137
East Whitehead Street, Sparta. Interested individuals may attend
this informal drop in workshop at their convenience between the
above stated hours. Division of Highways personnel will be
available to provide information, answer questions, and take
comments regarding this project.
Under this project, it is proposed to construct a two lane facility
on new location. Additional right of way will be required for this
project.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Charles Cox
at P. O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
this workshop. To request the above you may call Mr. Cox at the
above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
workshop.
r'
March 11, 1994
MRMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart? water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0601; Sco ing Comments - NC DOT
Sparta, Western Loop, TIP No. -3117
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channel ized/ relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
A

Melba McGee
March 11, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10540er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb