19970866 Ver 1_Complete File_19970108

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
?EHNR
October 17, 1997
Ashe County
WQC 401 Project #970866
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Enviromental Branch
NC DOT
Box 25201
Raleigh,NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in wetlands or
waters for the purpose of replacing Bridge No. 346 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1350, as you described in
your application dated September 26, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107 and 3127 This Certification allows you, to use
Nationwide Permit Number 6 and 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get
any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified
in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed
in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are
final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Sincerely,
04
ton How Ir. P.
9708661tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
.4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NO 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 500% recycled/10% post consumer paper
t °I
40 t11 1
.' 4 A0S
ww vd'?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 26, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Mike Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 346 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1350;
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1350(3); State Project No. 8.2711001; TIP No.
B-2910.
Attached for your information are copies of the programmatic categorical exclusion (CE)
action classification form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The
NC Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to replace Bridge No. 346 over Big Horse Creek
on SR 1350. The project lies in Ashe County, and project plans call for a new bridge at
approximately the same location as the existing bridge. Bridge approaches will also be
improved. During construction, traffic will be detoured using an off-site detour. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject project.
The natural resources technical report for the subject project mentions that an unnamed
tributary to Big Horse Creek will be impacted by the project. The bridge will be replaced on
approximately the same location; the tributary will be not impacted by the project (See Attached
figure, "Figure 4. Location of stream.")
Since completion of the CE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now lists the bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) for Ashe County. The FWS has classified the bog turtle as
Proposed Threatened due Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This classification of the bog turtle
as Proposed T S/A does not afford it protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the DOT does not
anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit, but proposes to proceed under a Section
404 Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued on
December 13, 1996 by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A
(C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
970866
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

2
Foundation investigations will be needed for this project. It is anticipated that this
activity may be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This
work would not require notification if not for the fact that this project lies in a mountain trout
county.
It is anticipated that a 401 Water Quality Certification for Survey Activities and for a
Categorical Exclusion will apply to this project. A copy of the programmatic CE and natural
resources technical report are being provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
Enclosed is a project site map, as well as a completed preconstruction notification form
for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6'and 401 Water Quality Certification. These permits are
necessary for survey work within Big Horse Creek. The DOT is also requesting that the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission provide comments to the COE concerning this permit request.
The DOT understands that written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for
401 Water Quality Certification is not required, although a copy of this application is enclosed
for their records. General conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certification will be followed.
The DOT is also requesting authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 to
replace Bridge No. 352 over Buffalo Creek. Comments from the WRC on this bridge
replacement are requested. Application for 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is
also made.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Phillip
Todd at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Jeff Ingham, Planning and Environmental
f

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2910
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): NWP 6 and 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Ashe NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Lansing
1
a }
USGS Quadrangle Maps - Jefferson and Warrensville
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): SR 1350 off NC 194, south of Lansing
Bridge crossing of Big Horse Creek
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Big Horse Creek
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT,
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN: _
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE' ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
2

9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION:
PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Geotechnical Surveys
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL .
EQUIPMEN'T' TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Geotechnical equipment will be used for foundation surveys - equipment
to construct new bridge.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Foundation surveys for future bridge
replacement and bridge replacement.
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
Wetlands not impacted.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: By copy of letter.
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: August 8, 1996
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO H
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
E AGENT'S SIGNATURE
IV12-
D;(Tt
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
x'11 / ?1%1 %0
ti8 f / `ti r r ' V . i ?p9!^"?? ?• _/ 1910 p ??
° X40°aa
alit' E° V j ;RK^ i ?! - Q
SIC
\;,?.?/- ? oo? ?\ ? ' , ° • =?- tai ? ? ? ? .^?
11 MR
-Bfna
%?? ° -Aehle? . O y (\?? I I('? •-/(r`??'? ` 9? ° , .Phoe_ni: ? °$ O \\/
- ? / ?;?, ?. ? ?`.? of _ • • : -. • °,? ` • i , 2
04
tGrave
IT/
N n / \
?:J \ ?' r/ r \l ' (;,? 1. (? 1
No ik
High 1 //ice t I ?? /
?Nv
is le,*
,i-off ?,• r-?.'I . ?? .? ?? ^' n
FIGURE 5. Landscape and topography.
UJI k\\ X1
i J
k7S
N
West Jeff,
Said-in
•
fr rr
" North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
t3., Planning & Environmental Branch
b ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 346 ON SR 1350
OVER BIG HORSE CREEK
B-2910
0 kilometers `10.4 kilometers 0.8
e Figure 1
n ee•110e . _2S miles .5
1 eltorr refE ? •
Stursills Z e ACrumcattville? r -
yl
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
7-
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
!
FROM: -REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? . NOTE. AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE. DETAILS ? FOR. YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND :SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ?FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? , PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.
COMMENTS:
?e wym ? .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 29, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer
RECEIVED
AUc vs 1996
F1VV1R044,1VrgC SpIENpES
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SR 1350, Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 346 over Big
Horse Creek, State Project 8.271100 1, F. A. Project BRZ-1350(3),
B-2910
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building on
July 16, 1996.
The following people were in attendance:
Dewayne Sykes Roadway Design
Bill Bunting Roadway Design
Betty Yancey Right-of-Way
Ray Moore Structure Design
Joe Dichak Structure Design
Lanette Cook Program Development
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Jesse Gilstrop Traffic Control
Sid Autry Location & Surveys
Jeff Ingham Planning & Environmental
John Williams Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters of Big Horse Creek are Class C in the project
area. He requested that if possible, there be no weepholes on the bridge. He requested that if a
new alignment is chosen, then the existing approach fills be pulled up and revegetated with native
tree species. Normal Soil and Erosion Control Measures should be used.
Stephanie Goudreau of the Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) commented that the
Big Horse Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water at locations
upstream of Bridge No. 346. This stream does not support trout at the project site. The WRC
made the following recommendations: wet concrete should not contact stream water; heavy
equipment should be operated from the bank rather than the stream channel to minimize
sedimentation; and temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare
soil within 15 days of ground breaking activities to provide long-term erosion control.

Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be replaced with a bridge
approximately 28 meters (93 feet) in length at the existing location and at a roadway elevation
approximately 1 meter (3 feet) higher than the existing bridge. If a temporary structure is
determined to be necessary, it would require a bridge approximately 23 meters (75 feet) in length
at an elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower than the existing bridge, located to the south
of the existing bridge to avoid placing the detour in a bend of the stream north of the bridge.
The Division Engineer indicated a preference for replacing the bridge in place. Traffic
would be detoured along surrounding roads during construction. He commented that
consideration should be given to raising the elevation of the structure to improve the vertical
curve, but such improvements will impact the steep grade on two existing drives that access
existing pastures.
Dewayne Sykes of Roadway Design commented that an acceptable design could be
achieved by replacing the bridge to the south of the existing bridge.
Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that no
architectural surveys are required for this project. An archaeological survey may be required if
the bridge is replaced on new alignment.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Alternate 1:
Replace the existing bridge with a bridge approximately 28 meters (93 feet) in length at
the existing location and at a roadway elevation approximately 1 meter (3 feet) higher than the
existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 2:
Replace the existing bridge with a bridge approximately 28 meters (93 feet) in length at a
location to the south of the existing bridge. Maintain traffic on the existing bridge during
construction.
JI/plr
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 7-18-96 .
TIP PROJECT B-2910 DIVISION 11
STATE PROJECT 8.2711001 COUNTY Ashe
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1350(3) ROUTE SR 1350
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
STRUCTURES
EXISTING BRIDGE NO. 346
LENGTH 12.5 METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS
41 FEET 20 FEET
NEW STRUCTURE
bridge approximately 28 meters (93 feet) in length
width will be 6.7 meters (22 feet) if design speed is < 50 kph (30 mph)
width will be 7.3 meters (24 feet) if design speed is > 50 kph (30 mph)
COSTS
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ....................................... $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ....................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................... $ 220,000
Construction cost estimate not yet available.
TRAFFIC
Average Daily Traffic: (1996) 120 VPD, (2020) 500 VPD
2% Dual, 0-1% TTST, 60% DIR, 12% DHV
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route

6?.. SfA1Fo
pur.?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 346 on SR 1350
in Ashe County over Big Horse Creek, B-2910
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 16, 1996 at 3:00 pm in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 236.
JI/pl r o5-C? D 2
Attachment ffvrs-e-
c
Z?/!? Lam[ ? ?J`? ??
all
0 VV ?46
qJ 61NKJ 5 ? c
t
_ /?P/IM©V.Z OI?GI?
-r
? - - _ _rHelton rasa ? ? ? h • / t?'
Stur¢ills 3Cree ? r ? ??•G?IV "
Crump e ? . •? '
?`` in¢ tt-, 8wtwl e, ? •
W?1r ptrngs?.
II
dandl
Clifton I Jet, erson# Qe?.e•?
West
LLi• / .
G eni ld/ '
\ \ Baldwin 1 s
` S
I 63
r?..9 5 ?
°r . " ?..
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
4 Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 346 ON SR 1350
OVER BIG HORSE CREEK
B-2910
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
Figure 1
0 miles .25 miles .5

