19990267 Ver 1_Complete File_19990101

John_D
From: Preston Howard [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 5:23 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
JOHN @ DEM. EHNR.STATE.NC.US
Subject: Forwarded: Ltr. to Sec. McDevitt from Mr. Sam
WHERE IS THE LETTER????
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 16:56:27 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Lori Jones)
Subject: Ltr. to Sec. McDevitt from Mr. Sam Erby, Jr.
To: [e-mail] (Don Reuter),
[e-mail] (Preston Howard),
[e-mail] (Melba McGee),
[e-mail] (Bill Holman),
Donna @ dem.ehnr.state.nc. us
Cc: [e-mail] (Craig Deal)
RE: Issues specific to DOT's proposed construction on US
Hwy. 421 and concern that the projects are being delayed for lack of
the 401 Water Quality Cert. from DWQ
The secretary will be meeting with someone from DOT on 2/4 concerning this
issue. Craig Deal gave me the information below. I also faxed a request to
John Dorney last week. I called and left a message today for Dorney to followup
with him so that I can obtain the letter that Craig referenced in his e-mail
below.
If you have any other additional information that the secretary should be aware
of prior to his meeting, please let me know. Thanks.
Forward Header
Subject: Ltr. to Sec. McDevitt from Mr. Sam Erby, Jr.
Author: Craig Deal at NRDCS01 P
Date: 1/29/98 5:32 PM
Lori,
Regarding the issues specific to DOT's proposed construction on US
Hwy. 421 and their concern that the projects are being delayed for
lack of the 401 Water Quality Cert. from DWQ, I checked with John
Dorney and learned that DWQ has prepared an itemized response to DOT's
letter (from Frank Vick to Steve Tedder). I asked John today to
expedite getting a copy of that letter to Sec. McDevitt.
This project, however, is indicative of a much larger difficulty
that exists, and has existed for a long time, between various agencies
in DENR and DOT regarding wetlands permitting. I had lunch yesterday
with Dr. Larry Goode, Calvin Leggett and Frank Vick (DOT Senior Staff)
in this regard. They are extremely frustrated.
I have also met with DWQ staff and staff in the Wildlife Resources
Commission. They are equally frustrated with DOT. Quite frankly,
there appears to be little ability for the various DENR agencies to
work out their differences with DOT at a staff level. It seems that
there exists a rather long "history" in this regard which has
effectively polarized the resource agencies against DOT and vice

versa. The Division of Coastal Mgmt. and Marine Fisheries also are
involved from time to time (though not as often) and while I have not
spoken directly to them it is my understanding that they share the
same sentiments toward DOT.
This issue is further complicated by the fact the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is the issuing authority for the 404 wetland permit
itself and has regulatory ties to the 401 Cert. program in DWQ. The
Corps also seems to be at an impasse with DOT which in turn has an
effect on the resource agencies within DENR.
This is a very involved and very difficult situation. In general
DOT's complaints are as follows:
1. DWQ does not always abide by decisions the Corps makes and
promulgates rules that conflict with the Corps requirements; and
2. DWQ staff do not appear to coordinate well between the field and
Raleigh Central because they often raise issues late in DOT project
planning phases that have been addressed already and yet the 401 Cert.
is held up as a result.
Likewise, DWQ's complaints are generally summarized as follows:
1. DOT does not always heed the comments DWQ provides during
planning or does not follow through on what has been agreed to
resulting in wetlands being impacted which could have been avoided or
in wetland mitigation situations that are unacceptable; and
2. DOT has not successfully established functional wetlands in a
number of cases in the past where they were given permission to build
projects conditioned upon creating or restoring wetlands elsewhere to
ensure no net loss of wetlands as a result of the highway
construction.
Hopefully the response letter from DWQ will be here by tomorrow.
We have also scheduled a meeting in this regard with Assistant Sec.
Holman and Calvin Leggett and Frank Vick from DOT on Feb. 17th. I
will be meeting with Preston Howard on Feb. 3rd.
I apologize that this is so lengthy, but this is a complicated
issue with very passionate and sometimes opposing positions between
DENR and DOT. Let me know if the Sec. needs more.
Craig
Joh
From: Dennis Ramsey [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 4:08 AM
To: preston @ dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: DOT and 421
PRESTON
LATE YESTERDAY I RECEIVED A CALL FROM CRAIG DEAL. HE SAID THAT THE SECRETARY
WAS GOING TO MEET WITH DOT SECRETARY TOLSON THIS WEEK (MAYBE AS EARLY AS
TOMORROW) AND THAT DOT WOULD PROBIBLY BE COMPLAINING THAT WE WERE HOLDING UP
THEIR HIGHWAY 421 PROJECT. THEY ARE CORRECT IN THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS THAT SO
FAR DOT HAS BEEN UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ADDRESS. SIMILAR CONCERNS HAVE ALSO
BEEN RAISED BY EPA. I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ALL OUR FACTS TOGETHER
BUT SHOULD HAVE THEM BY LATE THURSDAY (CYNDI IS ON THE ROAD UNTIL THEN).
IF YOU NEED SOMETHING FASTER THAN THAT I HAVE A MEMO TO YOU FROM JOHN THAT SAYS
LETS HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING. THAT HOWEVER IN ITSELF DOES LITTLE TO RESOLVE THE
CONCERNS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE UNLESS DOT WILL BRING INFORMATION TO THE MEETING
THAT THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN US.
NOT ONLY DO WE STILL HAVE THE CONCERNS THAT WE SENT TO DOT IN 1993 AS PART OF
THE EIS PROCESS, EPA HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS, THE WSRO HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL,
WILDLIFE RESOURCES HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL, THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCES HAS
RECOMMENDED ANOTHER OPTION, AND THE JOE MICKEY SAYS HE IS GOING TO RECOMMEND
DENIAL.
THE OTHER CONCERN IS THE DOT PRACTICE OF SENDING IN PARTS OF PROJECTS FOR
APPROVAL. THIS IS THE BEST OF THE THREE PARTS OF THE 421 PROJECT AND DOT SENDS
IT IN FIRST FOR APPROVAL. ALL THREE PARTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS PART, WE HAVE EVEN MORE CONCERNS WITH THE
OTHER TWO PARTS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CORPS WILL PROBIBLY OBJECT TO
THE OTHER TWO PARTS.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING FURTHER BEFORE THURSDAY AFTERNOON.
THANKS
DENNIS
js
s'
To: John Dorney
Cyndi Bell
Through: Steve Mauney
From: Ron Linville CEI
i
Subject: Franklin Vick DOT 421
Jan 2, 1998 Letter Response
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Date: 980121
In response to the above document, the following comments and
queries may assist DOT and DWQ in understanding concerns previously
raised by the Regional Office. For simplicity, each comment will
follow DOT's letter full paragraph by full paragraph.
Paragraph Number:.
I. The recommendation for denial is based on potential
further minimization of impacts related to this project, the
quality of. the existing wetland and its contribution to water
quality in this drainage area plus the fact that this wetland
appears to be the last remaining wetland along this portion of the
creek (restorable/mitigatable prior converted farmlands appear to
be associated with this trout classified stream segment).
II. The four roadways (actually 5 roads) referred to are the
Blue Ridge Parkway, the existing 421, Old Hwy 60/Hardin Road
(Laurel Springs?) and the proposed additional double highway (not
a road widening). As for the final paragraph seeming to be out of
place, the DOT has been under intense scrutiny lately so it would
seem that they would welcome ideas which might assist them in
dealing with long-term impacts with which the general public seems
to be at odds. These items would include loss of environmental
quality, including mountain valley vistas, water quality and the
protection of specific basin trout populations. These are
significant to the mountains as environmental quality encourages
tourism and a healthy local economy. Safe roads are important.
Being able to maintain roadways is also important and it would seem
economical to minimize instead of increasing miles of pavement that
must be kept up to standard.
III. A study completed in 1975 would seem to be very
outdated.
VI. Concerning minimization, the Region continues to
question whether or not utilizing the existing 2 lane roadway for
one way traffic was ever considered as an option. Are the existing
environmental reviews flawed? Could minor improvements to this
roadway provide for traffic flow to or from the Boone area if only
a 2 lane roadway is built where the new 4 lane is now proposed?
Could this not reduce impacts further?
01 10

VII. From the information gathered by the WSRO, the DOT
appears to show that they eliminated the "Improve Existing
Corridor" alternative due to several reasons; however, this
alternative seems to indicate building a 4 lane on the existing 421
corridor. Again, could not this existing roadway comprise half
instead of a third or less of the cumulative road area through this
area? Would this not reduce down the road maintenance cost as well
as minimize environmental concerns?
VIII. Should water quality impacts not be minimized further
through other alternatives and since this wetland appears to be
very functional in providing for downstream uses/classifications,
the Region would recommend that some measures be provided adjacent
to the new roadway and impacted stream which would provide some
assurances t1fat downstream functions would continue at or above
current levels. These measures might be construction of wetland
vegetated marshes or stormwater retention facilities. Similar
practices may be utilized in other states or jurisdictions. Also,
what hydrologic conditions will exist in the remaining wetlands?
IX. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
X. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
Can proposed impacts be further reduced by utilizing the existing
roadways and building less new road?
XI. See VIII above for on site considerations. After road
construction, will the remnant wetlands be dryer or wetter?
XII. Reduction from 2.4 acres to 1.16 acres by DOT is
commendable; however, further avoidance/minimization and on site
considerations should still benefit long-term water quality and
habitat concerns.
XV. Turn lanes if one way roads are utilized should be able
to provide safe access to the school.
XVI. As of January 1998, the bog turtle's status may have
changed somewhat. Until the road project begins, continued
vigilance should be exercised in order that we act appropriately.
XX. Without comprehensive minimization and protection of
downstream water quality concerns (whether by avoidance or by on
site measures), the Region continues to be concerned that existing
uses will be degraded both at the construction site and downstream.
The mention of the Miller bog was intended to show that potential
mitigation sites are available in the Region's (WSRO) area. The
Miller bog would be considered a prime candidate for possible
restoration mitigation within this Region.

XXI. The NCDOT should be commended for their efforts with the
Sparta bog. Sadly, this area will do nothing for the impacts
caused by the 421 "road widening".
XXIV. The WSRO does not concur that no practical alternatives
exist in the same physiographic province (see VIII above). A
combination of measures may be more palatable.
XXV. The Region continues to be concerned that the
environmental documents produced may be outdated or flawed.
Utility independency should not be utilized for multiple sections
of the same new roadway.
XXVII. The region considers a public hearing as a possible
method for public review of a new major roadway if the previous
environmental studies or alternative studies were flawed. Was
utilizing existing 421 and 60 ever considered for minor
improvements and unidirectional traffic? If they were, the WSRO is
not informed. A public hearing should provide an opportunity to
get things cleared up once and for all on this section of 421. It
could also include and consider the entire 421 project from Yadkin
County to Watauga County. Several comments have been made by
persons along the 421 corridor in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties that
DOT already has enough roadway purchased along the existing 421 for
four lanes. They question the destruction and division of existing
farms and environments. The Watauga section should receive public
comments due to water quality issues and trout water concerns.
XXVIII. The purchase of property or the progression of an
EA/EIS does not assure issuance of a permit or certification.
This office would consider a field investigation with Mr.
Gordon Cashion as an excellent opportunity to discuss issues
relative to this specific wetland impact in Watauga County.
However, due to public comments and concerns over the entire 421
project, it may be in the best interest of the people to make this
entire 421 project available for public scrutiny.
cc: Central files
WSRO
USACOE-Asheville Office
USFWS
NCWRC
a:\421.rsp
q14) DTL
cam

Y a
Ckt;??

flo,
15
? i
Co

?. c T- C,vs
r
______

........ .i _..... ?
One of the "700 Best Companies to W- j w in America"
February 2:6; 1998 ?I
Governor Jim Hunt
The State Capitol ;
1116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh; SIC 276011=8001. ,
Dear Governor Hunt:
It was with great Aisap:poin ent tf a# we :as Wakias County residents -learned:wd
were again faced .with anott? r 016jor d;etay i:n. the progress: to 'fbur to.k.4? ighwa,
421. I I
It is difficult to over-estimate; the: irnp , tance_ of this: road improvernent to the
economic well being of WM i m. Np it I Caro ina. ; I . II
We ask that -you peracnaBy get invol. ed -,in =this :dispute betwe°en the De?artmeht?
of Tcanspor#ation.and. the.Departme t of: Water C}2uality. it is puzzling for
T i
business people :to understand w;hy t e:Der) rnent of Water Quality°would waft
:...?.
until the:end of such a massive 6j& io M -1cate their concerns.
- Highway 421 is a ajar thor ughfar #or`tounst is well as cocrirnercial
'transportation. 1Me ask, for :y ur- support and evolvement in :this. issue so that it
'n1 ay be resolved and 'the.improve me ti Ito
11 ghvua}i 421 willi agalrr mov forwar
I Sincerely, 1.
P. D IGHT FORD'
PRESIDENT - W1LfCES CO NTY C, AMBER OF COMMERCE
L
I
/kb
7nf7n 'r-I
P.Q. BoX 1111, i"Jorth Wilkesbioro, ;Xrth Carolina 28656-02-Cli
1Eo5 curtis ericdge Road, Wilkesi",oro, North Caro?ina 2 'E-'
3:6 658-60190 FaaX: 5*36 652-4766 Wei
VT:7T AF, FT JPLJ n7T7-CC)-FTC-XP-J NnbJ`. Ann 7uI -in aJn -)6.1
Vrve-?02-S8 14:53 FROM : WATER MGMMT REGION 4 I D : 404 SS2 9343 PAGE 2/10
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Aflame Federal Center
61 >yth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Nov a 3 199
WMD/WCWQCrB/XM
Colonel Terry Youngbluth
District Engineer
ATTN: Mr. Steven Lund
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 2MO2-1890
SUBJ.- N.C. Dept of Transportation - Widening of U.S. Highway 421
Action I.O. No.' 199707161
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
This is in response to the above referenced public noticve, dated October 9,1997, for the
proposed excavation or filling of 1.2 acres of wetlands and 1.97 acres of waters of the U_S_ for
the wideniztg and reaftmwnt of a section of U.S. Highway 421 _ According to the narrative part
of the public notice, the proposed construction is located east of Boone, Watauga County, North
Carolina. Specific inforrnation on compensatory mitigation is ,not provided by the applicant.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Wetlands Section (EPA), has reviewed
this proposal and sees no evidence that there was any attempt to avoid or mofaiuixdze wetland
impact generated by this project. Prior to a discharge of fill material into waters of the United
States, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act require a. sequential evaluation and
reduction in impact. By Memorandum of Agreement (MOA,) between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and EPA dated February 6, 1990, this sequencing may be ci ctmwented when
the Corps and EPA agree that the proposed discharge is either necessary to avoid environmental
harn), or can be reasonably expected to result in environmental gain or insignificant einvironmental
loss. At this point in dime, we have not agreed that this project meets these requirements. Areas
such as the ones proposed for impact are extremely important to North Carolina in terms of water
quay, water quantity, and wildlife habitat and food chain maintenance. It appears that there may
be other project designs which will not cause such a significant stream channel or wetlands
impact- We will gladly review the alternatives analysis, if one is available.
Additionally, EPA believes that without specific information on proposed mitigation or a
functional, approved rraitigation bank, the project should not be authorized,
,*FE13 -f02-99 14:53 FROM:WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID:404 562 9343 PAGE 3/10
2
Because EPA does not believe that this project has complied with the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines and because the applicant has not proposed specific compensatory xriatigation, we
request that authorization for this-project be denied. Thank you for the opportunity to conmient
on this project, If you have any questions rega3rding these conmmnts, please contact Kathy
Matthews at the above address or by tel epphMne at [phone].
Sinter Y,
William Lti Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
cc_ USFWS, Raleigh
NCDENR, Raleigh
FEB-02-9B 14:53 FROM=WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID:404 5B2 8343 PAGE 1/10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Section
wetlands Coastal and Water (duality Grants Branch
Water Manageme- t Division
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
0 FAX
T4: Cindy Bell
NCDENR / DWQ
[phone]
No. Pages: 10
FROM: Kathy MaUhews
Fhone [phone]
Fax [phone]
COMMENTS: Copy of my letter and letter froin DOT concerning Watauga
portion of US 421. I'll talk to you this week.
Please call if there are problems with this t nsm ttal.
FE9-02-99 14:54 FROM:WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID:404 562 9343
7
STATE OF NORTH CAROL1m
- DEPARTma T of TRANsPoPTATioN
JAMB B. HUNT )R.
(30VERNOR

Mr William L- Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
January 7, 1998
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S_'W_
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ATTN: Ms. Kathy Matthews
Dear Mr. Cox:
Subject: Watauga County, US 421 new location from South Fork New River in
Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Deep Gap. Federal Aid Project No.
Flt-86-1(6), State Project No. 8.1750601, TIP No- R-529BA, BB & BD.
'Fhe North. Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recently received a letter
from the United States Army Corps of Enguieers (COE) regarding a recommendation
from the EPA that the COE deny the permit application based on a lack of consideration
of less environmentally damaging alternatives and a lack of a compensatory mitigation
plan. The NCDOT appreciates your concerns..Ilowever, we feel that we have diligently
attempted to avoid and minimize impacts to the largest extent praotxcable- the following
is a mmmary of efforts undertaken to avoid and minimize impacts during the project
planning process-
In October, 1974, the NCDOT began preliminary investigations for the development of a
principal arterial connector between Boone and Interstate 77. The, study was completed
in December, 1975, and included a recommendation for the improvement of US 421 from
NC 194 in Boone to US 221 new Deep Gap. In January, 1.978, the proposed
improvement was included in the 1978-1984 Highway Improvement Program and was
designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal.
Highway Administration (H`WA), initiated planning and environmental studies with the
publication of a notice of intent in the Federal Register_ However, due to budgetary
P.O. BOX 252o1. RALEIGH, NC 276U-SMI
PAGE 4/10
GARLAND B. GARRm JR.
SECWIlAy
f?

'i

FES-02-99 14=S4 FROM=WATER MGMNT REGION 4 I13=404 S92 9343 PAGE S/10
considerations, the planning process was suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga
County and the NCDOT adopted a major thoroughfare pImL in which the proposed project
was included as a part of the county's thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the NCDOT resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent was
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988, - A scoping letter was distributed
on November 21, 1988. As the study progressed, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of the Snterior National Park Service
joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven %nwagency meetings were held
throughout the study.
J-horder to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors were
developed and evaluated. A land suitability asap was developed showing large areas, or
"windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway corridor. Using
this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and linked to form
prelir'nxnaay alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the public at a citizens
informational workshop. .As a result of the comments received at the workshop, an
additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplairx limits,
soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering limitations,
community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments were
elinningted from farther consideration. Following is a list of the segments eliminated and
the reasons for their elimination.
SEGMEN'T' REASONS FOR ELOW ATION
Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood moll community.
S Impact to section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community-
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community-
FES-02-68 14:55 FROM:WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID:404 562 5343 PAGE 6/10
S
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Crap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
statement (DEIS}, which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992. The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and Improvement of the
existing corridor. Chapter II.A.1. of the DEI S summarizes the factors behind the
elimination of the 'Improve Existing Corridor" alternative. To facilitate your review, that
section is quoted below:
The existing conditions along us 421 from just west of the South Pork New River
bridge to SR 1361 exhibit the compromises usually rn,,de when a roadway is built
in mountainous terrain. Straight portions are very short, curved portions are very
sharp, and steep vertical grades are the nile, not the exception. Because of the
steep terrain and narrow right-of-way, residents have built their homes and
businesses m close proximity to the road. When these conditions are combined
with steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a
roadway having areas with inadequate sight distance, blind spots, and dangerous
intersections.
For this alternative to meet the proposed design criteria established for this
project, major reconstruction of the existing two-lane facility would be required as
well as construction of the two additional lanes. Existing horizontal curves would
need to be more gradual. -fbe improve Existing Corridor Alternative would have
a fear advantages over the Build Alternative, including lower construction cost
and fewer impacts to the natural environment. However, the disadvantages would
be great:
A large number of relocations. It is estimated that 142 families, 44 businesses,
and 7 non-profit Organizations would require reloartion. The total number of
dispiacees for this altemahve is approximately three tinges that of any other
alternative.
Encroachment by the roadway onto several properties considered eligible for
listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places.
• Continued high accident hazard caused by dense fog near .axon.
• Encroacbxaent into the school ground of Parkway Elemmtary School and the
adjacent public park and rest area.
Visual impact to the section of the Blue Ridge Parkway paralleling US 421 near
Cmamdview Overlook-
* increased noise and air pollution to existing residences and businesses.
Q Difficulties in maintaining traffic 011 existing US 421 during construction of the
expanded facility.
FES-02-96 14:55 FROM:WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID-404 562 9343 PAGE 7/10
4
• Difficulties in control of access limitation because of the large number of existing
driveways along the project.
Because of the overwhelming negative impacts of this alternative, the Improve
Fxisting Corridor Alternative is not considered a viable alternate- However, two
segments of the existing US 421 corridor are part of the Build Alternative. "These
seo eats are tale westem terminus of the study area and the section from
approximately 0-5 mile west of the US 421 MS 221 intersection in Deep Gap to
near SR 1361 where the existing four-lane section of US 421 begius_
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NGDOT proceeded to prepare the FEIS, which was
approved June 10, 1992. This document finalizes the discussion of alternatives for the
project, and describes the Preferred Alternative- The advantages of the Preferred
Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the FEIS, and are quoted below:
Fewer residential relocatees - 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
• Tower cost approximately S9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8
million less titan Build Alternative C;
• Fewer noise impacts - 14 (nine less sites than Build Alte native B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lesser wetland impacts - (0.65 acres less thou Bwlld Alternative B and 2_55
acres less than: Build Alternative C (Emphasis added);
• Lesser impacts to the W.S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
• No impact to a tributary to Gap Greek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
• Least impact to Blue Ridge Padcway;
• Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
• Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Midge Parkway
crossing; and
• BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior - National
Park Service_
The Record of Decision (ROTS) for this project was signed April 20. 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic seIvices." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9,1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area... ".
FEE-02-98 14:55 FROM:WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID=404 562 9343 PAGE 8/10
5
The NCDOT believes that is has diligently attempted to mini?impacts to wetlands
and surface waters. The DEIS, Section. IV.K.2, discusses impacts to water resources.
This section includes a discussion of best management practices to be implemented to
znm mize i1npaats to surface waters. The FE IS followed up on this discussion, and
imcluded eight Environmental Commitments which relate to minimization of impacts to
wetlands and sm-face waters:
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management ,Practices for the ,P?-otecdon of Surface Waters as
practicable.
• NCDOT will minmme wetlands impact.: through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S_ Fish and Wildlilb service on the relocation of a
tributary to Gip Creek-
d- NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NC.DOT
.Division of Highways Sediment and Erasion Control ,Policy to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction-
The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will be
evaluated dumg design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (CO E, NPS, USFWS, and NC.WRC).
• A. research'project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed by
the Nattional. Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT_ An agreement to
perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD). The
research project will monitor the hydrology and fnetion of the bog located on BRP
property prior to construction and continue through and following construction for a
minimum of five years.
• Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design phase
with alignment shifts. Seep areas that odnnot be avoided will be incorporated into
runoff ditches.
• The NCDOT Geotechnical. Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior to
construction. Should acid bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
rumfffrom uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.
Additional comments can be made on the N CDOT's minilization efforts. The FRIS
states that 2.4 acres of wetlands would be impacted.. The NCDO'T' has been able to
further minimize this impact during project design. The project will impact a total of
1.16 acres of wetlands, less than half of the total projected in the FESS_ The NCDOT has
also diligently avoided any direct construction impacts to the Deep Gap Bog mentioned
in the environmental commitments. The specified research study of this site is also
underway to document any indirect, impacts of the project on this site during construction.
FEE-02-98 14=56 FROM=WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID=404 562 9343 PAGE 9/10
During coordination of the project, several agencies expressed concern over wetland Site
1, Section 513. fbe majority of the project's wetland impacts occur at this site (0.7 of
1.16 acres). The presence of this site was included in the DEIS (Site 6A, Exhibit III-3,
Table N-16). Consequently, impacts to this site were considered in the alternative
selection process. At a field review of the project, the resource agencies made several.
suggestions that may have potentially reduced impacts at this site.
This site occurs at the intersection of the proposed project, Old US 60, and Hardin Road
(SR 1353)_ The first agency suggestion was to not tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-
RE V) into the proposed US 421, creating a dead end on this road. Suggestion two would
tie Hardin Rd/SR 1353 (Y9-REV} to existing US 421 directly, south of the intersection of
proposed US 421 (--L-), SR 1353, and Old US 60_ The evaluation of these alternatives
was presented at a September 18, 1997 biwragency Permit Review Meeting hosted by
NCDOT.
The Watauga County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. Closing
Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old US 60
to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421.
The NCDOT is also committed to providing adequate compensatory mitigation where
impacts to wetlands and surface waters are unavoidable. A property has been purchased
in A.lleghany County, North Carolina. The property is within the New River Basin and
contains a bog complex which is considered of national sigraficance by the Nature
Conservancy and the N.C. Natural. Heritage Program. The NCDOT cor pleted an initial
site analysis which identified restoration potential for both wetland areas and degraded
stream sections on-site. .A consultant has been retained to develop the mitigation plan for
the property and a meeting was heId at the site on December 17, 1997 to discuss critical
elements to be inclined in the mitigation plan. This meeting was attended by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). COE, Wildlife Resources Commission, the
NCDOT, and the consultant.
This site will provide a significant amount of stream mitigation. However, the NCDOT
recognizes the agencies' desire for stream mitigation in the project area. The NCDOT
completed an extensive assessment of stream segments to be impacted by the project.
This assessment identified important impacted featmvs, slid will assist the NCDOT in
targeting irnport=t stream restoration goals.
The NCDOT retained a consultant to study the project area for restorable stream
segments. This study will serve as a starting point for developing stream nniugation plains
n
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 3, 1998
Memorandum to: Wayne McDevitt
From: Cyndi Bell
----- - -
ugh -John Donne
------
-- - - - - - - - -- -
_ Dennis R•'--"'?-
Subject: Project Status of NCDOT Applications to Relocate US 421 from Boone to
Deep Gap in Watauga County (T.I.P. No. R-0529 BA/BB), from Yadkinville
to US 601 in Yadkin County (T.I.P. No. R-2120A), from SR 2433 to SR 2309
in Wilkes County (T.I.P. No. R-2239B), and from Maple Springs to
Wilkesboro in Wilkes County (T.I.P. No. R-2240)
From the perspective of DWQ, there are three major issues which are unresolved with respect to
the US 421 corridor from Boone in Watauga County to US 601 in Yadkin County:
I. Minimization - DOT is calling virtually the entire US 421 corridor through three counties a
"widening" project. It should be recognized as a "relocation" or rather as an additional highway,
since no section of the existing US 421 (or the existing Old US 421) will be abandoned/removed.
DOT has separated US 421into four distinct T.I.P. segments, each further broken down into
construction sections. We currently have three applications, and expect at least four more
applications in the future.
R-0529, US 421 in Watauga County, occurs in steep, mountainous terrain. DOT's
Preferred Alignment would impact 1.2 acres of wetlands and 11,750 feet of perennial
streams. Widening on existing location would have greater impacts on properties
adjacent to the existing road, as DOT says. The offsite relocation would have greater
environmental impacts, and construction costs would be higher. DOT's preferred
alignment is approved by the Corps. WRC concurs with the general alignment, but is
not satisfied that impacts to streams and the largest wetland have been locally
minimized to the extent practical. In our June 28, 1993 comments on the new location
alternative, DWQ was still questioning the minimization of stream impacts. At that
time, DWQ reminded DOT that denial of the 401 Water Quality Certification would be
likely if an alternative was chosen which did not minimize stream and wetland impacts.
WRC and FWS agree that Sparta Bog could only be a component in a mitigation plan;
additional stream mitigation in the project vicinity would still be required. EPA, the
NC Museum of Natural Sciences, NC Divison of Parks and Recreation, and DWQ's
Winston-Salem Regional Office are not satisfied that impacts have been minimized to
the extent practicable, either for the entire corridor or the specific design. WSRO also
is not satisfied that DOT has done everything possible to treat stormwater in the
immediate project area. On January 23, 1998, the Sierra Club also sent us a letter in
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
6. In a memo to DWQ dated January 23, 1998, the N. C. State Museum of Natural
Sciences recommended that other options be pursued in building this roadway.
7. Before the Corps of Engineers (COE) could approve the 404 permit for this
project, DOT would be required to submit a comprehensive stream mitigation plan
to the COE. It is our understanding that DOT has just recently hired a consultant to
develop this plan. Normally a plan would take months to develop.
Public Concerns:
The Division has received several request for a public hearing on the proposed
project. One of these request was from the Sierra Club.
Department Options:
1. Work with DOT staff and the other agencies to attempt to resolve outstanding
issues.
2. Proceed to Public Hearing to allow further comment on the project.
3. Delay final decision on the project pending the development of DOT's stream
mitigation plan. The project cannot be approved by either the COE or the Division
prior to the development of this plan.
4. Recommend denial of the project as proposed.
Project Status
NC Department of Transportation US 421 Project
404/401 Certification Request
Boone to Deep Gap in Watauga County
February 3, 1997
Project Description:
This proposed project is a 8.8 mile segment of a multiple segment highway project
that is proposed to be constructed from Yadkinville to Boone.
The existing US 421 is being proposed to be relocated and expanded into a 4 lane
median divided highway.
The project as proposed would impact 1.2 acres of wetlands and 11,750 feet of
perennial waters.
History of Project:
The Division of Water Quality first commended on the project in a memo dated June
8, 1993. In that memo the Division expressed a concern with the need for additional
minimization on the project. The Division advised DOT that if this minimization was
not incorporated into the project that a recommendation for denial would likely be
make.
Division of Water Quality Position:
The Division of Water Quality has expressed on numerous occasions concerns to
DOT regarding various aspects of this proposed project. These include Minimization,
Mitigation and Segmentation (please see attached summary memo).
Other Agency Positions:
1. In a memo dated October 27, 1997, the Habitat Conservation Program of the
Wildlife Resources Commission expressed concern with the impacts of this project
and made recommendations for modifications.
2. In a letter dated November 3, 1997, EPA requested that the Corps of Engineers
deny the 404 request for this project. DOT has responded to this letter and EPA is
currently reviewing the information submitted.
3. Ina memo to DWQ dated January 13,1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicated their intent to recommend denial of this project.
4. In a memo dated January 21, 1998 to the Habitat Conservation Program of the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, a recommendation was made that this
project as proposed be denied.
5. In a memo to DWQ dated January 22, 1998, our Department's Division of Parks
and Recreation strongly recommended that this project receive a thorough biological
survey due to a concern with threatened species (Bog Turtle, etc.).
-:that they need the road, but want the stream crossings to be better designed, or the .
impacts to be mitigated.° She also mentioned that she had heard locals complaining
about the control of access proposed for the new highway. In my opinion,!I can
appreciate the topographic constraints that DOT is under (if a high-speed facility
rv 4:
truly needed in the mountains), but am not satisfied with local minimization of impacts
4 r "'`?? f)r StOr t ":?a #ha I' mC la 8l • . M
that DWQ is blocidng thepermt, and therefore endangering their lives 'on a haiardous a=
'`road.'I doubt DOT will mention that, even if everyone agreed that the proposed design
issue the 404 Permit due to the lack of a suitable mitigation plan.-As an ast eve
Ron Linville is correct in his concerns with DOT's homing of stormvvater, both cmri$g
construction and for the life of the project DOT currently has the A-10 project }
(Interstate 26) under construction in Buncombe County. Following recent storms in
January, 1998, the Asheville Regional office reported that DOT has gone in and
destroyed literally hundreds of feet of streams outside the project area, in an effort to .
control stormwater. R-0529 occurs in similarly mountainous terrain, and we need
assurance that DOT has contingency plans for storm events.
R-2239, R-2120, and R-2240 - US 421 in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties - This is where
the existing 2-lane facility occurs on 4-lane right-of-way. The total impacts for these
segments are unknown at this time, since these projects are broken into sections, but we
estimate again that thousands of feet of stream impacts will be involved. The existing
facility is a relatively straight design, with very few curves. Re-alignment of this
highway is not necessary to improve the vertical alignment Thus far, every agency
having reviewed these applications agrees that DOT's preferred new-location design is
not, the least damaging, practical alternative. We all agree that the "widen existing"
alternative is preferable. All commenters (COE, FWS, WRC, DWQ RO and Central
Offices) have suggested denial of these applications. An aggravating factor is that DOT
is breaking the T.I.P. segments into smaller sections for permit applications, making the
review process even more confusing for all involved.
II. Mitigatioa DOT's first application for R-0529 included a proposal to debit wetland credits
from the Mud Creek mitigation site in Henderson County, and to pay into the WRP for stream
mitigation.! DOT claims that their first application met the requirement for up-front mitigation,
but this site is not in the same river basin, and did not provide stream mitigation. It should also
be noted that stream impact information was lacking from the first application, necessitating
revision of the drawings. Since that time, DOT has purchased Sparta Bog, which all agencies
agree will satisfy a portion of the mitigation requirements after minimization issues are fully
satisfied Since Sparta Bog is not in the same sub-basin, and would not satisfy all credit
requirements, and since the Corps is not yet issuing 404 permits using the WRP, DOT must still
produce a suitable stream mitigation plan, preferably within the same sub-basin as the project
corridor. We should also remember that the Corps will require 2:1 mitigation for streams,
meaning that DOT needs to produce 23,500 linear feet of streams. It will likely take at least six
months for DOT to 1) locate suitable sites with willing sellers, 2) have agencies approve the .
sites, 3) develop mitigation plans, and 4) have those plans approved. With respect to the R-2120
and R-2239 segments, DOT is proposing mitigation in Iredell County, Again, while the site may
y provide some wetland and stream _mitigation, it cannot compensate for the linear distance of
".' ` y ?:? x _ •:
stream impacts for these projects.''
... ... s
--
;braary 3,
- FDUUM w ?ccp wrap, way wcxuu Grease an inaa5a?e in w a?auga e:ounry, wi[n an exlsimg
; Intrastate ending at US 601 in Yadkin. County.. This would leave a .gap in Yadkin and Wilkes
Counties, which DOT is sure to argue should also be built to Intrastate standards.' Therefore, if ;
-.? x we commit to building an Intrastate in Watauga County,: this virtually obligates us to a new
Y
xa 4 Intrastate from Winston-Salem well into the mountains: ` I believe it inappropriate for ns to
question -the fora newer gh speed facility in the mountains I also believe the locals are
A. 'interested tiavffig a saf r#a t3? than the eust;ag US?4211 UM WJt y a
speed highway Conceivably, we could emphasize the "-`widen existing" alternattve in Yadkin
`an'd Wilkes Counties; `which would mean that these segments could not be constructed as an
Tatra tarp Mlowd Lh_en arguethat a less damattina alternative in Watauga Countv_:nneA* ..i.: _
world stall provide a safer road to the locals, could be design of o y wo e
5 :?.._ a mmpaar be less severe, the secondary impacts would probably be lower.
Regardless of whether or not we elect to hold a public hearing for this project, neither a 401
Water Quality Certification nor a 404 Permit can be issued until DOT satisfies all commenting agencies ` -
- with respect to avoidance and minimization, and produces a stream mitigation plan. DOT is currently
searching for stream mitigation possibilities. Since preparation of the mitigation plan is sure to take
many months, a public hearing would not affect the chronology of the review process.
DOT provided a response to our concerns on January 2, 1998. Ron Linville provided a written
response on January 26,1998, in which he noted that DOT had not satisfied his concerns, and had not
answered his direct request for an alternative partially located on existing alignment. This project indeed
has a long history, and has been reviewed by many agency personnel over this time. DOT maintains that
all issues were resolved during the NEPA process, and that their designs for all segments reflect the least
damaging practical alternative. We should note that correspondence in each final project document
shows that some quetions still remained unanswered at the time the documents were published. .
s.
In summary, there is no question that DOT's preferred alternative will substantially impact
streams and wetlands in Watauga, Wilkes and Yadkin Counties. US 421 from Boone to US 601 should
be reviewed as a whole, because the design of each section is directly affected by adjoining segments.
We believe that an alternative overall design is possible, which could serve the transportation needs in
these counties, and reduce the impacts of a new major highway. I believe it is in everyone's best interest
to resolve the major design issues for the entire US 421 corridor at one time (especially since any one
decision will affect the remainder), rather than in six different applications. Either John Dorney or I will
be glad to discuss the details of this project Preston Howard has additional background information to
be used in the decision about a public hearing. i

r' s
Cc: Colleen Sullins, DWQ
Preston Howard, DWQ
Ron Linville, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Mark Cantrell, FWS
David Cox, WRC

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources `
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ID E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
Date 3_ 3-9 T
FROM: G 13-o11
PHONE: -7 3 3 -17 g7(c
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
13 U 6 vie-
c? (o d-7 -
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
? ?¢z ?CZ
OQ P,
v o m
? CD
CD 'D
v RD 00 m
CD Pl. R
CL (D
o ?c 3
A"? a ¢
(D ?r
<c c <c o. (CD R; .coo E.
(D RD z 0-
1 0 C) 5: ra :5
0 0. (D go 0 00
,b?°',p(D Arta°? w
O)Q
S+ V ID ID
y o (p (D j
(D •? c7
C m , ° 0
CL 0
n ED (D
0 (D
ID 0
O.a o ?o (nC?c
7 Z c°iD a cxD °C (D
0 0: '' cif ' y cCD ?? car ID
C cD D- ?", c?D
0, ?
?.m o?? o
O'Q
c°r p cCD CD (D c?D o
_-N rn
tl ID
M n (D 81 'C ¢ W y y o va m O
0 '1 z0
a. R rr (D (D
((D C
CD 0 It
o C'
coi, 4,C$ (D -1 A S ID C 0 cn o
Ul (D rA -Z
0 Fn rA D o ? o
cr
(COD 1-3 '(4D 0 1-3
cCD C vi ¢ O 0 o ° P?
'jA ID
10 0
O O -"0.0, ' 1 (D a'
?CD O(D Z?
5
I D
zu a ed.`TZti '5'n eaS
uI splq ao; Ino Ind an?eq oI Seen lartluoa
3111 'klunoo sa)MA uT speoa duo Aput_AA
pun unui5ug0 uaamlaq salm T•9 agyo
•Isagara aql W AJAJ of
pagriap uaaq srq Inq Smnue f ul spzq joj Ino
Ind uaaq annq of sem laraluoa aqs •f4uno0.
unlptA UT . xaaa0 daacl puu algAuT?ipr? .
uI 109 'S Il uaamlaq sapm L•S agy o
:$ulpniaul
`saurl anoj of om4 uioxi pauaplm aq of pain
-Pal-Ps. saiTuz S•69 aql jo sapm Z'LT ienba
paStlap uaaq annq Irgl siuauj2as atly
•plrs aNOH `sinuaad
lai' m anssi iirm saaaulgua jo sdxoo 4uuV
g n aril aaojaq papaau si iunoadde sii'.
•Iardtm aul uassai of samsraui
&TLImbai ao3 puu saanu puu sumaals `s)Iaaxa
u0 aml gum Iaafoad prow aqI jaudun Irgm
Rulssasse .ioj aiglsuodsaa sI AmaiN aqy
Atp!jA quamma ioj pagauas aq Iou ptnoa
Aaua?fir ?4ijunb-ialrm aqj `uIO_U SirlalUJO
l,'uollDru4sUoa gm
-inp imp do a4um ura anti Am ou s,aaagZ ,.
plus aq ,`dn sn $uTpioq S<IUuAiL s?Irgl puu
`slaafoad,aqI gllm suzaigoid ant,u Aagy,,
•uolli?I .
-iodsuwLL jo Iuam da(I •O•K aqI ao3 laau
-lrfua uOISIAI) 'e. `a)Iog aprAA, pTrs `sgWOm
r. oI of do Aq sluau.Ras aargl uo )icons
t )iarq pagsnd anrq Iunoaddu s AjjMn?j aalrm
O uolsinlQ 'O'N aql liuyna? uI SAelaa
" Ap ialsaA plus
{. I13Tag3o ue `iaafosd aqI 3o suo!uod pakelap
aerq sumaigoad aaglo Inq `Igp 'S'I1 uapTns
oI surid azipxedoaf l,uom uljoreo glaoN ul
wailmasla slaafoad peox uo suuxaano Isoa
0909SMI'I311
f1nwa LS3MHiNON IVN6nor
loofoid 2utu0pinn S401B S
Ilull `Xauouu Jo 310ul lou
`sa.uuiod f Tlunb-j3jP/A:
9S. ef'l
'IZ17
;uo ?OAAL.
AM `
.:-a
ernlo t w ?n
X15 1R {l? v.?7
'% VIA

P
I A smart business strategy
Ray Anderson brought his mis- reading it made a profound impact on
Sion to the recent Emerging Is- Anderson. He became convinced that
sues Forum on sustainable de- "every life-support system on Earth
velopment at N.C. State University and the biosphere on which we all live,
j won a host of converts among the 1,000 is stressed and in decline." He realized,
or so educators, politicians and envi- he said, the extent of the environmental
roamental advocates gathered at the degradation that he had dismissed as
McKimmon'; Center. Now someone the exaggerations of environmentalists.
should bring him back to North Caroli- Anderson decided that - something
na to talk to the people who really need had to be done, and fast. And he decid-
to hear his inspirational message: the ed that the most obvious segment of
heads of business. and industry. society to lead in the change should be
With all the zeal of anyone who has "the one that has done the most dam-
experienced an epiphany and seen the age": business and industry.
light, Anderson spoke passionately Anderson set out to make his compa-
about the revelations that changed his ny, Interface, Inc., a prototype of the
life - and his business. He preaches sustainable corporation that will suc- '
the gospel of enlightened self-interest, ceed after "the next industrial revolu-
stressing the idea that operating on the tion." The fast industrial revolution, he
principles of sustainability - doing said, was flawed because it depends on
business so as to meet today's needs nonrenewable resources and is a slave
without depriving future generationsW to its own "voracious, consuming tech- .
j the means of meeting theirs - is good nology," The next revolution, he said,
not only for the environment but also must be sustainable.
for business. Much of the power of Anderson's '.
He talks about doing well by doing message stems from the fact that he is
good, and about the smart companies succeeding. He has charts, graphs and
i that are adapting now so that they can bottom lines to demonstrate that his
succeed in the future. strategies - cutting waste and emis-
Anderson is the prototype of the suc- sions, using renewable energy and raw.
cessful American entrepreneur. Ander- materials, recycling, doing no harm to -
son's message is doubly powerful be- the biosphere, increasing energy effi-
cause he is acting on his ideas and ciency and strengthening his compa-
proving that the choice does not have to ny's ties. to its constituencies - are `
be either environmental responsibility increasing his company's profits and '
or profitability. He left a good job in making it more competitive.
1973, at•age 38,.to.found his own com- Anderson said that what he is doing
pany do Atlanta. It grew into a global will make his company survive. and
corporation that has 40 percent of the flourish in the long run because "we're
worldlmarket for carpet tiles. getting ready for the day when oil's .
During his.company's first 21 Years,. price will reflect its cost." His comPan
I Y
Anderson said he`was atypical "plun- now is doing well "not at the expense of
f( derer," a "legal thief' who was not the environment or. our descendants,
! condemned but revered as a "Captain of but at the expense of less efficient
M industry" never gave one thought to adaptors."
i what 7e were taking from the Earth or The business case for sustainability,
doing to the Earth," he said.. He was he said, is that it's necessary for long-
aware of government regulations to the term survival, that doing the right thing
extent of compliance; compliance, he can increase profits and that there are
said, can mean being as bad as the law • new fortunes to be made bringing the
( allows', more benign and sustainable technol
His epiphany came ih.:1994,when in ogies and products of those technol-
response.to questions from customers, ogies. to the market.
! t ; he setup a task force to come up with Anderson's message is compelling:
'; an,"environmental vision" for his com Good environmental stewardship is
parry. Someone sent him Paul Hawken's . good business. It deserves a wide hear-
;. book The Ecology of Commerce, and ing.
I .
WIDENING:U.S. 421
I \
C
Let's et on with it \ s'
g
i rr, he phrase, ."not bad for. govern- This is the main road between Boone
i : ment work,"' takes on a special ..and. Winston-Salem, with the Wilkes-
irony.when'applied to the'NC boros on the way. Major growth has j
! Department of Transportation, the N.C. -occurred along this route and continues _uX '
! ! Division of Water Quality and, the wid- at a rapid pace. That means more traf a
?' ening of U.S. 421 to four lanes between fic. It also means fatal accidents such as
Yadkmville and Boone. Even for .gow' ` the one last week just west of Yadkin- 1 V9
i ernment.work, this is pretty bad. ville - fatal accidents that will be less _L
k, Seven` years ago, DOT proposed likely once the road becomes a four- l
building a new four-lane road north of lane highway.
y, I the current two-lane U.S. 421, rather.. Road building in North Carolina - as .j?
r I than widening the existing road..,The . anyone traveling through downtown } .
41 water. quality, bureaucrats have only Winston-Salem will readily attest - is
1 now expressed their concern that a new never a model of efficiency and quick
',four-land road could present more wa action. It seems sporadic and painfully
S ter quality problems than widening an ' slow. Road contracts appear, at least to
f ' existing two-lane `road. a layman, : designed to accommodate
.'' What? It took 'em, seven years to contractors rather than motorists.
I ?f ; figure that out? Even still, seven years and holding is r
i , . It's not as if this road project was,one' reaching the intolerable stage. Concern
` of those low-profile, also-ran state road for the environment is a top priority.
t;
projects to which no one pays, close Road building should not threaten wa-
attention. This is a high state priority- ter quality. But these delays don't seem 111
[:'and should be, for economic as well as to be about the environment. They are `
transportation and safety reasons.,: about: bureaucracy. Enough is enough,
PAGE-A10 WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL Monday, March 9, 1998
WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL JON H. WITHERSPOON
Pu6cislaer
:
A Media General Newspaper CARL M. CROTHERS
• • Managing Editor
•
416-420 North Marshall Street JOHN D. GATES
Editarial Page Editor
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27101 ~' ' <
2
V.C. "PAT" TAYLOR III
MUNDED.APRIL 3, 1897 General Manager
1
i
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT '
a
Im" •? ^ O .J Maui a+ h ? ,? 'i ? a?vi ? ? G
F?P7 ti o u Qp o 3'a,3 CF. o a ?..?Q
° cdv'.onv^? q _:_G..v r>. ?'a w.3
y o °'° '? >.Bv o dv O. w u g a
s. p •o '.Y. H w ? ? ' ? w Y avi > ' ? C W°
O
o ?.? o y o 3 v o o p} °." o d v °' d ?.0 j ? cn °
G av ° vw up a? v v aH¢? N 3 o
Q NU o..0 3: v o
v: a av°v? > a az U v ° r?ryw 9SN
v ca ?,.., v cd v o b axJ v id ,.o,... <d q aY v Q
vp ?cn''Mv °n v'? ?N v' a o'o bn^ C.? d v bA UU .Ng v w'?U°
"Ki
U^¢v c o b?C?N 3 3 0.? vvi?.
0.0 a o 0=,2
a° T w o y: y G 3 0 3 cd c °a oo o E'er ? Q r mzz-s a v.? °Aw-
5 ?'? o
u I3 b q O l 4y. w0 ^' G k.
a'v:? o v ° 0 onw N 0° El a C6
o°
ro ?. >~ n v w p y ?••' v G r bq .'O 00 V v v?
53 V. O? N .d O c N v
.W ?.0 <d'. ro 7 +' bAO.Q b 'A •?. U y Sq N° r bA'G M Y oN b
"0 'O w.0 ?' -0 W v v av. y?0.4 .d •.q Crn.'q '"'? O .O awi i•b uw..?.0 v <" ?.° d ° d o
v 3 ?.? o u p °'
0" vw. Y 3 td q
.pGO..". " ? sv. ? 'b y Y v ? v U >~ ?" ? b ? •?: ? ? ? > 'v ai ? ° Y ,4%. '? cq .?
0 S c YO o°° o
E°v3 [3,c N ?VYo.°v to W ° .?C? °?Eoo°N°3w;'?
v
0 0 o 0 0 o v ono q a v° v 0 v ? o dw qo 71 G 71
4Z: 4 b y o E v dt :0 C4 . ".^[ v i v o v:.o O .".
?n a o
'? '.P* o ti .r v y?. O O A J7 z M v. v O" .0 w v >C °? q '? p."u r? y v
4 a an os o? 3-ao ?¢°¢?vopr E
v
ovv v vaoc °? on
"• 3o ao
O .?. q Q O Q ?.. [ v O u cv'v WD z.. y '? .u ?`t! C '? v v. v" C
w , ..C ?. b Q, 'd a :E v "' O y v O _ bAx
A q
a? O ci. z v. o- y Op U C?" N o '? O"
3 G o 3 ?.o w r N v?..a? U °? ° c o o c o. y° 3
Y
r
M? N o Z. 3? 3 a?? m?° m °' vO G? d? `? ? o b o
Ob `?' '?+ 3 cc y.'T... N p c? m ti O w a" v W •?? ti G 7 r
a? o ?W c o 0 w a? u
?C M -O W:w GFy 0- aviv ?.v O v O .?vQ. V.?•b O'C °p v
?oo?w'c°ac?>OcnY, I av;vNUU ovo.yr?w
S iq
NF
v ?° ° a. d. o o v cOn -o o "' o o•W= o ° o
v.x cYA?: c°o 'ac°:o3?V ® m U P:w°<?oa.14 00ov u
24,
pp qq z
5@ e d ?'^? x . 17 3 E N?
Wo aaaSa?z?w' a7 v? w
a s
yQ p..
?c A
r
of ?E
Z E3 6x
z
ce A 2.r S c

u ? E
i `
xl tt C7
&10..
. • W
a ?
?S
p'.'.,
S 5?
?° Xw?E?a
?
? a a9?
off n
r ?
3
?c u

E od ?: ? ?,
2m c -.its i.
' .it m •? a
3$ c
v A 5; g
% l3
I.S
1.5 F4
M -. M`?- W
aE
E a2a ?k <c ?E?

2 ;Z 72
a ?'? wx O ?mw Eci
3bb4oC.o
G A ?-z'yg.,??4?gQ.C"Ca'a0ffi tf ? ?'5Q
o u$ C ?a:e3 I : 0 `??
7 q v5Iz3Fx-8*7I3i )I IAa
o•
Of
N
_V V
° E y' 3 bA > .. ?'a w 3w " o a c v¢ a > ov °?' o
N GL,[ v u O i0. bq O F. 3 v v h G°, y N? ti. ',? v a+ pq N y v a+
.'G > o?. v.?. q p
(ru, q .a 'v o N II°ll ` -, a qj 1~ 'a, H v w v a' o
.ri N. fd N 1•+"^ 'N (d to g M, o U N V1 v V 71 c" d lu N. R' fd N? ? Q 0 fd o Ri pp W .. y fwd 3 ? N N> N.
.0 = 0 u '> v •Y ? U .b v N t... Q
_v O u .•., bp. r. l?. cd U?••?. v 0 0 v '? v N
v? w v cd u u v v> q.V. o O vv+ u:? 1v.?.C O v v >,9: w ??•?''y °.z •?.-i?yTyy ?i oj r. ? G N b v 0 U Y y? Q R N ? :ii I E, C .> b y J v 0 bA V ? r O W l l v C ? L 3v Y a d
o 0 tO t.' X 2 U-6 3 . .,.C, " .•-' d U Y >q Y ff"V' N 'd '[ Gy. 1?' m aO sv. W iv. lr >
cd ro : C w q ? o en. o v Q' d" ti d° ° v F ; ao •? bn, N z o N p p bvA 'Nd o c bb v y
>--.. q.? 3 «°. WT On q
q A- a[ y ? A a ,v v 'v v v
w° v U v y 'Y U v w A 0 ga4 >, d 3? Q ?n >° E =1 C" S [on o p .p v n d oY`i , v r. v r 4!
N? 'b v v p H v ... 3 ?' ?I r O y u N v u ro v ro' td 'U. A v ti
v a? ?. ov v Gx >? d N o C v 0 uw•ra o a o o o ?. c7 a? aoAV?v.? v
.b 3 at •-? 3 O+ q> cd .? O y v v y v w. y .C b N u O N 'y7. '? v O y" v
?
N ?N ?.o o v N? y 7 Y y w a one 3 > o ou d ar a v v a on
°°?'?yara?voa'=?030 aov.? d
C's w o o c v v o 3 0 v c ° v v v' 0 0m
a;?aopO« ohr?'? N Nn Cd:v?aav0 ay?.S°Bo?3`cy$q?
x ?, v w v b o
aaa g?v ?v ?? .N ? ? 0vy? ao.?o ??ve- }+
,G O v at 0 q u 'rd .C w. y C•v .n 0 ¢, ° ?0 +?' u v.? y v `d v..oq v p..
v ? 2 c) -4s c. ro, O < 8 c G R C + T ? v > v v . ?
• ° V •o v .? ? . svu , . o a4 uo 0 ? v v V _ o
v v .
? • ('? on R v -° ' ? . pp N v 'C U co c N. ? r. C' .Y a C :moo ? . df 'd . v ? u .Y t~ m a v: 3 82
Ol Vl v '? 6'?
v. V _^7 it •"'? td 7J OJ N « o F ?+ Gi _.-S -D td t •? Q Y v o N N Pa „w
v >? Ci CQ W N.' v C1 A yr N {r
v.. Q (WT•1 '1 v , = ?i Ci Fn O ° v VOJ E. ?'. 2 . P. v "d wO co N t fd P.,
.b z o3 y •? O ..C :??, ?. w v M O 'b w4 > v 3 ?. •? ny. v cd ?„ w p N •^ N?
v O
s n w N u v u v v r. i~o °'
. w o
.4 G v
O y O O ni v h O 7 'i, O O 8 O 3 78 'N oT. GJ O '"v p? 1?+ by ? ?", c? d " .*? C"• O c
O 3 v Y v o ".' V A i cd 4, O v q. °n O w'. w v vi .2 w. ^N U^ =3 0
VvaY"ooYVa o0o?v[NVvcq.vcY? ??
off.[ b v v ?, N .? a.. o Cw a v:? N oUp v o +x v
?i > c o oz v ? vv c °= one ,3,? ?x v.?? o 0 °.?UcL [ 3?, 3F o a y v
s. w v v G a., v v s a0 O A O O .. :? v A >•. ' R. vi U O cL v o N- >~ '
ovn> o A c c:a? a o v° a sz ?.? ° °,?C, p d ow•'?'Ow vU o evOq'z?C o o^ O O p,
rt7 Co u... O O'O. u 3 r..l 6 F..?. Ca > P..-. V) N >~ t'tl O A C. O'.'7 v vt '.'f >? Rt A u ti v - N'a.+... U. ro ++.vvi
'zi > a>, a own y y w?d v oa zz . ? 0 C v
°2 ° d 2 h a? v a y y G o w ~ ro° N v[ to y q .J 'o y
N .a z • p ?., N v. >? m •b ,G .o _N. O `d av. id ??
w ?.. y
o ?^ o? Y v. O q d z c7. .00 w
0
o a u o 'd
bj)
"a al
u 'o'
Z? ?U x? 3 'o' -0 3 c ? 0 d?w?z v c o a v °= _-C;
?- °' h -vox v x u `Y' C b 3 O •b o U °? °t > A E
'> ? ?4 •? ? ? Y a?i r: z O v d '.O O 3 y? L? O
O 0 v C A v> > 3 ? •?c
?dZo d ?O°no°uoo°>00?4mw? yvose
? o c o ?v? w'7 o a0i avva '?' ?z
_o. z? o d o $z ox .F.O O.u•G v ?x.v ?..0
2
.o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources `
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director ED
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
Date 3-
FROM: Gxy, ,e- ri
PHONE: -73 3 - F-(
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET:
Pi- (eon
PI' E 5-f6 n Per c)ur ?''(soe 51- c4t, ?d? Z, ?o??? e??? q
lm ?,oS -Ta J? I S Utz Li IP J
1 b ?,s ava;I??l? Y?`I? Sew- ?'rVe
F? v r? n S? e, c ?, + 1, Oo
dW I,"
use, v-v, o,S G a (? e-q c, y? 'e C-? ?d
-F? e.. ?? 5? a? -? -f? a ?-t.S -f-?-, ? Wa ? e a e.Gr 6?? -{.?i?.?
0? 1 Y ?
Vv1Q 5, d „Oe e?' -f-? G ???;zq-F???? ?.Je_' e- Sew?'?-? ??e_
P
C'e C/
G t V11\ 6 y
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

ri +
,2 a ago
Governor im Hunt's multi-modal
transportation plan for the 21st century.
? iesa-zoos
Transportation
Improvement
Program y? aao
66-66
\ /
V

V
N Z w w w co < A co
C
C
A n O O O O D D r N N
Z 2 2 A A C
Z rn +1 r

O
m m m m
C r:

W
N A
-<
v w
n
m
w W C C C C A A A A
Z O W A NJ N N W N W
v w 0% NJ
P r1i
O P W N W

V •O Lrl
•O
v
>
m
(n C n
A -4 C: ;o A -V c OC TCC G) Ooz ?_? mz
ON OAN zN DNN 3C An ?--m
o n
a co C W v-V ? ?> Z z A

C
NN W
EON z1,
mN 1?N
rNN
O° O m .--•

D
A
?
C'
'-'-'
<A L)2
TT zm
N •O
r41
F gym - -I m a 4 A N D
N M = --I (n 0 jCZ7c m 1 Dm mz
. r ^
m v V) vw
D M no ar ?o 'o? Nz ° y °

-{ C:

°

0

N
o .,
< D
<
0
m z O 0 O -
/
m-
m
m
'O m AN ?> N zm n D
r A A -/
o v
m
m A
m m
7c -4
a , m^
o v ?c r m r o?
'o m r
A N D c
O
D
°
0
L a Em a
mM w
< v
m N -
-I t
i)
z z
m -n
N
m n A v v m
N< D V, N C n
- A
m
N N A M r 3
r z A N O
W
D C 0
O
-
w
M
N1
n r
A D 1 N O? O -
l rN -[N
O T ° m 1 T C

O
T A > 0 N w 2 N O m

m
w A T
-4
-( Z
T
C
mr1i
Z N
M N m
v m z1
z
O O i
m- -
i o on m l D
.
M A
r m Z -n A C
')Z ?O
co m ~ ? co D? ° M co
r
N Z T
Z 3 m

O
N ..
° = Q
C -1 O C-) N
, C mO m ?m -DIN
W Z T T N
v 2
_
o > L
A Z D
-i m
0 0 0 0 V +? -? O
W
.p
OlA W N Nun 4110 •O O? N•0
D
r
r
° ul V
N co 10 O N O
0% 0 p O O to W W W 10
O 00 O O O 11 co O O 10
l
7
i
v
ico
0°0 O A co V
co .o
i
7 C-) ;o ^ ^ A`o A ^
^ ^
'I T -Zn n N N N
W
U o o ,C
N N W
O V1 C) C, C) C) CD CD
p O O O O O O O CD
C') A c >t rt n N c >F C") >F D n C N V >f
icy o Z = zo A O vO v NmD
1 z 3 z m m m
m m
N N Z A -1
: A 1 O A --4
2m -1 N W
C") O O n m O CC] 1n T ??0
?=•. z 1 O Z --I A M m w V
On 1 N 0 -D-IO ° °m
z < A - r „ T
0
m
F
_n
-I
O +nT
Si
r ?
0 7C1
D ?
Z
D i
v
z
O i
m
Cl)
C)
S
z
I
r
m
z
O
D
r
O
DO
O
<
m ^C
? Y J
m
(D O
*
Z
v
n
D
-i
m
Z
D
D
m
O
L
m
n
D
r
r
N
0
m
v
c
r
m
W
ch
c
w
C-
m
0
-I
O
D
D
D
W
r
--I
O
T
£Z-66
v
<

r
r A
A )>
A C
N
N
n
_
G T m m N
x O
c g
D z j j
w W N -< -
A ? O

O W
O O m ?
D
N

W C C A T A .?
°W w w N
a, W N N N
O, 2.1 A W P
W co V W O Or
* *
A3
m -ntc
aDtn mzc
xC)vl ?0.
3C vv rz-n ?m rnz

vo
?
°
m oA
D C
Z C N n
r o 7
CA ?F ?? u

m
N
A a

C3 mZ

> (n
mm ?z Owi CA co Nr :
n n ~
~

D
w 000 0 .v
co
-[? j ol W 3 t
nA .-.Z ?m z
c•
W O
A
p Z
W N
= r
Z m
-i V1 ).-.
C
--1 Z
•
-' 7
C z m D Z
? WN !n OA
° ? m z c
i?z DE
c
iz
rnm z
N
m 7EL
m N ?O r> 00 3 n
fm

O
r- r
co -
-I
n U) CO c?
Z f'1 m 0 m r m
--I
m
.Z7
r
? 00
0 C7Zr? r 030 r ?
r
m
N z
A
.
•
m
a2
.
ln D~ ?p ? 0 m z
a S
i a m o D ..
, ° N c z
c; M0 to 0
z Z
a<
Z
0
Z
Dm
r r m-?
Zm
v? -
f D Ln0
Em 0

' O
nv -Cm Z
O Nm N DC
Z
O
T •-• ti1 V.?
T -p co V)

00 O
.. ti
> m Z O r N
A Z
V r W m O
O m
-1
-( co
D -+v -< v
z
m
0
r0 0
° o
z
D

° m- -< m N
N
0 o m v a

-?
N -i o o N
° 0 -rm ~ _
v a T
O
° p N T °
Cr,
V =
LA 6;
to W
In A W W O O. V O• O Ol _a N
1
\ co
oo
`O .
p
O ?
n
•O O
`O
O. N
W
O U
O co 0 - W
p 0
N
O W
O A vii
O
^ A A O p
^ao n0 M0
r) ;v 0
as i N r Ww -aww wv?
v v v v v v v v v ??
'o wr vi %n %0 M)
N) 41
°o C)%.q ootwn o0
C:)kn °
° ° W 0 o0 0°o 00
H ° o * ` ° * n
zc? ?
m z n cn
V) x i z to m -?
A -' i -? v a
;o -L I I I
;o r)
p m -0i n v
m
= o
Z -? O T = x Z
E r

O
C

m
n_

O +n
T
G
D

?
r
O ?
?
D
^

D D

m
N
n

I

Z
r
m
z
O
D
r
O
O
--I
m r
Pq
m
00 0
0
\ l G N? r,
z
N C') n `," "; O J z
o, o, .i C o n O
V V V ~ ?O
m N m
m
n y _n
y
Mz W N
Z
co co z
0 co
2= _
P
m
cn
Z °O o ago A°o D C')
D y T y Z W L~ 3 N x v N -? O Z ?.
z00 M%.n a-i mN mom= O
O < O z p p A
m m a --? N y Z T ;o -n r• Z -/ r
> r N ° O ."O m N G7 x
Z y j m '9 r S a ;v W- A O N
m mo .. AW am - z? D 0 r- n
> co
S. m co
t v7°C py0 mm DCZ .y..,MZ Z D x x z D
m moz zo m? yy< oz D o
C7 Ta ?" -zIC) Z <v znz Z 9 Na z
-I a .-. A y m 7C .. 7C z c V T y 0
r A y C ;v AO x Z ° -Z1 f y n
y• y N a av y C7 n r ? m
C PO Z ?' co C T O n 3 Z (?
Z v Z --1 c
_ `- -i -< a z x <
m W v O v m --r O 3 m
A' N O = A Z 0 z m<
2 D = !C G y N y m z
v m a 0 N a rlj m D 3 z c
L K r m° y r
r z x a
m N °
a
v
N
_ _ r r
V7 V1 O
O? ?N PO ]C'?Z m
0110 O N 00` W O -... p ??G? i z
D
r
( U 10 1 2 ° ° -4 N co mov)o O
Q W O O O _? O?-D vV, D
r r
C
r
m N -? n
o „ = m?
91
W co OO::o? O
C- - Cl)
m n M v
n )
y y N N N N m^
C O
O .. 1-NiO A
D w = ZM
< onv_ .?
D C) °O o? cozy
_
° C. p o C)
a ** n n -Nl D v
_0 m r-
pB z o v v m %-n
(n M
r= M y y y N M
3 C C C- y 00 r
o C, C) m o v
?-- y ? 3 CO c m ;o -0 0 C') CD 0
0 "4 Z O ° l" 1 m ? m O .~.. C
m Z T n 0
Z W W W N
co
v W co w
V
/
0

m

V PO
Z Z 7C A A
m •- x D •-• o 0
70 z v m z m a
_
m 03 Zr
Cl) 3 G m G

D

m m

A

0
m
o A
-a ?
V) z
A
I m m 2 D
m Z

v
o A
m 7C Z v
o r
D
70 m <
y r D
O m .P M Z
m m m
n
i A m D z
O .,
v
r o
3 L7 W r cn
C m A M D
_ T

ff z
O v
C)
a m

r
D z -
r
U4
° A
O
V7 O

N W
1 O
m
3

r
r
j W
n lH Unn O 4
2 o v+ o w
m
v
c
r
m
cn LA
y `n
0
Un Un
o X,
co
c

m f'IA nA
0 Z Z Z Z T N
D
as an

.p W N N
< N o0 0 °
D i
Unv o
A Cl)
o o? o o
m z c? z c? z z
- Z N x U) S N w
r
T C O c 0 c C
C) T C' T C) n

