19990036 Ver 1_Complete File_19990115

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment , ® •
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Kerr T. Stevens, Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 5, 2000
Avery County
DWQ Project # 990036
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
NC Department of Transportation
c/o David C. Robinson
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, for the purpose of replacing
bridge 65 on SR 1117 over the North Toe River, as you described in your application received by the Division of Water
Quality on April 11, 2000. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this action is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Numbers 3197 and 3114_ This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 23 and 33
when issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval replaces the approval issued for this project on February 3, 1999. 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, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Water shed regulations.
This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or LAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only. valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application, If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions below and those listed in
the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter
1509 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
.. (.Sincl y,
l ' , e4v ,-
?, tens,-
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
bile Copy
Central Files 990036
Division of Water Quality - von-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center, Ra!eigh, NC 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/ '10% post consumer paper
http.//h2o.eri r.state.nc.us/wetiandc. html
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 LIF
';W'A
4 • •
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 3, 1999
Avery County
WQC 401 Project # 990036
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge 65 on SR
1117 over the North Toe River, as you described in your application dated January 15, 1999. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23. when the Corps of Engineers issues it. 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, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Sincer
ward, Jr. P. .
990036.1tr
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
i, 401 I O VUJ'_
s,,. swto
1 2000
nrgW N Lv[ISLgin,_
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 3, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A
Regulatory Field Office l U`
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143 V \
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 q
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 65 over North Toe River on SR 1117.
COE Action Id. No. 199930434, WQC 401 Project No. 990036, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1117 (2), State Project No. 8.2720701, TIP No. B-2916.
Dear Sir:
NCDOT received a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 (Categorical Exclusion) for the
subject project on March 5, 1999. Since the date of application NCDOT has realized that it needs
ao)O*F ? permit in addition to the -_234o install drilled piers for the new bridge.
The proposed bridge will cross the North Toe River. In order to construct the bridge the
contractor has requested to use temporary causeways to install drilled shafts to construct the
proposed bridges. The temporary causeways will be constructed in separate phases. The
causeway at Sites I and II will be made of Class II rip rap. Temporary impacts to surface waters
are .05 ha (.12 ac.). A backhoe or a crane will be used to install the causeways. A drill rig will
used to install the shafts. No mechanical equipment will cross the river.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 3114 will apply to this work, and are
providing one copy of this request along with a completed Pre-construction Notification
application, the design drawings and a vicinity map to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality for their review.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) concerning the NW 33 will be required prior to authorization by the
Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC
review of this project for a NW 33. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to
the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Jared
Gray at [phone], extension 331.
Sincerely,
41
William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/j g
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design-
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Carl McCann, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
v
. a
i4. - - 1 168 Ganbtarry IV 2, 4 "?
HUMP \\ 1361
TAIN 19E

1166 194
1161 13e4
11 67 OD
.
.0 s . 6
1 177 1315
4-?
- i
%Z ?' 1199 2 1205 W
1160
?
A --
tom p 1162 n 1353 134;
8 per's 1 180 Q l l s Jt .
. 1157 ?:,? • 1 159
??
1200
/ ? r .
s 1185
• ' •/

? ? 1 T34S
,
•
1137 Ip
Q Q) •-
1158 115 11? `
1 -
0w 1163 `
?. 1136
1
2 BIG HAW i
a •9 .
= MOUNTAIN
• 1 132 • s ELEV. 4.6°'
113.5 1207 1 11at 115 c? 1372
' °? Fps 1071 1139 N Bridge No. 65
N.

' NEWLAND 153x
137
0
Frank sintrf 141 • 1
POP. 638

- _
1 -AL

- ?
?
--• 1193
..
• 6 1:81 117

1500
ti
8
.,` ?'
•? 3 •2

cv
1182)

3 .?
cr.
43 153 Mail
li?sea
1130. .7 1* 1140 1117 7 N 1
11x1
4
4f
Hu pfals
1 138 '-?'

N. -

1152 ?
• S
N 153

19
°' 1150
?
m --
Mount
?
Plbsont 115a HAWSHORE
.D
?L ? MTN N
.
\ ,? .
C 11 194
X
1*? a ton ? laa , -
97 1117 51
1

? t? •S
p 1 1 a2
- 202
\ 1
_ ? .. o. ?.. 5
1206 ..Z
15x:
awland
i wile ? V
, .
/R Y,
in'OR STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
daement
i

111

--

_,
1E ` North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
AVERY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 65 ON SR 1117
OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
B-2916
kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
e Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
03427/2000 09:34 828-265-5093
5,rgx„pm Pak
pNAS,9 2
.tar
V
?I
1
Iy
1
1
NC DOT BOONE
PAGE 03
^oil rras_ TY .
pM,a s #iULt 73
13rf0Lr -Afi
5TAD-d..? Z
Its
r't ua??
i 3C1"L 'N ?331S =1ili'.3ivcfif?
vF:) AREA A
_j 00-T
005 AC.=
A-? TQTAL
AFfr-=
ARr?A
7
v
DEM ID: 990036 CORPS ACTION ID: 199930434
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owner's NAME: NCDOT
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P 0 Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611-5201
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: David C. Robinson, P.E.
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Avery NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Newland
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge 65 on SR 1117 north of Newland.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: North Toe River
RIVER BASIN: French Broad
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
North Toe River is listed as a trout stream.
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): COE ACTION Id No. 199930434 was
received on March 5, 1999 and WQC 401 Project No. 990036 was
received on February 3, 1999.
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
N/A
V
2
.Y
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: N/A
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Building temporary causeways for the construction of the
proposed bridges using Class II rip rap.
Estimated impacts to the stream are .05 ha (.12 ac).
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): The proposed replacement of Bridge 65 over the North Toe River on
SR 1117 in Avery County. Temporary causeways are going to be built in
order to install drilled shafts to construct the new bridge. Road
construction equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To improve safety of the traveling
public by replacing the existing bridge, which received a low efficienc
rating of 46.8 out of 100. The existing bridge is well below the
standards for the carrying capacity for weight for single vehicles and
semi-tractor trailors.
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): N/A
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
f
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
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. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE

DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
_V
t
JAMES B. HUNT JP-
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 08, 1999

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 65 over North Toe River or.
SR 1117; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1117(2), State Project
No. 8.2720701, TIP No. B-2916.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information are copies of the programmatic categorical
exclusion (CE) action classification form and the natural resources technical report for the
subject project. The Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to replace Bridge No. 65
over North Toe River in Avery County on existing location. Bridge approaches will also
be improved. During bridge replacement, traffic will be maintained off-site along
existing secondary roads, as depicted in the programmatic CE. Based on the natural
resources technical report prepared for the DOT, the proposed bridge replacement will
not impact jurisdictional wetlands. Currently, Bridge No. 65 over North Toe River has a
let schedule of December 1999.
NCDOT has already received permission to conduct survey activities under
Section 404 Nationwide 6 from the Corps of Engineers (COE) on October 02, 1998
(Action ID. No. 199831112) and a 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of
Water Quality on September 1, 1997 (DWQ No. 980859) and written concurrence from
NCWRC on August 24, 1998.

The following environmental commitments have been implemented into the
referenced programmatic categorical exclusion (CE) action classification form that is
attached for your reference. Because the North Toe River is Hatchery Supported
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in addition to supporting some wild rainbow
and brown trout, the following will be implemented during construction:
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing fish
kills.
• Where possible, heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than in the
river channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the river.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation will be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long term erosion
control.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, the DOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit, but
proposes to proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330-Appendix-A (B-23) issued on December 13, -1596-by the Corps of Engineers. The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in
the construction of the project.
It is anticipated that a 401 Water Quality Certification for a Categorical Exclusion
will apply to this project. A copy of the CE and natural resources technical report are
being provided to the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
The DOT requests a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for impacts to waters of
the United States from the proposed bridge replacement. Application for 401 Water
Quality Certification from the DWQ is also made.
{
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jared Gray at [phone], extension 329.
Sincerely,
aL ps,
W. D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Wdg/j g
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2916
State Project No. 8.2720701
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1117(2)
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 65 on SR 1117 over the
North Toe River in Avery County. The new structure will be a bridge
34 meters (111 feet) long with a minimum clear deck width of 7.2 meters
(28 feet) including two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot)
offsets. The new bridge will be at the same location and elevation. Traffic
will be detoured on secondary roads during construction (see Figure 1).
There will be 91 meters (300 feet) of approach work to the east and 61 meters
(200 feet) to the west. The pavement'width will include two 3.3-meter (11-
foot) lanes and 1.2-meter (4-foot) grass shoulders. An additional 3 feet of
shoulder will be included where guardrail is required. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed should be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $555,000 including $500,000 in construction
costs, and $55,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-
2004 TIP is $355,000 including $325,000 in construction costs, and $30,000 in
right of way costs.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 65 has a sufficiency rating of 46.8 out of 100. The bridge is
posted at 21 tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers
which is well below standards. For these reasons, Bridge No. 65 needs to be
replaced.
r
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
2

O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
3
?i
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Strict adherence to Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included in the design and properly implemented during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States." An Army Corps of engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23 or General Regional Permit No. 31 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification must be obtained.
The North Toe River is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water
in addition to supporting some wild rainbow and brown trout. The following will be
implemented during construction:
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water. This
will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
• Where possible, heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than in the river
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing
other pollutants into the river.
• Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation will be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of the completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long term erosion
control.
Estimated Costs: Construction $ 500,000
Right of Way $ 55,000
Total $ 555,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 500 vehicles per day (VPD), Year 2020 - 900 VPD
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 11 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of this document.
Design Exceptions: A design exception is anticipated due to vertical alignment.
4
4 ?
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
17 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F-1 X
5
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? -
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? 17 X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F-1 X*
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? F-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? 1-1 X**
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? -
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? . 1-1 X
6

(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 1-7 X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? F X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? 1-1 X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl F-1 X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
*Comment on Question # 14: The ditch running along the side of the road on the southeast
quadrant of the bridge has been evaluated and determined not to be a tributary.
**Comment on Question # 16: NCDOT does not anticipate relocating the house on the
southwest corner of the bridge.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description :
B-2916
8.2720701
BRZ-1117(2)
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 65 on SR 1117 over the
North Toe River in Avery County. The new structure will be a bridge
34 meters (111 feet) long with a minimum clear deck width of 7.2 meters
(28 feet) including two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot)
offsets. The new bridge will be at the same location and elevation. Traffic
will be detoured on secondary roads during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
>s 30 -y8 c ' • 1,12?
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Date Proje t Planning Unit Head N CARp?
S/p'•
Date oject Planning Engineer = SEAL
022552
1??W
1? - 179
- 1168 Ganb," q
MP
\
AIU \ 1361
19E

J
1166 1161 194
13&'4
1167
• m
s
10 ?• R 1177 .6 1315
?
?' 1199 •
2
1205
?

C? c
1160
?

v
Q)
^
,
1/ . 13&4
32 p 1 162 1 1353 134,

i3 Min Paris 1 180 v 1 15 t.
? V
V
"? 1157
r 1 159 CD
1200
?

r

s

1185 '

- of

• /
C2 ,
-
?
1346

• ? 0
1137
' CO
1 158 115 t

,l I

?L
F I
?VaRw
' ` 8 ? ' l
1163
- ^?
Q 1
2 BIG HAW • \+
Q
a :N .
•9 = MOUNTAIN
'
' 1132 •6 ELEV. 4.P-. 1 1 17 l • 1
1135 1207. 1 ta1 1,55 '(073 1372
cep :? Fps 1139 cv Bridge No. 65
N. NEWLAND 134 137 0 ,
Frank D `• 141 POP. 638 - .1 .1
?-;7
1 193 b 1
81
1 17 54
• 9 -
_ y 1500

?

i .,

1 138 1182)
N
•?
`
1 1
3 .y
n

•
NHI-?
Cr ag .._- - . ?
.
1130
.7
'y 1140 rr?
?•?,'
1117 153

N

k 4k# 4%k 11* 4% 4%10 4k* 4k#

1138 1.
?