I'I I -\\`I, ?)I--\ /7f \
g.
))'? 1 ?Jroi ????• _? ???? o? w? Flo ( ? , ?A A7 7
I I
//'O/? /? \\\\\/._' ?11\?? ?\\ •?. l ??° JI ?_i?,! „\\ ?\``y?? 1I; 11 \1?`!/` .l l
\ i ?)/0111 I i r,- \- -) I 11 %i
1-=?%
lo?I?_v
? e ?! I?gl n ? -/ I? ?? ?6?/j ?;? ??- o `r:, ??,, 11) I I \il\\?\ \?\?\ III' ?i11 ?1.? \\I ? j!^? x?l •l ? !ry?'>I r
? %, ? 1?? ?_??/?? 'mar - ?v •? ;%'... / ?a?oo ? \ V "? '' ?A? ,?. vi?? _ _ ?
280
17
Our
00
i2 r.-
I „ v \ 3 0
?80 o
la . , 1
I i
L " '(( oo I, I \\
o (( „ ?1) V I I A (r o°. Il ?I. ?I ?_
o I _
z _
(, f
oooc.i?
i
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
DATE: June 7. 1996
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
B-2910
DIVISION
COUNTY
ROUTE
11
Ashe
8.2711001
BRZ-1350(3)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
SR 1350
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 346 on SR 1350 over Big Horse
Creek in Ashe County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 12.5 METERS; WIDTH 6.1 METERS
STRUCTURE: 41 FEET 20 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 20,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 220,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
1 ,10
M5?0
®afiss, w
970866
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Mike Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
8yG2??
?F2?9?s ,9?j
SUBJECT: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 346 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1350;
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1350(3); State Project No. 8.2711001; TIP No.
B-2910.
Attached for your information are copies of the programmatic categorical exclusion (CE)
action classification form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The
NC Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to replace Bridge No. 346 over Big Horse Creek
on SR 1350. The project lies in Ashe County, and project plans call for a new bridge at
approximately the same location as the existing bridge. Bridge approaches will also be
improved. During construction, traffic will be detoured using an off-site detour. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject project.
The natural resources technical report for the subject project mentions that an unnamed
tributary to Big Horse Creek will be impacted by the project. The bridge will be replaced on
approximately the same location; the tributary will be not impacted by the project (See Attached
figure, "Figure 4. Location of stream.")
Since completion of the CE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now lists the bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) for Ashe County. The FWS has classified the bog turtle as
Proposed Threatened due Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This classification of the bog turtle
as Proposed T S/A does not afford it protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the DOT does not
anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit, but proposes to proceed under a Section
404 Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued on
December 13, 1996 by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A
(C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 26, 1997

GARLAND B. GAR.RETT JR.
SECRETARY
2 eI t
Foundation investigations will be needed for this project. It is anticipated that this
activity may be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This
work would not require notification if not for the fact that this project lies in a mountain trout
county.
It is anticipated that a 401 Water Quality Certification for Survey Activities and for a
Categorical Exclusion will apply to this project. A copy of the programmatic CE and natural
resources technical report are being provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
Enclosed is a project site map, as well as a completed preconstruction notification form
for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 and 401 Water Quality Certification. These permits are
necessary for survey work within Big Horse Creek. The DOT is also requesting that the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission provide comments to the COE concerning this permit request.
The DOT understands that written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for
401 Water Quality Certification is not required, although a copy of this application is enclosed
for their records. General conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certification will be followed.
The DOT is also requesting authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 to
replace Bridge No. 352 over Buffalo Creek. Comments from the WRC on this bridge
replacement are requested. Application for 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is
also made.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Phillip
Todd at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Joe Mickey, WRC, State Road
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Jeff Ingham, Planning and Environmental
r
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2910
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) NWP 6 and 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post. Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
4. IF APPLICABLE
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Ashe NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Lansing
(WORK) : [phone]
AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
1

USGS Quadrangle Maps - Jefferson and Warrensville
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): SR 1350 off NC 194, south of Lansing
Bridge crossing of Big Horse Creek
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Big Horse Creek
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ ] NO [x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE' ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ]: NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2
' i S a
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Geotechnical Surveys
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Geotechnical equipment will be used for foundation surveys - eciuipment
to construct new bridge.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Foundation surveys for future bridge
replacement and bridge replacement.
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
Wetlands not impacted.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: By copy of letter.
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: August 8, 1996
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO H (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
e 1 1
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
E 'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
2?
D TE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
CN,
IV,
-Ile
yr \ .
55
)i ; ?? l?. tin.: ?S C?\ ? p '•,.//'? ' ?• •' i ?`? - - ?\
IN-
(It I
, _
Ir
Cem
\lA
683 . ?/ / \, { (I ,; V
NI`h
\
r
? y.
ei a
759

C M
P J ? n
s
`\
0
0
0
O

\
C

l
C
j" j
\? a :
FIGURE 5. Landscape and topography.
i
N
V West Jeff
` Baldwin
•
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUN'T'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 346 ON SR 1350
OVER BIG HORSE CREEK
B-Z910
0 kilometers '0.4 kilometers 0.8
11 i [ Figure 1
n Milpe 2S miles S
V --`-_• --- •--
Uton ass r • r
stur[ills P, A e
r '
r '
_ r
• •
` Gum •
re scottvi o.
W% vim[:
1
lshland S ?11 ,
clitton I let `so" 7
°fr 1
e.?

CATEGORICAL -EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2910
State Project No. _ 8.2711001
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1350(3)
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 346 on SR 1350 over Big Horse
Creek in Ashe County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately 28 meters
(93 feet) in length and 7.2 meters (24 feet) in width, at approximately the same
location as the existing bridge. The roadway elevation will be approximately 1 meter
(3 feet) higher than the existing bridge to provide better flood conveyance. The
travelway on the bridge will provide two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes with 0.6 meter
(2 foot) offsets. Approach work will include paving a 6.1 meter (20 foot) width of
roadway approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from each end of the new bridge, and
installing guardrail where appropriate. The project length will be approximately
91.5 meters (300 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1350, NC 194, and
SR 1347 during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 346 has a sufficiency rating of 37.5 out of 100. The structure is a two
lane bridge with 5.8 meters (19 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design
standards specify a width of 7.3 meters (24 feet). The bridge is currently posted
10 tons for all vehicles. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither practical nor
economical. "Do nothing" is not a practical alternate because it would require the
eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. For these
reasons, Bridge No. 346 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Tyne II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
A4
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
2
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project construction.
Work will 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.
Heavy equipment should be operated, when possible, from the bank rather
than in the stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the
likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
3
w I
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare
soil within 15 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities to provide loner
term erosion control.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
A design exception may be required for design speed.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 300,000
Right of Way $ 30,000
Total $ 330,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 120 VPD
Year 2018 - 500 VPD
TTST - 0-1%
DUAL - 2%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 0.6 meter (2 feet) wide
When guardrail is warranted, the minimum offset from the edge of the travel
lane to the face of the guardrail is 1.2 meters (4 feet)
Design Speed:
30 km/h (20 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the bridge
in place and detouring traffic on SR 1350 and SR 1347. It is noted that the off-
site detour is an unpaved route, however, there are only 6 residences on SR 1350.
4
R
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any (;
unique on any unique or important natural resource? ! X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than X ??
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures ---- L-?-
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? - ----
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States -
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
5
? w
t
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any 17 N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? F] X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? 17 X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? U X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? II X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned --.--?
growth or land use for the area? -X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ?] X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse --,
human health and environmental effect on any minority or , X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
6

(19) Will the project-involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? J X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X 71
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? I X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing -?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X J J
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge _
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the __- — l___ A
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ----
laws, relating to the environmental aspects of the action. X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for - -
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
7
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl L? X
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined x
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for x
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not Applicable
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
BRZ-1350(3)
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 346 on SR 1350 over Big Horse
Creek in Ashe County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately 28 meters
(93 feet) in length and 7.2 meters (24 feet) in width, at approximately the same
location as the existing bridge. The roadway elevation will be approximately 1 meter
(3 feet) higher than the existing bridge to provide better flood conveyance. The
travelway on the bridge will provide two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes with 0.6 meter
(2 foot) offsets. Approach work will include paving a 6.1 meter (20 foot) width of
roadway approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from each end of the new bridge, and
installing guardrail where appropriate. The project length will be approximately
91.5 meters (300 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1350, NC 194, and
SR 1347 during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
proved
Date
_6!!B?yT
Date
G -IF-_17
Date
C; ?'' r1
Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
ProjeYPlanning Unit Head
Pr ' c Tanning gineer
B-2910
8.2711001
9
1353 \
\ 9, 1518
132a
\ 19a
I
1352 cn
.of 1652
1353
s ?
FAS
s
LANSING
cJ, POP. 172 '
1517
t ,
t ,
` 1347. to '
s ,
BRIDGE NO. 346
0,
1 '0
- • is - 19a
1 1380 \
1350 \ \0 IS'. =-
B1..17G'J,
1
dton nss w r ?
Stur[illi ?rN. ? r _ . ?
`A [ E
, ne ?%? OGumDrs r _ r
` Astray seoltvil(? r r?
w? prrties r„e,j
s ?11
01
I' Wssl HlhnonN`'s??r:.,nr Ind ? 10 ?;
` \ Bsidwin 1 Genas(s ? /
Sar s
1 c?
c, s /0,4r 3
N
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Manning& Environmental Branch
ASIIE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 346 ON Sit 1350
OVER BIG HOME CIZEEK
I1-2910
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
t . Figure I
0 miles .25 miles .5

