Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19980306 Ver 1_Complete File_19980331COP I? North Carolina_ Wildlife Resources C_ommission?- 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-7e1 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM .? T0: Steve Lund, NCDOT Permit Coordinator Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ?''j?F DS SRC FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program DATE: April 1, 1998 original signed by ire Mickey SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT to replace Bridge No. 138 over Webb Creek on SR 1530, TIP No. B-2918, State Project No. 8.2720901, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1530(3), Avery County. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 138 over Webb Creek with a new bridge approximately 12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the project and less than 0.1 acres of surface waters will be impacted by bridge construction. Foundation investigations, including test borings, will also be required prior to construction of the project. This project has the potential to impact both Webb Prong and Cragg Prong which are NCWRC Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters managed as hatchery supported, however, both streams support wild rainbow and brown trout. We are pleased that NCDOT is replacing Bridge No. 138 with a new bridge instead of a CMP or concrete box culvert. Based on the information provided by NCDOT and our information on the range of trout in the project area, we do not believe this project will cause significant effects to waters supporting trout. Therefore, we do not object to the project as proposed provided that the guidelines outlined in the application, item 11. Summary of Environmental Commitments, are strictly followed. Once the old bridge is removed, stream banks must be resloped based on natural stream bank contours and revegetated with native plants such as tag alder, silky willow, silky dogwood, rhododendron, hemlock, and sycamores. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982. cc: Franklin Vick, NCDOT A. Dorney, DWQ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 980306 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT" JR. P.O. WX2520L RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GOVGIiNolk March 13, 1 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund NCDOT Coordinator Dear Sir: SUBJECT: Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 138 over Webb Creek on SR 1530. TIP No. B-2918, State Project No. 8.272090 1, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1530(3). Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject project. Bridge No. 138 will be replaced approximately 12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure. The new bridge will be approximately 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide and approximately 17 meters (56 feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. There will be 91 meters (300 feet) of new approach work to the north and 15.2 meters (50 feet) of new approach work to the south. Pavement width will be 5.4 meters (18 feet), including two 2.7 meter (9 foot) travel lanes. The grassed shoulders will be 2.1 meters (7 feet) wide to accommodate guardrail, tapering down to 0.6 meters (2 feet) where guardrail is not required. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the recommended alternative. Additionally, less than 0.1 acres of surface waters will be impacted by bridge construction. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in E. NORMS TOLSON SECRETARY o 3S; ? (9 accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 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. We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, a copy of this document is also being provided to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission for their review. Foundation investigations, including test borings, will also be required prior to construction of the project. We have determined that these activities may be authorized under Nationwide Permit 6 for survey activities in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A(B-6). This action would not require notification if not for the fact that the project lies in a mountain trout county. Therefore, NCDOT is requesting authorization of this activity from the CsIgs of Engineers under a Nationwide Permit 6. The NCDOT also asks that the DWQ review this activity for 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3127. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at (919) 733-7844 extension 315. Sincerely, H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/plr cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DWQ Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer Avery County Bridge No. 138 on SR 1530 Over Webb Creek Federal Project BRZ-1530(3) State Project 8.2720901 TIP # B-2918 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: 2 - l3-79 I !/. Date,,_-v H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Date N holas Graf, P. Division Administrator, FHWA Avery County Bridge No. 138 on SR 1530 Over Webb Creek Federal Project BRZ-1530(3) State Project 8.2720901 TIP # B-2918 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION January 1998 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: SS/N ' ^ = SEAL - ? 022552 Date Jo L. Williams, P.E. 'V ' e W Project Planning Engineer L I 2 -9-98 wq y k, Q- 0-/, "o* Date Wayne Elliott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head 2-13-V ( ?