19930755 Ver 1_Complete File_19930923

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
September 23, 1993
IN HhPLY HtlttH IU
Regulatory Branch,
Action ID. 199304486 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L. J. Ward
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. t..afTransportation
Post O ice Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to your letter of August 30, 1993, regarding your plans
to discharge dredged/fill material into the waters/wetlands of the South Fork
New River, associated with the replacement o 6-_#6: '
1 12y SR 1181, located
north of Idlewild,-Mhe County, North Carolina,OTIP No. B-2107. Plans
included with your letter showed that you propose to replace the
aforementioned bridge with a new bridge to the west of the existing bridge,
and that the existing bridge will be removed when the new route is completed.
Reference is also made to Mr. Stephanie Goudreau's letter of March 5, 1993, in
which the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission expressed no objections
to the planned road improvements provided that:
a. No heavy equipment is operated in the live streams in order to
minimize sedimentation and prevent introduction of other pollutants, and
b. Erosion control measures should be implemented where `soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion.
c. Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's
water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
d. Temporary ground cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.) must be
placed on all bare soil during construction. Permanent vegetation in these-
same areas must be established within 15 days of ground-disturbing activities
to provide long term erosion control.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal-Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
-2-
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency,or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 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 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.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions-and provided you receive
a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM) and, in the coastal area, a consistency
determination from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM).
You should-contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water
quality certification, and Mr. Steve Benton, telephone [phone],
regarding consistency determination. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
Special regional conditions of this NWP state that before discharging
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States occurring within the
25 mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout waters, the
applicant will obtain a letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission. Review of the information you have provided, and the
comments submitted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
reveals that your proposed work, is authorized by NWP provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and the
recommendations set forth by the Wildlife Resources Commission. This
NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or
local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the NWP authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during
the 2 years, the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and
conditions of the NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under

-3-
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will
remain authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the
date of the NWP's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary
authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or
revoke the authorization.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
-4-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Dr. Charles Bruton
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning and Research Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Doug Miller
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina- 27611-7687
Pee".'Tohn Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. Stephanie Goudreau
Habitat Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
Division of Boating & Inland Fisheries
Route 2, Box 278
State Road, North Carolina 28676

14 STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
'c U -
Ti t._C? r. llee?
Arms' Corps o$ `,'ncilneer .,
0. '12" Sl c"

:`.TT7-l Tr.; . r =v .i r.T ? _ ?Ii it
:.Je _.i J1... .
x'155
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
I F 31993
>. b ec. iC l_,V!i11L2T - 'R e-- _d t: litcll (: ??r 1•w Crc N .J ...? 11 +J is 4- 7-
N=ir 1'Ie1
a L e L r o 1
T_le Ncl til C.ar( !na ua_Dar _..._.._ n ?._t ._J JI_ p 1i p'. si= f 7, to replace -<1s db0`i _-r .L==211Ced i('}L1r e oll new 1 a I
T r a f i.C vll1 be maintained . n tie =sting 3r1.C'c dur'= U
ccnstr1_iction .
?4-. ?.'1 t???' V?DLI_ _lii L1 11 _., .:.. _.;y V '.i t, _P _ _ Dject
planning .report _.D_ -he _ _opcsec. ?-ork. h iss = r -? pct is beiila
r(:) ce-ssea b` till _ ?der_ 1 iic[l,way At_ ioll ?.s a
7'"
tLe olz -z.? luc ?: l _. _ 0, L- a .: e 4^i
i
'her elo e, ".V2 ?.>JN' L:? _ 'o eeu :^71`L'ii ii ]2'v? c`_ Lil: e? d
"'IGft _ JIZwe e=%Ilty n r an e w1 mil vFN U T_N :miidi A
? b-23 } _ssuea 1, !O'v'ea: G bi' e i3r: y ? 'GI'NS c
?
EngJL 7, eel.. s The proviS-i o ? o_ S°C..,?vIn 33'0 ? and Appe?_x A
? „_ t it . e GL.id `_. .? IIS %?7 :t_
r . 1 J4Jet :l
C 111 .Jn?,t? v
of !111. r 'o'1 ?Ct.
rNe antl^l.pate -hat the ccilcur-rence of the j'•(??! i Gdiol_na
Wildlife Pe-sources Colllmiss_on (W C) will b.-:-- rec-u-ired to
authori:3.tion by the Corps _? ??lg:neer-. By copy c= tlli
1 etter and at t-chment, NC.'IDOT hearet; regt:z-- sts reg -:!ew y vd.
Avmlk?