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 8, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 346 on SR 1530 over Big Horse Creek,
Ashe County, B-2910, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1530(3), State Project 8.271 1001, ER 96-9133
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
July 16, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prior to the scoping meeting to discuss the
project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We recommend an archaeological survey be conducted if the replacement is to be
on new alignment.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?D,
+',w SrA11
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 19, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 346 on SR 1350 over Big Horse Creek, Ashe
County, Federal Aid BRZ-1350(30, State Project
8.271 1001, B-2910, ER 97-8475
Dear Mr. Graf:
J
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1997, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Megan O'Connell and Deborah Joy of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation concerning the above project.
One archaeological site, 31AH31, was recorded during the survey. A complete evaluation
of the site was not conducted. The authors recommend additional testing be conducted to
evaluate the site if Alternative 2 is selected and that no additional work is necessary if
Alternative 1 is selected. We concur with these recommendations and also with the
recommendation that preservation in place is not warranted.
We note that this report was submitted with the North Carolina State Site Form included
within the report. The survey report guidelines specifically state that site forms must be
submitted separately. In the future we will be unable to accept reports if site forms are
bound within the report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
Sincerely,
Davi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
M. O'Connell/D. Joy
109 Last Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?D,
4
6 lax
? _s 1
'$.? Y.? 1/$[S?yr . X111 ..
FIF
®_ ` P y;-? o ..1i?dlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for Bridge #346 on SR 1350 over Big Horse Creek,
Ashe County, TIP #13-2910.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project.
Big Horse Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water from
the SR 1361 bridge to Tuckerdale, which is upstream of the project site: Our comments to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will reflect that this stream does not support trout at the project
site.
We have the following general comments regarding this project:
1) If concrete will be used, work 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.
2) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into the stream.
3) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
I s
Replacement of Bridge No. 346
over Big Horse Creek on SR 1350
Ashe County
TIP No.: B-2910
F.A. Project No.: BRZ-1350(3)
State Project No.: 8.27110011
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2910
Michael J. Baranski
consulting Biologist
Department of Biology
Catawba college
Salisbury, NC 28144
May 22, 1997
JP% A
MICHAEL J. BARANSKI
Academic Background
B.S. in biology and chemistry. West Liberty State College, W.Va., 1968.
Ph.D. in botany and ecology (minor work in wildlife biology, forestry and
genetics). North Carolina state University, 1974.
Professional Experience summary
currently Professor of Biology at Catawba college in Salisbury, N.C., where
he has been since 1974; Biology Department chair from 1986-89. Visiting faculty
appointments at North Carolina State University (1973/74, 1982), Rocky Mountain
Biological Laboratory (1975), Duke University Graduate School of Forestry and
Environmental studies (1978, 1979), University of North Carolina-Charlotte
(1988), Highlands Biological station (1996, 97). Has taught a wide range of
courses, including biology, general botany, field botany, plant taxonomy,
ecology, conservation and management of natural resources, environmental science,
and genetics; sponsor of many undergraduate research projects. special interests
in vegetation ecology, floristics, dendrology, wetlands, natural heritage, and
environmental education; a large number of reports, presentations and published
articles have resulted from his work and that of his students. From 1986-93, he
founded, developed and served as first director of the 120 acre Catawba College
Ecological Preserve (wetlands creation involved). Review panelist, National
Wetlands Plant List Inventory for the U.S. Fish and wildlife service (1984).
Instructor in Plant Identification workshop for U.S. Fish and wildlife service
personnel, UNC-Charlotte (1988). Training course on Functional Assessment of
Wetlands (WET II) (1990). Ecology/taxonomy editor of Castanea (1997-).
Past president of the Association of southeastern Biologists (1994) and the
southern Appalachian Botanical society (1990, 1991). Numerous offices in the
North Carolina Academy of Science (1980-89). Professional affiliations with
other organizations, including the Ecological Society of America and American
society of Plant Taxonomists.
service on several state-level advisory committees and panels, including:
Natural Heritage Advisory committee (1985-87), Governor's Advisory Committee on
the crystalline Rock Nuclear Repository (1986), North Carolina state Parks system
Study Committee on Biological Resources (1987), Low-Level Radioactive waste
siting Review Committee (1988), Nongame and Endangered species Advisory Committee
of the N.C. wildlife Resources Commission (1986-present). Board of Trustees of
Highlands Biological Foundation (1995-).
Biological consultant since 1982. Biological surveys for wastewater
treatment facilities (Section 401 projects), municipal airport, proposed
hazardous waste treatment facility site; wetlands assessments for industrial
developers. Subconsultant for RUST Environment and Infrastructure (formerly BAKK
Engineers) since 1988 for projects in North Carolina, completing biological
resources assessments and conceptual wetlands mitigation plans for the US 64
relocation from Tarboro to Robersonville (1989) and the Ahoskie Bypass from
Powellsville to Winton (1994). Natural area reconnaissance surveys for the
Nature Conservancy (1985). Completed natural areas inventories for the
Conservation Trust for North Carolina for the Yadkin River Corridor in Davie,
Davidson and Rowan Counties (1993) and for Rowan County (1994). Beginning in
1994, contract work for the N.C. Department of Transportation, conducting natural
resources investigations for small highway projects.
# N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction........... ............................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................. 1
1.2 Purpose ......................................................... 1
1.3 Project Area .................................................... 1
1.4 Methodology ..................................................... 2
2.0 Physical Resources .................................................... 3
2.1 Geology ......................................................... 3
2.2 Physiography and soils .......................................... 3
2.3 Water Resources ................................................. 4
2.3.1 Waters Impacted ......................................... 4
2.3.1.1 stream Characteristics .......................... 4
2.3.1.2 Best Usage classification ....................... 5
2.3.1.3 Water Quality ................................... 6
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts 7
3.0 Biotic Resources ...................................................... 8
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Types ................................ 8
3.1.1 Natural Mature Communities ............................... 9
3.1.2 Natural successional Communities ......................... 10
3.1.3 Maintained communities ................................... 11
3.1.4 Developed Land Types ..................................... 12
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna ............................................... 12
3.3 Aquatic Life .................................................... 15
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts ............................. 16
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems ..................................... 16
3.4.2 Aquatic systems ......................................... 18
4.0 Special Topics ........................................................ 18
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States ...................... 18
4.1.1 Permits ................................................. 19
4.1.2 Mitigation .............................................. 20
4.2 Rare and Protected species ...................................... 20
4.2.1 Federally Protected species ............................. 20
4.2.2 Federal Species of concern and state Listed species ..... 22
5.0 Special Project Considerations and Summary Evaluation ................. 24
6.0 References ............................................................ 25
I
5
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is produced to provide
environmental input on natural systems to assist in the preparation of a
categorical Exclusion (CE) for a federally-funded project.
1.1 Project Description
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 346 which spans Big
Horse creek on SR 1350 (Charlie King Road) in Ashe County, North Carolina (Figs.
1, 2). The existing bridge is 6.4 m (21.0 ft) wide and 13.7 m (45.0 ft) in
length. The bridge is supported by I-beams on wooden pilings, with concrete and
rock abutments. Two construction alternates are under consideration (Figs. 3,
4). Alternate 1 would replace the existing bridge with a bridge approximately
28 m (93 ft) in length at the existing location and at a roadway elevation
approximately 1 meter (3 ft) higher than the existing bridge. A reasonable
detour during construction is available via SR 1347 (Fig. 1). Alternate 2 would
replace the existing bridge with a bridge of the same dimensions at a location
to the south of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction.
SR 1350 is a winding, mostly steep, gravel road approximately 7.3 m (24.0
ft) in width; no defined shoulder or berm exists, except near the bridge on both
ends. In the study area, the road begins at NC 194 (two-lane paved highway),
passes over a narrow floodplain on a fill and the bridge for about 67 m (220 ft),
and then skirts the lower side of a steep slope just above a small stream.
The area under detailed study (study corridor), which should contain all
construction activity, is approximately 128 m (420 ft) in length and 34 m (110
ft) in width at the central point, as shown on an aerial photograph (Fig. 2) for
a total area of approximately 0.40 ha (1.0 acre).
[The area estimate given above is based on a calculation using the scale (1" _
100,) indicated on the aerial photograph. However, there is discordance between
measurements in the field and the photograph scale. The total area may need to
be revised upward by as much as 15%.]
1.2 Purpose
The. purpose of this technical report is to describe and inventory the
natural systems occurring within the project area and to evaluate probable
impacts to these systems. Recommendations on ways to minimize these impacts are
also presented.
1.3 Project Area
The project area is defined as the lands including and immediately adjacent
to the study corridor. The project vicinity is defined as a larger area,
extending more or less about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project area.
Project region is the area more or less the size of a standard 7.5 minute
quadrangle sheet.
f r
2
The project region is located in the Appalachian Ecoregion (Omernik 1987)
in central Ashe county, in the extreme northwestern corner of North Carolina
(Fig. 1). The population of Ashe County (1990 census) is only 22,209, but growth
due to recreational and second-home development is occurring. The project area
lies along NC 194 near the Bina community (Fig. 5), between the small
unincorporated rural towns of Lansing [about 1.6 km (1.0 mi) to the northwest]
and Warrensville [about 4.0 km (2.5 mi) to the south]. Jefferson (population
1,300), the county seat, is about 7.7 km (4.8 mi) to the southeast.
The project vicinity is rural with low density residential development, but
with some clustering of residences. Homes are generally in the low to medium
value range; most are older, but there are some newly constructed homes. The
appearance of residential areas is much better on the east side of the highway
(NC 194). Along SR 1350 on the west side of the highway, there are many
dilapidated structures and a "junky" appearance to the landscape. There are some
small hillside farms, several with small herds of beef cattle. small Christmas
tree plantations are common. There are several small cottage businesses and a
couple larger industries in the vicinity. Most of the developed and built-up
areas are in the valleys. Tourism and recreation are important in the region.
The vicinity is approximately one-half forested, but most has been
generally cut-over and disturbed, except that the east side of the highway
contains nicer, larger forested tracts. A very steep hillside (45-60% slope) on
the southwestern side of the study corridor was essentially clearcut in 1996 and
is now very "messy" in appearance. Much of the landscape consists of abandoned
farmland, now in a mosaic of successional pastures, scrublands, and thickets.
An old, abandoned railroad grade (Norfolk and western Railroad) runs generally
north-south in the vicinity and through the project area. The concrete trusses
that supported a railroad bridge over a low area and small stream are still
present in the study corridor. Part of this railroad grade on the south side of
SR 1350 has been used for dumping of soil materials and some trash.
on the west end of the project area, SR 1350 rises on a steep slope above
a small tributary of Big Horse Creek. An almost vertical roadbank occurs on the
upslope side, and a ditch at the base carries the road runoff. The downslope
side drops off very steeply to the tributary stream which is less than 15.2 m (50
ft) from the roadside (Fig. 4). This slope above the creek appears to be prone
to extensive slippage; the slope is covered with stabilizing rubble. The woody
vegetation on this slope between the roadside and a pasture fence has recently
been sheared off. The tributary is in a pasture, and cattle use the stream.
1.4' Methodology
Project planning information and aerial photographs were provided by the
NCDOT Planning Unit. Background research was undertaken prior to the site visit.
Relevant sources of site information included the soil survey manual for Ashe
County (Brewer 1985), hydric soils lists (soil conservation Service 1991), USGS
7.5 minute topographic maps (Jefferson quadrangle, 1968; Warrensville quadrangle
1966), geologic map of N.C. (N.C. Geological Survey 1985), and U.S. Fish and
wildlife service and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (Amoroso and weakley 1995;
LeGrand and Hall 1995) data for rare and protected species. Stream
classification and water quality data were obtained from various reports of the
I
3
Division of Environmental Management of the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
The project area was investigated on June 12, 1996 and May 11, 1997. Field
methodology conducted by the author involved reconnaissance survey and evaluation
of the biota, natural communities and physical resources present in the area.
The entire area that included the study corridor and adjacent areas was walked
and inspected, and probable impacts due to construction were assessed.
Plant communities were identified and classified following schafale and
Weakley (1990). Floristic and faunistic lists were developed, and communities
were mapped. Wetlands determinations followed standard procedures (Cowardin et
al. 1979, Environmental Laboratory 1987, Reed 1988). With a few exceptions,
plant names follow Radford, Ahles and Bell (1968). Animal names follow
treatments in Martof et al. (1980); Pennak (1978); Potter, Parnell and Teulings
(1980); Rohde et al. (1994) ; and Webster, Parnell and Biggs (1994). Common names
of birds follow Rogers (1992).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Geology
The project area lies within the Blue Ridge Belt in a region of
unconformity. The rock type is biotite granitic gneiss that includes, among
other things, some interlayered amphibolite, a rock type with mafic composition.
There is some exposed rock in the project area, on the road and railroad cuts.
2.2 Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Ashe county is located in the mountain
physiographic region in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is hilly to
mountainous (Fig. 5). The elevational range in and near the project vicinity is
from about 799 m (2620 ft) at Big Horse Creek to 914 m (3000 ft); however, there
are nearby peaks over 1402 m (4600 ft) in elevation.
Drainage patterns are dendritic in the project region. Floodplains are
narrow and not well-developed (Fig. 5). Small floodplains are infrequent along
the major streams, and the largest floodplains occur along the North Fork of the
New River.
The soils of the project vicinity are in the Evard-Ashe Association. These
are well-drained and somewhat excessively well-drained soils of moderately steep
to very steep slopes at intermediate elevations. Subsoils are loamy.
Both upland and alluvial soils occur in the project area. The upland soils
mostly belong to the Evard series. These are well-drained soils on sideslopes
bordering drainageways, developing in residuum over granite and gneiss, and
strongly acid. Permeability is moderate, runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard
is severe on bare or exposed areas. some small areas of less acid soils may be
included in this map unit. Evard stony loam, 25-60% slopes, occupies all the
uplands on the west side of Big Horse Creek. A very small area of Evard loam,
25-45% slopes, occurs along NC 194.
I
4
The floodplain of Big Horse creek is underlain by the Colvard fine sandy
loam soil. The Colvard series is well-drained and develops in long and narrow
units on recent alluvium of floodplains along major streams. Slopes range from
0-4%, and they are subject to occasional flooding. This soil is medium to
slightly acid, permeability is moderately rapid, surface runoff is slow, and the
seasonal high water table is below 122 cm (48 in).
There are no hydric soil units mapped in the project area. However, the
Colvard series is indicated as having inclusions of the hydric Toxaway soil in
depressions. Toxaway soils are poorly or very poorly drained.
2.3 Water Resources
2.3.1 Waters Impacted
All of Ashe county is drained by the New River and its tributaries. The
New River flows northward through Virginia, joining the Kanawha River in West
Virginia, eventually reaching the Ohio River system. The New River Basin in
North Carolina is a small basin of only 1313 km2 (769 mi2). The project area is
on Big Horse Creek, a major tributary of the North Fork New River. The North
Fork joins the South Fork to make the New River approximately 29 km (18 mi )
downstream of the project area. The South Fork has a gentler gradient than the
North Fork, and a portion of it, along with the New River, has been designated
a National scenic River. Big Horse creek joins the North Fork New River 792 m
(2600 ft) downstream of the project area. There is one small unnamed tributary
of Big Horse creek in the project area within the study corridor.
The project vicinity is in the North Fork New River sub-basin (No. 050702).
This sub-basin has a drainage area of 493 km2 (289 mi2), about 37% of the New
River Basin in North Carolina. The only towns in the sub-basin are crumpler,
Lansing, and portions of West Jefferson. The affected stream reach is Index No.
10-2-21-(7) (NCDEHNR 1993).
The study corridor is aligned perpendicular to Big Horse creek which flows
in a southeasterly direction parallel and adjacent to NC 194 (Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Drainage from the project area is either directly into Big Horse creek or into
a small perennial tributary of Big Horse Creek that parallels SR 1350 within the
study corridor on the west side of the creek (Fig. 4). These two streams will
receive all of the runoff from the roadway and construction activity. Big Horse
creek joins the North Fork New River which then flows northeastward.
2.3.1.1 Stream characteristics
Big Horse Creek is a moderate-size, low-gradient mountain stream. Fish
(1968) places the affected stream section in his ?,smallmouth" ecological
classification. such streams are generally the stream reaches immediately below
trout waters. This classification of stream is characterized by widths over 3
m (10 ft), moderately abundant pools, minimum flows over 5 cfs, normally clear
waters, cool summer temperatures, and gravel, boulder, and rubble substrates.
Fish indicates that 6.5 km (4.0 mi) of Big Horse creek, from the mouth upstream,
has an average width of 9.1 m (30.0 ft) and has a sandy substrate.
5
Big Horse creek is a deeply entrenched stream and not associated with
wetlands in the project area, though it may be elsewhere. At the time of the
second site visit, the active stream was 12-14 m (40-45 ft) in width, and the
average depth was approximately 30 cm (12 in) with some holes up to 1.1 (3.5 ft)
deep. The channel width is about 18 m (60 ft). The streambanks are not uniform,
but they are mostly strongly sloping and from 0.9-2.1 (3-7 ft) in height. some
of the banks are undercut. The substrate is mostly rubble and large rock, but
with some submerged sand bars present. Current speed was swift, and the
turbidity was moderately clear. There were a few fallen trees and some leaf
litter present in the stream, as well as minor amounts of small human litter.
Narrow floodplains occur on both sides of the creek. Pasture, grassy fields, and
thickets variously occupy the floodplains.
A small perennial tributary, about 1.2 m (4 ft) wide, enters Big Horse
Creek on the northwest side of the bridge (Fig. 4). This shallow stream flows
through pasture, part of which is wooded. The stream gradient is steep as it
drops down a wooded slope in a deep ravine, but flattens through the open pasture
in the floodplain. The water was clear; velocity slowed in the floodplain. The
upper part of the stream in the study corridor has substrates variously
consisting of bedrock, boulders, rubble, and sand. Some sandy pockets indicate
some sedimentation effects from cattle usage. Through the open pasture, where
the gradient is flat, the substrate is sand, gravel, and small rubble. In the
open pasture, a culvert carries this stream in one section, and some of the
streambanks have been stabilized with large rocks; the part nearest Big Horse
Creek.is fenced off, preventing cattle use.
About 137 in (450 ft) north of the project area, the stream bank of Big
Horse creek under the old railroad bed is stabilized with many large poured
concrete structures. These structures are placed in rows against the stream
bank.
2.3.1.2 Best Usage classification
Big Horse creek in the project area is classified as a class "C+" stream
(NCDEHNR 1993). These are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR
1996). This is the lowest freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive
this classification at a minimum. The "+" symbol in the classification
"identifies waters that are subject to a special management strategy specified
in 15A NCAC 28.0216, the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) rule, in order to
protect downstream waters designated as ORW" (NCDEHNR 1993). All unnamed
tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they are
tributary. The North Fork, just downstream, has received the same
classification.
All the streams in the project region are class "C," and most have a +"
designation. Many of the streams have a "Tr" designation signifying trout
waters. Trout waters are freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout. The trout classification pertains only to the upper
stem of Big Horse creek, beginning about 5.8 km (3.6 mi) upstream of the project
area. The extreme upper watershed of Big Horse creek, outside the project
region, is classified "HQW."
t f
6
2.3.1.3 water Quality
There are many water quality monitoring stations within the sub-basin.
Historically, it appears that only six sites were routinely sampled in the sub-
basin, but at least 13 new sites were added in 1989 and 1990 (NCDEHNR 1994a).
This was apparently done because of the increasing importance of the waters in
the sub-basin for outdoor recreation. Chemical and/or biological classifications
(from stations for chemical and physical (AMS or ambient monitoring system)
and/or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] are available for several
sites in the watershed in proximity to the project area (NCDEHNR 1988, 1989,
1991, 1994a, 1994b).
Two sites are located on Big Horse creek. one site well upstream of the
project area was given a BMAN rating of Good-Fair in 1990. A second site, off
SR 1644, only 305 m (1000 ft) downstream of the project area was rated Excellent
in 1993. A site on the North Fork New River, near Big Horse creek also off SR
1644, was rated Excellent in 1993 as well. studies in 1993 suggest that these
reaches could qualify for HQW designation; but studies from previous years
indicated insufficient water quality (Good ratings) to merit this designation
(NCDEHNR 1994b). A resurvey during wetter summer periods was recommended to
firmly establish the water quality (lower flows in 1993 could have reduced
nonpoint impacts). A long-term ambient monitoring station on the North Fork New
River at Crumpler, about 21 km (13 mi) downstream of the mouth of Big Horse
Creek, has been rated Excellent in recent samplings.
Information on general water quality status in the region is presented to
give an indication of the overall water quality in the region (NCDEHNR 1994b).
High water quality is indicated throughout the sub-basin. of samples collected
in the period 1983-1993, 37% were rated Excellent and 33% were rated Good. The
1993 data were even better; 67% of the sites sampled received Excellent
bioclassifications, 19% were Good, 6% were Fair, and only 88 were Poor. This is
due to the low level of industrial development and to the sparse population.
Fish tissue data for a variety of contaminants are all below EPA and FDA limits
(NCDEHNR 1994b). Water quality is better in Ashe County than in the Watauga
portion of the drainage. There are few unique chemical characteristics of the
waters of the New River Basin, but the waters do have slightly higher total
nitrogen concentration and higher maximum pH values than other mountain streams
(NCDEHNR 1988).
There is only one discharger in the sub-basin with a permitted discharge
greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Sprague cooling and Processing is permitted
at 1.6 MGD (NCDEHNR 1989) and discharges into the North Fork New River 2.4 km
(1.5 mi) upstream of the mouth of Big Horse Creek.
There are no support ratings in the most recently completed assessment of
the New River Basin (NCDEHNR 1994b). Previous support ratings are available for
a number of sites in the sub-basin. These ratings in the BMAN or chemical data
give indication of how the best usage classifications that have been designated
for streams are being supported. Most stations are supporting their designating
uses, including the Big Horse Creek and the Crumpler stations mentioned above.
only a few stations are rated Support Threatened or Not Supporting. None of
these are in the project vicinity. Major sources of use impacts for streams that
are not fully supporting their designated uses are non-point sources associated

