20211041_Complete File_20020330

i i

v WERMS GMQ,;-'
Natural Resources Technical Repo`r " C-4
Of No RTN\R
O

v
`2
?FNT SQ??
OF TRAM
?S070Z
tp2 2 j
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 273 c
Over Big Horse Creek
Ashe County, North Carolina
State Project NO. 8.2712501
NCDOT TIP NO. B-4016
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 273 ON SR 1347
OVER BIG HORSE CREEK
ASHE COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. B-4016
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2712501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ -1347(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4016
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BY:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
March 12, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................1-1
1.2 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. .1-1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... .1-1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR .......................................... .1-2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ..................................... ................................................................... . 1-3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... . 2-1
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS .............................................................................. . 2-1
2.2 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................... . 2-1
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics ............................................................... . 2-2
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ................................................. . 2-3
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... . 3-1
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................... . 3-1
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community ............................................................. . 3-1
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .................................................................................... . 3-2
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ............. . 3-2
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................. 3-2
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ................................................................................. 3-3
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: JURISDICIONAL ISSUES ........................ 4-1
4.2 PERMITS ................................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition ....................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Mitigation ...................................................................................................4-2
4.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................... .. 4-3
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species .................................................................... .. 4-4
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern .................................................................... 4-10
4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................. 4-12
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... ..5-1
TABLES
Table 4.3.1 - Federally Protected Species for Ashe County ...................................................... 4-4
Table 4.3.2 - Federal Species of Concern for Ashe County ..................................................... 4-10
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1.1 - Project Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................1-4
Exhibit 1.1.2 - Project Study Area ...............................................................................................1-5
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Photographic Record
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 273 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1347
in Ashe County, North Carolina (Exhibit 1.1.1).
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory and describe the various natural resources 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 that will
minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular concern that 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. It may
become necessary to conduct additional field investigations should design parameters and/or
criteria change.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) provided aerial photography detailing
the proposed project study area (Exhibit 1.1.2). Within the proposed project study area, two distinct
areas (A and B) are shown. Prior to the field investigation published resource information pertaining
to the project study area was gathered and reviewed. The information sources used to prepare this
report include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Warrensville);
1-1
• Soil Survey of Ashe County, North Carolina (1985);
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map;
• USFWS list of protected species (March 22, 2001);
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (January 2001);
• NCDOT aerial photography of the project study area (1:100); and,
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) water resource data.
A general field survey was conducted within the project study area on July 25, 2001. Water
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy
follows Radford, et al. (1968). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography
of the project site. Wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques including active
searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows). Cursory surveys for aquatic organisms, including tactile
searches for benthic macroinvertebrates, were performed as well.
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Michael P. Eagan
Education: Bachelor of Science Biology, University of South Florida
Prescribed Fire Boss: Florida Division of Forestry No. 19982847
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Stantec, Raleigh, NC, October 2000 to present.
Land Management Specialist, Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Brooksville, FL, 1999 to 2000.
Ecologist, Biological Research Associates, Inc., Tampa, FL, 1991 to 1999.
Expertise: Threatened and Endangered species surveys, natural community
assessment, mapping and management, wetland mitigation design and
monitoring.
1-2
1.5 DEFINITIONS
Definitions used in this report for area descriptions are as follows:
• Project study area - denotes the potential construction area;
• Project vicinity - includes an area extending 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) on all sides of the project
study area;
• Project region - equals an area represented by a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute quadrangle map with the project study area occupying the central position.
1-3

^i
K I

Lr •- ?L? 8813.
' o c , 4 ."'"ice ism

/
1
1 A I

%
1
my ,
Ashe County
'' . North Carolina
Department of Transportation
k ?ivO
SR 1347
Replace Bridge No. 273
over Big Horse Creek
B-4016
Ashe County, North Carolina
Project Vicinity
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.1.1
r