/ O Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Avery County Bridge No. 138 on SR 1530 Over Webb Creek Federal Project BRZ-1530(3) State Project 8.2720901 TIP # B-2918 Bridge No. 138 is located in Avery County over Webb Creek (joins with Gragg Prong immediately downstream of project; see Figure 2). It is programmed in the 1998- 2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected. 1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 138 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a new bridge on new alignment 12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately 17 meters (56 feet) long and 7.2 meter (24 feet) wide. The travelway will include two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. There will be 91 meters (300 feet) of new approach work to the north and 15.2 meters (50 feet) of new approach work to the south. The approaches will be paved 30 meters (100 feet) to the north and 15 meters (50 feet) to the south. The pavement width will be 5.4 meters (18 feet) including two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes. The grassed shoulders will be 2.1 meters (7 feet) wide to accommodate guardrail tapering down to 0.6 meters (2 feet) where guardrail is not required. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 30 km/h (20 mph). The estimated cost of the project is $ 245,000 including $220,000 in construction costs and $25,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP is $295,000; including $75,000 in prior year costs, $200,000 in construction costs, and $20,000 in right of way costs. II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS At this early stage of design, it is believed that Alternate 1 will not require any stream relocation of Gragg Prong. However, if it is later determined that Alternate 1 does require stream relocation, Alternate 2 will become the recommended alternate. All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be applied in the design and construction of this project. Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina are applicable to the design phase of this project. Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be used for this project. 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 Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23. Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands. Although much of Avery County is within the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) watershed, this project is located just outside (east) of the watershed; therefore, it is anticipated that TVA compliance will not be applicable for this project. NCWRC has commented that Webb Creek and Gragg Prong are Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. The following will be implemented to minimize impacts to aquatic resources: • Where concrete is used, work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water. • Where possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream. • Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control. III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS A design exception will likely be required due to design speed. IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS SR 1530 (a dead end road) is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. It is located approximately 9.6 kilometers (6 miles) east of Linville in Avery County. Traffic volume is 30 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 50 VPD for the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity and therefore subject to statutory 55 mph. The road serves the community of Roseborough which includes residential development as well as a Christmas tree farm. The existing bridge was completed in 1960. It is 12.5 meters (41 feet) long. The deck is 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide. There is approximately 3 meters (10 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and streambed. There is one lane of traffic on the bridge. According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 21.4 out of a possible 100. The structure is posted 10 tons for single vehicles and 13 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers 2 Both vertical and horizontal alignment are fair in the project vicinity. The travelway is 3 meters (10 feet) wide and unpaved. Shoulders on both approaches of the bridge are approximately 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide. The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported within the last three years in the vicinity of the project. There are no school bus crossings over the studied bridge. Mountain Electric has a single phase electrical service crossing along the north side of Webb Creek. V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows: Alternate 1) (Recommended) Bridge No. 138 will be replaced with a new bridge on new alignment 12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. Alternate 2) Bridge No. 138 would be replaced with a new bridge on new alignment 12 meters (40 feet) west of the existing structure. Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure during construction. "Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. Replacing on the existing alignment would require a temporary bridge resulting in a higher cost than the two proposed alternates. VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1 Recommended COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE 1 2 New Bridge Structure $ 90,000 $90,000 Bridge Removal 3,000 3,000 Roadway & Approaches 55,000 55,000 Mobilization & 47,000 47,000 Miscellaneous Engineering & 25,000 25,000 Contingencies Total Construction $ 220,000 $ 220,000 Right of Way $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Total Cost $ 245,000 $ 245,000 VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 138 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a new bridge on new alignment 12 meters (40 feet) east of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The new structure will be approximately 17 meters (56 feet) long and 7.2 meter (24 feet) wide. The travelway will include two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. There will be 91 meters (300 feet) of new approach work to the north and 15.2 meters (50 feet) of new approach work to the south. The approaches will be paved 30 meters (100 feet) to the north and 15 meters (50 feet) to the south. The pavement width will be 5.4 meters (18 feet) including two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes. The grassed shoulders will be 2.1 meters (7 feet) wide to accommodate guardrail tapering down to 0.6 meters (2 feet) where guardrail is not required. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 30 km/h (20 mph). Alternate 1 is recommended because it provides better horizontal alignment than Alternate 2 and increases the sight distance on the north end of the project. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommendation. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project. There are no hazardous waste impacts. No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain. Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project. B. AIR AND NOISE This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. The project is located in Avery County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction. C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS responded that the proposed bridge will not impact prime or important farmland soils. D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has recommended that an architectural survey is not necessary for this project. In the same letter, the State Office of Archaeology (SOA) has recommended that an archaeological survey is required. NCDOT Archaeologists have conducted a survey and found that no sites were located within the project area. No further surveys were required. E. NATURAL RESOURCE PHYSICAL RESOURCES Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources. Regional Characteristics Avery County lies in the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Appalachian Mountains Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Topography in the vicinity of the study area is composed of steep slopes and wide floodplains along streams. Project elevation averages 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. Soils of uplands in the project region have developed in place from material weathered from biotite and granitic gneiss. Soils of stream bottoms and floodplains are formed from unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and rock fragments. Soils There are two soil types located in the project area. Dominant soils of the study area include Ashe loam and Riverwash soils. An inventory of these soils can be found in Table 2. A brief description of each soil type is also provided. Table 2. Soils occurring in the project area. .Map Unit Symbol Specific Mapping'Unit % Slope Ac Ashe loam, steep phase 30-60 Ch Clifton loam, steep phase 30-60 Rg Riverwash 0-2 Ashe loam, steep phase soils are found on mountain uplands in the Beech Mountain area and southeastern part of the county. These soils have a medium to rapid surface run-off and medium internal drainage. They are best suited to forest land and their major management limitation is a high erosion factor. Clifton loam, steep phase soils occur in small areas in the central part of the county. These soils have rapid surface runoff and medium internal drainage. Riverwash soils are found in first bottoms. They have poor workability and are not suited for crops or pasture No mapped soils that are listed as hydric soils or soils that are known to contain inclusions of hydric soils are found in the study area. Water Resources This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts. Best Usage Classification Water resources within the study area are located in the Catawba River Drainage Basin. The project crosses one perennial stream, Webb Creek. Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Webb Creek [DEM Index No. I I - 38-34-11-3-3; 03/01/89] is classified as "C Tr ORW". Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Tr (Trout water) is a supplemental water classification assigned to waters suitable for natural trout propagation and the maintenance of stocked trout. The ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters) designation refers to waters which are unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses. Webb Creek flows into Gragg Prong Creek directly below the project area. Gragg Prong Creek [DEM Index No. 11-3 8-34-11 - 3, 03/01/89] is also classified as "C Tr ORW." The project study area lies in an area classified as HQW by the Division of Water Quality. HQW (High Quality Water) refers to waters that are rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special studies. Due to the additional classification of Trout Waters by the DWQ, recommendations set forth in "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina" (Joint Agency Committee 1997) and "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) also apply to this project. No waters classified as Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project study area. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters Webb Creek at SR 1530 is approximately 4.6 meters (20 feet) wide and is approximately 0.3 meters (1.0 feet) deep. The substrate in the study area is composed of rocks of varying sizes and sand. The stream is heavily shaded by adjacent canopy tree species. The riparian zone is well vegetated. Water Quality This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms. 7 General Watershed Characteristics Much of the remaining land in this watershed is undeveloped and nearly half lies within the Pisgah National Forest. Overall, the water quality in this watershed is likely good. There are no point source dischargers in the project vicinity. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network There are no BMAN sampling sites on Webb Creek or Gragg Prong. Point Source Dischargers Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. The DWQ NPDES report lists no permitted dischargers into Webb Creek in the project study area. One potential source of nonpoint source pollution is discharge from septic tanks. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Project construction is likely to cause impacts to water resources in the project study area. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. These construction activities are likely to cause the following impacts to surface water resources: • Increased erosion in the project area and increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing. • Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal. • Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from construction. • Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal. • Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas. • Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in highway runoff. • Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles. • Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater drainage patterns. In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Due to the additional classification of Trout Waters by the DWQ, recommendations set forth in "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina" (Joint Agency Committee 1997) and "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (1 SA NCAC 04B .0024) also apply to this project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading. BIOTIC RESOURCES Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (*). Biotic Communities Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Since many species described are found in more than one community type, the boundaries between contiguous communities are difficult to define. Three communities were identified within the project study area: a Rich Cove Forest, a Low Elevation Seep and a disturbed community. Rich Cove Forest A Rich Cove Forest dominates the project study area. Canopy species dominating this forest include buckeye, white pine, northern hemlock and yellow. Understory and shrub species found in this community include flowering dogwood large flowered rhododendron, mountain laurel, dog hobble and black willow. The herbaceous layer includes sweet white violet, halberd-leaf yellow violet, downy wood violet, golden ragwort, dwarf anemone, partridgeberry, Southern lady fern and scouring rush. Low Elevation Seep A low elevation seep is located along the edge of the Webb Creek floodplain. This area was delineated as jurisdictional wetland and is dominated by the following species: red maple, yellow birch, large flowered rhododendron, curly dock, southern lady fern, common rush, panic grass and sedges. 9 Disturbed Areas Residential land and roadside shoulders in the project study area are dominated by herbaceous species such as fescue, dandelion, Queen Anne's lace, curly dock and winter cress. Wildlife A variety of animal species inhabit the areas adjacent to the proposed bridge. Mammals commonly found in these communities include white-tailed deer, Virginia opossum, raccoon and hispid cotton rat. Avian species found in the forests of the project area include eastern phoebe, belted kingfisher, song sparrow, northern cardinal, rufous- sided towhee, blue jay, Carolina wren, American crow and Carolina chickadee. Reptilian species often found in this area include the eastern box turtle, rat snake and ringneck snake. Amphibians such as eastern newt, slimy salamander, shovel nosed salamander and Blue Ridge two-lined salamander are likely to be found in the project study area. Both the mountain dusky* and red salamander* were observed in Gragg Prong Creek. Mountain Perennial Streams One aquatic community type, the Piedmont Perennial Stream, is also present in the study area. As mentioned earlier, both Webb and Gragg Prong Creek lie in the project study area. These waters contain habitat for various species of freshwater fish and aquatic insects. Water boatman* (family Corixidae) and water striders* (family Gerridae) are common in pools and along stream edges. Fish species expected in these waters include tessellated darter, bluehead chub, creek chub and margined madtom. As mentioned in the wildlife section, two salamander species, the mountain dusky salamander and the red salamander, were observed in Gragg Prong Creek near its confluence with Webb Creek. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts. Terrestrial Impacts Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. 10 Table 3 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the right-of-way width of 24 meters (80 feet). However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Alternate 1 will mostly impact a disturbed community and a small section of Rich Cove Forest that occurs along Webb Creek. Alternate 2 will impact a Rich Cove Forest, disturbed areas along existing roadsides and a small portion of the Low Elevation Seep. However, this alternative is preferred over Alternate I since it is less likely to cause secondary impacts to Gragg Prong Creek from siltation and vegetation removal near the Gragg Prong stream bank. Table 3. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities. Community Impacted Area Alternate 1 Alternate 2 3. 