-- ` i.
Ii you ha-,,7e any questons 7r need add, tional
inforlation, Ilease caul Cyndi Bell at f9 19F 73'-977
O'C) inn. P.E.
ffAss-:an'- e?y
.Tanager,
Pla nning and Environmental Branch
BJO/clh
Attacl"_me t-

cc. Mr. John Thomas, LOLL Ral?_lgh Field 0?iiice
Mr. john Dorney, DEM. DEHNR
4r. John Parkes DCl-i DEHNR
Mr. David Yow NCTrJRC
Air. Joe Mickey, WRC, Distr_ct 71, State Road
ME . J tEN 1l l 'J?11r7? ea T R Marion
Mr. k=e_ly Barger, P . E . , P-T je:.t ,tanagemen
M . Don vlortc , P . E . Des-Ci 1
141-. A.L. Har_lLins, P.-., Hydraulics
M- JG!:__ c;ni th, Jr. P. E E. Str'_1C ,U.. ?:
i4 gr
Mr. 'T'om Shearin, P . E . , Roadway Design
Mr. W.E. Hoke P.E., Divi ion 11 Encriveer
Mr. Wayne Fedora, tir., P-lanning u Environmental
Ashe County
Bridge No. 12 on SR 1181
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRZ-1181(3)
State Project 8.2710501
TIP# B-2107
4C,
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
V, Azx?
+ Date L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
?°' Planning and Environmental Branch
Y
z..1
-7' / - 93
Date Nicholas L. af, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Ashe County
Bridge No. 12 on SR 1181
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRZ-1181(3)
State Project 8.2110501
TIP# B-2101

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
R.W. Fedora Sr. ?.•??""""'??.,,
Project Planning Engineer CAR0 ?'?•,
?? QQpF E S ?p,??( 29
Ula- he- Cl/,o c SEAL z
Wayne Flliott - 6 916
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Ilk
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Bridge No. 12 on SR 1181
Over South Fork New River
Federal Project BRZ-1181(3)
State Project 8.2710501
TIP# B-2107