US Geological Survey April 8, 1994
Legend
Maintained-Disturbed Community
Aquatic
- - - Project Study Area
SR 1347
Replace Bridge No. 273
over Big Rase Creek
B•4016
Ache Canty, North Carolina
Project Study Area
North Carolina
4 Department of Transportation
Not to Scale
Exhibit 1.1.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. The topography of the
project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping banks along the
major streams. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 2,640 to 3,200 feet (805
to 975 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project study area varies from
approximately 2,640 to 2,680 feet (805 to 817 meters) above msl.
According to the general soil map for Ashe County (USDA, 1985), the project study area is found
within the Edneyville-Ashe soil association. The soils in this association are described as
moderately steep to very steep, well-drained soils that have a loamy subsoil and are found on
uplands at elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet (914 to 1,219 meters). Soil series found within the
project study area are described below.
Colvard fine sandy loam is mapped along the creek. This soil is a nearly level, well-drained soil
found along the major streams in the county. Permeability is moderately rapid and surface runoff
is slow. The seasonal high water table is below a depth of 48 inches. This soil is subject to
occasional flooding for very brief periods. This mapping unit is not listed on the hydric soils list.
Asheville gravelly fine sandy loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes, is mapped adjacent to the Colvard loam.
This soil is a somewhat excessively drained soil found on side slopes. Permeability is moderately
rapid. Surface runoff is very rapid and the hazard of erosion is very severe on bare and exposed
areas. The depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 40 inches (51 to 102 centimeters). This mapping
unit is not listed on the hydric soils list.
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
The proposed project falls within the New River Basin, with a subbasin designation of 05-07-02.
Waters within the project study area include Big Horse Creek.
2-1
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Big Horse Creek flows south through the proposed project study area with a width of approximately
41 feet (12.5 meters). The flow was moderate on the day of the field investigation. The substrate
consisted of cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt. The depth of the water ranged from a few inches in the
riffles to over two feet (0.6 meters) in the pools. A sand bar was located on the downstream side
of the bridge.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) [formerly the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)], which reflects water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. Within the project study area, the classification for
Big Horse Creek (Index No. 10-2-21-(7), 2/1/93) is "C +". Class "C" waters are suitable for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture.
The "+" symbol identifies waters subject to a special management strategy in order to protect
downstream waters that are designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies. (WS-I: undeveloped
watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), or ORW occur within one mile (1.6
kilometers) downstream of the project study area.
Point sources, such as wastewater discharges, located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. One NPDES
permitted site is located within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area. The Town of
Lansing Wastewater Treatment Plant (N00066028) is located just south (downstream) of the study
area. The facility is permitted to discharge municipal wastewater.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no defined
point of discharge. Stormwater runoff from SR 1347 and the surrounding residential properties may
reach Big Horse Creek and cause water quality degradation through the addition of fertilizers, oil
or gas residuals, particulate rubber, or other sources of contamination.
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are
J
2-2