7
with agriculture. Agriculture is the primary land use other than forestry.
Point sources are implicated in a few cases, such as sites on Little Buffalo
creek receiving discharges from the west Jefferson WWTP and from storm drains and
broken sewer mains under the town (NCDEHNR 1994b). Little Buffalo creek recovers
sufficiently to prevent any downstream degradation. The West Jefferson WWTP
currently monitors effluent toxicity as a permit requirement, and the instream
waste concentration is 44.92% (NCDEHNR 1994b).
Much of the New River Basin was intensively clearcut in the early 1900s.
A lot of the basin was put into cultivation. Accelerated soil erosion and
sedimentation followed these past land uses (NCDEHNR 1988). Nonpoint source
inputs are the largest pollution sources (NCDEHNR 1994). However, better erosion
control and reduction in pesticide use may be improving the habitat for
smallmouth bass (reported in NCDEHNR 1988).
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
water quality data indicate that streams in the project area are presently
supporting their designated uses. These uses can be impacted by construction
activity. significant pollution discharges are possible when roads, culverts,
and bridges are constructed. Construction impacts can degrade waters, with
pollutants and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological and
chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic
organisms to discharges and inputs derived from construction, appropriate
measures must be taken to avoid spillage, control runoff, and reduce or eliminate
stream disturbances. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control
plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management
measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices
must be employed consistently.
Table 1 summarizes potential water resource impacts. surface waters of Big
Horse Creek and a small stream that will receive runoff from construction are the
only water resources that will be impacted (Fig. 4).
Table 1. water resources potential impacts.
Big Horse creek crossing ca 14 m (45 ft) stream width
[0.06 ha (0.14 acre) in study corridor]
small stream parallel 46 m (150 ft) of stream length
on edge of study corridor
There should be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Even though the
project area lies over a large floodplain, sites do not meet the definition of
jurisdictional wetlands. There could be potential indirect impacts to downstream
offsite wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are discussed in section 4.1.