N
• S 1 152 9A
153 `

19 1150 r h
Mount
"" Peasant
l 1154 HAWSHORE
rL
,
ji
- MTN, 0 194
Imo. He tort 97 1117 1151
.Ozk
^
"k a S
a 1142
X1202
\2
?

ewl,nd °' ? 1.

„??? a 6
1206 2
• 115C
`

Y? . , w-.
# InFOR. I 1 STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
4 EAtemwt
al/
1
117 /

_,or
k" North Carolina
y r Department Of Transportation
.,, Planning & Environmental Branch
AVERY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 65 ON SR 1117
OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
B-2916
Q kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
11 1 Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

'rnJ _?o
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for Bridge #65 on SR 1117 over the North Toe River, Avery County,
TIP #B-2916.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the scoping sheets for
the subject project.
The North Toe River is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water at the project site
and also supports some wild rainbow and brown trout. We have the following recommendations regarding this
project:
1) We prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure. We do not believe that a
timing restriction would be necessary while installing a new spanning structure.
2) If a multi-cell reinforced concrete box culvert is the proposed replacement structure, then the structure
should be designed so that all water flows through one cell (or two if necessary) during low flows. This
will ensure that water depth through the structure is deep enough to allow fish passage. -In addition, no
instream work should take place between November 1 - April 15 to protect the spawning stages of trout.
3) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water. This will lessen the
chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
4) If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the river channel in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the river.
5) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground
disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.

O'w STATp o?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 6, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #65 on SR 1117 over North Toe
River, Avery County, B-2916, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1117(2), State Project 8.2720701,
ER 97-7096
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On July 17, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There *are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q33

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
GDavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett
t?Lp
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT) R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR CO. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
17 July 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Project Planning
FROM: Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETi' JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 65 on SR 1117 over North Toe River
in Avery County. TIP No. B-2916, State Project No.
8.2710701; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1117(2).
ATTENTION: John Williams, P.E., Project Manager
Project Planning
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and descriptions
of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses of probabh:
impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent
information on wetlands and federally-protected species is also provided, with respect to
regulatory concerns which must be considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or
need this report copied onto disk fonnat.
c: x"Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2916

REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 65 ON SR 1117
OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
AVERY COUNTY
TIP NO. B-2916
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2720701
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1117(2)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-2916
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
MATT K. SMITH, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
30 APRIL 1997
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ................................................:............................................................... 2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ................................................................................................ 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Soils .....................................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ............................................................................................................. 4
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .................................................................................. S
2.3.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... S
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics ....................................................................................... 5
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ........................................................................ 5
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers ...................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................ 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Biotic Communities ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Disturbed Community .................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.2 High elevation Red Oak Forest ................................................................................................... 8
3.1.4 Hlildlife ....................................................................................................................................... . 8
3.1.3 North Toe River Community ...................................................................................................... . 9
3.1.3.1 Riparian Habitats .................................................................................................................. 9
3.1.3.2 Aquatic Habitats .................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................ 10
3.2.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities ............................................................................................... 11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ........................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Waters of the United States .................................................................................................................12
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ........................................................................12
4 .1.3 Permits ..................................................................:.....................................................................12
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .........................................................................................13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ..................................................................................................................14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........................................................................................................14
4 .2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .................................................................21
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................24
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Watcr Resources and Physiography of the Rcgion
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area ................................................................................................ 4
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communitics .......................................................................10
Table 3. Federally Protected Spocics for Avery County .............................................................................14
Table 4. Federal species of concern for Avery County ...............................................................................23
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this is to
inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way
boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the
nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with
recommendations for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the
proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and effective
manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change, additional
field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project crosses the North Toe River 4.0 km (2.5 mi) west of the town of
Newland (Figure 1). The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 65 on SR 1117 over
the North Toe River in Avery County. The existing structure is 7.8 m (25.5 ft) wide and 32.3 m
(106.0 ft) long. The current right-of-way for this project is ditchline to ditchline and the
proposed right-of-way is 24 m (80 ft). Two alternatives are being considered for the project.
• Alternative 1: Replace the existing bridge with a 4 @ 3.1 m by 3.1 m (10.0 ft by 10.0 ft)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on existing location. Traffic will be detoured along
secondary roads during construction. Project length is approximately 76 m (250 ft).
• Altemative 2: Replace the existing bridge with a 4 @ 3.1 m by 3.1 m (10.0 ft by 10.0 ft)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on new location to the south of the existing bridge.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Project length is
approximately 252 m (825 ft).
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Newland).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
)U
N Y tt Cranberry -Z
HUMP 1301
TAIN 19E \
1 166 194 12 1167 1161 to
1177. 1315
4^? i
2 1205 •? 1190-
?
1160
C,. 1344
+ 1 32 v 1162 •?;' 1353 134;
r .
$ . v Min polls 1180 Q 115
1157 r 1.159 rn ?i
1200
t 1185 -?• I 1346 (D 1
(v
137 1~156 1 15 1 1 1' .
t; ?V•°Iby 1163 1 136 Q ?.. t. 2 BIG HAW `i
4 ?. 9 2 MOUNTAIN
1132 • 6 ELEV. 4.Fc'" t 1 17 l
t 135 1207 y t 1 °5
1 t a t {: ( 'al l .-- , 1372
N. ??? :? Fps in 1139 N Bridge No. 65 NEWLAND 1534 1370
Frank Chmftnd ` 141 y POP. 638 • \ 1 -
1193 p 1 81 117 F ?O 1547
•--• - ,v.y 1500
9 •?
y r 3. 2 1 182 cv ,? :y
Cie h 1 138 •? 1 1 ,?
try Q., • 1 153 Monte=
U
?'• ?, ; t 1 17 .15
1 130 • 7 1 1 t y 1140
1138
vo `
1152
N • S 153 -
"•, - v; 1150
.? 19 p, H
Mount 1154 HAWSHORE
f+; Pleasant ti M TN. D
194
O
Y\ 1117 ?` O 1151
` Imo. H. to 4 M 97
?? ' S n 1
\-
. r P 1 la i vlx2^
n 6
..7 1206 ,L
1150
19E ewbe0 JI. v
1147
A t?R Yr a •N
P.molr _ 119 h '7
r I. FOR 4
? r 0tnnont 1 1 ds / r
r •D `
.1117
-A #'
1 1 North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Emironmental Branch
AVERY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 65 ON SR 1117
OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
B-2916
i kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