O z> i> z z
T C
03

A T T T T T
Z m T T T T T v

O 10 co h F
m o
o Vl
? O
z

? W

W V `0

r CSC aro Am
0
< D N
? Z 3

D v -1
i --4 N ... --4 m E
•--• A -• Z N D O
Oc V) ("f <T
z C) -4 -+ o

-? O
z
a Vl
r
-M OA
-rD
S C o
? Z r

0 0
a A
2
-crtn n AZ
TOM
r•-•
m D - a a z
AZT C)O --i T

m
a° S
2
n V) to

U, cn r
m
mc3 avn c
n
r a r A C v
D
m «
-
i
z
A D O
'N
C v r
V) cn --i
m m N m r
A m --4
O
.c C7 m -c
r.j
m 0
C
-
i
z .. 1
O .'C
o z r

• r x •

z m? £
z V) i
m < v
£ Z

w?
N O W O
_.W -nW OOH
co
N
l7
O0
10 )
O 10
.p o
N
N O
v, o
o
0
^ A n A ^ ? A v
N N Vi V) -? W W

N W O W W
.p 00 o0Ln
.p Oo 000
A O
D
D z

A A
N
C A 2
z C
o
m C-)
'i v
m

A
~O A
n z 0
0
Z W
z
N ?
v ;o

< n

Vl O
i O z
Z
W

0

N_
O
z
zl
O
r-
0
O
Z
D
Z
D
v
m
cn
n
O
Z
r
m
z
O
D
r
v
O
O
-i
m
OD
(D
(D
O
O
O
O
N
O
W
O
-PL
Y /
SZ
D
v
Z
C
Z
r 4 - n
O. C-
4 5 Ot
Y Z S S ^I
C.
S e aI - Y? nl nI -
f ti a5 ? ?. ? N \° ? 5
o ?G° r aJ ry
? j. ?LO \ Y °I ? • 0 0
I.1 m ? J J ? S. ? ^ . D r o _ - '? J .fir; E t?
J "'ll f.
of C. 9 SYd 9. - S. of - ^„? e: 4 ?
- g'r - D• of _I h _I •K• ? ?a n-n-nllllll l•
_.3 Z
=1 i2 r' Z •oF ?1 „I 'I 9•r? ?= ter.` B Z
fy ?? ? O
!2 80
0 6• - D' 6 l Z 9 FAY ©,? n 3 Z U
\B r.. o .tf $ ?' ^al =I'
r a o 7= 4 z nI I '• nlB. FNS
N - I.0 w
b M1 _ Z Z
- ? b D Q Z
g. 8
1? a Q p
o a 3 , 1 c% ?• w d ;
?94o S.::. 8. o f i - o, nl . A =I teeK V t
- b Z J - -
U- w
a ! 8 n? ?y :1. io n FE 00
3
/ a r r ^I
b J^_ ? ^I ^ G?o? u o my t - _o _ ^ ? w ? ,
s.
3: w
fr ?? a R ?s Z n
.6 e.
n
a VI
? S f. v° °'• S J ? ^..i ? 3 ^I 9 Y - R ? F/.5 B' ?I
2, gt; LL
1 0 ?, 1 SODIh a '2 I _I ?I •Y Q 2^ Q
oz?
.5 C-1
V I. ? F'`' el ^ D'
1.7
F/J FAI 1] a \3 .2 Z.? M1 n
n b _ SC "P9 ? D•.
1 ry aJP
a ° v
ZO - ? 'erlC G '?^ a J_ O
a ^I" tti 3
i
R-30
' s `?? 7d Z ,- y ry F 9
o Z ^i
-" Q O a ! ?
y n e® C L y _ll ? ^d .'r d. .
AV O'l .2.2
S 1.0 y Z 9 ? Z. _'
?+ o
1 8 ?b ^ U 5" 0 _ o. ~ .4 I . 3 w o 0 h
? a ?r o
_ .34 .8 j ty J D N U
o ? .9
cree
t ? Ea. ?> - ? _ _ - x 0
h I
N. LLJ
?') J" i SflDl? NI ? Z O ?t+
p +..q l.b =i ? ?
I.Z fl O
s ? m O
t "? Y
8?E al v - W
^? ?1 t 10 W
T «i e? I
y «? Z w
1 A ", ., y nl D 1
C) O
^i ' 1 r
N
v
•. ` j
<L 0
s //
,R LU
Dr Y
Z
€? o C' X (V W
CO
N
n ?.
E?
7W
cr)
N
N p v ?'
R-47
'tr Urde PERSON COUNTY
R-2241 L
oa
s \ yJ ° A '' 1 , yoc 1.9 V+dorO 200 /? '\e ??,a
I /
? ;.. v
/
? • y, e
k E.3a ?0 .2
1.6
ROXBORd ? ? Y ' /J7, /' •'
.9.
0
.•.,• * ids. 0° 'L5 / /J '?*.> .she roll
?•F
US 501, US 501 IN ROXBORO TO T FACGLNTY WITH SOME COUNTY.
WIDEN ROADWAY TO A MULTI -LANE 0

'S
r?
R-48
R-121

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
F$' ?p
Memorandum to: Preston Howard dY\ YA4, 4?4
From: Cyndi Bell
Through: John Dorney
Dennis Ramsey
Coleen Sullins
ffl?'A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 4, 1998 CA" "V
Subject: US 421 Relocation Projects
Briefly these are the major outstanding issues with respect to US 421 in Watauga County.
This project proposes to impact 1.2 acres of wetlands and 11,750 linear feet of streams.
I. US 421 Relocation in Watauga County from Boone to Deep Gap (R-0529BA/BB)
• Winston-Salem Regional Office has repeatedly requested a discussion of on-site
design alternatives
• Stormwater, particularly at stream crossings
• Minimization of wetland and stream impacts
• Design of stream relocations
• Stream mitigation plans
• Wetland mitigation plans
• Control of access
II. Segmentation of US 421 Projects. We need a collective overview of US 421 from
Yadkinville to Boone for the following projects: T.I.P. Nos. R-0529, R-2120, R-
2239 and R-2240
• Justification of Alternative Selection including location and control of access
• Maps showing existing US 421, Old US 421, and their respective right-of-ways
• Permitting, letting and construction Schedules
• Wetland and stream impacts
• Wetland and stream mitigation plans, not just feasibility studies
• Stormwater, particularly at stream crossings
• Avoidance and minimization of stream and wetland impacts
Stream relncattion de_sigo.-.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
. V
III. Public Hearing
Several members of the public and our Winston-Salem Regional Office have
requested that a public hearing be held for the 401 Certification so they can review
and comment on DOT's plans.
There are several options which DENR could follow to answer these questions:
1. Meet with DOT staff in the field and try to resolve these questions.
2. Conduct a public hearing to resolve the issues that DENR and the
public have raised.
3. Deny the 401 Certification as proposed due to further minimization of
wetland and stream impacts and lack of a mitigation plan.
Please advise as to your preferred approach for this Certification.
Us421.mem
MAR-04-1998 09:26
T

a?
L
?Q
• q10 ?
NOW
FROM DEHNR Winston-Salem
• C r.
jr, '? dNd
r., b S J
'C o w?,p fa e
CU w lu .1 -1
aS
-Sall -z
aid a?'8
V-4 ?v it 4
' §u Q3-Lt
ffi? ? ?
:g 2
z P•o.?. ,C 5•:?.:
.Sr
.b e? a
sr
Ea.
x ?.
av.o E• ae ? ?'
?Zbu-lw
U 'QJ ic?F
V .'' F„'• 1'F
13
162
vK''.?y
a d!m o,Q T- 2 'ti?7•r .
}Q]?} d
E! 0?6
a«Pa? $?O m
G o 3+ o •a g, a
12
IM 4 ? .
Li "
E Alm] ?Q ?
«'. o
a
94 .
TO SUS
P.01
Post- t° Fax N(ne 7071 'Pam rroges?
To F¦em
J
oo'
co./De
Phone* hone #
Fax # Pax #
85 o
a p;pl•
CD PM
rn w Fa a
,o,
4Wf p 6
,
93,. ao w.
140
1 V
° vi • O. v .??' '? N d es p .
5) 2 r, AS
?B.. o w+'} ?A U O o CLL..
?bp,tiAv
C? w 1.04
4) U2
444.
P4 m F-t v in ?. a? C? .r. o o
41 bO 6 bO 81
?e ? ?. ?? C y ? pp pp
•: '
gz 14 79 a 1;4
TOTAL P.01
+.. - k
John _D
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:17 AM
To: Cyndi Bell; John Dorney; [e-mail]
Subject: (Fwd) RE: (Fwd) 421
Thought this might give some more insights into this 421 mess.
Forwarded Message Follows -------From: "Mickey, Joseph H.
Jr." <1VIICI [e-mail]> To: "James
Ronald (Ron) Linville" <RON [e-mail]> Subject:
RE: (Fwd) 421 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 07:07:00 -0500
The ones in the Wilkesboro paper are just as bad, putting address to governor and legislators so folks can
write them to push this economic boom road through. It's a damn shame we can't defend ourselves on this
in the press. So much for the right of free speech, doesn't apply to state employees I guess. Wonder why
Wade Hoke hasn't mentioned that when this road was first mentioned the resource agencies said then to
follow the existing route. Also, no mention of the fact that when DOT widened the existing 421 in the
60's, with the intention of adding another lane in the future, they put the existing road in the wrong place
and failed to control access. Wonder why they go and buy right-of-way before they get any permits?
Seems backwards doesn't it. This road is not about road safety, but getting folks to the mountains to spend
their money. This really pisses us off doesn't it. Just goes to show that this state doesn't really care about
the environment, only the greenback dollar. We're gong to eventually drown in our own waste.
"Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until
there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the mist of
the land" Isaiah 5:8
Excepting atomic holocaust, the most dangerous threats to our way of life are pollution, politicians and
developers - not necessarily in that order. (Guess we better add DOT).
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville
To: Mickey, Joseph H. Jr.
Subject: (Fwd) 421
Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 6:03AM
Confidential:
I assume you read the editorials in the W-S Journal this morning. DOT is obviously putting on the pressure
and they have got their side of the story out via the Wilkesboro reports in the paper... None of the reasons
for not doing this road as proposed have come out.
Forwarded
Message Follows -------From: Self <NROAR04/N1EW331>
To: "Cyndi Bell" <cyndi [e-mail]>, "John
Dorney" <john [e-mail]>, "John Domey"
<john [e-mail]>
Subject: 421
Cc: [e-mail]
Reply-to: Ron [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:48:29 +0000
Think some things that need to come out from PR on this are:

1. DWQ and a lot of others did not know (WSRO did not) that DOT owned enough right of way to build
the road on the existing roadway until recently. So the EAs and economic issues were flawed?
2. Impacts can and should be minimized by using existing roadways.
Innovative planning with environmental concerns upfront should be utilized instead of straight line
engineering.
3. Wetland area near Boone has significant uses. There are associated areas that appear to have potential
for mitigation sites (PC pastures). These should not be unnecessarily destroyed. If we build the road
and destroy these we may get the tourist to the mountains quicker but we will have destroyed a part of
the ecosystem that they are trying to enjoy.
4. As indicated in the W-S Journal editorial of 980309 on sustainable development, "Good environmental
stewardship is good business. It deserves a wide hearing." How can the Journal turn around in the
next editorial and say the 421 "delays don't seem to be about the environment. They are about
bureaucracy." ??? Obviously, they only have a small piece of the story.
5. Following the thought in number 4 above, once DOT destroys these environments, they will be lost
forever and that is not sustainability. Sustainability can only occur if DOT uses the roadway that they
have already messed up. All they need to do is talk to USFWS, USEPA, NCWRC. NC Nat. Hist
Museum (Dennis) and a few others to understand this thing.
6. Who but an idiot would want to keep on destroying the good things in our state when we ought to be
working together to do it better with less destruction? Just because an EA was done does not insure
that permits can or should be issued.
To a person uninstructed in natural history, a
country stroll is a walk through a gallery filled
with wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which
have their faces turned to the wall. -Thomas Huxley
...........¦ .............¦...............¦...............................
To a person uninstructed in natural history, a
country stroll is a walk through a gallery filled
with wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which
have their faces turned to the wall. -Thomas Huxley
m r--.o 0 O® mum
g? ,5 CD 0. ?aa
A
0 4 o p.o ?? ? » C 3 s
? m
:c3
crq,
x p'S CD C,
\
m
a)
_, R7 c
o ?.
CD C o ?
0 11 "1 05
t4 m
CD
:5 F- CL "0 CD ID
`?7 m
H$ Eq r? p ^? O .?. .?*y ?xC1" CDCO
'_ ? .O C) 04 Q r + CD C ??. ti to N . .?D faDR a N
O a N a ".1 0 0 ry'o F 7 O
(JQ O_ C' Cn,C OH N. a D3 p OR
mN°o?
w oz
¢? `c O L o : R70 0oo`.
n "? G M Cs G °° a•' w x w C a ?? r
CCD 04 O OQ (D R ?? o m o c-- ti ImA ® 0 4 ry ~??
m w ?:9Cny? ?+ ?' p ri
T a "
?; o o 5 m CD It m n y cmy 7y 4x
00 rL 0 O O G 0
O .,(A _° cy f., n O ?° f<D 47 h ?~, 77
G' G R7 10 Z ?' O y 7 a o 000 0 0 -7 ,j
G to CD ID O ' (D ' .. 0 (D G? n ID
? n c?D °n ? ?Gr CD ? ? O ? 0 0 0 i
p tHO't3 CD m O O O b4-m-o 18 0 °o ?;cgoc x
`C. a??• fii• `d ? cD ? c+ ? :? G LZ. O ? pp?' ? ? a ? o
H
CD P,
0 on tj 45
0 _ to P? CD O O C m ? * m p c.
CD p
'`YO (n O y G ?'cD O ? pOO acx 0 a tp In
(D " '.s' cD - b 3i z. uar
O A? (D CD CD f]+ n O u? G A+ ?cD'?? c`+y t °, .? c, u
O' O 00. O °.aa 0 m t7 ' < CL
O CD (D y_ 04 O ° 9 O o R w r s.
14 -M
q R- R 0-6- (D
x 3c
° wpap too<tfomp5 r
n O O C', ((D P' . Z3 V+ . V' ° 7 cOi y P+ " r ,-.;+..a 4
Z CAD H e+ Off' ?, v. ?,• p eC-. F' 0. y.$ rr - 1
(D (D CD E;
D CD
CD O cr'L7 ?' O w z -
(CD ?x G H e ?L7 O 7 } 'gy'p _.to. N `? t?4 t_1
?`4t°`?
VCD
(D 0 CD
off' c
(D 7r
n 'I O ?tn- a0q X, C a??.< Z
-1 (D •? u.
63' 9
CD O ° ID
OH°°
g?
D W m y a p
CA O 0 (D O R o Ow as F b o
O p' y c-t• HO (D U(3 _ io . O w n o• ?04 5 . IL -40
04.O p. h O C¢ n' m g R°< ay
ED ?z
m <CCY W
O O to0 ¢(D S pFyRJ?Eo ?t7ry 50: (D M Q„CU" t7G CD CD CD - 'ou,op.ow?ym
.. (D CD - (D CY CJt LL R c 1Or . ? m to
n; c
w or ?w CCD Z 'D
/ (DFr 0. 0ll?
CD
-0 -j 0
m
Qd°?6 96
O-
m
Ain, U" 4 V
fl SQIW1133N11 d 7 a y m
0.
w ? o,
)Mod
O r'. ?''
,
.. 4.. •-l' 3 Q I {7I?')S.. ?' - R O p Ci ro I TO
US p
co
-Il t

w R N C tE O R.
?o
o Rx[v.e?cu°, y
coo ,: <?, ?• ? O
fD R
ooa?,
? 3 O
o ads
y M (p ?• b S
?i . (spy y 4
o aa€'m. N a
A• m M 7 .G-+• w DQ ?• O n A Vl lD C n d D CD z„ d
A O O A O .•r `' -? Pte.: CD
my?.cRe n?.m R o T. D
a 5 7 O A N p r•C m f W (p. W
o ?. ?• CD Z j-` ?5 1. /\ •
-0 co
per.
ADO .5 _
y ° b y
md P.
(D Q
m?'•c o m R o HA ? ?
' k ? o C o L cC?? m ,p? to p V] I' O ¢ FrJ O O !7 aq ' W
N D m. M 7 Fn G G y y f - Uy " P. FS -d O O _
. y ° ? m O to ro 7 O C+ fD e-r ? ? ?• ?i• ? M G ° ci. ? `J .
d 7' 7 co '? w c-t H cn C'1 YD C?'D °
?G
ID M 5 (D
N
t:l .
c° , o R m cD. O? O' ( 0,4 0 O n a .. .
CD CY A O C CD P m -
° ?' m y p; '0 R, p O
m C CD '0
"y, ?i N rG. hy° 7 ?• 'G ,v 't? `C ' O ?. ? c* CD .?,. f•y ?. i*
4
m
m° m b m ° o w° w m iv N¢ v?Di O Oy .R ryOp
?° <crvc o"o? bo0C4?' c~O?ngn' fD CD Z?CA 0
mG2y ?"ryp OGtn .ry CO 1?' O'C O Ol: ??. _
R^o R y Gmo C `?? P?+ r. cD pn <'*c7 r• ..
0 ID
in,
•v' pN p Ky° t7 M y N ff• Z? 0 c M ?i tiZ O CJ Qq
in, CD C> (D 0 0 CD
CD 0 W,
N
G m R 'C w ?! 7 R O y ° G ? ? In 10'. (D ° ° 'O 4v O fD r..j
iy
O n n CC .°C. ti O °C .. CD fD ps• N
0 CD
°y b 0 O
vHR m cry pi 0! 5- P
r- 0
So 81- 5 (D
(D cn sm,
wDa y Ro ° o O'i lD n o ?•
no ID Cr
° fx cr Cm m e o to v? CD t=J p? p t
• ? c y fn ° r• d4 ?m1 (D ?r? ?tj c O! s..a CD C?
CD (g CD
CD s., °' _ p y " 5, " °
0 CD'
m m as R A, n 7- z o m to W CD m . C?l?
?*
R o ti a y b p 4 O c? ? O
QrQ F
o me Ooh pR 2 ?. C d4 Q D p O ¢W ?' ?e
..opt ng•..a n? y0?3?0 ¢u?°o0(`D Q`.
O
10
CD CD ?ID
r: •, y O O m . 0¢ O y Cn O e"!05
7y G O G O y MD y b H w
.0 0
5* tr 5' icD
0, 0
egg -5p-§
. ?n' 7' pGs ? €'1 m ?' ?. rn ? pmt? y G•? ... '.G -.
y MfD M9 Cry
mm
w +OR? 5 00
Dq m A ? '-4 "a m m p7i m eG-. 'd .W b .
lyy a m n o m o' CD
0 p.. ... m '+ - R -... G
ct,
,, S
r?.__. ... .. y?s? 4 l?,y? ?. ? h t?r' f?.w?.pf?. ~?i efF?? .Pµ ,fi•?t?
Cllranic it nes? a ?' : M }
_ s affectine
more residents,fal hors t
ar-xners
areas. t a.+ v ": lA '?
" , ®Heart attack, cancer end strokes top infant-death rates
By Susan E White r"? F J The,'study-a:communi di-
JOURNAL REPORTER, saf. ty
F;agnosis that. the state requires
Forsyth _County is maku
all health departments to com-
progress : in :preventing mfant F * hi 'plete every. two. years _ also
deaths, but that improvement Js 'showed that many county resi-
beginning to be overshadowed s dents have problems getting
by the rising number of people.' health care' services, .suffer
who are -suffering from such 'from 6&kually transmitted dis-
chronic illnesses as heu-t'ds i r, ?, { "eases and have poor dental
ease cancer and strokes health.
If .?youcompare Forsyth , Infant mortality, which has
County: with other urban coon been an ongoing problem in the
- I s
'
'N 7111
ties, we are beginning to look ' 31 "county, ranked fifth orr the list i
_ just as bad (based on chrome of the, top five problems.
:illnesses) as we do on infant 'ROBERT DILLARD The study did not include stn-
mortality, said Dr. Robert Dii tistics, but a four-county study ® Iredell men filled $5000 for
lard the chairman of ,
the county's board of:.., released last year showed that from 1990 to
healtlT - 1994; Forsyth had.209 deaths from cancer letting cow manure drain into
`The raw data doesn't make us look like for every 100,000 residents. Statewide, there
we're a particularly healthy community 11 -
were 203 deaths for every 100,000 residents. ravine, Little Creek 1Il Davie
Based on a recent study of the county, Forsyth 's stroke-death rate. during that
there are..`more residents suffering from time also topped the state average with 76 By Frank Tursi
chrome diseases than -any tother health prob- deaths for every 100,000 people. Statewide, JOURNAL REPORTER
gems m- o e koard heard yester- Two Iredell County men will have to." publicly
a ,t See ILLNESSES, Page 86 apologize for polluting a creek in Davie County by
y l;? s i, ?s y t pumping thousands of gallons of cow manure into a
ravine that drains to the creek..
Michael Lee Gaither, who owns a defunct dahy
farm off Ridge Road in southwestern Dane and
;1 ?. zr K G'? G a- -?
?
MIR
o ° o m N o 1? Edward Lee Galliher, an employee at the farm ,will
o' c y ¢ ry have to publish their apology in the Winston Salem
'o 1 CD
?c ao y y o 'Journal and the Davie County Enterprise.'Record.
lip 5 U
Zo o as ?. o (D rD l The apology was part of the sentence that the two
`D men received?.Tuesday`-m pavieCoun Superior
p;ER ? '? m ° w °o Court after Pleadm
~, R a of dischar 'animal waste m oastate waters g d
cD m ?. .- b o oo gu4g.:
o w °o ° y a Each also re eaived a 30-daYssusPe end d sentence and
ars Each
SD 0 ye
.atiop ?Th (D ? o. 3 a That) cone of the lar e t finesefor an off n1000ot .
F, o y. o 5 y 9 related _to `:drugs, said Eugene Morns, the ..Davie
a y
c a N o ti w district attorney "We' came out as well doing'what
we did than,if we had gone totrie he said :and a
FD QQ q (D
jury may'not`have' convicted them
They could'have been charged with-'a felony if the
C' o ? ? ° o' m r w•co ° ° ° ? i
° ° o m '^ o w o o f evidence showed that their actions were intentional,
b 0 o a ry 0 a v o Morris said "All the evidence suggests that they "
o ° c ?' F v never intended to pollute the creek,". he said. "They
F- g, were y ° o w a ° N ` ' allowbu pumping they waste onto a field, which state law
oa• o c o 8 I o a° o yPuinped too much. There was never
g. 5.
CO M "d :
y no a 3 ° a any indication
y w `
_ m y n
An anonymousati it led inspectors from the N.C.
5 R x g b y ?°?, R H iy 7 Division of Water Quality to the farm in August. They
w (? o o a $ H s ° found that liquid cow waste from an' old cesspool
ID T; tr o P R P• `^ m m m 7, co o o n o had been p*plid ritd the ravine. Bacteria' levels in
a- 0 .Little Creek were 40 times the state standard.
. < o State regulators ordered Gaither, who' lives in `
o o ° w o ° N harmony to remove<the remaining cow manure
to o y. o c a n o w ' _ y o from the ravine An investigation by the State Bureau
of Investigation' led to' the charges against him and
m o o ° 5 (D I Galliher,
The stiff fine ends a message to would-be ollut-
?' ° ? 9 $4 w `D 0 ? a f' ers, said Mike Easley, the state ttorney general. The
Wow.
m co y o a unusual'public'apology also ' was 'appropriate, he
o w w o - o? o < said. "We want the public apology because it is a .
o R P. o o o ?* a crime againstthe public," he said. "Environmental
m N a o o ?; o o ti crones are not victonless crones." ;
° o oe ? K a a° m a
:? f? o
O° jb (D ?? ra• 5.m.n a w
o 4 C Q R d N G ? p ~O m II Zr (D
bivoiv vim ac ba
t
M R n q y
m
- - of some of the measures could be- I V - fA c a 5• g -3 -
LIVESTOCK gin before the summer.
In a mqjor policy change with a o °
-aQ
t ?
- 3
Continued From Page Al implications for Eastern Shore ° 0,4
farmers, the EPA's interpretation m o C f
of waste, yetis exempt from many of the Clean Water Act would ex- 0 x c ( 04 ?- ' 1•••j 0, (D
10 of the pollution controls that apply pared, to covet the largest poultry. ` g a ' • ° ,. f••i • (D CD
to small municipal sewage plants or operations agency, officials said. `D
"`even septic systems. It also deals "It's an artifact of our regulations c • 5
- - --- - - with one of the most contentious °that lots of poultry facilities aren t ° ° ro
environmental and social issues in covered " said one EPA official fa ° m y o r" l'
ruraLAmenca:="the proliferation . miliar with the proposals " Given
oa o b x 9
. °c.
M?
of large industrial farms that raise : 'the amount of manure they gener cs O
animals by the tens of thousan
ds in ate . they need them, too 5 ° ` ° ?? 7 ? g p z
factorylike confinement barns.:.,About 300 million :chickens
Some of the manure, which is worth more than $1 billion are pro- ?x -° c c rox
often used as fertilizer, duced annually on c w o rx 7 y
° o c.- o
canend up in ground [ I Maryland's Eastern o fro - fD n ?. n o
water ':and .:rivers Shore. Many ,scien-' ti y ro m m' a
through'spills or run- i ` tists say they believe 9 g d `< m
off from waste-saturat= The people : that manure is seep-
ed fields. ,In :water- K
Who are ing off fauns and ?; o o to a0g f? `D a
ways, 'the waste can a tv , .- m
fueling pfiesteria, a• . l
trigger algae blooms Creating . which last summer ° y M `_ n ? ® '
that choke the life out killed fish and sick
Er
en- Q
environment- fD 4s. ° x
of aquatic a osystems ed people, o c c o o
prompting
.,m .,ti Mid = '
l roblems ° c •w
a p
Gov ;Pains :'GI@n Glendening to close 0ok ° m m {
dening . of :Maryland need to be parts of three rivers. ,v S ° c by o 9 :. o
who Is;`championing held account- Nationally, some g ° ?b a "R y m 7 ?..21 !
legislation' to` curb . ?r . agricultural trade a ? c 0 FL c n 0
farm ;pollution in the able. n 5 - m m u y
groups assailed the
hopes of eradicating prospect of increased
pfiesteria from tribu- MARK JENNER regulations, but oth- m ° z j
taries''of the : Chesa- ers welcomed clear m .° o
peake Bay, hailed the national standards
< 22
EPA's action yesterday as "a very : over a hodgepodge of competing Q N
positive step forward." state rules. ° -i
i' The EPA's plan includes a list of Mark Jenner, an economist at the m ° r0
5t proposals : that : would gradually,.. American Farm Bureau Federation Fr Cl)
tighten. restrictions on farms' over in Chicago, said that the new regu-
the next seven: years, requiring .: lations would increase the cost of 3 _
farms to get permits to produce food at supermarkets while making CD
waste, develop plans to.properly U.S. farming less competitive.
dispose of it and undergo inspec "We .are competing with Indus-
tions to make sure they are follow- tries in other countries," he said. Co Q w o m U t .
ing through. The permits would "There are already poultry and live ' ? c
automatically be necessary for any stock companies building process m ° m r m m o -.b
faun with more than 1,000 animal. ing and packing plants in Mexico. (D 'o 0 0 " °q N z n 0 ,
"units, which ° EPA defines as. Forcing all large livestock opera- ?. o. o o ;, O b i
1,000. cattle, 2,500 swine or tions to endure an expensive and m b o .' O
100,000 laying hens. In addition, time-consuming permitting proc- o 5
the regulators could require per- ess effectively punishes all busi- 5 m o f? Co3 o ? :3
c n ?+
mits for. smaller farms that have a nesses for the sins of a few, he said. m . m .
?l 1* 0 m ° ?y
history . of pollution or are located "The people who are creating en- o ' ; ° `?° p CD l d
in environmentally sensitive areas viromnental problems need to be r n y 1D " O
Many of the proposals can be ' held accountable," Jenner said. o G o O n
implemented under existing laws "But the entire industry doesn't o F. although a few would require the need to bear the costs of environ- fD ID, o ° cn
drafting of new. regulations. The mental compliance when there are 0 o o m ?
(VD j
EPA plan" is expected, to become a lot of people who are working m w ° 0 O A' ,
final this spring after a public-com really hard to provide a clean envi : o °
ment period and' implementation ronment." . Z. ID n o s a cr -D,
M..a? p
}.
PROPOSAL go much farther until we've heard ?e m - m K o 2 i
from you." : a x ? Fr m x° w m
m ?e aax Gr?
Continued From Page Al "It's a good starting point," said
C 1.
p Out
Rep: Wayne Sexton, R-Rocking- .? o P (D c o
ham. "This is a hot issue right now, a e a. y t,, : y c
contributions to candidates for but I would like more time to study CD co
governor or the General Assembly. it.,, o °
o o °c, `d
"We don't know exactly what we •, m o o• m o : o
can !do constitutionally," Bowie It's a good start, but the moral . 11 0 0 w o m a 0 cr it sai& "But we want to throw it out of this is, 'Don't make any contribu- ti 14
^ b ° a ? n ? o iDU V ^ p?'?
there and see what people think." tions to the governor,' ' said Sen. ° _ °? y g ro v t?
The' board also would have :the Bob Martin, D-Pitt. c o a x o co o •
authority to appoint its own staff, The committee agreed to discuss .°. ?t fD c, ?°, o )? • '
separate from the staff. at the N.C. ' the proposal at its next meeting, g c m M o °, ? to
Department of Transportation. and to invite Transportation Secre- E z oa - C. rx ° m x
f
There were few comments from ; taiY Norris Tolson. c a Z 0 °
r 0,
n y o e ' : .
committee members as the propos Tolson earlier this week an v, 0 c m a ;; 0 _1D
was presented nounced the changes that he, is $ ° (D
° M •e_ axb cr
p ' I had hoped this would be 'a making in the DOT, but none of' 5 0 n b n_n n
good couple of hours of discus those changes directly affect the c 0 n ti d
Sion, Bowie said. "We really cant transportation board. ! a a b o ¢ 3 ° c '°° "
° M x"°.o o o
v abo .: 00 grid
sv ° m as
m o`. rD 0
.495 ' 5 CD a'
CL -5
ID 0
0

,PAGE K8 WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL Thursday, March 5, 1998 i
LOCAL NEWS
.,
® Without Idnnio n
1rla s tore may bestuckm trdfficl

By. Wayne Thompson "What do you think?". he asked. Former Kernersville mayor and ; .:.
• - SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL No thanks, suggested the shak- . developer Tom Prince led the Ker-
KERNERSVILLE heads and frowns he.;got' in nersville 2020 meeting, standing in
r' Soccer moms stuck`in `gridlock. ;reply. : for Kernersville 2020 chairman Ar-
on the way to: the day-care
:cen-
: ,Errett said that there is another
nold King who was touring the Bal=
ter alternative -regional cooperation timore Orioles' Camden Yards ball-
Massive and-growing commer . and planning-'a shared vision of park with other members of the
CW strips like Wendover Avenue in ;. the future that. the Kernersville . Triad's stadium authority.
;Greensboro Viand Hanes Mall Boule- : Chamber of Commerce and town Asked about the proposed stadi-
vard<in Winston-Salem. officials :.hope Kernersville 2020 um's effect on local traffic and Ker- '.
'':,Cheap farmland gobbled up and : process 'can produce on a. local nersville's planned loop road sys-
deyeloped so"-extensivOy, that the. scale. tem, Errett told the 2020. group
Piedmont Triad's cities are virtually' Instead of sprawl, Errett said that that the stadium had not been fac-
indistinguishable from the air...: elected officials, residents, plan-,' tored into consultants' projections.
Welcome to 2025, Greg Errett,'.a . ners, businesses and developers : He said that the major traffic ef-
Winston-Salem :transportation could work together to cluster de- . fects would not be produced by the.
- planner, told about 50 people at the . velopment in growth corridors.. stadium but the high-density devel-
Kernersville.2020 meeting Feb. 26. That would preserve land between opment around it. ;
.Unless current. land use and -traf- the cities and still provide the popu-.
fie patterns change, 'Errett 'said lation densities` required to make. EHere .is the. March schedule
that's where Kernersville':and the : .light: rail and other in
for. the Kernersville 2020 task
rest of the Triad is headed : systems feasible. force meetings: `Today„ the ;hu-
.Citing 'statistics :developed by `One of the problems we have' man-services and economic-de- •
RB&AAssociates of Atlanta ; Errett
` had in the past is that Greensboro, velopment task forces; March 12,
said that the number of miles tray- High : Point -and Winston-Salem the infrastructure task . force;
eled ;each day by Triad; drivers is have all developed their own thor- March 19, the land-use : task
projected to=increase from 16.5 oughfare plans,'Errett said: farce; and March 26, the recrea-
rn llion; in 1994 to ,:30 million in . . "We've basically been acting in an tion and cultural resources task
2025 Average .,speeds will slow independent fashion." force. All Kernersville 2020 meet
from 44;`mph to 37 `mph.: :. Errett admitted that there's no ings are 7 p.m. in the basement of
"There will , be not be much open ? 'easy answer to keep the Triad from the Paddison Memorial Library.: ;
space left l except:. unsewered ar ; becoming "Los :Angeles with sea- I' or more information about Ker-
;eas," .Errett said ' "We'll be at or
cap
t
)
' sons," as he said in an interview nersville 2020, call the chamber
near
y
aci
; . after the meeting.. of commerce at993-4521.

t N.?
w o
U
y._' 4rw` 1 m Y o O y G b y ^% O H ' o V cd ---g
?. r o°f I ?ono "b9 ooaC °' (o?do q ocgo o
a N ! 't7 - V Ci -o y o G o 42 y to c3 '> c% OR `o % G U,(,7 GO V. ..
N o 0- yj owm o o-oy9E.:[ o 110
I k
1 .? N V d ?? • --8 • V O O ... % .G O
i'e; i-1 ? % > V C y -v? y ? y o % oa Rib ai G= o.W •C O •?. F
o w. y% G., 0 3 R F a ° o y m° o ??U
r s o o°y?GOO cry %cacy?y?F,. o}
c o O G
a% C.' ." o o° og v? °a
t o .$ °
y:1v tl o o
of P4 F % N x y o F c% G v_ '? 7S ?Pa P. d x •o y EP 3 to :
_ O .yy.+ N o e o o •G'i % •'7
a,.? ? pva ? o ? ? vi o -`?' y 3 ? " to 7 0'o cn: % ? to 'o G
fi %, c o G N ° °. F? o o a F o a c.
as o o f t4? $ m y° o t' 'o c?> o ai o
% ° to p o
'+ h}rl m F x. w > GF ... pZ.ww O ca .?•L7 V? vi.O .i.y .C
? ?? to`?•o ? ? ? o.? 3 ?+ ?.Y ,? % ° `? ? G ?rn??C]•? 6`0,?
y Icv?o2: J'4 ?ooyOo%a%iyp?e?¢'oto> oE?%OQyH,pxo??
o - X s ?y gw°vawva ?a a%a"r, aca. ao3 ?° zn ??c?W C7? YtO,r
t c i 71 G .x. a? to .j a?
= "o to
P?9 F .;a ca
r G
zs ?• o .? ° °'d-?i c 5a s~ a? o to
°° cn G. uoYY G pa% F
bsxa ?. ?°. .:) cd L? c?j o y 7 % 'O Y o ca •?y yF'
'o S v - Ly. H j vGi E. a y
J ?'o'?mo F °.aG3 IoF86?D E4.Sto-- "%. °.
Ga• ?.U O o >.- CL o-y'. a° o
o o'ff' ?y o -14 oo ?c °o co 0 o tp o GocaVwGGYc°% ? Na xy
3? c?P
?Y r3 w? F F o y y d E y yorn o
3 ,o
ro V %a.% a v ( % °o o •o o o °
?
% ?. y. y. ° a c 0 5 G' y ? a " ?q o g. v
J
a G q a y a O C W a F Y F F 7- b0
?? a x" %y y rr-o °?-oti r o °' CC?°a„?o an d ?Ga°u
•r•-i `?a s° o.? Ya ?o? y g 3 ???'y? 3 a?'c %o ?> 3tna?°'a w ?v3 co
J G ° V v] > Y ai • w •O cd F c3 G o G' % V ,w-, ^G ? G G G 'o Y .? a o •y c? i o • w _
(7°5 o f `? v ? t a c'?x n %o'? Qo y% ? u F a_ 3 c a" g--.- ooc ? o ?m g o e.
F N F F N o w
° A w.g
a o wt?n> y °_ o o ??r y F ci. '> c?k" q o y Fpo G y x o %a
m o U 3 c s. O• to ° w y o O> o t o
?. % .. go..%. y u G m V I.? %..cp G y`'" G' o a-ca-O V a) O y LM ,y N..-
o ° U ooo ° 3 •??' GO Ci .- o O. a?i g V a d b F o ? a%i tr.Ox ? •? d o'c
Y? yo 3 30 00 N.So
a i m?°' yayF. V°%? ?yc yoF oWAd
F a y o y a a a6 GU]• v
a .... ? .: a o
TT^? c z7 ca= % .G ca y F •o G V o
U] r7 V o x ca o
V1 0. y o ° o F.V %
o 1 o.G ??o c?oa?-A.?o°??H?°?a F
°o a y 3 yoo24-
•???---a{i w. x E?w o o d p a.5 ti y w Faacq F ara o o.
o w ? %
x?? a G°o ci 84. : . -A o- F x ? o ? ? F o o o? ?=^? o °: o t o o a ° au ooh ^ ti
F ti y oy ?b0 %y-% ° as ,%,q o ?yo ?o?+a %Ux73G? OVGj o°i.o?
o y o G a oa °" F y.? w. o %p. F c; cd a l? a o 3 g
y"°?.%G ° p?o %y e. y "o« °Gv %y ow ko o.. ?y
yF- ° o%yaF?3 °o* o? o o G? vA3 y?•
o o oy y o 0 o F o r= a'y FQ °% cy o? o G %Yo? G-
.YW :_•w q UUUG o '?'dy o3p mU% I& d>, .G gp
° + FUG I..x ?S G
. o
cO °
b o >> 3 vs O y a? +' O_ y A o .G F % O ca V o
o co 3tiai°o?av
`gy'm ya. oar y ,? .i bo? o^` G. yoo?,.. ?y .xo
o T7 F w G o U o cd O .Q G t-; c3 0 % ..
F 3 o ca o : U d y c° a3. 5 i ^ = P o> ° U. to w.3 ,x c '?.Y o F O:?-" `?v N;3 v .
v G G y o pa% o as. F a o m: % ?: y?
'G 3 0 a)pF.. %c?% yw x.d % aio Gc? O 00"G ay:.<
y ay o u o y?? God o oYv %3 :-toC 01 rn TS O u? o" Oy, 3 3 ?..
y 3 o a q G p ov cu) O vx. a) o ya a F > toy ?.
to S A °aS F G •? va '? t4 o ° r?
(o' I ooG G O oar ° :70oU U+_%>
oo a V a yy % d ?? yF. w y F ?a+ OG G' o
C CL %' y %• UO F P> w G m I awry a.. G yG r7 %x w ..7 3 o ti d x' ob G a?
G x o y 'm to G? o k y
Y
% oa y( a Q • p o x G a ox V o % y y ?w y o
Ito ym oo ?yGOG' .aka a?. G5v? U?t?'3 o a>."
f,.O..-. Y a a v, to y to
is 0,u?m. ca ai°0 G0 %o Ob0 ..
Q m 3 G o - f °.?
> oo a y
az
E? y o o y ca u?a y
"o
v? o o chili °i-?'•o .
A .6
w W
054 . 3? oya_ g a '?
c a ww
'? fYi y= •d- cVaF a%i % cd oHo=" c`d
mh o w 8 ?p N w E >y

L° o'o on o rn °v a /'? 6
a ? ? Y cAi - op- 'Nd' .. ? ? •?,,??e cp?{/}4?jgp?On. ?? .:.
- O V V cd N : G N .a, •p pa tr}°`T s".rl/J ??A.. J,
?Ao pyo° H ?5? a
v bu x b
Y
N O J
0 to
•? '? dp v :CR, p p y R co Lei Cd CL)
Q) ???Gy7 O? ?l - rQ?
mooo 0, QJ NV QA
ro- 4.1
C
°
) .U) ° '
L) IQLI)
??N'aa? Sao toO ?-0 ' P O i.0
-5 (1) 4 (11 -2 Ld
to e
'o -cl
.. - ., ..o ax3 :ti 4 d a, CC.: m .G
N W Q b V. F '.. d. ,.+ 'd a) ?„• N n; 'd U cr .a .
+y N yl °. ci l1 C3
O
rs-

'
N q .:
r.v, d v
y n .,, . •p O
5
Y V y ''
c(3
"`. q a?i A

V. bp f3 .
a) s-?
v? O U d o

41
W y +' ,.? Q) y a) •• .
•
3 d 0? y
to .0
4='t,
cd
3 °? Ha c
;
cd c'
h.?.'A cN. a,
vvt d.
V'C12
rrP'" 0
iJ F' .Try CS 06 Y ,? .r y d .. _ a
?'gel1 V' .. O N N N" W O N
4 S ?O ro'EOaiwE?- 6
° ° ° z o m
ti 1`. v V F?toC? S
oW
H a, o.5 oU
-?, o o?q "r is o co.
.r a> N CV VH ?w• ?N - U
f}.a .. z ° rJ w NYp. V ?.
F+ p
O' O T c0 •0?
G
'?' w x vy.7.' w
' 07 ??? a0i'VO s d d d F y -..
?U.0
4.5 ?xi:?y?W 00.... U.
'o o
U ai °
w
oC? o ci?fl? °
° tko
o y U N J?d 0
m O
C) E-4
Cd 40V) y E , o c+3 rn .41 '0 Qvos??Z.
41 ° y O W a -0 41 ')
bo a) '•
0 0 O O a) . G a Chi
Q) U
° N Gr aJ ".'fy? O 'Cf O U
•?y?{ z i-' C6 Mfr°?y ..
L?. N H U c. a) a) +> o o :rs cd
TT?? m ?' 0•j U0 bo O bp (V 0 O .
,,-
N .
W ?i Cd y .8 a-a
may o
`
m . Gil t ; ° cd y 0
bA
0 0 v00 0 0
03
tJ O y 0 ... ,C]: y .
j x
m ?3 j
A
C
a
dbZ?covin
0
rp
1 ?0..
?.G: hr'O.C pw r.,

m El
'4
z PV xi 6?•O 4d O .
O

.
a
0
o -
dN
d a. ?..
c

d
0 tea
r
?
1 1-6{ O V
c
T
??
w t
oo c o :
y
,
o
.-
03
••
a
o
?
m
co ? ?
_?
bO .°'. .fix

u

No3
O r?
jog=
own
;e
1- 00 0?
._ O a1 OO.COi C: rn
C LL YG W N
20
w... .V.?w Y.?x bOW 4 °
c C °b 3Q
OdF
O N?j O. O o.y^ F O y.
?5 FE p °' orn.o?- °
CO 0 C) 0
• .: .u ,? c3 C> ,?,, •;. O V 00 j ....N coo uS o C o .
V 2 cd
p O V ?'d: O cHd V.. ?.V ego ° bpp0? 3 0 40
O O H• o p 2 n{r':'p?w", -OOA. ?p,oo
41 F
® 0 STS O cd H iO.^C to ,. °y do
?.®' A v o oO
' O V .N.U o. m cJ Fc v oa?h° d
V GL cd. c? d .. +? O d o "o I•o ao a F
C's w 4-
0 '2
4-4
it> -- a to
o 4 ? ?Cf N ai
to 48
. PM-0 • C.) fp O +p W ` m to
y 'ran en a v N o o A'
d V C3 U y N .? tq A N O Cl v "' ... •" . O
®mmmd - ? ®? ?-1 ? '?-• :? ? OJ ?Fi??iii F. O O a? ? .? ? 'ci y aci ? to Cd
(1-)1 ? 3 Q uj+3 c?O D,±' o OAp ;;° ao PN oa°i?o
r-i ° d w ,fL cd '? W o Off, ° ° ?b F
,30
H b4 V e? f? cd +? +o N cd d
4A 0
.. N O w LZ p VO Ga +s COC - bA
. U1 'L U V ',3 H :-y - H V] VI F .?i - "' 0.0-0 .' i., .
to W
c-, 8
V 1 `? V cn ?, vi cd O H p ?y cv p, A WC A ??? v ? y
cd Lo' cd A -2 'n
co A V O - .70 •U ?°" FUD P, co
R''b d
e TOM4 O N ? Cll ''? CSS y y 4-i a' i? O CJ U 'J a u O aa.' O w 8- .. ° aN. Po +. . .`. p 0 F' _
.? O U U Zf ? w r 1? ti . r«3 m °-' c1 ? v ?v .0 01
e 8+°>+4-?? U O H dp-.1 cd+-? Cb C 4:2 - 2 _? 4 ?? NNA 'o
r-i m Cd iLJ O D ?Vj m d \ 4. to o o d y-° a a? vd
b V - Q? V C, 'z Cd A H C U? m .Y_, o y ... a? O R •O .? y
*1?•?1 , c3 p +iq 4? 'd O `W .Fi °O, c?• 'a ° o ro. `? o
?I C7 O 'L3 H r. a1 +•' N .' .+ C's c3 Cd O t3 A O v .1 a)
e? = H Q'u `o- r 0- p ?' 0'?3 3 0 mo o' >
..
r-•1 '? ??' A. r% U "'C Cd ' V H O '?' •-?'' u • 0-0 o F a? y . :? .
S? O .d d b [?d y 4p y ° y
O V CL •?2 0 m
O
e Lai O .^1...•. V V DS H +1
a t, O+' m? O V ?clim d FCy U
I a) ?d 41
.?i A? F y b "'.' C' rn
A•
4' . of
E
V U R O O F
m o r oYx,?
12 b4! *' y d o o Ly noo o a°
ti„ ad.pp 3
D7 !g pw.? qq a.)Oq?cdo
0 U L > .? 3+Q F •v'o_M•yy,"A'A 9 aFi to-
w 3 h 3
4 Al-
D AL -0 _W
E C? w GGNt0
to 0
y y ?W
0/
o
3?
Z C d'. O
xcaxo°y>:
3 R7 O d 7 ON O
r?-m ?d o? c1 `

;.lu O OA

14
5o aWi °AxJ" G
Q .
v o°D-

a Cove*.
-
®iri after _
more sewer,
water ees _
® Revenue ` is needed
to offset budget deficit,
town commissioners say
::By Sarah Lindenfeld
-JOURNAL SURRY COUNTY BUREAU
WALNUT COVE j
Walnut Cove residents using septic tanks
an ;
d private wells will have to pay manda .
tory water and sewer fees to help the town
recover from a deficit in its budget, the
town's board of commissioners decided last
night.
Residents who don't use the public sys-
tems, but who live within 300 feet of a water
or sewer line, will have to pay the minimum
monthly service fee of $7.18 for water and
$9.10 for sewer. About 81 residents in town:
are not* hooked up to at least one of the .
town's services.
Ransom: Smith Jr., who attended last
night's meeting, said that the sewer system'
is scheduled to be extended to his neighbor-
hood soon. But even if he chooses to contin-
ue using his septic tank, he'd still.have to'.
pay the fee.
"What can you do about it?" he said.
"Pay the bills or move out of town."
The board also agreed to? study whether'
water and sewer rates should be increased "
to improve the town's finances, and to make
sure that every organization in town is be-
ing charged for its use of the public water,
and sewer system by May 1.
A study done by the engineering firm of
Cavanaugh & Associates in January showed
that about 20 churches and local govern-,
ment offices were not billed for water and
sewer use. Jerry Rothrock, the town's inter-:
im manager, said he did not know why.
Officials at the Local Government Com-
mission had asked town officials to enact
the water-and-sewer measures, along with.
-
others, after the town's audit revealed a
. , $24,431 deficit in the budget. The town also,
has had to prepare monthly financial state
ments and look for a new auditing firm. ;
In other business, the board decided to
sell a 10-acre tract on the north side of town
that it bought last year•for $65,000. The
town had planned to build a municipal com-,
plex there, but officials have changed their: ,
minds.
Also last night, Alma J. Childers was ap-'.
pointed to the board to replace Commis
sioner Martin Luther Mitchell, who resigned.
for health reasons The board also an-4 '
nounced that Commissioner Vance Gerald
Alley had*. resigned. Commissioner M.
Wayne Smart said that Alley has moved to
Ashe County.

PAGE A10 WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL Wednesday, March 4, 1998 '

WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL ION x. w1TIIERSPOc
Publisher
A .Media General Newspaper CARL M. CROTHER£
_,,, : _ • • • • • _ Yfa naging Editor
.
416-420 North Marshall Street JOHN D. GATES
Editorial Page Editor
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27101
DOWNTOWN PRESERVATION V.C. "PAT" TAYLOR I
FOUNDED APRIL 3, 1897 General Manager
G
ro ups give good advice SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
he Dow
(D
T sound ad town Development ture in 1958 should perhaps be taken
C) has received some down, but courthouses are traditionally
'ce from the Forsyth the downtown centers in Southern cit- can.. lead
State can.. by example
County Joint toric Properties and : ies, and this one is built on the site of ,
the Winston-S em Historic District two earlier courthouses. The commis- deas and discussion flowed last. Environment at Cornell University, that
commissions, p icularly with regard . sions believe the building is structurally : week when some of the nation's Hunt made his promise. Hullar, an or.
to the use of n wly expanded invest- sound and adaptable to modern uses. foremost experts on environmental gamic chemist by training, said that our
ment tax credit- . 'What to do with the old Wachovia issues gathered at N.C. State Universi- society is dangerously chemical de-
The advice? Use '.em, they can Building is less clear. The commissions ty's Emerging Issues Forum on sustain--. pendent, and that the developing world
amount to a 4 percent government believe it could be eligible for tax in- able development. If the forum's chair- is following our -lead. He challenged
subsidy of re bilitation costs and vestment credits and call it "rare in man, Gov. Jim Hunt, will follow through . North Carolina officials to assert lead-
make -some finan cially dubious but his- stylistic terms for Southern cities the on a promise he made, the words could ership not only through such tactics as
torically and aes etically important re- size of Winston-Salem." Wachovia con- lead to action in North Carolina. regulation of hog farms and chip mills,
hab projects do ble. sidered rehabilitation and went for new Sustainable development, simply put, • clean-up programs and money for such
The commissio ns seem to have a rule construction. The building would take is the idea of living and doing business things as mass transit, but aLso
by ex-
of thumb: Resto ation is preferable to major work to regain its status as Class in such a way as to meet the needs of _
ample. He suggested that the state be-
demolition and ew construction: As a A office space. It could be spruced up this generation without depriving fu- gin following sustainable development
rule: of thumb, it s a valuable tool.' If it and made attractive as Class B office ture generations of the means of meet- strategies in its own activities - at the
becomes an obs
' ssion, it loses a lot of space. The location is prime, and first- ing theirs. One after another; the speak- governor's mansion, at offices and
that
value. class space would be preferable, but the ers at the forum at the McKimmon Cen- buildings, at state parks, in the highway
Three specific projects are cited in market will determine what happens. ter spoke eloquently and disturbingly department, at public schools and on
the report from t e commissions to the On Fourth Street, a little rehab might
` about their belief that the present gen- university campuses..
DDC. One is th old Forsyth County
. well combine with some demolition for eration is plundering and fouling the Knott, the developer, suggested that
Courthouse acro ss the street from the the most desirable result. Many' of the planet in a way that will make it impos- universities, especially, could lead, not
1966':Wachovia uilding; a second is. buildings and storefronts are well worth sible to sustain prosperity if not human : only intellectually but also in daily oper-
that building; an a third is the Fourth: preserving. Some would not be missed. life itself in the foreseeable future. ations - for example, caring for lawns,
Street. retail blo . The commissions - The commissions have given the °These speakers were not fuzzy-head- athletic fields and golf courses without
urge: 'restoration and investment tax , DDC something to think about. Historic ed tree-huggers, but leaders who under- over-dependence on chemical fertiliz-
credits ,in all thr, a :cases. preservation is just one piece of the stand economic and political as well as ers and pesticides.
Their stronge f case involves the ` puzzle, but it's an important piece. And environmental realities. Among them The possibilities of such changes in
courthouse, Kist rically and aestheti- the new investment tax credits for qual- were-John Norquist, the mayor of Mil- the huge state bureaucracy, both for
tally worth a pre servation effort. The ifying properties make preservation an waukee; John Knott, a successful South educating the public and for practical
wings added to a 1926 original strut- even more attractive option. Carolina real-estate developer who is. benefits to the environment, are enor-
pioneering sustainable communities; mous. Government and educational in
Ray Anderson, the chairman and CEO stitutions could get serious about recy-
of a corporation that makes 40 percent cling; reducing waste; finding altema-
of the world's carpet tiles while follow- tives to chemicals, fossil fuels and other
ing principles of sustainability- Sylvia nonrenewable resources; and building
Earle, an oceanographer who is the energy-efficient structures, for starters.
explorer-in-residence. at -the National ;- 'Hunt pledged to convene a meeting
Geographic Society; and Daniel S. Gol- within the next few months to include
din, the administrator of NASA. members of his Cabinet and the Council
One after another, in addition to rais- of State, the chancellors of the Univer-
ing the alarm about the freed to reverse sity of North Carolina system schools
environmental degradation, these and the heads of the community col-
speakers emphasized that what is need- leges, among others. He said he will
ed is a change in attitudes and thoughts challenge them to come up with ways to
- and that ultimately, the change must operate more efficiently and use a sus-
-start on the personal ;and' local level. - tainable, approach to the environment.
People and institutions need to rethink Hullar said that Hunt's summit could
everyday behaviors and choices. be "a truly profound event." He's right;
It was in response to a challenge by
" a great.deal could be accomplished if
another of the
speakers, Theodore Hul- wise words and good intentions can be
lar,`the director of the Center for the converted into action.
MAR-09-1998 08:57 FROM DEHNR Winston-Salem TO P.02
'5 Z. 41
--?? x c a yy 3 r? pp ?t.
?O_2'??r??9? ?--(g87
?ssAL w .? sw ?xT $?G vc. Y q a ?.1; v•
92 139 IT R
»? 8 ?' ??d'? ?= 3w $ ?roga a A
tc
???$a atg
a

>•• C p V
1.54 i fax(
•s w ?'? E ° b ? ?•?,,qo??
?.Cy C
L P ? c .D ?._R god ? •? ? ?•
o?1 pp ??Fg$ ?ryr G
??d3?a ?vx?E E ?.? ?? A.a ?i .e."?.`1 ??.1$ ??y?+1'?i?? ?• .!S a
.°,'.$•}bfS,«A nm-i;,?.L" cur°`?''EE$ o. i1 _YB ??
?Cy'P V Q'rJ C9 t tJ b?3.? p?i F+?gr gg• S`??/s??'p?tlQ,
Y '? ?_ ? # ? ? ?. C O ? " ?•C-^j• ? ? $ rAA,..,? ? ? L" eSi ?• ? p? ? 9 1 v v ?'+ ? ? ? ° 1 .0
? t{??!
5 C6
6 ?j^?? k'$g? ? q??? ° y F, a E? ? ? ?"s•'? ° £?? ?? •8 3 w 'f"; 3 [? ?? pF,'pJ a'•+?y Ln,.pGE
Q??°?="dn?$? •? ?'° ??.'.' +d-??xh•a??SW +e$C???,.a+?P%.8£??$9t8?araC
u
w
a' •' a.? ,9 e
gs4 -? H
v ?g
`a>s
K a.j S' ,?
G ?
V?o
s W I M gm:_:-''?

? ?,?•5 a z?'s
?? ? v v W ? a ? .E •? r 4y
I?c`??.5`A0 ?t'e?.Stf
At 7-
P gill
r ro ? ? '
.11141
Kai
'5 SO VAPAT
r3 5 a-4° vS s ?: v [ '? $ o .? y °?r, w $, t? 8 ?•. Q'L.
s^ ?? lir-
€ Jil ;
Jill
_ >. j
z
0
N ICU
x? sa
gills, ' I S
11 If
h
3
4/f

TOTE L P.02
MAR-09-1990 OB:56 FROM DEHNR Winston-Salem TO
WtK1gM -SALRM Join, JAN H, WITHUSPOON

;k
P.01

A Media Cgnwad AfmM.papet GAIi4 M. C8D79iERS I
?'. .• N-ViA,p helm ,
416.449 Nonh Marshall Simet JORN A• GATES
y W+naton•salam, N.C. viol Bdttortac type "1W
i troUNblCii.aaxsr. a, 9897 Y.C. 'TAT" tAAUOR M
oerwrot lfaeader
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT '
A smart business strategy
R Anderson brought his mis•

sson to the recent EmeriBrig Is• read ng It made a profound impact on
'
Arrdeman. He became convinced that
euea Forum On sustatel l* de. "every life-support system on Earth '
VOWMeflt at N.O. State University and
w
b
k
f „Qhe biosphero on which we Oil live,
b
"
on a
oo
o
convene mmung the 1,9170 stressed and in dec3dra
He realized,
or so educators, p0ticdans and env!- he ssid, the extent of the envimmuental
1 Mhrntal alimrotse imthnmd of the
mmon
Now
Otter d"iRu¦n th„t I... E,.d .lk..J_AA e '
h
.
.
someone
e igido brittg him bark to North aw;ii.
rat" fall. ee aka l a A VIA ... t,.,..ay--1 t
eexaggetaWmofenvlrorunentaliste. .
Andemon deeded that .$
nay tv Me cone, Ina Ldat, Anil IMM
to hear hiy Woplratonal message: the
bomb 'of business. and Industry. ed that the most obvious segment of
abciety to lead in the change should be
With ail the teal of W0110 who has "the one that has done the most dam,
experienced an epiphany and seen the age": busitttss and Industry.
light, Anderson spoke passionately
shoat the revelat0116 that Chatted tuns Anderson set out to make his wraps
", kiterfaee
Inc., a prototype of the
life - and Ids buWAUM, He preaches ,
sustalnable obrporaton that will sea
tht gospel of etdlghtened self•irareet, coed after "thp next Indusum'revolu.
ttMlinn the tarn fhet vppvaatldg eft Aka
principles of tmtelrtabillty - doing LIMA," 77"e III ar,rlenistrtw recrotuiton, fit
id
d
H
d
I

business so 05 to meet today's needs sa
, was
awe
because
t
epquds on
nonrenewable resources and is a slave
itidiout dpprivlttg future genorations'of to Its own "vem dour, consuming tech-
i the meant of meeting tlueirv -is good nology." The next rev9jutlen, lie said,
not only for the tnvironment but also
for bridles must be nuatahud K.
'
. Ahill. of thr linwer of snAnrwm
o
• I , aobuQ among weft eY doing
good, atld aboilt tip apart companlee message steins from the fact that he 7s
aaccxding, He has charts, graphs and ; ..
l that are adapting non- m that dwy can
I
d i
th bottom lime to demonstrate that Ids ..
Sucaree
n
e re. .. strategies - cutting waste and f"s- :. .
Anderson is the prototype of the sub- slvtw, using ranewaete war Zy and rave
.
aeatfut Amatdow etwojg rrmour. Amlex-
son's mW4gs Is (1601Y
owcrlitl b ,
tswtarlala, reryaC.Vt, dVlrha rw Lauu to
here
bios
increasin
aner
v stud-
the
e
P ,
p
g
g
cause he Is sating .on rho Ideas ,ma
proving that We Choice does not have to

b - and stringntenirng hfa Lv,UNs- .

sx ssatituettcies - am ;
;t_;..
'
k either eavironmeAtel responstroility increasing his Compam
s IsroP,ts and
or proiltability.. No Taft :pod job In
1993i ai age 28
tofound his own corn. making It more wmpetltive.
de
s
A
h
h
1.
pagy:in Atlanta, IC Brio into a global
vor
oratign tbat etas 40
erc
f th
t n
r
on Ladd that w
at
e is doing ,
will Mahe his 'cottrpArly survive and
fl
i
h I
the l
'
i b
"
'
.
p
p
en
o
e
avoeKnWket for carpet, 1114x• ong
our
s
n
nse
ecause
we
re
getting ready for the day when oil's ,
During kris A; rWarty,'S fleet 31 Years, price will reflect its cost." )Ins company ' .
Anderson Bald; •lie:was a typical"plun• . now is doing well "not at the expense of ; .
defer," a "'legal
ih7?" •who,,was not the emiLnLUtunt or gur descendants, '
,
bbl[demmdbmreveredasa"eeptainof • but at the expense of less efficient ,
lenadeWy':?lwrorgave onethought to, adaptors,"
what we.were talrlel? &9M the Eattdl of
' The .bminess case for austahhability, '
doing'tv
tlsv Earth,' he said. He wag he said, is tusk it'& necessary for long-
aware, of gow ntnent regulations to tkre term survival, that do" the right thing '• .
extent of ootftpliarrcet compliance, he can Increase prvfiv; and that there are
i ;said; `ran hewn; hatn rARXiAd ve the law
i::'°F''s', ' '• . sew fortunes to be made bringing the
mvre'be/dgn and suaminabla twhnol-
"L; eylylwiU ?wUAAmw.•aa'••rvAlerl nl '0k Au AVIV na UL u1Uae vmuNl- l
i rasltaaas to gevettaite front.d Igtggvw, Ngiw.t7 the markot. '
' be jjrt ldl A fAgk frrrrr to rnme up with .dndorron'r mauo4AO 10 oelMMlluadt
p an 9nvkV0AMbntat VStdon" for Ills colts-
hi
S
' flood envlrmunental vvm dddp is
d
I pa+p
omeone sant
m hid Hawkon
s
j
book no Ecoto
rCu;nrr
vo
nd goo
business. It dues wn a wide bear.
i
.
gy g
W
, a ryy
.ill IRENiNIA U AS. 421
' •Lefs get an with. it
i tie pluses, "{tot bad for. govern-
I ? Mani work,:'' token on a special
h
li
d
I
'
' .774s Is the malu road between Boone •' "
. and. Winton-Salt,n, with the Wtko- - ;
'"
en. app
e
to the
rony w
le•C
? I Deparfti wnt of Transportation, the NC. boron on the way. 1111tfor growth bas
. marred olong tut race, Dad cominuea ' . .
DiviSibn of Wakr Quality ord. the wtd•
B
eldrtq of U
421 tb four lanes between , at a rapid pace. That means more trot- ; ,
fie
It also means fatal accid
u
h as '
t
.
.
1 Yadlettwillo and Boone. Even for gav?•
' .
en
s S
c
' • the opt Imt week just west of Yadkin.
i 1 tmtueut.work, tbk
to 17retty bad, tiille fatal accidents flat will be less . .
years ago; ,bOT' proposed
f
b
lld
' llk* once tho road becomes a four.:...
o
ing a nww
road north of
ourdane
fire current two-lane U.S. 421, rather lane highway.
, Road t"dldingInNorWCarolina --as ,
I thou wldealag the exietda8 road..,The
!water-
,b
roa
lle
o h anyone traveling duvugh downtown ;
SN
'
gua
y.
u
rax9
ave only
? Nl f.ftreesed their concern thsta new 12tstort 8a1tM vriil readily attest - is
:
never a model of ie flcdanby find quick j .
four. bpd road'CQWd pratnt more wa.
• action, It seems sporadic and pakdtdly.r.
{ ! ter quality .problems Quiet wld
art • slow. Itoad contracts apprar, at least to '•. '
existing two-lune:road. '.
,.existing I lkvq t, designed to accommodate ;;
It took"em. Sewn yesm to contrsctoas rather than motordete,
14wv that out?
t
: ' It'
if thG
t'
' Rvnn et81, seven years and llvlding is '• '
"
'
s nu
sr,
rose{ prgeeta
a
one
1 ; otttose 1mv proIDe, also-ran state road reaching the intolerable stage. Concern
tor; the envirariment IS a top priority,
pr'oleets to wblch no.one pave clone Road bniidhsg sboWd not threaten wa-.•' .
attention. M6 is a high state pt7ori45 _
and should be, for ocvnomic'as well as to quNity. But them, dplaya don't seem ,
' to be about the envlrollment. They are ;
?'tfarraportaton and safety rvmutiv.• L. about bWW=rsov. Enough is enough. .