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. Stream and
river reaches are assigned a final bioclassification of Excellent, Good, Good/Fair, Fair, or Poor.
According to the information obtained from the New River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan (NCDENR, 2000), the DWQ does not have a sampling station in the project study area. The
closest sampling station on Big Horse Creek is located at NC 194 approximately 1.5 miles (4.8
kilometers) downstream of the project site. This station was last sampled in August 1998 and
received a rating of Excellent.
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal,
instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement construction.
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 study area;
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal;
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;
• Changes in dissolved oxygen (DO) levels;
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas;
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff;
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles; and
2-3
• 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 study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during
the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
2-4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a system
used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). If a community is modified or otherwise
disturbed such that it does not fit into an NCNHP classification, it is given a name that best
describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable)
are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species
include the common name only.
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The predominant terrestrial community found in the project study area is the maintained/disturbed
community. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas are discussed in
each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found within
the project study area but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The project study area is located in a residentially and agriculturally developed area. Within Area
A, residential homes are located to the south and west of the bridge and a restaurant is located to
the north of the bridge. Area B is located downstream of the rmage. i rns area nas a9m;unuial iai iu
located on the east side of the creek, while the west side consists of a disturbed area with a
driveway for a residence. The driveway is also the access to the wastewater treatment plant located
south of the project study area. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. The dominant species within the project study area include fescue (Festuca sp.),
ryegrass (Lolium sp.), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), panic
grass (Panicum sp.), sumac (Rhus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), morning glory (Ipomoea
sp.), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), sorrel (Oxalis sp.), thistle (Cirsium sp.), aster (Aster sp.), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and plantain (Plantago sp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving
on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living
3-1
and dead faunal components. A Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), and Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) were observed during the site visit.
Other species such as Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), American toad (Bufo americanus), Eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina carolina), and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) are often attracted to these
disturbed habitats.
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
The aquatic community in the project study area includes Big Horse Creek. Vegetation along the
creek banks includes the weedy species listed above as well as a few trees such as sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), sweet birch (Betula lenta), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and black walnut
(Juglans nigra). Raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were observed along the creek. Stoneflies
(Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and water pennies (Coleoptera)
were found under stones and logs in the creek.
According to Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC), Big Horse Creek contains wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) and
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of
erosion. As a result, construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The maintained/disturbed community serves as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna.
Removal of plants and other construction related activities would result in the displacement and
mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals
from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
3-2
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Often,
project construction does not require the use of the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may
be considerably less.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic community of Big Horse Creek will result from the replacement of Bridge No.
273. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitat. Activities such as
the removal of trees, as well as the construction of the bridge and approach work will likely result
in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in dissolved oxygen.
Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The combination of these factors can potentially cause
the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of invertebrates that inhabit these areas.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs.
3-3
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the project study area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE.
4.2 PERMITS
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from
the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States".
A Nationwide Permit 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, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulation for the 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 environment, and
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
4-1
A Nationwide Permit 33 will be required if an on-site temporary detour is needed during construction y
of Bridge No. 273. This permit authorizes temporary structures, work and discharges, including
cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills or dewatering of construction sites;
provided the associated primary activity is authorized by the USACE or the U.S. Coast Guard, or
for other construction activities not subject to the USAGE or U.S. Coast Guard regulations.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will also be required. This
certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The removal of the substructure may create some disturbance in the streambed. Conditions in the
stream will raise sediment concerns since the substrate contains silt; therefore, a turbidity curtain
is recommended.
According to comments received from Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for _
the NCWRC, Big Horse Creek is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and classified as
Hatchery Supported by the NCWRC. As stated previously (Section 3.2), wild brown trout and
rainbow trout are found in this stream; therefore, instream construction is prohibited from November
1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
4.2.2 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts, 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 - Avoidance 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
4-2
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, 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 - Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
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 reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
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. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous with the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Section 404 Nationwide
Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.5 acres (0.2 hectares) of wetlands and/or
300 linear feet (91.4 meters) of streams.
4.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to factors
such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human related impacts such as
destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species listed for Ashe County and any likely impacts to
these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the following
sections.
4-3

4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists seven federally protected species for
Ashe County as of the March 22, 2001 listing (Table 4.3.1).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats showed no recorded
occurrences of any federally protected species in the project vicinity.
TABLE 4.3.1
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR ASHE COUNTY
''.? } J? qa?"w -. Say ?? ? F± i' '• 'L '?? ?'?, .y ??" `?1? ?$ ° "Y

?4/15 I 4 ?a ? 3 ? ! J'. «4+l -???# `4 ^.? 'vl J `Y' ? S.f.L 1.`-
4,
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
(Bog turtle)
Geum radiatum E
(Spreading avens)
Helonias bullata T
(Swamp pink)
Houstonia montana E
(Roan mountain bluet)
Liatris helled T
(Heller's blazing star)
Spiraea virginiana T
(Virginia spiraea)
Gymnoderma lineare E
(Rock gnome lichen)
NOTES:
E Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
T Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
T(S/A) Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection).
V
4-4

Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) T(S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small [three to 4.5 inches (7.6 to 11.4 centimeters)] semi-aquatic turtles that have
a dark brown carapace and. black plastrons. They usually exhibit distinctive orange or yellow
blotches on each side of the head and neck.
The bog turtle inhabits shallow, spring fed fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows,
pastures which have soft, muddy bottoms, and clear, cool, slow-flowing water, often forming a
network of rivulets. Bog turtles inhabit damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the mountains and
upper Piedmont.
The bog turtle is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7
consultation. Therefore no biological determination is needed.
Geum radiatum (Spreading avens) • E
Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Spreading avens is a perennial herb topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright, yellow flowers.
Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise from
horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow eight to 20 inches (20 to 51 centimeters) tall. Flowering
occurs from June to September, and the fruits are produced from August to October.
Spreading avens inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full
sun. It is also found in thin, gravelly soils or grassy balds near summit outcrops. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests [generally found above 5,500 feet (1,676 meters) in elevation] are dominated by
red spruce and Fraser fir. The substrate at all the population sites is composed of various igneous,
metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.
4-5
No habitat is located in the project study area for this species; the project study area is
approximately 2,640 feet (805 meters) above msl, which is well below the elevation for suitable
habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact
spreading avens.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Helonias bullata (Swamp pink) T
Family: Liliaceae
Date Listed: September 9, 1988
The swamp pink is a perennial plant, which blooms in early spring. Its flowers are pink and occur
in a cluster of 30 to 50. The flowers are located at the tip of the stem in a bottlebrush shape. Dark
green, lance-shaped, and parallel-veined leaves form a basal rosette around a stout, hollow stem.
The stem can grow eight to 35 inches (20 to 89 centimeters) during flowering and up to five feet (1.5
meters) during seed maturation.
Swamp pink occurs in a variety of wetland habitats that are saturated but not flooded. These
include southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic white cedar swamps, swampy forested
wetlands which border small streams, boggy meadows, and spring seepage areas. It is commonly
associated with evergreen trees such as white cedar, pitch pine, American larch, and black spruce.
Habitat is not present in the project study area; no wetlands are located adjacent to Big Horse Creek
within the project study area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences
of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed
project will not impact swamp pink.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
4-6
Houstonia montana (Roan mountain bluet) E
Family: Rubiaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Roan mountain bluet is a perennial herb with erect or ascending, unbranched or weakly terminally
branched stems up to 8.5 inches (21 centimeters) tall. Its inflorescence is a few-flowered cyme with
bright, deep purple flowers. Flowering occurs from late May through August, with peak flowering
usually in June and July. This variety is distinguished from other bluets by its relatively large reddish
purple flowers, compact stature and clump-forming growth habit, and its exposed mountaintop
habitat.
Roan mountain bluet inhabits high elevation [4,200 to 6,300 feet (1,280 to 1,920 meters)] cliffs,
outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sunlight.
No habitat is located in the project study area for Roan mountain bluet; the project study area is
located at approximately 2,640 feet (805 meters) above msl, which is well below, the elevation for
suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not
impact Roan mountain bluet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) T
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb with one or more erect or arching stems, which arise from
a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 16 inches (41 centimeters) in height
and are topped by a showy spike of lavender flowers [three to eight inches (eight to 20 centimeters)
long], which are present from July through September. Fruits are present from September through
October.
4-7