s
construction of this project should not modify the flow of Big Horse creek,
certainly not much more than it has already been modified through past
construction of the existing bridge. Streams can be crossed effectively, and
with minimal impact, with application of appropriate construction techniques and
bridge and culvert designs. careful design should avoid the necessity of any
stream relocation. Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect the
river, and all instream activities should be scheduled during low flow periods.
when the old bridge is removed, similar precautions will be necessary to reduce
potential impacts.
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels will result in higher stream
temperatures and modified species composition in affected stream reaches.
Removal of streamside forest affects sediment flux, chemical and biological
transformations, food availability, habitat structure, and dissolved oxygen
availability. Sediment deposition will adversely affect aquatic organisms (see
section 3.4.2).
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I (water supplies
in natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds). The project does not lie within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of such resources.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the
Appalachian Ecoregion. No highly significant elements were located during the
field investigation, but some noteworthy species and community occurrences were
recorded. Only common names are used in the discussion below after the
scientific name is first introduced.
3.1 Plant communities and Land Types
community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. The natural vegetation of the project
area may be classified according to schafale and Weakley (1990). The original
vegetation of most of the project area appears to have consisted of Rich cove
Forest in a deep ravine between two small ridges and on the lower slopes of these
ridges. Upslope, the transition appears to be to Montane Oak--Hickory Forest or
Chestnut Oak Forest. In the lower floodplain of Big Horse Creek, the transition
was probably to Montane Alluvial Forest. However, most of the land surface is
no longer covered in the original vegetation. The flat bottoms, except for
isolated trees, were cleared of forests long ago, and most of the communities
there are successional in nature or artificially maintained in a low state of
succession. As recently as spring 1996, there was still an intact forest on the
two ridges, but this forest was almost completely cut soon after. The remaining
forests are small second-growth remnants, or highly modified by cattle usage.
The area contains a particularly rich and lush assemblage of plant species,
most evident in the few remaining places that have not been severely disturbed.
Though in a region of predominantly acidic soils, the lower slopes give
indication of high base status of the soils. It is possible that this area
represents an intrusion of amphibolite, thus accounting for the abundance of taxa