2
• USDA Soil Conservation Service (currently known as Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Soil Survey of Avery County) North Carolina (1955).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps
of Avery County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the FWS
list of protected and candidate species (02 May 1997) and from the N. C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed
for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of significant
natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biologists Matt Smith, Marc Recktenwald, and Dale Suiter on 9 April 1997.
Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial
community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and
plant taxonomy follows Radford, el al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities
were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife
community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing
vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation
techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching,
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys
of aquatic organisms were conducted and tactile searches for benthic organisms were
administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then
released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory,
1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of
Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme
of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined
as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region"
denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map, i.e. [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].
3
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Education: BS Marine Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 12/94.
Certification: N.C. Certified Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator.
Experience: Laboratory Technician, Takeda Chemical Products.
Lepidoptera researcher, USDA Forest Service.
Expertise: Native Lepidoptera collection, field biological inventories,
water quality testing.
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly
influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction
limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important
management limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential
for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities
can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Avery County lies in -the Grandfather Mountain Window of the Mountain Physiographic
Province of North Carolina (Figure 2). Topography in the vicinity of the study area is composed
of steep slopes and wide floodplains along streams. Project elevations average 1080 in (3540 ft)
above mean sea level. Soils of uplands in the project region have developed in place from
material weathered from biotite and granitic gneiss. Soils of stream bottoms and floodplains are
formed from unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and rock fragments.
2.2 Soils
Soils located in the project area are of the Wedowee-Louisburg-Pacolet Association. An
inventory of the specific soil types which occur in the project area can be found in Table 1. A
brief description of each soil type is also provided.
r'-_?/ - ?? '+ J`?-r'?3800 1 ??1• ?cJgf,?\%?, /?`/ = N
Dy.
-C'.a `?'•?.' - - -- •? /.. ?_ ^~ w > C
ICU' 0 0 U)
_ _ .?:-• ?•`••? --.'!• X11.1,1 rte' I ''''\• O Q = Q () O 4>7
` ..dLt D.7-? -ti CL.? ' ??:h,-:I 1 • ?... ' -Da,
1 .1// V a LL O
IL 0
CD a)
• .rte ,- - • _ ^ v/ J' 1 _ n r (?? - `? m Z ,T
b4
.. -- - ? ...i w-•r ?: '\ ?• ?j'? \ ice. _ ?? . - _ ? rL _ ? . _ _ ^.? v "?
t'Fe•1 i/.,, ^?.?t- - /ti's •" ?1/ ?.
;'-*'' _ .-?: ,? 11' \??? ^J _ • ? •'? Jai : r?'
_? \: '?, - '- '_\\,?.• ` ' '(?''.'4,` .? IIC =vim``. tln. •?-?... - _ ??'?t.,?1J
01
? ''1_`»- 1. t: ?• _ - _ t' - 1' - "-?m.3???i: I?.\.:?:?: Aallk?i;??o` - ?
:; ,(' I, •- 1y J_ ? ( - ? ?/ J? ? pax
4
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area
1
i]1L:: EG1f1?:rMa >[??>z><'::Ez'€z?;;: . ?`
97E Unaka gravelly loam, very stony 25-50
98E Porters loam, stony 25-50
Porters loam, stony are steep, deep, well drained soils on uplands. These soils have a loamy
surface layer and subsoil. Bedrock in these areas is within 150 cm (60 in) of the surface.
The permeability is moderately rapid and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high
water table is below 3.8 m (6.0 f3).
Unaka gravelly loam, very stony are steep, moderately deep, well drained soils on ridges and
mountain slopes. Surface layers and subsoil is loam. Bedrock in these areas is within a
depth of 12 cm (40 in). This soil has moderate permeability and low shrink-swell potential.
The seasonal high water table is below 3.8 m (6.0 f3).
No mapped soils that are listed as hydric soils or soils that are known to contain
inclusions of hydric soils are found in the study area
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along
with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Nolichucky River Watershed
(Subbasin # 04-03-06) of the French Broad River Drainage Basin.. SR 1117 crosses one
perennial stream the North Toe River (Figure 2). Construction of alternate 2 will necessitate the
construction of a crossing of the North Toe River on new location.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality
conditions and potential resource usage. The North Toe River [DEM Index No. 7-2-(0.5),
8/3/92] is classified as "WS-III Tr". WS-III (Water Supplies III) refers to those waters
protected as water supplies which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds;
suitable for all Class C uses. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Tr (Trout water) is a
supplemental water classification including waters suitable for natural trout propagation and
maintenance of stocked trout. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project study area
5
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The North Toe River at SR 1117 is approximately 15 m (50 ft) wide and ranges in depth
from 0.3-0.6 m (1.0-2.0 ft). The substrate in the study area is composed of sand, silt, gravel, and
cobble. Large boulders and exposed bedrock are interspersed throughout the stream and create
calm pools and swift runs. Downstream of the existing bridge stream terraces have been
constructed in the stream channel. Terraces alter the natural flow of the stream by increasing
depth, stabilizing flow, and eliminating microhabitats. Most of the streams natural riparian
canopy has been removed and is currently maintained as a lawn. Remnants of the riparian
canopy were observed immediately downstream of SR 1117.
23.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and
nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published
resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight
into the value of water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide
habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
A single registered point source discharger (Newland WWTP) is located upstream of the
town of Ingalls (the nearest industrialized area). Much of the remaining land in this watershed is
undeveloped and nearly half lies within the Pisgah National Forest. Overall, the water quality in
this watershed is extremely good. Potential sources of nonpoint source pollution include
Christmas tree farming and abandoned mining operations. This has resulted in sedimentation
problems in the upper North Toe River (DEM, 1994). To a lesser degree discharge from septic
tanks may be a factor.
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Nehvork
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the DWQ, is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions.
Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index
value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each
collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index
and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. Data collected from BMAN
6
sampling sites on the North Toe River in the vicinity of the proposed project can be found in
Table 2.
Table 2. BMAN data for the North Toe River and project vicini
N. Toe @ Ingalls (US 19E) 8/84 26 km (16 mi) 36 Good normal
@ Ingalls 8/85 35 Good high
@ Ingalls 8/87 38 Good low
@ Ingalls 8/88 34 Good low
@ Ingalls 8/89 34 Good high
@ Ingalls 7/92 41 Good normal
N. Toe #1 (US 19E) 9/85 22 km (14 mi) 35 Good
N. Toe #1 7/92 42 Good --
The sample sites recorded downstream of the study area closely represent water quality
conditions in the study area, since the watershed is mostly undeveloped. Sources of point source
and nonpoint source pollution are rare in the project vicinity. During years with high flow lower
EPT values were recorded. This is likely due to moderate amounts of sedimentation that cause
scour during high flow events (1994). The consistently good classifications show that water