Heller's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains where it occurs on high , •
elevation rocky summits. It grows in shallow, acidic soils which are exposed to full sunlight.
No habitat is located in the project study area for Heller's blazing star; the project study area is
located at approximately 2,640 feet (805 meters) above msl, and contains no rocky outcrops. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact Heller's
blazing star.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) T
Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: June 15, 1990
Virginia spiraea is a shrub growing from two to 10 feet (0.6 to three meters) tall with arching,
upright stems and cream-colored flowers. The leaves are alternate and of different sizes and
shapes. The flowers are found on branched and. flat-topped axes. Spiraea spreads clonally and
forms dense clumps that spread in rock crevices and around boulders.
Virginia spiraea occurs along rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks in gorges or canyons. Flood scouring
is essential to this plant's survival because it eliminates taller woody competitors and creates
riverwash deposits and early successional habitats. These conditions are apparently essential for
this plant's colonization of new sites. The bedrock underlying spiraea habitat is primarily sandstone
and soils are acidic and moist. Spiraea grows best in full sun, but it can tolerate some shade.
Spiraea is found in thickets with common woody vine associates including fox grape (Vrtis labrusca),
summer grape (Vrtis aestivalis), riverbank grape (Vitis riparia), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
Other plant associates include royal fem (Osmunda regalis), wing-stem (Actinomeris altemifolia),
ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius), smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), and shrubby yellowroot
(Xanthorrhiza simplicissima).
Habitat does exist in the project study area along Big Horse Creek for Virginia spiraea. A survey
4-8
was conducted on July 25, 2001 to determine the presence or absence of this species. No
specimens were found during the survey. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of
the proposed project will not impact Virginia spiraea.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Gymnoderma lineare
(Rock gnome lichen)
E
Family:
Date Listed:
Cladoniaceae
January 18, 1995
Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. It occurs in dense
colonies of narrow straps (squamules) that are blue-grey on the upper surface and generally shiny-
white on the lower surface; near the base they grade to black. The squamules are nearly parallel
to the rock surface, but the tips curl away from the rock, approaching or reaching a perpendicular
orientation to the rock surface. The fruiting bodies (found from July through September) are borne
at the tips of the squamules and are black.
Rock gnome lichen occurs only in areas of high humidity, either at high elevations, where it is
frequently bathed in fog, or in deep river gorges at lower elevations. It is primarily limited to vertical
rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above the cliff flows at, and only at, very wet
times. Most populations occur above an elevation of 5,000 feet (1,524 meters).
Habitat does not exist in the project study area for Rock gnome lichen; the project study area is
approximately 2,640 feet (805 meters) above msl, which is located well below the elevation for
suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not
impact rock gnome lichen.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
4-9

4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected 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 of Endangered. FSC are defined as species that are under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 4.3.2
includes listed FSC species for Ashe County and their state classifications (January 2001).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats showed no recorded
occurrences of any FSC species in the project vicinity.
TABLE 4.3.2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR ASHE COUNTY
t
a
-.
-
4
Y
L
"
C
f - •i ?` rY
0-
,
.
r
AI +
-_ _
rr ?,
„_ t
1
==, ,? z} ?t?orth Habitat t -
Scientific Name,
Carolina r
Present
(Cvrnaau? Name) _ ??"
'
,
,Status
Thryomanes bewickii altus E Yes
(Appalachian Bewick's Wren
Sylvilagus obscurus SR Yes
(Appalachian cottontail
Phenacobius teretulus SC Yes.
Kanawha minnow
Speyeria diana* SR Yes
Diana fritillary butterfly)
Stenelmis gammoni SR No
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle
Lasmigona subviridus E Yes
Green floater
Ophiogomphus howei SR No
(Pygmy snaketail
Speyeria idalia* SR No
(Regal fritillary butterfly)
V
4-10

.r ' t North #Habitat
fl
Scientific Name,`` . ; Carolina" t flresent
3
t
(Common Name x.
tatus
Gymnocarpium appalachianum E No
(Appalachian oak fern
Poa paludigena E No
Bo bluegrass)
Juglans cinerea W5 No
Butternut
Saxifraga caroliniana
C No
(Carolina saxifrage)
Euphorbia purpurea C No
Gladespurge)
Lilium grayi T-SC No
(Gray's lily)
Delphinium exaltatum E-SC 'No
Tall larkspur)
Cladonia psoromica C No
(Bluff Mountain reindeer lichen)
NOTES:
C
Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action
is recommended).
E Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
W Watch list (any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern
in the state but not warranting active monitoring at this time)
Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50
years ago (USFWS)
4-11

4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the project study area for Virginia spiraea. A search for this plant was
conducted in the project study area on July 25, 2001; no specimens were found. The field survey
determined that no habitat is present for any other federally protected species. Additionally, there
have been no recorded occurrences of any rare or protected species within the project vicinity
according to the NCNHP. Therefore, no impacts to either federal or state listed species are
anticipated.