9
often found on basic soils. There is some similarity to Schaf ale and WeakleyIs
Basic Mesic Forest (Montane calcareous subtype).
For purposes of discussion and quantification, ten communities and land
types are recognized in the study corridor. These are divided into four groups:
Natural Mature Communities, Natural successional communities, maintained
communities, and Developed Land Types. These communities and land types are
described below, and coverage estimates for each classification in the project
area are given in Table 2. The undeveloped types with the greatest coverage in
the study area, and which could potentially receive the heaviest impacts from
project construction, are Pasture, Stream, Riparian Thicket, and Rich Cove
Forest.
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each
species are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing
importance and abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant,
common (frequent), uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare
species are sometimes described as being present only. Each stratum in a
vegetated community is usually treated separately. Sometimes, only a general
statement about relative importance is given, e.g., important or not
important.
3.1.1 Natural Mature Communities
Rich Cove Forest and modified segregates or Remnants. This very mesic
community is best developed and least disturbed on the lower slope adjacent to
the study corridor on the west side of SR 1350. In the study corridor, part of
this community is fenced in for pasture on the north side of SR 1350. On the
south side in the corridor, only a small portion is intact along the road above
the railroad grade, while the remaining portion downslope of the grade has been
modified by selective cutting and agricultural activity.
Yellow buckeye (Aesculus octandra) is clearly the dominant canopy tree.
other taxa frequently occurring with the buckeye include sweet birch (Betula
lenta), black cherry (Prunus serotina), butternut (Juglans cinerea), black walnut
(J. nigra), black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), white ash (Fraxinus americana),
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), American elm (Ulmus americana), tuliptree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana) is a common understory tree.
Most interesting in this community is the occurrence of the relatively
vigorous butternut population. There are several large individuals over 30 cm
(12 in) dbh, and a number of small trees and saplings. A few of the larger trees
appear to be unhealthy.
Shrubs and vines are not abundant. Grape (yitis sp.silky dogwood
(Cornus ammomum), hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana) are frequent. Blackberry (Rubus sp.) is rare.
The herb stratum is lush and diverse. Part of the herb flora includes some
taxa found on the disturbed roadside edges and along the old railroad grade.
Fringed phacelia (Phacelia fimbriata) was dominant in aspect on may 11, 1997;
followed closely by a strikingly beautiful and abundant population of larkspur
? f
10
(Delphinium tricorne). other common to abundant herbs included waterleaf
(Hydrophyllum canadense), bedstraw (Galium aparine), jewelweed (Impatiens sp.),
bladder fern (Cystopteris protrusa), and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides). Frequently occurring species were hairy sweet cicely (Osmorhiza
claytonii), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), common blue violet (viola
papilionacea), the large form of Solomon's seal (PolVgonatum biflorum), golden
ragwort (Senecio aureus), buttercups (Ranunculus recurvatus and R. sp.), and
stonecrop (Sedum ternatum). wild ginger (Asarum canadense) was less common.
Some taxa that were only rarely noted included maidenhair fern (Adiantum
pedatum), robin.'s plantain (Erigeron pulchellus), giant chickweed (Stellaria
pubera), goatsbeard (Aruncus dioicus), geranium (Geranium maculatum), avens (Geum
sp.), alumroot (Heuchera sp.), wake robin (Trillium erectum), a sedge (Carex
communis), crownbeard (Verbesina sp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale). There were a few moss patches on the slopes,
particularly associated with exposed rocks on the roadbanks and the railroad cut.
By the creekside in the ravine, striped cream violet (Viola striata) and
hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula) were present.
Higher up the slope, this community changes to a drier aspect. The forest
is smaller statured and not as lush. Here, sweet birch is abundant, and beech
(Fagus grandifolia), scarlet oak (4uercus coccinea), and hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis) are common. Red maple (Acer rubrum) is rare. Rosebay rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum) is common, while maple-leaved viburnum (Viburnum
acerifolium) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are uncommon. Christmas
fern and giant chickweed are common herbs here; most of the lower slope species
drop out.
stream. The area estimate given in Table 2 is for Big Horse creek only.
The only vegetation in the creek consists of occasional growths of riverweed
(Podostemum ceratophyllum) on some of the submerged rocks in riffle areas and a
few small patches of thallose liverworts (Hepaticae) on exposed rocks near the
banks. Aquatic life is covered in section 3.3.
As mentioned previously, there is a small tributary stream of Big Horse
creek in a deep ravine (Figs. 4, 5). Part of this stream appears to be within
the study corridor, while the lower section is clearly only adjacent to the
corridor. There is little vegetation in the stream. Fountain moss (Fontinalis
sp.) occurs on some of the submerged rocks, and an abundance of other mosses
occur on the exposed rocks. A few vascular plants grow in sediment pockets among
the exposed rocks, including jewelweed, golden ragwort, stonecrop, cutleaf
coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), bulbous buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), and
some unidentified grasses. The stream and adjacent slopes are being impacted by
cattle, particularly in terms of soil disturbance, slippage from cattle climbing
the slopes, and sedimentation.
3.1.2 Natural successional Communities
Upland Thicket. In three separate areas along the roadside, but on
elevated areas above the floodplain, small thickets with an upland aspect have
developed. one of these areas is on the bridge foundation for the old railroad;
others are on road fill. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is abundant
to dominant, followed by raspberry (Rubus sp.) which is somewhat less abundant.
Hydrangea and silky dogwood are common. Poison ivy and staghorn sumac (Rhus
11
typhina) are present. coarse forbs are common to abundant. canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea) is abundant, and fescue (Festuca elatior) is common.
Common chickweed (Stellaria media) is present.
Riparian Thicket. -In the flat bottom and in the riparian fringe along Big
Horse Creek, the thickets have a somewhat different aspect. There is a poorly
defined transition to the higher thickets on the roadbanks. The riparian fringe
is in good condition, stabilizing the stream banks, except near the bridge at
both ends where it is poorly defined within the context of rock fill.
There are a few isolated trees that occur in these areas, including
individuals of yellow buckeye, black cherry, red maple, Balm of Gilead (Populus
candicans), black locust, and ironwood. various shrubs and vines are most
important. silky dogwood and Japanese honeysuckle are abundant to dominant in
spots. staghorn sumac is common to abundant, while blackberry (Rubus sp.),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), ninebark (Physocarpus_opulifolius), spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and alder (Alnus serrulata)
are frequent. staghorn sumac is present. A number of herbs occur, the most
abundant of which are striped cream violet and canary grass. Frequent herbs are
crownbeard (in spots), horsetail (Eauisetum arvense), cutleaf coneflower,
virgins bower (Clematis virginiana), winter cress (Barbarea verna), soapwort
(saponaria officinalis), and fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata). other
herbs present include garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), bedstraw, smartweed
(Polygonum sp.), and henbit (Lamium purpureum).
There are some open grassy areas within this community away from the creek
bank. Bluegrass (Poa alsodes), a grass typical of rich woods, is dominant in one
area, with some fescue also present.
3.1.3 Maintained communities
open Fields. These are bottom fields, sometimes mowed for hay. A few
isolated trees occur, including tuliptree, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and
apple (Malus pumila). one open field on the east side of Big Horse creek is
dominated by canary grass. sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and
bluegrass (Poa sp.) are abundant. other herbaceous species present include vetch
(yicia sp.), curly dock, wild garlic (Allium sp.), bedstraw, fringed phacelia,
henbit, and chickweed.
In a field on the west side of the creek, orchard grass (Dactylis
glomerata) is most abundant. Other abundant herbs are curly dock, common
plantain (Plantago major), and garlic mustard. white clover (Trifolium repens),
bulbous buttercup, and dandelion are common. A tall mint (Lamiaceae),
crownbeard, jewelweed, smartweed, and tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris) are
present. The composition of this field is influenced more by the lower slope
vegetation than the riparian vegetation.
Open and Semi-Open Pasture. As noted previously, some of the fenced in
area includes Rich cove Forest described above. Below this, there is an area
that is semi-open, and in the bottom the pasture is almost completely open.
Yellow buckeye and black cherry occur in the area nearest the forest.
Elsewhere, there are isolated individuals of tuliptree, black walnut, red maple,
f
12
and black locust, and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) occurs along the small
tributary. Hawthorne (crataegus sp.) occurs in the forest fringe. Multiflora
rose and Japanese honeysuckle are scattered occurrences.
The herb composition nearest the forest is similar to that in the forest
itself. Elsewhere, bluegrass is dominant, and fescue and sweet vernal grass are
abundant. White clover, chickweed, and bulbous buttercup are common. other
species present include mayapple, dandelion, crownbeard, bushclover (Lespedeza
sp.), speedwell (Veronica sp.), fleabane (Erigeron sp.), winter cress,
bittercress (cardamine sp.), ground ivy (Glecoma hederacea), motherwort (Leonurus
cardiaca), and henbit. Along the small tributary in the semi-open area, some
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia), and St. John s wort
are present.
Maintained Roadside. There is little well-defined roadside vegetation,
except around the bridge and along NC 194. The major part of'the road surface
elsewhere, from edge to edge, is gravel only. As noted previously, as SR 1350
climbs the slope out of the bottom, the north side drops off steeply to the small
stream and the south side abuts a runoff ditch at the base of a very steep
roadbank. There is no woody vegetation on this steep roadbank; what little woody
vegetation occurred on the downslope was recently cut. A few scattered herbs
typical of the surrounding forests are present on the roadsides as the road
progresses through the forest.
Along NC 194, the outer berm is dominated by fescue in some areas or is
completely barren of vegetation in others. Nearer the bridge, there are sections
where orchard grass is abundant and common plantain and white clover are
sometimes common. other species that are merely present along the roadsides are
bluegrass, fescue, timothy (Phleum pratense), dandelion, curly dock, soapwort,
horsetail, winter cress, goldenrod, aster (Aster sp.), and smartweed. This
community is maintained in a low state of succession by regular mowing.
Access Roads and old Railroad Grade. An access road to the open pasture
is essentially grass-covered, with some other plants typical of the roadsides.
The old railroad grade is variously bare, covered with waste soil materials in
mounds, or covered with herbs typical of the surrounding Rich cove Forest. A
fair amount of litter and trash is present.
3.1.4 Developed Land Types
Gravel Roadway. This unit consists of all the gravel road surface of SR
1350 in the study corridor, except that part lying over the bridge.
Paved Roadway. This unit consists of the paved portion of NC 194 that is
mapped within the study corridor.
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an
area without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is
sought through habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds,
tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions
are also important in estimating the expected fauna of a given area.
13
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below.
Those taxa actually observed in the field or for which direct evidence was seen
are noted with an asterisk (*) in the text.
There is moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area. The
habitat types of greatest extent in the project area are forests, either intact
or cut-over; but, within the study corridor, thickets and open fields together
cover the greatest area. Forests or semi-forested areas cover about 50% of the
project area. The most important habitat types are the Stream, the Rich Cove
Forest, and the Riparian Thicket. open fields and forests form the largest
contiguous habitat types in the project area, though only a small part may be
within the study corridor. other habitat types as units are generally quite
small and fragmented. Several habitat types, such as thickets, exist primarily
as linear units, thus providing a lot of ecotonal area. In the project vicinity,
forests and successional forests, fields, and pastures are the most important.
The presence of cattle and proximity to a major highway are factors that
influence habitat quality for some organisms.
overall, animal diversity is expected to be moderately high because of the
mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas. The mix of habitat types and ecotonal
areas is beneficial for many species, but the fragmented distribution and size
of some of the habitats is detrimental for others. The landscape diversity in
the area is judged to be generally good for birds of a variety of habitats.
Avian fauna were found to be abundant. Only one small farm pond was noted in the
project vicinity, but none in the project area. The distinct array of reptiles,
birds and mammals that frequent lentic environments is not expected in the
project area, however, the large stream and riparian system provides excellent
habitat for a number of animals. The relatively low human development of the
vicinity should allow the presence of some species that are generally. intolerant
of human intrusion and that require larger expanses of habitat.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general
groups. Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is
considered somewhat ubiquitous in terrestrial habitats. The specific,habitat
groups are as follows: more open areas, consisting of open fields, open and semi-
open pasture, access roads, and maintained roadside areas; intermediate habitats,
consisting of upland and riparian thickets and most ecotones; forest and semi-
forested areas; and aquatic habitats of the streams.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians that should be expected in the
project area are American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler s toad (B. woodhousei),
upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer).
The eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), the slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), and the redback salamander (P. cinereus) are expected in the moister
forest habitats. seal salamanders (Desmognathus monticola) and red salamanders
(Pseudotriton ruber) may be present at the edges of streams and in seepages, and
some other Desmognathus species may also be present. Gray treefrogs (Hyla sp.)
should be common in the forested areas. Ambystomid salamanders (Ambystoma spp.)
are not expected because of the absence of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably
include eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), the five-lined skink
f
14
(Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), rough green snake (opheodrys aestivus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix). The eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), might be
expected in some of the more open areas in the sandy loams of the bottoms. In
intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), and *eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum).
Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), and worm snake (Carphophis amoenus). Timber rattlesnakes
(Crotalus horridus) may possibly occur on the rocky hillsides and adjacent
valley.
The avifauna of open areas include American kestrel (Falco sparverius),
turkey vulture (Cathartes aurea), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), grasshopper
sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), *brown-headed. cowbird (Molothrus ater),
*mourning dove (zenaidea macroura), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), eastern
bluebird (Sialia sialis), and. *American robin (Turdus migratorius). Birds in
intermediate areas include least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus), wood peewee
(Contopus virens), *eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), *brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufum), *gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), *northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), *American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), *chipping
sparrow (Spizella passerina), fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca), swamp sparrow
(Melospiza georgiana), *song sparrow (M. melodia), and white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis). Forest species include broad-winged hawk (Buteo
platypterus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), barred owl (strix varia),
*pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), whip-poor-will (Caprimulqus
vociferus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), various *wood warblers
(Parulidae) including *northern parula (Parula americana), wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), *tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), *scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe), solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius), warbling vireo (Vireo
gilvus), *red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and northern oriole (Icterus
galbula). species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), *American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), *northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), *ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris),
yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus
calendula), and Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis). *Green-backed heron
(Butorides striatus) and *belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) utilize the
stream margins. woodcock (Scolopax minor) may utilize the non-forested
floodplains. other birds noted were *red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
and *purple martin (Progne subis).
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), and *groundhog (Marmota monax). Those ranging into forests as
well as those open and intermediate habitats present in the project area are
northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), masked shrew (sorex cinereus),
hairy-tailed mole (Parascalops breweri), star-nosed mole (Condylura `cristata),
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), white-footed mouse
3
is
(Peromyscus leucopus), meadow jumping mouse (zapus hudsonicus), pine vole
(Microtus pinetorum), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and spotted
skunk (Spilogale putorius). several species usually shunning open areas, but in
the intermediate and forested areas, include *opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
*eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), golden mouse (ochrotomys nuttalli), and deer
mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Several kinds of bats, such as little brown
myotis (Myotis lucifugus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), and red
bat (Lasiurus borealis) might be expected foraging over the streams and semi-open
forests. Exclusively forest species include possibly smoky shrew (Sorex fumeus),
and rock shrew (s. dispar) and likely raccoons (Procyon lotor), woodrat (Neotoma
floridana), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), red squirrel
(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Muskrat
(ondatra zibethicus) and mink (Mustela vison) should be common in the riparian
areas along Big Horse Creek. White-tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus), a
typically mid-successional species, were not observed in the project area as
judged by the lack of tracks and browse evidence, but they are likely present in
the vicinity.
*Butterflies (Lepidoptera) were common. At least three species were
observed in the project area. (This is mentioned only because it may be relevant
to the discussion of rare and protected species, section 4.2).
3.3 Aquatic Life
The project area on Big Horse Creek is only 792 m (2600 ft) upstream of the
North Fork New River, and is undoubtedly influenced by the ichthyofauna of the
river. There are 20 native fish and several introduced fish known in the North
Carolina portion of the New River Basin, with four endemic to the upper New River
and four others native to the state only in the New River Basin (NCDEHNR 1994).
Some fish were observed during the study, and identifications were made.
Gamefish known to occur in the North Fork New River include smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu) and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris). Fish (1968)
reports that there is exceptional smallmouth bass fishing at times. Big Horse
creek appears to be good smallmouth habitat. Other taxa present or likely to be
present in a stream such as Big Horse Creek, situated between trout waters and
a large stream such as the North Fork New River, include *creek chub (semotilus
atromaculatus), *rainbow trout (oncorhynchus mykiss), *brown trout (Salmo
trutta), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), brown bullhead (Ameiurus
nebulosus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), *mottled sculpin (Cottus
bairdi), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and some other sunfishes (Lepomis
spp.). Fish that might occur in smaller streams (such as the small tributary to
Big Horse creek in the project area) would likely be rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), creek chub, and darters (Percidae).
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the streams and adjacent habitat
could support two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (Rana
clamitans), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris). The hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis) is a possible occurrence in this stream system.
Good turtle habitat is not present, but the snapping turtle (chelydra
serpentaria) is probably present in the area. *Northern water snake (Nerodia
r
16
sipedon) and queen snake (Regina septemvittata) are the most likely water snakes
of the area.
Small numbers of *snails (Hydrobiidae, tentatively identified as Amnicola
sp.) were observed in Big Horse Creek. There appears to be some suitable mussel
habitat, but none were found. *Stream crayfish (Cambarinae, one taxon) were
abundant in the creek. Aquatic insects noted included *mayfly nymphs
(Ephemeroptera, two.taxa) and *midge larvae (Diptera).
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource impacts
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems
The land and community types present in the study area and the surface area
of each type that is potentially affected by direct impact due to project
construction are presented in Table 2. Calculations are best approximations
given the design specifications available and the precision possible in this
study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial photographs onto which the
study corridor was drawn, as described in section 1.1, and land and community
type boundaries were mapped. The undeveloped types with the greatest coverage
in the study area, and which could potentially receive the heaviest impacts from
project construction, are Pasture [0.07 ha (0.18 acres)], Stream (0.06 ha
(0.14)], Riparian Thicket [0.04 ha (0.11 acre)], and Rich cove Forest [0.04 ha
(0.11 acre)].
With the exception of the roadside community and some thickets (some
sections completely destroyed), mostly only the edges of other communities will
be affected, thus reducing in small part the total available habitat in the
project area. Mature communities should not be impacted as severely as
successional and maintained communities. Alternate 1 (in-place replacement)
should impact substantially less area than Alternate 2. It appears that use of
Alternate 1 might completely avoid impingement on the Rich Cove Forest.
Regardless of the alternate selected, about the same amount of thickets and open
areas would be affected, and the potential stream impacts (Big Horse creek)
should be the same. Use of Alternate 1 would avoid any potential impacts to the
small tributary in the ravine and through the pasture on the east edge of the
study corridor.
The data in Table 2 suggest only the potential direct impacts on land and
community types due to construction. It is likely that the actual impacts to
biotic communities will be less than those indicated in Table 2, because the
calculations are based on study corridor limits, all of which will not be
utilized in construction.
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on
the alternate selected and how much of the study corridor-is actually utilized
in construction. There will be little net loss of habitat for small animal
species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas such as roadsides.
There could be a reduction in the available habitat for animals that require
forest and intermediate habitats, the amount lost depending on the alternate
selected. some of the communities will re-establish themselves following
construction.
? a
11
other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value
should not change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road
kills should not increase. The riparian zone of the creek is probably an
important corridor for animal movement and an important habitat in itself. The
existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so bridge
replacement will not introduce a significantly new factor, except during the
construction phases of the project.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/w and
construction limits. such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure
and injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging
substances, and skinning of trees by machinery. with the exercise of proper
care, such damage can be avoided.
Table 2. Area estimates' of community and land types located in study
corridor.
ha (acres)
Rich Cove Forest and 0.04 (0.11)
Modified Segregates
Stream 0.06
Upland Thicket 0.02
Riparian Thicket 0.04
Open Fields 0.04
open and semi-open Pasture 0.07
Access Roads and old 0.01
Railroad Grade
(0.14)
(0.06)
(0.11)
(0.10)
(0.18)
(0.02)
Maintained Roadside 0.03 (0.07)
Gravel Roadway 0.06 (0.16)
Paved Highway 0.03 (0.08)
TOTAL 0.40 (1.03)
' Because of discordance between field measurements and photographic scale,
the area estimates may need to be revised upward by as much as 15%.
f t
18
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It
appears that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing
roadway boundary.
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems
Removal of the old bridge and construction of the new bridge are potential
sources of serious stream modifications, and utmost care will have to be taken
during these activities. Impacts on fishes should be low, if construction is
done carefully to reduce sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers
to fish movement are introduced. Any culverts that may be installed to channel
streams can cause behavioral inhibition of movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will (1) increase stream temperature and
irradiance, thus lowering available dissolved oxygen and increasing the oxygen
demand, (2) cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources, altering the food
chain dynamics of the stream, (3) increase the amount of sediment reaching the
stream in the surface runoff by reducing the filtering function, and (4) change
the habitat structure in the stream by reducing the amount of insert debris and
number of debris dams. These effects will negatively alter the stream
characteristics for many aquatic organisms. Big Horse creek could be
substantially modified by removal of significant sections of the riparian fringe
community that now stabilizes the banks and provides for the functions listed
above. Effort should be expended to minimize the extent of vegetation removal.
Sediment deposition and stream substrate alteration will have negative
effects on sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. Sediment adversely
affects organismal physiology, behavior, and reproduction. sediment deposition
will adversely affect periphyton communities and thus affect stream productivity
and oxygen levels in the substrate upon which grazing benthic invertebrates
depend. Sediment runoff is the greatest potential threat to off-site aquatic
systems. Because SR 1350 is located on a steep slope adjacent to a small
perennial stream at the edge of the study corridor, the potential for severe
impacts to this stream from sediment influx are very great. All efforts should
be expended to protect this small stream.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and
runoff pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can
seriously reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely
sensitive to these inputs. Any impacts to aquatic systems off-site and in the
project vicinity should be minimal or non-existent, if construction is done
carefully to reduce sediment runoff.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking
and by alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater
wetlands are important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and
endangered species; maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support;
nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring;
regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness
• ? 1
19
in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases. Highway
construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes
and regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over
the discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands.
Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b)
based on best judgement of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine system in streams are the only
jurisdictional waters present in the project area, to which construction will be
limited (Table 1). it is determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are
associated with this project. None of the alluvial systems in the project area
meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. some jurisdictional wetlands may
be present downstream of the bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from
road construction.
In the NWI system (Cowardin et al. 1979), Big Horse Creek would be
classified R3RB2H (Riverine System, Upper Perennial Subsystem, Rock Class, Rubble
Subclass, Permanently Flooded Water Regime) or R3UB1H (unconsolidated Bottom
Class, Cobble-Gravel Subclass). The subclass varies widely, depending on the
particular site. The small perennial tributary to Big Horse Creek would be best
classified R3RB1H (Bedrock Subclass).
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters,
except for potential takings in a study corridor. until the particular design
requirements are known for the terrain in question, it appears that it will be
impossible to completely avoid impacts in project design and construction. (see
section 2.3.2 for further discussion)
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill
materials into any jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by
construction. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 (33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23))
should authorize this project. This permit authorizes approved categorical
Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded from environmental
documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment." Individual or General Permits are required for situations where
the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met.
A 401 General Water Quality certification from the Water Quality section
of the Division of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for
construction activity in surface waters where a federal permit is required. This
certification is required prior to issuance of the 404 permit.
other permits or authorizations may be necessary. Because the project area
lies in a trout county, discretionary authority by the COE requires that the
NCDOT must seek concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) prior to the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide
f
20
permits (pursuant to 33 CFR 330.8). As discussed earlier, there are no
designated trout waters in the direct impact zone of the project, but Big Horse
creek apparently does support wild trout populations; designated trout waters
begin 5.8 km (3.6 mi) upstream of the project area. Nationwide Permit No. 23 (33
CFR 330.5 (a) (23) (31)] should authorize the project following review and
concurrence by the NCWRC.
4.1.2 Mitigation
The project may cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters.
There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing Big Horse Creek at this
point. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. Until
recently, compensatory mitigation has generally not been required where
Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum
of understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE.
However, a 1997 revision of permit conditions for Nationwide Permit No. 23 by the
COE specifies that mitigation for impacts to wetlands exceeding 0.4 ha (1.0 acre)
will be required, and mitigation for impacts to surface waters may also be
required. Final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. lies
with the COE and the NCDEHNR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Depending on
impact acreage, waters of the U.S. may also need to be delineated prior to permit
application submission. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests
with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all
structures and roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and
appropriate kinds of drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize
impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will have to be installed to
prevent avoidable storm water discharges, and soil stabilization measures must
be taken as quickly as possible during and after construction of banks, fills,
graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be
disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands. Likewise, borrow locations should not be placed in wetlands. When the
old bridge is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect the waters
from pollution discharges.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected species
species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened
(PT), and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and
section 9 of the Endangered species Act of 1973, as amended. As of may 1, 1997,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service reports four species with one of these
classifications for Ashe County (Table 3).
The spreading avens, a vascular plant in the Rosaceae, is found on high
elevation rocky summits and balds. It has been reported from eight mountain
counties. Flowering is from June to August and fruiting from July to September.
No plants of this genus were located in the study area, and the elevational
requirements that produce suitable habitat for the spreading avens do not exist
in the vicinity. Biological conclusion: No effect.
? ? j
21
The Roan mountain bluet, a vascular plant in the Rubiaceae, is also found
on high elevation rocky summits or on grassy balds in five mountain counties.
This plant flowers in late spring and early summer and fruits in late summer.
There were no bluets found during the field study, and the elevational
requirements that produce suitable habitat for the Roan mountain bluet are not
present in the project vicinity. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Table 3. Federally protected species in Ashe County, with state category
also given.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
spreading avens Geum radiatum E E-SC
Roan mt. bluet Houstonia montana E E
var. montana
Heller's blazing Liatris helleri T T-SC
star
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T E
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state); T = Threatened, likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future; sC = special concern, requires
monitoring.
Typical habitats for Heller's blazing star, a vascular plant in the
Asteraceae, are high elevation rocky summits, ledges, and cliffs. The plant has
been reported from six mountain counties. The plant flowers in late summer and
fruits in early fall. No plants of the genus were found during the study, and
the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for this species do
not exist in the project vicinity. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Virginia spiraea, a vascular plant in the Rosaceae, has been found on
riverbanks in six mountain counties. This plant flowers in early summer and
fruits in late summer. The streambank and floodplain in the project area were
carefully searched. This easy to identify plant was not found in the study area,
nor were any other spiraeas located. However, suitable habitat does exist in the
project area for this species. Natural Heritage Program files were not searched,
but available information did not indicate the existence of any populations in
the project vicinity. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on any federally
protected animal or plant species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and state Listed species
Federal species of concern (FSC), candidate taxa (Cl), and some other
categories are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not