1.1 Rich Cove Forest 0.04 ha (0.09 ac) 0.10 ha (0.24 ac) 3.1.2 Low Elevation Seep 0 ha (0 ac) 0.02 ha (0.06 ac) 3.1.3 Disturbed Areas 0.11 ha (0.28 ac) 0.03 ha (0.07 ac) Total Impacts 0.15 ha (0.37 ac) 0.15 ha (0.37 ac) Aquatic Impacts Impacts to the aquatic community of Webb and Gragg Prong creeks will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 73. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of the stream substrate and banks. These impacts should be limited to the 24 meters (80 feet) right of way. The disturbance of aquatic habitats within the river has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by degrading the overall quality of these habitats and reducing species diversity. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities. • Inhibition of aquatic plant growth. • Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the burial of benthic organisms. • Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations. • Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen. • Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy removal. • Loss of benthic macro invertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment load. Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by preventing riparian canopy removal, limiting in-stream construction, revegetating cleared areas immediately following the completion of grading activities and strict adherence to High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control Measures, "Guidelines for Construction of Highway II Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina" (Joint Agency Committee 1997) and "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds". JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction. Waters of the United States Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that is located within the proposed right- of-way. Webb and Gragg Prong Creeks are the only two jurisdictional surface waters located in the study area. Approximately 24 meters (80 feet ) of Webb Creek will likely be impacted by the proposed project. Gragg Prong Creek should not be directly impacted by this project. One jurisdictional wetland, approximately 0.02 ha (0.06 ac) in size, was located in the project study area. This wetland occurs on the west side of existing SR 1530, north of Webb Creek. Dominant vegetation includes red maple, large flowered rhododendron, southern lady fern, false nettle and other wetland species. Soils with hydric colors were as follows: 0-2 in, 10 YR 3/1; 2-5 in, l OYR 4/2; and from 5-12 in, l OYR 4/1 with mottles of 10YR 6/8 that are common and distinct. Hydrological indicators include drift marks and water in the soil sample hole at a depth of six inches. Alternate 2 will impact a small section of the low elevation seep wetland but will be further away from Gragg Prong Creek and hopefully cause less impacts to this stream. If Alternate I can be designed so as not to require relocation of Gragg Prong Creek, then Alternate 1 is the more environmentally sound of the two alternates. 12 Permits Impacts to Waters of the United States are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act: • that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and; • that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination. This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. Since, the proposed project crosses waters designated as Trout Waters by the DWQ, the authorization of a Section 404 Nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon concurrence of the WRC. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, 13 in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through. project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and/or more than 45.7 meters (150.0 linear feet) of streams will require compensatory mitigation. Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE. Rare and Protected Species Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. Federally-Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 04 November 1997, the FWS lists 10 federally protected species for Avery County. The following is a brief description of the characteristics and habitat 14 requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts. The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenburgii, Threatened) is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and black plastron. The orange or yellow blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. It inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western piedmont. The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In June or July three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about fifty five days. (Bernard S. Martof, et al., 1980). The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to similarity of Appearance with other rare species that are listed for protection. Species listed as T (S/A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Habitat for this species is not present in the project study area. Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendiii, Endangered) is widespread throughout the western United States and the eastern subspecies only exists in a few fragmented populations. These populations are found in caves near the Potomac River in eastern West Virginia, Tazewell County, Virginia, and Lee County, Kentucky. It was not observed in North Carolina until the early '80's, when small populations were discovered in Avery and Watauga counties. The Virginia big-eared bat is most easily identified by large ears (more than 2.5 cm) and large glandular masses on its muzzle. The ears are held erect when the bat is awake and are curled around the head when it is hibernating or at its summer roost. This bat has an overall length of 92- 112 mm and weighs from 9-12 grams. The Virginia big- eared bat has long, soft fur that is brown in color and darker on the dorsal side. The hair on the feet does not extend beyond the toes. Virginia big-eared bats are permanent residents of caves in oak-hickory forests and mines. Hibernating colonies are typically located in deep cave passage ways that have stable temperatures and air movement. Temperature in these hibernacula average (6- 12 C), lower than that tolerated by most other bats. Maternity colonies are formed in warm caves in the spring. This species is nocturnal and feeds on moths, beetles, and other insects. Bats mate in the fall and winter and a single young is born in June. The young grow rapidly and reach adult within a single month, with females becoming reproductively active by the following fall. 15 Suitable habitat in the form of caves or abandoned mine shafts is not present in the project study area. The potential exists for this species to utilize riparian habitats in the study area for foraging, however, construction of the proposed project will not limit foraging opportunities for this species. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect the Virginia big-eared bat. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus, Endangered) has a dark plumage along its back and its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet. Immature peregrine falcons have dark-brownish backs and heavily streaked underparts. The peregrine falcon has pointed wings in flight, a common characteristic among falcons. The peregrine falcon is roughly the size of a crow, between 41-51 cm long and 91-112 cm wide. In this species the female is roughly 25% larger than the male. The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May. Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The preferred prey is medium sized birds such as pigeons. Peregrine falcons are at the top of their food chain and are therefore extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such as DDT. Suitable habitat in the form large dead trees and high cliffs is not present in the project study area. Fields and roadsides in the project vicinity could provide foraging opportunities for the peregrine falcon, however, these communities will be reestablished with project completion. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. Construction of the proposed project will not affect the peregrine falcon. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Populations of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratals, Endangered) are stable throughout most of its range. After the Pleistocene Epoch glaciations this species underwent speciation in the southern part of its range resulting in the coloratus and fuscus subspecies. Populations of coloratus are considered to be isolated relicts and have a patchy distribution in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Known populations occur at Grandfather Mountain, Mt. Mitchell, the Great Balsam Mountains, the Plott Balsam Mountains, the Great Smokey Mountains (Jackson and Swain Counties), the Unicoi Mountains, and the Long Hope Valley area. 16 The northern flying squirrel is a small gliding rodent, measuring from 26-31 cm in total length and weighing from 95-140 gm. This squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along either side of its body, this flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes. Juvenile squirrels have a uniform dark gray back and an off-white underside. Adult squirrels are characteristically gray with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash on the back, and a grayish-white to buffy white underside. This squirrel is found in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests, above 1517 meters (5000 feet). Foraging occurs in both communities with nesting only occurring in the Hardwood Community type. Northern flying squirrels feed on lichens, fungi, seeds, buds, fruit, staminate cones, insects, and animal flesh. Winter shelters are found in tree cavities, woodpecker holes. Leaf nests are most commonly occupied in the summer. The inside of their nests is lined with lichens, moss, or finely chewed bark. A West Virginia study has preliminary results that show the use of burrows by northern flying squirrels. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of this species. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect the northern flying squirrel. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga, Endangered) is the northern most representative of the family Dipluridae (Tarantulas). It is also one of the smallest spiders in this primitive group, 3.0-5.6 mm (0.25-0.45 in). Coloration ranges from light brown to dark reddish brown, with no abdominal markings. Field identification characteristics include a pair of very long posterior spinnerets and the presence of a second pair of book lungs, which appear as light patches posterior to the genital furrow. Males of the species mature during September and October, and females are known to lay eggs in June. The egg sac usually contains between seven to nine eggs. The life span of these spiders is unknown although it has been estimated that maturity may take four years. The spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on rocks or boulders. These mats are found in well-shaded areas of mature, high elevation (> 1524 m/5000 feet) spruce-fir forests. This species is currently known from only four populations one in Tennessee, one in Avery/Caldwell County, and two in Swain County. Individuals are very sensitive to desiccation and require constant high humidity. Constant high humidity helps to maintain the necessary level of moisture in the