I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
Bridge No. 12 crosses the South Fork New River in Ashe County. The
1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes Bridge No. 12
as a bridge replacement project. The project is classified as a Federal
Categorical Exclusion. No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
Bridge No. 12 will be replaced on new alignment to the north of the
existing bridge, shown as Alternate lA in Figure 2a. The recommended
replacement structure is a bridge approximately 230 feet long and 24 feet
wide. The bridge will provide a 20-foot wide travelway plus a 2-foot wide
offset on each side. Approximately 1,200 feet of new approach roadway
will improve the horizontal alignment, providing a 30 mph design speed.
The new roadway will have a 20-foot wide pavement plus 4-foot graded
shoulders. It will be at approximately the same grade as the existing
roadway.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The estimated cost is $618,000. The estimated cost shown in the
1993-1999 TIP is $300,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. High Quality Water Zone design standards
will be implemented for this project. Best management practices and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be implemented prior to construction
and throughout the duration of the project. Non-point sediment sources
will be identified and efforts will be made to control sediment runoff.
The existing roadway will be removed, graded to surrounding conditions,
and planted with native vegetation. The population of the federally
endangered Virginia Spiraea will be marked by NCDOT environmental
biologists. No grading, filling, or other earth-disturbing activities
will be constructed within 50 feet of this population.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Statewide Functional Classification System classifies SR 1181 as
a rural local route.
Near Bridge No. 12, SR 1181 has a 12-foot wide travelway plus
four-foot grass shoulders. Vertical alignment is poor. Horizontal
alignment is also poor, because of a near 90-degree turn at the western
end of the bridge and another sharp turn just east of the bridge.. The
bridge deck is 20 feet above stream bottom.
Traffic projections are 200 VPD for 1995 (the proposed construction
year) and 400 VPD for 2015. Truck percentages are 11. truck-tractor
semi=trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired.
Constructed in 1958, the existing bridge has a timber deck on steel.
girder floor beams, reinforced concrete (RC) abutments, and RC internal
piers. Total length is 135 feet with a clear roadway width of 11 feet.
Bridge No. 12 carries one lane of traffic and has a posted load limit of 9
tons.
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency
rating is 17.2 of a possible 100.0. The estimated remaining life is less
than five years.
The Traffic Engineering Branch records no accidents at the bridge
between 1 February 1989 and 31 January 1992. The Transportation Director
for Ashe County Schools reported two school bus crossings daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
There are four alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 12.
Alternate 1 would replace the existing bridge on a skewed crossing
north of the existing alignment. The recommended structure is a bridge
approximately 230 feet long, and 24 feet wide. The bridge will provide a
20-foot wide travelway with a 2-foot offset on each side. This alternate
would require approximately 500 feet of new approach roadway and allow
traffic to be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. When
completed, this alternate would provide a 20 mph design speed.
Alternate lA (Recommended) will replace the existing bridge as in
Alternate 1, but will more extensively realign SR 1181 north of the bridge
to provide a 30 MPH design speed. Approximately 1,200 feet of new approach
roadway will be required.
Alternate 2 would replace the existing bridge at the existing
location. The recommended structure would be a bridge approximately 190
feet long and 24 feet wide. It would provide a 20-foot wide travelway
with a 2-foot offset on each side. Traffic would be maintained on a
temporary, 130-foot long on-site detour bridge south of the existing
alignment. When completed, this alternate would provide a 20 mph design
speed.
Alternate 3 would replace the existing
location. The recommended structure would be
feet long and 24 feet wide. It would provide
with a 2-foot offset on each side. Traffic
existing secondary roads during construction.
alternate would provide a 20 mph design speed.
bridge at the existing
a bridge approximately 190
a 20-foot wide travelway
would be maintained on
When completed, this
w
2
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. It would require
eventually closing the road or applying extremely high maintenance due to
excessive deterioration and functional obsolescence of the bridge.
V. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 is a list of construction and right of way costs for the
studied alternates.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
Recommended
COMPONENT ALT. 1 ALT. 1A ALT. 2 ALT. 3
BRIDGE $295,000 $295,000 $240,000 $240,000
ROADWAY
APPROACHES 73,000 93,000 60,000 60,000
DETOUR BRIDGE
& APPROACHES - - 100,000 -
STRUCTURE
REMOVAL 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES 172,000 177,000 190,000 140,000
TOTAL CONST. 550,000 575,000 600,000 450,000
RIGHT OF WAY 30,000 43,000 36,000 36,000
TOTAL COST $580,000 $618,000 $636,000 $486,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 12 will be replaced north of the existing alignment as
shown in Alternate 1A, Figure 2a. This alignment will provide a 30 MPH
design speed. Traffic should be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
The recommended replacement structure is a bridge approximately 230
feet long and 24 feet wide. According to a preliminary hydraulics
investigation, this should be adequate to handle flow from the South Fork
New River. This size may be changed if required by further hydrologic
studies. The roadway approaches will have a 20-foot wide travelway plus