Cyndi_B
From: John D
Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 8:12 AM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Cyndi_B
Subject: FW: [Fwd: US 421 ]
You have the memo - correct? If not please advise and I and Cyndi will send another copy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Preston Howard [SMTP:preston [e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 12:10 AM
To: Coleen Sullins; Dennis Ramsey; John Dorney
Cc: Tommy Stevens
Subject: [Fwd: US 421]
PLEASE DRAFT THE REQUESTED MEMO. POSSIBLY JOHN AND CINDY COMPLETED THE
LIST OF REMAINING ISSUES LAST WEEK (I NEVER RECEIVED THEM??) AND WE CAN
USE THAT AS A SPRINGBOARD TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE REQUESTED MEMO.
PLEASE
HAVE THE MEMO TO ME BY COB FRIDAY SO WE'LL HAVE SOME TIME TO DISCUSS
WITH THE SECRETARY BEFORE HE HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE 17TH.
THANKS!
M
Us 421
Cyndi_B
From: John_D
Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 8:15 AM
To: Cyndi_B
Cc: '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: [Fwd: [Fwd: US 421]]
can you make these changes this am? i gave an 11 am meeting in archdale and can bring the
package downtown then. thankx
-----Original Message-----
From: coleen Sullins [SMTP:coleen [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 4:45 AM
To: Dennis [e-mail]: john [e-mail]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: US 421]]
Dennis/John - I have reviewed the information and recommend that the cover
memo be altered slightly (and signed). First, please clarify what is meant
by "stormwater, particularly at stream crossings". If I understand
correctly, this is meant to be a question of what type of control of
stormwater is being proposed at stream crossings to prevent damage. I think
this needs to be clearer in the memo. Also, is the recommended meeting with
DOT in the field meant to be all agencies within DENR? Has no meeting with
DOT occured in past? Please clarify this section of memo. Also, I like the
summary that was prepared 2/3 as it provides a better overall picture (it
should be attached as well as the memo to Secretary - di d that actually get
sent?). Coleen
Preston Howard wrote:
> PLEASE DRAFT THE REQUESTED MEMO. POSSIBLY JOHN AND CINDY COMPLETED
THE
> LIST OF REMAINING ISSUES LAST WEEK (I NEVER RECEIVED THEM??) AND WE CAN
> USE THAT AS A SPRINGBOARD TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE REQUESTED MEMO.
PLEASE
> HAVE THE MEMO TO ME BY COB FRIDAY SO WE'LL -HAVE SOME TIME TO DISCUSS
> WITH THE SECRETARY BEFORE HE HAS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE 17TH.
> THANKS!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: US 421
> Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Mar 98 13:57:00 EST
> Resent-From: N1 ED731 @mordor.ehnr.state.nc.us
> Resent-To: preston [e-mail]
> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 11:29:03 -0500
> From: [e-mail] (Henry Lancaster)
> To: [e-mail] (Preston Howard)
> CC: [e-mail] (Michael Williamson),
> Bill [e-mail] (Bill Holman),
> Michael [e-mail] (Michael Shore)
> The Secty would like to receive a briefing memo on the status US421.
> In particular, please id issues for resolution in the control of
> either dept and issues of concern for agencies outside of state govt.
> Provide as many options for his consideration to resolve the issue as
> you can devise. He is working under a deadline of March 17th to reach
> a conclusion on this matter.
> Pls note that he is amenable to options (now that there is new Secty
> at DOT) that might not have been worth considering in the past. Your _-
> immediate attention to this matter would be most appreciated.
MI,
[Fwd: US 421]

IDR
i.
NOR •,.C: !ti v<
= NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT or-
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DtvlstoN of PARKS AND RECREATION
January 22, 1998
TO: Cyndi Bell
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Stephen Mall S I
SUBJECT: Impacts to Potential Bog Turtle Habitat due to Relocation of US 421
East of Boone
REFERENCE: Action ID No, 199707161
In Previous comments on this project (Hall, 11097), the Division expressed concerns
about possible impacts to the South Fork of the New River Aquatic Habitat, which
contains several species of rare fish. We have since learned (Dennis Herman, NC
Museum of Natural Sciences, pers. comm.) about the pr=ce of a bog located within
the project corridor that has a high potential for harboring bog turtles (C7emrgs
muhlenbergii). This species is state listed as Threatened and North Carolina
populations are federally listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance.
This site was not identified in the FEIS prepared for the highway project (TIP R-
529BA & BB), nor is it described individually in the document circulated for 404
Permit Review. Given the significance of mountain bogs in general, and the high
potential for bog forties to occur at this particular site, we strongly recommend that this
site receive a thorough biological survey. If bog turtles or other rare. bog species are
discovered, we further recommend that consultation be held with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the NC Wildlife Re=res Commission, and the NC Plant Protection
Program to determine what avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation
measures might be appropriate.
/sph
P-0- BOX 27087, 1gAURIGH fNG 2701 1-7687 PHONIC 919.733-4181 FAX [phone]
AN CAUAti pPPONTUN ITY/ APPI,{ M ATI VL ACTI G N EMPLOYER -SO% RECYCL[D/10% POSY-cpNSU McR PAPER
'a:f1's
FAX TRANSMISSION
N.C. STATE MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCES
) 02 N. SwusbuR7 3T.
RALriam, NC 27903
[phone]
r'Ax: [phone]
To- Cyndi Bell, Division of Water Date: January 23, 1999
Quality .
Fax [phone] Pages: 1, including this cover sheet.
From: Dennis W. Herman _
Subject: U.S. 421 Project near Laxon, Watauga CO.
COMMENTS:
I was recently infonned about the N.C. Department of Transportation's plan to build a new U.S.
421 extension through the community of Laxon, Watauga County. This extension would be built
between the existing U.S. 421 and Old N.C. 60. There is a wetland located in the direct path of
this new extension that has great potential for bog turtles and possibly other rare elements.
Allen Boynton and i briefly investigated this wetland in 1992 and, although we did not find any
bog turtles, we thought the wetland to be very suitable for them. At least 50% of the wetland is
an open sedge meadow with saturated soils and wet pockets on the surface. The remainder is
more typical mountain bog seepage originating from the hillside and consists of mature white
pines, rhododendrons (and other shrubs), and some sphagnum moss. This habitat looks ideal for
robin- run-away (Dalibarda repenv), a rare state listed species, which Is known in adjacent Ashe
County. There are many old ditches that drain a former, much larger, wetland on the north side
of Old N.C. 60 that contains sweet flag and rushes. This area has potential for bog turtles, and in
many cases they will use old ditches that are mucky and grassy.
Bog turtles are currently found in many wetlands along tributaries of the South Fork New River.
As a matter of fact, the entire New River basin harbors most of the known bo& turtle occurrences
in the state (34 records, 28%). Any wetland found in this drainage should be searched for bog
turtles, as well as other rare species. Mountain wetlands, especially high quality natural
cOn=uaites, are being eliminated all too often in the name of progress.
INW0 ,. 04 0 er options be purst?d in bu ldi ft this roadway. MUno option that should
satisfy most people is: t ? e existing U.S. 421 as _one dimet>.orial road and Old N .C. 60 as
the other one directional rood" , aving the wetland between them intact. The other wetlands that
were Formerly ditched could be retored as mitigation.
Cyndi_B
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 5:40 AM
To: [e-mail]; n1ew331 @wsro.ehnr.state.nc.us;
MICKEYJH @ MAIL.WILDLIFE.STATE.NC.US
Subject: Re: 421 Project
Howdy!
i e. d to,Fecommend denial, of the permit for that section of $@! that we looked at as well. I
believe that NCDOT has not followed the proper sequencing of wetland impacts, as indicated
by the extent of the application. I also beleive that the measures necessary to avoid or
minimize impacts to wetlands are far outside the scope of my normal level of
recommendations - I can't design it for them. There permit branch needs to spend some
additional time with the roadway design branch minimizing impacts.
My suggestion is that DOT further investigate an alternative that follows closely along the
existing corridor, utilizing the existing stream and wetland crossings on the existing roadway
to the maximum extent practicable.
Also, ftmxibt convinced that the permit application accurately depicts the extent of the
impacts proposed. We noted several instances of streams or wetlands not on the permit
drawings. Have these instances been rectified with the permit application?
Thanks,
Mark
COPY
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission'
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM JAN 2
TO: John Parker ENVWox,w?M
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, iilanager?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 21, 1998
SUBJECT: COE Action ID: 199820228. Review of an application by NCDOT for the
Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of SR 2309; TIP No. R-
22' )9B; State Project No. 6.769001T, Wilkes County.
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. The NCWRC has reviewed information
provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff conducted a site visits on July 15,
1992 and December 19, 1997. 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).
The NCDOT is proposing to extend US 421 5.1 miles from east of SR 2433 to east of SR
2309, with new interchanges. The highway will follow the existing US 421 for approximately
3,000 feet, then it will begin on a new,, location, north of and paralleling existing US 421. Plans
show the placement of fill in a total of 5.58 acres of waters of the United States, including
wetlands, in tributaries of the upper Yadkin River basin. The project will impact 3.60 acres of
stream channels (8,301 linear feet) at 18 locations throughout the project. At stream crossings,
culverts or pipes will be used, with the exception of one location (Site G) where 764 feet of
stream channel will be relocated. A total of 1.98 acres of wetlands will be impacted. No known
species designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
will be impacted.
A site visit was conducted on December 19. 1997 with personnel from NCDOT, US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and COE. The
Action ID # 199820228 2 1/23/98
TIP # R-2239B
purpose of the site visit was to field inspect road alignment impacts to streams and wetlands. As
a result of the site visit, the following concerns were expressed by the resource agencies.
1. The entire project should follow existing US 421, eliminating construction on a new
alignment. We are concerned about additional wildlife fragmentation, especially of
contiguous forested habitat, that the new alignment will cause. Environmental impacts
can be reduced by following the existing alignment, which was initially expressed in our
memo to NCDOT dated 7/28/92.
2. The intersection at Wetland Station 1, L - Sta. 107+00 @ ramp BC that will impact 1.04
acres of wetlands should be redesigned to reduce impacts.
3. Stream impacts at L- - Sta. 107+00 @ ramp BC seem to have been omitted from project
plans. These impacts need to be added to the environmental impact totals.
4. Wetland (Site 2) and stream channel (Site B) impacts at L - Sta. 110+00 @ - Y - (SR
2324) and 111+10 should be reduced by redesigning the intersection.
5. The road alignment at L - Sta. 159+00 @ SR 2316 should be shifted west to avoid all
impacts to the 0.35-acre wetland (Site 3). This area should be used once construction is
completed as a highway run-off filtration site.
6. Stream channel impacts associated with Wetland Site 3, L - Sta. 159+00 are not show on
project plans. These impacts need to be added to the environmental impact totals.
7. Plans for the 764 feet of stream channel relocation (Site G) are not provided. These
should have been submitted with final documents to allow for review by resource
agencies.
8. Culvert designs need to be included with plans. Culverts should be designed so that
natural materials (sand, gravel, cobble, etc.) are allowed be present along the culvert
bottom. Such materials create small pools and eddies to provide resting areas for fish and
to facilitate fish movements through long culverts. This substrate would also provide
areas for aquatic insects and other organisms and would help off-set the loss of stream-
bottom habitats eliminated by culverts.
9. While NCDOT is considering a mitigation site in lower Iredell County for this project, a
detailed mitigation plan was not submitted to off-set project impacts. A mitigation plan
was requested by this agency in correspondence to NCDOT (2/17/95). Members of the
private sector submit mitigation plans for review with the permit application. If NCDOT
would do likewise, it would facilitate the review process.
Based on the above considerations, with special emphasis on following the existing
alignment and submittal of a comprehensive mitigation plan for review before issuance of a
permit, it is our recommendation that the permit be denied as submitted.
Action ID # 199820228
TIP # R-223 9B
1/21/98
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Joe Mickey at [phone].
Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
Cindi Bell, DWQ
Mark-Cantrell, USFWS
Ron Linville, DWQ
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker, DENR, Division of Coastal Management
Inland "404" Coordinator
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 27, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT for the proposed widening/relocation of 8.8
miles of US Highway 421 from the South Fork New River on the west to the Blue
Ridge Parkway on the east in Watauga County (T.I.P. No. R-529BA/BB);
USACOE Public Notice Action ID No. 199707161.
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. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided
by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff have conducted several site visits
(8/12&19/1997) to the project to assess impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. 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).
The NCDOT is proposing to widen/relocate lVin ies`of US Highwa 21 from the South
Fork New River to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The proposed work will result in the filling,
excavation or clearing of a total of 1.2 acres of wetlands at 9 separate locations. These wetlands
range in size from .02 to .75 acres. A total of 1.97 acres of surface waters would also be filled. A
66-foot long, 92-foot wide temporary rock causeway would be placed in the South Fork New
River to facilitate construction of a new bridge. .total of approximately 11,750 linear feet of
&&ing stream channel would be impactedat: l8 separate crossings. Of this total, approximately
6100 feet of stream would be relocated into newly constructed channels. Major channel
relocations are proposed at Rocky Branch (1337 ft.), Thaxon Creek (726 ft.) Laxon Creek (1287
ft.), and an unnamed tributary to Gap Creek (1551 ft.). Approximately 5650 feet of stream
421 Proj. 2 10/27/97
channel would be permanently placed in pipe or box culvert. Substantial lengths of double box
culvert are proposed at the crossings of Pine Run Creek (445 ft.) and Thaxon Creek (775 ft.).
The flow of Laxon Creek would be carried through a 214-foot long double box culvert. The
triple box culvert at Gap Creek would be extended 264 feet to the north to accommodate the new
roadway fill. The remaining channels would be placed in reinforced concrete pipe ranging in size
from 18 to 60 inches in diameter.
. Streams in the project corridor have been surveyed by the applicant. Sampling has
indicated a good to excellent bioclassification for all named streams and unnamed streams except
for Laxon Creek, which rated as fair. Brown trout were found in Rocky Branch, Thaxon Creek
and Gap Creek. Gap Creek also contained brook trout. Other species found in the project -
corridor were blacknose dace, longnose dace, rosyside dace, creek chub, central stoneroller,
mottled sculpin, and fantail darter.
We are concerned about the impacts this project will have on wetlands and aquatic
resources. Also, the project will result in the fragmentation and loss of a large amount of upland
wildlife habitat. Future secondary development along the project corridor once the road is
completed will further degrade wildlife and fisheries habitats..
One major concern is the placement of a 66 foot long x 92 foot wide temporary rock
causeway in the South Fork New River at the US 421 bridge site. We hope that the 92 foot wide
causeway is a typographical error, since the South Fork New River is not 92 feet wide at this
location. If this is not the case, then we would be opposed to the causeway as currently planned.
At the scoping meeting held on August 19, 1997, resource agencies suggested realignment
of the roadway at old US 60 to avoid impacts to 0.69 acres of a 0.99 acre wetland. The NCDOT
has completed this survey (10/3/97) and after examining several alternatives, proposes to keep the
design at this location as is. The NCDOT will mitigate for the entire 0.99 acres of wetland, as
opposed to 0.69 acres impacted by the project.
Mitigation for this project will be required for both stream and wetland impacts. The
NCDOT is considering purchasing the Sparta Bog in Alleghany County as a mitigation site. This
324 acre tract of land contains a bog, wetlands, an unnamed tributary to the Little River that
supports brook trout, pastures, cropland, and wooded mountain slopes. This area is within the
same drainage (New River) as the wetlands and streams to be impacted by the US 421 project.
The NCDOT has identified the site for potential wetland restoration, enhancement and
preservation.
The NCWRC does support the development of a mitigation plan involving the Sparta
Bog. This bog is a unique and valuable wetland. The NC Natural Heritage Program and Nature
Conservancy consider it to be of national significance due to the presence of a number of rare
plant species and the bog turtle. It has a significant population of Gray's My (Lilium grays), a
species of Federal Concern, and a reproducing population of the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergia), a Federal Threatened Species due to Similarity of Appearance to northern
421 Proj. 3 10/27/97
populations. At least ten state-listed species, including cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon), and
four state watch list species occur at the site.
Based on review of the plans and site visits to the project, we have the following
recommendations:
1. Stream channel loss should be mitigated at not less than 2:1 (23,500 ft.). We also
recommend that stream mitigation/restoration activities be concentrated on Gap Creek in
the project vicinity This stream supports both brook and brown trout. Typical needs
for this stream and others in the region include livestock exclusions, stream bank
stabilization, channel reconstruction, and riparian zone protection/enhancement. Gap
Creek would be preferred because of its potential for recovery.
2. Wetland mitigation should be considered through the purchase of the Sparta Bog.
Mitigation banking for stream channel impacts could also be used at this site. However,
to what extent NCDOT will be credited for purchase of this site will need to be
coordinated with the review agencies. A mitigation plan for this site will need to be
developed, and if it is purchased, who will retain title will need to be worked out. Will
NCDOT keep the property, or will it be transferred to the NCWRC, Nature Conservancy,
Natural Heritage Program, or some other appropriate agency?
3. Box culvert construction of multiple cells should have one cell a minimum of 1 foot
below the normal stream bottom to allow for fish passage. The second and/or third cells
should be placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). Because many of the culverts are long, baffle systems are required to trap
gravels and provide resting area for fish and other aquatic organisms.
4. Stream relocations should not be ripraped channels, but must mirror normal stream
characteristics, including pool/riffle ratios, slope, point bars, substrate, etc. Relocations
should use methods developed by Mr. Dave Rosgen that incorporate both hard (root
wads, low riprap walls, long spurs, "W" rock weirs, and vortex rock weirs) and soft
bioengineering techniques (point bar construction, bank sloping, herbaceous and woody
vegetation). A good demonstration project to view for this type of relocation is the
Meadow Fork Relocation Project along SR 1193, Alleghany County. This was a joint
project between the NCDOT (Elkin Office and NCWRC completed in July 1994.
5. Because of the amount of stream work on this project that will need stream bank
revegetation, NCDOT should start a plant nursery on or near the site that includes
growing the following species for a future source of cuttings and rooted plantings. Native
plant species to be grown are as follows:
Silky Willow Salix sericea
Silky Dogwood Cornus amonum
Hazel (Tag) Alder Alnus serrulata
Ninebark Physocarpus opulifodius
. 421 Proj. 4 10/27/97
Plantings/cuttings should be spaced on 1 meter centers from bankful stage to the top of
the bank.
6. Box culverts should be designed to allow for wildlife passage.
7. A canoe ramp and parking should be provided at the US 421 bridge site over the
South Fork New River. This could easily be accomplished during the removal of the
temporary rock causeway necessary for the bridge construction.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 910/366-2982.
cc: Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Highway Projects Coordinator
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Chris McGrath, NCWRC Nongame & Endangered Wildlife and Permits
JAN-28-1y5U 11:54 t-KUM VEHNK w1nston-aalem iu o;1 l?r,.ia»aW r.WX
PW-it• Fax Note 7671 Date #O'
T° From
To: John Dorney coar>Pv1. Z' 'J
Cyndi Bell
-I'M s
Through: Steve Mauney Fax Fax`
From: Ron Linville
Subject: Franklin Vick DOT 421
Jan 2, 1998 Letter Response
Date: 980121
In response to the above document, the following comments and
queries may assist DOT and DWQ in understanding concerns previously
raised by the Regional Office. For simplicity, each comment will
follow DOT's letter full paragraph by full paragraph.
Paragraph Number:
I. The recommendation for denial is based on potential
;Further minimization of impacts related to this project, the
quality of .the existing wetland and its contribution to water
quality in this drainage area plus the fact that this wetland
appears to be the last remaining wetland along this portion of the
creek (restorable/mitigatable prior converted farmlands appear to
be associated with this trout classified stream segment).
II. The four roadways (actually 5 roads) referred to are the
Blue Ridge parkway, the existing 421, old Hwy 60/Yzardin Road
(Laurel Springs?) and the proposed additional double highway (not
a road widening). As for the final paragraph seeming to be out of
place, the DOT has been under intense scrutiny lately so it would
seem that they would welcome ideab which might assist them in
dealing with long-term impacts with which the general public seems
to be at odds. These items would include loss of environmental
quality, including mountain valley vistas, water quality and the
protection of specific basin trout populations. These are
significant to the mountains as environmental quality encourages
tourist: and a healthy•local economy. SaL-e roads are important.
Being able to maintain roadways is also important and it would 5eem
economical to minimize instead of increasing miles of pavement that
must be kept up to standard.
IIr. A study completed in 1,975 would seem to be very
outdated..
V1. Concerning minimization, the Region continues to
question whether or not utilizing the existing 2 lane roadway for
one way traffic was ever considered as an option. Are the existing
environmental reviews flawed?. Could minor improvements to this
roadway provide for traffic flow to or. from the Boone area if only
a 2 lane roadway is built where the new 4 lane is now proposed?
Could this not reduce impacts further?
?? dpi
'JAN-28-1998 1155 FROM DEHNR Winston-Salem TO 89197339959 P.02
VI 1. From the information gathered by the WSRO, the DOT
appears to show that they eliminated the "Improve Existing
Corridor" alternative due to• several reasons; however, this
alternative seems to indicate building a 4 lane on the existing 421
Corridor. Again, could not this existing roadway comprise half
instead of a third or less of the cumulative road area through this
area? Would this not reduce down the road maintenance cost as well
as minimize environmental concerns?
VIII. should water quality impacts not be minimized further
through other alternatives and since this wetland appears to be
very functional, in. Providing for downstream uses/classifications,
the Region would recommerd that some measures be provided adjacent
to the new roadway and impacted stream which would provide some
assurances that downstream functions would continue at or above
current levels. These measures might be'constructzon of wetland
vegetated marshes or•stormwater retention.'. facilities. Similar
practices may be utilized in other states or jurisdictions.' Also,
what hydrologic conditions will exist in the remaining-wetlands?
IX. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
X. Again, has minimization occurred if utilizing the
existing 421 roadway for one way traffic has not been considered?
Can proposed impacts be further reduced by utilizing the existirc
roadways and building less new road?.
XI. See VIII above for on site considerations. After road
construction, will the remnant wetlands be dryer or wetter?
XII. Reduction from 2.4 acres to 1.16 acres by DOT is
commendable; however, further avoidance/minimization and on site
considerations should still benefit long-term water quality and
habitat- concerns.
XV. Turn 'lanes if one way roads are utilized should be able
to provide safe access to the school.
XvI. As of January 1998, the bog turtle's status may have
changed somewhat. -Until the road project begins, continued
vigilance should be exercised in order that we act appropriately.
XX. Without comprehensive minimization and protection of
downstream water quality concerns (whether by avoidance or by on
site measures), the Region continues to be concerned that existing
uses will he degraded both at the construction site and downstream.
The mention of the Miller bog was intended to show that potential
mitigation sites are available in the Regions (wSRO) area. The
Miller bog would be considered a prime candidate for possible
restoration mitigation within this Region.
6JAN-28-1998 1155 FROM DEHNR Winston-Salem TO 89197339959 P.03

XXI. The NCDOT should be commended for their efforts with the
Sparta bcg. Sadly, this area will do nothing for. the impacts
caused by the 421 "road widening".
XXIV. The WSRO does not concur that no practical alternatives
exist in the same physi.ographic province (see VIII above). A
combination of measures may be more palatable.
XXV. The Region continues to be concerned that the
environmental documents produced may by outdated or flawed.
Utility independency should not be utilized for multiple sections
of the same new roadway.
XXVII. The region considers a public hearing as a possible
method for public review of a new major roadway if the previous
environmental studies or alternative studies were flawed. Was
utilizing existing 421 and 60 ever considered for minor
improvements and unidirectional traffic? If they were, the WSRO is
not informed. A public hearing should provide an opportunity to
get things cleared up once and for all on this section of 421. it
could also include and consider the entire 421 project from Yadkin
County to Watauga County. Several comments. have been made. by
persons along the 421 corridor in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties that
DOT already has enough roadway purchased along the existing 421 for
four lanes. They question the destruction and division of existing
farms and environments. The Watauga section should receive public
comments due to water quality issues and trout water concerns.
XXV111. The purchase of property or the progression of an
EA/EIS does not assure issuance of a permit or certification.
This office would consider a field investigation with Mr.
Gordon Cashion as an excellent opportunity to discuss issues
relative to this specific wetland impact in Watauga County.
However, due to public comments and concerns over the entire 421
project, it may be in the best interest of the people to make this
entire 421 project available for public scrutiny.
cc: Central files
WSRO
USACOE-Asheville Office
USFWS
NCWRC
a:\421.rsp
TOTRL P.03

D M $LAT(o?
Jy
JAN' 71998
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'.".- ,TER QUALITY
T,1 -3c?
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 2, 1998
Steve Tedder
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources `?? = rya
512 North Salisbury Streets"Mr-?
Raleigh. North Carolina 27604-1148
.. r.. 'moo ^?f
Dear Mr. Tedder:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (N CDOT) '1i'dd foT a Section 401
Water Quality Certification' on July 8, 1997 for improvements to the US 421 corridor
from South Fork New River in Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Watauga County.
Considerable coordination between the DOT and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has
occurred since that time, including field reviews and additional correspondence. Most
recently, the NCDOT has been informed that the DWQ Winston Salem Regional Office
(WSRO) has recommended denial of the certification for this project. On December 3,
1997, the NCDOT received a facsimile of a memorandum dated July 28, 1997 from the
ton Salem Regional Office which outlines the basis for their recommendation. This
situation was also briefly discussed in a meeting following the December 11, 1997 permit
review meetinia. Informal comments were also received via electronic mail from your
office on December 15, 1997. This letter is provided to address the objections which
have been expressed to this project.
The July 28 memorandum contains two items which bear on the NEPA process and
alternative selection for the project. The second paragraph implies that there would be
four roadways parallel to each other upon completion of the project and that utilizing an
existing road would be preferable. It is unclear to the NCDOT which four roadways this
memorandum refers to. In any case, the EIS studied many alternatives for the project
including the option of widening along the existing roadway. The final paragraph of this
memorandum questions the incorporation of this project into long term planning for the
area. This comment seems out of place, as the planning of this project has gone on for
years. The purpose and need for the project, the preferred alternative and the alternative
selection process are well documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for this project.

2
In October, 1974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) began
preliminary investigations for the development of a principal arterial connector between
Boone and Interstate 77. The study was completed in December, 1975, and included a
recommendation for the improvement of US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near
Deep Gap. In January, 1978, the proposed improvement was included in the 1978-1984
Highway Improvement Program and was designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the
NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated
planning and environmental studies with the publication of a notice of intent in the
Federal Register. However, due to budgetary considerations, the planning process was
suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga County and the NCDOT adopted a major
thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project was included as a part of the county's
thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the Department resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent was
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was distributed
on November 21, 1988, with a copy to the DEHNR. As the study progressed, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven interagency
meetings were held throughout the study.
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors were
developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large areas, or
"windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway corridor. Using
this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and linked to form
preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the public at a citizens
informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the workshop, an
additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain limits,
soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering limitations,
community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments were
eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments eliminated and
the reasons for their elimination.
SEGMENT REASONS FOR ELIMINATION
I Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.
S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was thearation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS)T which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992: The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor. Chapter II.A.1. of the DEIS summarizes the factors behind the
elimination of the "Improve Existing Corridor" alternative. To facilitate your review, that
section is quoted below:
The existing conditions along US 421 from just west of the South Fork New River
bridge to SR 1361 exhibit the compromises usually made when a roadway is built
in mountainous terrain. Straight portions are very short, curved portions are very
sharp, and steep vertical grades are the rule, not the exception. Because of the
steep terrain and narrow right-of-way, residents have built their homes and
businesses in close proximity to the road. When these conditions are combined
with steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a
roadway having areas with inadequate sight distance, blind spots, and dangerous
intersections.
For this alternative to meet the proposed design criteria established for this
project, major reconstruction of the existing two-lane facility would be required as
well as construction of the two additional lanes. Existing horizontal curves would
need to be more gradual. -lrrt?proe Existing Corridor Altemative would have
Aw* advantages over the Build Alternative, including lower construction cost _
i44, ewer impacts to the natural environment However, the disadvantages would
great:
A large number of relocations. It is estimated that 142 families, 40 businesses,
and 7 non-profit organizations would require relocation. The total number of
displacees for this alternative is approximately three times that of any other
alternative.
• Encroachment by the roadway onto several properties considered eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Continued high accident hazard caused by dense fog near Laxon.
• Encroachment into the school ground of Parkway Elementary School and the
adjacent public park and rest area.
• Visual impact to the section of the Blue Ridge Parkway paralleling US 421 near
Grandview Overlook.
• Increased noise and air pollution to existing residences and businesses.
• Difficulties in maintaining traffic on existing US 421 during construction of the
expanded facility.
• Difficulties in control of access limitation because of the large number of existing
driveways along the project.
Because of the overwhelming negative impacts of this alternative, the Improve
Existing Corridor Alternative is not considered a viable alternate. However, two
segments of the existing US 421 corridor are part of the Build Alternative. These
sez ments are the western terminus of the study area and the section from
approximately 0.5 mile west of the US 421 /US 221 intersection in Deep Gap to
near SR 1361 where the existing four-lane section of US 421 begins.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the FEIS, which was
approved June 10, 1992. This document was also coordinated with the DENS, . `_` o
letters from the DW Q are included in this document. This document finalizes the
discussion of alternatives for the project, and describes the Preferred Alternative. The
advantages of the Preferred Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the FEIS, and are
quoted below:
• Fewer residential relocatees -- 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lower cost -- approximately 59.2 million less than Build Alternative B and S9.8
million less than Build Alternative C;
• Fewer noise impacts --
Build Alternative C);
14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
• Lesser wetland impacts - (0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55
acres less than Build Alternative C (Emphasis added);
• Lesser impacts to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
• No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
• Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
• Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
• Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
• BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior - National
Park Service.

The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services.' The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area...".
The DWQ also commented on the FEIS to the State Clearinghouse by memorandum
dated February 24, 1995 (Copy attached). These comments are brief, but provide
guidance for compliance with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (f) defines how the
lack of a practical alternative may be demonstrated for the purpose of 401 Water Quality
Certification review. Essentially, an applicant must demonstrate that the basic project
purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in
less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands. This analysis must consider the
potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all
alternative design. The NCDOT believes that the best way to avoid impacts to waters of
the United States, including wetlands, is by the judicious selection of the preferred
alternative. The NCDOT believes that it has completed an exhaustive analysis of
potential alternatives to satisfy the project purpose and need. The NCDOT has eliminated
alternatives due to excessive impacts to streams, has selected the alternative with the least
wetland impacts and potential impacts to surface waters have also been considered.
The NCDOT also bel"eves that is has diligently attempted to minimize impacts to
wetlands and surface waters. The DEIS, Section IV.K.2, discusses impacts to water
resources. This section includes a discussion of best management practices to be
implemented to minimize impacts to surface waters. The FEIS followed up on this
discussion, and included eight Environmental Commitments which relate to minimization
of impacts to wetlands and surface waters:
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters as
practicable.
• NCDOT will minimize wetlands impacts through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on the relocation of a
tributary to Gap Creek.
• NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NCDOT
Division ofHighitays Sediment and Erosion Control Policy to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction.
• The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will be
evaluated during design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE, NPS, USFWS, and NCWRC).
• A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed by
the National Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement to
perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD). The
research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the bog located on BRP
property prior to construction and continue through and following construction for a
minimum of five years.
• Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design phase
with alignment shifts. Seep areas that cannot be avoided will be incorporated into
runoff ditches.
• The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior to
construction. Should acid-bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
runoff from uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.
Additional comments can be made on the NCDOT's minimization efforts. The FEIS
states that 2.4 acres of wetlands would be impacted. The NCDOT has been able to
further minimize this impact during project design. The project will impact a total of
1.16 acres of wetlands as indicated in our application of July 8, 1997, less than half of the
total projected in the FEIS. The NCDOT has also diligently avoided any direct
construction impacts to the Deep Gap Bog mentioned in the environmental commitments.
The specified research study of this site is also underway to document any indirect
impacts of the project on this site during construction.
During coordination of the project, several agencies expressed concern over wetland
Site I, Section BB referred to in the DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum. The majority of
the project's wetland impacts occur at this site (0.7 of 1.16 acres). The presence of this
site was included in the DEIS (Site 6A, Exhibit III-3, Table IV-16). Consequently,
impacts to this site were considered in the alternative selection process. At a field review
of the project, the resource agencies made several suggestions that may have potentially
reduced impacts at this site. These suggestions were examined for feasibility and the
results «ere included in a memorandum which was sent to the DWQ on October- 3, 1997.
This site occurs at the intersection of the proposed project, Old US 60, and Hardin Road
(SR 1353). The first agency suggestion was to not tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-
REV) into the proposed US 421, creating a dead end on this road. Suggestion two would
tie Hardin Rd/SR 1353 (-Y9-REV) to existing US 421 directly south of the intersection of
proposed US 421 (-L-), SR 1353, and Old US 60. The evaluation of these alternatives
was presented at the September 18, 1997 permit review meeting.
7
The Watauga County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. Closing
Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old US 60
to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421.
The DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum also refers to the possibility that bog turtles may
be present at this site, and that a "review" should occur. Currently, field surveys for the
bog turtle are not required under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not requested a survey for the
species at this site. An Environmental Consultation was completed in April 1997 which
included a review of the project for compliance under the Endangered Species Act. This
review found that the project is expected to have no effect on species protected by the
Act.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(g) specifies that
minimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the impacts to surface
waters or wetlands are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the
placement or configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration
or density.
These three factors have all played a part in the development of this project, from
alternative selection to final design. The NCDOT believes that it has done everything
possible to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands in accordance with this rule.
The NTCDOT does not dispute the ecological value of some of the impacted wetlands and
surface water resources. Consequently, considerable discussion has taken place regarding
suitable mitigation for these impacts as required'by both the Corps of Engineers and the
DWQ.
Recently, the NCDOT has been under considerable pressure to provide "up-front"
mitigation for impacts, and has been struggling to catch up to this new demand. The
NCDOT's first proposal for wetland mitigation for the project was in compliance with
this concept. The NCDOT proposed in the July 8, 1997 application to mitigate project
wetland impacts at a site already being implemented in Henderson County. However,
discussion with both the Corps of Engineers and N.C. Division of Water Quality revealed
that both agencies preferred that the NCDOT locate a new site in the same river basin as
8
the project rather than an "up-front" site in another basin. Consequently, the NCDOT
withdrew the proposal to use the Henderson County site. The July 28, 1997 memo from
the DWQ refers to this Henderson County site which is no longer proposed.
The July 28 memorandum has more to say on mitigation, particularly suggesting that
mitigation should occur in Watauga County or "this Region". The same paragraph also
includes an erroneous statement which requires clarification. The memorandum states
that a "bog in Ashe County has already been impacted due to Highway 16 as a farmer has
drained this area." The impact referred to was initiated by a private property owner, not
the NCDOT, which explains why the COE Cease and Desist letter was not directed to the
NCDOT.
Based on agency comments, the NCDOT turned its attention to the New River Basin.
The NCDOT has purchased a property in Alleghany County within the New River Basin.
This property contains a site known as Sparta Bog. This mountain bog complex is
considered of national significance by the Nature Conservancy and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program. The NCDOT completed an initial site analysis which identified
restoration potential for both wetland areas and degraded stream sections on-site. A
consultant has been retained to develop the mitigation plan for the property. A meeting
was held at the site on December 17, 1997 to discuss critical elements to be included in
the mitigation plan. This meeting was attended by the DWQ, COE, Wildlife Resources
Commission, the NCDOT, and the consultant.
This site will provide a significant amount of stream mitigation. However, the NCDOT
recognizes the agencies' desire for stream mitigation in the project area. The NCDOT
completed an extensive assessment of stream segments to be impacted by the project.
This assessment identified important impacted features, and will assist the NCDOT in
targeting important stream restoration goals.
The NCDOT retained a consultant to study the project area for restorable stream
segments. This study will serve as a starting point for developing stream mitigation plans
in the project area. It is expected that this stream mitigation effort will be extensively
coordinated with the COE, WRC, USFWS and the DWQ in a fashion similar to the A-10
project in Madison County.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) specifies guidelines
for mitigation of unavoidable losses of existing uses. Subparagraph (8) of this rule
specifies that mitigation for wetland impacts should occur within "the same river basin
and physiographic province when practical." Both the proposed mitigation site in
Alleghany County and the project are located in the New River Basin, so the NCDOT
considers this condition to be satisfied. Subparagraph (6) of this rule requires that all
mitigation proposals provide for replacement of wetland acres at a 1:1 ratio through
restoration or creation. The NCDOT is committed to providing at least 1:1 replacement
through restoration or creation for 1.16 acres of wetlands impacted by this project, in
accordance with Subparagraph (6).
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(1) indicates that
"mitigation required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to
constitute the mitigation required by the certification" provided that the criteria of
Subparagraph (6) are met. Although 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) does not specifically define
rules for stream mitigation, it does provide for "mitigation of unavoidable losses of
existing uses" in accordance with six specified guidelines. Five of these guidelines refer
explicitly to wetlands including Subparagraphs (6) and (8) already referred to. Since it
appears that the only guideline pertaining to stream mitigation is Subparagraph(1), the
NCDOT assumes that the stream mitigation required by the Corps of Engineers will also
qualify under this rule. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has indicated
that they are satisfied with the efforts made by the NCDOT to develop suitable mitigation
for both wetland and stream impacts and have stated that they are prepared to issue a
conditioned Section 404 Individual Permit based on the current proposals. Consequently,
the NCDOT believes that it can demonstrate compliance with DWQ's rules regarding
mitigation.
The DWQ, especially the WSRO, has also requested a summary of information on all
improvement projects along US Highway 421 throughout the state. The NCDOT is
always willing to provide information on its proposed projects, and answer specific
questions upon request. However the NCDOT is dismayed by your regional office's lack
of awareness of these projects, as they have been under serious review for years. The
regional office seems particularly uninformed of the extensive planning process
undertaken by the project that is the subject of this letter and permit application.
This project has utility independent of any other proposed improvement along US 421.
The project consists of constructing a multi-lane segment between two existing mul':i-lane
segments and will solve serious traffic problems within the local area. This project was
also subject to a review of environmental impacts independent of the other improvement
projects in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act guidelines.
Consequently, information on other segments of US 421 is not relevant to this 401
Certification review. The NCDOT believes it has provided the DWQ with sufficient
information on this project either previously or in this letter to allow review of this
project to proceed.
The NCDOT understands that the DWQ has been asked to hold a public hearing on this
certification request. The NCDOT further understands that this is at the discretion of the
Director of the DWQ, and is pursuant to your regulations. However, it is the NCDOT's
opinion that this project is the product of extensive public review through workshops,
hearings, NEPA document development, alternative selection, and development of
environmental commitments for the project. This project has received considerable
support by local governments and residents. It appears to the NCDOT that the public
interest would best be served by permitting this essential transportation improvement
project to proceed.

10
In closing, I would like to point out that very little of the information provided in this
letter should be new to your agency. Planning for this project has gone on for years, and
your agency has been involved at every critical stage, especially as they relate to impact
avoidance and minimization. Your agency has also been kept abreast during development
of mitigation proposals for the project. The "short memory" of your agency regarding
this process is of great concern to the NCDOT. Please continue to review this project for
certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions
regarding this project, please contact me or Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely, a4
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV,'Qc
cc: Mr. John Domey, DWQ
Mr. Bob Johnson. COE, Asheville
- J

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuNT JR.
GOYERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
January 7, 1998
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
United States Environmental Protection Agencv, Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ATTN: Ms. Kathy Matthews
Dear Mr. Cox:
Subject: Watauga County, US 421 new location from South Fork New River in
Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Deep Gap. Federal Aid Project No.
FR-86-1(6), State Project No. 8.1750601, TIP No. R-529BA, BB & BD.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recently received a letter
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regarding a recommendation
from the EPA that the COE deny the permit application based on a lack of consideration
of less environmentally damaging alternatives and a lack of a compensatory mitigation
plan. The NCDOT appreciates your concerns. However, we feel that we have diligently
attempted to-avoid and minimize impacts to the largest extent practicable.. The following
is a summary of efforts undertaken to avoid and minimize impacts during the project
planning process.
In October, 1974, the NCDOT began preliminary investigations for the development of a
principal arterial connector between Boone and Interstate 77. The study was completed
in December, 1975, and included a recommendation for the improvement of US 421 from
NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near Deep Gap. In January, 1978, the proposed
improvement was included in the 1978-1984 Highway Improvement Program and was
designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated planning and environmental studies with the
publication of a notice of intent in the Federal Register. However, due to budgetary
GARLAND B. GARRm JR.
SECRETARY

considerations, the planning process was suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga
County and the NCDOT adopted a major thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project
was included as a part of the county's thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the NCDOT resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent was
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was distributed
on November 21, 1988. As the study progressed, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven interagency meetings were held
throughout the study.
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors were
developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large areas, or
"windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway corridor. Using
this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and linked to form
preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the public at a citizens
informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the workshop, an
additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain limits,
soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering limitations,
community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments were
eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments eliminated and
the reasons for their elimination.
SEGMENT REASONS FOR ELIMINATION
Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and-community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.
S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992. The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor. Chapter II.A.1. of the DEIS summarizes the factors behind the
elimination of the "Improve Existing Corridor" alternative. To facilitate your review, that
section is quoted below:
The existing conditions along US 421 from just west of the South Fork New River
bridge to SR 1361 exhibit the compromises usually made when a roadway is built
in mountainous terrain. Straight portions are very short, curved portions are very
sharp, and steep vertical grades are the rule, not the exception. Because of the
steep terrain and narrow right-of-way, residents have built their homes and
businesses in close proximity to the road. When these conditions are combined
with steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a
roadway having areas with inadequate sight distance, blind spots, and dangerous
intersections.
For this alternative to meet the proposed design criteria established for this
project, major reconstruction of the existing two-lane facility would be required as
well as construction of the two additional lanes. Existing horizontal curves would
need to be more gradual. The Improve Existing Corridor Alternative would have
a few advantages over the Build Alternative, including lower construction cost
and fewer impacts to the natural environment. However, the disadvantages would
be Feat:
• A large number of relocations. It is estimated that 142 families, 40 businesses,
and 7 non-profit organizations would require relocation. The total number of
displacees for this alternative is approximately three times that of any other
alternative.
• Encroachment by the roadway onto several properties considered eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Continued high accident hazard caused by dense fog near Laxon.
• Encroachment into the school ground of Parkway Elementary School and the
adjacent public park and rest area.
Visual impact to the section of the Blue Ridge Parkway paralleling US 421 near
Grandview Overlook.
• Increased noise and air pollution to existing residences and businesses.
• Difficulties in maintaining traffic on existing US 421 during construction of the
expanded facility.
4
• Difficulties in control of access limitation because of the large number of existing
driveways along the project.
Because of the overwhelming negative impacts of this alternative, the Improve
Existing Corridor Alternative is not considered a viable alternate. However, two
segments of the existing US 421 corridor are part of the Build Alternative. These
segments are the western terminus of the study area and the section from
approximately 0.5 mile west of the US 421 [US 221 intersection in Deep Gap to
near SR 1361 where the existing four-lane section of US 421 begins.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the FEIS, which was
approved June 10, 1992. This document finalizes the discussion of alternatives for the
project, and describes the Preferred Alternative. The advantages of the Preferred
Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the FEIS, and are quoted below:
• Fewer residential relocatees -- 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lower cost -- approximately 59.2 million less than Build Alternative B and 59.8
million less than Build Alternative C;
• Fewer noise impacts -- 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lesser wetland impacts - (0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55
acres less than Build Alternative C (Emphasis added);
• Lesser impacts to the W.S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
• No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
• Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
• Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
• Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
• BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior - National
Park Service.
The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area .:'.
The NCDOT believes that is has diligently attempted to minimize impacts to wetlands
and surface waters. The DEIS, Section IV.K.2, discusses impacts to water resources.
This section includes a discussion of best management practices to be implemented to
minimize impacts to surface waters. The FEIS followed up on this discussion, and
included eight Environmental Commitments which relate to minimization of impacts to
wetlands and surface waters:
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters as
practicable.
• NCDOT will minimize wetlands impacts through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on the relocation of a
tributary to Gap Creek.
• NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NCDOT
Division of Highways Sediment and Erosion Control Policy to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction.
• The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will be
evaluated during design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE, NPS, USFWS, and NCWRC).
• A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed by
the National Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement to
perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD). The
research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the bog located on BRP
property prior to construction and continue through and following construction for a
minimum of five years.
• Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design phase
with alignment shifts. Seep areas that cannot be avoided will be incorporated into
runoff ditches.
• The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior to
construction. Should acid-bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
runoff from uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.
Additional comments can be made on the NCDOT's minimization efforts. The FEIS
states that 2.4 acres of wetlands would be impacted. The NCDOT has been able to
further minimize this impact during project design. The project will impact a total of
1.16 acres of wetlands, less than half of the total projected in the FEIS. The NCDOT has
also diligently avoided any direct construction impacts to the Deep Gap Bog mentioned
in the environmental commitments. The specified research study of this site is also
underway to document any indirect impacts of the project on this site during construction.
6
During coordination of the project, several agencies expressed concern over wetland Site
I, Section BB. The majority of the project's wetland impacts occur at this site (0.7 of
1.16 acres). The presence of this site was included in the DEIS (Site 6A, Exhibit 1II-3,
Table IV-16). Consequently, impacts to this site were considered in the alternative
selection process. At a field review of the project, the resource agencies made several
suggestions that may have potentially reduced impacts at this site.
This site occurs at the intersection of the proposed project, Old US 60, and Hardin Road
(SR 1353). The first agency suggestion was to not tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-
REV) into the proposed US 421, creating a dead end on this road. Suggestion two would
tie Hardin Rd/SR 1353 (-Y9-REV) to existing US 421 directly south of the intersection of
proposed US 421 (-L-), SR 1353, and Old US 60. The evaluation of these alternatives
was presented at a September 18, 1997 Interagency Permit Review Meeting hosted by
NCDOT.
The Watauaa County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. Closing
Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old US 60
to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421.
The ,TCDOT is also committed to providing adequate compensatory mitigation where
impacts to wetlands and surface waters are unavoidable. A property has been purchased
in Alleghany County, North Carolina. The property is within the New River Basin and
contains a bog complex which is considered of national significance by the Nature
Conservancy and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program. The NCDOT completed an initial
site analysis which identified restoration potential for both wetland areas and degraded
stream sections on-site. A consultant has been retained to develop the mitigation plan for
the property and a meeting was held at the site on December 17, 1997 to discuss critical
elements to be included in the mitigation plan. This meeting was attended by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), COE, Wildlife Resources Commission, the
NCDOT, and the consultant.
This site will provide a significant amount of stream mitigation. However, the NCDOT
recognizes the agencies' desire for stream mitigation in the project area. The NCDOT
completed an extensive assessment of stream segments to be impacted by the project.
This assessment identified important impacted features, and will assist the NCDOT in
targeting important stream restoration goals.
The NCDOT retained a consultant to study the project area for restorable stream
segments. This study will serve as a starting point for developing stream mitigation plans
. 1
in the project area. It is expected that this stream mitigation effort will be extensively
coordinated with the COE, WRC, USFWS and the DWQ.
The NCDOT believes that it has done everything possible to minimize impacts to surface
waters and wetlands and is continuing to pursue appropriate compensatory mitigation.
Please find a copy of the following items attached: 1) Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, 2) Final Environmental Impact statement, 3) Finding of No Significant
Impact, 4) Natural Resources Evaluation of the Sparta Bog Mitigation Site, Alleghany
County, NC, and 5) Memorandum of October 03, 1997 regarding wetland avoidance
alternatives for the relocation of old US Highway 60.
Thank you for continuing to review this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone],
extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/lr
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Robert Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DWQ
Z101
b N
o °.
O
-' V1
CD N. C.
°m
'o
noJ? `?
fD
oa?? W
O o.cD ?J ? "J•
O m a.om o o x'.
O
cr a; V! N ° ?. O
,0 ID 1W Cb
m o ?m o r?i
a otn"^myn??
Cra '°a W 64
m a ~' boo
EL?O
'D No- ] o
Q y O p
NO
f1 ? a
C
- CD
0 ° OoO a
m
m c.

o ?o r ,
In -M _
n
] C=
n
gg ?o,m?ro?.
°.?
° g?
?
0pp4??
'
1
, V
.
D O El
m "y m O
0
0-
?
?n
o

C?A
? _-
?.c
o
t1
?,'y co m ..•yy, ? o•
07

b vfD, w? `e C?n',o

m
ID
?o e
3
H .
o? y

Ia 04
.
CD
6'c x a o? tlJ C Co a.
as m? ee
R ?
N
. ?• n• F• a
y?
o£'?om pang, 0,
,

N N p A'n1b 1'++ ?•"?
a C
cpfDfpfDmfD
<
o q
D
i `
°
p. o m
oa>vy a ?b `D,
R enr tD ?-n '?' ?: a
.
m`DOm tb?a.
n???*5'? oCm ?p
o
Noo ?sxo ?
P. m ID tD eD o
WW&ffg nu
yzo 15D
° ao c ¢o
o'O yp•p.m p °
to
a.? a 2:a•co ? y ? o
0
5,0
o $n° co P ,0, .4 rD,
o m
x ??b saCOa ?
y p+ y O- m m ?-s m
NO Fr
O y n ° ,N1ayy° CD.
9s: ID
ti .m? ri=i ?no( R o
(D L
CD' xA" CD 2 R?
ID ??q°?''?x a°dOO°
ID P 'D
0 _0 -.4 0 mw m a'
MN g•o ? < ° 5 m cn+E- °
mOOxioaCD °C Oxo°a
m ma°o•FiA &m a°,m
m? e+ mm r 5?.?ma
ooa°m
a? (D (D o ?ID -0.y
ID r*,
90
o? ?€nd Nom? "
(D o
roao 0 o ?b m
m V N N .° o
9 MO pmq 3c1° o m tnRD
p• O G m .:; psi Sib p 0 g' n
0-0, ID :4 ID ?R
o n m fA p ?i,"
il -1b.
ID ?-RR
?° mm
cob ° c
n r.04 ? °rt rn,r.o• a
m.ro
p~? y ryery ? ? y ?
'ei
oCDo
o?xac? -?y
(D 0
o P•P, ID Fin. g'g E
o ? o e
?fD` o• cCj
? ° ?,°aa m o m o ? ?'
(DI Mry
E RM..: 4. a m ..
Rl
a
r
adk SuIt
3
0
>o
r AWN All M
1C U
aybl."
S
c
ited 1
V road
Ex-member of DOT board says group has .
facts wrong, that he didn't profit by decision
By John Hinton lawsuit, between U.S. 601 and In-
JOURNAL REPORTER terstate 77 in Yadkin County, has
YADKINVILLE- 'been the scene of many serious '
A group of Yadkin County resi- wrecks.
dents contends that a former mem- The suit, filed Wednesday in Yad-
ber of the N.C. Board of Transpor- ldn'Superior Court by,28 people
tation.improperly influenced plans who own property in the path of the
for a project to widen :U.S. 421, road-widening project, .contends
resulting in a route that benefits a that Eidson helped decide the new
business-and other property he co- route for the highway in 1994 as a,
owns, member of the. N.C.. Board of
But.the former board member, Transportation. Gov. Jim Hunt ap-
businessman Fred G. Eidson of El- pointed Eidsonto a four-year term
<,ldn,'said last night that the route on the board in March 1993.
chosen by, the N.C. Department of The lawsuit seeks an injunction
Transportation will hunt the `busi- to stop the road project and asks
ness.. He said he would have bene for $20,000 in damages from Eid-
fited -had the state chosen. the ' son.
route favored by the, group that : Eidson co-owns four tracts along
filed suit against him. U.S. 421 between U.S. 21 and I-77,
"The whole time I 'was on the including a gas station owned by
Board of Transportation, I was ex- G&B Oil Co., according to the law-
tra careful never to have any input suit and county records. Eidson is a
on the location or design of U.S. co-owner of G&B.
421",he. said. The . new route for the highway.
IA
EllI
M
171
1 d'
I
C
I
i
?e
The state plans to widen all of will benefit Eidson because.one of
U.S. 421 from Yadkinville to Boone 'the four `tracts will be next to an.
eventually.
'The part that is the subject of the See; YADKIN'SUIT, Page B6

- Tully equipped with leather, power tilt and slide moon'roof, alloy wheels,
29,995 air bag and more. Must see to appreciate. #P1207A "
'
.9c, leather interior, dual air bags, AM/FM 96 Mazda 626 LX $14,995
#477A A local one owner trade with only 9,0(X) miles. Loaded with automatic,
$32 nnC . power windows, power locks and more. #P1217A
m
t d
m .'96 Honda Accord EX :$16
995
pac
isc,
oonroof, leather, memory ,
A local one owner trade Loaded wrth power windows, power locks, dual
$34 995 air bays, alloy wheels, AM/FM cassette and more A Must See! #4612A
1

ales Loaded with dual air ba
s
co 95 Honda Aecord V 6 $15,995
'
g
,
mpact
ystem and more. #P1225 ..
A local trade loaded with power'windowt power locks and more..
#4468A
e
-0? l®EX?uS
located at I-40 Rn?ine.cc and T4irthvrav FF TI A, o.?.,;tto rrrr.
N.°> 444 O.b m x' Y mco o o
IP.s1 a Da aU o 3 y F rn w n C 0' O npO Ui? c? d"Y C
A
. p ?o? Omwo .N?o aFAy oti?a
emuY
x -s o"ao A x? O y°
u w 4, yp?0 y40
® m N OF >, bA m_ u? .a ?x o Y `: vd' o O o r
api ° m p 0 cm.. •`= O
?_....-..4 a°._N•p my•o ?. .m3 w.mW?p, yF?U.'3c•
5 ? X00 •O
® 0°0 3 mV,ai dcn 0 0w ° w o
u
. ! l am ,bO _? V r? G ? 00 ° X.. ? a
w to
,. W? ami c c . •ti s.0. m .ti 3 wA o §wF4 00 ` a; m c.'Y
p 0 «f iS m O•? m Op O >,y .p i0•C
?my 0c?? bob C7 A0 am bxm,.n}am???p yv
p O -CC ,F, m' .r, y C. O m p w m m p >, ?.
bmgwm Wd pyyA aiOV?.y0 mx ;? ??r'V° cm.?N<d• z
® oo ti?d u oaU'? .G=c°?' Faiy 30'A.0FoaUi?w yabw
p G p-y'';., .N N? r'`C•i .r'3. iy z A N ' ate.` y p?j a (i, 4 p' CUd a r4 a om> vp ;moo ?` w° v_ O ti :.p o .?.1, wO ?0a
c y°[' oopw?u^?3d'??o(u°ao`4
ow o d u:r? v m yF»w AF > p ti
yO 0 o u?? ?,:. m m o p mE• u m m C? ° y o mQ m o ti
ci o A.f >•Noa.o v?oA o m m
as to A •oo ?vs U- 3 ..- awe oami°) E rcm.y api
'LS L, m b N N y b .?..
m
cd:
• ° 3-0? oa?iod°'° ccm`ao?ou>
.pmy m.'°
0 m m '0 tiQ mum m
S .0 -2 r. mpF aFi? N??oo V FOt? _y??y anti E
0 3a"?ti aa•?? o
a? oaL1o`yyv°?:: a??s twv
m - d cd .m a.. 0 > ? N ami N ? C ?: Y bOAh p F m. 4) - ?j a
da?y?cd No t.?GUtr cC '... a.? oCY.,>id p 'O
CU R 'yti ?'? hX. y
I
0 2-5 0 -0
4 .00 0 O F N Z. > m 0' ? m m •0 O. m y `0 .'p.+
Q ?> A y-r.:ta?0 X., m .C F 3 Z3 0.f'-. U p'C1 A U y °- s., 0.0 •3'' F. p O
-N UOG?a-1 cd G ° d U'E:
Z J ..Ui ., ?4 a 0 y i0
42 r O
r. I
0 "R
"A '0 -0 CMI t 0 76
IN m p p m m w It a l?, 0 m n m 3 >? m m? p° m
p: Fvo°.? ?4 qv °? °o v c
p a? L oo vuo;'Fc?aF
o m 3 m ;. $ s~ °zsxa .0-0
W • amm" ° `E- 19w y
-, to
A adeQ/o t. ?O°' 0 -4)
Q) U > o m. m 7 m vi 0 p w -. y cC
ti I° ova O? mo o?+ °° co°va*:uaa?n?c g" o mN
{? a ca= ay wo pmmp m; mm x c
° yv00 ?ro3x ° ?? o c o ffi u aG N ? u.. A M?.°y ° o
CIO o
?oorN`a oaO 2 . rc3 3yy Fw°.. °
m
so >?
CU 0 0.- 4)
U w w O C: 0 U- ,C1 •'" •0 . O °' d ?i O
om^, a O 0,6 `? a>i awi .n. ami P7. m at o .' ,0. o ° c •`"?C ? x, 0
0 p •pFm v mm. N 3cckwmp "'u ,°. U mp
m 0 1 >-¢&t 1:9 w
° cb a0.mw? Oo. .0 cts. ?yop° 8E > °"m
m j o o p bpo m m p Ea a? ° pA ` m t~
cv y E. y p: GL' o •?
U. y .m.. y Id E" v p ,gym, G 9 1 a%i api c°.? o".? > >, u
ma>m0OOmpddo O°?s..pp ?m•.`,3m.ced?..>a>i uyia
c xpW>paGA' ..p,.mpo° y zm.cO'vF.°„jop??9 Oa?o
u c? p v3 u0o w? °:0 E5 .S a°?'?^,OY~° oA F1
- C7 y ,O N ,ti o o >, CN7 '? > y c bA f. 0 0
0 cd 0. ,O
cc w
m as d
°
03 'd ?4 bp
q) q 12 ;9 .55 0 0
O by "xd 0DiA ti boo ?? m .
¢ V] N ?, d m^ u mw 5 p b m p 0 m G
1:1 t4 0 m
p p p m to F p rt m ,? ° O cd m O cy bA C
Z ,? C? • C? cC "••? p a y y A m y a? p p ,? F, b0 o 11 `,5 .°..Q Q y
1 "? w O > V O C7 COQ' F m °' m.d ?, Aa N
".Z m m • cm. >>x a w y ,? w > mom.,
a ?. 0. t?"C oaoo`°'2?`?'?m??o?'b?Npma vv
W p ow.>0>~0 0: " no_?R?u?°m°°E c
t7 _ U ?'i n o" ?• a 'F! am _c> p o d
a ® ?apib y.ti-oOFG>Et~U'.a?io??0 c.vN O
r- .p m a98 0 O ..°.- w 'm -.o •° .5_, $ . -:'? u m ma `m R.
FEB S 12:53 FROM:WATER MGMMT REGION 4 ID:404 562 9343
0- 19
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Or REGION 4
10 -P Atlanta Federal Center
r G7. )Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
FES 0 -a 1998
WMD/WCWfQGB/KM
Colones Terry Xoungbluth
District Engineer
ATM: Mr. Steven Lund
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina. 28801-5006
OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7-96)
FAX TRANSMITTAL
I r, r IFr«rt?
SUBJ: N.C. Dept. of Transportation - Widening of U.S. Highway 421
Action T.D. No. 199707161
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
PAGE 1/2
x I Pages O?
iR
ro
5 •RVI= RDMINSTRATION
This is in reference to the letter and information fitoln H- Franldin Vick, Manager of the
Planning and Environmental Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
submitted to the U.S. Enviromwntal Protection Agency (EPA) on January 7,199N, concerning
the Watauga County segment of NCDOT's proposed widening of U.S. Highway 421. EPA has
reviewed the letter, which was sent m response to our come=ts on the above-referenced project,
and has the following comments:
1. EpA, hereby rescinds our previous comrwnts concerning the lack of evidence for
avoidance, n&d d7,- Lion, and alternative analyses. It is apparent that the Draft and FMal
Environmental Impact statements (EIS) have largely addressed this issue. Howeva, EPA
questions the necessity of a 46-foot rnedbn and 200-foot (or greater) right-of-way. From our
original comments on the Draft EIS, EPA remains concexned that any road construction minimize
the amount of impacts as much as possible by utilizing tho narrowest footprint, or median and
right-of-way, necessary for any particular section of the final route. NCDOT responded to our
previous comments in the Final EIS with a coma tment to limit clearing and grubbing and to use
2:1 or steeper side slopes along forested areas. However, EPA, believes that all art:as, including
wetlands and stream crossings, should be subjected to the least amount of inVacts possible
through a general narrowing of the highway corridor, which includes the median and total right-
of-way. Therefore, EPA recommends that the pem* include a requirement that NCDOT
investigate the narrowing of the medians and. night of-way, and using aligammt shij is where
feasible along the final route, to locate the highway as far away from stream. corridors and other
habitats as possible.
FEE--96 1253 FROM:WATER MGMNT REGION 4 ID:404 562 9343 PAGE 2/2
Y
2
2. EPA recognizes that the Sparta Bog has been proposed as a mitigation site for the project,
and believes that there is great potential for restoration and enhancement of the wetlands at that
site, in compensation for a portion of the U.S. 421 impacts. However, EPA believes that other
sites may be necessary to adequately compensate for the 11,750 linear feet of summ, impacts.
EpA reiterates our previous assertion that without specific information on proposed Itigation or
a functional, approved mitigation bank, the project should not be authorized.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment on this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comr um ts, please contact Xathy.Matthews at the above address or
by telephone at [phone].
Sinter
tlliarn L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section
Wetlands, Coastal, and Water Quality Grants Branch
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
NCDENR, Raleigh
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Feb 3 198 1047 P.02
6 Z?J '
' ivy
C/ V
-D:Z4 Q m
Q -cc "5- (\j Lr)U
:.I
CO
W,
? W+
J 1
Ln
'? .. 4rf e
r--- x d a
C\l A;
o
IM;
.'! w s?
CSI ; , r y
LO
cn a . x
Vwl cicnn nNd sgina3N')S'1')WOW