22
subject to any of its provisions until formally proposed or listed as E or T.
FSC taxa are species which show some evidence of vulnerability and are under
consideration for listing, but there are not enough data to support listing
proposals at this time. Cl taxa are supported by sufficient information to
warrant listing as E or T, but they are not yet listed because of the large
number of backlogged Cl taxa. T(S/A) taxa are threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and are listed for their protection.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened, and special
concern (SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected under the Plant
Protection and conservation Act of 1979, and animals are legally protected under
the N.C. Endangered species Act of 1987.
There are sixteen taxa listed as federal species of concern or another
federal category for Ashe County (Table 4). They are mentioned here for
information purposes in the event they become federally listed as endangered or
threatened in the future. The state listing is also given.
The habitat of Bewick's wren consists of brushy places, wood piles, and
abandoned buildings in rural sites at high elevations. It apparently has been
displaced by house sparrows and starlings, and is thought to occur usually only
where they are absent. Lee and Parnell (1989) suggest that it may be extirpated
in the North Carolina mountains. There is suitable habitat for this species in
the project vicinity.
The bog turtle, North Carolinas smallest turtle, inhabits wet grassy
pastures, marshes, wet thickets and bogs in the mountains and western Piedmont.
It is more common in the mountains. suitable habitat for this species does not
occur in the project area.
The Kanawha minnow is restricted to the New River drainage. It occurs in
creeks to medium-sized rivers, varying from cool to warm but with clear water.
It favors riffles and runs with boulder, rubble and gravel substrates. Habitat
for this species is present in the project area.
The green floater has been collected in the New River. However, it usually
prefers smaller streams, avoiding large rivers. It inhabits gravel or sandy
bottoms, avoids strong currents, and likes canals (scientific council 1990):
Habitat for this species in Big Horse creek is marginal.
The pygmy snaketail occurs in rivers in the mountains. Gomphid dragonflies
are easily recognized as adults by their sprawling legs and widely separated
compound eyes. They often fly far from the water. No dragonflies were noted
during the study. Suitable habitat appears to be present for this species. This
dragonfly was collected in June 1994 on the South Fork New River on an outing
during the Dragonfly society of America meeting.
The Diana fritillary butterfly inhabits rich woods and the adjacent edges
and openings, often near streams. The host plant is violet (viola spp.). There
is suitable habitat for this species in the project vicinity. However, the
listing is based on a historical record; it has been over 50 years since the
species was observed in. the county.