4-foot graded shoulders.
After construction of the new bridge and roadway approaches is
completed and opened to traffic, the existing bridge will be removed. The
existing roadbed of SR 1181 from just west of the existing bridge to point
A of Figure 2a will be taken off the state system, but left in place to
3
provide access for the two driveways presently intersecting SR 1181.. From
point A north to point B, the existing roadbed will be removed in
accordance with the environmental commitments. The NCDOT is considering
retaining the right of way and existing roadbed on the southeast side of
the existing bridge. This will allow parking and access for a canoe and
small boat launch that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources is interested
in constructing and maintaining.
Although none of the studied alternates provides a desirable design
speed, the recommended alternate has the best alignment and highest design
speed. Although the estimated cost is $38,000 higher than Alternate 1,
the additional expense is justified by the higher design speed. In
addition, the alignment of Alternate 1A is farther from the river bed.
The alignment approaching Alternate 1 is very close to the river,
resulting in more erosion potential and higher future maintenance costs.
Alternate 2 was eliminated because it has the highest estimated cost,
does not improve the design speed, and the alignment remains close to the
river.
Alternate 3 was eliminated because road closure would result, it does
not improve the design speed, and the alignment remains close to the
river. Road closure is not recommended due to a lack of paved detour
routes and the high flood potential along available detour routes.
The NCDOT Division 11 Engineer concurs with Alternate 1A noting the
improved design speed and reduced maintenance.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Background
The project is in a rural setting southwest of Glendale Springs in
Ashe County. It is in the Mountain Physiographic Province. Most of the
study area is pasture. Topography in the area ranges from gently to
strongly sloping. Elevation is approximately 2,800 feet above mean sea
level.
B. Plant Communities
Three upland plant community types were identified in the study area:
Disturbed, Mixed Hardwood, Riparian Fringe. One type of wetland plant
community was identified in the study area: Disturbed Palustrine.
Actively used pasture is above the Riparian fringe community along
stretches east and west of the river. Canopy and shrub layers are absent.
The herb layer includes species such as Queen Anne's lace, Joe-pye-weed,
spiderwort, and red clover. A ground cover of poison ivy is present, but
sparse.
Mixed hardwoods dominate a narrow portion of the study area in the
northwest and southwest quadrants of the existing bridge site. This area
is strongly sloping and exposed bedrock is visible in spots. Dominant
canopy vegetation includes red maple, black locust, and northern red oak.
4
Beneath the canopy is a dense shrub layer consisting of rosebay. Herbs
are sparse and present primarily where the Mixed Hardwood community.
borders the Disturbed community. Red oak seedlings are present. The
Riparian Fringe community is along the banks of the South Fork New River.
This community periodically floods. Elderberry, dogwood, and tag alder
are dominant.
Two locations of Disturbed Palustrine wetland plant community are in
the study area. A small stream supports a small wetland in the northeast
part of the project area. This community is adjacent to the Disturbed
community described above and supports only a herbaceous layer. Rush,
duck-potato, and knotweed are dominant. A second stream supports a small
wetland west of SR 1181.
Construction will impact the Disturbed, Mixed Hardwood, Riparian
Fringe, and Disturbed Palustrine communities. Table 2 lists plant
community impacts. These estimates are preliminary and may change with
final design.
Table 2. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community AM A1t1A Alt2 Alt3
Disturbed 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.8
Mixed Hardwood 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1
Riparian Fringe 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Disturbed Palustrine 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
TOTALS 1.1 2.0 1.2 1.1
C. Wildlife Communities
Mammals anticipated in the study area include deer mouse, eastern
chipmunk, woodchuck, and white-tailed deer.
Birds likely to inhabit the study area are house finch, starling,
red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, bobwhite, brown-headed cowbird, common
crow, common grackle, Cooper's hawk, eastern meadowlark, field sparrow,
mourning dove, and turkey vulture.
Amphibians and reptiles common in the study area include American
toad, Fowler's toad, slimy salamander, Jordon's salamander, eastern garter
snake, eastern fence lizard, timber rattlesnake, rat snake, brown snake,
redbelly snake, and eastern box turtle.
. Fish common in the South Fork New River and possibly found in the
study area include brook trout, central stoneroller, rosyside dace,
blacknose dace, longnose dace, bigmouth chub, creek chub, northern hog
sucker, smallmouth bass, several darters, various shiners, and mottle
sculpin.
According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP),
near the project the New River supports a high diversity of aquatic
organisms. Fish recorded in the project vicinity include Kanawha minnow
Phenacobius teretulus) and sharpnose darter (Percina oxyrhychus). Neither
of these species are federally protected (Candidate status and no federal
status respectively) but both have a state status of Proposed Special
Concern. Another aquatic organism found in the project area is the riffle
beetle (Stenelmis ammoni), which is federally listed as a C2 or Candidate
species and has state status of Significantly Rare.
D. Soils
Soil information comes from the Ashe County Soil Survey (Soil
Conservation Service, 1985). One soil mapping unit is in the study area -
Colvard fine sandy loam. This map unit is a soil unit with Hydric
Inclusions. Colvard fine sandy loam formed in recent alluvium and is on