a?w.5[ATF°
JAN 7199&
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WATER QUALITY
S S'
ECTIQN
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 2, 1998 ,-
ti
Steve Tedder
RECEIVED
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources JAN 18 Iog$
512 orth Salisbury Street WA TEP" n' -
q-,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148 `` N
Enf
Dear Mr. Tedder:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) applied for a Section 401
Water Quality Certification on July 8, 1.997 for improvements to the US 421 corridor
from South Fork New River in Boone to the Blue Ridge Parkway in Watauga County.
Considerable coordination between the DOT and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has
occurred since that time, including field reviews and additional correspondence. Most
recently, the NCDOT has been informed that the DWQ Winston Salem Regional Office
(WSRO) has recommended denial of the certification for this project. On December 3,
1997, the NCDOT received a facsimile of a memorandum dated July 28,. 1997 from the
Winston Salem Regional Office which outlines the basis for their recommendation. This
situation was also briefly discussed in a meeting following the December 11, 1997 permit
review meeting. Informal comments were also received via electronic mail from your
office on December 15, 1997. This letter is provided to address the objections which
have been expressed to this project.
The July 28 memorandum contains two items which bear on the NEPA process and
alternative selection for the project. The second paragraph implies that there would be
four roadways parallel to each other upon completion of the project and that utilizing an
existing road would be preferable. It is unclear to the NCDOT which four roadways this
memorandum refers to. In any case, the EIS studied many alternatives for the project
including the option of widening along the existing roadway. The final paragraph of this
memorandum questions the incorporation of this project into long term planning for the
area. This comment seems out of place, as the planning of this project has gone on for
years. The purpose and need for the project, the preferred alternative and the alternative
selection process are well documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for this project.
2-1?1;
I
2
In October, 1974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) began
preliminary investigations for the development of a principal arterial connector between
Boone and Interstate 77. The study was completed in December, 1975, and included a
recommendation for the improvement of US 421 from NC 194 in Boone to US 221 near
Deep Gap. In January, 1978, the proposed improvement was included in the 1978-1984
Highway Improvement Program and was designated as TIP Project R-0529. In 1981, the
NCDOT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), initiated
planning and environmental studies with the publication of a notice of intent in the
Federal Register. However, due to budgetary considerations, the planning process was
suspended shortly thereafter. In 1982, Watauga County and the NCDOT adopted a major
thoroughfare plan in which the proposed project was included as a part of the county's
thoroughfare system.
In 1988, the Department resumed planning on the project. The Notice of Intent was
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1988. A scoping letter was distributed
on November 21, 1988, with a copy to the DEHNR. As the study progressed, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service joined the study as cooperating agencies. Seven interagency
meetings were held throughout the study.
In order to improve the US 421 corridor along new alignment, various corridors were
developed and evaluated. A land suitability map was developed showing large areas, or
"windows", which could be connected to provide a path for the roadway corridor. Using
this land suitability map as a basis, 32 corridor segments were drawn and linked to form
preliminary alternatives. The corridor segments were presented to the public at a citizens
informational workshop. As a result of the comments received at the workshop, an
additional segment was added.
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated with respect to land use, floodplain limits,
soil types, biotic communities, wetlands, cultural resources, engineering limitations,
community impacts, and relocations. Based on this analysis, eight segments were
eliminated from further consideration. Following is a list of the segments eliminated and
the reasons for their elimination.
SEGMENT REASONS FOR ELIMINATION
Relocations and community impacts to the Rutherwood
community. Difficulty in maintaining traffic on existing US 421
during construction.
L Severe topographic constraints.
M Severe topographic constraints. Relocations and community
impacts to the Dogwood Knoll community.
I
S Impact to Section 4(f) historic property No. 23. Relocations and
community impacts to the Laxon community.
T Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
Relocation of the Laurel Springs Baptist Church.
Longitudinal encroachment on Laxon Creek.
U Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 20.
Relocations and community impacts to the Laxon community.
X Severe topographic constraints.
Longitudinal encroachment on Gap Creek.
EE Impacts to Section 4(f) historic property No. 24.
The product of this planning effort was the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), which was signed by the FHWA on June 10, 1992. The DEIS
evaluated three build alternatives, the no-build alternative, and improvement of the
existing corridor. Chapter II.A.1. of the DEIS summarizes the factors behind the
elimination of the "Improve Existing Corridor" alternative. To facilitate your review, that
section is quoted below:
The existing conditions along US 421 from just west of the South Fork New River
bridge to SR 1361 exhibit the compromises usually made when a roadway is built
in mountainous terrain. Straight portions are very short, curved portions are very
sharp, and steep vertical grades are the rule, not the exception. Because of the
steep terrain and narrow right-of-way, residents have built their homes and
businesses in close proximity to the road. When these conditions are combined
with steep hillsides that slope down to very narrow shoulders, the result is a
roadway having areas with inadequate sight distance, blind spots, and dangerous
intersections.
For this alternative to meet the proposed design criteria established for this
project, major reconstruction of the existing two-lane facility would be required as
well as construction of the two additional lanes. Existing horizontal curves would
need to be more gradual. The Improve Existing Corridor Alternative would have
a few advantages over the Build Alternative, including lower construction cost
and fewer impacts to the natural environment. However, the disadvantages would
be great:
A large number of relocations. It is estimated that 142 families, 40 businesses,
and 7 non-profit organizations would require relocation. The total number of
displacees for this alternative is approximately three times that of any other
alternative.
4
• Encroachment by the roadway onto several properties considered eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Continued high accident hazard caused by dense fog near Laxon.
• Encroachment into the school ground of Parkway Elementary School and the
adjacent public park and rest area.
• Visual impact to the section of the Blue Ridge Parkway paralleling US 421 near r-0-") "
Grandview Overlook.
• Increased noise and air pollution to existing residences and businesses.
• Difficulties in maintaining traffic on existing US 421 during construction of the
expanded facility.
• Difficulties in control of access limitation because of the large number of existing
driveways along the project.
Because of the overwhelming negative impacts of this alternative, the Improve
Existing Corridor Alternative is not considered a viable alternate. However, two
segments of the existing US 421 corridor are part of the Build Alternative. These
segments are the western terminus of the study area and the section from
approximately 0.5 mile west of the US 421 /US 221 intersection in Deep Gap to
near SR 1361 where the existing four-lane section of US 421 begins.
Upon completion of the DEIS, the NCDOT proceeded to prepare the FEIS, which was
approved June 10, 1992. This document was also coordinated with the DENHR, and two
letters from the DWQ are included in this document. This document finalizes the
discussion of alternatives for the project, and describes the Preferred Alternative. The
advantages of the Preferred Alternative are enumerated in Section III of the FEIS, and are
quoted below:
• Fewer residential relocatees -- 38 (14 less than Build Alternative B and four less than
Build Alternative C); t°'' ?fS
• Lower cost -- approximately $9.2 million less than Build Alternative B and $9.8 n s.
million less than Build Alternative C;
• Fewer noise impacts -- 14 (nine less sites than Build Alternative B and nine less than
Build Alternative C);
• Lesser wetland impacts -- (0.65 acres less than Build Alternative B and 2.55
acres less than Build Alternative C (Emphasis added);
• Lesser impacts to the W. S. Moretz property (eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places) than Build Alternative C;
• No impact to a tributary to Gap Creek (tailwater of the mountain bog);
• Least impact to Blue Ridge Parkway;
• Provides safety and capacity to meet future demand;
• Improves eastbound and westbound travel lanes of US 421 at Blue Ridge Parkway
crossing; and
• BRP Crossing Alternative 4 preferred by the Department of the Interior - National
Park Service.
E;
The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was signed April 20, 1995. This
document summarized the results of the environmental documentation. This document
reiterates that the important factors in the selection of the preferred alternative "were
social, environmental, economic effects and traffic services." The ROD included
comments from various agencies. A February 9, 1995 letter from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission concurred with the findings of the FEIS including the alternative
selection and commended "the NCDOT and the FHWA for their efforts to minimize
adverse impacts to the high quality fisheries and wildlife habitat of the project area...".
The DWQ also commented on the FEIS to the State Clearinghouse by memorandum
dated February 24, 1995 (Copy attached). These comments are brief, but provide
guidance for compliance with 401 Water Quality Certification requirements.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (f) defines how the
lack of a practical alternative may be demonstrated for the purpose of 401 Water Quality
Certification review. Essentially, an applicant must demonstrate that the basic project
purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in
less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands. This analysis must consider the
potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all
alternative design. The NCDOT believes that the best way to avoid impacts to waters of
the United States, including wetlands, is by the judicious selection of the preferred
alternative. The NCDOT believes that it has completed an exhaustive analysis of
potential alternatives to satisfy the project purpose and need. The NCDOT has eliminated
alternatives due to excessive impacts to streams, has selected the alternative with the least
wetland impacts and potential impacts to surface waters have also been considered.
The NCDOT also believes that is has diligently attempted to minimize impacts to
wetlands and surface waters. The DEIS, Section IV.K.2, discusses impacts to water
resources. This section includes a discussion of best management practices to be
implemented to minimize impacts to surface waters. The FEIS followed up on this
discussion, and included eight Environmental Commitments which relate to minimization
of impacts to wetlands and surface waters:
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through implementation of
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters as
practicable.
• NCDOT will minimize wetlands impacts through the judicious development of the
roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service on the relocation of a
tributary to Gap Creek.
• NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with the NCDOT
Division of Highways Sediment and Erosion Control Policy to minimize erosion and
sedimentation during construction.
• The use of sheet piling or other potential bog protective measures, if required, will be
evaluated during design and coordinated with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE, NPS, USFWS, and NCWRC).
• A research project for the Deep Gap Southern Appalachian Bog will be performed by
the National Park Service and funded by FHWA and NCDOT. An agreement to
perform this research will be completed prior to the Record of Decision (ROD). The
research project will monitor the hydrology and function of the bog located on BRP
property prior to construction and continue through and following construction for a
minimum of five years.
• Attempts will be made to avoid any spring seeps encountered during the design phase
with alignment shifts. Seep areas that cannot be avoided will be incorporated into
runoff ditches.
• The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit will conduct subsurface investigations prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the location and type of rock to be removed prior to
construction. Should acid-bearing shale be encountered, a plan to minimize acid
runoff from uncovered shale would be developed and implemented. However, it is
not anticipated shales will be encountered at this location.
Additional comments can be made on the NCDOT's minimization efforts. The FEIS
states that 2.4 acres of wetlands would be impacted. The NCDOT has been able to''
further minimize this impact during project design. The project will impact a total of
1.16 acres of wetlands as indicated in our application of July 8, 1997, less than half of the
total projected in the FEIS. The NCDOT has also diligently avoided any direct
construction impacts to the Deep Gap Bog mentioned in the environmental commitments.
The specified research study of this site is also underway to document any indirect
impacts of the project on this site during construction.
During coordination of the project, several agencies expressed concern over wetland
Site I, Section BB referred to in the DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum. The majority of
the project's wetland impacts occur at this site (0.7 of 1.16 acres). The presence of this
site was included in the DEIS (Site 6A, Exhibit III-3, Table IV-16). Consequently,
impacts to this site were considered in the alternative selection process. At a field review
of the project, the resource agencies made several suggestions that may have potentially
reduced impacts at this site. These suggestions were examined for feasibility and the
results were included in a memorandum which was sent to the DWQ on October 3, 1997.
This site occurs at the intersection of the proposed project, Old US 60, and Hardin Road
(SR 1353). The first agency suggestion was to not tie the relocated Old US 60 (-Y10-
REV) into the proposed US 421, creating a dead end on this road. Suggestion two would
tie Hardin Rd/SR 1353 (-Y9-REV) to existing US 421 directly south of the intersection of
proposed US 421 (-L-), SR 1353, and Old US 60. The evaluation of these alternatives
was presented at the September 18, 1997 permit review meeting.
)
The Watauga County School System has four school buses that use Old US 60. Closing
Old US 60 is not practical because traffic flow from SR 1353 needs to utilize Old US 60
to access existing US 421. There is no other feasible route to access the schools.
Therefore, suggestion 1 is not a feasible alternative. The second suggestion is not
feasible due to elevation differences and an excessive grade required at the intersection of
SR 1353, existing US 421, and Old US 60, creating unsafe conditions for the four school
buses traveling Old US 60. This proposal would also create inadequate sight distances at
the proposed tie with existing US 421.
The DWQ's July 28, 1997 memorandum also refers to the possibility that bog turtles may ;
be present at this site, and that a "review" should occur. Currently, field surveys for the `..-
bog turtle are not required under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not requested a survey for the
species at this site. An Environmental Consultation was completed in April 1997 which
included a review of the project for compliance under the Endangered Species Act. This
review found that the project is expected to have no effect on species protected by the
Act.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(g) specifies that
minimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that the impacts to surface
waters or wetlands are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the
placement or configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement, configuration
or density.
These three factors have all played apart in the development of this project, from
alternative selection to final design. The NCDOT believes that it has done everything
possible to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands in accordance with this rule.
The NCDOT does not dispute the ecological value of some of the impacted wetlands and
surface water resources. Consequently, considerable discussion has taken place regarding
suitable mitigation for these impacts as required by both the Corps of Engineers and the
DWQ.
Recently, the NCDOT has been under considerable pressure to provide "up-front"
mitigation for impacts, and has been struggling to catch up to this new demand. The
NCDOT's first proposal for wetland mitigation for the project was in compliance with
this concept. The NCDOT proposed in the July 8, 1997 application to mitigate project
wetland impacts at a site already being implemented in Henderson County. However,
discussion with both the Corps of Engineers and N.C. Division of Water Quality revealed
that both agencies preferred that the NCDOT locate a new site in the same river basin as
8
the project rather than an "up-front" site in another basin. Consequently, the NCDOT
withdrew the proposal to use the Henderson County site. The July 28, 1997 memo from
the DWQ refers to this Henderson County site which is no longer proposed.
The July 28 memorandum has more to say on mitigation, particularly suggesting that
mitigation should occur in Watauga County or "this Region". The same paragraph also
includes an erroneous statement which requires clarification. The memorandum states
that a "bog in Ashe County has already been impacted due to Highway 16 as a farmer has
drained this area." The impact referred to was initiated by a private property owner, not
the NCDOT, which explains why the COE Cease and Desist letter was not directed to the
NCDOT.
Based on agency comments, the NCDOT turned its attention to the New River Basin.
The NCDOT has purchased a property in Alleghany County within the New River Basin.
This property contains a site known as Sparta Bog. This mountain bog complex is
considered of national significance by the Nature Conservancy and the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program. The NCDOT completed an initial site analysis which identified
restoration potential for both wetland areas and degraded stream sections on-site. A
consultant has been retained to develop the mitigation plan for the property. A meeting
was held at the site on December 17, 1997 to discuss critical elements to be included in
the mitigation plan. This meeting was attended by the DWQ, COE, Wildlife Resources
Commission, the NCDOT, and the consultant.
This site will provide a significant amount of stream mitigation. However, the NCDOT
recognizes the agencies' desire for stream mitigation in the project area. The NCDOT
completed an extensive assessment of stream segments to be impacted by the project.
This assessment identified important impacted features, and will assist the NCDOT in
targeting important stream restoration goals.
The NCDOT retained a consultant to study the project area for restorable stream
segments. This study will serve as a starting point for developing stream mitigation plans
in the project area. It is expected that this stream mitigation effort will be extensively
coordinated with the COE, WRC, USFWS and the DWQ in a fashion similar to the A-10
project in Madison County.
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) specifies guidelines
for mitigation of unavoidable losses of existing uses. Subparagraph (8) of this rule
specifies that mitigation for wetland impacts should occur within "the same river basin
and physiographic province when practical." Both the proposed mitigation site in
Alleghany County and the project are located in the New River Basin, so the NCDOT
considers this condition to be satisfied. Subparagraph (6) of this rule requires that all
mitigation proposals provide for replacement of wetland acres at a 1:1 ratio through
restoration or creation. The NCDOT is committed to providing at least 1:1 replacement
through restoration or creation for 1.16 acres of wetlands impacted by this project, in
accordance with Subparagraph (6).
North Carolina Administrative Code Section 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(1) indicates that
"mitigation required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be considered to
constitute the mitigation required by the certification" provided that the criteria of
Subparagraph (6) are met. Although 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h) does not specifically define
rules for stream mitigation, it does provide for "mitigation of unavoidable losses of
existing uses" in accordance with six specified guidelines. Five of these guidelines refer
explicitly to wetlands including Subparagraphs (6) and (8) already referred to. Since it
appears that the only guideline pertaining to stream mitigation is Subparagraph(1), the
NCDOT assumes that the stream mitigation required by the Corps of Engineers will also
qualify under this rule. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has indicated
that they are satisfied with the efforts made by the NCDOT to develop suitable mitigation
for both wetland and stream impacts and have stated that they are prepared to issue a
conditioned Section 404 Individual Permit based on the current proposals. Consequently,
the NCDOT believes that it can demonstrate compliance with DWQ's rules regarding
mitigation.
The DWQ, especially the WSRO, has also requested a summary of information on all
improvement projects along US Highway 421 throughout the state. The NCDOT is
always willing to provide information on its proposed projects, and answer specific
questions upon request. However the NCDOT is dismayed by your regional office's lack =<=!
of awareness of these projects, as they have been under serious review for years. The
regional office seems particularly uninformed of the extensive planning process
undertaken by the project that is the subject of this letter and permit application.
This project has utility independent of any other proposed improvement along US 421.
The project consists of constructing a multi-lane segment between two existing multi-lane
segments and will solve serious traffic problems within the local area. This project was
also subject to a review of environmental impacts independent of the other improvement
projects in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act guidelines.
Consequently, information on other segments of US 421 is not relevant to this 401
Certification review. The NCDOT believes it has provided the DWQ with sufficient
information on this project either previously or in this letter to allow review of this
project to proceed.
The NCDOT understands that the DWQ has been asked to hold a public hearing on this
certification request. The NCDOT further understands that this is at the discretion of the
Director of the DWQ, and is pursuant to your regulations. However, it is the NCDOT's
opinion that this project is the product of extensive public review through workshops,
hearings, NEPA document development, alternative selection, and development of
environmental commitments for the project. This project has received considerable
support by local governments and residents. It appears to the NCDOT that the public
interest would best be served by permitting this essential transportation improvement
project to proceed.
1 - t
10
this process is of great concern to the NCDOT. Please continue to review this project for
certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions w
regarding this project, please contact me or Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
of mitigation proposals for the project. The "short memory" of your agency regarding
In closing, I would like to point out that very little of the information provided in this
letter should be new to your agency. Planning for this project has gone on for years, and
your agency has been involved at every critical stage, especially as they relate to impact
avoidance and minimization. Your agency has also been kept abreast during development
Sincerely,
J
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gc
cc: Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mar-18-98 09:39A
g
2
rc
Z
z
O
3

a
d

?_8g.
sa0
o• a C b ,i1
o ?, n c
in
0
F u oa a a 4Ph
_n01
?
R.N
p? (f; R O N
b
?. G s
~ C 04 C ' ? ?
n O'QG' ?? ?C o• :?0?
w a dS o 5 O?? ? ?'gn'
T e
u'nr ?'i??•e n^
sue' ra mo av2
O Iq n w ? n
9: Ir
a p ?s
LT.G ? n. ?.rr ?'w d2
F Q ? $ 'O ? ? a fnfrr` ?
7pG0°ok?a?
SSA ?O dy ?
0. Ol
na ^ S•a
1,41 ? s 9'
I
j
# Nw as GO^°.? y? ? W
co
N ?,gn ?.?p?? ryn H•??
B ?r Fnf
m., pa£ ^
? ?^oP,R aar ?
93?.C_ep?4tZ
m co v g N o
rye•?e?y aSE a.7?^? ?
(yyp .J V n W V N
?o
:OF
P.O1
M
eta
w
u?
0
rr?•
V?
z«=
0 0. '? y'^n,• OwD r? • ? f^^ m ? rJ N Y e 1?'
A O v C-R 1 7 e d If ^ h! C
8 u d. is n u •p n o
e a? c ` cry E
0 IF.
G ?? 35'5 has ? ?'
ag,
aa F'y
..y vxoa
O f_^ o n O 3
?m orymp ye'?3. Cm'z7o? ?r?/??
N m 7 a N A Yw'c',p R V?
"- z 5 a IL * s v_,
0 ;rcrn E o &" na'<JJ{nyaa
w ? ? < 4 r M
V
Mp 9.C ^ x p NE
oog "? _
w :^ ?•? n ? e
g•e d. a d= ?? o. c d
a
0 u;- Lo TrA.
w .w '?' Sw a 6 m E*. oo
.L E, S 'm
E N ?w•? A S ?. ?. ?m ?' d
E o0 0?
?R -San y p S
pfn?
^ F7 eaP?
"2?
10
4-
V
`Cv
0
n11
v 7
O
7
V
mUP ??
G nd B . N.. EM ?.....
From: [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 5:40 AM
To: [e-mail]; n1ew331 @wsro.ehnr.state.nc.us;
MICKEYJH @ MAIL.WILDLIFE.STATE.NC.US
Subject: Re: 421 Project
Howdy!
I intend to recommend denial of the permit for that section of $@! that we looked at as well.
believe that NCDOT has not followed the proper sequencing of wetland impacts, as indicated
by the extent of the application. I also beleive that the measures necessary to avoid or
minimize impacts to wetlands are far outside the scope of my normal level of
recommendations - I can't design it for them. There permit branch needs to spend some
additional time with the roadway design branch minimizing impacts.
My suggestion is that DOT further investigate an alternative that follows closely along the
existing corridor, utilizing the existing stream and wetland crossings on the existing roadway
to the maximum extent practicable.
Also, I am not convinced that the permit application accurately depicts the extent of the
impacts proposed. We noted several instances of streams or wetlands not on the permit
drawings. Have these instances been rectified with the permit application?
Thanks,
Mark

i
t?
COPY
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Ed
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
7JAN 2
TO: John Parker ENWRONU ALSCO
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 21, 1998
SUBJECT: COE Action ID: 199820228. Review of an application by NCDOT for the
Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of SR 2309; TIP No. R-
223 913; State Project No. 6.769001T, Wilkes County.
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. The NCWRC has reviewed information
provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff conducted a site visits on July 15,
1992 and December 19, 1997. 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).
The NCDOT is proposing to extend US 421 5.1 miles from east of SR 2433 to east of SR
2309, with new interchanges. The highway will follow the existing US 421 for approximately
3,000 feet, then it will begin on a new location, north of and paralleling existing US 421. Plans
show the placement of fill in a total of 5.58 acres of waters of the United States, including
wetlands, in tributaries of the upper Yadkin River basin. The project will impact 3.60 acres of
stream channels (8,301 linear feet) at 18 locations throughout the project. At stream crossings,
culverts or pipes will be used, with the exception of one location (Site G) where 764 feet of
stream channel will be relocated. A total of 1.98 acres of wetlands will be impacted. No known
species designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973
will be impacted.
A site visit was conducted on December 19, 1997 with personnel from NCDOT, US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and COE. The
r
Action ID # 199820228 2 1/23/98
TIP # R-2239B
purpose of the site visit was to field inspect road alignment impacts to streams and wetlands. As
a result of the site visit, the following concerns were expressed by the resource agencies.
1. The entire project should follow existing US 421, eliminating construction on anew
alignment. We are concerned about additional wildlife fragmentation, especially of
contiguous forested habitat, that the new alignment will cause. Environmental impacts
can be reduced by following the existing alignment, which was initially expressed in our
memo to NCDOT dated 7/28/92.
2. The intersection at Wetland Station 1, L - Sta. 107+00 @ ramp BC that will impact 1.04
acres of wetlands should be redesigned to reduce impacts.
3. Stream impacts at L- - Sta. 107+00 @ ramp BC seem to have been omitted from project
plans. These impacts need to be added to the environmental impact totals.
4. Wetland (Site 2) and stream channel (Site B) impacts at L - Sta. 110+00 @ - Y - (SR
2324) and 111+10 should be reduced by redesigning the intersection.
5. The road alignment at L - Sta. 159+00 @ SR 2316 should be shifted west to avoid all
impacts to the 0.35-acre wetland (Site 3). This area should be used once construction is
completed as a highway run-off filtration site.
6. Stream channel impacts associated with Wetland Site 3, L - Sta. 159+00 are not show on
project plans. These:impacts need to be added to the environmental impact totals.
7. Plans for the 764 feet of stream channel relocation (Site G) are not provided. These
should have been submitted with final documents to allow for review by resource
agencies.
Culvert designs need to be included with plans. Culverts should be designed so that
natural materials (sand, gravel, cobble, etc.) are allowed be present along the culvert
bottom. Such materials create small pools and eddies to provide resting areas for fish and
to facilitate fish movements through long culverts. This substrate would also provide
areas for aquatic insects and other organisms and would help off-set the loss of stream-
bottom habitats eliminated by culverts.
9. While NCDOT is considering a mitigation site in lower Iredell County for this project, a
detailed mitigation plan was not submitted to off-set project impacts. A mitigation plan
was requested by this agency in correspondence to NCDOT (2/17/95). Members of the
private sector submit mitigation plans for review with the permit application. If NCDOT
would do likewise, it would facilitate the review process.
Based on the above considerations, with special emphasis on following the existing
alignment and submittal of a comprehensive mitigation plan for review before issuance of a
permit, it is our recommendation that the permit be denied as submitted.

Action ID # 199820228 3 1/21/98
TIP # R-2239B
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Joe Mickey at [phone].
Eric Alsmeyer, USACOE
Cindi Bell, DWQ
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Ron Linville, DWQ

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
January 5, 1998
98004-3-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404" Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review

The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199820228 dated December
24, 1997 describing a proposed project by NC DOT (Wilkes Co.) is being circulated to interested state
agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 1/22/98. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293.
When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed
Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled / 70% Post-consumer Pacer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James S. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
January 5, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, P. E.
Director
Division of Water Quality
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Inland "404 Coordinator
SUBJECT: "404" Project Review
The attached U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action No. 199820228 dated December
24, 1997 describing a proposed project by NC DOT (Wilkes Co.) is being circulated to interested state
agencies for comments on applicable Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form
by 1/22/98. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact me at 733-2293.
When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Signed Date
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7-37 Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% Rec/c:ed / 10% Post-Consumer Peaer

RECEIVED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers DEC 31 1997
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28 402-18 90 COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Action ID. 199820228
December 24, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS, (NCDOT), POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27611-5201, HAS APPLIED FOR A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) PERMIT
TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED AND FILL MATERIAL
IMPACTING A TOTAL OF 5.58 ACRES OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES,
INCLUDING 1.98 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND 8,301 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM,
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION B OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO US 421
(T.I.P. No. R-2239B), CROSSING BRIER CREEK AND ITS UNNAMED
TRIBUTARIES, AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES OF GRAYS CREEK, THE YADKIN
RIVER, AND NORTH LITTLE HUNTING CREEK, AND ADJACENT WETLANDS,
FROM EAST OF SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR 2309, EAST OF WILKESBORO, IN
WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the applicant. Plans submitted with the application
show the placement of fill material impacting a total of 5.58
acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the
upper Yadkin River basin, east of Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County,
North Carolina. These impacts are necessary for the construction
of Section B of improvements to US 421 (T.'I.P. No. R-2239B). The
proposed highway will extend 5.1 miles, from east of SR 2433
(Windy Gap Road) to east of SR 2309, with new interchanges at
SR's 2325, and 2309/2400. SR's 2309 and 2400 will be
reconstructed to have a common interchange with existing US 421.
The highway will follow the existing US 421, starting at the
western end, for approximately 3,000 feet to just east of SR 2325
(Mathis Farm Road), where it begins on new location to the north
of existing US 421. The facility continues east parallel to the
existing US 421 on new location before tying back into existing
US 421 near SR 2309, via a proposed service road.
The project will involve fill impacts to 3.60 acres of
unvegetated waters of the United States. These impacts to stream
channels (8,301 linear feet) occur at 18 locations throughout the
project. At stream crossings, culverts or pipes will be used to
allow for adequate hydrological flow underneath the roadway, with
the exception of one location (Site G) where 764 feet of stream

2
will be relocated. The design of this channel change has not
been finalized and will be coordinated with resource agencies.
The proposed construction will also permanently impact 1.98 acres
of vegetated wetlands by filling and excavation. The impacted
wetlands include both palustrine forested and scrub/shrub areas.
Mitigation plans to compensate for impacts to surface waters
and wetlands are being developed by NCDOT for potential sites
within the upper Yadkin River basin. Feasibility studies for
several sites are underway.
The purpose of the work is to provide for the construction of
a multi-lane, full control of access, public roadway to improve
level of service for this portion of the US 421 corridor. The
applicant has considered several alternatives to the proposed
project, including the no-build alternative, building a freeway
or expressway on the existing alignment, and an alternative
alignment south of the existing highway. In addition, the
applicant has committed to investigating measures to avoid and
minimize wetland and stream impacts, including not using heavy
equipment in stream channels, using retaining walls to reduce
slopes, and using depressed or bottomless culverts with stone
substrate or low-flow channels.
Overall plans showing the proposed construction are included
with this public notice. Additional detailed plans may be
reviewed at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field
Office at 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27615-6846, or at the offices of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality at the address shown below.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be issued
until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been
received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a Department of
the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this

3
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project
does not impact any registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the
National Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource
investigations by the District Engineer. NCDOT has conducted
surveys for architectural and archaeological resources, and
coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). SHPO has concurred that the project will not
have any effect on architectural resource properties eligible for
inclusion in the Register. NCDOT has discovered two
archaeological sites, a Middle Woodland site and a Late Woodland
site, that were assessed as potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and may be impacted by the project.
If those sites will be impacted by the project, additional
archaeological work will be necessary to evaluate their
eligibility. If after completion of this work (archaeological
investigations) either of the sites is determined eligible, a
research design and data recovery plan will be developed by
NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, and the District
Engineer, in consultation with SHPO, and implementation of the
plan to satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act will be made a condition of any Section 404
permit issued for work impacting the eligible sites. The
District Engineer is otherwise unaware of the presence of such
resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific,
prehistoric, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by work
under the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available
information, that the activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
i
4
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied
if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing
and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will
not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether
v
5
or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this
public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the
NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification may be reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring
application for Clean Wa
writing delivered to the
Quality, Post Office Box
27611-7687,-on or before
Mr. John Dorney.
to make comments regarding the
ter Act certification should do so in
North Carolina Division of Water
27687, Raleigh, North Carolina
January 15, 1998, Attention:
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention:
Eric Alsmeyer, until 4:15 p.m., January 22, 1998, or telephone
919-876-8441, extension 23.
E <
p Y ? i? - l
/ rr

z
O o
E Q w

O o? ? ? W
0 o a ?? F F
a a
a
v ? a
a O N
z a
`ol N)
• B• c? ,
f A
K. N
9
o ^ ? 1
? P ? .b N
C C4
j trr ?
NI
?.
w
o e• W •9 N ` ? h
1

1
e
44
1
CO

?n h

(?
I NI
N N O N
'r ` W

z 1

?0
P M
^ c "I CL
CL

i
4? M Z t
o
W N
SAID W W \ .
ti ? n

N
tu
? 10
h N !•? a. h?

` ?
•?
^

M Ni
Z

• Q ? ? N ?R
V
1
N ! ; W
N+ co
`? r
t
d lq

i
i

- V vv v
Q)
Q??1? PRO?tcr ?
°
,b . -L- g3t-60 '• o
vv
o •
O
-L- 100 + 00 `
SITE
SITE 1
X11$1 `,•-??? ?", ?
SITE 2 -?- 110+0
O )
??/ i Dori M r-
•r ?=;- - ?- 120 +oo
??ir S ? T(? 81 M a ???
'N 0
130+00
517E G --? .
SITE D
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT (JG9001T (R-2239B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 2 OF 7
SIiC 4-
s 1YE E
-L -L- 140+o
150400
SITE F
stTE 3
C
s I r'E F I
??? `?_s ? ?\ S ? TE 1
SATE Gz
y ? C.-- a ?' . \.
S1TE 4- J
' -L- trp o+oo
- L 17o + o0
51rEG4-
1gq 485
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6.769001T (R-22S9B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 3• OF
i
d
M
1
Site 2 -L- Sta. 110+00± Marvin Roger & Wanda Steve & John Mathis
@ -Y- (SR 2324) A. Mathis Bk. 691 Pg. 146
Interchange area Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 3 -L- Sta. 159+00± Garmon & Essie Marie Melvorne P. Horton
@ SR 2316 Welborn Bk. 88 Pg. 200E
Bk. 549 Pg. 1137
Site 4 - -L- Sta. 142+60± Aaron Jacob & Aaron Jacob & Anto:.?.te
@ culvert for Gray's Creek Antoinette White White
Tributary Bk. 664 Pg. 444 Bk..664 Pg..444
N.C. DEPT. OF T47`1NSPORTATION
DIVISION OF 2IGHWAYS
WILDS COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET OF 7
Adjacent Property Owners to Proposed
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Right Of Way
At Wetland Sites
Adjacent Adjacent
Property Owner Property Owner
Location Location Description Left Ri hit _
Site 1 -L- Sta. 107+00± Royce & Myrna Mathis Marvin Roger & Wanda
@ Ramp B/C Gore area Bk. 570 Pg. 626 Mathis
B k. 691 Pg. 147
jM
WETLAND AREA SUMMARY"

Location Location Fill in Excavation in Fill Below Undercut in Drained Wetlands
Description Wetlands Wetlands Surface Water Wetiands (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha) (cu.m.)
Site 1 -L- Sta. 0.42 -0- -0- * -0-
107+00-h
@ Ramp B/C
Gore area
Site 2 -L- Sta. 0.14 0.07 -0-
110+00±
@ -Y- (SR
2324)
Interchange
area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 0.14 -0- -0-
159+00±
@ SR 2316
Site 4 -L- Sta. 0.03 -0- -0-
142+60±
@ culvert for
Gray's Creek
Tributary
TOTALS 0.73 0.07 -0-
Not available at this time.
Note; All sites are above headwaters.
06
-0-
-0-
C.06
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 5 OF 'I .
? t
t
SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Location Description Fill-in Surface(HA) Proposed Cross =;pVCu?iver
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60t 0.04 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 1 I 1+10t 0.59 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B1 -L- Sta. 121+40± 0.02 900 RC=
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40± 0.01 900 RCF
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60= 0.19 1350 RCF
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20t 0.02 1050 RCF
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15t 0.07 2.4 x 1.8 RC=
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00+ 0.01 . 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80± 0.17 2.7 x 1.5 RC
Site F 1 -L- Sta. 164+00+ 0.02 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 0.21 750 RCP
Site GI -L- Sta. 171+30± 0.03 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 0.01 1050 RCF
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 0.02 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 0.01 900 RCP
Site I -1,1- Sta. 18+50t 0.01 1050 RC-r'
Total
Note: Site B is below headwaters. All
other sites are above headwaters.
1.45
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIOU
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B;
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 6 OF `T

Location SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Description Existing Piped Proposed Culvert
Channel Length (m)
Length lost (m)
(m)
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60f 82 129 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10-+ 475 367 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site BI -L- Sta. 121+40+ 283 112 900 RCP
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40± 68 44 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60+ 179 129 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20f 76 68 1050 RCP
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15f 95 65 2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00+ 67.5 66 1050 RCP
Site F - -L- Sta. 154+80f 156 77 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site FI -L- Sta. 164+00+ 48 43 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 233 0 -
Site G1 -L- Sta. 171+30± 245.5 205 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 59 58 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 75.5 73 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 183 175 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 95 91.5 750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 93.5 89.5 900 RCP
Site I -Ll- Sta. 18+50f 17 17 1050 RCP
Total 2531 1809
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
Note: Site B is below headwaters. US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
All other sites are above East of SR 2309
headwaters. SHEET 7
7
OF
Y
I
From: Mickey, Joseph H. Jr. [[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 1:32 PM
To: Bell, Cyndi; 'Cantrell, Mark; 'Linville, Ron'
Subject: 421 Project
FYI I sent in a denial for the 421, section R-223913, that we looked at on Dec. 19. It's gone to
review at the Director's office, so my recommendation may get changed. Have to wait and see.
FYI, I have it from a good source that DOT owns a 150' right-of-way along 421 from Yadkinville to
1-77, and probably along the section we looked at west of 1-77 on Dec. 19, possibly more in some
areas. When they upgraded the road in the late 60's, they planned to widen to 4 lane in the
future. Only problem was, some idiot DOT engineer put a good portion of the new road down the
middle of the ROW, leaving no room for another lane. Seems like the putting the new road on a
new location is a cover up for past mistakes. Knowing that they planned to widen the existing
road at a later date, they should have controlled access way back then.
Cvndi_B
From: James Ronald (Ron) Linville [[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 3:01 AM
To: Cyndi_Bell
Subject: Re:960725
It is the 421 "road widening" project we looked at last week in WilkesNadkin. One stream left out
entirely on western end.
Hope you had a happy holiday. Wanted to call you to say Merry
Christmas but got side tracked before I could try to find a
phone number. Hope it was nice. Later, Ron
Subject: 960725
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 97 11:57:34 -0000
To: <RON [e-mail]>
Ron - what is project 960725 that you wanted us to put on hold? We file by county name, then
with a project description, so those numbers aren't very helpful. They're mainly for computer
tracking, and Jen' s computer is down today.
.........................................................................
A land ethic, then reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a
conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land
to self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity.
-- Aldo Leopold
RECEIED
DEC 3 0 1997
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EMNRONMENTAiSC1ENCE8
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID. 199820228 December 24, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS, (NCDOT), POST OFFICE BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27611-5201, HAS APPLIED FOR A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) PERMIT
TO AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED AND FILL MATERIAL
IMPACTING A TOTAL OF 5.58 ACRES OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES,
INCLUDING 1.98 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND 8,301 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM,
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION B OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO US 421
(T.I.P. No. R-2239B), CROSSING BRIER CREEK AND ITS UNNAMED
TRIBUTARIES, AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES OF GRAYS CREEK, THE YADKIN
RIVER, AND NORTH LITTLE HUNTING CREEK, AND ADJACENT WETLANDS,
FROM EAST OF SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR 2309, EAST OF WILKESBORO, IN
WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
The following description of the work is taken from data
provided by the applicant. Plans submitted with the application
show the placement of fill material impacting a total of 5.58
acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the
upper Yadkin River basin, east of Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County,
North Carolina. These impacts are necessary for the construction
of Section B of improvements to US 421 (T.I.P. No. R-2239B). The
proposed highway will extend 5.1 miles, from east of SR 2433
(Windy Gap Road) to east of SR 2309, with new interchanges at
SR's 2325, and 2309/2400. SR's 2309 and 2400 will be
reconstructed to have a common interchange with existing US 421.
The highway will follow the existing US 421, starting at the
western end, for approximately 3,000 feet to just east of SR 2325
(Mathis Farm Road), where it begins on new location to the north
of existing US 421. The facility continues east parallel to the
existing US 421 on new location before tying back into existing
US 421 near SR 2309, via a proposed service road.
The project will involve fill impacts to 3.60 acres of
unvegetated waters of the United States. These impacts to stream
channels (8,301 linear feet) occur at 18 locations throughout the
project. At stream crossings, culverts or pipes will be used to
allow for adequate hydrological flow underneath the roadway, with
the exception of one location (Site G) where 764 feet of stream

2
will be relocated. The design of this channel change has not
been finalized and will be coordinated with resource agencies.
The proposed construction will also permanently impact 1.98 acres
of vegetated wetlands by filling and excavation. The impacted
wetlands include both palustrine forested and scrub/shrub areas.
Mitigation plans to compensate for impacts to surface waters
and wetlands are being developed by NCDOT for potential sites
within the upper Yadkin River basin. Feasibility studies for
several sites are underway.
The purpose of the work is to provide for the construction of
a multi-lane, full control of access, public roadway to improve
level of service for this portion of the US 421 corridor. The
applicant has considered several alternatives to the proposed
project, including the no-build alternative, building a freeway
or expressway on the existing alignment, and an alternative
alignment south of the existing highway. In addition, the
applicant has committed to investigating measures to avoid and
minimize wetland and stream impacts, including not using heavy
equipment in stream channels, using retaining walls to reduce
slopes, and using depressed or bottomless culverts with stone
substrate or low-flow channels.
Overall plans showing the proposed construction are included
with this public notice. Additional detailed plans may be
reviewed at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field
office at 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27615-6846, or at the offices of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality at the address shown below.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to
determine the need for the applicant to obtain any required State
authorization. No Department of the Army permit will be issued
until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been
received and reviewed by this agency, nor will a Department of
the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality has determined the applicability of a Water Quality
Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section
404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may
request, in writing within the comment period specified in the
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this

3
application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places for the
presence or absence of registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and the project
does not impact any registered property or property listed as
being eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the
National Register constitutes the extent of cultural resource
investigations by the District Engineer. NCDOT has conducted
surveys for architectural and archaeological resources, and
coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). SHPO has concurred that the project will not
have any effect on architectural resource properties eligible for
inclusion in the Register. NCDOT has discovered two
archaeological sites, a Middle Woodland site and a Late Woodland
site, that were assessed as potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and may be impacted by the project.
If those sites will be impacted by the project, additional
archaeological work will be necessary to evaluate their
eligibility. If after completion of this work (archaeological
investigations) either of the sites is determined eligible, a
research design and data recovery plan will be developed by
NCDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, and the District
Engineer, in consultation with SHPO, and implementation of the
plan to satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act will be made a condition of any Section 404
permit issued for work impacting the eligible sites. The
District Engineer is otherwise unaware of the presence of such
resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific,
prehistoric, or historical data may be lost or destroyed by work
under the requested permit.
The District Engineer is not aware, based on available
information, that the activity will affect species, or their
critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an
evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed
activity may have on the public interest requires a careful
weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each
L
r
4
particular case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected
to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to
authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which it
will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome
of the general balancing process. That decision should reflect
the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the
proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects
thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics,
general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use,
navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply
and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property
ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied
if the discharge that would be authorized by such permit would
not comply with the Environmental Protection Agencies' 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other
applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted
unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary
to the public interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the
public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian
Tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit
for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water
quality, general environmental effects, and the other public
interest factors listed above. Comments are used in preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact
Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing
and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed
activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this DA permit will
not be made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether

5
or not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302,
306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The application and this
public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the
NCDWQ for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act
certification maybe reviewed at the offices of the Environmental
Operations Section, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Salisbury Street, Archdale Building, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Copies of such materials will be furnished to any person
requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the
application for Clean Water Act certification should do so in
writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina
27611-7687, on or before January 15, 1998, Attention:
Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined
above, will be received in this office, Attention:
Eric Alsmeyer, until 4:15 p.m., January 22, 1998, or telephone
919-876-8441, extension 23.
o =
;o m \ \
!"!
CF.
O C
caE.?
0 o a H
N
cAia a?N ?
z a
3

4

Z??? NI M w
- NI V
E Goo
?
I N ,. °' L1 M h
W w "I
N U N i
?
N N O N .? f` LLJ I
i
r O
cc f-
Z
?0 P N O i

^ M
fV
,L
?c.
v? W
N
}
S1LDl? Y W W
t`
n

Y
`• , ? ? ? Y ?
C
fI
N V i •

4 N +
N
I
y?
C'
1? ~ NI '? 9 O e
N
•
. Y ? Y
? ?
p • Q ? 1 t.J
W 1

1 l 1? Y YI ? ?
Y h
i

SITE A
111
it//
SITE 1
11$1-.-??? L
SITE 2
7f (W\M\///xinc
,1 617C (3
' QE(,)N PPo-jtcr-
0
.
93rao 0
O •.
e
v?
O o 0 0
a
R
-L- 100+00
`
? s 1 rE 81
-L- 110+00
I20 +00
I \
s?rE gZ
8 r? `
?J
51 TEE\ \G
??\ 1?
SSTE D

N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6JG9001T (R-2239B)
PROPOSED US 121 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 2 OF 7
b n

e K
0
?
-L- 1304Oo

60,

5 ? i C 4 140 + 00
A
U ?? 1 "
-L- 150100
00
( STYE F n
?\ I ?r !/)%If
llill ,
8
SITE 3
S1 s 6
• a>
?? ? '?'? ? srrE43
-34
• S)TE i-}
S1TE i.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6969001T (R-2219B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2131 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 1996
SHEET 3 OF
loo *oo
e ?r
E J ?
d
ti
Adjacent Property Owners to Proposed
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Right Of Way
At Wetland Sites
Adjacent Adjacent
Property Owner Property Owner
Location Location Description Left Right _
Site 1 -L- Sta. 107+00± Royce & Myrna Mathis Marvin Roger & Wanda
@ Ramp B/C Gore area Bk. 570 Pg. 626 Mathis
Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 2 -L- Sta. 110+00± Marvin Roger & Wanda Steve & John Mathis
@ -Y- (SR 2324) A. Mathis Bk. 691 Pg. 146
Interchange area Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 3 -L- Sta. 159+00± Garmon & Essie Marie Melvorne P. Horton
@ SR 2316, Welborn Bk. 88 Pg. 200E
Bk. 549 Pg. 1137
Site 4 -L- Sta. 142+60± Aaron Jacob & Aaron Jacob & Anton ; to
@ culvert for Gray's Creek Antoinette White White
Tributary Bk. 664 Pg. 444 Bk. -664 Pg..444
N.C. DEPT. OF TF-ANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILIUS COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET I OF 7
WETLAND AREA SUMMARY
J
Location Location Fill in Excavation in Fill Below Undercut in Drained Wetlands
Description Wetlands Wetlands Surface Water Wetlands (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha) (cu.m.)
Site 1 -L- Sta. 0.42 -0- -0- * -0-
107+00±
@ Ramp B/C
Gore area
Site 2 -L- Sta. 0.14 0.07 -0-
11 0+00±
@ -Y- (SR
2324)
Interchange
area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 0.14 -0- -0- * -0-
159+00±
@ SR 2316
Site 4 -L- Sta. 0.03 -0- -0- -0-
142+641
@ culvert for
Gray's Creek
Tributary
TOTALS 0.73 0.07 -0- 0.06
* Not available at this time.
N= All sites are above headwaters.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R 2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 5 OF *7 .
k SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
L
ti tion
Location Descri Fill-in Surface(HAl Proposed Cross .-pV Cui•rer
oca
on p
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60t 0.04 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10f 0.59 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site BI -L- Sta. 121+40± 0.02 900 RC=
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 0.01 900 RCF
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60± 0.19 1350 RCF
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20t 0.02 1050 RCF
Site E -L- Sta. 1.43+15t 0.07 2.4 x 1.8 RC=
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00+ 0.01 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80+ 0.17 2.7 x 1.5 RC-
Site F 1 -L- Sta. 164+00± 0.02 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 0.21 750 RCP
Site GI -L- Sta. 171+30± 0.03 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 0.01 1050 RCF
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 0.02 600 RCF
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 0.01 900 RCF
Site I -Ll- Sta. 18+50+ 0.01 1050 RC-r'
Total
Note: Site B is below headwaters. All
other sites are above headwaters.
1.45
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATI P
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B;
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 6 OF `t

Location SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Description Existing Piped Proposed Culvert
Channel Length (m)
Length lost (m)
(m)
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60f 82 129 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 11 I+10± 475 367 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B1 -L- Sta. 121+40+ 283 112 900 RCP
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 68 44 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60f 179 129 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20f 76 68 1050 RCP
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15f 95 65 2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00± _ 67.5 66 1050 RCP
Site F -- -L- Sta. 154+80f 156 77 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site Fl -L- Sta. 164+00+ 48 43 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 233 0 -
Site GI -L- Sta. 171+30+ 245.5 205 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90,+ 59 58 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 75.5 73 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 183 175 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 95 91.5 750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 93.5 89.5 900 RCP
Site I -LI- Sta. 18+50f 17 17 1050 RCP
Total 2531 1809
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
Note: Site B is below headwaters. US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
All other sites are above East of SR 2309
headwaters. SHEET 7 OF 7

IL <J %I L.D a a v a L
10 - ?,?av j
•u0143ngsu03
;lollop sAuAgglliq aplsaq •ologsa3111M ul 1a;uao
Allunququoo 1a3lluM 'd uLIOP
S iJa/ a' "I y'-K7f r-,,a !off
llinq aq sllul; a3llq luq Pa?IsE aql ;E 1CEpsaupaM Uo i 1 UoisiAidf
uuuw •a;no1 alglssaaas a1otu
ia
ES u a
d
ule ul sal;unoa ;SWALI DON ;q$Ia
Uzoa
nd
a
s
ta
ul3
o o l5 Nl-c l / p ?J
/
4
.
j
}uaao o} alqlsso
P gll
q;
j
l
W
llg ,
SB oos Su oaogs33111M cua;saAi
ul sla4.uao $ulddo
s
u
-
u }aUZ u0sl0l s1vu0N •:9 A B;aaoaS
Loa 'o*N uagta awaq; lEa;uao a C 7?
J c? cv l
p,?0,4
-a7 ?'
g
p
W
l
M .
od ?
?/
1 O
Pug ;1BUZg Dip punoxe ssedAq
17;11 'S'n agl 5u47lpadxa 1oj a3lods u SUM alglss
se uoos se
sal;unoo u5nE4uM pule ul3lpu?i
"?p i1 a, ?y? -07
? VA
uuBW alad io?iBy?I oaogsa3lllM Sa3lliM ul saUEI lnoj o; pauaplta 1 Pf 5 Q ?,
? '
Isdll) stuu di 1d ;uauzaAwdug I ZV 'S'fl $Ul;;a?i1oj paau ag,L
A
uol;E;aodsuuly l e n u u u "42.102s Loci
841161A
E?nEIEM put, UPIPE
I 1,4
' ira7
flag; ?ulaudaad jo ssaooid
9q4 Sul inp slEl;)Wo Alunoo ?
'sa3II1M ul ;oa fond I ZI, -S-fl
a
m suaaouoo 14
lenb xi
uM
t a y ('
/ / -
S "
dlaq o} alglellEAE aq saauuuld
' ql
l
ill
1l
uo ?upuaq ollgnd B
ploq o; sl ?JS p1
?
loci juq; pa}saO
?ns osle . I
OH •sallunoo uaalsua ul uegl 'saoanosaa lumjeN pule LIIIBaH
.10q;E.1 Ea1u }saMq;ioN aq} ul •;uauzuoalAUa jo ;uaLuj iudap
papaau a1u spun] aouuuDjujutu D'N ;)q; jo Aau;aaoas
AwAq$lg aiouz plus pooh 'Pau&0H uo;saad o; pa;uasaid
-alglssod su uolldo Duo plus Ilag •sW
uoos Su I Zt, 'S-fl uapjM o} paau
aq} 1oj do a3lods oslu '1a5uu>;uI Spa9U
uol;u$l;lux laauz .Ciinj },u0n1
PleKLjo Suu[d uo allePdo uB aAu?
It's
t ' t • M
"'? =
go saz;uley1
o?
i
u
E?
)v ll • } ag , zlq • osodlnd
t - A
l?{; a iE au' 8t 'o'il
m5ullcluo uglor. ao3o?lQ lUau? •
„ -do ana w: o U10UO? Asa f :,.
I Q I ?IIIM..
1
ul
l
n
ssaooid
?U
dauuo
alos
un
ag
no
-e BUOIB s - i;s PUB spuupaM
l,oQ
gIIM pU*f pasugoand suq
???l(p s
O f 9V
-
lp
j
ll
lp
ll }
q , :
-L ;
iua3u03 passa zdxa osle a5ed 'Ilafl 'sw PIES
' s
'Allleolulouooa oad Aumq$lg
'5ulaanaao sl ;aa(
uol?ax alllua ' aql }ljauaq
III& ;oa(oid aq; plus aH •aaAold aril aaalq& su 'ulsuq-qns aUIES
atil alquzajasd pule 'ulsuq auzus
UOAI'd r
-uxa ;uauzquano? Alunoo ul B> aqj. ulgllm spuellaM io suzua ps I-
u su put; ;uapn;s A;lslDAlU fj 5ulnoadzul 10 9ulao;sal sanlonul
•
a}B}S uglgaBjBddd . u>; Sic =140111W '1usodoid uo1lB5111iii ;
SAup slq uioij paau s,}aal'oad Dill u apnloul ;,usaop A ilun6 1a;BM
PUBLOS.lu poolstapun aq plus

a,Wud •alglssod sB uoos su sauul jo uolslATG DID uzolj;luuad E -101

uol}uollddu LoG Pin plus aqS
?O

UUJU
• OS
I I
lnoj o} pauaplm 17;V 'S-fl 5unla5
10
aau a
assaa
}
S a;I aq
01 Sp99u li Uuq; laplm sl uElpatu
"J* w 'Him
j p
q
p
g
ud
AnD sa;luuuW 6}unoo sD31I1M
•ganunoz) du7aoallN
. aq; wtilagta }noqu uol;sonb
E suzl Nda aLLL» 'IIDH 'sW Pius
u
'
`A.LtnS 14nupeM
PUB agsv'A1and l
louooa OLD o; ;uvlxoduzl azu
a
u
d
'ul31PEA 'sa3IIIM uzoa; slElol;jo ?Caq; pule alai; suzleaa;s ;noz; jo
f .
4
p
;uaUIU.Iano$ uta0; pule f4unoo 401 u ;oO aA,ata asnuoaq palpueq .
'a}Bls ?ulpnloul 1ul}aaiu aq; ag Illta jjoun i taoq ;node
a
o a
papua;;E aldoad ooI lnogN suollsanb Dm oslu alags„ q; j
;no1 aq; uo ;uatutuoa v1l
Aunaayq ;v s}IIOU=oO
• 1aArd AmgN Pq; jo 31ao3 q;noS
gi
l
o sa
xe
n
i
atueuun pule uoilsanb o; atull aldtue
PIN salouaOU asaq; plus a3loH
?'? S VVi`Ya?`
uumsa3Iods !pnoa l
j
i
I
gl
; p
u plus `;1noo aolaadnS upipuA PUB' 313910 uoxugL '31aaao QnI? u-ualS OLD} PUB A3uaIid
ul }as uaaq IDA },usuq }sanbaa una Quid '31aa.io duo apnloul u0113240ld IE;uaquu0alnU2
'
uoI}aun(uI slq} uo ulaEaK pa;gEduzl aq o} sUIEa1;S sa;)Du[5ua jo sdaoo
S'fl
}Ins au; pal)j otjm aldoad palaUUBgo A U1y S'fl 'u0nealaaa pule wed
8Z aq} o} ?uI*mIaq -,4; adozd -a.z 10 s;.IDAlno ul Ind o; sulEags jo ;uaui;audaa •O•N `glllalua
o noI}suuzapuoo uI}leq
uo1}oun('ul ule s3jaas }fns aq?, '. 30 laaj lleaull 000'01 OLD 10i loci
Aq aplnoad aq Plnonn uopE??plul ul amaps luin;EN jo wnasnw
g l1 'uolssluxtuoo spmosa-d ;
sU*0 aq 2401s aaualuDnuoa' Moil pule Paagta Si u: nu;BM ojilPllM 'D'N aq; axle SpuellaM
slang aE3 u{ PgE ?uiq ul ;oafoad aql ;nogE ulaauoo
l PUB sulEDrls laa a II1ta E0nu;BM
}gauoq usaop a}nog;uasaad aq} ul
eua Pg} Plies IIDH 'sW pule u131PBA 'saNI1M ul Sauel ,
aualo S'll Plus suq PUB UORE00119 a5uE43la;ul xnoj o; IZt, 'S'fl Ouluaplta Moq
Sjgl paluop
SBII uospja ,
.M
?fE t
d a9Pi2i anIfl

lnoqu suol;sanb OulslEa sdnoz$
aoplgaoa l-egl ul PUB[ sutao ogta ail apnloul;,usaop slgZ 'u0illlLLl 'ef;ll?n6 1a;EM jo uolsiAIG ail
'uosplg jllauaq o; pa$utga soon I'9l,$ Iv pa;a$pnq sl }soO o; Uoillppie ul lEq; plus aqS
uj3IPB1C uaa;saAi ul sauul an0j JaEpeaM jo asnuaaq 8661 'lama
o} pauaPtm s,ll uagta IZt 'S'fl jo 10 as;utm 1o I1uj alul Iilun ;au;s ul3lpE)L ag; PUB 31aa1o s,dEio
a;noa Dill suzlulo;lns atil •saaq;o o; alqu aq;,uplnoM uol;ona;suoa jo salau;ngpl puu 31aaao Oul;unH
PUB loo agll `saaquiam pau. . 'Palnpagas se Ipdd Aq E5nuIBM a[;li'I glaoN 'saireangM Sli PL-
aaqlo 'UI311a jo uospla pa1,q Ul 1DAjH Marl aq; jo 31103 319aao 1P11g aau uol;39s sa31IlM. _
and;u;uasaldal uol;E}aodsuul,I, q;nos 04104 ABM3l1Ed Qftd an18 ag; ul paloudUll suzleal;S ;
jo plsog •0•N aauzlo; Din tool; uonoas alluz-8'8 Diu uo
_
'llafl'SW plus `pa;oudwiAIaslaA
pans suazlllo ul3lpBA ula;sata piq uollongsuoo ail jo OulpmA%u -pie aq lilta spu-el;aM jo saaaB t,•Z
jo dnoa$ E `Enuoux slgll lallxez Mollo o; ponssl ;,uaaE s;luuad }nogg •slauuugo Mau ul pa;noaaa
sa a doldul
it la i killunb 1a4uta it lBgl plus a31oH .10 s;lanlm gllta punoAwpun i

?a
q ;O PUB S ;o D f 0 1 d AaunO3 s;SnI A uI Ind ag aaglla o; ;iulAeq squuaps-.
ABAA gRlq uo'aouanuul 1adoldcul *MOn 3uju } $ululE;uluuz jo ;aaj 1Eaull loE'8 }noqu
?uluiaouoa s _ jju9allB 1oj
u lips allLim? auop oq o; aABq P1nota
• Ul llnsal IIW a$uugolajul puoU-
uuul;IulID aq; of a5uug3la;ul
a11; aap
n P1B uol;E;aodsulea,L
o
1BO
•
•
a
UB 31a0M Stu
sp iepuu;s ;ua iim
;aaul sa
uAl
;13A 93
E3
BIU Pleoa duo ApulM aq; '
j
g
o
N
P
ql P
'Lou
• p
I
l
I uz01j uoljoas ag; plus llafl 'sW
a;u}S Diu
ssolou slulDWo gllM Sul;aam Aq o} pazilnn a19ta 11 it liingaa aq
of PAuq plnom a;rzoa 5unspm ail sauul lnoj o; pauaplta
slq; ioj;ndul $unla? sim ag;Egl jo luaolad oL ;nogE plus aH uaaq aABq Apu91IB S;uaul$as
PUB ;uasl;ludap slit azluE5a0a1 •pazilnn sleta a;no15ul;slxa as9gy ul3lpE? Ul 9?JuEg31alul
peon a$plag zaadS o; a
3
1AU
01 S6Ep 91, uziq uanl5 PuLI ;unH
- agll it ua3lu; aq PInoM sassaulsnq
i
`
d I
1
iI
-PBA Iuoaj PUE QOUleiloaa;ul puo21
gulp
Ago dno15 a plol uoslo,l, PUB sau
oq
aaouz PUB ;au
ull
u duo tCpg11M agll 0; a$ulegoaa;ul
'ollgnd aq;
U
e 1E;uaUIU0aln
a PSI9APE aaouI
s Puoa u l le; u n o L11 Aq s n a g
OO si
L1llM uonuolunuU
nou loll
q;lnn 5u13[olel ?ulgl uleuz aqp Plus u aq pinoM aaagl Plu
0310H
paslegolnd uaaq sleq a;not OLD U101j Plata SUM jo s;gslll

uoslos •sanssl uol;ElaodsuEll
Mau ag; 1oj AuM jo ;q;?11 gonut auEl-moj pBq rCpuallu'lt;gn iZl,

•S.n 3o s;UatuBas Aluo aq plus
541U.103U0o suazl;lo laglo os asnleoaq alnoi ?1ul4slxa aq}
PUB sdnoa? IE;uazuuozjAua LilIM uo plinq o; uol;sanb oq; jo lno aH Doll ; usI slq; plus 0310H _
$ullaQlu seta oslu ag Plus aH Alalalduzoo si ll,, -Plus aq »'ure5u 1198
•;oaf'oad ;)Ln a;lpadxa aano ssaooad 8uluuuld ag; I xels sw palels Lalno i Mau u o; 08 0l
of All PUB q?laluu o} paUanlaz
'
' of ;uuM Aaq;l a3lll sWaas It,. ; Ulp9DU Aaq; 01E Agta 'os sl slgl}
JI •Aleta jo lg5la auul-mO4 u u0
aq uaq u 17;t,
fl loajju Aaq;
S jUQtUW03
su sanssl ;luuad AlilBnb as;um pip AQgl PUB pollad Apn;s auDA 119 URPUA PUB sa3111M ul SauEI
ssaappe plnota oij plus uoslo,l, -uanaS o} xis u $ulanp A-emg5lq U Oxvd tuosg panuHuog)
a? a st "duluap im,
I j;v S fl '
,
8661 `81 fUor zgaq `•D•N. 1o.iogsa3j1lrn•q:poN 14oj4-ed-Mu-,nor sa-411A& 7N

tay /ZO,-Oc-a5' -2;?,n-q
plnoo Aa11; se Ilam se spuel;am
Run scusa,149 PaPiOAU (.LOCI)
fag; JI ?u}uoI;sanb t11;s aju
i
i
i
1
1
1
I
r
1.
.
y 1
IZ ??d u0 pa°ai?l#o?
om} 1?uI;sl3ca a11i pilau apt, '
•sanlip
al,q ljd Aq sspou ropllp U13
iacpel suonaasia;ul ollIoads maJ
a o; palluill aq pjnoo ssaaae os
papaau sum a}noa mau aipua
uE pauxlslo`•.Lou Piss II?g 'sw
•P1?s pus `sanssl
aDuaua;ulau[ sa;eaio spaoi }satin
-Isaa Oullspta 990114 Ile ?uIAeH
'09 'O'N PIO sl aIa11I Aamolq
IsWA-;spa ?ul;¢IXa iaPlo
u'Rna ud ?IZ$,'S',tl ,pIO Patina
mou sl Jagm plm' a}no! ;uasaad
agI 'Duo Isamau aq; :saoeld
;a sa;no.i lzk 'S'fl IaIIBied
aaicp ?iulaq •axnp ul }Insa i III&
ajrioa Mau sILI plps tiag ?sw
S'fl Jo a}noi }uas d atp o Miou
saol Al9.ujua IsourIe Iieq} a}noz u
J9j uplpeA ui Au*, Jo lop 8ujArjq
Jo ssaooid RgI .ul pi osii pup
sa3ItIM ul Munn Jo 4q?p $ulAncl
Jo sage;s IeuU uI sI .LOCI
„-a;no.1 Oupslxa 9111 q}Inn }a-egtgi
ssal aq Plpo*. a-lagL •. 'aAsq
ate„ Ilag -sw pies „'a;noi A1au atp
uole sl Spadozd algedolanap
Ia wpuom Inq diaq },uao 1„
•,. isilelaads
jejuaulu01Inua Alan
--3a}eM JO uoISIATCI a 'IIQG LPuIO
plus 'pasn ?ulaq },usl IZv -S-njo
alrloi'$ul;s}xa agI;eqj sI uplpeA
puU s931I1M ul suol}oas aq;
Inoge waauoa }sa55Iq s.kilipn6
ialgA? JO uoTsIAICI 'D'N aql
p?u9llean8 si a;nog
-wd asagl Jo gaup uo uopangs
-uoo a}alducoo' o} sx73a4 aa.iq;
o} j/1 -Z InogE a3le} 111& }I
•uollllui LZ$
;s pap5pnq sl IsoO •palnpa11Ds
se 6661 aunt uI pop.z-eme
aq ueo LL ,a;e;sxa;ul o; 310ax0
daacl uwo.iJ juaui5gs allM-L•t, aLP
10j ;as.11u03 uol}an.i}suoa a11I
;ecl} adoq sT HAS 3.1azp PTes aH
'9'ZZ$ Ia Pala?pnq
sl 1900 'axon pies ,'uoos }1111}
aq IIFnc! it ains XIsItllo .qa I.uaaa
am Inq, aunt o; N3pq p2gsnd
uaaq seq pus AvW 9ulux03
slgl papxema as p} palnpQyae
spna . ?ta??? • 00 , 9 }Sat
all;AU1310OXlp i09 tgolJ
sa I TnoJ a1 I Zip §Pplu
9'£ ;lulu ?ping .ioj }auno-q
? s uO1ltNI L'S£$ ;a
Pa aPng i _as00 -JOA SSUIap ou
g}lm 6661 1sn5nV ioJ palnpagas
suleutax, LL ale;s.ta;ul oI peo'd
UBM
11 hullo uzoli mm'-s-fup sallui
6.9 Puluapim soJ ;aequoa Qqj
u0I111lu 6'££$ }b pa;a$pnq
sl }loo uoI tpodsua4l
Jo ;uauz}.luda(l 'O`N a11I
Jo iaa1918ua II u4IsIAIQ '03I0H
aPgM PIeS '.ta$uol AIglssod
pue aunt of Isual Is paAelap lam
Inq q;uoui }ssi pap,zame uaaq
anuq o} sum a$ue113.ia4u1 paO21
ue1t9ull0 agI o; a5uegoja;u{
pEog duo ApulM au}
utojJ sa?IIIM ul u01139s allui-S-9
acll ?uluaolm zoJ }oe-quoo 041
sanunoa u5nelEM
PUP u131pe. -'sa311IM ul sauel
inoJ o} IZfi 'S'fl Jo ?uluaplm 313sq
pagsnd aneq slluuad A411anb
-Ioptq a}e;s ?ulnssl ul: sAtIoU
allvagau mar As
tST
2UTU?'@Ptm
fl..
-pa;lluiuioo uaaq
seq sassaulsnq pue slunpln
patio, jddro X?
:tau{ sl 1x
919aa 1640#0 io3 PaXIM JO 01819 aqZ uI ssaJROxd JO 11
.
0 HJLVd I qVN'
k: 6 q 1! W.l.t s. ` t
1?1 ml
r7
(ologd I}els) *?41unwwoo tiaaqu
sigl •penssl uaaq l,useq Mils jj=
-eq eunp isgel le of peAulep uaaq sl
seen a6ue4oaajul peod uew6ullo
Ap .M agl woj{ ;uaw6as agl uo sau
plq uollonn,suoo le 10 6ulpaennd - Q3,
r
s
t

1

t
.L2 ? .
O yq =
0
04
? 4-J U
0 030.?
Z? r
0 V
• ?
• O 'Cj fd H
Uwe.
0,0
v 0
W O .?