23
Table 4. Federal species of concern for Ashe county, with state category
also given.
COMMON SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL STATE SUITABLE
NAME NAME CAT. CAT. HABITAT
Appalachian Bewick's Thryomanes bewickii FSC E Yes
wren altus
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii PT(S/A) T No
Kanawha minnow Phenacobius teretulus FSC SC Yes
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC E Marginal
Pygmy snaketail Ophiogomphus howei FSC SR Yes
Diana fritillary Speveria diana FSC SR Yes
butterfly
Regal fritillary Speveria idalia FSC SR Yes
butterfly
Gammon's stenelmis stenelmis gammoni FSC SR Yes
riffle beetle
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC C No
Glade spurge Euphorbia-purpurea FSC C Yes
Appalachian oak fern Gymnocarpium FSC C/PE No
appalachianum
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC W5 Present
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC T-SC No
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena FSC E No
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC C No
Bluff mt. reindeer Cladonia psoromica FSC C No
lichen
FSC = federal species of concern under consideration for listing, but
insufficient information exists to support listing; E = continued existence
as part of the state's biota is in jeopardy; T = threatened, likely to
become endangered in N.C. within foreseeable future; SC = Special Concern,
requires monitoring; SR = significantly rare in N.C., generally with 1-20
populations in the state; C = Candidate, very rare and likely to merit
listing as E or T if trends continue; PE = proposed for listing as
endangered; PT(S/A) = proposed threatened due to similarity of appearance;
W5 = Watch Category #5, rare because of severe decline.
f, . ' f
24
The regal fritillary butterfly lives in wet meadows and bogs, with the host
plants also being violets. There is suitable habitat of this type in the project
vicinity. However, the listing is based on a historical record; it has been over
50 years since the species was observed in the county.
The riffle beetle is found in the South Fork New River. No other
information was located for this species. It is assumed that suitable habitat
occurs in the project area.
Manhart's sedge occurs in rich cove forests. This type of habitat exists
in the project vicinity.
The glade spurge occurs in forests, especially over mafic rock. This type
of habitat appears to exist in the project vicinity. The species has also been
collected in floodplains in West Virginia. occurrence of this species in the
project area cannot be dismissed.
Appalachian oak fern inhabits sheltered crevices on high elevation rocky
summits. This habitat does not exist in the project vicinity.
Butternut, a member of the walnut family Juglandaceae, is found in rich
woods and cove forests mostly in the mountains. This species is present in the
project area. A substantial population, ranging from saplings to large trees,
is present in the study corridor and nearby. Some of the largest trees are
showing signs of decline. construction along the roadsides on the slopes west
of the creek will most likely destroy some of these individuals.
Gray's lily occurs in bogs, seeps, and wet meadows, and similar openings
in grassy balds and high elevation forests. This type of habitat does not exist
in the project area.
Bog bluegrass occurs in bogs, a habitat type unavailable in the project
vicinity.
Carolina saxifrage is found on moist cliffs and rock outcrops at mid to
high elevations. This type of habitat is not present in the project area and
vicinity, and no saxifrages were noted during the study.
Bluff mountain reindeer lichen occurs in fens and glades over amphibolite.
This type of habitat does not occur in the project vicinity.
Habitat for one-half of the taxa does not occur in the project area, but
the possibility of occurrence of some of the others cannot be excluded. One
species is present, the butternut; and it could be impacted by this project.
5.0 SPECIAL PROJECT CONCERNS AND SUMMARY EVALUATION
several special concerns have been addressed in this report. The major
issues are listed here.
(a) Part of the project area lies above a steep slope that is subject to
severe slippage and erosion from any activities occurring on the road above. A
s + I
25
maximum of 46 m (150 ft) of small stream parallels the project alignment, and up
to one-half of this stream lies below the steep slope. This stream will receive
the runoff from construction activity, and it is highly susceptible to
sedimentation.
(b) The water quality of Big Horse Creek and the nearby North Fork New
River is rated excellent. There are outstanding Resource Waters downstream.
(c) The banks of Big Horse Creek are currently stabilized by well-developed
and functional riparian thicket. Alternatives to removing or replacing the
riparian thicket should be considered in bridge design.
(d) A healthy population of butternut, a Federal species of concern, could
be seriously affected by construction that occurs in a Rich Cove Forest on lower
steep slopes in the project area.
If construction design and implementation consider the concerns addressed
in this report, the bridge replacement project should cause only minor biological
and ecological impacts and losses. Much of the study corridor consists of
successional and maintained communities and habitats that are not highly
significant in the long-term. Except for the concerns listed, there appear to
be no other potentially significant impacts to biotic diversity or natural
communities that would occur as a result of construction of this project.
6.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J. L., and A. S. weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the
rare plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Brewer, E. o. 1985. soil survey of Ashe County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A., Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and wildlife
service, Biological services Program, Washington, DC. Publ. No. Fws/oBs-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech.
Report Y-87-1.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A catalog of the inland fishing waters in North Carolina.
North Carolina wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries,
Raleigh, NC. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project, F-14-R.
Lee, D. S., and J. F. Parnell. 1989. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of
North Carolina. Part III. A re-evaluation of the birds. occasional Papers of
the North Carolina Biological survey 1989-5. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC.

26
LeGrand, H. E., Jr., and S. P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the
rare animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison III. 1980.
Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1988 and 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient
network (BMAN) water quality review. 1983-1986, Report No. 88-03. 1983-1988,
Report No. 89-08. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1991. Biological
assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic macroinvertebrate
data base and long-term change in water quality, 1983-1990. Water Quality
Section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the New
River Basin. Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. (Reprint from
NCAC: 15A NCAC 2B.0307)
N.C. Department of ,.Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental management. 1994a. Water quality progress in North Carolina 1992-
1993, 305(b) report. Report No.94-07. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1994b (Draft).
Basinwide assessment report support document: New River Basin. Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch,
Raleigh, NC.
N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1996.
Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of
Water Quality Standards, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and water Quality
Standards Applicable to surface waters of North Carolina, and 15A NCAC 2B .0300 -
Assignment of stream classifications. Division of Environmental Management,
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Land Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc.
Am. Geograph. 77(1):118-125.
Pennak, R. W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates' of the United States, 2nd ed.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

27
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora
of the Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands:
Southeast (Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Biological Report 88(26.2).
Rogers, R. 1992. The birds of the Carolinas. International Field checklist
series. Clear Fish, Seattle, WA.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater
fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Univ. of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural
communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Scientific council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks. 1990. -A report on
the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan
fauna. Report to Nongame wildlife Advisory Committee, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
soil conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of Ashe County, NC. Technical
Guide, Section II-A-2. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
N

North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 346 ON SR 1350
OVER BIG HORSE CREEK
B-2910
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
i
0 miles .25 miles .5
Figure 1
r
! lr}\ ,. 1800.
2w ??? ? IlI'?\ o '?5- 94 i
?? ? ?` ` `I ? •' ? ^?!??/ - Pte` ?m
u -
hley 94
Q-2 S,
( ? 0
' 11 j I i _-! ; / ?1i?`- _ j? t Grave
a 1 ? •? ? --rte '? I ? /i ? /
30
if,
I "Alt
'o :'Cem
odi
200
Northw
JI`? - ,. ( /High c= Il??? Cam(
'rte ; ? . l__???. o -. ? I ?? -fir ' ??• \
\ 0

41
i (•?S \
11-? i ? r %r
\1 \ ``J JI 1 \ ?_
759 O
a p
i
80(
'Ir II i? 1
Jti0 r i -? ? a??
a
iU
r ?
n / n 8
Qh
? ? 0 2
LJ 1 J

Slli?
4

0

' OMP')
FIGURE'5. Landscape and topography.