nearly level floodplains of major streams. This map unit is well drained.
E. Water Quality
The project is in the New River Basin, and crosses the South Fork New
River. The South Fork New River is approximately 120' wide and several
feet deep. The bottom is sand, silt, and boulders with small amounts of
cobble and gravel sized materials. The South Fork New River originates
southwest of the study area and flows to the northeast. It joins the
North Fork New River to become the New River. Best use classification of
the South Fork New River is WS-IV HQW (DEM, 1993). WS-IV waters are
protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds - point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted pursuant to several rules stated in subchapters .0104 and .0211,
local programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required, and WS-IV waters are suitable for all class C
uses. Class C is defined as aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. HQW (High
Quality Waters) is a supplemental classification indicating a water rated
as excellent based on biological and physical chemical characteristics
through division monitoring or special studies.
There are three stream crossings in the project area. These streams
are unnamed and unclassified. The best use classification of these
streams is the same as the river to which they are tributaries, the South
Fork New River, which is WS-IV.
Since the New River is a HQW, the proposed project is in a "High
Quality Water Zone," which is defined as areas within one mile and
draining into a HQW. Construction that impacts a "High Quality Water
Zone" is required to follow Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in
the Sedimentation Control Guidelines (Title 15A. 4B. 0024).
The South Fork New River is currently proposed for reclassification
to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). Efforts will be made to plan
project under the assumption that the New River will be designated as an
ORW. Proposed construction in a freshwater ORW follows the same
6
restrictions as a HQW for stormwater controls and follows management
components as stated in the Administrative Code Section for the
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters
of North Carolina Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0216 (Environmental Management
Commission, 1991)
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program. This network addresses
long term trends in water quality by measuring the taxa richness and
presence of organisms intolerable to changes in water quality. These
organisms are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. No BMAN
surveys have been conducted in the South Fork New River near the project.
High Quality Water Zone design standards will be followed.
Sedimentation Control guidelines and Best Management Practices will be
implemented prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of
the project. Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts
made to control sediment runoff.
F. Waters of the U.S.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating activities in
"Waters of the U.S." based on the following laws: Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344) and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (33 USC 1413). Any action that
proposes to impact "Waters of the U.S." falls under the jurisdiction of
the Corps of Engineers and a federal permit is required. Generally,
"Waters of the U.S." are defined as navigable waters, their tributaries
and associated wetlands and subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface
waters."
Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters and
wetlands are two subsets of "Waters of the U.S."
Impacts to "Waters of the U.S." are anticipated from proposed
construction, including approximately 0.2 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands. The proposed project will impact "surface waters" of the South
Fork New River and a jurisdictional wetland plant community located in the
study area. Observations of vegetation, soils, and hydrology determined
Jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The vegetation is hydrophytic and the
soil color is hydric.
7
G. Permits
Because the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, a
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) will be applicable for proposed
construction. This permit authorizes any activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by
another federal agency or department as determined pursuant to the Council
on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity,
work, or discharge is Categorically Excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions., which
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment and the Corps of Engineers' office of the Chief of
Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the CE and concurs with that determination.
In addition, the project is in Ashe County, a designated "trout"
county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The South Fork New
River is not classified as a Designated. Public Mountain Trout Water,
therefore the NCWRC has no objection to this project. The NCWRC is
interested in increasing angler accessibility to the river. NCWRC
requests that NCDOT examine the feasibility of retaining right-of-way to
allow room for anglers to park vehicles off the side of the roadway near
the project. If NCDOT provides this, the NCWRC can construct a canoe ramp
in the river where anglers can launch car-top boats. The NCDOT Division
11 Engineer indicated the existing R/W and road bed on the southeast side
of Bridge No. 12 would provide an excellent area for cars to park, and the
NCWRC could build a canoe ramp on this side. Final consideration of this
will be given during the design phase of the project.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any
activity that may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is
required. State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Construction will be authorized under a Nationwide Permit.