'5 =
i?N,
I? d
DO
0°s
as =
c 3
o ?
N
Nom'
H -L
Z ?
ti V
L6
? U
O
O d H d
? m c6
N
Do
3 ???yy y - o
vN
J
i
q ^? Cd
cz o *'+ :S
ca o C-1
I ? 04
op
V bD,
^' w
d y.a O
Cd
ow
?W
a00
a)
i-?
a)
61 o
.?
,z,5 ai 0
c
b0
a
J2
W
I
o Co
N W
0 Q . r-, sa 3 •?^,? Cd ? _ j ai _ ? 'a7, M "
cd A) ;j
ho 0 a ? r. Q 4? to
cad W d
O U G. O .m ? cod r,4
s~ O fi O.5 .+ .
?w.? 0 o o 0 a) m °vZ W. w P? ri°? °w OA? o a) P- M
3 o;j rn
ff. -?gpco
a7.o?°: cC I. 00 p ca 3q ?4-3 '
El 0- o o o -? >0 a) o p a) 0 m go o o•° ci o M dt
ccdHjbA y' 3a) 5cda0 o 00 o Ca?i? p 000 voi
> 4.5 :Z Cd Id 401 b0, ; 0 Z cd cS v ca d o o ? r- °A . 4. P Cd in. cd ?cd ? O d a x ? o ? coo 4J a)
A• ?+ o> n+' m. ?° acd to a?+?p F,cd
?] •??'' y w0 >>-d 0 w0 M U '401 4 y cyd (n Si bb „ 1 w ? p k 1 U1 O (n +2 a)
M co a) o .fl q O 3 „ d o 0 p c a? m p„ o
r-a 71 rVn v bD ?n - M ^CS s , v? t O p O c6 -u r44 4 ¢ ? O O U ? a) v? > a> o c0 M bD cn d > s ? a+ q ? cd
bD ?' ?cd w ?
° 09 `n 0) O ? a) w %Z G 4 41 El 'Ej ai a) 0.2 ho s v7 N cart dA O
U) v7 O 0
O ca> c q-d vaa)i OO'?v,. vi yOc7y
ca o ?ycd o 3s+d??o day 0 O
Fw 3W 4, aisaw , n p v7 ° ad m rj)
0 C-1 d ^a dQ) pi is F mp y q d > mA
V4 0 r- bb
N'd O o.Cc°d'.C ° 3 vi ° 2 °+ ' o m o d N[? R,Z ?.yW ?,?.C '14 0
(2) bJ)4 0) ",j P4 41 Cd
: 41 x o df=+ o ?-4 4S o d ? o o 0 d p rI o> 0 k ca y..+ W o,? ° a'.Q'.3
0 N , ,? w m '.7 w d o C 3 s7 A t m 3 .. Id m d 0 C+ .
cd 20 10

Go
a)
vF4
.-i
R
d
4.
R
'O
d
C
d
3
Z
d
C
O
C
Y
8aJ
C
3
i=
a?
I,
V4
4
8?A

'o - ,° .-- cis - - $m p co '$4 O O co co y N f: 'd m ' ,d Q ?
? co a) cd m -a a) ',, t•'' - O k bn .-=? O v 'cs 'd 3 .a 2 • x a) o 10 y A. bb Ck) >,••d H N -0 w U O O W w •4: a0 ca cd ° N .•? M co O -0
Q 4) 44
m ' as m m p q N O O NO C'l $' a. x a Q) N- 0 W-1 sue.
O
4• o bi) o r .? k to r., .a R £ ... 0 c. a) +
19 -a rW U co °'CS d co o w - s; N q v a$-1i > a t- , tW m Ca ? -- "?y -d 0 a? aOi
r. Cd,
`...
° 4? 04 w co ° °' to C.) 0- q o g k
p q g WU a?i q 4a N k
o ,.cdo 0.Q k g qq??c.y 0 48
ski o ° A .0 td ?w as Cd J., +? C/ c? >' o e-7 co z0 co
co
,9 r. a;ub ?41°00 omU y?'dofp....y Co c?a) 'o ai 0 4)
,1"'•, ,.G m m a) +? 0 co U r ,O ° d O m? cd O ,d ., O Cd x. d d •4 O d
Qk) E- O aO m4J y
E-.q s0. o? ?o 9. - m "a) ?Z' H O qO ??+a N c°a 00
o+? q ??.°?' as-4, 3 FO.?.?.0 ?.0 ? -'•N w out p o4., &a .q,+ !z,to
+> Am W 4'0 0atuoi vtd??y co u•? b? WC,y0 ?q yas Cd
a c 5 co .Q is 41
U) > FO B a w .o., , o r. 0- g 0 0 0 CCS 4.
0° o CO a) m[ cd LL g y o q G o ?+' S
41 v
0 {'t.0 ?`?-° "mdn+'0 aUi coO -5w0oa ?0) 4J?
A > (1) N 44 . ? m cd a) cd O ? 0 do m e`? O Y Q) CO 5 m r. bn
bb 0 ca , m U +-' + cd O N O O -r cd O 0 k
On Fi ^m ? U q j: 0 c cd -4 4-) Cd CU °m •.m. " c q r j cad
g o s~ q ° N m ^ g o q d, a 0 a> $. a) C%3 CO sr ,• b y 4J p o J 0 •,. q
... a) o 0 „ U 0 +.? Co : 'd W m 'O N C) •'" 'd o ., .r . W , O
? P14 0 ^' 10 UI ¢ `- .w•?. 00 a) ai ? ° y y W q .G -,4 o cd
4) aW•^+..a?i y0a>Wms,>? rn.?,s~.?+' 4Ucd 41 4,4J
0?3 m°oooa?+?,+, ac?d?;gop"os",mm `
v a) c} O Cd cd o a m w s w m ^m m CIS- a) 0 0 +' t? a m ? Lj ? g m
o cis -• 'd m? O s. O w cd O ~ V v Cd O m i. q q
•F, Rs '? w O a) O O w p f?. V .-? O
may, 0 a> Co s. c>
0.- 0 O '00
g q ? ? ? .d ?y o A" a q 41
a ?F`^q o?oSwF'yo14
Ew-?oas
41 ?.11'•^?•1?E"omo?.° 4) 4) as
?
co g w W -, m a) ,a -..,-- .N o 1+4 0 El V d a 2 .c-." °m Cd . Q -d o Z o O -
y ?y P,10 q g TS 'mJa q •? c?V ' ^ ) O a) ° q > ? , g 'd -Cl)- U Cd (1) q ? .[ O N > m O ti d
cd°'m 0000W-V °cd4J4i 4JN k'? N co >$4 as „ Oas w
cd p O cd +? m s o Cd 0 v O >> O O 0 w Q 1, co a x. N q a) m 14-4 Q) agi>,s°'. qg ??3,dx ^"cdo>,° m axe qs. c. ,d?°.°a>,a?gq?d°N g q q
a- , ~ O V+ C*
0 a; a cad p v A N o 0 co u a y ? ? cd m y ? -a 444 44) FO". y ai 00
o q s~'? Cd r.,. m ?? sib O WA q N g qU O O Cd ai m? qz3 ?? O m 14
c4yCD -? f a) 4-1 Q ,. m O U A q • N cd a) ^d b °. 'C! s, m 0,14 Cd p, +r cd ?. 4? sa y q cd v ; q Ca'd O ,0 O F...o, ?
,4 .) o d 4)X. 4-) CaF''
?.x 3 y?? aks ? ?4Jti; b.0 :5 ?? ° as c) ? ?. Mbb 02 -?4 '- >4 4) 0 co 4) F CLg c°d A s°. p mg (1)
+'??.qs?g,? s~kasa)0.o- cd ym °xyo q?bu 4JW pRk 0;4 ¢o o
0 gp A
q q 00 . p 04(1X). Cd 4) •ti ^d A 14 g zf p a) .,. • a) C) .-? o ? o W y cd (1) 00 It, q ' t, g cd ?
O $4 q ,C w+ ~ o +? " yd m o CIS 4, > 0 o m - O . ° .°., +? .? cd •-+ d a q ° > 4 Ca 4S Q
(],w N m 4 bD ,.. q w m ....? >, q q +' U •., q' y'0 U a) y a s0. q 4J t•+ N^ •„•? q g"
O g 0 m
g a) „ O m q ?. Cd o 01- o g bn H +1 q q E
a m Go 0,01- +' E o o w o ,q w N as as +? CO as A 4J s ca
0q ai. gbcdao gi+a)a?'v?aR,U m r„4 14 4'0a q g4.?a)y 0
o ,o as m 4) cH 0 m o" 0 as w q cd o a•d q k bn o m w O O .5 0 0$ o q> b as .-
'd .5 -45 q .? m 'Lf H 'tf O '° i. ° q cd ?'' N q .? y q ° U= m m m .? 'V 4 O . r'7 4-3 O td U ,?
041 .imcoimgao>ai*?' coi'? ?• sm. Slava? yashvO.??'- cd yN.5 mg02 ° 00
00 0 C-) 0 0047 d m ma?was°oasm b q ,J .a?cd o W-. coq,.... 4)zsgs k-?.- 4)-Q bnc?cd p.q Og00 Nm P4b??a)? :N, 4) p?.?R'd?cd O?yc°.> ? O ?
b 0 a? s? d as d d +a d b0- Cl) ° d g = 4, cd 4) q an ccdd g d ^d ac"i ?° W o ? 10
as o d r~ cd > s; d q q .,. tt •o a? ° a? A q O 2 w p ,s3 a o g o
W >, +, +? .Q +, W cd e N g m a) Ea a O •,. V . , w q e? R• 4a •Q -u (11 Co q O 0- c) m •'d .., ,O t3 •.r .1? W a ?, ? m Q, W
0 "?"? ca "0 ? a) a) N ?.' a) ,d -4 co 'Lf co a) gym. ,=? - 4J A U it V m q +, ,...j "C! q O = $4 D,
9 +-? ° co 0 Cl) api ? 00 co :3 C..cgd •d 41 ° C) a) ., q s0. U'a m "' cd c ° cl W cis
41 cdq 4•,.'LS a y ,d.m?cdm? +?ga??? .bM a),4 0) m?'tyg
-be ? w p m a) "O .,. ? 0 P4' CO m > ? "" ,c you .?? .. G a) 0 (d a) U2 a) .N q O q ?; N 'b
° co am)H s°. 0,4 ~ ?W Ua? 00 i°•, 0 a? U s`d.i s3?w W ?? goro-? ., Q u°) 0 o
o v Co C-4 g . , w q Y1 N s~ o v cd co -0 >, ° 4+ 0. m v sr
cmo ?c-cV ?0?? cd0 oA°°C/?-°?+'.?y? 14'a ^y''?v? + O$$4 0,, ?
qW ° gy'V oC6 ? a•a qU oaf Cd V4 my ON m o? o Q "4 0,
a,a ? g 4..,W ?? Cd 4.3 ° .?o 4) ds. ca 0 mm q t?Ccd +'d'?? Cd" m ui0 y a? g co ,? ° m
co C's m bp?C/2 mm °ob g o? a yga4 cd g m k k41 ? ? ?
as d R.o ?.o,•..,d a ° 4. u Q)
® 0 b? o a> o a? 0 CO z/] o q o g N r'a4 Is ,
o
?'
?m•r a? m m?g ag„ q $ D d
ga?s.gaagi ^0 qa?, p,gb°n? m? kgd'°0 ° --F 00
Cdo > o cq s. >, m o O' O Cd O +. p o 01 .
g ? o 0 - q a) => g0 O W Cd ^C 0 ?." ?, O y C/2 C/1 N L'i O $. ,q ?•' +? ° N 04 pp`' ?
dod,gcd?a>?. a??cd m°v?r J4J_ 1 4? L-
Am N? q:3 N od ^m m.?
,d q
b ,q .a q0 c; ao ?' V q -0 ?, • Ri sa m y m g +? .a Ei . -O zs+? m
0 w 0 as an
.do .??? ^1 Oqq a; am0cd 4j m ww o? yasU] s.gs,
M cl2 .? 0 m Id o w z3 cd'd 4 0 O o "d w Cd m U2 as d d o
0 v, q +? 0 N 4, ai y •.. q
• q? q q ?+ g dD 0 m
(D (D a o 'd W c'dd +? 41 .N ? °°° I ?' 'd ° cad x ? "o 0 Cd R ? Esy, ?''?7 g a, (1)i ? a) E+ ? ? a) as
W + 0 ctd) m P; • (IS 0 as"i .o m 0 a a a o • z r. Cd " ? .?-+ ?
V
O
v ?
m d m m
w
o cuommo o,?' p.,o ? m$44;a04a)
a1 o .L cts o cu a) cu w . U
i
t
:;I Pox 0 t-
00 bD44
m m o+4 NTi 0
cu a CT m?
-+co o1:4 mai d•m0'0 C'Jc?a'vd tscs???«sN
0-0 4? cc P4
(D Ca CD a) +g co as 0
00 44 0
w 0-0
4? 0.9
(D F3 a)? o m 'a o 4 O o sm. 0 a.my ?w
m a) 0Zy p,r?.,w 0,-1 mo
a? _'
CU 9:
CD t44 1. ?"mom. 41 ?aio„ mo w3 acu °°
cis
cu
o v ,> o O +, o m }, o vl o m by r,
m
2s50 o co (D 14 ? cu 0- a)
m oa?o N moo O
a) oa) a=m? ho i,? 4-4
CIS o Cd 4, 41
m ami o.- jvm o oow a m,m s7 m > D cz 4? cu
.?c° N a9iO? ami cu
? 9 ?? b bpc?,0W?.coi m? y m^d
El a) ;:I cu
cis
con
H
;*
I?
?Pao
?V
0

o cu Q)
-?4 0
qo ?m No 00
m 4,
cd?m
q

u,
a
a4 n g °' 3x._ ,? v c
o
? m ate, ...
0

-a cu cu
° N ?0 o (D o a) U 0
° o.° a) m•?•°?
?U U
cl 0. CO 4)
oQso mtf
°°
9! 0)
k
^
ry?oDm?aki2s
0
,
El
El ?
?
y
cu Di 0

Q
Co Ctt
) bpd O w°
•-? y 'a a
oo?Q
o
e
°

O m y• •, 04- o bap m 0.-
[°
5a)
v^0
ow
m
. $4
rr
os
u ..o o
?,
o
4J J? Q)
x
??
° CZ a) bp Cj "0 Z >,
" o
y
?
a) a) by
C: cu
75 4) ; N O
> ,.o +' ?+ m m ?,' A4
a f"
., y 'N ,
.
4
U a
y s.. ° CJ a)
k w •
?i
.
tk. 4J? Q) _14
0
Cis '
a
'0
.2) .20 co
(D
r r, .r 0 Cc;
0 cu
a)mc
4
m
x. y m y
qy-? nocoC',
otx-toow t bb 4:4
0 cis
ooh s°?3 a) m 0 ???,t-+?c,;, ? ? bDk
(L) CO a) o 0 0 ? awmi q' o O a0 ? 3 H Ot 00 .Q)
o >, by ? ?' c 2f co nt -000 00 o s; ? `y m C
a a) a) cu =f (L) cu a)
L?
F: ' Fi 3 O to
24 0-0 .-
s Q
+o+ACR i (D (D o cvca k ?o 0 N
o a
4'65
owb.0fC, J ?c??•^yA?W aE?x oho
:1 14 0 "Cl El co
C? a O bn° yw4 ron Cu Go 'v El
? y Ca4 m
'a z Q) cl m ?, cd
0 cts "0 C', p
1) 0 4) 00-0
c?7symy
3op
?cr?Ncs?bbo ??
-o cts
CD C.) Go C4 CL) 0)
CC 4? 00
0
CD C-1 41
H 3-1-
U 0
Q
o<t:?i
Cr W
IL- ?
w
H
Z
0
U
NCDOT/ME BRANCH Fax:[phone]
z
I?Ir
1
to
uu
14
all*
CIO
cy
CN
r ?
J fs! ? •
.I
1:
Feb 3 '98 10:48
P. 04
• ..w +•vn 1n cb .F1/tlfl"'J'JV sison aw sivav:is b3GOlid
?c vA?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8960
WMD/WCWQGB/KM
Colonel Terry Youngbluth
District Engineer
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615-6814
FEB 2 6 10..
Q 1999 r
n S
SUBJ: N.C. Dept. of Transportation: February 1, 1999 Draft Mitigation Plan for
Shepherds Tree (TIP No. R-2239)
Dear Colonel Youngbluth:
This is in response to the above referenced mitigation proposal for Shepherds Tree
Mitigation area, prepared by KCI Associates of North Carolina, Inc. EPA has reviewed the
February 1, 1999 mitigation proposal, and has the following comments:
It appears that some of the restoration is in uplands. Is the uplands work included in the
mitigation ratios? If so, how?
2. The mitigation plan should justify the proposed mitigation ratios of 1.5:1 for wetlands
restoration and 2:1 for creation. EPA recommends mitigation ratios of 2:1 for restoration,
and 4:1 for creation.
3. The mitigation plan should state that vegetation monitoring plots will be established
randomly within each community type.
4. Under Section 4. 1, the mitigation plan should commit to a minimum of 5 years of
monitoring. Monitoring may be required for longer than 5 years if the success criteria are
not met.
5. In Section 4. 1, it appears that remediation will only occur after the fifth year of
monitoring. The mitigation plan should state that remedial actions will be undertaken if
the success criteria are not met on an annual basis. Further, the mitigation plan should
propose a contingency plan that will be carried out if success criteria are not met.
,n.
2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions,
lease contact Kathy Matthews at the above address or by telephone at [phone].
Sincerely,/
*illiamox, Chief
Wetlands Section
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
NCDENR, Raleigh
NCWRC, Raleigh
NCDOT, Raleigh ,?
Cyndi_B
From: Craig Deal [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 7:26 AM
To: Cyndi Bell
Subject: Re[4]: Discussion Topics for Airports
Cyndi,
According to a 7/31/97 memo from DWQ in the WSRO to Arthur Mouberry, there were four
(4) high priority sites near the intersection of US Highways 421 and 221 in Deep Gap. If I
said five I was mistaken.
It is important to note; however, that we all met (we being Arthur, Ted Bush and their staff
along with Wade Hoke, DOT Div. 11 Egr. and his staff and the WSRO DWQ staff incl. Larry
Coble, Sherri Knight and the WSRO GWS staff) on 11/17/97 in the WSRO and reached
consensus on how the sites would be handled.
DOT agreed to shut down the tank operations and remove them. GWS was going to
accelerate enf. action against'rhe responsible parties for remediation and DOT was going to
ensure access to the sites by the resp. parties for long-term remediation through contract
special provisions with their own DOT contractor, easements and encroachment agreements.
There was agreement from everyone that this would give GWS a window of time until spring
'98 (DOT anticipated date project would be available to the contractor) to actually begin
remediation at the worst site before construction involved that site.
Everyone seemed satisfied and Arthur indicated he was pleased with the position DOT was
willing to take. Unless you hear differently from Arthur himself, as far as I know this issue is
resolved. I have'nt heard anything to the contrary.
Craig
Reply Separator
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Discussion Topics for Airports
Author: Cyndi Bell <cyndi [e-mail]> at Internet
Date: 1/29/98 9:38 AM
Craig, please correct me if I'm wrong - you said the proposed US 421 alignment in Watuaga
County (R-0529B) has 5 UST's in the proposed alignment, right? Does DOT have a handle on
the removal of these tanks?
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Deal fSMtP:craicg [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 6:19 AM
To: Cyndi Bell
Subject: Re[2]: Discussion Topics for Airports
Thanks!
Reply Separator
Subject: RE: Discussion Topics for Airports
Author: Cyndi Bell <cyndi [e-mail]> at Internet
Date: 1/29/98 8:31 AM
Mr. Preston Howard memo
January 29, 1998
Page 2of2
DOT also submitted an application for the US 421 "Widening" from SR 2433 to SR 2309
in Wilkes County (T.I.P. No R-2239B) on November 21, 1997, and an application for the US 421
"Widening" from Yadkinville to Interstate 77 in Yadkin County (T.I.P. No R-2120A) is
imminent. Field reviews for both of these projects were conducted by NCDOT on December 19,
1997 and July 15, 1997. In both cases, the existing 2-lane roadway would be replaced by a new 4-
lane highway on entirely new location. The existing US 421 would remain in place following
construction, so the proposed 4-lane must be identified as a new highway, not a widening project.
To further complicate matters, the existing Old US 421 will also remain, so ultimately DOT is
proposing to have three US 421 corridors through two counties, although DOT originally
purchased enough right-of-way to construct a 4-lane highway with a median to facilitate widening
rather than a new location for US 421.
Both R-2239B and R-2120A would involve extensive stream impacts, with no stream
mitigation details provided as yet by DOT. It is notable that the existing US 421 through these
counties is a straight highway centered on 4-lane right-of-way. DOT is proposing to relocate the
roadway to minimize construction and right-of-way complications. With better initial planning,
this roadway could have been truly "widened" within the existing right-of-way. In summary,
DOT is proposing to build a new highway with extensive wetland and stream impacts, with more
curves than the existing US 421, and higher construction costs, because of poor planning. Again,
DWQ's Winston-Salem Regional Office and Central Office will recommend denial of these
permits. Please also review the attached memorandum from the WRC recommending that DOT
widen the existing US 421, rather than building a new highway offsite. Mr. Mark Cantrell of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also informed us that he will recommend denial of these
permits.
Your instructions in response to our November 24, 1997 memorandum were to provide
DOT an opportunity to answer DWQ's concerns. If we were not satisfied, your instructions were
to schedule a public hearing. It is clear that serious objections still remain following DOT's latest
response. The Winston-Salem Regional Office and Central Office still recommend that a Public
Hearing be held. Please evaluate this memo and the attachments and let us know whether a Public
Hearing is warranted. If so, I suggest that we include all of the US 421 projects in a public
hearing. Both the public and the agencies should be provided an opportunity to see the big
picture. Collectively, these US 421 "Widening" projects would create a new corridor through
three counties, with extensive environmental and social impacts.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please call me.
Cc: Ron Linville, Winston-Salem Regional Office
Mark Cantrell, FWS
David Cox, WRC
Joe Mickey, WRC
Craig Deal, DWQ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 29, 1998
Memorandum to: Preston Howard
From: Cyndi Bell C L,,3
Through: John Doreen/-1 1
Dennis Ramsey ?'?
Steve Tedder
Subject: Public Hearing Request for NCDOT Applications to Relocate
US 421 from Boone to Deep Gap in Watauga County (T.I.P. No. R-0529
BA/BB), from Yadkinville to Interstate 77 in Yadkin County (T.I.P. No
R-2120A), and from SR 2433 to SR 2309 in Wilkes County (T.I.P. No R-
2239B)
Reference is made to our November 24, 1997 memorandum to you, in which we
requested that a Public Hearing be held for the US 421 project in Watauga County. Per your
suggestion, we have provided NCDOT an opportunity to respond to comments received from the
Winston-Salem Regional Office and from the public. NCDOT's response, received by our office
on January 13, 1998, is attached. The Winston-Salem Regional Office's comments on DOT's
letter were received January 28, 1998. WSRO still recommends denial of this application. Also
included in this transmittal are comments from the N.C. State Museum of Natural Sciences
(January 23, 1998), the NC Division of Parks and Recreation (January 22, 1998) and NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (October 27, 1997). Although WRC does not recommend denial of this
permit, they have raised numerous stream mitigation questions which have not been resolved.
The Museum of Natural Sciences has requested that other options be pursued in expanding the US
421 capacity in this area. In any event, all of these agencies have requested more thorough impact
studies, project design details to minimize impacts, alternative alignment options, or outright
denial of the project. .
Please note that DOT has not provided details of a stream mitigation plan sufficient to
compensate for all stream impacts associated with this project. DOT has purchased Sparta Bog,
which from the WRC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' perspective would satisfy wetland
mitigation requirements and a small portion of stream mitigation requirements. DWQ has not
concurred with this mitigation plan to satisfy all stream and wetland mitigation requirements.
Although the Corps has chosen not to question DOT's avoidance and minimization with respect
to this project, they will require extensive stream mitigation prior to issuance of a 404 Permit.
Craig Deal has also learned that four underground storage tanks are located in or near the
proposed new alignment, which would require removal prior to construction. In other words, the
401 Water Quality Certification is not the only unresolved issue DOT needs to address before a
contract can be awarded.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
STAIZ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
June 12, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dar Sir:
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Wilkes County, Widening of US 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of
SR 2309; TIP No. R-2239B; State Project No. 6.769001T
Pursuant to your correspondence of May 19, 1998, the NCDOT requests that the Individual
Permit application for the subject project be temporarily withdrawn. The NCDOT understands
that the lack of a suitable mitigation plan for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States
is delaying the permit decision. The NCDOT further understands that upon submittal of a
suitable mitigation plan, which will occur soon, the Individual Permit application will be
reinstated and processed without further delay.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at
919-733-7844, Ext. 315.
Sincerel ,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., PE
Assistant Manager - Environmental Services
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
3*141
t.
e„a 5fA7F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 13, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road,
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wilkes County, Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of
SR 2309; TIP No. R-223913; State Project No. 6.769001T.
On June 12, 1998, the NCDOT requested that the Individual Permit Application be temporarily
withdrawn until a appropriate mitigation proposal is prepared. In order to reinstate the permit
application, the COE requested that the NCDOT provide a summary of mitigation activities
undertaken to compensate for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States as well as
responses to comments on the Public Notice issued by the COE on December 24, 1997. The
following information provides a status of current mitigation efforts, along with responses to
comments received from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).
• The NCDOT has a signed reimbursement agreement with WRC for 15,500 linear feet of
stream mitigation. A copy of this agreement is included as Appendix 1.
• The NCDOT has funded the purchase of the Shepherds Tree mitigation site in Iredell
County. A preliminary mitigation plan is being developed and will be distributed by the end
of July. Hydrology data will be compiled over the winter and a full mitigation plan prepared
by the spring of 1999.
• The NCDOT has investigated the potential for implementing additional measures to reduce
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters associated with roadway drainage and storm water
runoff. The additional measures are similar to those prepared for TIP No. R-0529
BA/1313/131) in Watauga County and are included as Appendix 2.
Additionally, the FWS and WRC raised several main issues in response to the Public Notice.
These comments, along with appropriate responses are listed below.
G)
2 r
D
The FWS and WRC both stressed that, in their opinion, alternatives other than new location,
particularly widening on existing alignment, had not been given proper consideration. The
NCDOT feels that this an incorrect assumption. Several options, including widening on
existing location to a five-lane undivided facility, were considered and sufficiently evaluated
in Section 2.2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), dated May 18, 1992.
However, as explained on pages 2-8 through 2-14 of the aforementioned DEIS, this type of
improvement is not considered to be a safe alternative for the traveling public in this
situation.
The FWS and WRC requested that the intersection with SR 2324 be redesigned to reduce
impacts. This was evaluated by the NCDOT Design Services Branch and found not to be
feasible. A copy of their minimization and avoidance evaluation is provided as Appendix 3.
• The FWS and WRC noted that stream channel impacts near Sta. 107+00 had been omitted
from the permit application. The surface water crossing summary was amended to include
485.5 linear feet of impact at this site. This site was designated as site Al on the revised
summary sheet. A copy of the revised summary sheet is included as Appendix 4.
The FWS and WRC requested that surface water impacts be added to the summary sheet at
Sta. 159+00 and that the roadway alignment be shifted to avoid impacts at this site. This site
has been timbered by the present landowner. As a result of the logging operation, extensive
disturbance to the area occurred. Through telephone conversations with Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
of the COE, it was decided that the area previously containing the stream channel had been
disturbed to the point where it was performing more of the functions of a wetland and would
be left as impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Avoidance of this site was also evaluated by the
NCDOT Design Services Branch. It was concluded that avoiding this site is not feasible.
The evaluation is included in Appendix 3.
The NCDOT feels that these issues have been appropriately resolved and is working towards
providing a suitable mitigation plan. The NCDOT asks that the Individual Permit Application be
reinstated and processed without further delay. Thank you for your continued review of this
project.
Sincerely,
2) aL Vol-A--
William D. Gillmore, P. E., Manager .
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Appendix I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR- P.O. 60X25201. RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201 E. NORRis ToLsoN
$ EC RETARY
GOVERNOR
June 1, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: David Robinson, Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Laurie P. Smith, CPA
Highway Agreements Coordinator
BY:
Debbie Oliver, Contract Administrator
V
SUBJECT' Reimbursement Agreement
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Project R-2239 B, Wilkes County
Enclosed are one original and one duplicate copy of the Reimbursement Agreement
covering the planning and implementation of off-site stream mitigation for project
R-2239 B. Please forward the original copy to the appropriate authority with WRC,
and retain the duplicate copy for your file.
If I may be of additional assistance, I can be reached by phone at 919/733-2039.
tg
Enclosures (2)
cc: Mr. W. E. Hoke, PE
Mr. Bill Gilmore, PE
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. David Smith, PE
Mr. Bruce Dillard
Mr. Don Gower
Mr. Charles Bruton.

I
NORTH CAROLINA
WILKES COUNTY 515/98
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
AND
PROJECT: R-2239 B
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this the Z? day of
Y?' 1 1998, between the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an
agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as DOT, and the NORTH
CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as WRC;
WITN ESSETH :
F
WHEREAS, DOT has prepared and adopted plans to make certain highway
constructions and improvements under Project R-2239 B, Wilkes County, said plan
consisting of the construction of US 421 from east of SR 2433 to SR 2400; and
WHEREAS, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, hereinafter referred to as COE,
and other resource agencies have expressed concern regarding the expected primary and
secondary impacts on streams and tributaries due to channel relocations and culvert
installations associated with the construction of said Project; and,
WHERAS, DOT has agreed to perform certain stream enhancement mitigation at a
2:1 ratio to address these concerns and meet the permitting requirements for the
construction of Project R-2239 B; and,
k,
I
WHEREAS, DOT has requested WRC to undertake the planning and
implementation of the agreed to off-site stream enhancement mitigation that cannot be
provided at any other approved DOT mitigation site; and,
WHEREAS, WRC has agreed to perform said mitigation subject to the conditions
hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, each in consideration of the promises and
undertakings of the other as herein provided, do hereby covenant and agree, each with
the other, as follows:
1. WRC shall be responsible for developing a mitigation plan for up to
approximately 15500 linear feet of off-site trout stream enhancement mitigation
for impacts associated with the construction of the Project. The final length of
stream mitigation to be provided by WRC will be determined after subtracting
any stream mitigation provided on approved DOT mitigation sites. Streams
selected shall be of similar size or larger. Typical enhancement measures may
include, but not be limited to, stream bank stabilization and/or re-vegetation,
installation of fish habitat structures, fish stocking, and fencing livestock out of
the stream or constructing managed livestock watering facilities. Said plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the COE. All work shall be in accordance with
DOT's policy and procedures and subject to DOT's review and approval.
2. DOT shall be responsible for obtaining all easements needed to implement the
approved mitigation plan at the required ratio. WRC shall help identify the
preferred mitigation areas but shall not be involved in securing said easements.
DOT shall attempt to include a provision for angler access into each easement.

3
3. WRC shall be responsible for all physical stream restoration activities as set out
in the approved mitigation plan. All work shall be subject to the review and
approval of DOT and comply with federal and state guidelines and procedures.
4. WRC shall complete work set forth in this Agreement within five (5) years from
the date of execution of this Agreement or within three (3) years of the date of
receipt of the easement, whichever is later. In the event DOT needs an
extended period of time to obtain the necessary easements, the period of time
for WRC to perform the mitigation tasks shall be adjusted.
5. DOT shall pay WRC for said mitigation work as set out above at the rate of fifty
dollars ($50.00) per linear foot of stream restored up to a maximum amount o
$775,000...(15,500 linear feet). Reimbursement shall be made in four (4)
payments with three (3) equal installation payments of $193,750. The first
payment of $193,750 shall be made upon execution of this agreement and
within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from WRC. The second payment of
$193,750 shall be made upon completion of 3,875 linear feet of restoration, the
third payment of $193,750 shall be made upon completion of 7,750 linear feet of
restoration. The final payment shall be based on the balance due to the
difference between the total maximum linear footage of 15,500 and the linear
footage of mitigation accomplished in prior years in excess of 11,625. Final
payment shall be made upon completion of stream bank restoration, or
acceptance of the project as complete by the DOT. Reimbursements for each
installment shall be made upon receipt of an invoice from the WRC, and
approval of said invoice by DOT's Manager of the Planning and Environmental
4
Branch and the Fiscal Section. A final invoice must be submitted within one (1)
year of completion of said work.
6. WRC shall maintain all books, documents, papers accounting records, and such
other evidence as may be appropriate to substantiate costs incurred under this
Agreement. Further, WRC shall make such materials available at its office at ail
reasonable times during the contract period, and for three (3) years from the
date of final payment under this Agreement, for inspection and audit by the
DOT's Fiscal Section.
7. WRC shall be responsible for meeting the established success criteria of the
mitigation plan. DOT shall be responsible for all costs associated with any
required maintenance for a period of five (5) years after completion of the work
on a costs plus basis. WRC will be responsible.for required maintenance for an
additional ten (10) years after completion of this-project.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed, in duplicate,
the day and year heretofore set out, on the part of DOT and WRC by authority duly
given.
WITNESS:
BY:
Title: e o F 1 e ri L° 5
1311
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION
BY: f
Title:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRA POR ATION
STATE HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY:
ATTORNEY, ENERAL
,6l'SSZISS-TTAA-N
I
Appendix 2
Project R-2239B
Additional management measures that will be incorporated into plans at designated or
appropriate locations.
• Side ditches connecting to major stream will be enlarged adjacent to
channel to provide a detention/storage area.
Sta. 101 + 20 to 101 + 40 Lt.
Sta. 101 + 80 to 102 + 00 Rt.
Sta. 121 + 20 to 121 + 40 Rt.
Sta. 132 + 80 to 133 + 30 Lt.
Sta. 136 + 30 to 136 + 50 Lt.
Sta. 143 + 20 to 143 + 50 Lt.
Locate shoulder drain outlets maximum distance from outlet crossing
to allow maximum filtration and detention of flow in side ditches.
• Relocate 2G1 from Sta. 153 + 95 Rt. to Sta. 153 + 60 Rt. and add
lateral `V' ditch.
r
Appendix 3
Minimization and Avoidance Evaluation
This corridor was chosen because it was more cost effective and required less impacts to the
residents of this area than widening at the existing US 421 location.
Interchansze at Red White & Blue Road (SR 2324)
- Best location to balance the earthwork based on terrain.
- Close proximity to existing SR 2324 is necessary to minimize length of reconstruction for
SR 2324.
- The location north of the existing SR 2324/US 421 intersection reduces land and property
damage and avoids excessive relocations. Therefore, a shift to the south would not be feasible
due to the excessive impacts to land and property. including poultry farms.
- A shift to the north is not recommended because of safety concerns for the traveling public. The
proposed roadway is a freeway with a 100 km/hr design speed. A shift to the north could
compromise the design speed of the horizontal alignment approaching the SR 2324 interchange
due to the need to tie to existing US 421 at the beginning of the project; therefore,
compromising the safety of the traveling public. Maintaining design speed would require
extending the beginning limits and tearing out a 4-lane section of existing US 421.
- A shift to the north or south would still impact the stream due to its proximity to gxisting
SR 2324.
A relocation of this interchange outside the corridor would require another public hearing to
allow for public involvement.
Station 159+00
- The alignment follows the terrain in order to minimize earthwork.
- A shift away from this spring would require a reduction in the radius of the horizontal curvature
approaching this area. This would compromise the design speed of the freeway and the safety of
the traveling public.

Appendix 4
SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Location Description Existing Piped Proposed Culvert
Channel Length (m)
Length (m) (m)
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60-!- 82 129 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site Al -L- Sta. 107 +00+ 148 143.5 2.1 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10-i: 475 367 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B1 -L- Sta. 121+40+ 118 112 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60t 179 129
1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20f 76
68
1050 RCP
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15= 95
65
2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00+ 67.5 66
1050 RCF
Site F
-L- Sta. 154+M=
156
77
2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00= 233 0

Site G1 _
-L- Sta. 171+^ ?0_
245.5
205
600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 59
58
1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30±
75.5
7-
750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 183
175
600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 95
91.5
750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 93.5
89.5
900 RCP
Site I -L1- Sta. 18+50t 17
17
1050 RCP
2398 " 1865.5 %
Total
Y.C. D EPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
D IVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
Note: Site B is below headwaters. East of SR 2309
All other sites are above
headwaters. SHEET ?OF J

.w srnrF v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O: BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR August 06, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road,
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmcycr
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

E. Noluus TOLSON
SECRETARY
Subject: Wilkes County, Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of
SR 2309; TIP No. R-223913; State Project No. 6.769001T.
In a letter dated July 13, 1998, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
requested the Individual Permit application for the aforementioned project be reinstated. The
letter detailed various mitigation efforts to compensate for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the
United States. As stated in the July 13, 1998 letter, NCDOT has funded the purchase of
Shepherd's Tree mitigation site in Iredell County. A conceptual mitigation plan has been
prepared which outlines expected activities and anticipated opportunities for the site. A copy of
the conceptual mitigation plan is attached.
Thank you for your continued review of this project. If you have any questions or need any
additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone] extension 315.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Mapager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. W. H. Hoke, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC Eastern Mountain Coordinator
G)

Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan for Shepherd's Tree Site,
Iredell County
Prepared by
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
August 4, 1998
1.0 Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has estimated
wetland impacts resulting from highway projects in the Yadkin River Basin to be
approximately 73 acres over the next five years. To address these wetland impacts and
provide compensatory wetland mitigation, NCDOT has identified the proposed
Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site in Iredell County as a suitable site for the development
of a regional mitigation project (Figure 1). The Shepherd's Tree site presents the
opportunity to restore a functioning bottomland hardwood wetland system to provide
wetland mitigation throughout the Yadkin Basin.
This report provides a general description of the proposed mitigation site and a
conceptual mitigation plan based on preliminary site investigations. A detailed final
mitigation plan will be developed in the future and sent to state and federal regulatory
agencies for approval once hydrologic studies and soil sampling are complete. The
objective of this report is to introduce the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site, to describe
existing hydrologic and vegetative conditions, and to provide a framework for site
development.
2.0 Site Description
2.1 General Characteristics
The proposed Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site is located in Iredell County, in the
Piedmont physiographic region of the Yadkin River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040102). The site is located on SR 2362 (Triplett Road), approximately one mile south
of US 70 at Elmwood (Figure 2), in the west central portion of the Yadkin Basin.
The area under investigation is comprised of a large complex of heavily ditched
agricultural fields on the floodplain of Third Creek, a channelized Piedmont stream. The
floodplain is relatively flat, with slopes of 0-3% and a total relief of <10 feet. Along the
edges of the floodplain, upland hills rise up with steeper slopes covered in agricultural
crops to the north and primarily forests to the south.
The portion of the floodplain currently proposed for the Shepherd's Tree site is
-comprised of two parcels which occupy each side of Third Creek between SR 2362 and
SR 2363 (Knox Farm Road). The north parcel is comprised of approximately 150 acres
and the south parcel is comprised of approximately 50 acres. Other adjacent agricultural
areas in the Third Creek floodplain may be added to the proposed site in the future if
practical.

1 t ?
P. 19 _' PllEle - tTw? ??
? r ?-^_
.,.\
,. P NlrlFl 4b/ , 'd 9? a
l (- 11$ to
' otPar Po ? r ? ?
sio A A
?t _.?_
`}•YPN Po
t
/
? ? ? I _

`^'? tbnE b
;per
' N
?p'1 Kb ?•
V'l4 ,/tYn a GlM y?
y
? ? W J
.. ?
?P ..
W ?? ?
?
? b $ilflfldd
? tt0
r
?
I
P] \ AP
qC
,p Raea TOwar? ?
q
i '4 ?/ H 1 p
1
s /?
V /
,rPt<[? I
b f OII vfgl?
'd b ?
? ? PPa1M
49

' `
1i nPnYt M OPt l '?T
,?% ' ?k1p Pp 'D ` `?

lhF 64

S"W
r?
E an° ?
A »
_•? g ,. _ 40 C
i' p V Pai°t I ,
?? p
\
k

77
/
g Hoer

p - b
3M ,
t
?
`
ow ?
?+
A -
O
,
foe.ers.4

PP
/
. v ? ? ,
, ? y _ *j.'
-a.ll yt!
r
_??p •G ? ?
c?om
Ilpj1 .
r
?? yp•,n ® '
/
? ? ',.Q'. $ i
_ EIUT. i
-O ? ? c9 y()
?
~ GOI t ` ? I o!'?-'''1
?
, '6
1.15
0 •tr,
g 'Fo ?1`
• rl
VOY - ?
aeole, TM+P eB
?
fib' ? SMOw a95
R4 ?? / `
' .
9 I
"° cg ?' 11 NC!
,
64
?
? g u tetra A, i n E 1 P?? I (
f -. 0
g rP
9 W
- ?'
- 1
b o' I •.
A p
A
no

.qq
E, A

'b' y o
OR xac?'

'
P °d ?
ro ' tsar 1 anti
? g / 84 +v // dt ?°
vats - eotrp /??- _ ! Nwdw.

??
3E ?
? w ul
?° •sPnPr
? ?r ?.,t .?y?
Wp P. '' ?? /
?
J I=
a e b
RO rt'?•'

?
64

u _ .`-'t' a ' V` ?

, o I 11 D I ?

\ s3 h, ?rl

t oooa

y
-
•? ? 33 ? '? 0
/
g
I?'`.^??
I
ISNrHH+I P° .,%i. I/ a A
'
` tj lid. 70 y?? /P i
/ `J ?H?? _
/ //dT ) ? ?1
?-
\
/. 1\a T°ffElll RD •
'F ?l1
u !PWNiciOte .,.,. eh? .WT -
, - of - ?` > /
Ax J/
1 70
,? fd 3 C •? /_':% 1?_+
`I k?--_ Tll?d ILOObwRG ;? Tn'?. i
.
yr My1Pt ? ' IIPItL1nM OGYlIIb
? ? ` ``` V _.. v?
r^? ? ?? 1
?g a9 Etso
115 ._-,
Bid 3 a aelm
el'* .?? I ??`
b `''tl b / b i
C PopS
.?4
O _
,? .?
. \`
i,
' A
S
P6ME i j/ T t
P. `?
Do
o
YttE A C"

a 1 3

w r '?,, CL"2? ?' -

r
wr \
19 / .
Figure 1. Location map of proposed Shepherd
s Tree Mitigation Site
y . V t al/?, {??,o.. ? ? ?\' %??% •/A-? .x -g
Xil
All °? -._ too-y.E. 1
i-_s-
/I IN. bI ip?/?--• ) :I Q .
? ( .? - \\?. ? ?-•le?%" iL X ?i, ? '?? B N? O II ? i 'QY? / ' r t , i I -\? ? I I ',? ?? ( J In
3955
06
l a? n u I
1? 11' ? f u ? ? _ /:? u
J Ir ?/ o' f ti'1 I\i
746
?v
39 54
I BM \\..' ? ?1?/ ? 1
g? ?o l Mitigation Site
(o UFF?
\j? . III ?,; ° ^
!
/ 395;
u '"mil 1
r , , •'li
64
n . •dr Z-?
/6" so
?---?i? ( ?? ? V.r-. % "il I? ,..?? ?./% ??/, a ? / ? ? ??? •?+ i `Il•1 `? 1 A ?, i ? , .,' "___ ? ? I 20
FEE
C/ 3952
?? / / 11?' .l?/i•\?`?_^?/? ' II •' ?? BA'1 i` // ?\\: ?.r / I -v ` .\J• ? ??[ ///i9o?1
jrl??i? ,1 /• ?? '\?\ `l_/??.v?? I\?, ?J? ??\ '+\ 3,3''?-??,?????•,?,`???I r J •?????: _ / `;//i;r?{
%l 10' i? ??1\1'tlf r j-\ 8\ ) ' ?:-'` ??? l \\ \ \.\/n ,? \v? 111???\ ?r+?I
LL -
i 1 `Y\.,'.??r\\\L"??j? 1\\ l?l•???_? Lif ?ji?? ?,• .,1•?lll /' ?!^„i NOo 42'_
2365
!r?/85Oy1 i ?('?i'V •1 ,`//1 \?i 8 I ?? ?? 'I\? ??J. ''~ ?\?\? "?? v ?'
(fit
\? `r ~I\ 1 ?`\\ 51
• ?..? ? ? J,? , So 'aso '? \ ??- l\ ;I ?\ ? %, ? ??' `?.??.
d u 1-, o' pm 1 ?.4A t? ht ?' a 1?/.J 1 y \\
M Y1)
2381 / . I ?./ I? ^ `f•`7;'1'
3 Bea
3
v
3950
Figure 2. Proposed Shepherds Tree Mitigation Site
?41
2.2 Hydrology
The hydrology of the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site is affected by both surface
and groundwater sources which naturally combine to create wetland conditions because
of the site's topographic position. Surface water hydrology is derived from Third Creek,
a fourth order Piedmont stream with an upstream watershed of approximately 100 square
miles. Historically, flooding by Third Creek overtopped the natural levee along the
channel banks and flooded lower lying areas further back from the channel. Once
flooded, lower lying areas probably retained water for significant periods, slowly draining
eastward across the site and downward through the soil profile.
The Shepherd's Tree site is also significantly influenced by shallow subsurface
drainage from the upslope watershed. Groundwater moving downslope enters the site
along the floodplain margins and is particularly significant in the northwest corner of the
north parcel. This shallow groundwater flow maintains a high water table along the outer
floodplain, likely creating saturated wetland conditions in the early part of the growing
season.
The natural hydrology of the Shepherd's Tree site has been greatly altered by
human activities which have served to prevent surface water inputs and decrease the
residence time of groundwater. A tall berm, 8-12 feet high, has been constructed along
both sides of Third Creek to inhibit overbank flooding of the stream. In addition, the
stream has been straightened and possibly excavated throughout the length of the site to
accelerate water flow downstream. The constriction of floodwaters through the
straightened and restricted channel has likely resulted in accelerated undercutting of the
stream bed and sedimentation of downstream waters.
A network of broad, shallow ditches has also been excavated throughout the site
to drain groundwater inputs directly into Third Creek. This network of ditches is
especially pronounced in the northwest corner of the north parcel where groundwater
inputs are apparently greatest. Lateral ditches in the north parcel connect to a deeper
central ditch which flows across the site to the southeast. Drainage ditches have also
been excavated along the base of the upland slope in the south parcel, intercepting
groundwater discharge. .
2.3 Soils
Soils occurring on site are comprised of typical Piedmont bottomland soils of the
Chewacla, Congaree, and Wehadkee series (Figure 3). Tables 1 and 2 indicate the
relative proportion of each soil type on each parcel, along with estimated water table
depth and hydric status as listed in the Iredell County soil survey (1964).
4
i
(Joins sheet 39)
0o I. .
?`mB2 ?n .

-? w
JI'f62 • 1
F :- p
M . ?
. =GY
J y

Cf82
? _ - 'I
n
y
7,ti
b
C
i
m
,
. v me AL.

32
AcBZ, AsBt,

Cc
fin; , •ie>.. ° ? 'L
?''? PS

Figure I Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site soils map
s? Q r
A \ r a' Pm CcCy° Gtp3 cb
IREDELL COU`
-irk
i

s?
Table 1. Mapped soils occurring on the North Parcel, Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site.
Soil Series Code % of Site Depth to Groundwater (ft.) Hydric
Chewacla Cw 50 1-3 Yes
Congaree Cy 35
Wehadkee We 15
3-8 Alluvial
0-2 Yes
Table 2. Mapped soils occurring on the South Parcel, Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site.
Soil Series Code % of Site Depth to Groundwater (ft.) Hydric
Chewacla Cw 50 1-3 Yes
Congaree Cy 50 3-8 Alluvial
As indicated, approximatley 65% of the north parcel is mapped as hydric soil,
along with 50% of the south parcel. Congaree soils tend to occur along the natural river
levee which is present on both sides of Third Creek. Wehadkee soils are most prevalent
in the northwest corner of the north parcel where groundwater discharge is prominent.
Preliminary soil investigations at the Shepherd's Tree site indicated a loam
surface soil, tilled and mixed, underlain by a clay subsoil at a depth of 12-14 inches with
a highly reduced matrix (10 YR 6/0).
2.4 Vegetation
The majority of the site (>95%) is currently planted in corn or other agricultural
crops, with a narrow fringe of early successional grasses, herbs, and shrubs along the
margins. A 10-20 foot buffer of trees occurs along the berm bordering each side of Third
Creek, comprised of typical disturbed site species. Wetland herbs, grasses, and shrubs
occur in the shallow ditches which cross the corn fields.
Overall, the vegetative communities of the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site are
highly disturbed such that none realistically represents a naturally occurring assemblage.
The natural community types which likely occurred on this site prior to disturbance are
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, though
virtually none remains in a characteristic state.
6
3.0 Proposed Mitigation Activities
3.I Hydrology
Restoration of hydrology at the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site will involve the
removal or disruption of all artificial water control structures. Ditches will be plugged or
backfilled, and the berm along both sides of Third Creek will be dismantled or breached
at various locations. These activities should serve to significantly increase the frequency
of surface water flooding across the site and to raise the seasonal high water table by
slowing goundwater drainage.
The Shepherd's Tree site also offers the opportunity for stream restoration and
enhancement activities in areas where both sides of the stream are under ownership. The
existing straightened and constricted channel could be restored to more natural meanders
and cross-sectional topography. Removal of the constructed berm would serve to
alleviate high water flows and down cutting of the channel. However, Third Creek, being
a fourth order stream subject to significant upstream inputs, will require detailed
hydrologic study prior to the initiation of any stream modifications.
3.2 Soils
Soil analyses will be performed to determine if an artificial hardpan exists on the
site due to continued use of heavy agricultural machinery. If such a hardpan is
encountered, deep ripping of the soil will be evaluated as a means of improving
subsurface hydrology.
Grading of higher portions of the floodplain to lower elevations will also be
studied for feasibility and cost effectiveness to determine whether such activities are
practical. Grading, if pursued, would likely involve minor alterations in elevation (<1
meter) or resurfacing of the soil for microtopographic enhancement. Grading of marginal
upland areas could create new wetland area in the floodplain subject to surface water
flooding and groundwater discharge.
Lastly, the soil surface will be stabilized by the establishment of permanent forest
cover as opposed to the existing agricultural conditions.
3.3 Vegetation
Once soil and hydrologic restoration activities are completed, the site will be
planted with a mixture of hardwood species. Natural community zones will be mapped
based on soil and hydrology data, and hardwood species will be distributed across the site
7

based on their tolerance to flooding and saturation. Vegetation plantings will attempt to
recreate Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
communities which are likely characteristic of natural floodplain conditions prior to
alteration.
4.0 Projected Mitigation Area
Based on soils mapping and preliminary field reviews, NCDOT estimates that the
Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site can provide approximately 70-80 acres of wetland
restoration, 40-50 acres of wetland creation, and 7000 linear feet of stream restoration.
These estimates are based on successful acquisition of both the north and south parcel.
Additional mitigation acreage may be available in adjacent properties, which will be
investigated and pursued in the future if practical.
5.0 Project Schedule and Implementation
Acquisition and development of the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site is currently
in progress. An appraisal has been completed and funding for purchase has been
approved by the N.C. Board of Transportation. The NCDOT Right of Way Branch has
contacted the property landowners and begun negotiations for purchase.
Development of a mitigation plan for the site has been initiated through a private
consulting firm. Water table wells are scheduled to be installed in September of this year.
Soil sampling, hydrologic modeling, and community mapping are scheduled for autumn
and winter of 1998. A completed mitigation plan with a final design package is expected
in spring of 1999, with implementation of the site anticipated in summer 1999.
Regulatory agencies will be invited to review the site and provide
recommendations once purchase is finalized through the ROW Branch. All mitigation
and design plan development will be coordinated with state and federal regulatory
agencies prior to implementation.
8
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Action ID. 199820228
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear. Mr. Dorney:
January 6, 1998
MAI(
Enclosed is the application of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Division of Highways, for a Department of the
Army permit and a State Water Quality Certification to discharge
dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, for
construction of Section B of the improvements to US 421 (T.I.P.
No. R-2239B), crossing Brier Creek and its unnamed tributaries,
and unnamed tributaries of Grays Creek, the Yadkin River, and
North Little Hunting Creek, and adjacent wetlands, from east of SR
2433 to east of SR 2309, east of Wilkesboro, in Wilkes County,
North Carolina. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance with
Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined that
a water quality certification may be required under the provisions
of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit
will not be granted until the certification has been obtained or
waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is a reasonable time
for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on the request
by March 9, 1998, the District Engineer will deem that waiver has
occurred.

Please address questions or comments to me at [phone],
extension 23.
Sincerely,
S. Kenneth Jolly
Manager, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
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
2
SrAIZ
`'' '"° "' I? •??"? try €'re.-v k9 4r1 ? ?E''
NOV Z- J 1997
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF T ANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
) q q %c:?)
November 18,1997
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Mike Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wilkes County, Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of
SR 2309; TIP No. R-223913; State Project No. 6.769001T.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen the existing
two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided, full control of access highway. This will be
accomplished by constructing a new facility to the north of the existing alignment. The
proposed roadway begins just east of SR 2433 (Windy Gap Rd.) and follows existing US
421 for approximately 3000 feet to just east of SR 2325 (Mathis Farm Rd.), where it
begins on new location to the north of the existing roadway. The facility continues
paralleling the existing facility on new location before tying back into existing US 421
near SR 2309, via a proposed service road. The improvements will include 5.1 miles of
the U.S. 421 corridor. Traffic will be maintained during construction on the existing
roadway which remain open to serve local traffic after construction.
US 421 is classified as a principle arterial route and is part of the National
Highway System. US 421 is also part of the intrastate system and is a major link
between the piedmont and the northwest portion of the state, serving all parts of the state
through connections with I-77 and I-40. US 421 is the only major east-west highway
directly serving northwestern North Carolina. The proposed improvements will upgrade
US 421 to the standards of the Intrastate highway system and divert traffic from the
heavily congested existing US 421.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Identifies improvements to
US 421 from east of SR 1001 to I-77 in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties as R-2239. The
project is divided into five sections for construction purposes. Sections AA and AB have
?r
been constructed. Section AC involves the construction of interchanges at SR 2537 and
SR 2440. Section B is the proposed roadway as described above and section C, to be
constructed in 1999, stretches from SR 2400 in Wilkes County to Interstate 77 in Yadkin
County. A project breakdown map (Figure 1) is included for reference.
The environmental impacts, including the alternative selection process, of
Sections B and C were evaluated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
dated August 08, 1994. Impacts resulting from Section A were evaluated in a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact dated January 04, 1991.
These documents contain studies that investigated impacts to natural systems as well
protected species. No Threatened or Endangered Species will be impacted by the
proposed project.
Wetland delineations were performed by NCDOT biologists on January 30-31,
1997 using delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Their report is included for
reference.
Construction of the proposed project will require impacts to waters of the United
States, including both jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. Wetlands will be
impacted by the placement of fill as well as excavation. Surface waters will primarily be
impacted by the construction of new pipes and culverts at stream crossings as well as
channel relocation. We are providing a copy of the full-size roadway plans to the Raleigh
Regulatory field office for their review. The department has also prepared permit
drawings which depict the impact areas. The enclosed permit drawings include a
summary of the project impacts in metric units. Tables 1 and 2 summarize impacts to
waters of the United States by site number, wetland impacts, and surface water impacts in
English units.
Table 1. Wetland Impact Summary
Site Number Station Number Fill in Wetlands
(acres) Excavation in
Wetlands
(acres) Corresponding
Delineation
Report Site
1 -L- Sta. 107+00 @ 1.04 0 F, G
ramp B/C
2 -L- Sta. 110+00 @ 0.35 0.17 A, B, D
-Y- (SR 2324)
interchange area
3 -L- Sta. 159+00 @ 0.35 0 H
SR 2316
4 -L- Sta. 142+60 @ 0.07 . 0 J, I
culvert for Gray's
Creek Tributary
Total 1.81 0.17
3
Table 2. Surface Water Impacts
Location Station Number Existing
Impacted
Channel
Length (feet) Piped
Length
(feet) Proposed Structure
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60-+ 268 423 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10± 1558 1204 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B 1 -L- Sta. 121+40+ 928 367 900 RCP
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 223 144 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60t 587 423 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20± 249 223 1050 RCP'
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15f 311 213 2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site E1 -L- Sta. 154+00+ 221 216 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80f 511 253 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site F1 -L- Sta. 164+00+ 157 141 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 764 0 -
Site G1 -L- Sta. 171+30+ 805 672 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 194 190 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 248 239 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 600 574 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 311 300 750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 306 294 900 RCP
Site I -L1- Sta. 18+50f 56 56 1050 RCP
Total 8301 5932
As stated in tables 1 and 2, sites 1 through 4 involve impacts to wetlands and sites
A through I involve impacts to surface waters. A topographic map depicting the location
of each site is included for reference.
Mitigation plans to compensate for impacts to waters of the United States are
being developed. A search for suitable mitigation sites in the upper Yadkin River basin
for both surface water and wetland mitigation was completed in May of 1997. NCDOT
has identified several sites containing possible mitigation opportunities. Entry permits
have been obtained and feasibility studies are currently underway.
4
In summary, impacts to waters of the United States total 1.98 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 3.58 acres of surface waters. The project will impact 8,301
linear feet of stream due to roadway fill, pipes and culverts. Enclosed is a completed
notification form and drawings that depict impacts to waters of the United States. Based
on the discussed impacts to waters of the United States, the department requests
authorization under a Section 404 Individual Permit to construct the project. By copy of
this letter and application, the department also requests that the DWQ review this project
for 401 Water Quality Certification.
Thank you for you assistance. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone], extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P .E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCNNIRC
APPLICATION FOP `PARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 3251 Expires October 1996
Nubile reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
amments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
)epartment of fJefense; Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202.4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-00031, Washington, DC
00503. Please DO ,NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
udsrfiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged of fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this forth will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a pemi t be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO 8E FILLED BY THE CORPSI
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY N71
5. APPLICANT'S NAME
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE Iensgentisnotrmulred)
H: Franklin Vick P.E.
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. WIAREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone]
" b. Business
11 STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
R-2239B, US 421 from just east of Windy Gap Road to near SR 2309._ _
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN ofspprcema 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS afeppaubw
UT to Yadkin River
Brier Creek Gra 's Creek UT to Brier
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Wilkes NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,. IF KNOWN, twoinsareaensl
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See application package.
- r
MITION OF SEP 91 IS OBSOLETE. roponentV.
I E. Nature of Activity (O*scdpaon o/ wowcr. Jncwdo sit list...
Road Construction
19. Project Purpose me-db* rho ree"n or pwpose or the p.oi cr, :K 1nsm trio"
Improve US 421 to a multi-lane facility to improve traffic flow and safety
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Road Construction
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
See Application package
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled rs«:nsrnrcronsr
5.2 acres
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached list
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Appplicatdon.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that the information in this
applica ion i plete an c urate. 1 f oher ify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
dul a e agent of pplica
1117197
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DA SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
• U.S.GPO.199A-520-478;820i 8
,E <
lit a - -
a
oeC4
N
c
J
0
E
03
c
u
a.
z o
a
.r
WW
O n t
O O a ? ? H
A A a !s. t?
U a. p
z a
C4 P -J
?p t`? b N
try ?? H, M W
i• c ? ?
f • ?i1 .9 ly '?, uj
°d°° ! j
Y' atI n! to W "cl U Z? 1
N N NI^ ~ ?"
v
N
iH] ,? e 4 " ? Q e
' Q W ? " C3 i
YN'I W !? NI
Iv Z' Z
A. ,r ? ? " ?N 3if
Y „ t
i
v ?
o - v " 1 `-
•O ? o
QEGw PRojecT
,b -L- g3raO
O •° O
-L- 100+00
31TE A J 41' ??
? ?.?. 000. ?? ..._ :.. :.
SITE 1
SITE 2 -L- 110 +00
1 61-fC (3 ??
r S I Tl; 131 N . ; ? ? ?j??4? -
r 1
16
y--r a p ,
8,\-. fu
130 { OO
` 517E G v
SITE D k '
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6.969001T (R-2239B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 2 OF 7
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6.769001T (R-=9B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 3• OF / i
Adjacent Property Owners to Proposed
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Right Of Way
At Wetland Sites
Location Location Description
Site 1 -L- Sta. 107+00±
@ Ramp B/C Gore area
Adjacent
Property Owner
Left
Royce & Myrna Mathis
Bk. 570 Pg. 626
Adjacent
Property Owner
Ri h t _
Marvin Roger & Wanda
Mathis
Bk. 691:Pg. 147
Site 2 -L- Sta. 110+00±
@ -Y- (SR 2324)
Interchange area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 159+00±
@ SR 2316
Site 4 - -L- Sta. 142+60±
@ culvert for Gray's Creek
Tributary
Marvin Roger & Wanda
A. Mathis
Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Garmon & Essie Marie
.Welborn
Bk. 549 Pg. 1137
Aaron Jacob &
Antoinette White
Bk. 664 Pg. 444
Steve & John Mathis
Bk. 691 Pg. 146
Melvorne P. Horton
Bk. 88 Pg. 200E
Aaron Jacob & Antor.e:te
White
Bk..664 Pg..444
N.C. DEPT. OF TP. ANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILILFS COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R 2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET OF 7._
WETLAND AREA SUMMARY
Location Location ill in Excavation in Fill Below Undercut in Drained Wetlands
Description Wetlands Wetlands Surface Water Wetiands (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha) (cu.m.)
Site 1 -L- Sta. 0.42 -0- -0- * -0-
107+00±
@ Ramp B/C
Gore area
Site 2 -L- Sta. 0.14 0.07 -0- _ 0.J6
110+00±
@ -Y- (SR
2324)
Interchange
area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 0.14 -0- -0- * -0-
159+00±
@ SR 2316
Site 4 -L- Sta. 0.03 -0- -0- -0-
142+60±
@ culvert for
Gray's Creek
Tributary
TOTALS 0.73 0.07 -0- 0.0E
* Not available at this time.
INN= All sites are above headwaters.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILICES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R 22398)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET.5 OF I .
SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location
Location Description Fill-in Surface(HA) Proposed Cross ;;, /Cujver
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60t 0.04 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10± 0.59 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site BI -L- Sta. 121+40± 0.02 900 RC=
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 0.01 900 RCF
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60t 0.19 1350 RCF
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20t 0.02 1050 RCF
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15f 0.07 2.4 x 1.8 RCL
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00± 0.01 . 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80i 0.17 2.7 x 1.5 RC'-:'C
Site F 1 -L- Sta. 164+00+ 0.02 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00t 0.21 750 RCP
Site G1 -L- Sta. 171+30+ 0.03 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 0.01 1050 RCF
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30± 0.01 750 RCF
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70± 0.02 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 0.01 900 RCF
Site I -Ll- Sta. 18+50f 0.01 1050 RC-r'
Total 1.45
Note: Site B is below headwaters. All
other sites are above headwaters.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATIOU
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B;
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 6 OF -7.

Location SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Description Existing Piped Proposed Culvert
Channel Length (m)
Length lost (m)
(m)
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60f 82 129 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10f 475 367 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site BI -L- Sta. 121+40+ 283 112 900 RCP
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 68 44 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60f 179 129 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20f 76 68 1050 RCP
Site E -L- Sta. 143+151: 95 65 2:4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site E1 -L- Sta. 154+00± 67.5 66 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80f 156 77 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site F1 -L- Sta. 164+00+ 48 43 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 233 0 -
Site G1 -L- Sta. 171+30± 245.5 205 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + '59 58 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30± 75.5 73 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70± 183 175 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 95 91.5 750 RCP
SiteH -L- Sta. 182+95+ 93.5 89.5 900 RCP
Site I -L1- Sta. 18+50f 17 17 1050 RCP
Total 2531 1809
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R 2239B)
Note: Site B is below headwaters. US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
All other sites are above East of SR 2309
headwaters.
SHEET
7
OFT
.
.:
Cyndi-B
To: Eric.A.Alsmeyer0saw02.usace.army.mil
Subject: US 421 Wilkes(Yadkin Co. R-2239B
Eric - reference DOT memos of July 13 and August 6, 1998, requesting re-instatement of the
application for US 421 based on a conceptual wetland mitigation plan for the Shepherd's tree site.
DOT does not own this site but the Right-of-Way Branch is in the process of purchasing it, and a
consultant has been hired to develop a plan. Also reference the DWQ memo of May 7, 1997, in
which John Dorney informed them that the application would be incomplete without a mitigation
plan. Please note, this application is still on hold from our perspective until a mitigation plan is
provided.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Wafter Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
1"?4j?;A
CEHNR
May 7, 1997
DWQ #960725
Wilkes County
On July 22, 1996, you applied to the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for a Nationwide Permit
No. 26 and a 401 Water Quality Certification to impact 2.1 acres of wetlands or waters for the widening of US
421 from SR 2433 to SR 2309 in Wilkes County. Your project was forwarded to Mr. Ron Linville (910)
771-4600 of DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office for review. An on-site inspection was conducted on
September 26, 1996. Based on this review, we have identified significant uses which would be removed by
this project. These uses are water storage, sediment retention, removal of nitrogen and phosphorus, wildlife
value, and aquatic habitat.
This project is scheduled for letting in January 1998. Construction could not likely be completed prior to
the expiration date of December 13, 1998 for Nationwide Permit No. 26. Therefore, we advise you to submit a
new Individual Permit application. Also, your application should include specific information pertaining to
stream crossings. If the linear distance of stream impact exceeds 150 feet at any crossing, mitigation may be
required in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2).
According to our preliminary, in-house review since you propose to disturb greater than one acre of
wetlands, compensatory mitigation will be required by DWQ for this project as described in 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 (h). If adequate mitigation is not provided, this project will likely have to be denied. Also since a
mitigation plan is required, we will place this project on hold until its receipt in our Central Office. Please
call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss these matters if necessary. Until a mitigation plan is provided, this
application is considered to be incomplete and our processing time will not start.
We recommend that you not impact any wetlands or waters on your project site until a 401 Water
Quality Certification has been issued from Raleigh, The issuance of a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit does not
mean that your project can proceed. According to the Clean Water Act, the 404 Permit is not valid until a 401
Certification is also issued. If DWQ staff observe impacts which are not allowable, you will be required to
remove the fill and restore the site to its original condition. I can be reached at 919-733-1786 if you have any
questions about the 401 Certification process.
cc: Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
Jater erel ,
0
Quality Cert' is 'on Program
960725.rovst
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
TRIAGE CHECKLIST
Project Name: NL DOT V 5 4 2I
Project Number: -? ? 077
County: \ I uj / y od ?( O
The attached project has been sent to you for review for the following reasons. Please consider whether a
site visit is needed to determine the impacts. Particular attention should focus on the below checked items.
Please feel free to call the central office staff member assigned to your region if you need assistance.
Stream length impacted.
L1___ Stream determination (i.e. intermittent or perennial, or any channel present).
Wetland impact and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGS topo map.
Minimization/avoidance options.
NW 14. (is access to higharound or wetlands)?
Neuse buffer rules.
- Pond (water) fill (i.e. is the pond drained or holding water)?
Pond creation (i.e. in uplands, in a drained channel, or in wetlands). Please locate streams and
channels (if any) so that the central office can determine.
- Mitigation ratios.
Stormwater pond placed in wetlands.
Ditching in wetlands.
Is the applicant's proposed stream/wetland mitigation site available and viable?
Applicant/consultant has a history of non-compliance (check drawings and application for
accuracy).
Has project been split from previous work to avoid mitigation requirements?
Consistent with pre-application meetings?
?' Cumulative impact concerns.
Ex-member of DOT board says group has
facts wrong, that he didn't profit -by decision
By John Hinton
JOURNAL REPORTER
YADHINVILLE
A group of Yadkin County resi-
dents contends that a former mem-
ber of the N.C. Board of Transpor
tation.improperly influenced plans
for a project to widen U.S. 421,
resulting in a route that benefits
business-and other property he co-
But the former board member,
businessman Fred G. Eidson of El-
kin, -said last night. that the route
chosen by, the N.C. Department of
Transportation will hurt the busi-
ness-He said he would have bene-
fited had the state chosen the
route favored by the, group that
filed suit against him.
"The whole time I was on 'the
Board of Transportation, I was ex-
tra careful-never to have any input
on the location or design of U.S.
42l,", he said.
The state plans to widen all of
U.S. 421 from Yadkinville to Boone
eventually.
The part that is the subject of the
lawsuit, between U.S. 601 and In-
terstate 77 in Yadkin County, has
`been the scene of many serious
wrecks.
The suit, filed Wednesday in Yad=
- kin Superior Court by.28 people
who own property in the path of the
road-widening project, contends
a that Eidson helped decide the new
route for the highway in 1994 as a,
member of the N.C. Board of
Transportation. Gov. Jim Hunt ap-
pointed Eidson to a four-year term
on the board in March 1993.
The lawsuit seeks an irounction
to stop the road project and asks
for $20,000 in damages from Eid-
son.
Eidson co-owns four tracts along
U.S. 421 between U.S. 21 and I-77,
including a gas station owned by
G&B Oil Co., according to the law-
suit and county records. Eidson is a
co-owner of G&B.
The new route for the highway
will benefit Eidson because one of
the four tracts will be next to an
See,YADKIN SUIT, Page B6
W
N
Z
7
0
w
W
Z
O
co
31
m
W
:a

ocUg0
co E' 3 7? r. loo ? x $ c o BE V
7bOw OC. Ol Zdr % N
y..d O .O N ?E . d O .[]
EA 4 8 E N O O a?
:ym0ad?yco?,z two MW
y "v u? aC ??.e? ?Aa
go 0,=

> ." ?? y O U, E yb v
U
r. 'o
d ?"..a p O
Q 01. a? b O^50 .y
J7
.0 a. y,
0 W O) V td .c O
'Vi
b
0
:8
E E d .0
? m
yyO J .6
w y
t
. F
w y y Q a
d am
. 2 t..d tot
.0 IOU . m W
•? N w
C) > In o
,
0
X
Gw 0- 0
90-
O m V R W
D,yF vx'F v `.Sy d ?