4-12
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.
Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
Hemmerly, Thomas E. 2000. Appalachian Wildflowers. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Justice, W. S. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Wild Flowers of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginias. University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000.
5-1
New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Soil Survey of Ashe
County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States,(The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred
Knopf Publishing, New York, New York
5-2
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Photographic Record
B-4016
Photo #1: Bridge No. 273 facing northeast.
Photo #2: Bridge No. 273 facing southwest.
B-4016
t
Photo #3: Big Horse Creek facing upstream from Bridge No. 273.
Photo #4: Big Horse Creek facing downstream from Bridge No. 273.
B-4016
Photo #5: Area B facing east towards NC 194.
Photo #6: Area B facing west towards Big Horse Creek.

O?O? W AT Fq?G
fl `r
November 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Coo?lj
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Ashe County, SR 1347, Bridge No. 273 over Big Horse Creek,
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1347(1), State Project No. 8.2712501,TIP Project B-4016.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced project. Big Horse Creek
(index 10-2-21(4.5); HU 050702) is classified as C trout +. The 'Y' symbol identifies waters that are
subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0225, the Outstanding Resources
Waters (ORW) rule, in order to protect downstream waters designated as ORW.
During 1998 basinwide monitoring, DWQ aquatic biologists reported streambank erosion and
sedimentation throughout the New River basin that was moderate to severe. The Wildlife Resources
Commission's Fisheries Management Direction for the New River Basin also lists sedimentation of the
New River and tributary streams as one of three major concerns in the basin (NCWRC, May 1998).
Substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to minimize the amount and time the land is
exposed. Care should be taken to prevent loss of material into Big Horse Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
¦ The proposed alternatives were not discussed sufficiently in the scoping letter to be able to provide
comments as to the potential environmental impacts of these options.
¦ The bridge should be designed as a single span with no piers in the stream.
¦ Storm water shall be designed to be carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the -stream) and
diverted through grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device
prior to entering Big Horse Creek.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B
.0124(a)-(d)] prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 5 days of
ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
Use a turbidity curtain or other methods (BMPs) proven to prevent violation of the turbidity standard
for trout waters.
Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pefbmp.pdf).
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a §401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
(`hric Militcrhar TT.CF.PA
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
4
N d ???q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 14, 2002
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management *Dit PDEA
SUBJECT: Ashe County, SR 1347, Replace Bridge No. 273 over Big Horse Creek,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1347(1), State Project No. 8.2712501,
B-4016
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to Bridge No. 273 in Ashe County. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2004 and
construction in fiscal year 2005.
The proposed project will consist of replacing the narrow and structurally deficient bridge with a
wider and safer bridge. Three alternates are being studied for the proposed replacement of Bridge
No. 273. Two alternates will be studied up-stream of the existing bridge and one alternate will be studied
down-stream of the existing bridge. Existing routes are available for traffic to be reasonably detoured
during construction.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by November 22, 2002 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Missy Dickens, P. E., Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 218. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
'9; use C?e? ?
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
f
01- 1324 ' 1353
u?
1518
LANSING 194 1516
1353 LANSING 1336 N POP. 173
1fZ m 1353 f
(1652 - w
152
POP. 173
194 m? d c"
1352 V-201
Cree
o 1517
d
o piney
om\ 1517 1516
?n
' 13 7
v
051
?
°. 134
139 ° Robert
- - 1352 Faw Rd
1346 Qa R
1341 1394 8, a
a4134 1342 ?a?y a? a
?a fag saw 1384
,<<ea my m 9sCr Ftd
9Ja $? ,.? y mm R ?eabe
?I343r'Aa
88
3?7380 AGE ; 7
Teaberry Rd ape`"V- Ro 1684
X1347 a 1350
T
d ?,, ?arlie King Rd °
0 Bina
1347 ,o\011514 1642
a
1349 644 a^\
Pouniiing Mill Rd 16 1501
16 McNg`?' ?a ?$'°
-` o^
1351 194 1502 ? Q?pol
1688
1351 , 1504
a
503,°0
194 1674 502 p° PHOENIX
W MTN
nsville 605 O .' 2
88 1506
194 DISTANCE IN MILES
Ashe County
SR 1347
(TEABERRV ROAD)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 273 over
BIG HORSE CREEK
B-4016
Ashe County, North Carolina
PROJECT VICINITY
Figure 1