Generally, no mitigation is required according to the MOA between the
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The
final decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
H. Protected Species
Four federally protected species are listed by the USFWS in Ashe
County as of March 4, 1993. These species are in Table 3.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species Listed for Ashe County
COMMON NAME
Spreading avens
Roan Mountain bluet
Heller's blazing star
Virginia spiraea
SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Geum radiatum E
Hedyoutis ur urea var. montana E
Liatris helleri T
Spiraea virginiana T
E - Endangered T - Threatened
8
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges. Habitat requirements for this species
include full sunlight, high elevations, and shallow acidic soils. The
spreading avens is found in soils composed of sand, pebbles, sandy loam,
clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for spreading avens. No
impacts to spreading avens will occur from proposed construction.
Roan Mountain bluet can be found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops,
steep slopes, and in the gravel talus associated with cliffs. It grows
best in areas exposed to full sunlight and in shallow acidic soils
composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks. The
study area does not support suitable habitat for Roan Mountain bluet. No
impacts to Roan Mountain bluet will occur from proposed construction.
Heller's blazing star is a high altitude early pioneer species and
can be found growing on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy
areas exposed to full sunlight. It prefers shallow acid soils associated
with granite rocks. The study area does not support suitable habitat for
Heller's blazing star. No impacts to Heller's blazing star will occur
from proposed construction.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats
consisting of scoured banks of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls,
point bars, natural levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The
scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough
to completely remove small woody species. This species occurs in the
maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various other
disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in areas with full
sunlight, but can survive in shaded areas until it is released from
competition.
The study area supports suitable habitat for Virginia spiraea along
the banks of the South Fork New River. The east and west banks of the
river were surveyed by walking on land and in the water along the entire
length of the project. A population of Virginia spiraea was found on the
western bank of the river, approximately 0.1 mile north of the existing
bridge. Removal of the existing pavement will be confined to the existing
pavement width to protect the Virginia Spiraea population (see Figure 5).
The environmental commitments specified on page 3 will prevent adverse
effects to the Virginia Spiraea. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
concurred with this finding. A copy of this concurrence is included in
the appendix.
I. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or
their representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils
are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based on criteria
evaluating crop yield and level of input of economic resources. NCDOT
asked the SCS to review whether the proposed bridge replacement project
will impact important farmland soils. Their review shows that
approximately 1.3 acres of prime farmland soils will be affected.
9
The prime farmland affected by the project has the highest relative
value of 100 points on the Land Evaluation Criterion scale of 0 to 100.
According to the SCS, only two percent of the farmland in Ashe County has
the same or higher relative value. The total site assessment score for
the conversion of farmland was 173 of a possible 260 points. The
Department of Agriculture has established a threshold of 160 points as the
level at which alternatives or mitigation measures should be considered.
After construction, portions of the existing roadway will be removed, and
the resulting land can be used for farming. Therefore, the actual impacts
to prime farmland soils are reduced, and no additional mitigation measures
will be considered.
J. Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1978, as amended, declared it the
policy of the United States to preserve certain selected rivers, "which,
with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic cultural, or
other similar values" (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). The act established the
Wild and Scenic River System.
The segment of the South Fork New River including the project area is
listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, a register of rivers under
consideration for designation to the Wild and Scenic River System.
It was determined that the bridge project will not have an adverse
effect on the South Fork New River, nor will it result in the foreclosure
of options to classify it as a wild, scenic, or recreational river.
K. Historic and Archaeological Resources
In terms of historic architectural resources, there are no National
Register-listed properties in the project area. The Jesse B. Miller House
is in the project area. The house is not eligible for National Register
listing because it is an altered example of a type prevalent throughout
the state.
Archaeological site number 31AH194 is near the bridge. A
comprehensive archaeological survey was conducted to identify the presence
and significance of archaeological remains in the project area. Site
number 31AH194 is outside the project area and will not be affected by the
project. No other archaeological sites will be affected by the project as
presently proposed, and no further archaeological work will be required.
WF/plr
10
FIGURES
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 12
ON SR 1181
OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
ASHE COUNTY
T. I. P. NO.B-2107
0 miles 1
1 FIG. 1