00
' ,

^ y d
^
E O
Q b c6 m
?, .o v y > +'
x
Je .D ro F a' ? g

W U O/ ... ? d
p, y u E
E ^
7 ~ Q 4,. Q 'L7
o N
L
U d O yQ w?
U t?C y 'D m .., C 0 O c?
O? 'Lt
G . h
F c: E
o ao
°oco w
,
?'
L{I
?' o.o a?io?o Ha?? x
G o q?qA N
E
E
a ?'3 C
1
E oa F
W m
[ G d
0
3
ao w O
Ga
a?
o
N
?? ?Y

F
H ? o E 3v
,??3Yo M -8.2
°'oqa Imo

c E o- 5a o c C o0 ° 3?

O F L"' v 7 0 .'i7 O.G W U
E d w° m F WE
tU
d Q o °0o w 0 7
Yed mv.°o" ,o lyoy
?V d - "tea d? Eao?
05 6 c3do y? J.-
0
a.
m?N0,2: oY? ion>a
to ao d E C o
• 4 2,
d`°°W ac°Cd 0 x.tov.3
9
l w
l d
V)
1 J:? _Is

w
C 't O O
.

.C OO ,, O O
a+
G U O
y 1+ y
Cd y Gw 240

j ai 0,o aQi w
n? ? E EW
V. Y.
Q
ar - .o O
A
0
o o'C

yam
o?
°:o.. -00
aoiQ°v

,oT
eo o p w•-Oi
o?oo
rw?

Q
0 to
d
a

%S z

41MORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer.
P0: JOHN DORNEY WQ SUPV.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES BRANCH DATE: 5 6oS,2?
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ::*
PERMIT YR:
APPLICANT NAME:
PROJECT TYPE:
COE It :
RCD_FROM _CDA:
REG OFFICE:
KIVER_AND_SUB_BA
96
NCDOT
ROAD '
DOT
WSRO
SIN #:
PERMIT NO: 0000725 COUNTY: WILKES
US 421, TIP# R-2239B
9IDENING PERMIT-TYPE: NW26
DOT #: R2239B
DATE FRM CDA: 07/30/96
030701 STR INDEX N0: 12-47
STREAM CLASS: WSIV

WL_IMPACT?:C:"N q WL_ TYPE: BLH

WL REQUESTED : 2.10 + e =• `/S 36WL ACR_ EST? : Y/O
WL SCORE(#): WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: 6k
MITIGATION? : ON MITIGATION TYPE: ,f,,, ,L;
MITIGATION SIZE: gT?• DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO? : ON
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: ON
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE I SUE/COND)DENY
COMMENTS : 6? y?YY
cc:. Regional Office
Central Files

P
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
To: John Dorney
Eric Galamb
Through: Steve Mauney
From: Ron Linville. C/
Subject: DOT 421
401 Certification Review
W11-1cd 5 CMIPT
Date: 960926 /
DEHNR
5??f 4?1?
This office has finished it's review of this project after 3
visits to this site and additional delays caused by Hurricane Fran.
The WSRO does not dispute the ratings (copies attached)
supplied to DOT by their wetland consultant for the wetlands which
will be impacted by this road. After our initial review of the
waters impacted by the project and a Regional request, DOT did
provide an accurate updated document (copy attached) which included
additional acreages (Ha) of impacts associated with several stream
crossings.
It is the Regions opinion that the safety and transportation
improvements provided by this new road are necessary; however, the
opportunity to utilize the existing roadway for a portion of this
roadway should be considered prior to issuing a 401 certification.
This could minimize impacts to those already existing and to those
from half of the proposed new roadway corridor.
The Region request that the Central Office notify DOT that
they do need to insure that all impacts are included in their
project applications. This would include all waters of the United
States such as tributaries and ponds as well as jurisdictional
wetland impacts.
The COE has determined that all the impacts from this project
are above headwaters. Individuals who work in this Region and who
are familiar with Brier Creek are very dismayed as they believe the
stream is much more than this would indicate. Field observations
did not indicate a varied aquatic community; however, flows have
appeared to be substantial during the previous 1 1/2 months. (You
may wish to visit the Red, White & Blue Rd. stream section to
understand these observations.)
Mitigation within the area should be required for this
project. Relocating the stream would be preferred instead of
extensive piping, if that is possible. Thank you for your time and
consideration of this matter.
CC: Central files
WSRO
585 Waughtown Street, 7W- FAX [phone]
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27107-2241 ?? C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-771-4600 - 50°k recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
. i •.) j 1` Ir?? viii \'\ ` n:..
`? ? 1K_-Y •.r. _ ??r ? ?? !- rW I _ _ =r •• J. .- III
??\'-'?. ?_-r?• ? _ ..fir
1 J 1 C(?_ ;' _ f
ITT,
r ?1, r , s rC :? \, _+_;•? ..? ..\ it \ i
\ }' ?• C - ? ??> rte``+= _ ? ? 4~ ? ti...
{? ? ,J " ??•7`(?' run rr • I _J ) : _ • _ L
?r
? • 'dch ,` "-
-}:
• ti? rr_a. E !. }??t':.. ~:?? fro `li.`
421 ``
Ili
?? ? }, _:..t,,' ``r •`-•r?lr it
,? '\ 1 ? .. 347 i ? /?"@ ?`?. J ?..: ,• ' ?•t• )?, r•-/
',1 \ c 4> ? v ' o. r ? '1 ? ' I {tt•1 4_ / _f ... • •1 T?T ,r 1. •r.•?- • ?- ..• r J .#
? 4' ?? ? ;L. \' \?1 ' `_?"•'-v-?._.?.C••?.\'.?•?i?.?1`r.?"Jr :?"r'?.,;?i• ?''?;r5 :.i• r^• . Jl??f``? :s.' I +;'
(fee
r r - ? `\.? L,.1 ??' .'?]? '?.c? - _ \? •?'r L11 ? ' y `q.? ? j y? ??? _•? ; ?..,. I
:M 6
Z-3
1``r S ??? ?` ?? Sou 1' ?`r?? % J? ) '((, ?' '`?, j? ` :: r%' -.. ; . ?1 •, _` :.
??=~ti?•l_ Z_if ?r ? ? '•? r635 -?+~ ^??' ??? •-?-,_? ?'r i?'?I GL.rA-:iti???????_.•r\`5??...I.ri?;_„'7: ?.f i?. ?r?•?'; •_ '` t1
61 °00, 1 410000 FEET 501 s02
/lapped, edited, and public_hed by the Geological Survey
ROAD GL.ASSEFVIIgly ,nntrnl by 1)5G5 and USCI&35
Z0 'd 61 :ZT 966T'b4160 r52I01d-ine3?1 H0131d2J W021d

?. Siur ;•?
S I"ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. Jr. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovEItuOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
COUNTY: Wilkes County
STATE PROJECT: 6.769001T (R-22396)
DESCRIPTION: Proposed.US 421 from East of SR 2433
to East of SR 2309
S,ut HUNT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. B. J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Asst. Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
FROM: A. L._ Hankins, Jr., P.E.
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Permit Action
The hydraulic design phase for the above. identified proj.ect;::.
has been completed. The following are the environmental.. permi-t.l::;.`.
requirements as identified at this time by:
(A) Planning Document- A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Section 401 Water Quality Genera Cer > ica ion will be require prior to the i- u-e-
of a NWP. NW 3 CFR 330.5 (al (14 an 6 are expected to app y. Final perm
an miti ga ion ecisions wi rest wi t"he au ors y o T: e orps o ngineers.
(B) Hydrological and Hydraulic Design Studies: The wetlands were
delineated on January 30, 1996 by NCDOT representatives Dale Sutter an Bruce
Ellis in coordination with Ra Lovin ood and Gary Holly from MA Engineering.
The total-wetland acreage impacted is 2.10 Ac 0.85 HA).
The following is the status of the permit drawings and
application (when applicable). Attached are the 82" x 11" permit drawings
and joint form for nationwide permits.that require notification to the Corps of
Engineers and application for Section 401 certification.
cc: Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. G. F. Jessup

li? E <
?
. -
?
\
gyp
_ ?
+V`
> f

T
?; o

off,

z _ /
3 S
L

? V

z o
o
0 o w
2 pq oo .Hr a F• f o
0 ? ..
0 0 H
a a a ? ? ?
z a
B ?n T \
N NI NI

?
r
FR r, . ol U) b N
d Z'r N ?
r ?
t? I
? cy.
W
I 9 y
o
e• W
.9 I
N , r?`iI
.,( .
E
QJ M
c N ?(
r.. h
CO

h
? M
V y ?
i ni h F-
C4 M N o N
I
^ CN
N
1
W
?-
Cni
Cli

I a '
C'.
.-
Y1 ^ W O

•
4.
•O I
N
SfID n tjj
l ` r

A .b 10

?

M

h

~
of
MI .e-' U
W c
Y

N
v
,} N
I
,I l(1 C4 o d N
¦ O 2:
Cl)
? N
M

N NI Cu
f? M W

r (
_
z
An ?
Z•
?NI
f P
A
V7
N M
1?. ti MI
7 ,

WETLAND AREA SUMMARY
Location Location Fill in Excavation in Fill Below Undercut in Drained Wetlands
Description Wetlands Wetlands Surface Water Wetlands (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha) (cu.m.)
Site 1 -L- Sta. 0.42 -0- -0- * -0-
107+004-
@ Ramp B/C -
Gore area
Site 2 -L- Sta. 0.14 0.07 -0- * 0.06
110+00±
@ -Y- (SR
2324)
Interchange
area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 0.14 -0- -0- * -0-
159+00±
@ SR 2316
Site 4 -L- Sta. 0.03 -0- -0- * -0-
142+60+
@ culvert for
Gray's Creek
Tributary
TOTALS 0.73 0.07 -0- 0.06
* Not available at this time.
Note: All sites are above headwaters.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R 2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 4 OF 15
3
\f
r
z U.
o °
H ol N
? t
?' t ?+ W cn
x w
Y w
° Q .a ??
w > o w ? w
AA a?a
U 0. O co
z a
a
1• ? (` ion..;
.. r?
00 + 0-v I -? -
y ?1
yo
u
00?0?1 -?-
'J 00+0Z 1 -?
e is SWTF o
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
22 May 1996

MEMORANDUM TO: Gordon Cashin, Permit Supervisor
Permits and Mitigation Unit
ATTENTION: v-tyndi Bell, Permits Specialist
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
FROM: Dale W. Suite, EVIronmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Wetand Delineation for proposed relocation of US
421 from SR 2325 to SR 2309, Wilkes County. TIP
No. R-2239B, State Project No. 6.769001T.
Wetlands within the project limits were delineated on 30-31 January 1996
by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Bruce Ellis. Gary Holly and Ray
Lovinggood, Hydraulic Engineers (MA Engineering) surveyed the wetlands as
they were delineated. Eight wetlands were delineated in accordance with the
1987 Corps of Engineers (COE) guidelines. All wetlands were field verified by
John Thomas, COE Raleigh Field Office, on 29 April 1996. The eight wetlands
total 0.91 ha (2.25 ac) in size and are summarized in the following Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of wetlands that will be impacted by the proposed project.
Wetland ID Size [ha (ac)] Cowardin DEM Rating
A 0.04/0.12 PF01 B 66
B 0.03/0.08 PF01 B 66
D 0.19/0.48 PF01A 78
F 0.13/0.32 PSS1A 29
G 0.29/0.70 PF01A 74
H 0.03/0.07 PF01 E 26
0.04 / 0.09 PF01A 52
J 0.11/0.26 PF01A 52
. _
Wetlands C and E were eliminated during the COE field verification.

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 18,1997 --
D T1
U.S Army Corps of Engineers 2 X97
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890 w ETL!!^st?
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 WUEP. 01101':
ATTN: Mr. Mike Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wilkes County, Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of
SR 2309; TIP No. R-2239B; State Project No. 6.769001T.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen the existing
two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided, full control of access highway. This will be
accomplished by constructing a new facility to the north of the existing alignment. The
proposed roadway begins just east of SR 2433 (Windy Gap. Rd.) and follows existing US
421 for approximately 3000 feet to just east of SR 2325 (Mathis Farm Rd.), where it
begins on new location to the north of the existing roadway. The facility continues
paralleling the existing facility on new location before tying back into existing US 421
near SR 2309, via a proposed service road. The improvements will include 5.1 miles of
the U.S. 421 corridor. Traffic will be maintained during construction on the existing
roadway which remain open to serve local traffic after construction.
US 421 is classified as a principle arterial route and is part of the National
Highway System. US 421 is also part of the intrastate system and is a major link
between the piedmont and the northwest portion of the state, serving all parts of the state
through connections with I-77 and I-40. US 421 is the only major east-west highway
directly serving northwestern North Carolina. The proposed improvements will upgrade
US 421 to the standards of the Intrastate highway system and divert traffic from the
heavily congested existing US 421.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Identifies improvements to
US 421 from east of SR 1001 to I-77 in Wilkes and Yadkin Counties as R-2239. The
project is divided into five sections for construction purposes. Sections AA and AB have
n
.r
2
been constructed. Section AC involves the construction of interchanges at SR 2537 and
SR 2440. Section B is the proposed roadway as described above and section C, to be
constructed in 1999, stretches from SR 2400 in Wilkes County to Interstate 77 in Yadkin
County. A project breakdown map (Figure 1) is included for reference.
The environmental impacts, including the alternative selection process, of
Sections B and C were evaluated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
dated August 08, 1994. Impacts resulting from Section A were evaluated in a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact dated January 04, 1991.
These documents contain studies that investigated impacts to natural systems as well
protected species. No Threatened or Endangered Species will be impacted by the
proposed project. ;,
Wetland delineations were performed by NCDOT biologists on January 30-31,
1997 using, delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Their report is included for
reference.
Construction of the proposed project will require impacts to waters of the United
States, including both jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. Wetlands will be
impacted by the placement of fill as well as excavation. Surface waters will primarily be
impacted by the construction of new pipes and culverts at stream crossings as well as
channel relocation. We are providing a copy of the full-size roadway plans to the Raleigh
Regulatory field office for their review. The department has also prepared permit
drawings which depict the impact areas. The enclosed permit drawings include a
summary of the project impacts in metric units. Tables 1 and 2 summarize impacts to
waters of the United States by site number, wetland impacts, and surface water impacts in
English units.
1 anie i. weiiana impact summary
Site Number Station Number Fill in Wetlands
(acres) Excavation in
Wetlands
(acres) Corresponding
Delineation
Report Site
1 -L- Sta. 107+00 @ 1.04 0 F, G
ramp B/C
2 -L- Sta. 110+00 @ 0.35 0.17 A, B, D
-Y- (SR 2324)
interchange area
3 -L- Sta. 159+00 @ 0.35 0 H
SR 2316
4 -L- Sta. 142+60 @ 0.07 0 J, I
culvert for Gray's
Creek Tributary
Total 1.81 0.17

3
9
Table 2. Surface Water Impacts
Location Station Number Existing
Impacted
Channel
Length (feet) Piped
Length
(feet) Proposed Structure
Site A -L- Sta. 101+604: 268 423 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10± 1558 1204 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B 1 -L- Sta. 121+40+ 928 367 900 RCP
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 223 144 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60f 587 423 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20± 249 223 1050 RCP
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15f 311 213 2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site E1 -L- Sta. 154+00+ 221 216 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+84f 511 253 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site F1 -L- Sta. 164+00+ 157 141 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 764 0 -
Site G1 -L- Sta. 171+30+ 805 672 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 194 190 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 248 239 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 600 574 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 311 300 750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 306 294 900 RCP
Site I -Ll- Sta. 18+50± 56 56 1050 RCP
Total 8301 5932
As stated in tables 1 and 2, sites 1 through 4 involve impacts to wetlands and sites
A through I involve impacts to surface waters. A topographic map depicting the location
of each site is included for reference.
Mitigation plans to compensate for impacts to waters of the United States are
being developed. A search for suitable mitigation sites in the upper Yadkin River basin
for both surface water and wetland mitigation was completed in May of 1997. NCDOT
has identified several sites containing possible mitigation opportunities. Entry permits
have been obtained and feasibility studies are currently underway.
In summary, impacts to waters of the United States total 1.98 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 3.58 acres of surface waters. The project will impact 8,301
linear feet of stream due to roadway fill, pipes and culverts. Enclosed is a completed
notification form and drawings that depict im acts to waters of the United States. Based
on the discussed impacts to waters - a States, the department requests
authorization under a Section 4 4`Individual rmit to construct the project. By copy of
this letter and application, the de _ also requests that the DWQ review this project
for 401 Water Quality Certification.
Thank you for you assistance. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at [phone], extension 315.
Sincerely,
lo/
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P .E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCVVRC
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT I OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CAR 3251 Expires October 1996
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
sefrching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
r „mments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformationOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite
1204, Arlington, VA 22202.4302: and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-00031, Washington, DC
20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or affecting,
navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this forth will be used in evaluating the application
for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot be
processed nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
rrrcaae Or' nw m Ric AI II Fn RY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE lana9enrisnorrmuiredl
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental H: Franklin Vick P.E., Manager
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. WIAREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business [phone] b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to
furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (s*e insumawsl
R-2239B, US 421 from just east of Windy Gap Road to near SR 2309. _
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN rHapp#cabm 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS of-ppft-wel
UT to Yadkin River
Brier Creek Gray's Creek UT to Brier Ck,
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Wilkes - NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS,. IF KNOWN, I.raeinsmxoatw
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
See application package.
cniTinni nc cco of is FIRKIN FTF_ rooonent: - ^
1 8. Nature of Activity (Gescdpuon of projec4 kwmde am ienwesi
Road Construction
19. Project Purpose toesorfDe rho reeson or pwpose or the project. see inswrcrioAv
Improve US 421 to a multi-lane facility to improve traffic flow and safety
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Road Construction
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
See Application package
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled iseeinsumoons)
5.2 acres
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
See attached list
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. 1 certify that the information in this
application i plete an c urate. I f rther ify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
dul a e agent of pplica I
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT D E SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
• U.S.GP0:199a-520-a 7 8: EZ018
. a
TAKE
• ?„r of .
United States Department of the Interior PRI mDE IAl
D1"I...??
4 4. AMERICA-
FISH A.'YD WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office ?t
• ?+gCN]•330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
?,GEt V?
August 11, 1992
aUG -11992
D;VlSl.0N OF
.,NIGi;VdAYS ?
Qe
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager t'd SESF_
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Draft environmental impact statement for U.S. 421 from easthof
S.R. 2433 to west of I-77, Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, Nor
Carolina, TIP No. R-Z239 .B/C, State Project No. 6.769001T
This responds to your letter of June 10, 1992, received June 22, 1992,
requesting our comments on the subject document. These 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).
GENERAL COMMENTS
The draft is a well-written document and properly highlights the I
importance of the fish and wildlife values of the area. We are very
pleased with the methodology used to determine a preferred alignment and
commend you on giving environmental impacts equal weight with other j
considerations. While we prefer the no-build (no-action) alternative,
because it is least environmentally damaging, we can.concur with the
i
selection of Alternative 4 (expressway on existing alignment) because it
avoids substantial environmental impacts and has fewer environmental
impacts than the other three alternatives (freeway on existing alignment
northern and southern alignment alternatives).
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page I-5 Paragraph 1 - The statement, "Planning and
environmental studies for the section of U.S. 421 joining this I
project on the west are complete and right-of-way acquisition
is in progress," suggests that an alternative has been selected
and a commitment of resources has 'been made.

Page 1-5 Paragraph 2 - The sentence, "U.S. 421 is the only
major a-ast-west highway serving the northwest area of the
state," is misleading since 1-40 partially serves this need.
Page 2-8, under 2 2 1 Improve Existing Facility - This
alternative does not seem to be given enough consideration.
Adding passing lanes to the existing road may also be included
as improvements to alleviate congestion.
Page 2-15 Table 5 - This is an excellent way to highlight the
issues and show a comparison of alternatives.
Page 3-1 Paragraph 5 - The project area is presently
classified as "rural" under the North Carolina Land
Classification System. The improvement of the present two-lane
road to a four-lane highway may change that classification
through increased growth and development in the area.
Page 3-21 Paragraph 2 - Excellent coverage of wetland
resources in the project.area. We commend the utilization of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) wetland
classification system (Cowardin et al. 1919).
Page 3-27 Paragraph 1 - The peregrine falcon (Falco ggEn s
anatum) is both a resident and a migrant in the state. As you
may be aware, the original Eastern United States population of
the peregrine, which was considered nonmigratory (with some
fall/winter movement from the mountains to the coast to find
better foraging conditions), was extirpated. The
captive-breeding/re.introduction effort has successfully
reestablished a nesting population in the East. Data now
indicate that migrants from Canada and the northern states
(including the subspecies Falco pereirinus tundrius) do
frequent North Carolina (primarily the coast) during early
spring and fall. Thus, it is important to consider impacts to
this species with regard to i.ts nesting and migratory habitats
(nesting habitat for this species includes prominent ledges or
cliffs in relatively remote areas, but also includes river
cutbanks, trees, and manmade structures, such as the ledges of
tall buildings).
Page 4-16 under Summary - We are concerned with any
"non-bridge" stream crossing (box culvert, pipes, etc.), as the
impacts they cause extend beyond the immediate construction
area (inhibition of organism movement both upstream and
downstream). We therefore recommend that the Department of
Transportation explore the possibility of creating a stone
substrate on the inside floor of the culverts adequate to
create small pools and eddies to provide resting areas for fish
and to facilitate fish movement. This substrate would also
provide attachment areas for aquatic insects and other
organisms and would help to offset the loss of stream-bottom
habitat eliminated by the culverts. The substrate could be
placed to create a low-flow channel through the center of the
G
,r,

I

4
4
N
4
4
culvert. Similarly, we recorritend box culverts over pipe
culverts, as pipe culverts afford little wildlife habitat or
the potential to create habitat.

h 6 - The statement, "...removal of existing
Page 4 l9 Parag
over types for the North and South Alternatives will create
c
new edge habitat which currently alte?nati?esexiis ??°leadhng and
alignments proposed for The Service does not
implies that edge habitat is needed.
believe that creata°benefedtge 7heuSerbeceuisuconcernedoabout
and/or considered
habitat fragmentatioentlspethelcreationnofgedge habetatdwas
habitats. Until re Y
considered by wildlife managers to be important in maximizing
species diversity. However, conservation biologists are now
stressing the importance of focusing on the needs of rare
species and communities on a larger scale (ecosystem not be
management). Thus, creating and/or conserving edge may n
the desirable goal, especially if it is to the detriment of -
forest interior species. _
Paget 4_-23 under Wetlands Mitigation - We appreciate the
consideration mitigation of
constitutes wetiand impacts
Since this project-constitutes
wetland n wetland p that occur as
encouragv unavoidabdle minimizing
possible. All
a result of this project should be fully mitigated/compensate
and, to the extent possible, should be the r$edvo t andsite.
Keep in mind that studies conducted by ice
on North Carol ina.,wetlands indicate, in general, that a greater
r?placement (at least
than one-to - one
lossesttinewetlandehabitat value
necessary y t to o q to
(G. R. McCrain, 1990. Habitat Evaluation Procedures applied
Dept.
mitigation banking in North Carolina. Unpub. PhD. Di ss.,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
of Forestry,
90 pp.). The Service also encourages the consideration o
off-site mitigation--wetland enhancement, restoration,inrthe
acquisition. We would be happy your agency
preparation and/or review. of a mitigation plan.
* S

Again, we are pleased with the methodology used to determine a preferrea
alignment and commend you for giving environmental impacts e":Lal weight
with other considerations. o prelessen further impactsito. wetlar;:.'1areas and
develop a plan to prevent t or
to identify appropriate mitigatcpedirectedn-to usfer to
Log Number 4-2-89-055 in all future correspondence
concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
Nora A. Murdock
Acting Field Supervisor
?7.
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost. North Carolina Department of Aariculture, Plant
Conservation Proaram, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern
Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh, NC 27601
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Federal Activities, DOI,
Hamilton Building #403, 1375 K Street, N.W.,
Washington. OC 20241-0001
Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, GA (FWE/ES, Attention: Mr. Dennis
Chase)

0
United 'Sltates Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF.THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Arfairs
Richard B. Russell Federal Buildine
75 Spring Street. S.W.
-W,ir.ta. Georgia
August 20, 1992
ER 92/0579
m r. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Graf.
rft
Amayj anumn-oft
?e O
?,AUG ;24.1992,
?7 CgVISION OF ICJ
??, "IGHWAYS ?PQ
we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for U.S. 421 from
East of SR 2433 to west of I-77. Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, North Carolina,
`IP No. R-2239 B/C. State Project No. 6.769001T. and have the following
comments. ,
GENERAL COMMENTS
The statement is a well-written and adequately describes the resources of
interest to this Department. The methodology used to determine the preferred
alignment provides for a balance with environmental impacts receiving equal
weight with other considerations. While we prefer the no-action alternative
because it is least environmentally damaging. selection of Alternative 4,
Expressway on Existing Alignment. would be acceptable because it avoids
substantial environmental impacts and has fewer negative environmental impacts
than the other three alternatives.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 1-5. Paragraph 2 - The sentence. "U.S. 421 is the only major east-west
highway serving the northwest area of the State." should be corrected to
indicate that I-40 already provides partial service to this area.
Page 2-8. under 2.2.1, Improve Existing Facility - This alternative does not
seem to be given enough consideration. Adding passing lanes to the existing ,y.
Page 3-7, Paragraph 5 - The project area is presently classified as "rural"
under the North Carolina Land Classification System. The improvement of the
present two-lane road to a four-lane highway may change that classification
through increased growth and development in the area. These secondary impacts
could cause significant impacts on a wide variety of resources and should be
evaluated in the final document.
road may also be included as improvements to alleviate congestion. The final
statement should discuss this concept further since it appears that fish and
wildlife resources would benefit.
(Note: Responses to these comments are combined with responses to the comments from
-CJS001 Fish and Wildlife.)
Page 3_27 Paragraph 1 - The peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum is
both a resident and a migrant in nthe
whSta icheaasTconosideredlnonmigratoryt(with
States population of the p
fall/Winter movement from the mountains to the coast to find better
J rte
foraging conditions), was extirpated. The captive -breeding/reintroduclion
effort has successfully reestablished a nesting population in the East. Data
now indicate that migrants from
rNorth Carolinaj(primargilyhe
donfrequent
subspecies Falco pere_ _
the coast) during early spring and fall. Thus, it is important in documents its
includes
such as this to habitats. Nesting this species
this species includes
pnestiroming nen at lnd edges or migratory cliffs in relatively remote areas. river cutbanks. trees,
ge
and manmade structures. such as the ledges of tali buildings. _
Page a-16 under Summary - We are concerned with any "non-bridge" stream
crossing (box culvert. pipes. etc.), as the impacts they cause extend beyond
the immediate construction area and interfere with organism movements both
.upstream and downstream. We therefore. recommend that the Cepartment of
Transportation explore the possibility of creating a stone substrate on the
inside floor of the culverts adequate to create small pools and eddies to
provide resting areas for fish and"to facilitate fish movement.. This
substrate would also provide attachment areas for aquatic insects and other
organisms and would help to offset the loss of stream-bottom habitat
eliminated by the culverts. The substrate could be placed to create a
low-flow channel through the center of the culvert. Similarly. we recommenc
box culverts over enPealutoecreateshabptatulvjhesfinalrstatementwshoulde
habitat or the pot
include a discussion of this consideration. _
(o
7
Paoe 4-19 Paragraph 6 - The statement, removal of existing cover
types for the North and South Alternatives will create new edge habitat which
currently does not exist along the alignments proposed for these
alternatives." is misleading and implies that edge habitat is needed. The
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) does not believe that creation of edge
should be pursued as a goal or in this case considered to be a benefit. The
Service is concerned about habitat fragmentation. especially of contiguous
forested habitats. Until recently. the creation of edge habitat was
considered by wildlife managers to be important in maximizing species
diversity. However. conservation biologists are now stressi,glaeimportance
of focusing on the needs of rare species and communities
Thus. creating and/or conserving edge may not be the desirable goal.
especially if it is to the detriment of forest interior species. This section
1 td in the final statement based on that consideration.
ir- 2
should be reeva ua e
Page 4 23 under Wetlands Mitigation - We appreciate the consideration of
mitigation of wetland impacts. Since this project constitutes a nonwater-dependent activity, we encourage avoiding and minimizing wetland Q
impacts where possible. All unavoidable wetland impacts r,,iat occur as a /
result of this project should be fully mitigated/compensaI.A and, to the
extent possible. should be carried out on site. Studies conducted by the
in general. that a
Service and others on North Carolina wetlands indicate.
greater than one-to-one rep?a?emeand(habitattvaluee(G R?eMcCrainCe1990y to
adequately replace losses
2
Habitat Evaluation Procedures applied to mitigation banking in North Carolina. # q
Unpub. PhO. Oiss... Oept. of Forestry. North Carolina State University,
Raleigh. g0 pp-). The Service also encourages the consideration of offsite
mitigation for losses that can not be replaced onsite.
SUHMARY COMMENTS
We agree with the basic methodology used to determine a preferred alignment
and commend you for giving environmental impacts equal weight with other
considerations. we look forward to working with you to develop a plan to
prevent or lessen further impacts to wetland areas and to identify appropriate
mitigation and/or compensation areas. If you have questions regarding
endangered species considerations or concerns regarding fish and wildlife
resource impacts from this project, pleasiz contact Ms. Janice Kichols.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Asheville. North Carolina Field Office. at
764/665-1195.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement
Sincerely yours.

James H. Lee
Regional Environmental Officer
CC:
North Carolina; OOT
Attention: Mr. L. J. ward. P.E.
t
3
`EMT OF rti
A
a
9
United States Department of the. Interior
FISH A,ND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville. North Carolina 28806
March 10, 1994
Ms. Laura Giese
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
9001 Edmonston Road
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Corr .0s. Giesz:
a
TAKE PRIDE IN
sinew W
¦
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US 421 from east of
SR 2433 to west of I-77, Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, North
Carolina, T.I.P. No. R-2239
In your letter of March 2, 1994, to Ms. Nora Murdock of our staff, you
requested our concurrence regarding potential impacts to the peregrine
falcon (Falco peregrinus) resulting from the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
The U.S. Fish and Wildli,'fe Service (Service) concurs with your analysis
that there should be minimal adverse impacts to nesting and migrating
peregrine falcons resulting from the proposed construction of US 421. To
our knowledge, nesting pairs of falcons occur at Linville Gorge in Burke
County and at Grandfather Mountain in Avery County. Birds have also
recently been observed in the city of Winston-Salem in Forsyth County.
While the subject project will result in a loss of potential foraging
habitat within the immediate project impact area, we agree that this
represents a relatively insignificant loss on the landscape level.
Indeed, the Peregrine Falcon (Eastern Population) Recovery Plan 1991
11^aiate notes that "direct human disturbance of nesting birds is the
primary threat to the eastern peregrine population at this point" and
"alteration of peregrine falcon nesting and migrating/wintering habitat
is occurring at a low to moderate level, particularly in the coastal
reaches of the eastern population's range. Many nests have been
established within publicly owned areas; protection of this habitat is
secured. Migratory and wintering peregrine habitat is more at risk,
although protection of this habitat is also proceeding in many areas
concomitant to protection of shorebird habitat."
Thus, the Service concurs that the proposed project should not adversely
impact the federally endangered peregrine falcon. In view of this, we
believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:

(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review, or (3) anew species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate your following up on this issue. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
4-2-89-055.
Sin ely
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
c.. .
H. Franklin Vick, Planning and Environmental Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

North Carolina Department of Cultural Rcsour
James G. ?MiRIn, C,ovtmor D'.vts;o{
Patric Dorsey, Scuttary Will
August 20, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.Q. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: US 421 from east of SR 2433 to 1-77,
Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, R-2239 B/C
6.769001T, ER 92-7106
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter/'of July 25, 1991, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the information submitted concerning the potential effect
of the proposed undertaking on historic architectural properties. We concur
with the determinations of effect and the mitigations proposed for National,
Register-ellgible structures, except for the No Effect finding upon the Oak
Grove School/Masonic Lodge and the Sales Property. We eel that the
Existing Alignment. Expressway Alternate will have an effect upon the Oak
Grove School/Masonic Lodge and the Sales Property, but !ha% the effect will
not be adverse.
Below Is a list of the National Register•eligable properties it the area of
potential effect and our determinations of effect upon each property.
No Effect for the Northern, Southern, and Existing Alignment
Expressway Alternates.
Conditional No Adverse Effect for the Existing Alignment-Freeway
Alternate, If relocating the driveway is performed in a manner that
avoids alteration of the immediate setting that contributes to the
property's significance.
No Effect for the Northern and Southern Alternates.
No Adverse Effect for the Existing Alignment-Expressway Alternate.
Nicholas L. Graf
August 20, 1991, Page 2
Conditional No Adverse Effect for the Existing A:;gnmert.Freeway
Alternate, if all construction associated with the service road between
SR 2323 and SR 2325 is outside the southern boundary of this
property.
No Effect for the Northern and Southern Alternates.
Conditional No Adverse Effect for the Existing Alignment-Expressway
Alternate, If an appropriate vegetative screen, such as cedar trees and
forsythias, are. [anted parallel to the fence between the property and
existing US 421.
Conditional No Adverse Effect for the Existing Alignment-Freeway
Alternate, If an appropriate vegetative screen is planted between the
house and the roadway, fencing installed along the southern edge of
the property is compatible with the property's rural., agrarian character,
and driveway relocations performed in a manner that does not alter
the setting which contributes to the property's significance.
Qak Grove Schools ag r is Lod"
No Effect for the Northern, Southern, and Existing Alignment-Freeway
Alternate.
' No Adverse Effett for the Existing Alignment-Expr©ssway Alternate.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation. Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

1

H
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee G;edhlll•Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 9191733.4763:
S rely,
David Brook
4,tl?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:alw
cc: L. J. Word
B. Church
H
11
-? r 28 1992
plVt;.:ON OF
qty t•::? 1WAYS ?P
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources :y ?
:? A,9
James C. Martin, Covernor
Ntric Dorscy, Secretary
August 26, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook i Cc?id
Deputy State iis?cl) c Preservation Officer
Division of ArchivcT-ory
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: US 421 East of SR 2433 to west of 1-77, Wilkes and
Yadkin Counties, R-22396/C, 6.769001T, CH 92-E-
4220-0981
We have received the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the above
project from the State Clearinghouse and would like to comment.
As stated in our August 20, 1991 letter to the Federal Highway Administration,
we do not concur with the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOT) determination of No Effect upon the Oak Grove School/Masonic Hall for
the Expressway on Existing Alignment Alternative. We feel that development at 1
the intersection of improved US 421 and SR 1112 is more likely to occur with ar,
expressway rather than with a freeway:
A final determination of effect should be coordinated with our office once a?
preferred corridor is selected.
Also, upon additional evaluation, we now.con cur with NCDOT's determination o
No Effect upon the Sales Property for the Expressway on Existing Alignment
Alternative. An initial determination of No Adverse Effect upon the Sales Property
was stated in our August 20, 1991 letter.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway Administration
B. Church, NCDOT
S614 109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
=; JdN O d ,994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou~ _
l:nus S. duet, J:.. Governor Division of ArcnivLs jnd
3ctty Ray McCain. S==ar • william S. Ftxe. Jr., 7ir.c.ur
Dec::-,oer 30. '• 2193
;,:ichoias L. Oraf
r'?ivision Administrator
ceder;: Hignway Administration
Depar:menz of Transportation
3 10 New Bern Avenue
9aleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
e: rnprovements to US 421, Wilkes and Yadkin
Zounties, F-109- 1 (9), TIP R-2239, CH 89-E-4220-
?986. ER S,4-7745
Dear ..:r. 'Graf:
Than,< you for your letter of October 28, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
survey report, .Phase 1--Intensive Archaeological Survey for Proposed
irnprovt3n.er,:s to US 421 .
The r :;:,rt :zentifies twenty-nine archaeological sites and recommends that
of the sites are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
F,:aces. Some of these arle recommended for additional testing while others t1.at,
nay c- ou:s:de the project corridor are recommended for testing if they vvill oe
affecteo by .ne project. The remainder of the sites are judged not to be eii9toie
Me Na_ionai Register.
.ccncur :,ith the recommendations regarding the ineligible sites and offer :he
;3i10vv:ng comments on those sites described as potentially eligible.
31 WK169. Given the indicated size of the site in Figure-7 we do not feel that
sufficient subsurface testing was conducted to enable us to make a judgment
concerning potential eligibility. This is particularly the case since only two of the
shovel tests were placed within the road alignment (and these are both on the
western edge of the alignment). It may be that the site does not extend south of
SR 2323 but there is no evidence presented to demonstrate the validity of the site
boundary.L Given the lack of subsurface testing, we are unable to make an
evaluation of the potential eligibility of this site
31WK170. The report states that the eastern portion of this site is highly eroded
but that soiis in the wooded area are relatively intact. Although only two of
eleven snovei tests were positive, the only two placed within the site boundaries
and wiz." in t`!e wooded area were both positive. More shovel tests in this area
would be necessary to fully evaluate the site. Based on the general difficulty of
Locating intact features at small Woodland sites, we feel that additional testing is
warranted here to better evaluate eligibility.
''4! ,
?.?--- rG
1944
8
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou? DIVISION OF
HJG_ t` AYS
Divisio ves 1 ry
James B. Hunt. Jr.. Governor William uector
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
April 15, 1994 7`
MEMORANDUM APR 26 1994
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
?+?':
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook Officer
Deputy StateHistbric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Archaeological Report Revisions for "Phase I Intensive
Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements to
US 421," Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, TIP R-2239,
Federal No. F-109-1(9)
Thank you for your letter of,/transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Greenhorne & O'Mara concerning the above project. We have reviewed the
information provided and completed our review.
Based on the report information we feel that the following sites are not eligible for
listing on the National Register due to a lack of site integrity: 31 WK169,
31WK170, 31WK175, 31YD186, 31YD187.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following sites are potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register: 31 WK99 and 31 WK179.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw

cc: N. Graf
T. Padgett

1. .. L. v... ,r •v. mot`., ..
31WK179. %--%e concur that the site !s potentially eiigiole :;st;ncg on the -N*at:•:.
Regiszer.
31WK187. Again. despite the fact that all five shovel tests stithin the site limits
??ere posits. e, the reoor*, does not provide enough evidence that the site !s
ootentially eligible. The stratigraohy suggests the possibility of buried deposits b?_
there were not enough tests conducted to really evaluate tnat possibility.
Therefore, we are unable to evaluate National Register elicioility for this site.
31 WK99. This site was previously judged to be potentially eligible and the
continue to concur with the recommendation.
31 WK175 and 31 YO186. There is not enough evidence presented to evaluate
potential eligibility.
31YD161. We concur that this site is potentially eligible for the National RegisLar.
Tine above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gleohill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
incerely, -
alvt6D
'David Brook
Deouty State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:siw
cc: F. Vick
T. Padgett

al G
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor
Seccy Ray McCain. Secretary
September 15, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 consultation, Proposed Improvements to
US 421, Wilkes and Yadkin Counties, ER 95-7427, TIP
R-2239
Dear Mr. Graf:
SEP 2 C 1994
. _
c
D'tliSiCN of
GHWAYSDivision or krcrjves and Hut..--
William S. Price. Jr.. Dire%;wr
We have received, via Lee Novick, North Carolina Department of Transportation
archaeologist, a request for clarification of earlier comments on this project (see
memorandum of April 15, 1994, from David Brook to Frank Vick).
We wish to reiterate our earlier opinion, that archaeological sites 31 WK99 and 31 WK179
are considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion
D. Following subsection 80d.9(c)(1) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
regulations, we further agred that the probable effects of the proposed construction on
those two sites will not be.adverse, since the information they are likely to yield can be
substantially preserved through appropriate data recovery and research.
We look forward to further with the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation on this project, especially through consultation on an
archaeological data recovery plan and schedule for sites 31 WK99 and 31 WK179.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, a°
919/733-4763. '
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
B'slw
cc: H. F. Vick
109 East Jones Strrx:t • Raleigh, Nurth Carolina 27601.2807

ST.ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMES B. HUNT. Jit. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GovEiwoit P .O. BOX 2$201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-$201 SECRETARY
COUNTY: Wilkes County
STATE-PROJECT: 6.769001T (R-22398)
DESCRIPTION: Proposed US 421 from East of SR 2433
to East of SR 2309
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. B_ J. O'Quinn, P.E_
Asst. Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
FROM: A. L. Hankins, Jr., P-E.
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Permit Action
The hydraulic design phase for the above. identified project-;: "?- .
has been completed. The following are the environmental.. permit.*...:.
requirements as identified at this time-by:
(A) Planning Document: A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Section 401 Water Quality Genera er i ica ion will be require prior to the i3Sue_
of a NWP. N 330.5 (a) (14 and 26) are expected to apply. Final permit
an mi ti ga ion ecislons wi reff--w-i-Eff eau o n y o the orps o ngineers.
(B) Hydrological and Hydraulic Design Studies: The wetlands were
delineated on January 30, 1996 by NCDOT representatives Dale utter an Bruce
Ellis in coordination with Ray. Lovinood and Gary Holly from-MA Engineering.
The total.wetland acreage impacted is 2.10 Ac 0.85 HA).
The following is the status of the permit drawings and
application (when applicable). Attached are the 82" x 11" permit drawings
and joint form for nationwide permits.that require notification to the Corps of
FnninePrs and annlicaticin fnr SArtinn and rartifiratinn
cc: Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. G. F. Jessup
?? 1`. j t N 1- - 1
V _ yY ? YF
?f`- C ll
b - E E? m
a
i J S
- -Yw a
? V
a.
z o
C W F
ai ? O F O
g?
Ova
C rA
z a
`: ?I NI
NN??
I
N t +y ??
FR a h Al
N

q o f• P 41 9 t? I? hl
Y ~
E
c r ^'` try a? y
V y °6I ^? "? V

K

0
a

C4
^ Y) a
N7

.?' ? W
IL
( `r W
sftva? I' Ul
C14
b

LU -v

C4
a
1
"

1' 1 ?1
LL

W
C'.

N
Z
Z
o?
n

0
cm;
1
1
i
31TC A
%
SITE 1
n$1-??1 L:
SITE 2-
7 ((I \,\
6' 'T 13
O a
i Ain 1
s1rE 8i
S 1 r•E 82
1111(li?l _V /n `?
sl"TE \G
SATE D
mn •C
QE&)q PROJECT
.-L- v3t-go
a
-L- 100 +oo
-L- 110+00
120 00
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6.769001T (R-2239B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2133 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 2. OF j
d
o
1 -L- 130+00
??
S1TC 4
5 tYE" E
S I r? t=
tn
SITE F
A Aiffl"F
SITE 3
s?'rEFr:
S?TC Cic
_V i S 1'E Z.
n
$ITE H
4x v
SITE L .
V

N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6?69001T (R-2239B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 2.A OF 15-
5 i
140 + 00
1,40
'•? ,,?
A r
L- I?Ot00 ?,?
1 85 •?, a
Adjacent Property Owners to Proposed
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Right Of Way
At Wetland Sites
Adjacent Adjacent
Property Owner Property Owner
Location Location Description Left Right
Site 1 -L- Sta. 107+00± Royce & Myrna Mathis Marvin Roger & Wanda
@ Ramp B/C Gore area Bk. 570 Pg. 626 Mathis
Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 2 -L- Sta. 110+00± Marvin Roger & Wanda Steve & John Mathis
@ -Y- (SR 2324) A. Mathis Bk. 691 Pg. 146
Interchange area Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 3 -L- Sta. 159+00± Garmon & Essie Marie Melvorne P. Horton
@ SR 2316 Welborn Bk. 88 Pg. 200E
Bk. 549 Pg. 1137
Site 4 -L- Sta. 142+60± Aaron Jacob & Aaron Jacob & Anto:.:°
@ culvert for Gray's Creek Antoinette White White
Tributary Bk. 664 Pg. 444 Bk. 664 Pg. 444
N.C. DEPT. ©F'T NSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILIUS COUNTY
Project 6.76900IT (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 3 OF S

WETLAND AREA SUMMARY
Location Location Fill in Excavation in Fill Below Undercut in Drained Wetlands
Description Wetlands Wetlands Surface Water Wetlands (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha) (cu.m.)
Site 1 -L- Sta. 0.42 -0- -0- * -0-
107+00±
@ Ramp B/C
Gore area
Site 2 -L- Sta. 0.14 0.07 -0- ?. J6
110+00±
@, -Y- (SR
2324)
Interchange
area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 0.14 -0- -0- * -0-
159+00±
@ SR 2316
Site 4 -L- Sta. 0.03 -0- -0- -0-
142+60±
@ culvert for
Gray's Creek
Tributary
TOTALS 0.73 0.07 -0- C.OE
* Not available at this time.
Note: All sites are above headwaters.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 4 OF 15
SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Location Description Fill-in Surface(HA) Proposed Cross -7:12!V Cujlvert
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60t 0.04 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 1 11+10+ 0.59 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B1 -L- Sta. 121+40+ 0.02 900 RC=
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40± 0.01 900 RCF
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60i 0.19 1350 RCF
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20t 0.02 1050 RCF
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15t 0.07 2.4 x 1.8 RC=
Site E1 -L- Sta. 154+00+ 0.01 . 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80i 0.17 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site Fl -L- Sta. 164+00+ 0.02 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 0.21 750 RCP
Site G 1 -L- Sta. 171+30+ 0.03 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 0.01 1050 RCF
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 0.02 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 0.01 750 RCF
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 0.01 900 RCF
Site I -L1- Sta. 18+50= 0.01 1050 RCF=
Total
Note: Site B is below headwaters. All
other sites are above headwaters.
1.45
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATI-01
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET 6 OF 15

Location SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Description Existing Piped Proposed Culvert
Channel Length (m)
Length lost (m)
(m)
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60f 82 129 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10± 475 367 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site BI -L- Sta. 121+40+ 283 112 900 RCP
Site B2 -Y2- Sta. 14+40+ 68 44 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60f 179 129 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20f 76 68 1050 RCP
Site E .-L- Sta. 143+15t 95 65 2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site El -L- Sta. 154+00+ 67.5 66 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80f 156 77 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site F1 -L- Sta. 164+00+ 48 43 150 CSP
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 233 0 -
Site GI -L- Sta. 171+30+ 245.5 205 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 59 58 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 75.5 73 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 183 175 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 95 91.5 750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 93.5 89.5 900 RCP
Site I -L 1- Sta. 18+50t 17 17 1050 RCP
Total 2531 1809
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
Note: Site B is below headwaters. US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
All other sites are above East of SR 2309
headwaters.
SHEET OF
O v \ \ N i v z U
N I N n / ' / G2
o / 0 0 0
\\ ' / / \9
3SC! a`° ?- t .6
f J / iti vi a
LL- C,
V / / v
H ?
Or -
f Of ,.2T /
1
ti
(1J ? • 5
C6 \
k 7-4 C/
a
LL
LL,
l l Z'? / x
. ,

O

O p

7zi
a, 1

N ? V
N I V N
3 ? ?;
4z
?
N Q 1
Z a t?
? N
03
r LL 1? r
NQcr I?
R' W t
LL ? t7 I
Vv Y '
r I
N
W K LL 1
i

CL -
?
rr m'
m
as
LL
??- Q
cr JN
UCDU
N J N Q
N -
aLL
03c a
2 U Q ~ aLL
~ftw I
.
'z
OON ?.` .
HrL'J' I
H^ N-?. r
W2LL
w
3
'n r
Q
0 , Z
mO C
OW?-Z w
wN-
ONwJ w
r
I. 3
.
,.
Z
w
3

O v tD I ?
I
0
O o o ? co

O O N
O O v?
• O W
N •O
O to N

1
0
O 0tH
o c

0 oo o, a I
M
Q1
O
'
?
p
N
* t
?
?
c t-
P
- o .-.
+ t
• / . `G Y?
•
OO 1 N I
m
o
1
?
?
r
o I
I
z

?{ U
? T
N
c'3

r ?
U
U

i
I f
lu?
N I
I ? I
M I
r
m
m
C4 i Q ?Q{.
?i 37 RCP U
x
al N W
W I
I NJ N-x
1 4
Na J
JF W- 1 W
aW Na 1 p Q
LLo J~ 1 -
4w 0 ? 3
k
O ? y
M
•R', ??+ M erg

O C
Q -4
?4
? hC

I
I
W
0
03 F-
o3a
W ?
LL o 1 w 3 ][
1 O CO
z u
1 W Z
,- > w 00 U., co

w
U
z .c ,n
x
V
W
LL M
V m
P
co
V
w
? 3
W -
N CL
a Y
1-- N
Z
W N
O
z
_ T
I
1
l
1
1
1
1 _
a
\ U
III Z•L
i
m Z a
w
1 w
1 3 0
1 o w
z w
W N
r '0+51 •? f.08S
I
I
I
I
II

I o' N
I o o°
I • OO
• U')
I
I
i
r
I
I
I
I o
I ?

U

I

'? RG G 7
a

r
SITE B
TERATE PAVEMENT
'? - +5;.952 I .4m

\ 35-GOC .47
/•? -? TS 9.952 -Y-
98-982

10.000
!
'}
I5+00

oos
J
/ ;.1 \ r '7 / ocp Pa/ 6.6m
0+52.478

Z E
9 i ° 11.bo 1.2-
?'_ N 50• 00 33
I• I- \, °' 202.7x2.1/ 3.6m
I

/ PQ 32.977 -Y-
r
OBLITERATE PAVEMENT' i
I r
OT 4.728 RAMP 'A'
.909 RAMP ' B' I

19 ONOLITHIC
ISLAND
C)
O r-

v
I?
?m
5511
< z
i
w
N
CA
STA. 110+50.338 -L-
I BEGIN BRIDGE \O
O.
N 63' 45' 38.4" E ??- = 11
® STREAM CHANNEL IN FILL = 0.5880 ha
(TOTAL FOR SITE B)
? Q 10
SCALE 1:1000
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6.769001T (R-2239B)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET q OF 15
OA - - SITE B
TS tit+32.633 J- N
l STA. 110+85.346 -t>- ?
Gj o NO BRIDGE _ r g
n
F i 3.
Nl 1 I 1 1 `/ /
-------------------
,-+ 1 I Il 1 1
N
O
?
v 11 /
v1

tEl 11 1 1 1 J \ -
Ai I I I l l ON ?• ? `.?
I I i 1 1 \ \ S- O _
O O O ^'? P1.
C O O O
059 -Y= %
o Cl
1
?\ J
8+18.059 -Y- 7
18 \0,
\ \ 6.
\ I 4
c 13.571m
/ XX
J
KATHLEEN WELBORN
?' \• \ CS 88. 71 RAMP '0' --
POC 17+92.977 - - \
3.6m POT 5+45.678 RAMP \ \ 2&Z.7x Z,I
POT 5+55.932 RAMP RCBG
.2
\p?? ST 5+43.071 RAM D-: S 58. 42 56.7" W -
+ t5:t TAPER
+ 1 5.
•08 ?;u - - - \
850 9 ?irv / •' ti \
e? m 3
07 0 m3
-ooos
6
3 071
' 4.717 ? 3 . 00 - ? ?
r
+4 .189 RAMP 'D'
r 2 ?\
3 .000 j <_'•
+51.100 -Y- N.C DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
15.000 ?oocs
® 5 p to
STREAM CHANNEL IN FILL = 0.5880 ha ?r
(TOTAL FOR SITE B) SCALE 1:1000
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT 6769001T (R-=911)
PROPOSED US 421 FROM EAST OF
SR 2433 TO EAST OF SR2309
SEPT 19%
SHEET 10 OF 15

M
N
m
N}
Q( cf1
vi (3-
A
CL
L
M
V5
? s
\? N
? O
? o
? N
f`
1
i
Z ?
Q i
U J
Q
U) J
N ?
x ?
N cc I
? M
0
4

_O
d
H
I
J
1
0
0
O
M
O O
T T
J
a
~ J
Z Q
O
U
UOLL!
U 2 >
O
13
c'<1
L
o
' d
vi
m
M
E., C/)
--
Q ?" N vv ?j
va"iC7F:0e-7,0
U
cegc?
E p c-
Oz0?.1?'?~??? i
wM U
ell
A p ? ? C I
U r. O ? i
z Y
964
?u
I C
y
l
r(?
i
I

O ?
? O
c
U
Q
w
J
J_
U
z
J
W
z
z
a
T
U
Q
w
H
U)
N
m
N
? Q
t
? d
Q
N W I
N J O I
?. N
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
\I Q
w
? d
I w
J ?
Y
t
7
I
1
M
o
0-' z ?T.
CD -0
0 0 M o I
F- ?OoGT,E-?? i
zQcJ
l
N Q
0 C)
Q cr- Ir Q O W
UOw
COa:> ???CT1Lo?
-o
0
h
t

I

4. t
V\

c
c
s
0

U)
%
\ ' W 0
in lz
0
.
Q

1.0

N 1 w
? ?
O
y
X
y
? , w
Z 1 .
z T ? ?- ? 1 '?-
> ° w
<
1 S 1
r
J
I

1 c

1? 1 t r ,? 1 ?
1
co 'C r

Z

y
Q l 1
U
?
w CD I 1`
F-- I 1
I 1
2 3
'ylL WO£
z ;)

' SSA

r
_ ?-
r
i t
- - o e.

r _ _ - - `_
- C
G: :
/ .ter
-
? _ ? Q
•
? ?
?

WO'£ WZ'L WZ t
ti W ? r-' X
Z p 0' L w0'
-
O
I
k
Q
x L-
tu C I 2m
0 wZ L w0•£

wo-Z
1 0'L w0'
CL
Q
w0 £ wZ,L Z' CL
X \
[D C_

Ld
C

I
t
LLJ

LSL I I

0:
I ?' °---
1
dJ4
Z w
p 6
wZ•E
l
/
?i OCCJ k
T E I Iy,
W m - O A
cr E- + E
I . R
am
?C Q O

n l
' ?. ?-n O
o
z
cc
?q O r
k Q 7F
F 0 Y i?
o
° W
I 66Z' e E
-
I Z' wZ'L ?' A eMn
?" w y y N
A
'
4 x
L9? R
? c
o
9£9'Z6+ a f
wZ't WO'Ol Z' r
/ C
X
c:
?
c
X 0_0
0

' w
J

N Q
()
? N
\ * ' O E

wZ't wp 6 Z• O

\ J
I

I Z !.

?
? W
z
N
? I €

L wp•£ I = ?

I
£9'Z0+ E
W
99L p,£
r? Z I

'
_ wZ L wp £I ?!
NIX
VSt '
Wp
L

V w0'£ wZ'L Z' \ I
I ,\
I ?.
/ ,,\
\
W ? \

UV)
U
\
i
rn
i
cc
Q
n
10
E
i
c
0
i
co
co
0
n
c

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)

Project/Site: R-7-7-31 B Date: I - 3J -g
Applicant/Owner.. NcDa-r County: tt);llees
Investigator: 0,1(t lu Iles d' 1 rrl, rP 115 State: NC
Do Normal CIrcumstances exist on the site? No
Community ID; p
113
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
4

I3 the area a potential Problem Area? Yes _
-
Plot ID: A

(if needed. explain on reverse.) _
1-12-)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soaeies
1. Rlat tw,5 iYGt?6n?ill?1 Stratum Indicator
iI ,i Dominant Plant Scecies Stratum Indicator
9.
2- 1 %4P c. ?r? 2 Y Fir 10.
3. A ? ? t I, r N., ? ._...?? 11.
`n
4. R
ci? t5 ?FY(?+It,rm?
„?:s
l Pt-
1
1
?(? t+ li?,?0 f u I i n ?1 /f CC.
iii 1
f
1:-M1
13.
3, (czr+iraa? ,mica. F?rC 14.
7. 15. '
8. 16.

Percent of Dortdnant Species that we OSL FACW or FAC
(exciudin4 FAC•).
S 3 c?D
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Seaunent Dcposits
Fasi :b2cr-raidons: ?crsinage Panama. in Wadandz
Secondary cators M or more required):
Verth of Sutiaee Water: ?• ,- - Q..J ndfzad Root Channels in Upper 12 incites
Watar-Stained Laaws
i :'zodt to Free Water in Fit: Local Sod Survey Data
_
?FAC-Noutra( Test
-.••-;ta to Saturated Sol): ,-Other (Expisin in Ram4rk4
RacQ dad Data (Describe in Remarks): Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream. Lake, of Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photograph Inundated
_ Other _ ?16aturated In Upper 12 Inchas
UQ 3sr =riled cc= Avaaab:e Water Marks
Drift llnes
?:u:tyarks: .
t•
• ,1
SOILS
Mao Unit Name
(Saris and Phase!: .1 G p+? r (In W
Drainage Class: -00-s
?
Tsxonomy (Subgroup): 4?' t y r r C Field Observations ' ,•/
re Ir Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
L) i
PreAle Oescridon.
Depth Matrix *Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
inches) Horizon Wunseil Moist) (Munsell Meisil Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
Lima IZ41UA
? 0 31,
i HYdric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosci _ Concretions
Histia E pipedon _ Hioh Organic Content in Surface Laver in Sandy Soils
.:L Sulfidlc Odor - Organic Streaking in Ssnyy Soils
i _ ,/Agtde Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydrio Soils Ust
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sods Ust
Z Gloved or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks!
? W (mac- ? P•
? ,

WETLAN? OETE3qMiNATiON

Hydrophytio Vegetation Preserit7 es No (Cirdsi (Girds!
Wedand Hydrology Present? No

Hydrie Sods Present?
es •
No
Is this Sampling Point Within a WedandT
Yes No
Remarks:

Approved Oy M A G o/

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pralect/Sita: 9,-7 2 34 Date: 1-3t7-?iG
Applicant/Owner.. County (Jdkes
lnvestlgatar: tae 5Akrl+ 9y-f-mey r(f" State: NP
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? o Community ID:
?
13 the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect 10: U(
.d
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: T
(if needed. explain an reverse.)
VEGETATION
Corninant Plant Soeeiesl
!. /17cL .? t4 ?t+trtXQr Stratum Indicator.
? Derninent Plant Soaeies Stratum lndieator
S.
;
6A bp., t
f C l'a.
'
3. P141-_,,A(
4. nA/?(a ?? /TC- 12.
5. ?_IrN1't,.?ls ?(?fL, i cl a rr ff
6.?il% ?ix.y?t L4f't-^SbCU?fi S ?U
t?f ??i i, 13.
14.
7. IS.
a. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OSL. FACM or FAC
(excluding FAC-1. /,,

lY ?0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY - "
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Romerica):
Stream. Lake. or Tide Gouge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
V -'Flo ..°.er_rdd Data Avoilab:a
b
Flew 1_: -'sorvadons:
Dad of Surface Water.
Dap,.: to Free Water In Pit:
Dept: to saturated Sail:
Rcm4e=
Qe.I
Qn.l
Wedand Hydrology Incicatora:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 (nchom
- Water Marks
- Drift Unes
Seaunent Dertc •ts
?__ Orainago Pattsma in WedacaYs
Seccndary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Ror+' f''Sanneis In Upper 12 Inches
Watar-Stains:; :- ayes
SoA Data
L"" AC-Nauuai TG.,..
other (Evlain In Remarksl
SOILS
Map Unit Name
r ?.
l
. ?o
(Series and Phaseh ^it Prl a CCQu Drainage Class:

K
-
' ki
I
k
? Field Observations
fi
C
A,
Taxonomy (Subgroup): U 01
c_ ,„
l,
a A Con
rm Mapped Type? Yes No
Prosle Oe?erieden•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
(Inches) Horiren (Munsell Moist) (Munseli Moist$ Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
o iZ 5-4
T lam,
_ iv ,e s/6 ?--
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histasal _ Concretions
_ Histla Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulftdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails
_ Agtria Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sails list
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrie Sods List
Gieyed at Low-C.tiroma Colors _ Other (Main in Remarks? -
1
{ Remerita:
wt-" nun r%Cr=MrUf%JA-MMM

..
Ftyarophytla Vegetation Presetit? Yes (Circle) ' (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yee ^
Hydne Sails Present? Yee Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
1
Approvea by H A c /
r

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProieCt1Site: P- 2 z 3y 9 Date: - 3o -9?
Applicant/Owner. Nelwr County: i??,ikes
Investigator: ??f. 5,,,=h/? d 8YIfee t//s State: NC
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? • • No Community 10: >-O ( 3 eXqP 13 the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yeses Transect 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Prot 10: 6
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGEEtAT10 N
Qon+inent Plant++Soee''ie//s
1. i? A2 na 1 i ?r? A Q T?JCO ? Stratum Indicator
J F14 C* Oorrinent Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
s.
l( r( •?
MIA1.G. nreAo aS,e V

G1-
G
AC-

10.

g Trri??wYJ?nTI???{.c, V F7( 13.
6.
r?^wut.l 14.
?
7. `l J /f CAC - 15.

Percent of Dominant species that ate 08L. FACW of FAC
(excluding FAC-1.
J ?l
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
• Recorded Data (Describe In Rsrttarksl:
Stream. Lake, at Ttde Gouge
Aerial Photographs
_ t- : her
INC ..°.:errdsd Data AVoilab:e

Depth of surface Water ` QnJ
Depth to Fcz - Vistar In Pit: an.)
os.th to sc-'shad sad: _ D Qn.l
Field Observvt:-•nj:
• Wedend Hydrology Indicator::
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ saturated In upper 12 Inches
_ Wetx lt. ka
_ orita ones
Sew Went Deposits
L-fl ,g..cgs Patterns in Wedands
Secondary inciicators (2 at more requiredl:
013ddizod Root Chamois In Upper 12 Inches
T Water-Stained Leaves
_ txcsi 5013 5cryay Oats
?FAC•IVatEtri' Test
Other (E ?;± ce In Ramarksl
Rer:•arks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name II
i
l
Ck `
?cx
!Ser
es and Phase):
a
w QP -vb, Drainage Class: ? c?

T
b
r' _ Field Observations
L
t-
S
kr e
O
axonomy (Su
group):
tkyr p
.
T f e C
il g
Confirm Mapped Typal Yes No
P-011e Qesctietlen•
Depth Matrix -Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texturs. Concretions.
(inches) Horizon IMunsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure etc.

ql( 7-
A V16v
1
i
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Cincredons
I _ Histio Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sendy Sods
Sulfidic Odor
- Organio Streaking in Sargy Soils
a
7Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydrio Soils Ust
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sods Ust
I .4 Gieyed of LoW-Chrome Colors -Other (Explain in Remarkal
Remsrin:
wprn &Nn n i;mmtN&TIAN J

_Hydrephyde Vegetation Preterit? es No (Clyde) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Sods Present? s No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Y No
Remarksr.

a i

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PraiectlSits: g-ZZ3Q 3Date: (-30-P
Applicant/Owner. OC -r County: (, );1k
Investigator: e Sup ,? ?- &we- 01-'s State: t c-
Oo Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ?nD Transect 10: ;Ao7J
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes 40 Plot ID: _
(if needed, explain an reverse.) r3
VEGEETATIO N
Qo,ntinant Plant Soecies
1. i' Stratum Indicator
7
CLL. Dominant Plant Seeaies Stratum Indicator
S.
?u Ar1kW% ...
F? 1D.