quality in the watershed is stable.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DEM.
All dischargers are required to register for a permit. The DWQ NPDES report lists one
permitted discharger into the North Toe River within 8 km (5 mi) of SR 1117. The Town of
Newland WWTP (Permit # NC0021857) is located 0.1 km (0.2 mi) upstream of the proposed
project. This plant is permitted to discharge up to 2.16 MGD.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and
pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface
water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
7
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during
the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream
activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the
biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna
and flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present
land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk
M.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define. Three distinct communities
were identified within the project area: Disturbed, High Elevation Red Oak Forest; and the
North Toe River. Two separate components of the North Toe River are described: the riparian
and aquatic components.
8
3.1.1 Disturbed
The disturbed community includes residential lawns, roadside shoulders, bridge
approaches, and a small Christmas tree farm. Diversity in this community is low compared to
surrounding communities since much of it is maintained in a early successional state through
mowing and herbicide application. Several species of native and non native species were
observed in this community that had been planted .as part of an ornamental landscape. Common
cultivated shrubs and trees are weeping willow (Salix babylonica), blue spruce (Picea pungens),
great laurel (Rhododendron maximum), forsythia (Forsythia sp.), and dwarf Alberta spruce ().
A cultivated stand. of frasier fir(Abies fraseri) with maintained ground cover of fescue (Festuca
sp.) is also present in the study area. Residential lawns and roadside shoulders are dominated by
grasses and perennial herbs that are low growing and hardy. Common species observed in these
habitats are: dandelion (Taraxacum offrcinale), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Carolina
geranium (Geranium carolinianum), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria sp.),
fescue (Festuca sp.), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), and glecoma (Glecoma hederacea).
3.1.2 High elevation Red Oak Forest
This community includes all forested areas of the study area. Portions of this community
located within the proposed right-of-way, have experienced some form of disturbance, allowing
for colonization by atypical species. The canopy in this community is composed of mature
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red oak (Quercus rubra), scarlet oak (Q. Coccinea), and
red maple (Acer ruby un). An understory that includes saplings of canopy species, great laurel,
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), ironwood (Carpirms caroliniana), and buckeye (Aesculus
octandra) is also present. Ground cover in this community contains a variety of herbs and fems
including: birdfoot violet (Yola pedata), yellow violet (Viola rotundifolia), windflower
(Anemone sp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), possum grape (Ytis vulpina), blue
cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale), beech drops (Epiphagus
grandifolia), and golden alexander (Taenidia integerrima).
3.1.4 Wildlife
The disturbed community provides foraging opportunities for many species, both
herbivores and carnivores. The majority of those species that forage in disturbed communities
utilize forested communities as shelter. Species that are commonly observed in disturbed
communities in the high mountains of North Carolina are eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquasicus), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striasus), woodchuck (Marniota monax), woodland vole (Microns
pinetor un), gray fox (Yulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon losor), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), American robin* (Turdus migrasorius), turkey vulture (Catharses aura), and northern
cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Forested communities offer a greater diversity of habitats than do disturbed communities
and also provide habitat for interior species. Interior species are those species that require a
9
minimum area of a particular habitat type to survive. Fauna typical found in high elevation red
oak forests and less frequently the disturbed community that borders it are American toad (Bufo
americanus), gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), box turtle
(Terapene carolina), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), five lined skink (E. fasciatus), worm
snake (Carphophis. amoenus), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), northern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus), white-tailed deer (Odocoleus virginianus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
white-eyed vireo* (Vireo griseus), and northern junco (Junco hyenralis).
3.1.3 North Toe River
The community that is defined by the North Toe River is composed of riparian and
aquatic habitats. These two types of habitats are separated here for convenience of description.
Boundaries between aquatic and riparian habitats are frequently ill-defined and many common
species will exploit both habitat types at some point in their life history.
3.1.3.1 Riparian Habitats
The riparian community is found along the banks and the narrow floodplain of the North
Toe River. Much of the canopy in this community has been removed, thus many atypical species
were observed along the stream banks. The remnant canopy is dominated by yellow birch
(Betula alleghaniensis). Other areas that appear to be mowed frequently contain bee-balm
(Monarda didyma), bittercress (Cardamine sp.), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), yellow root
(Xanthorhiza simplicissima), jewel weed (Impatiens carpensis), birdfoot violet, curly dock
(Rumex crispus), winter cress (Barbarea vulgaris), chickweed (Stellaria sp.), soft rush (Juncos
effiisus), wood rush (Luzula multiflora), bluets (Houstonia sp.), golden ragwort (Senecio
aoreus), cutleaf toothwort (Denlaria diphylla), 'knot weed (Polygonum cuspidatum), and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Habitats found in riparian communities provide shelter for species that are primarily
terrestrial, but feed on aquatic organisms. Seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola) and
mountain dusky salamander (D. ochrophaeus) can be found under rocks and logs near streams.
Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) is commonly observed perched in overhanging branches
and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos)* nest in grassy streambanks. Queen snake (Regina
septemvittata) and northern watersnake (Nerodia sipedon) can be seen sunning on rocky
streambanks. Streambanks are often riddled with mammal runs, usually formed by muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus). Other small mammals can be observed in this community include smoky
shrew (Sorex fumeus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and hispid cottonrat
(Sigmodon hispidus).
10
3.1.3.2 Aquatic Habitats
Species described in this section are limited to those that spend their entire lives in the
aquatic environment. Those species that return to water to reproduce are included with the
community that they occupy as adults. Many aquatic species serve as a food source for species
found in the riparian community and to a lesser extent in upland communities. Habitats found in
the North Toe River are composed of deep rocky runs and deeper pools. Habitat diversity in the
study area is low as a result of the placement of several dams immediately downstream of the
study area. Blackbelly salamander (D. quadra?naculatus) and shovelnose salamander
(Leurognathus marmoratus) can be found under rocks in shallow riffles zones. Piscine species
potentially found in the study area are: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout
(Salmo trutla), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), river chub (Nocomis micropogon),
whitetail shiner (Notropis galacturus), Tennessee shiner (Notropis leuciodus), longnose dace
(Rhinichthys cataractae), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis aurutus), smallmouth bass (Microplerus
dolomieui), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to
minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 2
summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths described
in section 1. 1, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft). However, project
construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Disturbed 0.08 (0.20) 0.37 (0.92)
High Elevation Red Oak Forest 0.06 (0.14) 0.16 (0.39)
Riparian 0.01 (0.032) 0.02 (0.040)
Total Impacts 0.15 (0.37) 0.55 (1.4)
11
From a natural resources standpoint Alternative 1 is preferable because it will result in
fewer impacts. As the construciton of this alternate will minimize impacts to natural
communities. The projected loss of habitat resulting from construction of alternate 1 will have a
minimal impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Although the impacted natural
communities are valuable as wildlife habitat, only a small area of the undisturbed community
will be impacted. Construction will primarily impact the disturbed community which is already
highly altered from its natural state. Plants and animals found in this community are generally
common throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in disturbed areas.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable
habitat following project completion. Narrow zones along the edge of the forested community
will be impacted by project construction. By reducing the overall areas of forested tracts, the
amount of suitable habitat for interier species is reduced. Thus increasing opportunities for edge
species. Interier species are those that require .... If forested tracts become too small in area
interior species will not repopulate.
3.22 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of the North Toe River will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 65. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has
a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the
overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the
following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the burial of
benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances and
decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertibrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment
load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instrea n construction, revegetation immediately following the completion of
grading activities, and strict adherence to BMP's.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues
retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate their
12
protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory
authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action
that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls. under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the
growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands were identified in the study area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the
stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way. Physical aspects of surface waters are
described in section 2.3.1. The North Toe River is the only jurisdictional surface water located
in the study area. An area of approximately 1220 m2 (4000 f12) and a length of 24 linear m (80
linear f3) of the North Toe River will be impacted by the proposed project. In order to minimize
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters Alternate 1 is the preferred alternative.
411.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a
result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined the
pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
13
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in
a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Since, the proposed project crosses waters designated as Trout Waters, the authorization of a
Section 404 Nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon concurrence of the WRC.
4.L4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, rirght-of-
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
14
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide
Permits that result in the fill or alteration of
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 45.7 in (150.0 linear ft) of streams will require compensatory
mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.2.1 FederallkNotected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 02 May
1997, the FWS lists ten federally protected species for Avery County. A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding
potential project impacts follows Table 3.
Table 3. Federally Protected
bog turtle
Virginia big-eared bat
peregrine falcon
Carolina northern flying squirrel
ies for A
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Plecolus lownsendii virginiarats
Falco peregrimts
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Proposed T(S/A)
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
spruce-fir moss spider Microhezura montivaga Endangered
spreading avens Getan radialum Endangered
Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia niontana Endangered
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Blue Ridge goldenrod Solidago spithamaea Threatened
rock enome lichen Gvmnodernta lineare Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
15
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "Proposed T (S/A)" denotes a species that is proposed for official listing as threatened due to
similarity of appearance to other rare species.
Clemmys muhlenburgii (bog turtle) Proposed T (S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: 01 May 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in)
in length. It has a dark brown carapace and black plastron. The orange or yellow blotch on
each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. It inhabits damp
grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In June
or July three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in
about fifty five days. (Bernard S. Martof, et. al., 1980).
The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to similarity of Appearance with
other rare species that are listed for protection. Species listed as T (S/A) are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus (Virginia big-eared bat) Endangered
Family: Vespertilionidae
Date Listed: 30 October 1979
Corynorhinus lowmsendii is widespread throughout the western United States and the
eastern subspecies only exists in a few fragmented populations. These populations are found in
caves near the Potomac River in eastern West Virginia, Tazwell County, Virginia, and Lee
County, Kentucky. It was not observed in North Carolina until the early'80's, when small
populations were discovered in Avery and Watauga counties.
The Virginia big-eared bat is most easily identified by large ears (more than 2.5 cm) and
large glandular masses on its muzzle. The ears are held erect when the bat is awake and are
curled around the head when it is hibemating or at its summer roost. This bat has an overall
length of 92- 112 mm and weighs from 9-12 grams. The Virginia big-eared bat has long, soft
fur that is brown in color and darker on the dorsal side. The hair on the feet does not extend
beyond the toes.
Virginia big-eared bats are permanent residents of caves in oak-hickory forests and
mines. Hibernating colonies are typically located in deep cave passage ways that have stable
temperatures and air movement. Temperature in these hibemacula average (6-12 C), lower than
that tolerated by most other bats. Maternity colonies are formed in warm caves in the spring.
16
This species is nocturnal and feeds on moths, beetles, and other insects. Bats mate in the
fall and winter and a single young is bom in June. The young grow rapidly and reach adult
within a single month, with females becoming reproductively active by the following fall.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of caves or abandoned mine shafts is not found in the study
area. The potential existings for this species to utilize the riparian habitats in the study area for
foraging, hoever, constuction of the proposed project will not limit foraging opportunities for this
species. No records for this species were found in the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project will not affect the Virginia big-
eared bat.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) Endangered
Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 20 March 1984
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back and its underside is lighter,
barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that extends
below the eye forming a distinct helmet. Immature peregrine falcons have dark-brownish backs
and heavily streaked underparts. The peregrine falcon has pointed wings in flight, a common
characteristic among falcons. The peregrine falcon is roughly the size of a crow, between 41-51
cm long and 91-112 cm wide. In this species the female is roughly 25% larger than the male.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with high
cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but
they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and
bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals
as large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium
sized birds such as pigeons. Peregrine falcons are at the top of their food chain and are therefore
extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as DDT.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The landscape surrounding the proposed project does not include high cliffs, nor do the
forested communities present contain large dead trees. Since, these features are not present in
the study area,suitable nesting sites for the peregrine falcon are not present in the study area.
The roadsides and open streambanks could potentially be utilized by the falcon for foraging;
however, these communities are anticipated to be reestablished prior to project completion. The
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no recorded occurrences of this
species in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction of the proposed project will not affect the
peregrine falcon.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloralrrs (northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Family: Sciurdiae
17
Date Listed: 1 July 1985
Populations of the northern flying squirrel are stable throughout most of its range. After
the Pleistocene Epoch glaciations this species underwent speciation in the southern part of its
range resulting in the coloratus and fuscus subspecies. Populations of coloralus are considered
to be isolated relicts and have a patchy distribution in the southern Appalachian Mountains.
Known populations occur at Grandfather Mountain, Mt. Mitchell, the Great Balsam Mountains,
the Plott Balsam Mountains, the Great Smokey Mountains (Jackson and Swain Counties), the
Unicoi Mountains, and the Long Hope Valley area.
The northern flying squirrel is a small gliding rodent, measuring from 26-31 cm in total
length and weighing from 95-140 gm. This squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along
either side of its body, this flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the
rear. The skin flaps and broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree
to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes. Juvenile squirrels have a uniform
dark gray back and an off-white underside. Adult squirrels are characteristically gray with a
brownish, tan, or reddish wash on the back, and a grayish-white to buffy white underside.
This squirrel is found in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous
forests, above 1517 meters (5000 ft). Foraging occurs in both communities with nesting only
occuring in the Hardwood Community type. Northern flying squirrels feed on lichens, fungi,
seeds, buds, fruit, staminate cones, insects, and animal flesh. Winter shelters are found in tree
cavities, woodpecker holes. Leaf nests are most commonly occupied in the summer. The inside
of their nests is lined with lichens, moss, or finely chewed bark. A West Virginia study has
preliminary results that show the use of burrows by northern flying squirrels.
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Elevations in the study area [1080 in (3540 ft] are inadequate to support the transitional
zone between hardwood and high elevation coniferous forests that this species requires. The
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no records of this species for the
project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to this species will result from project construction.
Microhexura montivaga (spruce-fir moss spider) Endangered
Family: Dipluridae
Date Listed: 27 January 1994
The spruce-fir moss spider is the northern most representative of the family Dipluridae
(Tarantulas). It is also one of the smallest spiders in this primitive group, 3.0-5.6 mm (0.25-0.45
in). Coloration ranges from light brown to dark reddish brown, with no abdominal markings.
Field identification characteristics include a pair of very long posterior spinnerets and the
presence of a second pair of book lungs, which appear as light patches postier to the genital
furrow. Males of the species mature during September and October, and females are known to
lay eggs in June. The egg sac usually contains between seven to nine eggs. The life span of
these spiders is unknown although it has been estimated that maturity may take four years.
18
. The spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders. These mats are found in well-shaded areas of mature, high elevation (> 1524
m/5000 $) spruce-fir forests. This species is currently known from only four populations one in
Tennessee, one in Avery/Caldwell County, and two in Swain County. Individuals are very
sensitive to desiccation and require constant high humidity. Constant high humidity helps to
maintain the necessary level of moisture in the moss mats, neither parched nor saturated. The
spider constructs its tube-shaped webs in the interface between the moss mat and the rock
surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the interior of the moss mat. No prey has
been found in the webs, but the probable prey for the spruce-fir moss spider is the abundant
springtails found in moss mats.
The continued existence of the spruce-fir moss spider is related directly to habitat
loss/alteration of the spruce-fir forest from air pollution and exotic insect pests, particularly the
balsam wooly adelgid. The loss and reduction of the forest canopy results in localized changes
in microclimate, including increased temperatures, increased light and decreased moisture on the
forest floor. These alterations of the microclimate lead to desiccation of the moss mats on which
the spider and, possibly its prey base, depend for survival.
Biological conclusion: No Effect
Elevations in the study area [1080 m (3540 $)] are to low to support suitable habitat for
the spruce-fir moss spider. The NIP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no
records of this species in the project vicinity. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project
will not impact the spruce-fir moss spider.
Geum radialum (spreading avens) Endangered
Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 5 April 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
This species is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been extirpated and
populations in any other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 2-5
decimeters. The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical
flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much
larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent. Leaflets have lobed or uneven
margins and are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves are smaller than the basal, rounded to
obovate, with irregularly cut margins. Fruits are hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that
are 7-9 mm in diameter.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and
ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of 1535-1541
meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747 meters (5680-5760 feet) and 1759 meters (5800 feet).
Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. The
19
spreading avers is found in soils composed of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and
humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat in the form of high mountain rocky outcrops occur in the study area
Also, project elevations [1080 m (3540 ft)] are to low to support the suitable habitat for this
species. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no recorded
occurrences of this species in the project vicinity.
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana (Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: 5 April 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana is known historically from seven populations in the
southern Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. These populations of
Hedyotis purpurea- var. montana are threatened by land use as well as natural succession.
This perennial species is shallow rooted and grows in low tufts 1 to 2 dm tall. The
median cauline leaves are 1 to 3 centimeters long. It has several bright purple flowers arranged
in a terminal cyme. The seed capsule quickly follows the flowers which form in July and early
August.
This plant can be found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the
gravelly talus associated with cliffs. It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full sunlight and
in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Elevations in the study area [1080 m (3540 ft)] are too low to support suitable habitat for
this species and no rocky cliffs occur in the study area The NHP database of rare species and
unique habitats contains no records of this species in the project vicinity. Therefore, the
construction of the proposed project will not impact the Roan Mountain bluet.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 19 November 1987