moss mats, neither parched nor saturated. The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs in the interface between the moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have been found to 17 extend into the interior of the moss mat. No prey has been found in the webs, but the probable prey for the spruce-fir moss spider is the abundant springtails found in moss mats. The continued existence of the spruce-fir moss spider is related directly to habitat loss/alteration of the spruce-fir forest from air pollution and exotic insect pests, particularly the balsam wooly adelgid. The loss and reduction of the forest canopy results in localized changes in microclimate, including increased temperatures, increased light and decreased moisture on the forest floor. These alterations of the microclimate lead to desiccation of the moss mats on which the spider and, possibly its prey base, depend for survival. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of the spruce-fir moss spider. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect the spruce-fir moss spider. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Spreading avens (Geum radiatum, Endangered) is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been extirpated and populations in any other counties have shown a serious decline. Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 2-5 decimeters. The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent. Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves are smaller than the basal, rounded to obviate, with irregularly cut margins. Fruits are hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7-9 mm in diameter. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of 1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747 meters (5680-5760 feet) and 1759 meters (5800 feet). Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found in soils composed of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of spreading avens. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the 18 project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect spreading avens. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Roan Mountain bluet (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana, Endangered) is known historically from seven populations in the southern Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. These populations of Hedyotis purpurea_ var. montana are threatened by land use as well as natural succession. This perennial species is shallow rooted and grows in low tufts 1 to 2 dm tall. The median cauline leaves are 1 to 3 centimeters long. It has several bright purple flowers arranged in a terminal cyme. The seed capsule quickly follows the flowers which form in July and early August. This plant can be found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the gravelly talus associated with cliffs. It grows best in areas where it is exposed to full sunlight and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of this species. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect Roan Mountain bluet. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri, Threatened) is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Of nine historic populations only seven remain in existence. Heller's blazing star is a short stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are accuminate and diminish in size and breadth upward on the stem. Stems are 4 dm tall and are topped with a raceme of small (7-20 cm) lavender flowers. Fruits are present from September to November. This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can be found growing on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of Heller's blazing star. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found 19 in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect Heller's blazing star. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The Blue-Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea, Threatened) is found only on high mountain peaks in North Carolina and Tennessee. This species inhabits rock outcrops, ledges, cliffs, and balds at elevations above 1400 meters. It grows in humus or clay loams on igneous and metasedimentary rock. Sites are usually exposed to full sun and have shallow acidic (pH 4) soils. Ideal sites are intermittently saturated but excessively to moderately poorly drained. This perennial herb has an erect 10 cm to 20 cm stem that grows from a short stout rhizome. The stem is terete and longitudinally striate, and greenish-brown proximally. It becomes more strongly ribbed and reddish distally, and is usually covered with whitish hairs. The stem is generally unbranched below the flower. The oblanceolate and spatulate leaves are acute with the offshoot and basal stem leaves being the largest and longest. The broad portions of the leaves are ascending-serrate and the bases are long-attenuate. Stem leaves are reduced and more sessile as they approach the top of the stem. The yellow flowers are borne in heads arranged in a corymbiform inflorescence. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of Blue Ridge goldenrod. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect Blue Ridge goldenrod. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare, Endangered) is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments occur on high elevation (> 1220 m/ 4000 feet) mountain tops and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (< 762 m/ 2500 feet) deep gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania. The terminal portions of the rock gnome lichen resemble strap-like lobes, having a blue-gray color on the upper surface and generally a shiny-white color on the lower surface. The color of the fungi near the base is black. The squamules are nearly parallel 20 to the rock surface and are generally 1 to 2 centimeters in length. The fruiting bodies are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July through September. The primary means of propagation appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally. The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. The thinning and death of these forest occurs from exotic insect pests, trampling of hikers and associated soil erosion and compaction from hikers. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen. Drastic changes in microclimate (including increased temperatures and decreased moisture) result from the impacts to these forests. These alterations of the microclimate lead to the desiccation of the rock gnome lichen. The project is located at an elevation of 671 meters (2200 feet) above mean sea level. This is well below the required elevational limits of rock gnome lichen. The NCNHP database of rare species was checked and no records for this species were found in the project study area. The construction of the proposed project will not affect rock gnome lichen. Biological Conclusion: No Effect 21 FIGURES T am.JiA 00ZI:1 aloaS 8T6Z-9 Naaao ggaM .Ianp OC9I US uo 8Ei 'ON a2ppq aauldald Xjunoo AaanV yauaig jeJuawuoltnu:j 7y 3utuuvld uoiaejjodsuuij,3ojuawiiuda(l a i uuilozuD yyioN I I FIGURE I ATTACHMENTS ??ns srn R , t North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary August 6, 1996 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge #12 on SR 1530 over Gragg Creek, Avery County, B-2918, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1 530(3), State Project 8.2720901, ER 97-7094 Dear Mr. Graf: Division of Archives and Histor} Jeffrey J. Crow, Director On July 17, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting. Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project. In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project. This project is located in an area of high probability. We recommend an archaeological survey be conducted in the area of replacement. 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. 101) Fast June,, ') beet RaIcirh, North Carolina 217601-ISO7 Y'? 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, David Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc: H. F. Vick C. Bruton T. Padgett i?ortb CMIiiiii De"pliif'thiciit off Wiiifat' kesclurce5 James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Belly Ray McCain, Secretary March 13, 1997 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1 442 Re: Bridge 1 30 on SR 1530, Avery County, State Project 8.2720901, B-291 8, Federal Aid BRZ- 1530(3), ER 97-8477 Dear Mr. Graf: Division of Archives and History Jc[frey J. Crow, Director , Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1997, transmitting the archaeological survey report by John Mintz concerning the above project. v During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Mr. Mintz has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recorin-endaticn since th!s project will not involve significant archaeological resources. 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 500. 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, 1 U /David Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc: H. F. Vick J. Mintz 109 Last Jones Sircet • I?alci?;h, Nnith Carolina 27601-2KI17 ''? ?. ( . ? ? a ??:- i ?tl .rte _,m .. r ...- '? . '?`[.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 112 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 276044188, 910-7313391 MI?'lOl:f\NL)11N1 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director 1O: H. Franklin Vick. P.F.., Nlanacer Planning and Environmental Blanch, NCDOI' FROiNI: Stephanie f:. Gaudreau, My KC-I'ion C'ourdinawl I labitat Conservation I'mgrarn L- 1);x-1,1 i\ugust 6, 1996 SU13.II CT: Keview of scopin g shots fur Bridge 12 on SR 1530 over Gra Pl-m q.:A May Cnt:70. F H' : I;_ 248. This correspondence responds to a request b? yon fur our reyiecv and comments un rile scopin,, sheds for the subject project. Gra_ Prune. is I latchery Supported Dcsi?lllatcd Public Mountain I raUt A\ ate' 111raW'11UUt it. Icn,_th an.' also supports some "ild rainbow and brown trout. Wo: have the lollowiny recmumendatiuns wgardk y this prujwo I) Wo: prefer that tllc existing bri(I ?c be replaced with another spanning structure Al c do not hc:icve that a timing restriction would be necessary while installing a new spanniwl structure. ?) If a multi-cell culvert is the proposed replacement structtue. then the structure should he dc?i_ned so 111.11 all "water Ilows through one cell (or taco if necessary) durin,t loco Iluccs. This %611 cnsure th;u \%atcr depth through the structure is deep cnau-'h to allow fish paSSat ?-'e. In addition, no insUean1 ccark should talc place between Noyendhcr I - April 15 to protect the spawning staves of trout. ConstrMetion must be accomplished sa that ccet concrete flocs not contract snranl ccatcr. lii, ?? ill lessen tic chance ufaltcring the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish Will. 4) Ifpossible, heavy apti-lent should be operated from the hail: rather than in the sucam channel in ardor to nlinirnizc sedimentation and reduce the likelihood ol'inuoducin other pollutants into the stream. 5) Tempmarv or permanent herbaceous vepwition should he planled on all bare soil cyithin 15 dat sal „round disturbin?-' activities to provide lun!?-term erosion control. Thant: you lot- t11e opportunity to review and conuucnt during the early stages of this project. If you h;ne any yucstions re?--';urding these comments, please contact nu at 704I'652-12?7.