4. T/ _ 12.
C U
s 13.
r
6. S f1?' .tvn it 0.uutl _
r?^r. 14.
7. 15.
8. 1s.

Percent of Dominant Spades that are OSL_ FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). i
Remarks:
F.YoROLOGY
_ &cardad Data (Deseuibe In Remarks):
I Swam, Lake. or ride Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
ether
no Rxerded Data Avedable
'aid cbecriatione:
s
C;epth at Surface Water. QaJ
?Gpth to Frse Water In Pit: on.)
Tr ith to Sarurated Sail: QrQ

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Weer Maria
Drift Unes
_ S*4fimc •.:• Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in WcdsMs
Secondary Indicators (2 or more rewiredl:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inc1: z
Water-Stained Leaves
- Loam Sod Survey Data
__7FAC-Neutral Taat
_ Other (Explain In Rama. &Sl

t+
SOILS
Map Unit
Name
(?
?
?
q
Pha
(Sarin and Fhase):
G.r',1
and
•w rt.u
o? S s
Drainage Cass:

k
i
?
?
T Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroupl:
r)nnrl
ltl
V ?Y
L
?? i? Confirm Mapped Typal Yes No
,
proole Oeseriodert•
Oapth Matrix Color Mottle Colon Mottle Texture. Conarsdons.
aches) Horizon (Munseii Moist) LMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Y l o ?Z

HWrio Sail Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Cancradons
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sods
_ Suifidia Odot _ Organic Streaking in Ss"y Soils
_ Aquia Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydria Sails Ust
Reducing Conditions listed on National Hydric Sods Ust
=
I =
Gleyed of Low-Chroma Colors -
Other (Explain in Remaritsl
E
Remarks:
Wt?t 9Nn nCTC?MiIUATn1V
Fiydrophydo Vegetation Present? Yes No (Crde) ' (Ckcial
Wadand Hydrology Present? Yes c
Hydnc Sals Pmaent? Yes (is) Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remsrk=
Approves by N =Az 3432
i

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: fl _223g13 Data: l- 30-g6
AppGcant/Owner• itl(''/)/??-I' County: G1; rkes
investioator. 7alo 5?, grrrP. //?s State: n!c
Do Nocmat Clrcumstancas exist on the size? No Community 10: c9 (I?
Is _10 site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ?g Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10:
(if needed, explain on reverse.) Flags p(- X20
VE3cTATION
r 7Qnminant Plant seacies r
1. ?1 a? nn?? ei »nn A0_4a( aC
- Stratum
T Indicator,
1? Dominant Plant Soecies
9. iVI r r f.) c-4-ee i A rll l r Stratum
.m r ?le.:m f>' Indicator
Ci
Z-
A1a Abn'm T ,rL 10.E US CJi%2rcHatS ff GBH
3. !)r.?{n,,,?,s ^c& fNl,'s ?" I?L
j
tt. c4c:ocus y;??;??c?t
r H
r_t3
?
n1:

15 J

V2.
J ?
3. Aev.r KtArtl V-
5 ??
?4
C=
Lr
73.
a. cLt{1 ., n CCr ?e,,?a<<s 5 -
-
- 14.
7. Li a. < < ru e7 t1,.Jaa.re S T. ( IS.
a. T I ex .? ^ac? `J ? ! t s.
_
Percent of Dominant Spades that are CEL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC•1. 9 Z ?
/r r ?
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks!:
_ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gouge
_ Aerial Photographs
? other
!/`!s.°.artdad DataAtredab(a
n- 4r t of surface Water. ?Ga.1
t?
Vq ,,h to Free Water In, Pit: 2- GiS.I
I k" idbpth to Saturated Snil: GrO

Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators.
?nundstod
Saturated in Up--r 12 Inches
water hl4rks
- Drift Lines
Sediment Dapa. a
_LDrsinags Paean.: in Wodands
Secondary indicators (Z of rr:are required):
Oxidized Root Otannais in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained LFSves
_ si Sal Surw; Cata
V FAC-Neutral Tec•:
Other (Ex Wain in Remarks) .
?ismarkn:
x
SOfLS
Map Unit Name /n]
(Series and Phase): ?' ?? J aCE!r? ?c3R.
?M Drainage Cass: r) SP

Taxonomy (Subgroup): , I L Field Observations
6 _7L <)-ro I S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PMRle Oeseriot =
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
rinches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Maistf Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
0-4

Hydria Sod Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions
_ Hisdo Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Suifidla Odor _ Organic Streaking in Ssngv Sails
1Aqute Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydrie Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Sods Ust
.jZGieyed or Law-Chmma Colors _ Other (Eiplsin in Remarkst -
Remarks:
wm". anln r' =1r=M1tVATif1N

v
•Hydrophyda Vegetation Pteserit7 4 ss No (Crdsl (Crete)
Wedond Hydrology Present? L. _ No
Hydrie Sc As Present? ?? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? es No
Rerstsrics:
Apptovea cy N A - 3J32.
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OETE.RMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-ZZ3? r3 Oate: ?-3c?-g(o
Applicant/Owner.. ?IQi (rr County: w IkPs
Investigator: Tale S???i-rr •I 9rnlr4 G(111< State: NC
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: 7,/
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10:
(if needed. explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Oorninent Plant Scenes Stratum Indicator
z (J ue,rc us ?_4? a?-? T ?- (
3. 1? C21 d'lAIJfU M
4. p;
vi I
C
7
{ 3. Sytitr ?a? 'l?'?G.nr?('Mua. S F,4 c
7. 't, I-A
Y IF-ACU

weent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FAUN at FAC
;excluding FAC-).
Dominent Plant Species Stratum Indicator
S.
?o.
11.
12-
13.
14.
15.
16.
q/17
Remarks:
rnROLOGY
Reaordsd Data (Describe In Remaricsi:
-Stream. Lake. at Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
? tie R_rrded Data ;.variable
:and Cbservstiens:
Depth of Surface Water. (Ina
Depth to Fries Water In Pit: Oro
Dogth to Saturated Soil: am)
i

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated In upper 12 Inches
_ Water M. t a
_ Drift Lines
_ Sedilment Depoc:'.s
_ Drainage Psttcc::. in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more regWrsd):
Oxidized Root Channels In Upper I I Inches
Watet-Stained Leaves
Lacai Sci( Survey Data
_i??FAC,Newral Tact
_ Other (ET;Wn In Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name !? L
( nn
I
(Sarisa and Phase): IJ l
a I, &9A4-1 Otainepe Class:

`
k
b Reid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
li-n
171 C
i (2 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
i
ProAle OeserioNon•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
nnches) Horizon Imunsell Moist) _ (Munseil Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
A -12 /0. 9 31y Sr if
I Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Hiatosoi _ Concretions
I _ Histio Epipedon _ High Organic Content In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ tasted an Local Hydric Soils Ust
_ Reducing Canditlons _ listed on National Hydrie Sods Ust
_ Gieyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Rerrnarlta:

W97-1 Amn n91=1M11UAT111M
HydroQhydo Vegetation Preseritl Yes o (C:rcie) (Clyde)
Wedand Hydrology Presentl Yes
Hydrie Sala Present? Yes is this Sampling Point Within a Wettand7 Yes No
Rwnarkx:
Approved by M A t 3132

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 12-2- 2- 393 Date: 1- 30-46
Applicant/Owner.. N C Do T County 041 ke
lnvesifgater: 'D«(r SN,fer d- t3rwe Eris State: :,UC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community 10:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transecc 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10: F
(if needed. explain an reverse.) f S 1. 12.
VEGETATION
oarninent Plant Sesci/ewe Stratum Indicator Don+inent Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator
Z r ?? 5 s 4 rA,, w t 0.

?
4. d" r ?f<Ir 4,,r I a. it 1Z.
t
I ?
4F 14.
7. 02:U4 cm 14 15.
t. ?-uct W I h i_ 1 / L? C/1n11 A1L 11 r, Q ?" Is.
J
I carcent of Dominant Species that are 09L. FACW or FAC
exciuding FAC-1.
I
1 Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
1 _ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarksl:
-Stream. Lake. or lids Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ other
Rxrded Data Avedabde
i
v? rfa of Surface Water. `? (tnJ
die%zh to Free Water In Fit. _Lde?_fina
to Saturated Sad: _ on.)
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
fimary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
-Drift Linac
Sediment 0epoeit3
Zsinags Psnams in Wetlands
Secandary Inalcaton (2 or more requirsdl:
oxidized Root Clunnsis in Upper 12 Inches
:IVatat-Stained Leaves
-1 cc-' Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In RGmarita)
-
ht;xile5'?2;: ^
t] ?
,i
J
SOILS
Map Unit Name
tSariss and Phase): Qu7y;...r Orainspe Gass;
?/ nn // 1 Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgrcup): Yf a UG 4t,l?t?r, ?1 L Jl/C fYO Ch /L'/,?JS Confirm Mapped Type? Yam No
PyeRle 0e2eri2flon•
Oaptn Matrix Color Mattis Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
rinehes! Horizon (Munseii moist)-*' (Munseil Moist$ Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

Hyoria Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histle Evipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Su(fidia Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
2"Aqulc Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydria Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed an National Hydric Soils Ust
-.)./G(eyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (E.xvisin in Remarks$
1
Remarks:
wt--t ertn ncrr+aMtnre?-tnrt

Hydrophytio Vegetation Present? No (Orcial ' (C:rciel
Wedsnd Hydrology Present? No
Hydna 3041s Pmeent2 s No Is tss Sampling Point WitHn a Wedand? No
Remarks: i

r i
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
Proi ect/Site: R--223q 1"3 Date: /-?0-94
Applicant/Owner. C DaT County: Q, /ke-c
Investfpater: 7C(e 57y4ee d nice E/la's State: k] C_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community 10:

is tie site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes _
Transact 10:
Is Zile area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot 10:
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
cominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator

3. f?+?,?a? 17
u?
4.
1 Z.
5. 13.
5. 14.
7. 15. '
S. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are 05L, FACW of FAC
(exciudinQ FAC-1. (
2-
Ramer":
HYDROLOGY '-
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
-Stream. Like. or Tide Gauos
_ Aerial Photographs
other
? FFo .°.cc:rdad Data AvailaW.-
? dti of Surfaces Water. QrQ
r.: A to Free Water In Pit: (fns
Dopth to Sarimtsd Sail: _ QnJ
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Water h -xks
Drift Lines
Sod'?ent Deposits
Orsirsage PetTems in Wodands
Seoandary Indicators (Z or more required):
Oxidized Root Chsnnais in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Loeai Sod Survey Data
!/FAC-Neutral Test
?, Other (Explain In Rtrnsrksl
SOILS
Map Unit Name rr-- l
l
L S
oat-
oat- and Phase):
wa n to ?
Drainage Class:
1
T
C D
rl
" Feld Observations V
p
f
axonomy (Subgroup):
y df?IQ6l" -
US
I r O C
l t..C 1
J Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Preftle Oeseriotien, .
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mattis Texture. Conarstions.
finches) Nathan (Munseii Moist) (Munseil Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
0 Z l?x??t
5"?2 /0 (e In
{
I
j Hydria Soil Indicators:
_ Histosai _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidia Odor _ Organio Streaking in SaMy Sails
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed an Local Hydria Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ listed an National Hydric Sods List
k _ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks!
Remarks:
L
wt-rl elan nc-t?turtNertn*t

'Hydrophytio Vegetation Preterit? Yes N (Ards) ' (C(rde)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydrie Salo Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
Approveo by M A c 3192
1 -
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLANO DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjectlSlts: R-7239 3 Date: 1- 3?-q(,
Applicant/Owner. MUNT County: .C-
Investipatcr: T)nIP 4 R- AeP 5111S State:
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? es No Community 10: Pat
I ?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Jjjj) TTransect, 10: -lJvr
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ,to Plat 10:
(If needed. explain an reverse.)

VEGETATION
Oorrinsnt Plant Species
c Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Straturn Indicator

6* 5A-rw
40_2A "rIA11?-JAM 7- r'A C_ 10.
3. Me A' {'. _ F/?G 11. ? /2rn_ tirr?/?LtP2_. c>?
?Ct.l+
?
4. r? r_?Lkit?{.110n It i +0. I 12. TYr??/{O,r1,vf+n rrtnG/' _
a., i /( Fa C
-7- gC1, 13.
lhH, lGY r2 T cvi?i 71> ?i
r
a.
lox nn?tn? . S
?
14.
r
7. J cQ^ 4rr.. ,
15.

Psteent of Dominant Species that are OflL. FACW or FAC
Isxetue!(ng FAC•).
C?
Remarks:
1
HYDROLOGY
Raaotded Data (Devwbs in Remark:):
_ Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
other
VfJa RZ:_;dsd Data lvadai:le Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
-Inundated
_ Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
-Drift Lines
_ Sediment Oapoaits
::old abcc: • cr,*ns: _(/Drainage Puttsms in Wedat?ec
Secondary Indicators (2 or more tsquired):
O d
Depot of _ fees Water. Rai ined Root Charmers in Upper 12 Inches
s
ter•Stained Leaves
Depth to .:as Water in Pit: Loeai Sod Survey Data
i% FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to .3ettuatsd Sort: _ (v l)n ! ,i,_e other (Fxpts;n In Remarks)
Ramatics: " +
SOILS
Map Unit Name Q Q ,?
(3eries and Phasel: o?C r'-- i(t99iwf ?
Drainage Class:

Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?1
14 l ? ef f (14A / Fsld?Observations

o Tl Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Pronle Qe/eriodon-
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colon Mottle Texture. Concretions,
Inches) Horizon IMunseli Moist)_" (Munseil Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
oY 3/1 S;I+.I rlQk?
i
x-12 ..5 316 si 1?', daU
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
=
=
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in SaMy Soils
:2'Agvic Moisture Regime _ listed an Local Hydric Soils Ust
Reducing Conditions _ listed on National Hydr(c Sods Ust
`, Gloved or Low-Cyroms Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarksl
R omsrks:
121. 1 Awlrl nt'T'L??w11iw1ATtn IU

I It r 6.-%& %60 {/Ga G.-U71/1%P% a 1Y/•
*Awrcphytio Vegetation Present? No (Circle) ' (Circle)
Wetand Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soas Present? No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? es No
Remarks:
Approved by M A c 3192

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R -2 Z 3q 3 Oates
Applicant/Owner. u e DnT County: fit); Iker
investigatcr. 7,le tu,ter d 0ruce Ells State: NG
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? • • No Community 10:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ?lg Transect 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(if needed. explain an reverse.)
VErs'cTATiON
00n^inent Plant soeeiae// //
1. ? i ri or1 ?,?Ci?c.? 77?1? 4? Stratum
' ? ? Indicator
?rrC Dontinent Plant Species Stretum Indicator
9.
2. Y <s,?u L;; ?1'7r1Qht!/¢- T l? 10.
ekC 11.
4. 7- ESEU 12-
13.
S. Frr tie f ?A?.?(3? S r FACtJ 14.
7. /.y 15. '

Percent of Dominant Species that are OSL. FACW or FAC
1 (excluding FAC-1.
y
Remarks:
1
-
HYDROLOGY ' . '
_ Regarded Data (Describe In Remarks: Wettand Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
? other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-
. i? Rer_rdod Data Avsilab.'. water Merits
_ Drift Line
-sediment Deposits
;';r-!a Cbsorwtana: _ Drainage Patterns in w.dands
Secondary indicators (2 or more requirsdl:
Depth of Surface Water: tint -Oxidized Root Chamois in Upper 12 Inches
a _ Water-Stained Laws
Depth to Free Water In Pit: (tn.) _ Lodsi Sad Survey Data
s _ FAC-Noutrai Test
0413th to Samrated Sod: _ tin.) _ other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
i
I
SOILS
Mao Unit Nuns n?! S A C
?J (
yC?
l
(Series and Phases:
a,?
l OreinsQe Class: ?

T
T I Field Observations
axonomy (Subcrouc): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
PreR)e Oeseriot(on•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
enehes) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseil Moist ) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
-4 ZR- /all
?- / Z 2
e
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histie Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
=
Sulfidio Odor =
Organic Streahing in $aMy Soils
Aquia Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Canditlons _ listed on National Hydrie Soils Ust
Gieyed or Law-Chroma Colors _ Other Mxpiain in Remarks)
Remarks:
W , ND DETFgM1NAT1ON

'Hydrephyde Vegetation Proserit? Yes o (Girds) ' (Clew@)
Wsdand Hydrology Present? Yse
Hydric Sods Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? Yes
Remarks:
Apptovea by H c !

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WEi LAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Praject/Site: R-ZZ3q 8 Date: --i 1-91,
Applicant/Owner. kruz: County: I Wes
,
lnvestipatcr: '?,(e -t Bruce- EI1 s State: n1G
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: 1
la the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plat ID: 1+
(If needed. explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Qominant Plant Soeciee Stratum Indicator
1.?'!?D 1 V'u ?)lL( Y?1 7- F A6 Oominent Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
9. ^P ?i11?NR r (??I it?•<C... F? '?

3. RA" t ?;„l?P!?iQrtr2m<: t S i 1, 11.
4.??w.?u< 2,rr?iow
?/? I,,* t2.
nq
5. ;7 'T g lei''' 710t ;; _ 14 P/- 13.
14.
FAN
7. it I ?r a »+ GLvca. CL' w?-t ?? NAC ?
15. '
3. !! Lwr': ern SA: I i? Is.

I Percent of Dominant Species trrat are 08L. FACW or FAC I /
(excluding FAC-1.
(? (V
Remarks:
':`DROLOGY
Recorded Data (Daauibs In Remarks!:
-Stream. Lake. or Tide Gouge
_ Aerial Photographs
i _ other
No Rx_rdad Data AveanWe
'beervady na:
12a0th of SwIlace Water.
c
th to Frr•3 Wcrci.n Pit: / (InJ
049th to Satili' wj ;-oil: _ (In.1
R nwku:
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
_ Water &A rka
-Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
_
?Orainage Pattams in Wedanda
Secondary Indicators (2 or mots requiredl:
_ arddizsd Root Channels in upper 12 Inches
-Water-Stained Leaves
Loom Sail Survey Data
_FAC-(Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks!
SOILS
Map Unit Name ,,?? //'J?
r1
-
(Series and Phase):
o', yLe- Drainage Class: +. r

g Feld Observations ;
A
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
? y
S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
P-ofile Oescriodon•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
rtnehesl Horizon (Munseil Moist) iMunsell Mai-30 Abundance/Contrast Structure, OTC.-
0- / /o
n - l Z 3// 5 Y/2 Vl t,
Hydria Soil lndlestom:
_ Histosol _ Concradone
Histie Epipadon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidia Odor _ Organic Streektng in SaMy Soils
4ZAquie Moisture Regime _ listed on Local Hydra Soils Ust
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Sods Ust
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Ramarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
, a
'Hydrophyde Vegetation Preterit? ?Ye No (Qrciei ' (Clews)
Wedand Hydrology Present? No
Hydria Soils Present? No is ttis Sampling Point Within a WedwW? No
R.marits: ?./
Approved by M A - /

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OET"c.RMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Proiecoisite: ? -Z Z iq B Date: 1- -31 -q&
Applicant/Owner.. N C 007 County: a1; lkes
Investigator: ___2.,L (e SU . Tey -* race Ei Us s State: rjC -
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? <!6j) No Community iD:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes QLa) Transect 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ?y Plot 10:
44
(if needed, explain an reverse.) --
VEGE i ATION
Dominant Plant Seecies Straturn Indicator
I. " ' v" - ?Ac' * Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
S.
2. ZDSLI Ps u.A y1 a. S t ??/, 10.
3.

5. f?A[Q e Ir- A?
14.
7. 15.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACN or FAC U
lexciuding FAC-1. (9 ?U
Remarks:
I

_ Rseorr "- Data (Deseribc In Remarks):
-Stream. Lake. o: nde Gouge
Aerial Photographs
? ??- other
l?l3a =Zmrdad Osta Avera,,Y.-
Neld Cbsev;4-ilcna:
Depth of Surface Water. ?__Ona
Depth to Frso Wctar in Pit:
Depth to Satumted Soil: - _ . Ono
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Ptimary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Masks
_ Drift tines
_ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wedandr-
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required[:
_ Qddized Roar Channe(s in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Lztves
- Ucsi Sod SUN-c-, Data
yGFAC-Neuuai cc?.
_ Other (Explair. In Remarks)
.'.cmarka:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phasel: (wn(a Drainage Cass:
'
j
-7-
' T Field Observations
4
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
,r al C f Yl ,? u
s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Oeseriotion.
Oapth Matrix 'Co(ar Mattis Colon Mattis Texture, Concretions,
enehesl Horizon (Munsell moist)- ' (Muneeil Moist( Abundance/Contrast Structure ate.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Hlstic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sods
_ Sul(idic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Usted on Local Hydric Soils L'st
Reducing Canditions listed an National Hydric Sails Ust
_ Glsyed at Low-Chrome Colors -Other (Explain in Ramarksl
Remarks:
CIO
W=11 flNil T1GT'GaMiNATIr1N

'Aydrephytie Vegetation Present? ' Yes No (C:rcie) ' (Cade)
Wsdand Hydrology Present? Yes _
Hydric Sods Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a WedandT Yes No
Remarksw.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProiecoJSlte: 34 /3 Date: (- 3/- F(
Applicant/Owner.. W NT County: &),/ _(
Investigator: 7 • Su 9 i ,'s State: ,NG
De Normal Clrcumstancas exist on the site?Na

%
g
) Community 1D;_
P A-
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation!?
e
s Transect ID: wef(ad
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ? Plot ID:
(It needed. explain on reverse.) NT
VEGETATION
Oorninent plant Species Stratum
1. in ?Xlr?u1 /l.&1_1 ?V- r- Indicator
, rr+CGJ 0ominent Plant Seecies Stratum Indicator
S.
2. M4 b tlym
r
10.
.?..,
4.

S• 14.
7. 15.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC•1.
/ b b
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY -
0
iscorded Data (Describe lrt Remark;):
Wetland Hydrology Indicator::
-Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs _ Inundated
,- _ Other _ Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
s t%"iB .°.:rrdad Data Avedabla _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Cbseewdtuts: V'Drsinage Pattsms in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
I?apth of Surface Water: _?Oxidizsd Root Chsnnsis in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained ' -2w4
Dapth to Fina Water In Pic _an.) _
_Caesi Sod Sinn= Data
?FAC-Neutral Tc..
i)opth to Saturated Soil: =6ther (Fz;:iain in Rome"
' P.amarka:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
ISaries and Phasel: i ?Ve t16 a Soy?L?! Drainage C:ass: 4 - i(

AA //LL Feid Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup):
I du;z 4ZL JJ
l? WU?.17S Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
ProPoe Oescrigtion-
Depth Matrix'Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
aches Horizon (Munseil Moist} (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
Q-/0 /D 2 J /OVl{ `{/(o IdN-,ei

Hydric Sail Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histia Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surfaea Layer in Sandy Sails
Sulfidic Odor _ Organio Streaking in Sal-IV Sails
_% iAquia Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Last
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gieyed or Low-Chrorna Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WC-T AlUr9 r1t'T=?MiIVATAN
a
'Hydriphytie Vegetation Preterit? .? No (C:rda) (C:rdel
Wetland Hydrology Present? ?'. 0 No
Hycna Sods Present? (-Y*i No is ttrs Sampling Point Within a Wetiand7 Yes ` No
Remarks:
Approvea by H A E 3132

a
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetiands Delineation Manual)
Prciect/Site: fZ -Z2 35 3 Date: - 31-9G
Applicant/Owner: C T)Zrr County 4, /,' r
lnvestfcator. la o r,.Ls I/?s State: NC
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? es No Community 10:
Is tha site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes CIO) Transect ID: wlo-j
la the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: t
(if needed, explain an reverse.) t
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Straturn Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
2- -7- LA
3. TA FL-
4. M, 041" 12.
13.
14.
r
7. ,
15.
a. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are 081. FACIN or FAC
(axciuding FAC-). 2
Remaricat
HYDROLOGY
I Recorded Data (Describe In Re narks):
-Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Pttatographs
_ other
>/ `!a R :corded Data Avadabie
f lc-k; Cbservsvc::,.
r Depth of su:sacs Water:
D.v;th to Fns Water in Pit:
Dc; : L:. saturated sod: _
c? .z
Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
Water Marica
Drift Llnos
Sediment Deposits
?_ Drainage Patterns in Wcdands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
_ oxidized Root Chamois in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Laaves
_ Loeai Sod Survey Data
_ FAC-Nouttai Test
Other (Ex0ain In Ramarics)

Rema,ki:
SOILS
Map Unit Name /!,,, ?/,
/(
P ?±
1
(Series and Phase): _
,_mW 1-?t?.?n M /'t
0;L, Drainage Class; tmO
Q " Field Observations
T
(S
b
6
axonomy
u
group): P Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
P-aAie OeserinHen• _,.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mettle Texture. Conaretions,
enches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munseii Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.

Hydria Soil IndIcatora:
_ Histoso( _ Concrations
_ Histla Eaipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldia Odor _ Organia Stteaicinq in Sandy Soils
_ Aquia Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Llst
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Souls list
_ Gleysd at Low-Chrome Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks$
Remerics:
` EI AND DETERMINATION

.Hydrephydo Vegetation Preaerit? ' Yes IJo -?(Crdal ' (Crde)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ^s
Hydric Sails Present) Yes Is ttuis Sampling Point Within a Wedand? Yes ,Na,
i
Remsrics:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Sits: R-Z 2 3gi 3 Date: / -3146
Applicant/Owner. N C PDT- County: 4Ji/,E&
Investigator: ?5'114r state: Nr.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? •• ?es No Community ID: A-
Is the site significantly disturbed {Atypical Situationi? Yes Transect 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes M> Flat 10: /
--(If needed, explain on reverse.) (1- 6)
VT:r'; ATTnN
FI r ninent Plent Soecies Stratum Indicator
lCizyu ,? uS -/- C r, . Dominant Plant Scecies Stratum Indicator
S.

k,
? ?e ?'c?1(Jr7.cw? 7-
2.

to.
.
3. t -11-Y 00, a
T
4. ly) ; i ., < ?¢.tr vw ,vtii n Pre . ?. / 12.
L -
,
u 13.
6. 14.
7. 15. ,
a. is.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACN or FAC `I/1 4lV K7
(exeiud(nq FAC-1.

HYCROLGQY
Reeottiad Data (Describe !n Remarks):
.? Stream. Lake. at Tide Gouge
Aerial Photographs
Other
?lha rec.: ? rdad Oats :.vailabie
Field Cbcc.ct dons:
Dapth •EI Surface Water:
Dept Free Water in Pit:
h Dept:: Saturated Sod:
0=2
•s-- Qn.!
t'0 Qn.l
Wedand Hydrdogy indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
-Waver M=im
-Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
?, Qrsinsge P-.Rtitems in Wetlands
Zeconaery Indieatars (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channeis in Upper 12 inches
_Water-Stained Leaves
_ Loam Sad Survey Data
:FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks) -
Remarks: Jl n
SOILS
Map Unit Name
r
(Series and Phasei: ?_( F1 y? ??„?a?n c9ct w? Drainage Ciasa:
Feld Observations
T
{S
b
?
axonomy
u
group):
. Confirm Mapped Type? Yet No
r
Prortle Deserieden•
Osptn Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
* -
finches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)-
. W-unseil Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.
<r5' ?IZ l S

i
Hydric Soil Indicator:
Histasol
Concredons
_
_ Histia Eaipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails
Sulfldla Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
-.;eAgWa Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils list _

_
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soda List
?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Expiaan in Rema*si
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

F Qhydc Vegetation Presetit7 es No (C:rcie) (C:reiai
nd Hydrology Present? Su7s Present? Qtwi) No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? es No
rks:
f

J ? I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WEILAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetiands Delineation Manua()
proi sct/Sits: p-,2 z 3q g Date: (- 31- G
Applicant/Owner. NCBf1T County: CS
Investigator: Tl' w'4er + 8runp F (h i State: tic
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transact 10:l
Is the area a potentla) Problem Area? Yes Plot 10:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Scecies Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Straturn Indicator
-r r,,4 C 10.
3. fnf to1t'L ?1
t
a
t?
,
.
.
4.?/''l(CY?S CCn •?n?n I/?Yh, ?TZtbw 1 i L' 12.

tj. it a[ ,yt e+-c? ! Y
? 14.
7. ? 15.

! Percent of Dominant Spades that are oel. FACN or FAC
(exciuding FAC-1. u
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
_ Sttsartt. Lake. or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photogntphe
other
L/'-,!a Rxrdsd Data Avarlacie
it
SeW Cbservadons:
i
Deptk of Surface Water:
Japth to Fr** Water in Pit:
L?epth to Saturated Sor7:
Rostsarkta:
an.)
an-I
ante
Wedand Hydrology Indicator::
Primary indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated In Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Unes
_ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Putsms in Wetianea
Secondary indicators (2 or more requirsdl:
_ OxWzsd Root Channeis In Upper 12 Inches
Watar-Stained Leaves
Loeai Sail Surrey Data
FAC-Noutrai Test
_ Other (Explain In Rsmarkai
r '
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(S
i
d Ph
er
es an
ase): _ ftA c °UZT ??,. e ll c t 0 u Drainage Class: V

Taxonomy (Subgroup): i' ac
o AR / (A Raid Observations
4 I ?l Confirm Mapped Type? Yet No
ProFlle Oeserinrien•
Depth Matrix Color
* Mottle Colors Mattis Texture. Concretions.
rinehee) Horizon ( unsell Moist)-
' (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, ate.

q-/7? ? $til1 5 ?
Hydric Sail Indicators:
_ Histasoi Concretions
Hlstie Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails
_ Suifldic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Lasted on Local Hydric "is Ust
_ Reducing Conditions Ustad on National Hydric Sods Ust

G:eyed or Lave-Chrome Colors = .
Other (Explain in Remarksf
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION -
7Hydrephytic Vegetation Preterit? Yes Na (C:rele) ' (CIrdel
Wsdand Hydrology Present? yes
Jg
Hytiric SoBs Present? Yes Ma is this SernpAng Pant Within a Wetland? Yesi 1V1
Remarks:
Approved by n U A c 3192
i

14
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. K-GG I Y C5
Nearest Road: 57, - 23zS
Wetland Area (ac): o,/Z•nr_
Name of Evaluator(s): f94-& S.
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
_,G on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
r
County:
Date: /- 31''- 76
Wetland Width (ft): 30'
rz.tirJP
?
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
•upslope, or radius)
/forested/natural veg. 20 0
agriculture/urbanized 35- o
impervious surface 5` o
Adjacent -Special Natural Areas
Soils
soil Series r ,w4Zs&-
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
j/ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
=vdrauIicactors
f.?shwater brackish
step toaogra:ny
cit::hed or charinelized
:o:al wetland width ` 100 feet.
Dominant Vesetation
(2) ?, ?r
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
7e-land Tyre (select one)x no evidence of flooding or
Eottomland Eardwood Forest surface water
S •amo Forest Bog/F en
Carolina Bay =eadwater Forest
ocos in Bcg r -crest
Fi:.e Sa-rannah Ephemeral Wetland
'Freshwater Marsh tither: '
;he rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
strea.nt charnels. '
DEM RATING

TATER STORAGE Z 4.00 =
SANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATIOIN Z x 4.00 =
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00 = Zo
' WILDLIFE HABITAT q
x 2.00 =
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE: x 4.00 -
2
' ._:C -E:,TION/EDUC! T_C)N Z _
x 1.00 =
iFr TLA+VD SCORE =
(TOT L)
== Add 1 point if in sensit ive watershed and >1v:? nollpoint
within 1/2 mile upstream , upslope, or radius.
.?. 4

V ,
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. ('- Z 2 34 8 County: W. I kc5
Nearest Road: SQ -.32.< Date: I-3J-94
Wetland Area (ac): 67009 Wetland Width (ft): 25'
Name of Evaluator(s) : ?2,J, su;& d 8-r-u6, E//:f
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Soils
Soil Series A.L
predominantly
(humus, muck I
predominantly
predominantly
kcC? ?s?
or gaiiic
)r peat)
mineral (non-sandy)
sandy
;'raraul is `actors
v f r =s: v:ater brackish
steep topography
ditczed or charinelized
.oral wetland Width ? 100 feet.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.upslope, or radius)
?? forested/natural veg. 7J
0
---agriculture/urbanized Z %
?impervious surface o
Adjacent -Special Natural Areas
Dominant'Vesetation
(3) Floodinz and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently floored or
temporary surface water
;e:j and Type (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
y Bottomland Hardwood forest su rface water
S, amo Forest Bog,/Fez
Carolina Bay 1:eadwater Forest
z- ocos -; n Bc? ,:'c e s t
Pine Savannah F.phe:neral Wetland
'rashwater Marsh Other:
*ihe rating system canno. be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.
DEM RATING
Y(ATi.1 STORAGE x 4.00
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATI ON 2 x 4.00 = `? -

POLLUTANT REMOVAL
x
5.00 = U
2- .._
--
i+I%DLIFE HABITAT x 2.00 =
• 5? - •
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE x 4.00 = 2 0
:
^?C3EATION/rDUC:.TICY x 1.00 _
WETLAND SCOr.E _
(TOTAL)
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >iG. nonpoint dist::-banc-
within 1/2 mile ups.-e_-..-, upslope, or radius.
f

I
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. 'e - 2:0 -3q r3
Nearest Road: 562-2'5Z<
Wetland Area (ac): _
Name of Evaluator(s): 5"Al
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
I
County: (;IkF?
Date: 1-2??-9l0
Wetland Width (ft): l2
Soils
Soil Series r4le?
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (rcn-sandy)
predominantly sandy
='vdrau',ic Factors
f : eshwater brackish
s teett topogra?hY
ditched or charineliZed
total wetland Width ? 100 Beet.
Adjacent Land Use,
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.upslope., or radius)
forested/natural veg.
agriculture/urbanized 2 o
impervious surface
Adjacent •Sp_ecial Natural Areas
Dominant Vesetation
(2) A 1'X}1'YN
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanentiy to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
we-rand Type (select one)* no evidence of f-looding or
Bottomland Hardwood Forest su rf ace water
Swamo Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bast .eadwater Forest
Pocosin 'cg Forest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
=reshwater Marsh Other:
;he rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream charnels.'
DEM RATING
WATER S TORAG:. 4. 00 = ( ?
z TI? 3
B ANIK/SHORELINE STr;.BILZATION x 4.00 = IZ

!
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00
--
_"
_ -

7I i,DLIFE HABITAT .?--
x

5L 41
.QUATIC LIF VALUE. X 4.00 = _
_ x 1.00 = 2
_.` CR . yTION/EDUCATION
, ETLAYi7 SCORE' =
(TOTAi )
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >iG-2- r,occpaint fiist::-b-'ncl
within 1/2 mile upst:earr,, upslope, or radius.

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. ,?.Z95913 County: ?lj-es
Nearest Road: Sid-23ys' Date: /- 4?
Wetland Area (ac): ,n 32 a.- Wetland Width (ft): 1/0'
Name of Evaluator(s): 'Ua.po Sui*n 4 Bruce C-0;?

Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.upslope, or radius)
forested/natural veg. 50
agriculture/urbanized
_ a
impervious surface S o
Adjacent •Sp_ecial Natural Areas
Dominant Veeet/!ation
1 ? I'!'C v11A,?}?tuhw
(2) Floodinz and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary.surface water
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
_;1 on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
so i'l s l
S o i l S e r i e s ??.?• ??r zw
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or peat)
predcminantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydrau 1 i c Factors
freshwater b_ackis
steep topogra:hy
ditched or channelized
total wetland width ? 100 feet.
Ze`'_and Tvoe (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
Bottomland Hardwood forest surface ;rater
Sr:amc Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
ocosin Bcg 7crest
Pine Savannah phemeral Wetland
"Freshwater Marsh Other: r? k4uy ? r-ti?ld+s ?m6? ?C a -z
$The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
steam channels.'
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE. x
=
4.00
C'
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2 x 4.00 = ? -
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00
WILDLIFE HABITAT x 2.00 = ..2 -
:.QUATiC LIFE VALUE Z- x 4.00 = b
RECREATION/EDUCATION x 1.00 =
WETL 10 SCOPE = L
(TOTA %)
'Add i point if in sensitiv e watersl:ed and >!%-J a nonpoint disti:-5anc-
within 1/2 mile upstream., upslope, or radius.
r

t
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
?=7- 2391? County: es
52 - 03y5' Date: ac): tQ-, 70 Wetland Width (ft): loos
f o r (s ) yaf o gruL'O r/(" f
on:
r estuary
lake
al stream
ttent stream
erstream divide
Adiacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.upslope_, or radius)
forested/natural veg. Sa a
agriculture/urbanizeda
? impervious surface o
Adjacent •5p_ecial Natural Areas
Dominant Vegetation
Lb . e?". 0 iitfM,,s
,tly organic .(2)
',Cl- or peat) (3) Ltl7 mineral (ncn-sandy)
1 '
fitly sandy Flooding and wetness
brackish
)gra^ny
channelized
lard width > 100 feet.
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
(select one)* no evidence of flooding or
a Hard-,:ooe Forest surface water
e s t Bog/en
Bay eadwate. Forest
Lcg rest
nnah Ephemeral Wetland
r Marsh Other:
system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
nels. •
DEM RATING
x 4.0 0 = (?
'E STABILI3ATIO:t 3 x 4.00 = /Z
[OVAL x 5.00 = 20
- _ ._ _ . ..
TAT G x 2.0 0 =
VALUE
'
x 4.00
_
-)UC AT ION Z. x 1.00 = Z

r:,TL AYD SCOPE = C
(TG:. T )
t if in sensitive watershed and > nonpo in t disc-: -banco-
mile ups.rea-,, upslope, or radius.

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
. 2Z 3?l?
.Project Name:
County: 1,)(/
i?S
Nearest Road: 115 q?-( Date: l=
iYetland Area (ac): . 0,n7 Wetland Width (ft): X /277)
Name of Evaluator(s) : o? ??"aGr//.s
__
Wetland Location: Adiacent Land Use:
on sound or estuary (Within 1/2 mi upstream,
pond or lake upslope, or radius)
_
on perennial stream Z) o
forested/natural veg. 5
ii on intermittent stream agriculture/urbanized S? o
within interstream divide impervious surface o
other Adjacent Special Natural Areas
Soi'ls - Dominant .Vesetation
n /
Soil Series (1) Lc,, y bewt
predominantly organic ( 2) f ; c,.%?Lum ;,;_jcuanz. _
(humus, muck or peat) (3) t 4hr,,
I_ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
:;vdrau c Factors permanently flooded or
freshviater brackish inundated
steep topography seasonally flooded or
_ ditched or channelized inundated
Zot41 wetland width > 100 fee*_. vI intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
,'e t ? anal Type (select one)* no evidence of f-looding or.
:,ottomiand Hardwood Forest surface water
S:ama Forest Bo g/Fen
Carolina Bay ze adkater Forest
Pocosin io ; Forest
Pine Savannah Ephe=meral Wetland
Freshwater Marsh Ll Ot her: -,,s
41he rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.*
DEM RATING

WATER. STORAGE x 4.00 =

BAS AK/SHORELINE STABILIZATIOct x 4.00 = -
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00 = /C
WIiDLIFE HABITAT G x 2.00 =
7
AQUATIC LIFE. VALUE' x 4.00 =
:ECREATI0N/EDUC.T10N x 1.00 = C
? ?o
WETLAND SCOPE _
(TOT: -7 )
Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >Irj'U nonpoint dist!_-banco-
xithin 1/2 mile ups:re_m, u psiooe, e: radius.
Y

T
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
r/?
Project Name:. J? 22313 County: GJa'es
Nearest Road: S -231(1 Date: /- 31-9eeWetland Area (ac): Wetland Width (ft): 30'
Name of Evaluator(s): 6 e- Alum ELL
Wetland Location: Adjacent Land Use:
on sound or estuary (Within 1/2 mi upstream,
pond or lake upslope, or radius)
on perennial stream L., forested/natural veg. 30
on intermittent stream ?agriculture/urbanized
within interstream divide impervious surface a
other Adjacent -Special Natural Areas
Soils
Soil Series /7?quP rz?e v `cv,
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or pea:.)
predominantly mineral (non--sandy)
predominantly sandy
•rdraulic Factors
-freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditced or channelized
toz41 wetland width > 100 feet.
Dominant'VeQetation
J
(3) vi m,,rei-m
Floodinz and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
We* anal Type (selector.e)* no evidence of flooding or
yottomland F ard•+•:oed 'rarest surface water
4z- amo Forest _ Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
ocos in Bcg 7 -crest
Pine Savannah ? Bphemerai Wetland
=reshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.'
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 2 s 4.00 =
- - ? IL I ?

Z
BANK/SHORELINz ... STAB IL ATION
x 4.00 = 51 - --
POLLUTANT REMOVAL * x 5.00 = 20
^
WI:.JLIFE HABITAT x 2.00 =
'A.QUAT IC LIF VALU'c ; Z x 4.00 = g
.
RECREATION/EDUCATION ?
x 1.00 = Q .
i
1)
zTI.:AND SCOPE =
' (T OT A:, )
Add 1 point if in sensit ive vaters'n ed and >10' noilpolnt disti:-banc-
within 1/2 mile upstream , upslope, or radius.

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. County: /,c',Uef
Nearest Road: T s( -23ap Date: (-3i-SE
Wetland Area (ac): -Z to Wetland Width (ft): 30'
Name of Evaluator(s): V4& S11 1k4 t' /e' ? el eVZ(
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Soils -
Soil Series ?D?;?ae Go e 51?/
predominantly organic
(humus, muck or pea;.)
v/ predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
':vcraulic `actors
fresn ater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
.otal wetland width ? 100 feet.
Adiacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.upslope, or radius)
forested/natural veg. _fit)%
agriculture/urbanized --
impervious surface a
Adjacent •SRecial Na?ural Areas
Dominant Vesetation
(2) ,?,thr,im
(3)Ipx c.nacc:.
J
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
inundated
L/ seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
re-?and Type (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
Lottomland Eardwood forest surface ester
_
Forest Boz/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
:ocosin B2 c-.,,7crest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
'reshwater Marsh ether: -
,,he rating sysLem cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.'
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 4.00 =
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION ?i x 4.00 = ? -
"POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00 = 2 C
^? - - -
i, I:.DLIFE HABITAT /i x 2.00 =

..QUATIC LIFE VALUE' ?? x 4.00 =
`CREATION/EDUCATION x 1.00 =

WETLAND SCOr.E =
(TOTAL)
,-add 1 point if in sensitive waters`'led and >iG:U nonpoi nt dist,:-banca
within i/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
s. r
+""„a STA7p o
?? 2.5
g6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 22, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GAR.LAN D B. GAR RETT JP_
SECRETARY
JUL 3 0 1996
VFLM W[.; t
Subject: Wilkes County - Widening of US 421 from East of SR 2433 to East of
SR 2309; T.I.P. No. R-2239B; State Project No. 6.769001T
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen the existing
two-lane roadway to a four-lane divided, full control of access highway. This will be
accomplished by construction of a new facility to the north of the existing alignment. The
existing roadway will remain open to traffic throughout construction. These
improvements will include 5.1 miles of the US 421 corridor.
The proposed work will involve crossings of four unnamed tributaries. The
attached permit drawings and summary sheet describe all proposed construction in
wetlands. The total wetland impact for the four sites will include 1.79 acres of fill, 0.17
acre of excavation, and 0.15 acre of draining. All of the streams associated with these
impacts are located above headwaters.
It is anticipated that all of the proposed crossings may be permitted under
Nationwide Permit #26 for projects Above Headwaters, 33 CFR 330.5(3). Application is
hereby made for a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit as required for such activities. By copy
of this letter, we are also requesting 401 Water Quality Certification by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality. In accordance with procedures for projects located in the
designated mountain trout counties, concurrence is also requested from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
9
2
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at
[phone], Extension 306.
Sincere
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
Attachments
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, DEM, Water Quality Section
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
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 WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] 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: North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P 0 Box 25201: Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home):
(Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Wilkes
Nearest Town or City: Wilkesboro
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Along proposed US 421 Downstream from
_culverts located under existing US 421 at Brier Creek tributarv Brier Creek and Grav_'s
Creek tributary. Also, one site located east of SR 2316 (Pardue Farm Road).
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Brier Creek Tirb, Brier Creek Gray's Creek & unnamed tributary
Yadkin to Yadkin River
7. River Basin:
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES [ yJ NO [
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [XI
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
2.10 acres (0.85-Ha) 11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:

Filled: 1.78 acres (0.72 Ha_)
Drained: 0.15 acres (0.06 Ha)
Flooded:
Excavated: 0.17 acres (0.07 Ha)
Total Impacted: 2.10 acres (0.85 Ha)

12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only):
Widening of US 421 from East of SR 2433 to East of SR 2309 from 2-lane to 4-lane.
13. Purpose of proposed work: To improve safety
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. Existing alignment to be followed - wetlands are ad_i acent
to this linear project.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [XI NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS 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? Have you done, so? ti;YES [X ] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland 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.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property?
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal?
)\) 1 i A %
Owner's Signature Date
Ae o
fc f.! In - -' t
_ ?. - c? Fes` -= 1
c • - W x 1o°
?.? :L Ty w 1
V ?
z ,
L 7. \

.7 ?. q

s «t
.y LLI
? h

?: .. Lu s

\aA
12
3
i

.
7 Y W
'0
x
^
z
T
?
M
K1

Adjacent Property Owners to Proposed
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Right Of Way
At Wetland Sites
Adjacent Adjacent
Property Owner Property Owner
Location Location Description Left Right
Site 1 -L- Sta. 107+00± Royce & Myrna Mathis Marvin Roger & Wanda
@ Ramp B/C Gore area Bk. 570 Pg. 626 Mathis
Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 2 -L- Sta. 110+00±
@ -Y- (SR 2324)
Interchange area
Marvin Roger & Wanda Steve & John Mathis
A. Mathis Bk. 691 Pg. 146
Bk. 691 Pg. 147
Site 3 -L- Sta. 159+00± Garmon & Essie Marie Melvorne P. Horton
@ SR 2316 Welborn Bk. 88 Pg. 200E
Bk. 549 Pg. 1137
Site 4 -L- Sta. 142+60t
@ culvert for Gray's Creek
Tributary
Aaron Jacob & Aaron Jacob & Antoinette
Antoinette White White
Bk. 664 Pg. 444 Bk. 664 Pg. 444
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET OF
ry1
WETLAND AREA SUMMARY
Location Location Fill in Excavation in Fill Below Undercut in Drained Wetlands
Description Wetlands Wetlands Surface Water Wetlands (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha) (cu.m.) AC_
Ac, A, A(_
Site 1 -L- Sta. 0.42 -0- -0- * -0-
107+00±
D' -0- -0- -0-
@ Ramp B/C
Gore area
Site 2 -L- Sta. 0.14 0.07 -0- * 0.06
110+00±
I ! S
@ -Y-(SR f
-0- t
2324)
Interchange
area
Site 3 -L- Sta. 0.14 -0- -0- * -0-
159+00± 0 3y - v- -0-
?-
@
SR 2316
Site 4 -L- Sta. 0.03 -0- -0- * -0-
142+60±
@ culvert for e.01
- U ~
- U _
- U -
Gray's Creek
Tributary
TOTALS 0.73 0.07 -0- 0.06

* Not available at this time.
Note: All sites are above headwaters.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
East of SR 2309
SHEET _3_ OF b_

vi N-1 pal
asap ?.
to*
Z 00
P I"
LL.
a /
1 M
? Q
I Qm? \\?yI / / ? N ?s
2 1.Zif1 V ? F" to q' /
I a ? /
Ix I
^•? fV -` 44
U-i
0
Cto
1 :k

r o '
W J a o o ?, o ^ o
O ° W Fay a,$?
? ?? N tt t9 ? a < E., ? ? 1? ao
°z NEB \9
Q .a1 Z 11 ?i a?' O C
3' Z H Q Z? K?+i ~
W Q N° r w
5 52 .08 0 p
?. M F-- o J Vx O o ?? p E+
-cc .07 + co w
Z Q z Li W 5 ?, *RA*??7 E, W
•06 J X J J A A p+' Q a,
CL w F-
` .05 H ?°- a
9.0m a
+21.085
-- ??td .03
E
? 0 dp 0 i i
to •02
,1• M
,
1 SAS +36.557 N 34• 59
«..r Y_ 232 ,
E V / /
1 t1L? A
N s z /i
? •r en
.0 4 k3
cr-
to Go
N co Qf _ M
V! w
?'•' 3. ? ? ' j ' / O t9 gg
4-116
N CO
WWI Bug AWO
a
. y

?
yQ'
L //

/ ! I Z O

C

14
lj J / .• (? I ? O ? "04t pa ?

Z
I ?
z a
v
09
W I? / 1
?
I
' N

x J I
s^
i

I I
V /

? 6S
o
v I M

vJ
? tD
I , cc
Q I

I ? X
?
0
I
M I I =

W. I X
zx
t
?.
Q
V) X- X Am 001,
.,4

3

Location SURFACE WATER CROSSING SUMMARY
Location Description Existing Piped Proposed Culvert
Channel Length (m)
Length (m) (m)
Site A -L- Sta. 101+60t 82 129 1.8 x 1.8 RCBC
Site Al -L- Sta. 107 +00+ 148 143.5 2.1 x 1.8 RCBC
Site B -L- Sta. 111+10± 475 367 (2) 2.7 x 2.1 RCBC
Site B 1 -L- Sta. 121+40+ 118 112 900 RCP
Site C -L- Sta. 132+60f 179 129 1350 RCP
Site D -L- Sta. 136+20t 76 68 1050 RCP
Site E -L- Sta. 143+15t 95 65 2.4 x 1.8 RCBC
Site E1 -L- Sta. 154+00+ 67.5 66 1050 RCP
Site F -L- Sta. 154+80f 156 77 2.7 x 1.5 RCBC
Site G -L- Sta. 166+00± 233 0 -
Site G1 -L- Sta. 171+30+ 245.5 205 600 RCP
Site G2 -Y3- Sta. 13+90 + 59 58 1050 RCP
Site G3 -Y3- Sta. 17+30+ 75.5 73 750 RCP
Site G4 -L- Sta. 174+70+ 183 175 600 RCP
Site G5 -L- Sta. 176+15+ 95 91.5 750 RCP
Site H -L- Sta. 182+95+ 93.5 89.5 900 RCP
Site I -L1- Sta. 18+50f 17 17 1050 RCP
Total 2398 1865.5,,
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
Project 6.769001T (R-2239B)
Note: Site B is below headwaters. US 421 from East of SR 2433 to
All other sites are above East of SR 2309
headwaters. SHEET '4OF
Minimization and Avoidance Evaluation
This corridor was chosen because it was more cost effective and required less impacts to the
residents of this area than widening at the existing US 421 location.
Interchange at Red. White & Blue Road (SR 2324)
- Best location to balance the earthwork based on terrain.
- Close proximity to existing SR 2324 is necessary to minimize length of reconstruction for
SR 2324.
- The location north of the existing SR 2324/US 421 intersection reduces land and property
damage and avoids excessive relocations. Therefore, a shift to the south would not be feasible
due to the excessive impacts to land and property. including poultry farms.
- A shift to the north is not recommended because of safety concerns for the traveling public. The
proposed roadway is a freeway with a 100 km/hr design speed. A shift to the north could
compromise the design speed of the horizontal alignment approaching the SR 2324 interchange
due to the need to tie to existing US 421 at the beginning of the project; therefore,
compromising the safety of the traveling public. Maintaining design speed would require
extending the beginning limits and tearing out a 4-lane section of existing US 421.
- A shift to the north or south would still impact the stream due to its proximity to existing
SR 2324.
- A relocation of this interchange outside the corridor would require another public hearing to
allow for public involvement.
Station 159+00
- The alignment follows the terrain in order to minimize earthwork.
- A shift away from this spring would require a reduction in the radius of the horizontal curvature
approaching this area. This would compromise the design speed of the freeway and the safety of
the traveling public.
X
d
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
v
I\
g
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. 60X25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 1, 1999
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
SUBJECT: Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Plan, Iredell County
TIP No. R-223913, Work Order Number 6.769001T
a
Attached is a copy of the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Plan for your review. The
site is located in eastern Iredell County, along Third Creek in the Yadkin River Basin.
The Shyherd's Tree Mitigation Site is proposed as wetland for TIP Project R-223913, as
w6fas futur proJec n the Yadkin River Basin. An on-site meeting is scheduled for
,February 11, 1999 to ew the site and review the mitigation plan.
--Wa o k forward to receiving your comments on this plan by March 1, 1999. If
you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Jim Hauser at
[phone] Extension 279.
j? L ?vl d tic ?i /' G #7CSincerely, _
/tom 1 ?, r?
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA, Atlanta
Mr. Roy Shelton, FHWA
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Ron Linville, DWQ
Mr. Joe Mickey, WRC
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
nFEB - 3 iy
7n
77
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SHEPHERDS TREE MITIGATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Site Description
1.2 Watershed Characteristics
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Vegetative Communities
2.2 Soils
2.3 Hydrology/Hydraulics
2.3.1 Groundwater
2.3.2 Surface Water
2.3.3 Water Budget
2.4 Assessment of Existing Site Conditions
2.4.1 Wetlands
2.4.2 Streams
3.0 WETLAND/STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
3.1 Goals and Objectives
3.2 Wetland Restoration
3.2.1 Hydrologic/Hydraulics
3.2.2 Soils
3.2.3 Vegetative Communities
3.3 Stream Restoration
3.3.1 Planform and Cross-section
3.3.2 Bank Stabilization
3.3.3 In-Stream Habitat Feature Development
3.3.4 Riparian Vegetation Establishment
4.0 WETLAND/STREAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
4.1 Monitoring and Success Criteria
4. 1.1 Hydrology
4.1.2 Vegetation
5.0 OTHER ECOLOGICAL & NON-ECOLOGICAL SITE CONCERNS
5.1 Historical/Archeological
5.2 Utilities/Easements
5.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
6.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
REFERENCES
i
Page
ill
1
1
5
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
15
17
17
21
21
27
27
29
29
30
31
31
32
32
32
32
34
Cyndi-B
From: Jim Hauser [JHauser0maii.dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 1:32 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Shepherd's Tree and Sparta Bog Mitigation Site Visits
I'm afraid I need to reschedule our proposed site visit dates for the Shepherd's Tree and Sparta
Bog Mitigation Sites. I thought we would have completed mitigation plans for both sites in early
January, but things are taking a little longer, as usual. The Shepherd's Tree mitigation plan
should be completed by the end of this week or early next week for you to begin your review. So
the January 29 meeting may be a little n. We are now looking at trying to schedule something
in mid-February, such as Feb. 9, Feb. 11 Feb. 16, or Feb. 17. Eric Alsmeyer also suggested
that it may be possible to discuss and re iew the plan at the Feb. 18 agency review meeting for
those who have already seen the site and don't feel the need to go again. Please let me know if
any of these dates are available or if you would like to review the plan at the Feb. 18 meeting.
The Sparta Bog mitigation plan is currently not finished, so the review meeting will need to be
rescheduled for late February or early March. I will contact you sometime next week about
possible dates.
Talk to you soon, and congratulations on the promotion.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1. Soil Characteristics
Table 2. Mitigation Type and Extent
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Boundary
Figure 3. Watershed Boundary
Figure 4. Existing Plant Communities
Figure 5. Soils Map
Figure 6. Hydric Soils
Figure 7 Site Hydrology
Figure 8. Well Locations
Figure 9. Typical Community Distribution
Figure 10. Hydrology and Hydraulic Alterations
Figure 11. Third Creek Discharge Elevations
Figure 12. Vegetative Communities
Figure 13. Stream Restoration
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Mitigation Planning Checklist
Appendix 2. Soil Profile Descriptions
Appendix 3. Duke Power Company Rights Of Way Restrictions
Appendix 4. Utility Easement Deed Information
ii
Page
10
15
2
3
6
8
92
13
16
18-19
20
22-23
28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' KCI Associates of North Carolina, under contract to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, has prepared this mitigation plan for the restoration of the Shepherds Tree
wetland to satisfy permit requirements associated with NCDOT Roadway Projects in the
' Yadkin River Basin. The site is located between Triplett Road (SR 2362) and Knox Farm
Road (SR 2363) in Iredell County adjacent to Third Creek, southeast of Statesville
,
occupying approximately 160 acres.
'
Intense agricultural activity and improvement projects by the Civilian Conservation Corps in
the early 1900's resulted in the re-alignment, ditching and berming of Third Creek, as well
as the clearing, draining and ditching of adjacent floodplain wetlands and streams. The
resulting landscape lacked all functions and values of the riparian wetland communities that
previously existed on the site.
'
Due to the absence of records noting the exact nature of the specific communities on the site
,
and very little remnant vegetation or undisturbed reference areas exist, some extrapolation of
' ecosystem process and fluvial principals were employed to develop the strategy for
restoration of the site. It has therefore been assumed, based on watershed and landscape
position, that this site was historically occupied by bottomland hardwood, swamp hardwood
' and piedmont/mountain levee alluvial forest community types. The communities were
interconnected via a series of perennial and intermittent streams which provided a variety of
habitat and water quality benefits. The intent of the Shepherds Tree Mitigation Project is to
bli
h
i
' reesta
s
an
ntegrated wetland-stream complex that will replace ecosystem processes and
structures (functions and values) lost as a result of human induced disturbances in the
Yadkin River Basin. Resulting impacts include: a loss of water quality, fragmentation of
' wildlife habitat and travel corridors, reduced local flood cycling capacities, and an overall
decrease in biodiversity regionally. The restoration strategy is therefore geared strongly

' towards replacing functions and values absent in the Yadkin watershed.
This project involves stream, wetland and riparian restoration components. These objectives
will be achieved through the alteration of the existing site features including: removal of the
' berm along Third Creek to promote increased flooding, relocation and restoration of the
existing ditched stream channel on site to develop more natural drainage patterns, removal
of lateral drains to reduce offsite drainage, site grading to increase diversity of habitats on
t the floodplain, and re-vegetation of the site with plant species characteristic of the target
communities.
The stream restoration will include channel planform, cross section, and profile
reconstruction. The stream restoration methodology applied for this project includes fluvial
' geomorphologic principles (Rosgen) and innovative bioengineering technology for creating
stable channel geometry, planform and bank protection. The intention is to restore the
network of streams and channels that traversed the site. Anticipated restored functions
include improved water quality, habitat and flood cycling of the system, complimenting the
natural community types proposed.

iii

1.0 BACKGROUND
' The following section describes background information of the site, including plant
community types, hydrology and soil conditions. Information was derived from aerial
photographs, landowner interviews, existing vegetation, and soil morphological features.
' 1.1 Site Description
' The Shepherds Tree mitigation site is located between Triplett Road (SR 2362) and Knox
Farm Road (SR 2363) adjacent to Third Creek in Iredell County, southeast of Statesville,
and occupies approximately 160 acres (Figures 1 & 2). At its most downstream point, the
site drains a watershed of 49,420 acres and is located on the 2, 10 and 100 year floodplains
of Third Creek. Third Creek is a Class C waterway in the Yadkin River watershed.
' Its position in the watershed is characteristic of Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland forests and
associated communities. The site is currently under agricultural use and has been
substantially altered from its original community makeup in support of this activity. Current
land cover includes forest, agricultural fields and scrub-shrub wetlands.
The hydrology of the subject site has been altered. A network of drainage ditches directs
1 water from the lower agricultural fields and several small tributaries flowing from the
adjacent uplands into Third Creek. Third Creek has also been straightened, channelized, and
bermed to maximize acreage for agriculture, reducing water quality and wildlife benefits for
the watershed.
1.2 Watershed Characteristics

The site is situated in the 030706 sub-basin of the Yadkin River watershed, located in the
Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina and drains approximately 49,420 acres
' (20,000 hectares) (Figure 3). The watershed is predominantly rural with significant drainage
originating from agricultural land. The topographic relief of the watershed is approximately
484 feet (147 meters) ranging from 1200 feet (366 meters) above mean sea level (MSL) in
' the northwestern portion to 716 feet (218 meters) above MSL in the southeast portion of the
watershed. Watershed land use is dominated by agriculture, with limited residential,
commercial/industrial, and forested areas.

The study area is found within the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040102 and DEM sub-basin
030706. According to the Division of Environmental Management, the water quality rating
for this section of Third Creek is Class C. Class C waters have a "best usage" explanation
for which the waters must be protected. Class C waters must be protected for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. I The
b
i
' su
ject s
te is part of an approximately 20,000 hectare (49,420 acre) watershed.
Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin, Division of
'Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC, 1992.

I
,5tatesple Cou?t
i
j
70
? d Creek 'r
f
ble ree
70
Shepherds Tree
Mitigation. Site
k ?

1
t
r
N
Shepherds Tree Mitigation Plan
? p10RTy
# f
?r
OF TRANc'' Scale 1:5Q;000
A
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
m
¦

J
? ? 7 vJ L c -J ? ? A
moo,
46,
Cl)
cw?
l ?.
65,
POOL - -
,r c U \
rMIL
``: .> ..
rt.rr' ?11 'Y1r
•/M?? ? _'.? ? ? ? / ? ? ??? X11 1? ? ?>?( 1
COL. j /
I
Al"
\ N`4
J u
? - r
J
J
All
(250
r

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
' 2.1 Vegetative Communities
An evaluation of the community types present on site was conducted on December 17 and
' 18, 1998. The site was surveyed for community composition and species lists for each
recognized community were created. Several distinct community mosaics were recognized
and more complete species lists with dominance were compiled. These lists were utilized to
' best fit the communities described here to a designation in the Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale & Weakley 1990).
' A field survey was conducted to identify the dominant plant communities on the subject site
(Figure 4). Dominant communities on the subject site include Piedmont/Mountain Levee
Forest, Low Elevation Seep, Emergent wetland, Scrub-Shrub wetland, and agricultural
' fields. A spoil pile (berm) and an upland side-slope (roadside shoulder) were also mapped
on-site, however both are considered minor components of the plant community on-survey.
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forests are prevalent on the floodplain of Third Creek and its
tributaries. Woody species of the canopy include Fraxinus pennsylvania (green ash),
Platanus occidentalis (sycamore), Betula nigra (river birch), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet
gum), Acer rubrum (red maple), and Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak). The
midstory includes Acer negundo (boxelder) and Acer rubrum (red maple). The understory,
includes vines and herbs such as Arundinaria gigantea (giant cane), Pueraria lobata
' (kudzu), and Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy).
Low Elevation Seeps are found in two areas along the toe of the slopes where the upland and
' floodplain meet. The canopy includes Fraxinus pennsylvania (green ash), Acer rubrum (red
maple), and Acer negundo (boxelder). The understory included Lindera benzoin
(spicebush), Acer rubrum (red maple), and Acer negundo (boxelder). The herb layer is
' limited to sporadic occurrences of Carex sp. (Carex sp.).
The Scrub-Shrub vegetative communities are dominated by Salix nigra (black willow),
' Cornus amomum (silky dogwood), Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose), Rubus allegheniensis
(blackberry), Sambucus canadensis (American elderberry), and Acer negundo (boxelder).
' The Emergent vegetative communities are dominated by Juncus effusus (soft rush), and Poa
sp. (grass).

D
< M ?• cn
m 3 C7
0
N
U) -
rmlL
C o
? rn
3
c
CA c?
c
m
CL
O c_
rn ?
c? a
CL
0
0
4

0
-
c?
m
rn
x
? E
l
i
o
t
g
m 1
N

y
/`
.1 owf?
:r
r
'N .4
t
s

i

fl
H

0

0

11
2.2 Soils
Soils were evaluated to determine their type, distribution and extent based on field profile
descriptions and the Iredell County Soil Survey (Figure 5). The distribution of soil types on
the site was fairly consistent with the soil survey. Soils in the study area include Congaree,
Chewacla, Wehadkee, Worsham, Altavista, Wilkes, Lloyd, and Colfax series, as well as
Udorthents. The Congaree, Chewacla, and Wehadkee series are soils found on the
floodplain and are formed by deposition of recent alluvium. Under natural conditions,
flooding is frequent.
Congaree soil is found closest to the river channel and contains coarse material due to the
rapid settling out of sands during flood events. Due to the soil texture, elevation, and
proximity to the Third Creek, water drains quickly from the profile, hence the water table is
found well below the surface (> 5 feet).
Chewacla soil is found further away from the stream channel, in a slightly lower landscape
position. The texture tends to be finer as the silts and some clay settles out during flooding.
The seasonal high water table tends to occur within 1.5 feet of the surface. This is
considered a secondary hydric soil, i. e. hydric inclusions may be found within the map unit.
At the toe of the slope and at the furthest point from the stream channel, the Wehadkee
series is found. This is a poorly drained soil found on the lowest floodplain position that has
high silt and clay content compared to the other floodplain soils. Surface and groundwater
inputs of water from the surrounding uplands, as well as flood events, create conditions
where soil saturation is frequent. This hydric soil has a dark colored surface horizon and a
medium to high organic matter content. A large inclusion of the Worsham soil was found
within the Wehadkee map unit. This soil has a dark (IOYR 4/2) surface horizon, underlain
by a darker horizon (3/N black), depicting alluvial and colluvial deposition, and saturated
conditions (see Appendix 2). Both the surface horizon and subsurface horizons are high in
sand content. Presently, overbank flooding is infrequent on this property. With the
construction of the 8-12 foot high berms from dredging activities, where the Udorthent
(altered soil) are present, overbank flow is highly restricted. Repercussions of this activity
include the reduction in soil moisture and the loss of sediment deposition onto the floodplain
soils.
The hydric soils occupy approximately 27.0 acres, 4.0 acres of which are considered
jurisdictional wetlands. None of the agricultural areas hold Prior Converted wetland status,
according to the NRCS office in Iredell County (Figure 6). Secondary hydric soils occupy
approximately 83.0 acres, and alluvial soils occupy 29.5 acres of the site. Surrounding the
floodplain, several upland soils are found within the mitigation area including the Altavista,
Wilkes, Lloyd, and Colfax series. These are generally found slightly above floodplains, at
the base of slopes or around the head of seeps. Further attributes of these soils are listed in
Table 12 and Appendix 2.
2 Soil Survey of Iredell County, North Carolina 1960. USDA - NRCS.
7
w w w w ?.¦? w ??? w r¦?• w r •? . ?¦?+ w w
r

I, v
N
f
'`

- i ? !
cn -

CD
?
0 0 (/) t
O =r o
+ = r n
?` (D
G 00 (j) Q
CD
1 1 w ^+
(D n `• (D
CD CD 2)
?
U) O -•

o 2)

fop*.

CL x 0
°

? ?
e v
C
0
O 0

m x
N
rr ? O

Q °
d

0

mn

r

v cn
N •

? cf)

0 r
o
0
'^
Q

r 0
0 a)
3

0

N
i
i
k
4
•Y A
ls°
?x
a
0

i
r'

cn

?D

Q.

CL
0. (D
'1 -1
F)
n
rook
m
O O

(1) O
m
n
O

CL

D
c

0
_.
INNEWS
Z
O
CL
n
N
O.
cam'
I

? /y

Fig
41 -F
'?M?a ?. .,??"; ?. ?, rf7• `*• a ??
f

?x

* a4 ``yj
.a
w
1

d

J

O bA 00
N
N
o0
N
L. ? N
CL ?
? i.

^O O

x
z
? ? ?
?
z
z
z
z
z

vi O -d O O
SD, 0, 0. b
m

A cn -a > ao cn -O C/?] 45
rr?

U i?+

N

i U

4? U

? M

? ?
a?
N M

? +?-'

N
•
-+ i
i
• •v ? n O n
r N N ?