? ?? .... x
???

z?
w•
41,
?A
???:?.?.s.?.G C-3:?z. c.:.?..i?fi,.rr?t.;r.',?,fa"t?.::P?i.?:.a'a..??'?iis' ?._.??.,uw?o.e «s?..: ?..:??u. a, :..: ,....:.>s+r+.?. .;.?•....z:. ..... r. ... ....?. ?.? ....

? z

' a f
wtf a..
a

l '
-.. s EyP ? dn%+' ?F ??I?y44 I ? ? f
Wes'
3

BRIDGE NO. 12
ASHE COUNTY
B-2107
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW

ki
4-1 I

FIGURE 3
t
ZONE X' '
ZONE X
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
PROJECT AREA 2816 '
?S
JNE X
ZONE AE
A.
"\(c

ZONE AE co
NE X
CO
N
Q?
2815
,c
?' I?
t8i
ZONE X
i i
ZONE X'
ZONE X
"I'm
J." \ I
V
ZONE AE
y?3
:t
2src
ZONE X
ZONE X
FIGURE 4

APPENDIX
United States DepartirLerlt of the Ifiterior
- FISH AND
.? WTILDLLFE SERVICE
y y X5,9 Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
ashew-We, North Carolina 28806
May 28, 1993
Mr. Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Sox 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr_ Fedora:
tt
AMEPJCA
"Nomm
We received a copy of Ms. Susan Corda's memorandum of May 17, 1993,
regarding potential effects to the federally threatened Virginia spiraea
(Spiraea viroiniana) from the proposed replacement of Bridge Number 12
(Project B-2107) along S_R. 1181 over the South Fork New River in Ashe
County, North CF-rolina. We nave reviewed the information provided in
this memorandum and j r
previous correspondence; the following coiranents
are provided pursuant to Sect:on 7 of the Endangered Species Act CF 197-3,
.as amended (16 U.S.C. 153--1543) (Act).
Ms. Corda notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on
August 17, 1992, about the discovery of a new population of Spiraea
vir-giniana on the west. bank of the South Fork of the New River in Ashe
County. This discovery was grade during routine field investigations for
the proposed replacement. of Bridge Number 12. the S iraea viroiniana
population reportedly is approximately 100 feet downstream of the
proposed project. On April 15, 1993, the Service received information
from you with regard to project alternatives and environmental
commitments and was asked to provide comments on potential impacts, to the
Spiraea virginiana population. Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff
contacted Ms. Cord-r, to explain that it would be more appropriate for the
North Carolina Department of Transportation to make a determination of
effect on the Sniraea virginiana population first and that the Service's
comments would follow-
Eased on the five environmental commitments outlined in Ms. Corda's
May 17, 1993, memorandum and other information available to this office,
the Service concurs.with the finding that the proposed bridge replacement
activity is not likely to adv rsely affect Spiraea_ virginiana. in view
of this, the Service believes the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Ar
are fulfilled. However, obl i get t ons u=nder Section 7 of the AcZ imust be
reconsiLdered if: (1) new infar iation reveals impacts of this identified
action that may of l ecl -listed spec 1 es i r? a manner not prey I ously
considered, (2) this acLi on is subsequently modified -in a mariner not.
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
We appreciate the Department of Transportation's continued commitment to
protect federaTly listed endangered and threatened species. Please do
not hesitate to contact ids. Nicholls at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227, if you
have any further questions. In any future correspondence pertaining to
this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-93-073.
Sincerely,
-Brian P. Cole.
Field Supervisdr•
cc:
Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section Manager, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife and
Permits Section, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Archdale Building, 5412 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Coirrmission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Cep artme-nt o:17 Agri cu pure, Plant
Conservation Program, P.C. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
9North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region oordinator?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 5, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge #12 on SR
1181 over South Fork New River, Ashe County (Federal
Project'#BRZ-1181(3), State Project #8.2710501, TIP #B-
2107)
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments regarding the replacement of Bridge #12 on SR
1181 over the South Fork New River in Ashe County. The proposed
replacement structure is a 230-foot long bridge with a 24-foot
wide travelway to be constructed north of the existing bridge.
The South Fork New River is not Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water and does not support trout. Therefore, we have no
objection to this project.
The South Fork New River does support good populations of
smallmouth bass and rock bass and is popular with anglers. The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is
interested in increasing angler access to this river. We request
that the NCDOT examine the feasibility of retaining right-of-way
to allow room for anglers to park their vehicles off the side of
the roadway near either the existing or new bridge. If the NCDOT
can meet this need, the NCWRC could construct a canoe ramp in the
river from which anglers could launch car-top boats.
.Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist

_ c. 5T_1TF
`f
r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 10, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 12 on SR 1181 over South
Fork New River, Ashe County, B-2107, 6.503283,
ER 93-7290
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of August 26, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the additional information and photographs for the Jesse B.
Miller House which is located in the area of potential effect for this project. We
concur with the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the house is not
eligible for National Register listing since it is an altered example of a type
prevalent throughout the state.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
;S,iinc rely,
r!?_l/ k A?_btA
• David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slW
cc: LL. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 22, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 12 on SR 1 181 over
South Fork New River, Ashe County,
B-2107, 6.503283, GS 92-0085
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On April 15, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. `r'+le 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 and for our use afterwards.
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 National
Register-listed properties within the area of potential effect. For the two
structures over fifty years of age within the area of potential effect, Site
Nos. 1 and 2, we need additional information to determine National Register
eligibility. Photographs which give more detail of Site No. 2 would be
helpful. Also, does the land on the north side of the existing SR 1 181
(where the roadway will be realigned) belong to the owners of Site Nos. 1
and 2?
Site number 31 AH 194 is (coated next to the bridge within the area of
potential effect. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted
by an experienced archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior to
the initiation of construction activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how
NCDOT addressed our concerns.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
.cholas L. Graf
v1P y 2?, 1 992, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the Nati
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified c
CFR Part 800. at 36
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.
Si ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L„1. Ward
Church
T. Padgett
A.
+. J S
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
December 8, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199304486 and Nationwide Permit No. 6 (Survey Activities)
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning & Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference is made to your letter of November 15, 1993, regarding your
plans to discharge dredged/fill material into the waters/wetlands of South
Fork New River, associated with foundation test borings included with the
replacement of Bridge No. 12, SR 1181, located north of Idlewild, Ashe County,
North Carolina, TIP No. B-2107. Reference is also made to Mr. Joe Mickey's
letter of November 24, 1993, in which the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission expressed no objections to the aforementioned test borings.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for survey activities
including core sampling, seismic exploratory operations and plugging of
seismic shot holes and other exploratory-type bore holes.
Special regional conditions of this NWP state that before discharging
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States occurring within the
twenty-five mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout waters, the
applicant will obtain a letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC). Review of the information you have provided, and
the comments submitted by the NCWRC, reveals that your proposed work is
authorized by NWP provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
enclosed conditions and the recommendations set forth by the Wildlife
Resources Commission. This NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to
obtain any required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the NWP authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during

-2-
the 2 years, the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and
conditions of the NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will
remain authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the
date of the NWP's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary
authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or
revoke the authorization.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Regulatory Field office, telephone
[phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Dr. Charles Brouton
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning and Research Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
NNE John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
post office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Mr. Doug Miller
Land Quality Section
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
Post office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. Joe Mickey, Jr.
Division of Boating & Inland Fisheries
Route 2, Box 278
State Road, North Carolina 28676
Regional Office Manager
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
8025 North Point Boulevard
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106
Mr. Stephanie Goudreau
Habitat Conservation
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611