Flowers Present: late June - August
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue
Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Of nine historic populations only seven remain in existence.
Heller's blazing star is a short stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise
from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are accuminate and diminish in size and
breadth upward on the stem. Stems are 4 dm tall and are topped with a raceme of small (7-20
cm) lavender flowers. Fruits are present from September to November.
20
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can be found growing on high
elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It prefers
shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Elevations in the study area [1080 in (3540 f3)] are too low to support suitable habitat for
this species and no rocky outcrops are found in the study area. The NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats contains no records of this species in the project vicinity. Therefore,
the construction of the proposed project will not impact Heller's blazing star.
Solidago spithamaea (Blue-Ridge goldenrod) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 28 March 1985
Flowers Present: mid July, - August
The Blue-Ridge goldenrod is found only on high mountain peaks in North Carolina and
Tennessee.
This perennial herb has an erect 10 cm to 20 cm stem that grows from a short stout
rhizome. The stem is terete and longitudinally striate, and greenish-brown proximally. It
becomes more strongly ribbed and reddish distally, and is usually covered with whitish hairs.
The stem is generally unbranched below the flower. The oblanceolate and spatulate leaves are
acute with the offshoot and basal stem leaves being the largest and longest. The broad portions
of the leaves are ascending-serrate and the bases are long-attenuate. Stem leaves are reduced
and more sessile as they approach the top of the stem. The yellow flowers are bome in heads
arranged in a corymbiform inflorescence.
The Blue Ridge goldenrod inhabits rock outcrops, ledges, cliffs, and balds at elevations
above 1400 meters. It grows in humus or clay loams on igneous and metasedimentary rock.
Sites are usually exposed to full sun and have shallow acidic (pH 4) soils. Ideal sites are
intermittently saturated but excessively to moderately poorly drained.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Elevations in the study area [1080 m (3540 f3)] are to low to support suitable habitat for
this species and no habitats such as, balds, cliffs, ledges, or rocky outcrops are found in the study
area. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no records of this species
in the project vicinity. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project will not impact the
Blue Ridge goldenrod.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) Endangered
Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: 28 December 1994
Y
21
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This lichen is
a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments occur
on high elevation (> 1220 m/ 4000 f3) mountaintops and cliff faces which are frequently bathed
in fog or lower elevation (< 762 m/ 2500 f3) deep gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The
rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils
above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found
growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The high elevation habitat
occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell,
Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome
lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania.
The terminal portions of the rock gnome lichen resemble strap-like lobes, having a blue-
gray color on the upper surface and generally a shiny-white color on the lower surface. The
color of the fungi near the base is black. The squamules are nearly parallel to the rock surface
and are generally 1 to 2 centimeters in length. The fruiting bodies are born singly or in clusters,
black in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome
lichen occurs from July through September. The primary means of propagation appears to be
asexual, with colonies spreading clonally.
The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. The thinning and death of these forest occurs
from exotic insect pests, trampling of hikers and associated soil erosion and compaction from
hikers. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome
lichen. Drastic changes in microclimate (including increased temperatures and decreased
moisture) result from the impacts to these forests. These alterations of the microclimate lead to
the desiccation of the rock gnome lichen.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Elevations in the study area [1080 m (3540 ft)] are to low to support suitable habitat for
this species and no habitats such as, balds or cliffs are found in the study area The NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats contains no records of this species in the project
vicinity. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project will not impact the rock gnome
lichen.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are twenty-three federal species of concern listed by the FWS for Avery County
(Table 4). Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species
is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern
(FSC) are defined as a species which is under consideration for listing for which there is
insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
22
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
23
Table 4. Federal species of concern for A
hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis SC YES
southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis SC NO
eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii SC YES
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister SC YES
southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulus SC YES
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus -- YES
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus E NO
Grayson crayfish ostracod Ascetocythere cosmeta -- YES
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana -- YES
Regal fritillary butterfly Speyeria idalia -- YES
Faser fir Abies fraseri -- NO
Roan false goat's beard Astilbe crenatiloba -- NO
mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis =- YES
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii -- YES
bent avens Geum geniculatum T YES
butternut Juglans cinerea -- YES
Gray's filly Lilium grayi T-SC NO
bog bluegrass Poa paludigena E NO
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana -- NO
a liverwort Bazzania nuducaulis -- NO
a liverwort Plagiochila.sullivaniii var. sullivaniii -- NO
a liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana -- NO
a liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii -- NO
NOTE: NC Status
• "E" (Endangered) any native or once native species whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's fauna is determined by the WRC to be in jeopardy, or one that is
determined to be an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "SC" (Special Concern) any native or once native species which is determined by the WRC
to require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the
provisions of this Article.
• "T' (Threatened) any native or once-native species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act.
A review of the NBP data base of rare species and unique habitats shows an occurrence
of Manhart's sedge in the study area Fraser fir was identified in the study area. Individuals
observed are part of a stand that is being cultivated for Christmas trees. Fraser firs grown under
these environmental conditions do not provide suitable habitat for the lichens Bazzania
nuducaulis and Sphenolobopsis pearsoni. Surveys for FSC species were not conducted during
the site visit.
24
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh,
N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical report Y-87- 1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh,.
N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality
Review 1983-1986. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams:
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality,
1983-1990. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
N.C.
• , Y
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River
Basins. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
e ? I
I
25
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and
Candidate Plant Species. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Raleigh, N.C.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA, 1946. Soil Survey of Avery County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.