'' u? n 3? ? d og n o?+ n

o a, a Q -o b v

a a w w w v? ? ? ? ? ?

v'O
t

p U cd cd
>
'
rs o o n

a?
En -d x
a? o o o
?1 v1 U U 2r Q U
O

1 2.3 Hydrology/Hydraulics
' According to the data collected and developed to date, the site's hydrology and hydraulics,
appear to mimic those characteristically found in piedmont riparian zones. The site falls
within the two year floodplain and under natural conditions would periodically be inundated
by flows from Third Creek. In addition, a series of seeps feed a ditched stream channel at
the "backswamp" portion of the floodplain. These seeps and the adjacent floodplain are
drained via a series of lateral ditches. Under the current conditions the berm along Third
Creek, the construction of lateral drains, and the ditching of the stream channel have
effectively removed hydrology from the site. Additional loss of hydrology in the bank levee
portion of the site may be the result of channel entrenchment in Third Creek (Figure 7).
' 2.3.1 Groundwater
' Groundwater still influences the site to some degree however, its prevalence on the site has
been reduced by the dredging of Third Creek, lateral drains leading to the "backswamp",
and the dredging of the "backswamp" stream. Two principle groundwater seeps are found
' on the site. These seeps discharge from the toe of the upland slopes to the north, which
define the limits of the floodplain. These areas have also been ditched to restrict their
influence on the adjacent landscape. These ditches suppress groundwater elevations by
' providing a discharge path, limiting groundwater influence on the site. The effectiveness of
these features varies and is being defined by ongoing hydrology studies, but it can be
anticipated that they have a significant effect on the suppression of wetland hydrology on
the site.
A detailed evaluation of the site's groundwater hydrology has been initiated. This work
' included the installation of 10 - 40" and 3 - 20" RDS monitoring wells (Figure 8).
Hydrology data will be incorporated into final design plans for the site.
' 2.3.2 Surface Water
The site is located on the floodplain of Third Creek and would be inundated under natural
' conditions by the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events. The extent and duration of this
inundation has been affected by the construction of berms along Third Creek and ditching of
the floodplain that hastens the drainage of the site. Preliminary evaluations indicate that a
flow in excess of 2035 cfs (cubic feet per second) is required to overtop the existing berms.
Review of the local USGS gauge station data indicates that flows of this magnitude have not
occurred between the years of 1940 and 1971. Utilizing the same USGS gauge data and
' negating the effects of the berm, a flow of 1075 cfs would have overtopped the banks and
inundated the site 1.6 times per year. Thus, it can be deduced that the berms on Third Creek
have effectively eliminated flooding of the site
'
Additional drainage enters the site from two sub-watersheds to the north of the site. These

' areas constitute approximately 38 acres of drainage area. This additional drainage has also
been rendered ineffective throu
h the ditchi
f th
h
g
ng o
e stream t
rough the

11
A
= = m m = = = m m m = m = = = m = = =
J
17

H

"backswamp" portion of the floodplain. The ditched stream has the capacity to discharge 38
cfs, limiting opportunity for incorporation of this water in the site's water budget.
2.3.3 Water Budget
Based on the preliminary groundwater and surface water data gathered to date, it can be
deduced that the water budget for the site is in deficit. All surface inputs are restricted from
the site or can be removed from the site at a rate higher than the input. Groundwater
influences are present but are also being removed at a high rate. The degree of this deficit
has not yet been determined but given the existing hydrologic indicators present under the
current conditions, development of a surplus water budget through the removal of the
impacting features is anticipated.
2.4 Assessment of Existing Conditions
An assessment of the site's wetland/stream features was undertaken to determine the type
and level of work required to restore the site's natural characteristics. However, the
disturbed nature of the site made it difficult to precisely define pre-disturbance conditions.
2.4.1 Wetlands
The existing wetland areas on site are restricted to seeps at the edge of the floodplain. These
areas have also been ditched in an attempt to remove hydrology however, their source of
hydrology has been sufficient to thwart these attempts. These areas have remain
jurisdictional wetlands in a disturbed condition. All other areas of the site have been drained
sufficiently to remove hydrology and have little or no remaining wetland functions.
2.4.2 Streams
As documented above, all pre-disturbance natural stream channel features on the project site
have been eliminated due to their excavation. Therefore, it was not feasible to collect
channel geometric, hydrologic or hydraulic data. A field evaluation of the site was
conducted in order to assess general site characteristics such as landscape position,
topographic relief, soils and substrate composition, and existing vegetation. Due to the
absence of a stable stream reach, geomorphologic based criteria necessary for the stream
channel design was developed using deductive reasoning and Rosgen fluvial
geomorphologic principals.

14

3.0 WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
' 3.1 Goals and Objectives
The goal of the Shepherds Tree mitigation project is to re-establish an integrated wetland-
stream complex that will restore ecosystem processes, structure, and composition to mitigate
for wetland functions and values that have been lost as a result of human induced
disturbances in this region of the Yadkin River Basin.

F

11
II?

0

A detailed evaluation of the watershed (Basinwide Assessment Report- Yadkin River Basin,
DE1 NR, June 1997; Yadkin River Basin Technical Report - Wetland Mitigation Site
Search, KCI, May 1997)) identified significant losses of functions and values associated
with the dredging and berming of the major streams in the Yadkin River Basin.
Specifically, the restriction of overbank flooding has allowed for the conversion of the
basin's floodplain into agricultural fields, thus promoting the clearing of riparian zones, the
channelization of tributary streams and the drainage of adjacent wetlands. These activities
have subsequently resulted in the degradation of water quality, wildlife habitat, and flood
cycling capacities, as well as habitat fragmentation, the loss of wildlife travel corridors and
an overall decrease in regional biodiversity. The goals and objectives of the restoration will
focus on the reconstruction of the function and values lost in the watershed.
Specific goals and objectives for the restoration of the site include:
• Restoration/enhancement of a bottomland/swamp hardwood communities.
• Restoration of floodplain/wetland interfaces.
• Restoration of stream channels and drainage patterns.
• Restoration of water quality functions.
• Restoration of wildlife habitat.
• Re-establishment of wildlife travel corridors.
Table 2 lists the mitigation types and extent for the desired communities that would fulfill the
restoration goals and objectives.
Table 2. Mitigation Type and Extent
COMMUNITY TYPE Restoration Enhancement Creation
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest 82 ac 3 ac. 0
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Hardwood Forest 9 ac 0 0
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 9 ac 3 ac. 10
Piedmont/Mountain Scrub/Shrub Wetland Variant 19 ac 0 0
Floodplain Pool 4 ac 0 0
Low Elevation Seep 0 2.0 ac 0
Perennial Stream 8790 I.f. 2223 l.f. 0
Intermittent Stream 2550 I.f. 0 0
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 15 ac. 0 0
Mesic Mixed Scrub/Shrub Upland Variant 4 ac 0 0
Figure 9 depicts a typical cross section of the anticipated communities.
15
m m = m = = = r = = = = = = r
O V 4, " m
r
1

r

"1 •r 1 J
0
00 ?1 a
1r 1i
, t v IA
Nr-r :11 r O frriC7
<

czO ?
•,, W ?

rvrc-
D
Az m'<OOr,i 0

mz

ti CD
°D z
rm
-n

m :• ,., v
m CD
O;0;0 Ln W
t?Orvn ?O
Z *-CO = - =mrv>a= NZ
--4
N O -1
v ??

16 z

i

-?
-n
v v
X
<
m
0
= _? W
0 -0
om
_
-< -
v m- v
00* D--7DOV A?
<v
ym ?m?
omrno ?zCD
= O D?
.
O
mr*m -U-z--I> *?rCc) rio
r 7nCT p?
z n0 O
?0 ;0 -
0 T 0t rn k

U) v z
m
J
AI
,•

r
? w

1 -liar

. , +

?

?
'
V R .:. ,• Q N ro 7C
jQ ARM

r {
A p
1
r- x A
)w
r- *z C?
i0c)
• p?-tpO
*g ?g ?
? N 7' O 7C

T
z

v? m t Omi
v

F 1 'cp°mlop
? I

?J
3J
r 4?it
i1
Y 'm iX<
-4 p
t z
C

I 1111

m

••,? I47

o
!F* ?n
A

op

pp1

m
la ?g

-u

0 r n

•*' t F
m
r -;K

p? N r-m
Z
r

w
m?
r
-? O t
Nrn

rrl
r
y ?i zz i <

? `•
` ` rnO

70
<
?
?ro D o °c ?
''
c m m 4 • ;u
0 0
-
O
p
Z c

3
Z .. ?

?O
=
Q D
-0 ll j
F m < ?0
rn;u m
n
O
-n 0
c ?0 W
ZO-0 r-
?Ull vv?
m
O?
3: ;U Q
)6 >0 m
D
? 6 ?mv77% ?Zm n
-z+ O
F
!
?i +?°n C1.1 oD'' c
'n
yv x v?
D
r-
D +! 1 s
? apvm=
rn0Vrn -°?O
v Om
my 5
(A
m
a) o
/O r
- '0.
• ??? t?
.
V, O ?
?? ?
mv
_
in • 0 ?0 -00

3.2 Wetland Restoration
This site historically contained bottomland hardwood, swamp hardwood and
piedmont/mountain levee alluvial forest community types. Since no clear records exist
concerning the exact nature of these specific communities on the site, nor very little remnant
vegetation or undisturbed reference areas exist, some extrapolation of ecosystem process
and fluvial principals were employed to develop the strategy for restoration of this site. The
restoration strategy is therefore geared strongly towards achieving the developed goals and
objectives.
As described previously, the goals and objectives developed for this site target those key
functions that have been degraded or lost due to anthropomorphic disturbances in the basin.
These objectives will be achieved through the alteration of the existing site features
including:
I

0
J

• The removal of the berm along Third Creek to promote increased flooding.
• Relocation and restoration of existing ditched stream channel on site to develop more
natural drainage patterns.
• Removal of lateral drains to reduce off-site drainage.
• Site grading to increase diversity of habitats on floodplain.
• Revegetation of the site with plants species characteristic of the target communities.
3.2.1 Hydrology/Hydraulics
Restoration of the hydrology and hydraulics of the site will focus on re-establishment of
periodic overbank flooding and reduction in off-site drainage. This will be accomplished
through removal of some or all of the berm adjacent to Third Creek; the relocation (plan
form and cross section) of the ditched stream channel on site; the removal of lateral drainage
ditches; and the alteration of the grade on site to restrict drainage (Figure I OA& I OB)
Berm Removal: The berm adjacent to Third Creek varies from 8 to 15 feet above the
stream invert. Based on preliminary calculations, this feature restricts access to the
floodplain for flows up to 2075 cfs (Figure 11). In order to allow flooding of the site for
flows above bank full (1075cfs), removal of portions of the berm sufficient to allow Third
Creek to access its flood plain will be necessary. A minimum of 6 breaches will be
established and stabilized. Dependent on further evaluation of the sediment transport of the
system, additional breaches may be added or the entire berm may be removed to achieve the
goal of periodic flooding without excessive deposition of alluvial materials.
Channel/Drainage Alteration: The stream channel in the swale portion of the site has
undergone significant straightening and deepening to increase drainage of the site. This
drainage was supplemented by lateral ditches to drain a high groundwater table and adjacent
seeps. The network of channels has the capacity to discharge stormwater and groundwater
off the site at 38 cfs. Relocation of the channel and removal of the lateral drains is a critical
17
¦i¦ m r= m i w m= m m m r m m m m m m
a4aw? Q
? O
? I
I ? N
n O
I O
o ?
m I ? •p
m N,
Vr m -v m H -o z o
H x m x z m m
? ?/-?? O H -1 70 O i
m VD -u cn m m
-i v o O -I m z
cu H cn H ic z r f /,
O z m z
v -I D
z J
z r r •'
> m z cn m II`?? ?'1 l
C O O m m m cn m m
o.
rZn n m 0 an
m c
m ?. ?.
:1 1
? l
^ 4I b
Q X11 .,..? 1 ? ? ? I
$I
t7 y \ \'
O MATCH LINE (SHEET 2)
Oil
let
O
®
z?
N
?" o

P ? W N ;
m? mm
K i
S I n O
- - ?.
• ? o
r
M
VD m -v m H_0 Z u
" x M ?/ /x z m M o
-I H O H -1 M o
,m cn _vcnmm
1 O -I = z D " o
co " U3 H ic z o
r
O z m z " "
c G) v S7 --I D
v M O O m r r
D ?Mzcn M
o m m m cn m M
o? > n > z
Z '< G) cl) M y D Q
z cc=l)
M MATCH LINE (SHEET 1)
03
s m IN r
n ® =?
z co
V m /• ?? /
-D?x W
Zcw
G) M
?m
e
I
/ Y / rl
p
? e
®
------------
x
0
m m m = = = = = = m m = = m = . =

? m ?
m
. Q
?
QZ
N g
Y
0

CA m
n0°

ZG) m
yMM

N

0
c
O
mS s
`
Me
Tam X

Z ch -q --I
- a
m Q N G3
O
z O M 00
V N
O O
W n z
Cl) CIO O CA
H P
y ?' . D O
qJ N - +
? O
? O
z
m
m

II
V
* s
T ?
qT?
O cn

?T?OVy is d??

?y

c
d =

1.y
Pe \ J

z?

N

1
component to restoring the hydraulic integrity of the site. Based on the relief of the site and
anticipated discharge, an "E" channel will be designed to replace the existing channel and
will inter-connect the proposed communities. At the confluence of this channel and the
additional drainage to the north, a "C" channel is anticipated to maintain a stable form (a
more detailed description of channel morphology is found in section 3.3). All lateral ditches
will be grubbed and filled.
Grade Alteration: The topographic variance on the site has been significantly reduced over
the last 70 to 100 years due to agricultural activities. In addition, the entrenchment of Third
Creek has influenced the groundwater elevations in the 100' to 300' zone bordering the
creek. Restoration of the pre-disturbance profile of Third Creek to re-establish hydrology
within this zone would be impractical for both legal and engineering issues. However, the
floodplain grades in this zone can be altered to increase the hydrologic influence from Third
Creek based on its existing profile. Grade modifications adjacent to Third Creek are
1 proposed to re-establish a hydrologic interface sufficient to support a Piedmont/Mountain
Levee Forest community. Additional grading on the site is intended to restore drainage and
provide increased diversity by mimicking a ridge/swale topography common to alluvial
' floodplains.
3.2.2 Soils
Modification of the soils on site is pending receipt of the soil nutrient analysis. However
,
initial observations indicate the agricultural activities and restricted access to flood waters
have resulted in the loss of depositional input and thus reduced organic content in the soil.
Where secondary hydric or alluvial soils are present, a portion of the surface material will be
removed and the remaining surface material and the subsoil will be tilled and amended prior
to planting. Where necessary soil compaction will be relieved by deep ripping.
3.2.3 Vegetative Communities
Re-establishment of vegetative communities on site will rely almost entirely on re-
introduction of the proposed species through planting and seeding. The proposed
communities include: Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest, Floodplain Pool, Low Elevation Seep and Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest (Figure 12A & 12B). In order to accommodate vegetation height
' restrictions associated with the easements for the power lines that traverse the site,
transitional scrub-shrub variants of these communities will be utilized in these areas.
' The distribution of the vegetative communities on site has been established based upon an
analysis of on-site features, the anticipated anaerobic gradient, and the desired functional
' goals and objectives. Overall, there is a transition zone from Piedmont/Mountain Levee
Forest near Third Creek to Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest over the majority of the

21

r ?¦r r r r? r r r r r r r r r ¦r r ¦r r r

m
0<
Om
?za
=i <
Nm
n -
Z=
am
?x
r?rDm
D F-
Z Vi
?rm
Dm
O
Z
4. s
Sty
G
CJ?

y ?

0
,,
y
Z

0
Z y

x

t n

Q m
m

m

N T -

O
m
N
N

m
cn
?-+ m
x -v
M m
x H
z _0
m z
m

m H
-i O
O H
- i -I
Imo no
z
03 H cn H m z r
o
z z
G') m
v z
o H
te H
r-
D m -V
r O
:o m
z
cn r
m
m D D ? G)
z
cn
m 0
o m
m m p
m m m
? z
H

JI
r cnr m

m
_0 o
m m v
r -v

O < D
m D H
m z
cn H

z O
0
r

D
z

cf) -m 03 m
co D m r
D
m =) --I
m-1 xcn
vH C7
m
-v cn o
-gy 0 G)
m m o? m?
O vH
Z
m o 71m pz
u
-1 70 H
m
0
i H

V
MATCH LINE (SHEET 2)

tT a u N p ???
a
m =
? r
D
m
z
z m mo r 00 Dm mo
cn m_0 m ?-+ -v < M* O D x? x cn
H x m x z m m m _0 O m m? 0H O
H O H -I =) m m m 0 cn O * 0
M. cn -V cnmm r- _0 -i m O
-1 O m z > m m r -t r cm Z C
OJ H cn ic z r- O < D O D 0"
O
O z m z H H D H z x z
c o 0 O -1 D m z m 0 mm H
z ? r r cn ?-? cn o 0
0 0 m-V S7 m -1 O -0 -?
O< D r m z cn m z O m
3 G) m D D O O CO
93q rn --i m cn m m
z r m
?? c/)
< ccnn 0 x 9 Z
N "' m O m Q
m D
m
z MATCH LINE (SHEET 1)
H
///_ j• 5 1 /J
r 1
i
_ p t ? ? J i @ I
p.
9
Z
c'r (n
-0 m
r
Z3cn .'
m Frr )l J /
8 .: oo
??•: `'I ?? ?1 '?t <<?
? r
y f
i I I .f C ?f l4 ? ?
\
®
VIV,
T5 cl
c m v ll ?`
? 1?11 ?/? ?ji ? !rl

floodplain. Intermixed within the above stated community will be a strategically oriented
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest found in swale positions. Floodplain Pools have been
located within the Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest near the existing Low Elevation Seep.
These communities are linked with a series of perennial and intermittent stream channels to
provide an integrated complex enhancing water quality, flood attenuation, and wildlife
habitat functions. In addition, the site is buffered by a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest.
The community-planting plan described below provides a guide for the vegetative re-
establishment of the targeted communities. If available, the following species will be
planted:
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Acer negundo boxelder
Liriodendron tulipifera yellow poplar
Platanus occidentalis sycamore
Betula nigra river birch
Planting Density: 680 Stems per acre
' "
"
Comments: All trees should be 12
-18 bare root material.
' Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest (Scrub/Shrub Variant)
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Lindera benzoin spice bush
' Aesculus sylvatica buckeye
Xanthorhiza simplicissima yellow root
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
Cornus stolonifera redosier dogwood
Planting Density: 1200 Stems per acre
' "
Comments: All shrubs should be 12"-18 bare root
material
' Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Liriodendron tulipifera yellow poplar
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia cherry bark oak
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Quercus phellos willow oak
' Quercus nigra water oak
Carya ovata shagbark hickory
' Planting Density: 680 Stems per acre
Comments: All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material.

24

k

I

n
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest (Scrub/Shrub Variant)
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Aronia arbutifolia red chokeberry
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
Cornus stolonifera redosier dogwood
Itea virginiea Virginia willow
Planting Density: 1200 Stems per acre
Comments: All shrubs should be 12"-18" bare root material
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia cherry bark oak
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Quercus phellos willow oak
Planting Density: 680 Stems per acre
Comments: All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material.
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest (Scrub/Shrub Variant)
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Salix nigra black willow
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
Cornus stolonifera redosier dogwood
Itea virginica Virginia willow
Planting Density: 1200 Stems per acre
Comments: All shrubs should be 12"-18" bare root material
Floodplain Pool
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Cephalanthus occidentalis button bush
Pontera cordata pickeral weed
Sagittaria latifolia duck potato
Planting Density: 1200 Stems per acre
Comments: All shrubs should be 12"-18" bare root material.
All herbs should be dormant tubers.
Shrub planting should only occur on outer third of zone.
Herbaceous plantings should occur only in middle third of zone.
25

Low Elevation Seep
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
' Quercus phellos willow oak
Planting Density: 250 Stems per acre
Comments: Seep plantings are for enhancement only.
' All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material.
Low Elevation Seeps (Scrub/Shrub Variant)
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Cornus Amomum silky dogwood
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
' Pl
ti
D
it
600 S
an
ng
ens
y:
tems per acre
' Comments: Seep plantings are for enha ncement only.
All shrubs should be 12"-18" bare root material.
' Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Quercus alba white oak
' Quercus rubra northern red oak
Liriodendron tulipifera yellow poplar
' Planting Density: 680 Stems per acre
Comments: All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material
'
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Scrub/S hrub Variant)
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Prunus serontina black cherry
Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar
Cornus stolonifera redosier dogwood
Ilex verticillata winterberry
Planting Density: 600 Stems per acre
' Comments: All shrubs should be 12"-18" bare root material
Apply Panicum virgatum (switch grass) to planting zone
' 3.3 Stream Restoration
' The historic stream network on the site provided interconnecting series of perennial and
intermittent fluvial features that provided a variety of habitat and water quality benefits.
26

' Historic impacts have replaced all natural fluvial features on the site with excavated
drainage ditches and berms. The disturbed features provide little or no ecological value and
' have resulted in a lowering of the groundwater table, water quality degradation, and aquatic
and riparian habitat loss. The stream restoration component of this mitigation plan is
intended to restore the network of streams and channels that may have once connected the
' site. Restoring the water quality, habitat and flood cycling functions of the system, and
complimenting the natural community types proposed are also components of the stream
restoration (Figure 13A & 13B).
' Restoration will include on-site re-establishment of perennial and intermittent channels in
conjunction with the wetlands restoration, and possible enhancement of in-stream features
on Third Creek. Work will involve channel planform and cross-section modifications, bank
stabilization, in-stream feature development and riparian corridor establishment.
3.3.1 Planform, Profile, and Cross-section
Activities to restore a stable planform, pattern and profile to the perennial and intermittent
streams on site are proposed for the subject property. The removal of lateral ditches and the
relocation of the primary perennial channel that transects the site are proposed to restore
natural channel conditions indicative of an "E6" channel. "E6" stream types are
characterized by low width depth ratios (<12), gentle to moderate gradients (.01-2%), high
meander width ratios (20-40), and high sinuosity (>1.5). The "E6" channel is highly
efficient and resistant to planform adjustment, both of which will allow for channel stability
' without significant downcutting. The low probability of downcutting makes this a favorable
option, as it will assist in maintaining a near surface groundwater for the associated wetland
while limiting discharge off the site.
At the confluence of the primary channel with the addition of drainage from the north, a
transition to a "C6C' channel type is anticipated. The "C6c" stream type is characterized by
higher width-depth ratios, but smaller with respect to other "C" channels. The "c" denotes
that typically the slopes associated with the channel will be less than 0.1%. Bank vegetation
will be important on this riffle/pool channel, as it is susceptible to shifts in lateral stability.
3.3.2 Bank Stabilization
Bank stabilization of the restored streams will rely exclusively on bioengineering as opposed
to structural and bio-technical techniques. Utilizing live plant materials and degradable
erosion control fabrics, this technology serves to establish good initial stability, while
' allowing for gradual channel deformation and geometry adjustment resulting from dynamic
fluvial processes. Numerous types and combinations of bioengineering techniques are
available for bank stabilization. The preliminary restoration design illustrates some types
' that may be most appropriate for application to this site.
Fabric-encapsulated soil lifts - This is a technique where biodegradable organic geotextile
' material consisting of two coir fabric layers are used to encapsulate compacted soil material.
The dimensions of the lifts are determined on a site-specific basis. After installation,
27
= = m = = = m m m = = = = = m = = = =
A
i
selected plant species can be applied to produce desired vegetative cover. This technique is
most appropriately used in areas of low potential velocities and tractive forces.
i Fiber Rolls - Fiber rolls are manufactured rolls, varying in length, diameter, and density, of
coir fiber bound by coir or synthetic mesh. Fiber rolls are generally staked into channel
banks and protect bank toes and areas of moderate potential velocities and tractive forces.
As with soil lifts, vegetative planting techniques can be combined with fiber rolls
Live Staking - Live staking involves the installation of dormant cuttings into the bank to
strengthen the bank and prevent erosion on the upper portion of the bank. This technique is
usually combined with toe protection. Species commonly used in the application include
Salix nigra (Black Willow), Cornus amomum (Silky Dogwood), Sambucus canadensis
(Elderberry), and Cornus stolonifera (Redosier Dogwood).
Brush Layering - Brush layering is similar to live staking however, the material is smaller
and longer and is installed by burying brush under lifts of soil. This technique is usually
combined with a toe protection. Species commonly used in the application include Salix
nigra (Black Willow), Cornus amomum (Silky Dogwood), Sambucus canadensis
(Elderberry), and Cornus stolonifera (Redosier Dogwood).
3.3.3 In-Stream Habitat Features Development
Where possible, in stream habitat features will be installed to aid in the use and colonization
of the streams with aquatic life. These techniques are primarily geared towards use in Third
Creek where little or no in-stream habitat exists, but may also be used in perennial streams
on site. These features may also be combined with bank stabilization features to provide
increased habitat value. The following describes the use and intentions of each:
Cross Vane- In-stream rock feature used to create in-stream holding water, take excess
shear stress from the "near bank" region and direct it to the center, optimize sediment
transport capacity, and provide grade control to prevent down cutting.
W- Weir- In-stream rock structure designed for use in wide streams channels. Designed to
modify flow velocities, create in-stream cover and increase habitat diversity.
Root Wads- Woody feature using tree root mass to serve the following functions: serves as
stream bank protection and erosion control; serves as in-stream and overhead cover for fish;
provides shade, detritus, and terrestrial insect habitat, and provides diversity of habitats.
3.3.4 Riparian Vegetation Establishment
Re-establishment of riparian vegetation will consist of planting and seeding in the riparian
zone of each channel to provide additional habitat and water quality in the riparian zone.
' The materials installed in these zones will be in addition to any required bioengineering
needed to stabilize the channel itself. The riparian zones of the restored streams will be a
sub-component of the overall community type they are found in. The zone of riparian

29

1

t
influence for vegetation establishment will be:
Third Creek 100'
Perennial 30'
Intermittent 15'
Within these zones, the following planting plan will be utilized to establish a dense planting
of shrubs and trees to provide habitat and water quality value as the site evolves.
Trees
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Betula nigra river birch
Acer negundo boxelder
Planting Density: 250 Stems per acre
Comments: All trees should be 12"-18" bare root material.
Shrubs
Species: Scientific Name Common Name
Cornus amomum silky dogwood
Salix nigra black willow
Sambucus canadensis elderberry
Cornus stolonifera redosier dogwood
Itea virginica Virginia willow
Comments: All shrubs shoud be 12"-18" bare root material.
4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
An "as built" report will be submitted to the COE within 90 days of the planting completion
and well installation that includes elevations, photographs, well locations, and a description
of initial species composition by community and sampling plot locations. Included within
the report will be a list of species planted, planting densities and a total of stems in the
mitigation area. This information will form the base for further monitoring and evaluation.
4.1 Monitoring and Success Criteria
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and
progress towards achieving mitigation goals and objectives. Vegetative data will be
correlated with the appropriate hydrologic data from the groundwater monitoring wells to
determine if these objectives are being met. If, after the completion of five growing seasons,
jurisdictional status has not been achieved where desired, or the desired vegetation has not
been established, NCDOT will implement appropriate corrective measures. The stream
restoration and stabilization techniques implemented and the wetland communities
30

established will be monitored to determine if the criteria for success have been achieved.
Photographs will be taken once a year at the permanent photograph stations.
4.1.1 Hydrology
The success of a wetland mitigation project is largely driven by the hydrology of the site,
which incorporates groundwater elevation with surface water flows to maintain soil
saturation for a defined period of time. The Army Corps of Engineers in the 1987 Manual
define an area a wetland if the soil is ponded, flooded, or saturated within 12 inches of the
surface, for at least 5 to 12.5 % of the growing season (10-24 days) in a normal year. A
"normal" year, based on NRCS climalogical data for Iredell County, must receive an annual
rainfall of between 42 and 49 inches. Hydrologic success will be considered if the COE
criteria is met.
In order to determine if the COE criteria are achieved, automated groundwater monitoring
wells will be installed in each post-mitigation community type. These wells will be
provided and maintained by the NCDOT to monitor hydrologic fluctuations in the water
table. Well installation will follow the COE standard methods (WRP Technical Note HY-
IA3.1, August 1993). In order to determine if the annual rainfall is "normal" for the given
year, rainfall amounts will be tallied using data obtained from NOAA gauge stations.
Hydrologic monitoring will continue for 5 years following the completion of the wetland
mitigation.
4.1.2 Vegetation
Recovery and restoration of the vegetation on a wetland mitigation site is dependent upon
hydrology and soil saturation. Vegetative succession is also influenced by active planting of
vegetation as well as volunteer encroachment. The success criteria will incorporate the
assumption that exact species composition and other natural changes cannot be strictly
controlled under natural conditions.
The vegetative success will be partially defined in terms of achieving jurisdictional status for
each community type by achieving 320 and 260 trees per acre of target species by the 5th
year (includes both planted and natural recruitment). Progress towards achieving and
maintaining the desired species composition and density for each community type will also
i be incorporated in the success criteria.
Prior to planting, the mitigation area will be inspected for proper elevation and soil
suitability. Permanent vegetation sampling plots 0.02 ha (0.05ac) and photograph stations
will be established within each community type. Beginning at the end of the first growing
season, and each subsequent year, species composition, density, and wetland indicator status
will be evaluated between August and November for five subsequent years. Remedial
action will be taken as needed to control undesirable species or rectify other problems
throughout the monitoring period.

31
1
1 5.0 OTHER ECOLOGICAL AND NON-ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
5.1 Historical/Archeological
Available records were reviewed by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
on December 14, 1998 to determine the presence of historic preservation sites or sites of
archeological importance on or near the subject site. No structures of historical or
archeological importance listed on the National Registry were noted on the subject property
or adjacent areas. However, two surveyed archeological sites were noted adjacent to the
subject site. The sites are significant enough to warrant further investigation according to
David Brook, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, NC Department of Cultural
Resources. The processing of information regarding the archaeological survey that was
recommended by NC Cultural Resources is ongoing.
5.2 Utilities/Easements
Deed records of the subject property were reviewed at the Iredell County Register of Deeds
Office on December 8, 1998. The Shepherds Tree site has Duke Power right of way (ROW)
easements associated with two high-tension transmission lines which intersect within the
subject site boundaries. The easement widths vary from 100 feet to 270 feet depending on
the size of the transmission lines. Access to the towers can not be denied however, trees and
shrubs may be planted within the easement if they do not exceed 15 feet in height at
maturity (Appendix 3). A review of the pertinent deed and plat information regarding the
right of way easements associated with transmission lines that intersect the property was
conducted on 1/21/99. The deed and plat information was provided by Duke Energy
(Appendix 4). Conversations with Duke Energy have verified that upon receipt of a request
from NCDOT, Duke Energy will not utilize herbicide within the utility ROW. Duke Energy
will also provide signage that may be posted on-site to inform Duke Energy ROW personnel
that herbicide application is prohibited on the subject site.
^ 5.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species (RTE)
Available records were reviewed at the North Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation,
Natural Heritage Program, on December 14, 1998 to determine the presence of any rare,
threatened, or endangered (RTE) species on or near the subject property. Currently no
records of RTE species have been observed. However, after restoration portions of the site
may be suitable habitat for the Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi), a state endangered
dh species.
6.0 DISPENSATION OF PROPERTY
NCDOT is in the process of soliciting conservation groups and natural resource agencies
(public or private) for final dispensation of its properties. However, until an acceptable
agreement can be reached with an appropriate recipient of the property, ownership of the
mitigation site will remain with NCDOT. Deed restrictions will be included upon transfer to
i
32
r
a recipient to insure that the property remains as conservation land in perpetuity. In any
event, NCDOT accepts responsibility at the present time for development and long term
management of the site.

1

r

1

i
r
33

REFERENCES
Applied River Morphology by Rosgen, D. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado,
i 1996.
i Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States.
r Washington, D.C. (current Hydric Soil definition)
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, 3rd Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NC Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC.
Southern Forested Wetlands, Ecology and Management M.G. Messina & W.H.Conner, eds.
Ch. 4 "Regional Climates), R.A. Muller & J.M. Grymes III., pp87-102. CRC Press. 1998.

t
I
r
34

1
1
0 APPENDIX 1- Mitigation Planning Checklist
1
t
r
1
e

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLANNING CHECKLIST
ACTION ID:
SITE NAME: SHEPHERDS TREE MITIGATION SITE
LOCATION/WATERBODY/COUNTY: The site is located between Triplett
Road (SR 2362), and Knox Farm Road (SR 2363) in Iredell County
adjacent to Third Creek, Yadkin River watershed
USGS QUAD(S): Shepherds, NC Quadrangle
SOIL SURVEY SHEET NO.: 5
Joseph Pfeiffer/George
PREPARED BY: Swearingen DATE: 1/12/98
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Type of Mitigation (Circle / a separate checklist may be
prepared if more than one type)
1. Restoration Creation Enhancement Preservation
a) In-kind Out-of-kind Both
b` On-site Off-site Both
2. Up-front Concurrent After-the fact Bank
B. Wetland types and acreage Impacted / Attach or 'Describe:
C. Wetland types and acreage Mitigated/ Attach or Describe:
Levee forest, bottomland hardwoods, swamp hardwoods, floodplain
pools, perenial streams, intermittant streams
D. Describe mitigation Ratios:
1.5:1 for wetlands restoration, 2:1 for wetlands creation
3:1 for wetland enhancement, 11:1 for wetland preservation,
2:1 for stream restoration, 4:1 for stream enhancement,

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
A
1
t
1
YES NO
E. Will any Endangered Species,
Archeological Resources, or Haz/Tox
Sites be impacted by this effort?
F. Has a wetland determination been
undertaken and verified? X
II. TARGET GOALS AND FUNCTIONS YES NO
A. Are there stated GOALS? K
Describe: Restoration of bottomland hardwood function and values,
• water quality, wildlife/fisheries habitat.
B. Describe Success Criteria: 320 and 240 trees per acre by
3rd and 5th year respectively
YES NO
Are they: 1. Specific x
2. Measurable x
3. Attainable X
C. Target-FUNCTIONS chosen YES NO
and indicated?
Describe: Water quality, flood cycling, wildlife/fisheries
habitat.
YES NO
D. Was a Reference Ecosystem (RE) report
prepared? (Attach) X
1. Describe comparison between the RE and the
Mitigation Plan: The watershed size, wetland types,
soils, plant communities, streams,
and hydrology are similar in the RE and the mitictation area.
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
i
1
1
YES NO
E. Will any Endangered Species,
Archeological Resources, or Haz/Tox
Sites be impacted by this effort?
F. Has a wetland determination been
undertaken and verified? x
II. TARGET GOALS AND FUNCTIONS YES NO
A. Are there stated GOALS? K
Describe: Restoration of bottomland hardwood function and values,
• water quality, wildlife/fisheries habitat.
B. Describe Success Criteria: 320 and 240 trees per acre by
3rd and 5"' year respectively
YES NO
Are they: 1. Specific x
2. Measurable x
3. Attainable X
C. Target-FUNCTIONS chosen YES NO
and indicated?
Describe: Water quality, flood cycling, wildlife/fisheries
habitat.
YES NO
D. Was a Reference Ecosystem (RE) report
prepared? (Attach) x
1. Describe comparison between the RE and the
Mitigation Plan: The watershed size, wetland types,
soils, plant communities, streams,
and hydrology are similar in the RE and the mitictation area.
t
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
r
w
i
II. STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
All VEGETATION:
Yes No
1. Are plantings listed to species? x
Are "local" (200 North/South)
Propagules to be planted and
2. Verified by a nursery certificate? x
3. Have diversity and densities of
species within the RE been
considered in the plan? x
4. Has consideration been given to
planting the interface between the
mitigation site and upland habitats
with suitable transition zone species? x
5. Describe Quality Control during planting:
B. SOILS:
1. Have the soils been mapped?
YES NO
x
2. Soils Series/Phases: Hydric: Wehadkee, Worsham
Secondary Hydric: Chewacla
3. Fertility Sampling undertaken YES NO
In RE? (Attach Report) x
4. Fertility Sampling undertaken
On mitigation site?
(Attach Report) x
YES NO
5. Are fertility results within the
standards for the proposed
plantings? x
Describe Results / Amendments Required: listed in
Table 4 of report
i
1
r
i
i
t
f
t
6. Are the soil types appropriate
For the target wetland? X
Describe: Yes, the soil types are those commonly
found in the proposed communities.
7. If PC Farmland, has the site been YES NO
evaluated for:
a. Plow pans
b. Field crowns
c. Herbicide carry-over
d. Drainage system
Describe:
C. HYDROLOGY:
YES NO
1. Were the principles of HGM or
Other classification system
considered? X
Describe: Evaluation of existing conditions and
the loss of wetlands on site were evaluated according to the loss of
wetland functions and values (i.e. HGM) within the site.
2. Describe the primary hydrologic input (s):
Primary hyrologic inputs include surface water and qroundwater.
1
1
r
i
i
i
3. Was a Hydrology Model/Water YES NO
Budget developed? X
a. Were low, average, and high
Precipitation/water table/
flood conditions considered? x
Describe the Water Budget: There is a net deficit
of water on the mitigation site due to the presence of ditches
throughout the property, creating conditions where there is a loss of
water storaqe in the wetlands.
4. Will the hydrologic regime
predicted by the Water Budget
be appropriate for the target
wetland? x
Describe: The predicted hydrologic regime was
developed using long-term data gathered from the Statesville, NC
area.
5. Have Monitoring Wells/tide/
Flood gauges been installed?
x
Describe: Ten 40 in. and 3 20 in. qroundwater
monitoring wells were installed on the site.
NOTES:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IVD MONITORING
A. Name and number of person responsible for the success of
this project:
YES NO
B. Is there a Monitoring Plan? x
Describe: Hydrological monitoring will involve the
installation of groundwater monitoring wells. Vegetative monitoring
will be conducted at the end of each growing season for 5
consecutive vears.
YES NO
C. As Built Report provided?
D. Procedure to account for beneficial
natural regeneration? x
Describe:
V. CONSIDERATION OF CAUSES OF FAILURE
A. How does project rate regarding the following:
1. Elevation:
YES NO N/A
a. Have Biological Benchmarks
been established? x
b. Is there a grading plan? x
c. Is the grading plan specific? x
d. Is discing proposed after
grading and/or prior to planting? x
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2. Describe provisions for Drainage:
3. Describe Erosion Control Measures:
4. Describe management of Human Impacts:
5. Describe management of Herbivory/Noxious Plants:
YES NO
B. Are there Contingency Plans built
into the proposal to address these
factors?
Describe when and how will these contingencies be
implemented:
NOTES:
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
VI. SITE MANAGEMENT
A. Describe Final Disposition of the property:
Refer to figure 6.0 Mitiqation Concept Plan
B. Who will manage the site after the mitigation effort is
deemed a success? Refer to figure 6.0 Mitigation Concept Plan
Will wetland functions be impacted
by current or future land use
C. patterns?
Describe:
YES NO
Will this site have the opportunity YES NO
D. to function as planned?
Describe:
E. Describe how this project rates ecologically:
HIGHLIGHT AND ADDRESS ALL PROBLEMS AND/OR INADEQUACIES WITH THE
MITIGATION PLAN/SITE AS INDICATED BY THIS CHECKLIST.

f

1
1
1
1
APPENDIX 2 - Soil Profile Descriptions

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Z
O
U
N
W
0
W
J
LL
O
w
a
O
U)
s
N ,r
o N O
Z
N
o
c o-
.- o Q N
05 H >.
w
z 0..
0 w
a
U Z
00 U
Z: w
Z Z Z
0 <
m w 0
F- U
co
rn
r
N
r
w
Q
F-
N
'a
d U
Z N
CL = C
0
CO) 0 N C
Z LZ 0
m LL
O 0 0 N
Z O 0 •-75
z wU
U Z
U w
11 Z Q
f- Z
W d H W
OD
w U
V) U) 2 o
`o
.U N

2 ?
0
c -
O
v
-
U 'C
? a

Q z Q z
m
O
zO Q
coO a
O
?? U
HU
a) (D
O 00
co Q ?-
c
O

a
d

o
m
m
cn
rn
N C
`
U) O
.?
c0 a J
cn
C C
O
c N
U c
X
O C U
g
c
(D
W- LL
C)
?d (0
fit' d' ? d'

X
O LO LO LO
20
~
ti
c
00
C.0
N
CD
? N
s
U O oO CO d
(V
Q
Z
Q U U U
0
2
c
C
O
U
m
C
N
m
N
U
C
c
m
me
U)
w N
C) U
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
z
O
F=
a_
U
U)
W
a
W
J
LL
0
w
a
J
O
CO)
Q
a
O
o U O
O y, Z
c ? N
U ca
N > N
41) :3 LLI
W
z n}}
O W !-
Q
U Z
? U ?
W
C?
Z Z z
F- O LL
m w OU
00
d'
N
r
W
Q
D
d
H
N
.a
d U
Z N
CL 2 f=
d
U)
Z U O
m LL
O 0
Z O -
zo w C.)
Z
U U w
LLI
Q fn
W Z
z g W
LU (L
W U
U)
V5 U) 2 0
`o
U ca
U
2 -
O
C -
o
U 'C
N d

J
x ?
- J J
U
F

0 o
y <
c
0

a N
(1) (0 (0
0 w -,-o w
0
' >- Lo
o
?
D
N LO
LO O
Cl)
rn
2.s
U) O .c
o aJ
N
_o
C co Z Z

L 0
C- N U-) -?e 0
Lf)
o 2
c N N
Q
W Li U .. ?.
(0 (0

cr-

o Lf) LO LO
m U 1` f` ti
c
ch
N
00

O A N
L6
N
Q U
z
O f2
Q
U N
0)
U
o

1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
_O
a_
U
w
(l
W
J
L%
O
a
J_
O
m (13 Z
CL L
u00i U
c
U
M Q
W U)
w
z d
O w
Q
U Z
OJ U D
O O
Z Z Z
o LL
0 <
o
m W ?- U
OD
cn
d'
r
N
r
w
Q
0
d
L
N
.a
d U
Z
CL = c
d
N Of
E c
z L LL
O o_ ` N
Z p 0O
O > -)
Z
U U w
LL Z Q
W g Z w
Z
W d U
Q w

o l1J
T
= C
O
c -
o ME

o a
?a

?O
J QO
x J

U)
O
Q a
c
0

a
N
O
O L
N
cr ?
C
0
O)
? c
m
c
O a
N V1
C c
O
C coo
O
U
c
X
(J c
20
c
w ii U
N
d L
af > o
x?
'
o ? ZY
y
0 p ? cif
?

?- M
r
o r-
U

z
O
N
R
Q
U
O
2
'o
N
N
O
N
E
cu
L
a?
Mn
c
m
c
0
U
c
(Lf
.N
N
O
U
_C
c
O
Fn
O
Q
N
Q
ca
U
co
v
c
N
c
t6
O
O
:3
7
N
Y
m
L
>N
(n >
Z co
W
? fl.
O m
U
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
O
H
a
V
U)
W
W
J
LL
O
w
a
J_
O
U)
E
m
N
O
Z
'C :? c
C N
c LU
O
V O O
a? -= 7 C N
Coa I.LW }
w
z a
o w
Q
U
0 Z
U ?
W
Cl)
Z Z
Z
1= 0 "-U) Z
m w F- O
O
0)
r
N
r
w
Q
L
N
d U
Z
Q' = C
d
s W(
N
Z O
R5
O 0 .c
z p >N
O F- >
Z
U U W
LL Z Q
P: z
z F-
W m w
m
Z
FW_- H Q w
`0
U ?

A ?
= C
O
o
5 '.
? a
ct ?5

Zg< <
W ? U 0 0
?
F- U
0)?
0 o
ui Qn-
c
0
?
N r
~ r

0 o o
x x C)
>- C)
>-
0
70 C:
-
m

O Lo

O
0
w C r r
N
rn
N C

o. a- -i
co w

C c
0
c
O m M o C") 0
OR
a> >- N
x
0 c
2 Ln LO
7
0
Y c
(D N N
L LL
C)

CK
x ` >- >
0 O O
20
+
O co
r
? O O
E r
D
Z
0N
Q
r
E Q U
O
x
F-
Z
w

1

LJ
1
LJ
1

I APPENDIX 3 - Duke Power Company Rights Of Way Restrictions

1
I Reorder by ID Na 059402191

1

1

11
CJ

Duke Power Company
Transmission Line Division
RIGHTS OF WAY RESTRICTIONS
Form 02191 (R12-90)
This list of rights of way restrictions has been developed to answer the most often asked questions about property
owner use of transmission rights of way. The list does not intend to cover all possible situations and you should ask
additional questions if these answers do not fit your plans.
1. Structures, buildings, mobile homes and trailers, satellite signal receiver systems and equipment, swimming
pools and associated equipment, human graves, billboards, signs, wells, septic tanks, absorption pits, storage
tanks, (both above and below ground), garbage, trash, rubble, flammable material, budding material, junk, and
wrecked or disabled vehicles are not allowed within the rights of way limits.
2. Fences shall not be attached to poles or towers. Fences shall be- installed at least 10 feet from poles or towers
and shall not exceed 10 feet in height If a fence crosses the rights of way, a gate will be installed so that free
access is maintained.
3. Contact Duke Power before grading or filling on the rights of way. The clearance of the bottom conductor to
ground may not be less than 25 feet under 44kV lines, 271/2 feet under 100kV lines, 35 feet under 230kV lines
and 45 feet under 525kV lines. Grading or filling within the rights of way or near a structure, which will prevent
free access, will not be permitted.
4. Grading shall be at least 20 feet from a pole or tower leg, and slope shall not exceed 3:1 on the rights of way.
5. Streets, roads, driveways, sewer lines, water lines, or any underground facilities shall not parallel the center line
within the rights of way, but may cross at any angle not less than 30 degrees with the center line and cross no
closer than 20 feet to any structure. Man holes and underground vaults must be approved within the rights of
way limits.
6. Any drainage ditch that allows water to pond or to cause erosion around a structure is prohibited.
7. Contact Duke Power Company prior to the construction of lakes or ponds within the rights of way limits`
8. Duke Power Company shall not relinquish any of its rights conveyed by the rights of way agreements.
9. Duke Power Company does not recommend the practice of using the area under transmission lines for parking,
but will not object if the following restrictions are followed:
a. A barrier adequate to protect the pole or tower shall be erected, by the party constructing the parking area,
in such a manner as to restrict parking to at least 5 feet from the structure.
b. Any access areas, entrances, or exits shall cross the rights of way at or near right angles to the center fine,
and shall not pass within 20 feet of any structure.
a Lighting facilities higher than 15 feet are not to be installed within the rights of way limits.
d. Signs and other attachments to Duke Power Company structures are prohibited.
10. Duke Power Company will not object to certain beautification programs, such as planting grass, flowers, low
growing shrubs, gardens, etc., as long as they do not interfere with the existing structures or interfere with ac-
cess to structures.
a Any plants within the rights of way, such as fruit trees, flowering shrubs, bushes, hedges, or low growing
species must not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity- Any plants allowed to exceed this height are subject
to being cleared from the rights of way by Duke Power Company.
b. Tall growing species of trees are not allowed within the rights of way limits. Duke Power Company may exer-
cise the right to cut danger trees outside the rights of way limits as granted by the rights of way agreement
and as required to properly maintain and operate the transmission line.
We hope this is useful information; however, if additional questions arise or if you plan anything not mentioned,
please contact
' at telephone number
JAN 05 '99 07:24..._._- .+ - -._-__•_ • - PAGE. 02

1
I

APPENDIX 4 - Utility Easement Deed Information

1

1

1

1

F

I

1
DI1012-- ?.S Fib aP 2-65
VOLD''5.--•/
?+
ATTORNEYS FINAL CERTIFICATE FOR RIGHT OF WAY
The undersigned hereby certifies to DUKE POWER COMPANY that, based
on a personal examination of all public records which do or may disclose
information affecting the title to the easements contained in the right
of way agreement described in Schedule A hereof•and which sources of title
information cover a period of not less than ten years last past and to a
valid conveyance to the title chain recorded at feast ten years before
the date of this certificate, it is the opinion of the undersigned that,
subject only to the liens, encumbrances, and other•4bjections noted under
Schedule B hereof, the right of way described in 'Schedule A hereof
constitutes a valid easement on the premises therein described.
SCHEDULE A
Name of Grantor(s) John L Raitzell and wife- &= F-leltzell
dated Februars 15. 1963 and recorded in Book _ 374
page 1 on Fiarch 19 1%3 at 2:30 P"
SCHEDULE B
1. TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS:;
(a) County, City, and School taxes have been paid through and C
-
including those for'the year 19 62
(b) There are no special levies, assessments,'estate:and
inheritance taxes or other taxes due except awe
' Q
2. MORTGAGES, DEEDS OF TRUST, AND VENDOR'S LIENS (Give parties, amount, a
date and recording data:)
C
None, in addition to those reported on our first certificate. 1
r
3. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS: Are:ther4 any? 19ne*a
If so, give recording data for these restrictions.
4. ARE THERE OTHER LIENS, OBJECTIONS, ZONING REGULATIONS, OR OTHER
DEFECTS (Except other easements to Duke Power Company) which would
restrict the•use of a right of way acorss said property by Duke
Power Company for an electric transmission or distribution line?
(Answer ryes" or "no" and,.if any, describe below)
None, in addition to those reported on. our first title opinion.
This title is certified 'down to xu - 3 P x. - 19 63---'
LAID, S%=S & AVERY
Attorney
Deed N, `fS
!J

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ry
.;7A 2 6078 f
THM TRACT: Beginning at a stake in the eastern line of the above described
tract and running thence South 89 East 749.1.feet to a stake; thence North
1980 feet to a stake; thence North 89 West 749.1 feet to a stake; thence
South and running through an iron stake situated at the Northeast corner of
the above described land, 1,980 feet to the beginning, containing 34.1
acres, more or less.
FOORTB•TRACTs Beginning at an iron pin in the Southeast corner of Lot No. 3;
thence with Lot No. 3, North 89 deg. West 11.35 chains to the Southwest corner
of Lot No. 3; thence South with the Reitzel line 10 chains to an iron pin;
thence South 89 deg. East 11.35 chains to an iron pin; thence North 10 chains
' to the beginning point, containing 11-1/10 acres, more•or less.
i
Being the same property described in the following deeds: (1) dated
November 6, 1961 and recorded in Book 355,.page 52. Iredell county Registry;
W dated November 6. 1961 and recorded in book 355 at page 49, Iredell
County Registry; and (3) dated November 22, 1961 and recorded in Book 355
at page 58, Iredell county Registry.

Or 7-
Deed Ho
C7
M
rn
co
4
9)
0
D
r

C?

1

_ J' Flie No ..39Q2-f 5...
s n oK 374 °
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT
IR ELL ................000NTY
19153-
THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this...a$.tiki,.:.dcy of......... F.dbl'R8>•y ......................,
by and between JDgN L. REITZBL and wife, NBNCY F. REITZELt
hereinafter called Grantor' (whether one or more), and DUKE pbWER COMPANY, a New Jersey corpora-
tion, hereinafter called "Grontee" t
W I T N E S S E T H i
That Grantor,- In consideration of S.Sa Q? .............paid by Grantee, the rocelpt of which is hereby
acknowledged, does grant and convey unto Grantee, itsue isors li and assigns,
wbles, tand right
g necessary red, acon nd
struct, reconstruct, replace, maintain and use towers, poles,
proper foundations,. footings, crossarms and other appliances and fixtures for the purpose of transmitting
electric power'and. for Grantee's communication purposes, together with a right of way, on, along and
in all of-the hereinafter described strip of -those certain lands which are situate In.......... IrZdell••••••.••••
County, North Carolina, and are described as follows-
TV-ACT: BBGxm=G at a stake, post and running thence with 1/2 West a distance of
24 f a tract of land
feet from a a fence fence
being conveyed to John L. Reitzel by deed of Mrs. Charline.H. Reitzel bearing
sdate ame with the aforesaid e line r of John L. Reitzel?
the ditch; thence c and
running in and with the ditch row as follows: South 68 East 577022 ft.;; thence
South 69 deg. 10 min. East 847.6 ft.: thence South 70 deg.
ft., and South 68 deg. 45 min. East.735.2 ft. to a stake.J. L. Reitzel's corner;
thence with J. L. Reitzel's line North 2 Fi 149 Sft. to a outh 4 stake. his line; 1/2 East 291 ft.
thence South 53 1/2 East 305 ft..to a stake; thence d's corner: thence
to a stake; thence South 3 East 106 ft. to a stake. Sheppar
with Beaver's line and with the meanderings of Third Creek in a Northwesterly
direction. 4825 ft. more or less to a stake at the bridge on Third Creek; thence
North 62 West 184 ft. to a stakes thence North 66 West 100 ft. to a stake;
thence North 45 West100 ft. to a•staker thence North 1S West 1250 ft. to a stake;
thence North •51 Test 149 ft. to a stake; thence South 50 ft. to a stake; thence
South 14 1/2 East 1490 ft. to a stake; thence North. 71 West 372 ft. to a stake;
thence North 46 West 334 ft. to a stake; thence North 1S West 957 ft. to a stake;
thence North 29 West 940 ft. to a stake: thence South 78 East 100 ft. to a
stake; thence South 54 deg. 45 min. East 719 ft. to a stake; thence North 6 1/2
East 1147 ft. to a stake; thence East 424 ft. to a stake; thence South 3 West
554 ft. to a stake; thence South 72 East 439 ft. to a stake: thence North 47
East 556.6 it. to a stake: thence South 53 1/2 East 625 ft. to the Beginning,
containing 151.acres, more or less.
gECOIAD TRACT; BMIMIM at.a stake situated North 53 1/2 west 24 ft. from a
fence post and running thea6e ''with the line of a'iiact of land conveyed to
Mrs, Charline H. Reitzel by deed of John L. Reitzel, et ux bearing the same
date as this deed, South 21 deg. 10 min. Hest 1139.2 ft. to a stake in the
ditch; thence with the aforesaid line in and with the ditch row as followss
South 68 East 702 ft., South 69 deg. 10 min. East 847.8 ft., South 70 deg. 50
min. East 2500 £t.: thence South 68 deg. 45 min. East 735.2 ft. to a stakes
thence continuing with the line bf Mrs. Charline H. Reitzel; North 2 East 149
ft. to a stake; thence North 2 East 101 ft. to a stake; thence North 2 West
688 ft. to a stake; thence North 162 ft. to a stake; thence North 1084.9 ft.
to an iron stakes thence North 87 Rest 2079 ft. to a stake; thence South 5
Vest 1080.8 ft. to a stake- thence North 73 West 1666.5 ft. to a stake: thence
North 16 West 1023 ft. to a stake; thence North 53 1/2 West 24 ft. to the fence
post the beginning point. Vontlaiping 118 acres, more or less.
Continued oa#attache :sheet
Dr?Foi.? _
Deed No.-
C7
m
a
C'
2
r

11

1

L

11

11

aanc 3`l4 mg 3
The aforesaid strip extends 5ro45sai; lands and Is a lDrtio o{real ei.4......270..........feet wide
extending ....75 ..............feet on the-Sauthesatter.Ly...................... side and......2S5......... foot on the
....... HOXthW!08t.BiG1y............ side of a surveyed line which has been marked on the ground and shown
M3I8Y1
11
- Beckerde
3
.......................................................
...
on Duke Power Company Map of Rights of Way for..........
..

?4'-??? ..................... .
Transmission Line, File No..........
Grantor for the consideration aforesaid further grants to Grantee (1) the right to make relocations,
changes, renewals, substitutions and additions on or to said structures within said strip from time to
time; (2) the right from time to time to cut down, dear away and keep free of said strip any or all struc-
tures, trees or other objects of arry?+tature; (3) the right from time to time to trim, cut down, fell, and dear
away any trees outside of said strip which now or hereafter may be a hazard to said tower, poles, wires,
cables or other apparatus or appliances by reason of falling thereon; (4) the right of ingress to and egress
from said strip of land across the ;other land above referred to for the purpose of exercising the rights
hereby granted, but if roads exist that can be used by Grantee where ingress or egress is needed, said
right to be exercised over such roads.
n
The failure of Grantee to exercise any of the rights herein granted shall not be construed as a waiver
or abandonment of the right thereafter at any time and from time to time to exercise arty or all of them.
Grantor reserves all other rights to sold strip of land not Inconsistent with the rights herein granted,
including (but not limited to) the rights (1) to construct streets or roads across but not lengthwise on
said strip; (2) to plant field crops and gardens; (3) to maintain fencer that are safely removed from
structures to be placed on said strip.
All trees which Grantee Is hereby authorized to cut and remove, If valuable for timber or wood,
shall be the property of Grantor. -
r .
Grantee shall repair any damage it shall do to Grantor's private roads or lames on said lands, and
shall reimburse Grantor for any actual Ion or damage which shall be caused by the exercise of said
ingress or egress, or by any wrongful or negligent act or omission of Grantee.
'
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said ship or parcel of land together with all privileges and appurtenances
thereunto belonging for the use Gpd pyrposes aforesaid, unto Grantee, Its successors and assigns forever.
M
And Grantor, for the Grantor and for the Grantor's heirs, executors, administrators, successors and 9
assigns, covenants to and with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that Grantor Is lawfully seized of the
5
above described land in fee and-has• the right to convey the said rights and easements; that the same is
free and dear from any and all incumbrances and will forever warrant and defend the title to the said 0)

rights and easements against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
y
00

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument Is executed on the date first above written.
- C)
D
/
'
("
6 .................. L)
WITNESS:
/ John L. Re tzel
............ : ...............:.......................................... •,,l(?( ?''..T.... (SEAL)
z
NNaGScy F. Reit

........................................................................(SEAL)
.......................................................................
........................................................................(SEAL)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- -- J..
STATE OF
So w CAROLINA- 3 374 4
COUNTY OF Richland }
i
THE ...FEDERAL..LAND-BANK..OF..GOI.IZ= .................................................................................... and
.......................................... TRUSTEE, named in that certain deed of trust dated
2U7xem028r..10 ............................. 19.61...., and duly recorded In the office of the Register of Deeds
for .............. Iredell........... County in Book........ 294.... at page ..... 236 , join in this Instrument for the
purpose of releasing, and they do hereby forever release and discharge the rights, privileges and ease-
ments described herein from the lien and operation of sold deed of trust.
' - y; lye... :::. i:?;•? Y...:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed on the...l3th...day of..... kk1> 11............rrt,
19.. VU 1963 THE FEDERAL LAND BANK OF C0?tij
„. ...: r.:
ATTEST:
By.
VIES / ident _ J E. Dowel Jrs?:a tl'1.:
W. Osc?b x .. ..... U
Trustee
' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA W. 0. McGibon;y
COUNTY OF i7
Ill
I, ... ?f.. a9uarP.....o? .......................................... a Notary Public for the above State and County, do ;
hereby certify that JOEMT L. REITZEL and wife, NANCY F. RBITZEL,
Co
4
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing t(tstNm%gt- D
WITNESS my fiend and Notarial Sea[, this the day ?-' ' •???,
My Commission Expiros:Q(0L- . ls. (cf ?i1
South y
STATE OF 44M CAROLINA
COUNTY OF Richland
i 1, ...J?&rg..G....STitklt rlrtAd ...... :................ ......... a Notary Public for the above State and County, do '
hereby certify that W. 0. MaGibonyv Trastee
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged. the due. execution of the foregoing Instrument.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal, this the...]3th @<,qo.ot;!tI&1'Ch ........................... 1963...,....
K i jC Qf .T.. (4? ,
PwbOc
Sutherland
My Commission Expires; At the.pleasure of the'?lis eyfSiQ `? ° - 7Fd. /
Deed No
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOUTH .GAR 374 Pats 5 r
1
STATE OF WR7tAROLINA
COUNTY OF Richland J}
Nary C, $utherlaad ........................... a Notary Public for the above State and County,
...H...9....1lc0i tw .............. personally come before me this day and acknowl.
hereby certify that ..............
AY
edged that he IsUAIntdati.... Searetory of..The.1aderal..Land..Bank..of:.-Colmobia .......................... a
corporation, and that by authority duly given and as the ad of said corporation, the foregoing and
annexed instrument was signed In its name by.................................... its--VMB,,,...........
President, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by himself as lts.ABBietant•••Secretary.
r""`"
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this the..... 13th....--day of...... ya.-h ........................i:.tA1W??? ;y ?r? •: Y
%
My Commission Expires, 1tarYG2/?• Sutherland
....At .the pleasure of the Governor - r v p, l a p i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA-Iin>;DoLL CouNTY.
The foregoing certificate- of

are adjudged to be in due form
and according to law. Therefore let the instrument and certificates with this certificate be registered. 0
Witness my hand and seal, this-- day of ti -?i
M
Deputy Clerk Superior Court. D
-? -- - M
Co
Co
S y D
w r
?-
Z ro -nc: to ? 3 a ?I
E-4 H
H N ::E Et
?a 8 n \?- a g
Q OC e V
Z t;
O
F^ •Z W 17 :? • e C 7 y p .
V i7 O o V C Oe Q V
STATE OF NORTH.CAROLINA 1
COUNTY OF J}
I....•,,,_•,•„••.•.,•„•••....... *•.......................................... a Notary Public for the above State and County, do
hereby certify that -
personally appeared before me this. day and acknowledged.the due execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS r* h%W and Ngtor6l Seal, this thy.... .;::::: ffy of ............................_............, i96.........
V L (j 1l '+ s ?,'s
?. .................................................
My Comminioh txpiren - rss soes rsns ue
Cyndi Bell
From: Lindsey T. Riddick [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 6:02 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: R-22398
Good morning Cyndi. I hope your Friday is progressing as planned. I got a call from Eric
Alsmeyer Earlier in the week. He was asking about the 401 certification for R-22396. Did you
guys receive the mitigation plan for Sheperd's tree? Is everything ready for the 401 to be issued?
We have an agreement with WRP to do the Streams and Mickey Clemmons seems to think
things are moving along nicely. As you know, the boys out in the Division have this one on the
priority list and therefore, it is on my priority list. Thanks for your help. Have a good weekend.
Lindsey

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
11kT?WAJ
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
April 6, 1999
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 27611-2501
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
US 421 from East of SR 2433 to East of SR 2309; Wilkes County, State Project No.
6.769001T, T.I.P. No. R-2239B
WQC Project # 990267, DOA Action ID. No. 199820228
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3227 issued to NC DOT dated March 31,
1999.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sin ly
Stevens
Attachments
990267
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Enviro. Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to NC DOT resulting in
8,301 linear feet of perennial stream impacts and 1.98 acres of wetland impacts in Wilkes County
pursuant to an application filed on the 6th day of January of 1998 to relocate and widen US 421
from East of SR 2433 to East of SR 2309 (T.I.P. No. R-2239B).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into Brier
Creek and its unnamed tributaries, and unnamed tributaries of Grays Creek, the Yadkin River,
and North Little Hunting Creek in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of
North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application
and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your
application, as described in the Public Notice. If you change your project, you must notify us
and send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. Should additional wetland fill be requested in the future, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below. In addition, you should get
any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Non-discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such manner as to prevent significant increase
in turbidity outside the are of construction or construction related discharge (50 NTU's
in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by DWQ; 25 NTU's in all saltwater
classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTT-J's in trout waters).
2. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands, compensatory mitigation
will be required since it is a direct impact from construction activities.
3. Land clearing in wetlands shall conform to Method III (no clearing beyond toe of
slope).
4. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) compensatory mitigation is required for
stream impacts. 7,809 linear feet of stream mitigation is required at a 1:1 ratio. Stream
mitigation shall be done in accordance with the contract with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission prepared for the US 421 project in Watauga County
(R-0529). DWQ shall be involved in the selection of stream mitigation sites. An
interim report is due to DWQ by October 31, 1999 to describe progress made in
locating suitable and available stream mitigation sites for this project. Conservation
easements or fee-simple land purchase shall be done by April 30, 1999 to ensure 1:1
replacement of impacted streams (7,809). DWQ shall be sent a report depicting the
mitigation sites by October 31, 1999. DOT shall submit a copy of the stream
mitigation monitoring protocol to DWQ for written approval. This protocol shall
include monitoring of macrobenthos and streambank stability for five years.
5. In accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7) compensatory mitigation is
required for 1.98 acres of wetland impacts. Wetland mitigation requirements shall be in
accordance with ratios specified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and mint
include a minimum of 1:1 restoration or creation of wetlands. This shall be
implemented at DOT's Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site in Iredell County.
Violations of any condition herein, set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void
unless the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 Permit. This Certification
shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must
be in the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
27611-7447. If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 6" day of April 1999
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
. SWQC # 3227
(AJ le-5
1 a t r:? i_,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
?fR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 22, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wilkes County, Widening of U.S. 421 from east of SR 2433 to east of SR
2309; TIP No. R-2239B; State Project No. 6.769001T.
Action ID. 199820228
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Section 404 Individual Permit on
April 26, 1999 for the construction of the subject project. As identified in the IP, impacts
to wetlands resulting from project construction are to be mitigated at the-Si epherd's.T.reer
itlgatign,$,ile in Iredell County. The IP required that construction and planting of the
Shepherd's Tree Site be completed by _-greh 15, 2001. At this time, NCDOT would like
to request a -41 'yeafextension on this Special Condition to allow sufficient time to
process recent site additions.
Construction of the Shepherd's Tree Mitigation Site has been delayed due to
extended negotiations with an adjacent landowner to acquire water rights and divert a
small stream. During the agency site review on February 11, 1999, review agencies
recommended that this stream be diverted onto the mitigation site to enhance the
hydrology of both the stream and the proposed wetland system. NCDOT then embarked
on a lengthy effort to satisfy this request which was finalized in late June 2000.
Acquisition of the water rights slowed development of the Shepherd's Tree site because
we were unable to initiate project design until this issue was resolved.
For this reason, NCDOT requests that Special Condition (f) of the Section 404
permit for§R=2239$ be extended for one year to allow construction of the Shepherd's
Tree site in the summer of 2001 and project planting by spring 2002. We believe that we
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
At
7
have put forth a good faith effort to satisfy a review agency request, and that we have
improved the overall hydrology of the mitigation project as a result. NCDOT continues
to be committed to the successful development of the Shepherd's Tree site, as indicated
by the significant investments in time and money which we have made to date.
NCDOT is presently developing the final draft of the mitigation plan to include
the proposed modifications resulting from the stream diversion. The design phase of the
project will proceed after finalization of the mitigation plan, with agency review of
proposed design plans in early 2001. Construction is scheduled for the summer of 2001
with final plantings completed by spring 2002. Although this schedule has been delayed
by one year from initial estimates, we believe that the additional effort will ultimately
result in a more successful and higher quality project.
Thank you for you assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mr. Jim Hauser at [phone], extension 306.
Sincerely,
' z,
William G. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P .E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W.E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC