20001481 Ver 1_Complete File_20001115

0 Pw+??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
November 15, 2000

DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office 0 014 8 1
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Watauga County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 317 over South
Fork New River on SR 1355; State Project No. 8.2750701; Federal Aid
No. MABRZ-1355(1); TIP No. B-3065.
Dear Mr. Lund:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requests
authorization from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 to replace Bridge No. 317 over SR 1355. A causeway will
be needed to construct the bridge, and the NCDOT asks that t is action be authorized
under a Section 404 NWP 33. The project has a let date of May 2001.
Bridge No. 317 over South Fork New River on SR 1355 will be replaced with a
two lane bridge on a tangent alignment approximately 50 ft upstream (west) of the
existing location. The bridge grade will be approximately 15 ft above the elevation of the
existing bridge. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
which will be removed after new bridge construction is completed. Bridge No. 317 is
composed entirely of steel and timber and will result in no temporary fill due to
demolition debris.
The project has been described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Action
Classification Form signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 9,
1999. The project is being processed by the FHWA as a CE in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Individual Permit but proposes to proceed under a Section 404 NWP 23 in accordance
with 61 Federal Re ig ster 65874, 65916, issued December 13, 1996.
There have been no changes in the proposed project since the CE was completed.
There will be no wetlands impacted by the proposed project. As described in the CE, the
NCDOT will construct a bridge instead of a culvert.
A causeway is needed in order to construct the new bridge. The causeway will
result in a temporary impact to <0.06 acre (2614 square feet) of surface waters and 91200
cubic yards of material will be placed in the stream temporarily. Permit drawings of the
causeway are attached to this letter.
Watauga County is among the 25 mountain counties designated as having trout
waters. This reach of the South Fork New River is not designated by the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) as a Public Mountain Trout Water.
Written concurrence for 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the N. C.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not required for either the Section 404 NWP 23
or 33. The NCDWQ is provided written notification of the proposed action by a copy of
this Section 404 NWP 23 permit application. The NCDOT will adhere to all conditions
of the general certification for Section 404 NWP 23 and 33 thereby not necessitating a
written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 NWP 23 to
replace Bridge No. 317 over South Fork New River on SR 1355 and under a Section 404
NWP 33 for the temporary causeway. The NCDOT will adhere to the general conditions
of the 401 WQC associated with these Section 404 NWPs, thereby not requiring written
notification from the NCDWQ.
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this
project, please contact Ms. Jill Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 329.
Sincerely,
I/, C- 'f.A?
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
U Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/Jh
TIP No. B-3065 November 15, 2000
Application for Section 404 NWP 23, 33 2 of 3
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Owen Anderson, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., TIP and Programming
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. R.C. McCann, P. E., Division I 1 Engineer
TIP No. B-3065 November 15, 2000
Application for Section 404 NWP 23, 33 3 of 3
VICINITY MAP
,l
A _ 1334
_ 1395
C?ee?1 1 351
cj `t ,
1333 1
1331 _
1356
1355
T
1332
1407
SOUTH 1331 I \i
1391 1355
1660 1402
1512
ROCKY MTN. o
ELEV. 4078 Q _
221 ?;,,;,tir•
421 =?.?- O
PROJECT
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.2750701 (B-3065)
BRIDGEa 317 ON SR 1355 OVER
SOUTH FORD NEW RIVER
SHEET 1. OF A_ .d/ 2000
x'351 1 353
ER
V
1354
1392 1358
1392 1
NEw _
J
1357 L
1389
C
Ruthaiwood
?r
1508
1508
P°
O
Ln
O

co
a
J
N
D
W
cr
O
O Ut`-
O _
r1 M

+ LD (\'j CD
LI)
+
M
Ln
_ O =
- (_o
>
a Qj w w

In trl W cn

O
O
Ln
O
0

lP
O
M

b

®
a
, x 4 a
U
z

F w
0 ;:4
M
0 L w M

04 ® w H

w

ca x

O
z o
0
N

0
o C:..

a o
?
d ti ? x
p W E..+ M
®
U ? W

7 ? x
?
a
na
91 °
I-
r ?
\ ? Q O
\ 4J Sul M
N
\ c,7. X61 J.
?I N .
z
a o
a =
:;1- o
W N
L v
L/)
/ N
:D Q F-
Q J N
U W
J ?
? \ I
\ O? ' J
A
ACS- \
M r
I k ?}
I ? Q
k U ?
/ N
I
it

CC)
C o
II
W
..a
d
(A °
u;
W
O ?
.a
q '.>r
.a ?
L ?
O Z
W ?
0 0

8

w
o N m Q
LL
W

W
Z
Y
K
O
LL
Z =

}
O
F
Q

a = O >

Z 2 to u)
LL
M
0 m?
~U
Z
N
0
_
I'S
N
O
Q
wo 3 to
N

U co
Z m
U
w

LL
O
T
F
w
2

C) 0

LL M

Q
Q
N
LL

Q'

v
?

P
T

r

•
4.

O
? c u
N

m

2 p
J
LL N
O
U ?
O ? ?

W U
a
w y
-
m
c
0
? m
-y L
? U
O
C
C
N A
N •
? L a

U
w
U ?
Q
°'
?
= co
o 0
- ?
U. o 0
m ?
? A
w E
?
-
F

w
? 0

U c ^

v
d

0

C ? ?
v
?- Z
? LL
cQ _
= p
c N C
? U

~
' o
Q D
d ? > w ?
v
? w ?
2
Q -
J
W y? O
? N
w m
E
d?

N
C ? O
Z A
d?
3
d
3 „
U N
wy^

v ? U_
N ?
m
O
(O
t'1

O t0
o t o
3 0 ~
o
?
? o

i?
J
47 Z I I J t L I
U U O
M
O
a 7
w
N
Watauga County
SR-1355
Bridge No. 317 over South Fork New River
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1355(1)
State Project No. 8.2750701
T.I.P. No. B-3065
001481
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APP
h illiam D. Gilmore, P.E., anager
DAicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division Administrator, FHWA
• DATE
I It

Watauga County
SR-1355
Bridge No. 317 over South Fork New River
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1355(1)
State Project No. 8.2750701
T.I.P. No. B-3065
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 1999
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C
C V?
L. J. )#a d, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett Jr., P.E., Uni ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Nancy Ca panell
Project Planning Engineer
SE AL
4
.s
Watauga County
SR-1355
Bridge No. 317 over South Fork New River
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1355(1)
State Project No. 8.2750701
T.I.P. No. B-3065
The replacement of Bridge No. 317 is included in the NCDOT Draft 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program and is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. Construction activities within the stream will be prohibited during the spawning season
for small mouth bass and rock bass from May 1 through June 30.
3. A study to determine the feasibility of providing canoe launch facilities at the existing
bridge location will be performed during the design of the project. The study will be
coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
4. The project may require a floodway modification and letter or map revision. NCDOT
will coordinate these revisions with FEMA and with the appropriate State and local
agencies.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 317 will be replaced immediately upstream (west) of its existing location with a
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $604,100. The current estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the NCDOT Draft 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$349,000 including $21,000 for right-of-way and $328,000 for construction.
E
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR-1355 (Pine Run Road) crosses over South Fork New River in the rural area of Watauga
County approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) northeast of Boone. The roadway crosses at a bend
in the river and parallels the river on both sides. Land use is primarily rural residential and forest
land in the study area. SR-1355 is classified as a local road in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
The south approach to Bridge No. 317 has a pavement width of 5.4 meters (18 feet) and shoulder
widths varying from 0.6 to 2.4 meters (2 to 8 feet). The north approach is unpaved and has a
width of 5.2 meters (17 feet). The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge and
narrow to 3.4 meters (11 feet) at the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the bridge
with a sharp curve immediately off the bridge on the north approach. The roadway is situated
approximately 2.4 meters (8 feet) above the riverbed.
The traffic volumes on SR 1355 were 150 vehicles per day (vpd) in 1996 and are projected to be
400 vpd for the design year 2020. The volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted but is assumed to be 88
kilometers per hour (55 mph) at the bridge.
Bridge No. 317 as shown in Figure 3 has overall length of 28 meters (130 feet) and a clear
roadway width of 3.4 meters (11 feet). The existing one-lane bridge was constructed in 1964.
The bridge has a creosote timber deck and the superstructure consists of three spans of steel I-
beams supported by concrete piers on concrete footings with concrete abutments. The posted
weight limit is 14.2 metric tons (14 tons) for a single vehicle and 19.3 metric tons (19 tons) for a
truck-tractor semi-trailer. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 38.6, compared to a rating of
100 for a new structure. The bridge is classified as a "low water bridge" since it is approximately
2.4 meters (8 feet) above the riverbed. The bridge is overtopped several times per year (see
Figure 4).
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from September 1,
1993 to August 30, 1996.
Overhead telephone and electric lines are located upstream (west) of the bridge.
One school bus crosses this bridge two times per day during the school year.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 317. Each alternative consists of
replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 6.6 meters (22
feet) and a length of 65 meters (215 feet). The approach roadway will consist of pavement 5.4
meters (18 feet) wide and 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide grassed shoulders.
z

The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A (with on-site detour) involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The
roadway grade of the new bridge would be raised approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet) above the
elevation of the existing bridge grade. A design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph) would
be provided. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located upstream
(west) of the existing bridge.
Alternate B (Recommended) involves replacing the bridge on a tangent alignment
approximately 15.2 meters (50 feet) upstream (west) of its existing location. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The roadway grade of the new bridge
would be approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet) above the elevation of the existing bridge grade. A
design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph) would be provided.
Alternate C involves replacing the bridge on a curved alignment approximately 24 meters (80
feet) upstream (west) of the present bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately 4.6 meters
(15 feet) above the elevation of the existing bridge grade. A design speed of 65 kilometers per
hour (40 mph) would be provided.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic service provided by SR-
1355.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended
alternate (Alternate B) provides a design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph). Due to the
existing horizontal alignment, both within and outside the project area, a major relocation of SR-
1355 would be required to improve the design speed to 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph). Since
the alignment of the recommended alternate is compatible with the alignment of the remainder of
SR 1355 and projected 2020 traffic volumes are low (400 vpd), the additional costs are not
justified.
r
VI. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in the _
following table:
Alternate A
With on-site
detour Alternate B Alternate C
Structure Removal $6,664.00 $6,664.00 $6,664.00
Structure $254,520.00 $254,520.00 $309,820.00
Roadway Approaches $90,255.00 $103,345.00 $106,170.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $103,561.00 $110,471.00 $127,346.00
Engineering and Contingencies $70,000.00 $75,000.00 $100,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easements / Util. $92,125.00 $54,100.00 $94,300.00
SUBTOTAL $617,125.00 $604,100.00 $744,300.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $281,750.00 NA NA
TOTAL $898,875.00 $604,100.00 $744,300.00
The above estimates are not based on detailed design plans; therefore, 30 % has been included
for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering and
contingencies.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative B is recommended since it is the most cost effective alternative and was supported by
local residents at the Citizens Informational Workshop. Bridge No. 317 will be replaced 15.2
meters meters (50 feet) upstream (west) of the existing alignment with a two-lane bridge. The
new structure will have a clear roadway width of 6.6 meters (22 feet) and a length of 65 meters
(215 feet). The roadway approaches will be 5.4 meters (18 feet) wide with 1.2 meters (4-feet)
wide shoulders. The bridge grade will be approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet) above the elevation
of the existing bridge grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
4

T
•
VIII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
There is no suitable offsite detour route for this project due to the length, substandard horizontal
alignment and narrow widths of the secondary roads in the area.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic
mapping (Deep Gap and Todd Quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources Soil Conservation Service draft soils mapping
(USDA 1944), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:1250).
The site was visited on June 21, 1998. The study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was assumed to be
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) wide. Impact calculations for each alignment are based on
right-of-way width, which is approximately 24 meters (80 feet) for each alignment and the
detour; actual impacts will be limited to construction limits and will be less than those shown for
right-of-way. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands, and water quality protection in the South Fork New River.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation biologist, Mr.
Alexander P. Smith. Mr. Smith is an ecologist and Senior Project Manager with EcoScience
Corporation with more than 13 years of experience in the environmental field.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985,Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et
al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1994, and Potter et al. 1980). Water quality information for area
streams and tributaries was derived from the New River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan (DEM 1995). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into
Watauga County (May 13, 1999) was obtained prior to completion of this investigation. In
addition, NHP records documenting presence of Federal or State-listed species were consulted
during this investigation.
E
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Blue Ridge geological belt within the Blue Ridge
physiographic province of the Appalachian Mountains region of western North Carolina.
Topography is characterized by strongly sloping uplands and narrow, well-defined floodplains
along drainages. Elevations in the study corridor are relatively flat along the banks of the South
Fork New River, averaging approximately 927 meters (3040 feet) above sea level (USGS Deep
Gap quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are primarily Rosman fine sandy loam (0 to 3 percent slope) in the r
immediate vicinity of the South Fork New River channel, and Chandler fine sandy loam (30 to `
60 percent slopes) on toe slopes along the outer margins of the floodplain (USDA unpublished).
Rosman soils (Fluventic Haplumbrepts) are non-hydric soils with hydric inclusions of the
Toxaway series. Rosman soils are well drained with a moderately rapid permeability rate which
typically form along a floodplain/terrace interface. This series is characterized by occasional
flooding. Chandler soils (Typic Dystrochrepts) are non-hydric soils of sometimes steep
mountain slopes. Chandler soils are somewhat excessively drained with a moderately rapid
permeability rate.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 05-07-01 of the New River Basin (DEM 1995).
This area is part of USGS accounting unit 05050001 of the Ohio Region. Bridge No. 317
crosses South Fork New River upstream of the confluence with Pine Run. This reach of South
Fork New River has been assigned Stream Index Number 10-1-(3.5) by the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management (DEM).
Stream Characteristics
The South Fork New River is a mountain stream with swift current over cobble and sand
substrate. Water clarity was moderate during the field visit; the slight turbidity may have been
due to a recent rainfall. The South Fork New River is approximately 22 meters (72 feet) wide at
the existing bridge. A sand point bar is present just below the existing bridge on the west bank.
The channel adjacent to the point bar is approximately 0.4 meters (1.5 feet) deep at the deepest
point and has a cobble bottom. The channel upstream of the bridge is approximately 0.9 to 1.2
meters (3 to 4 feet) deep at the deepest point and has a sand substrate. Except for the point bar,
the river banks are steep and support either shrub or forest vegetation. No rooted aquatic
vegetation and little organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) were apparent in the stream channel.
Some woody debris has accumulated on the adjacent point bar, which has in turn served to trap
sand and organics.

Best Usage Classifications and Water Ouali
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C+ has been assigned to South Fork New River from Winkler Creek to Elk
Creek (DEM 1995), a reach that includes the study corridor. The designation C denotes that
appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an
infrequent or incidental basis. The + designation identifies waters that are subject to a special
management strategy in order to protect downstream waters designated as Outstanding Resource
Waters. The most recent water quality chemical data were used to determine that this reach of
river is Fully Supporting its designated uses (DEM 1995).
No waters designated as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
Water Supply I (WS I), or Water Supply II (WS II) occur within 1.6 kilometers (I mile) of the
study corridor; however, this reach of South Fork New River has been identified as a potential
candidate for reclassification to HQW or ORW based on excellent water quality and other
attributes. An evaluation for reclassification will be conducted during the next basin sampling
schedule (DEM 1995). This portion of the South Fork New River is not designated a N.C.
Natural and Scenic River or a national Wild and Scenic River. The portion of the South Fork
New River that does have both of these designations is located approximately 86 river kilometers
(52 river miles) downstream in Ashe County.
The Boone wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which is located approximately 14 river
kilometers (8.7 river miles) upstream of the study corridor, is a major permitted source
discharger on the South Fork New River. The Boone WWTP has a permitted flow of 3.2 million
gallons per day (DEM 1995). No significant non-point discharges were noted in the study
corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project area
is summarized in the New River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (Draft) (DEM
1995). User support information concerning water quality is available for monitored stream
segments of the South Fork New River at Perkinsville (approximately 12 river kilometers [7.5
river miles] above the study corridor) and the Watauga/Ashe County border indicate a water
quality rating of Fair in Perkinsville, which improves to Excellent by the Watauga/Ashe County
border. A benthic macroinvertebrate sampling station is located at the Bridge No.317 site on the
South Fork New River. Sampling data indicate a bioclassification rating of Good for this
segment of stream (DEM 1995). The South Fork New River along this reach is rated as
"supporting its intended uses."
Another measure of water quality is the N.C. Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses
biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community. However, no fish
community assessments have been conducted in the New River basin (DEM 1995).
C
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices.
The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and
Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include: the use
of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams
by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flow in the
South Fork New River, thereby protecting stream integrity. Long-term impacts to adjacent
reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts
to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: hardwood forest and
maintained/disturbed areas. These plant communities are described below.
Hardwood Forest - Hardwood forest is located on the slope above the river bank on the eastern
end of the study corridor downstream of the bridge, and on the west end of the study corridor
upstream of the bridge. Within the study corridor, this community is represented by narrow
strips of ecotonal edge; no forest interior is affected. Canopy species include northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). Shrubs include rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), witch hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata) along the river banks. Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) and rosettes of various perennials were growing among the hillside rocks.
Maintained/Disturbed Areas - This community includes roadsides, maintained lawns, garden
plots, and disturbed river banks. Scattered trees remain in this community and include painted
buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica), northern red oak, black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), box elder
(Acer negundo), and flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida). Shrubs consist of multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora) and various yard ornamentals. Herbaceous species include blackberries (Rubus
spp.), red clover (Trifolium pratense), polygala (Polygala curtissii), ragweed (Ambrosia trifida),
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), panic grass (Panicum sp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.),
asters (Aster spp.), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), giant Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense),
wild-rye (Elymus virginicus), and foxtail grass (Setaria sp.).
T
I
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the projected right-of-way (a 24 meters [80 feet] wide corridor);
actual impacts within construction limits will be less. A summary of potential plant community
impacts is presented below:
Estimated Impact
In hectares (acres in parentheses)
Plant Community
Hardwood Forest
Maintairted/Disturbed Area
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Detour
0.01 (0.02) ---- ---- ----
0.33(0.82) 0.29 (0.72) 0.36 (0.90) 0.21 (0.52)
Total 0.34 (0.84) 0.29 (0.72) 0.36 (0.90) 0.21 (0.52)
From ecological perspective, the impacts of widening an existing road facility are minimal
relative to construction on new alignment. No new fragmentation of plant communities will be
created, as the project will result only in relocation of ecotonal boundaries. Permanent impacts to
plant communities resulting from bridge replacement are generally restricted to narrow strips
adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. The total potential impact to
plant communities based on right-of-way is similar among the three alternatives, with ranges
between a low of 0.29 hectares (ha) (0.72 acres [ac]) for Alternate B and a high of 0.36 ha (0.90
ac) for Alternate C. However, most of this potential impact for each alternate is within
maintained/disturbed areas and does not infringe upon adjacent natural communities. Only
Alternate A infringes on hardwood forest and the amount is relatively minor (2 percent of total
potential impact). The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as
practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Mammal sign (tracks) observed within the study corridor included cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.),
domestic dog (Canis familiaris), and house cat (Fells catus). Other species expected include
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and opportunistic species
such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and various rodents.
Most of the study corridor consists of maintained/disturbed areas and hardwood forest ecotone.
Birds expected within or adjacent to the corridor include northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow
L.
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern bluebird (Sialis
sialia), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), and
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis). Other birds, such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern oriole (kterus
galbula), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) may be expected to occur within the ecotonal
woodland and maintained/disturbed communities within the study corridor.
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor. Reptiles
expected to occur in the vicinity of the study corridor include: eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rat snake T
(Elaphe obsoleta), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus).
Amphibians that may occur in the vicinity of the study area include: hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis), blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus), American toad (Bufo
americanus), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Aquatic
Limited dip-netting within the study corridor did not yield any fish; however, the varied riverine
habitat and good water quality is expected to support numerous species of minnows, darters, and
other fish. Species that may be present include central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum),
Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), northern
hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), greenside darter (Etheostoma blenniodes), Kanawha darter
(E. kanawhae), Appalachia darter (Percina gymnocephala), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi).
Potential game fish which may be present within the study corridor include rock bass
(Ambloplites rupestris), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieu), and channel catfish (ktalurus punctatus) (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994).
There are no anadromous fish within this system.
Stream bank surveys did not yield any shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel
presence within the study corridor.
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the
system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
10
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of South Fork New River are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR Section 328.3). The waters of South Fork New River exhibit characteristics of riverine,
upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded waters (R3UBH).
All of the alternates will bridge the open waters of South Fork New River, negating the need for
direct encroachment into riverine waters. The average stream length within the project right-of-
way is approximately 8.3 meters (27 feet). The area of open waters within the right-of-way for
each alternate varies due to differing angles of crossing. The open waters of South Fork New
River within the right-of-way for each alternate are presented below.
Potential Study Corridor
Open-water Impact Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Detour
Area (hectare [acre])
0.05 (0.13) 0.06 (0.14) 0.07 (0.17) 0.04(0.11)
Linear distance (meters [feet]) 7.3(24) 7.3(24) 23.0 (74) 7.3(24)
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987). Based on the three parameter approach, no jurisdictional wetlands occur within the
study corridor for any of the alternates.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has
been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact. The N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However,
use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not
suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected
to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District.
Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
Watauga County is among the 25 mountain counties designated as having trout waters. The
COE has implemented discretionary authority to override certain nationwide and general permits
which authorize the discharge of dredged or fill materials into North Carolina designated trout
waters. Generally, projects involving trout stream infringement, including all waters upstream to
and above their headwaters, can be processed under either General Bridge Permit 031 or
11

Individual Permit. Projects in trout waters require review by the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC). This reach of the South Fork New River is not designated by the WRC as
Public Mountain Trout Waters.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with the construction activities could be mitigated
by replanting disturbed areas with appropriate native plant species and removal of temporary fill
material upon project completion. If stream impacts exceed 45.7 linear meters (150 linear feet)
of channel, compensatory mitigation could be required by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Protected Species
Federal Protected S12ecies
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed (P)
proposed for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/Al) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range", and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any
species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Whenever a species which
is not Threatened or Endangered closely resembles a Threatened or Endangered species, such
species may be treated as Threatened or Endangered, and would be referred to as Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance or Endangered due to Similarity of Appearance. Federal protected
species listed for Watauga County (May 13, 1999 FWS list) include:
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenburgii T(S/A)
Carolina northern flying squirre Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia montana E
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 8 to 10
centimeters (3 to 4 inches). This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the
presence of a bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al.
1980). The bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to
over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened within
the northern portion of its range, and within the southern portion of its range, which includes
North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/Al) to
the northern population. The listing bans the collection and interstate and international
commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The listing allows incidental take
12
T
I
of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful activity.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association with
aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and
Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the
Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP records do not indicate that bog turtle has been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project bridge.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not
required. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle since no palustrine
emergent wetlands will be impacted by any of the bridge alternates or the temporary detour.
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel - The Carolina northern flying squirrel is an isolated,
endangered subspecies of the more wide-ranging northern flying squirrel. Flying squirrels are
nocturnal and have a loose, fully-furred fold of skin on each side of the body between the wrists
and the ankles that enable the squirrels to glide from trees to other trees or to the ground for
foraging. Carolina northern flying squirrel can be distinguished from the similar southern flying
squirrel (G. volans) by larger size (ranging from 26.0 to 30.5 centimeters [10.2 to 12.0 inches]
total length) and by having gray rather than white bases of the ventral hairs (Weigl 1987).
The Carolina northern flying squirrel typically occurs in spruce-fir forest and mature hardwood
forest adjacent to spruce-fir forest at elevations above 1200 meters (4000 feet) (Weigl 1987).
Endemic to the Appalachians of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, this subspecies
is known from the Great Smoky Mountains, Roan Mountain, and Mount Mitchell. NHP records
do not indicate that Carolina northern flying squirrel has been documented within 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 miles) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The Carolina northern flying squirrel typically occurs
in spruce-fir forests and mature hardwood forests adjacent to spruce-fir forests at
elevations above 1200 meters (4000 feet). The project corridor is located at
approximately 925 meters (3040 feet) of elevation and contains no suitable habitat for the
Carolina northern flying squirrel. There is no suitable habitat for this species within 3.2
kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project corridor, and NHP records have no documentation of
this species within the project corridor vicinity. Based on available information, this
project will not impact Carolina northern flying squirrel. NO EFFECT
Spreading Avens - Spreading avens is an erect, densely hairy, perennial herb to 50 centimeters
(20 inches) tall. A basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves is produced from a horizontal
rhizome. These leaves are long-stalked and terminated by a large kidney-shaped lobe; tiny
leaflets are usually present below the terminal lobe (Kral 1983). Small, sessile, serrated leaves
are found on the flowering stem. Lanceolate sepals and relatively long petal lengths of 1.3 to 2.0
centimeters (0.5 to 0.8 inches) help differentiate spreading avens from related species (Massey et
al. 1983). Bright yellow, five-petaled flowers approximately 6 to 8 centimeters (2.4 to 3.1
inches) across are produced from June to August; these are followed between July and October
by hairy achenes with a persistent, straight style approximately 1 centimeter (0.2 inches) long
(Massey et al 1983). Vegetative parts may emerge in May and persist through October.
13
Spreading avens usually occurs at elevations greater than 1524 meters (5000 feet) in mountain
grass balds, in grassy clearings in heath balds, and in crevices of granitic rock; it cannot tolerate
shading or crowding (Kral 1983). Spreading avens is found in a few northwestern counties of
North Carolina, and in nearby counties of Tennessee. NHP records do not indicate that
spreading avens has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Spreading avens typically occurs at elevations greater
than 1524 meters (5000 feet) in mountain grass balds, in grassy clearings in heath balds,
or in granitic rock crevices. The project corridor does not contain the proper habitat for
propagation of this species and is located at too low an elevation (925 meters [3040 feet])
for spreading avens. NHP records have no documentation of this species within 3.2
kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project corridor. Based on available information, this
project will not result in an adverse impact to spreading avens. NO EFFECT
Roan Mountain Bluet- Roan Mountain bluet, formerly treated as a variety of the the summer
bluet (Houstonia [Hedyotis] purpurea), is a low, erect to spreading perennial herb with a
squarish stem typically growing to 15 centimeters (6 inches) high. The leaves are opposite,
sessile, rounded basally but taper to a pointed tip and have smooth, toothless margins. Small,
deep purple, tubular flowers are produced on small terminal clusters in June and July with
fruiting occurring in July and August. It differs from the more common H. purpurea by having
larger, smooth-edged leaves, and by larger flowers, capsules, and seeds (Weakley 1993).
Roan Mountain bluet is endemic to the high Blue Ridge mountains of North Carolina and
Tennessee, mostly from 1280 to 1920 meters (4200 to 6300 feet) in elevation. It grows in
crevices of rock outcrops as well as in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops
(Weakley 1993). NHP records do not indicate that Roan Mountain bluet has been documented
within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Roan Mountain bluet is endemic to the high Blue
Ridge Mountains, mostly from 1280 to 1920 meters (4200 to 6300 feet) in elevation.
This plant grows on rock outcrops and grassy balds. The project corridor does not
contain the appropriate habitat for the propagation of this species and is too low an
elevation (924 meters [3040 feet]) for Roan Mountain bluet. The NHP has no
documentation of this species within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project corridor.
Based on available information, this project will not adversely impact Roan Mountain
bluet. NO EFFECT
Heller's Blazing Star - Heller's blazing star is an erect herbaceous perennial with glabrous stems
that reach heights of 10 to 50 centimeters (4 to 20 inches). The leaves are simple, linear to
lanceolate, alternate, and arranged spirally along the stem. Leaf size is variable, with a gradual
decrease in size up the stem. The inflorescence consists of compact heads arranged in a raceme-
like fashion along the stem. The heads typically contain seven to ten tubular florets which may
be purple to lavender in color. Heller's blazing star is distinguished from related species by
shorter height and relatively short pappus (modified calyx lobes) half or less the length of the
14
corolla tube. Flowers are produced from July to September, with fruiting occurring from August
to October (Massey et al. 1983).
Heller's blazing star has been found on rocky summits at high elevations in the mountains of
western North Carolina. This species typically is found in full sun growing in shallow, acidic
soils on or around granitic outcrops, ledges, and cliff faces (Kral 1983, Massey et al. 1983).
Heller's blazing star is reported to occur at elevations between approximately 1070 and 1900
meters (3500 and 6200 feet). NHP records indicate no documentation of Heller's blazing star
within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Heller's blazing star typically occurs on rocky
summits at elevations between 1070 and 1900 meters (3500 and 6200 feet). The project
corridor elevation is approximately 925 meters (3040 feet) and contains no appropriate
habitat for Heller's blazing star. NHP records indicate no documentation of Heller's
blazing star within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the project corridor. Based on available
information, this project will not adversely impact Heller's blazing star. NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The May 13, 1999 FWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat within
the study corridor has been evaluated for the following FSC species listed for Watauga County:
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Yes SC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea No SR
Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister No SC
Kanawha minnow Phenacobius teretulus Yes SC
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus Yes SC
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus No SR*
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus Yes SR
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana Yes SR
Fraser fir Abies fraseri No C
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis No C
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum No E-SC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea No C
Bent avens Geum geniculatum No T
Butternut Juglans cinerea No ----
Gray's lily Lilium grayi No T-SC
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena No E
15

The abbreviations for state status can be interpreted as follows:
E Endangered
T Threatened
SC Special Concern
SR Significantly Rare
C Candidate
* Species is a game animal, and therefore cannot be listed for State
protection as E, T, or C
NHP files document only one FSC species within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the study
corridor, the Kanawah minnow. Suitable habitat for this species is likely to occur within the
study corridor. This minnow occurs throughout the New River drainage in North Carolina,
Virginia, and West Virginia. This species occurs in riffles and runs over gravel in large creeks to
medium-sized rivers. This species is not believed to have a high tolerance for turbid waters.
Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the system to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream
habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
stringent erosion control measures. BMP's for the protection of surface waters will be strictly
enforced to reduce impacts to this Federal Species of Concern.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) (Amoroso 1997, LeGrand and Hall 1997) receive
limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and
the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate
that no terrestrial or aquatic State-listed species have been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0
miles) of the study corridor.
Rare/Unique Natural Areas
The reach of South Fork New River that passes through the study corridor is a NHP Identified
Priority Area referred to as South Fork New River Aquatic Habitat. An Identified Priority Area
receives no formal protection but is recognized as a unique area and may come under protection
in the future. Impacts to the stream will be minimized by using best management practices
(BMPs) during construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of wetlands as staging areas.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present stream
flow in the South Fork New River, thereby protecting stream integrity.
16
X. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
On July 16, 1998, NCDOT, FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed
properties in the project's area of potential effect and concluded that there arc no properties
including Bridge No. 317 considered eligible for the National Register (see Concurrence Form in
Appendix).
In their August 4, 1998 letter, the SHPO stated there are no recorded archaeological sites within
the project vicinity, although several sites are recorded along the South Fork New River. The
SHPO recommended a survey be conducted before project implementation (see Appendix for
SHPO letter). NCDOT subsequently conducted an archaeological survey of the project area and
found no archaeological sites. A report of the survey results will be sent to SHPO for review.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge. Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No families or businesses will be
relocated by this project (see Relocation Report in Appendix).
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. 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.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
17

emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
The replacement of the existing bridge will not result in increased noise levels. The noise levels
will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Watauga County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in a Flood Hazard Zone where a detailed study has been performed. The Flood
Insurance Rate Map which shows the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain is included
in the Appendix. Since the proposed bridge will require that a considerable amount of fill be
placed in the floodplain and/or the floodway, it is anticipated that the project may require a
floodway modification and a letter of map revision. Existing drainage patterns will be
maintained to the extent practicable. Groundwater will not be affected since very little
excavation will be required for the project construction.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
XII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
* US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
US Army Corps of Engineers- Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
* US Fish and Wildlife Service- Asheville
US Natural Resources Conservation Service-Raleigh
* State Clearinghouse
* NC Department of Cultural Resources
* NC Department of Public Instruction
* NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* NC Wildlife Commission
* NC Division of Water Quality
18
* NC Division of Land Resources
* NC Division of Parks and Recreation
* NC Division of Forest Resources
* NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Watauga County Commissioners
Watauga County Manager
* Watauga County Planning Director
* Region D Council of Governments
* Watauga County Schools
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The comments are
included in the appendix of this report.
B. Public Involvement
Letters containing information on the proposed bridge replacement were sent to property
owners in the area of the project on July 27, 1998. A notice of the Citizens Informational
Workshop was sent to property owners in the vicinity of the project on December 2, 1998
and the workshop was advertised in local area newspapers. The Citizens Informational
Workshop was held on December 15, 1998 in the Parkway Elementary School located
along US 421. Approximately 25 citizens attended the workshop. The general consensus
of those in attendance supported Alternate B with a few supporting Alternate C.
19
L
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995. New River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Handley, C.O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's Endangered
Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing
Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67
PP.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
264 pp.
Massey, J. R., D. K. S. Otte, T. A. Atkinson, and R. D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and
Illustrated
Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the Mountains of North
Carolina and Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical
Report SE-20. 218 pp.
20
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second
Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 464 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 408 pp.
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular Plants. Pp. 51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.),
Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1944. Soil Survey of Watauga County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Rubiaceae (Madder Family): Houstonia (Bluet). Pp. 362-364 in: Guide to
the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: Working Draft of 27 August 1993.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Weigl, P.D. 1987. Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Handley), Northern Flying Squirrel. Pp. 12-15
in: M.K. Clark (ed.), Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological
Survey 1987-3. 52 pp.
21

im -%w

1.7
-, % :.
% ,

t

Glow

1m
Sal. 1 . J
.4 •.
? Y

NOWAgO KNOB
V. 4445 Aim
tw Z t im
?
A
r
.
ww
t•.?e.- ELEV. 40711

B
E r
1
®
t
It
Q*
4
' dle `
W A T
GAI
fq/U
Mrwood
Grow.
14s_* ,
w?t.m G ?.
CS u WA
w?ISk.. ;,YIt
in mocil

BRIDGE NO. 317
? i
•I

-t1N ?

AKALTM RRANcE
BRIDGE NO. 317
SR 1355 OVER SOUTH FORK NEW RIVER
WATAUGA COUNTY
B-3065
VICINITY MAP
0 1 $ 3 4
ORMW SCAM OW FIGURE I
BRIDGE NO. 317
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
BRIDGE NO. 317
2/17/98
2/18/98
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P (RO
WILMINt3TON. NORTH ORTH CJIROLINA 28402-1890
in EERY REFER To November 13, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
- Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
1sCEI
G'

NOV 18 1

d 99
8
r a
IV• ^!11. 1 ?. .

4ry
4•?
C
,
r1Y1
This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1998, requesting our comments on
"Bridge No. 317 on SR 1355 over South Fork New River, Watauga County, TIP No.
B-3065, State Project No. 8.2750701, Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1355(1)"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199930066).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects that would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
ulJ
,". Ale*Morrison, Jr., P.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
L.
November 13, 1998
Page 1 of 1
"Bridge No. 317 on SR 1355 over South Fork New River, Watauga County, TIP No.
B-3065, State Project No. 8.2750701, Federal Aid' Project No. MABRZ-1355(1)"
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. -No. 199930066)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby : Wilds. Planning Services Section. at
1910)'61-4728
The project area is located outside of the planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. The Huntington District Corps of Engineers
has jurisdiction in this area with respect to flood plains. We have contacted them and
obtained permission to respond in their stead.
The proposed project is located in Watauga County, which is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). From a review Panel 201 of the January
1997 Watauga County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate
Map, South Fork New River is a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. Reference is made to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Prooedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways, copies of which have been provided
previously to your office. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of
the NFIP, administered by FEMA, and. be in compliance with all local ordinances.
Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments T
should be referred to the local building official.
2. WATERS ANO WETLANDS: POC Mr. Mm- Lund. Ashallle Field Office.
Recitiulatorv Division. al jf2.312714867
N this, project is determined-to be a Categorical Exclusion (CE) as indicated in the
request for comments, then it would be eligible for authorization under Department of
the Army Nationwide- Permit No. 23. Because the project is located in a trout waters
county, a predischarge notification would-be required. The CE document should
address, alt impacts from the intended work including temporary construction impacts.
Impacts to waters and wetlands should be minimized to the maximum extent
practicable. Due to the recreational potential of the river in this area, we recommend
against ion onsite detour unless it is a temporary bridge that would not interfere with
boating activity.
Any questions concerning Department of the Army permits should be directed to
Mr. Lund.
I

..._ .... ... v n v twtu.. ?....t. v v a
X51 co
MEMO -FOR:
SROMi
??_Z?
U.S. & WbAim SMACE
Asheville Field Offim
m Z11600a sacs:
Ashcveile, North Carolina 28801
Mark A. Cantrell, FPM do tt4Ws DkkSW
82AWS-3939, amnion Z17 Fax. [phone]
Leigh Lane, TICDOT Project Pisurniag il'ang'Waff
Marls A. Cantrell
AQgW ZS, 2998
Brid=e repbeemmt (B- 0(M, Brid=e No. 317, South Rork Now Rtm,
Watsup comty, mC .
i . 11e edtwhed fist comerm hdarally listed Mmm known of fik* f3+o? WaturSa County,
aswdL ssferal epeolm of ooeoern.
2. 1 haw reviawad Art maot+dn, and And so brows oeeaaeences of dad gmdw in the am
oftLo mbjaot project, a WORM W on the map atta - I I to your hkter of htiy 9, 1998. We
do haw rsewds of the federal sped of e m - m man, ire xWsmraaow (Phenwobf w m,sadw)
hm dm4heut the reach of rim at the proposed bridge repiskownent. Also, Arpda
spinua ( vdrg?irra) s ktso9m groat dowartraun tesdtos of t1?e Aver. Phrase
congder aD of these sp dcs in say envkonasestsl doemnent for this project.
3. Tire Se vice is most ooaomned about natural suvm imWons in the tuts. We recommend
tbat the sew bridge be longer end higherthin the aos&` summm. We fwomnmd that .
the new bridge comple* q= the beadkfW width of the Warm, and tint it be at last
twioe a high at the mmcim,m depth )fthir is not feokk a low--water btidgo BAY
hu-less hdhm a on stream ttroe*IM tim saduotnre with awm om bouts it: the
stream,
4. Warswmm d that provisions in the bridge design to prevent road and bridge runoff
ftom etntaio6 dlrostly im the stream- route ommww though an upland vesemad
buRbr prim to catering my mood water course. Wei cwraese should ncver be allowed
to comaw the strain duft eonstracdoa. Dasol uon of the muting stsuam should be
dm caiOy to prevent dischatga ofdebris into thevkw.
3. Tryon have any qaa Woes about themconoeeets, am taet me at t{2tIMM3939, extension
. 227. .
703 238 $SJO
PN3 A=VrLLE
foo.
ENDANCr r1.O, T EA
AND ?EEAT
TXM,AND CANDMATE SiPECMS
SPtCMS
WATAiTGA CO OF CQ11fCg
UNTt': NOjiTH C.ARpLIIYA
'U Ust w" adapted aix",
the North C
h is s Hi3g4 of Ndnb a,` f° tit Nuwd Hmttyo prom's county fiftd SPA List.
D 8hw the Noah C"r°j eaq (fors caq*ft f? ?inin the
of'ouroe,? *kfawoft on ttris &>< t
?Mcoft bdV +?ded card ? d ??° P"ro?+WO ttbm
dnoaei
that tWl on ca be c middy psi defrm Mind is now m*m
Federt[ a
info is
not be coAWdvW a W*Xk to for OW sPacia and
CCMMNAAW Yerpet?
OOS 4udc
Comma "'GdAw
Y a4?r?
Kaw6mium
SSov&mwswsbnw
AOp a oogqOW
armamw
yuaa MdUa y Y
va.rdkr Phft,
Tau ltdcM
?VM .
spvaftgvm
36aa mauft" blwc
bu
owls iffy
209 blairm .
Mmmw 3nrlPb **,Wji ,
C?mfw wm&o ,a,
Q*mm"W &*Ph. o gta:
Aro"m Ox ter
Phava*11 a at
Ssee pelrintsPWW*A4Ms
s),nwrvoe am
zasmismw rww,
.vma..ra avow
Grrn
lldW (?N« ns
var. MWORIM)
I,fetrls brllstJ
/Jhw
Aaapa!"ab?q
FSSC'
PIC
Ustigam
FSC
FOC
FSCs
PSCO
Fac
PSC
PSc
psc
Psc
PsC••
Ps
PSC
7kemmod
race
lint
I
EadsvpM A taxon "is daripar of extirxfioo throoihrnrt aU or a siiaific" portion of its tame."
Thnso eed A tatma "&* to become eodae Pmd wilt the focCteeahle f gM thrMn aut all or a
Sir tic?pol00ft of it, Mo.,
proposed A tatotn proposed tar official 1w4sa or dtrestow&
c l A mm wtdw a midMbm fit ONOW WO Of which there n suMcaot i ftmidm
0o suppoR ?tAat tray or toay aot bo lhiowd in the ibpsc
FSC A Fsdval spmeee of coaosro • spades
Ormacly C2 os wwame spodw oar ip mdmw t coaddevom &r SMO ft which dwm
is immad" 101an mtk ato aiippat crow.
T(WA) T%ImOod dw to aimiisrity orappowa m Amwimn armor ? s sppoies that it
du-d due to akwha ty ofappeamm With 066 rate spedu twd it listed Ihr hs
peotwetiaa. 'dress wpeciw sra mt bW6Sim* =dwS$ ed of diceiOCttsd and stye w
abject to 8adiaa 7 ootstrhtioa.
UP A tattoo that is listed Lcxperinmwral (either MOW or aomasmk*' Fes,
OMNB W =wwtd spsoies (044, red woM are VaWd its t an pawc laud.
tx coroulow *m patposet, audu spooies propaod for lilftom pivWbA&
Specioe with 1, 2, 9, or 4 awteridcs l; -bi than W598la hisb6c, obewea orloeidmtW raeewdL
Isbak rooord - do :pother was but obaarvod in the coo* uW* tha 30 )'CKS N o.
uneeetaiQ•
000bo me .am . the dm aodlar ioatioo at obmatios is
+wFiteideatril/mistaot mmd - de s edu war "rad wt" a[its aortaal nr or habitat.
•re. - dumm nrd inctdeoty temd.
? r.
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
August 25 1 V E p
Mr. William Gilmore 2 s
N.C. Department of Transportation ' 1988
Planning and Environmental Branch 6 2
Transportation Building '? aV 1g?0?1F.
Raleigh, NC 27611 t OH16 4 P '' ??
Dear Mr. Gilmore: ' 4 E1VIl1
Re: SCH File # 99-E-4220-0058; Scoping Proposed Improvements to Bridge No. 317 on SR 1355
Over South Fork River in Watauga County;'TIP #B-3065
The above referenced project has been reviewed. through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
/Siincerely,
e4li 459
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region D
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-3003 Telephone [phone]
An Evial OR---r / Farm m Acton lmmpsM
oe

-NOV
i { 4
tot
Jr. I
.17
? r
NORTH CAROLINA QtPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MEMORANDUM
T0: Chrys eaggett
state clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review coordinator
RE: 99-0088 scoping Bridge Replacement No. 317, Watauga
County
DATE. August 13, 1998
The department of Znvironment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached co-amts are
for the applicants information and consideratioin.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
AUG 171998•
N.C. STATE CLEARIyGHOUSE
R0. eo2 270s7, RALEIGH NC a7411-7007 + ¦ • a Walk" "Lleww' 9-66 , "Ife. NC 27004
rM.1+af10.7334004 MXVI0-710.3000 WWW.aMM0.aTAT9,119•Y8/tNNO+
AN EQUAL 0rrOlkTVw#TT/AFF&R.AT1V9 ACTION aYPLOValk - 00% 119C7CLS9110% P-OaT•CONfVMalk "'a0
E
r
T'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 23, 1998
NCDENR
To: Melba McGee, DENR SEPA Goordiru=
From: Mary Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Coordinator /fly/
Subject: Comments on DOT Scoping, DEPiR Nos. 99-0058,99-0059,99-0060.
99-0061, DWQ Nos. 12266-12169. Rehabilitation or Improvement for
Bridge Nos. 317, 207, 53 and 83. Watauga, Forsyth, Surry and Gaston
Counties, respectively.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the Categorical Exclusion document:
A. Identify the screams potentiaily? by the project. The curmot sutwn
classifications and use support gs for these streams should be included. This
information is available fwm DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 562
B. Identify the linear feet of stream c tatuteliudon/relOCBd ns. If the anginal stream
banks wen vegetated, it is requested that the chaaaeliudhelocated stream banks be
M-Ve
C. Identify the number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill patch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used
F. Please ensure that sediment and ervsiort control measures are not placed in
wcdaods.
G . Wedaod Itapacts
i) Identify the federal manna) used for idmatlfying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
Iii) Have wetland impacts boon miaiatizod?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
P.O Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AKinnsive Action Employer 60% rocyolo& 10% post-owsumsr popw
CE Comments
Page 21
Wetland impacts by plant communities affected
) Quality of wetlands impacted.
Total wetland impacts.
List the 401 General C W cation numbers requested from DWQ.
Y
H. /waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
1 val of any /Q site in a wetland, the contractor shall
a 40104
Wdm cotxmience of 401 Water Quality? Chou may be required for this
Applicatiaos uesao coverage ? our Ck=W Certification 14 or General
31(witb wetiatt? MI will requht written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
CeatfBcadon may be if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the towtaam cuent pmcdcable.
please give Cyndi Bell a call at [phone] if you should have any questions
on these comments.
molt Bridge Rehab. CE comments
E
or. Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Wetlands/40I Unit (DM
I
?I NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
E,PMRONMZNT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DMSION Or PARKS AND RRCR[ATION
August 17, 1998
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall S I
SUBJECT: Scoping - Improvements .to Bridge 317 over South Fork New River,
Watauga County
REFERENCE: 99-E-0058
The reach of the South Fork crossed by this bridge has been identified as part of the
South Fork New River Aquatic Habitat by the Natural Heritage Program. Several rare
species of fish have been in this vicinity. The Kanawha minnow (Phvwcobius
tereadia), state listed as Special Concern and a federal Species of Concern, has been
recorded at the bridge crossing itself: the tongue-ded minnow (Broglossum larvae) and
Kanawha darter (F.duostonta karuawhae), both considered significantly rare in North
Carolina have also been. recorded up-and downstream from the bridge.
These species are highly vulnerable to the effects of siltation or to the toxic effects of
curing concrete. We dnefore recommend that all best management practices for the
control of erosion and sedimentation be strictly followed and that all concrete used in
the project be fully cued before allowed to come into contact with the water.
Ru.Os,tsN7.ltw?snwNCaswtt•>wws ?wwswtw.7ss.wtwt FAx0twsts."s0
Ar tW? O/rwwrtlw?lr /Amwrwnve AQt'?N? LMw?e?cw - 1011 RwevetwOil Ox •o?r•corwur?w wwrww
State ofNorth CaroWla
Depattmeat of Eurltoamaat dad Natural Remmas Reviswias Ores: WS Je0 -
IItl'Ynr.oVE8Nl16t nA,L nvzw -PROJECT commvm Pmea Nwa r: Wigosf _Dw D.0-: 811,7&L
Alter nsviaw of this Fiojret it has btua tI - -' kod that the EM permit(s) andla approvsk iadieassd roar rued go b# obftined in order for this paojeet tD -
oomOy with North CuoHna Law. Quabons mprdmg these permits shorts be addressed to Oct Rcgiomltl Offim indicaoed on the neveive of the forth.
All aeahm ieec information red vwidAi rely wA to throe erne red eenn" arnavAiWds front do uses Regkmal Ofaioe.
Norsul Proeees rune
(wkuwey rise LWNQ

PERMft s sPEGAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES 0-r REQuMELUN s
O Pwsab oerwaa R eMew w.rewaar trwiwat A"Amstion 90 doyabfert Maio wrN - mi, or award of 0gaaentiea 30 days
abHili.e,..w.r.ywsm.,eeasi.as /k sew.r,y.e..a MWIC1s era6 ia?soriolt P.s4.FV++aat+oa ereraiad ocohnoo. rsud.
ant duMsr j.? iw,tw setfio. wwewa. (90 der)
O NPDEti • pair to diasbesp ides uefsaa weft aadMr AptieNioa ll*ap bdowbgk Wivltp. Osoioa kgoc iea Fw4ppbatm 90-120 days
peudittrtrparwisadneoslrtraWawswasrfWakiw eosfr+nooawLAddifismAy.obtaimpwoielo.oerlrraaew.rt.wtler
drsbar/i 5 w iews wrfaoa vrnas, bookend 6aibWvmoW after NFDES. Reply tints. 30 bys soar nompt of (NIA)
plw or isms of NPDU pam -whidrwr im leery
a we, um Pasaa hoaptinAve welr:arl aaAwtog usuagy oaaesesy 30 days
(NIA)
woks cwmwmion itrmit t twphle opphadion tm st below! v sod pan* lewd prior to tM 74M
icowlstiae ofd ". • { t tsppoeeovt (15 dare)
Oredp ad FID ?wetit ApplioUo11 espy muu be served on ad1 sdjsoeat npartea property owner. 33 days
OweittiaepMiowrwryplietliewaapa.t, vowLMing soyvpuine
Eriweret to FiR Qua N.C. Dopro oss of Adminiseradm sad FndsrW DtWV (90 dsr)
and FiH Permit.
D ietesil is seawraeKa k opwatt Air Peilution Ilbatertteat NIA
h W W aadrer Eeiaig11 Soften 0-e per 13 A NCAC 60 der.
(2Q.0100. 2Q.0300, 2110600)
Aar open runiy ateeiwtd wisp gabjeor propaal
ewe be is vongliaaee vrit?13 A NCAC 20.1900
O DWAVOoa or mr ations of n vmm eombcog 6o der
abalaa ovelse lsaae be is somplis newib 13 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) wbiab requires aotifkwion god
n ovU prix to deendom Cana Agb ale CmM NIA
Group 919.7334020. (90 days)
D sour" Pandit required atdsr 13 A NCAC
?9
w
%0$
oo
SIe Solirataliew PeUuia Cerarei A0- of 1977 afoot M peopriy eddnred for oar lad dbtarbies awinity. An trogias A
sedhasiwtiaa aolNlol plan will M required if era 0-r men aareo b M diMtrbed PikafllM wpb props Rgotaal OlBm (land Quality 20 days
Seat) At lau IOider l A bog"W activity. A fee of s30 far #* frisk &o cad 12000 for o" adAtieasl wo 0-r pM OM ()0 days)
a,"MP ay the plea
d 'Ibs SOONN Mica PoUtpig11 99111114 Act Of 1973 mestbe adheattd whb lop- *04 tedlro11wd Leal Ordbuoor. p0 days)
O UAW" Parent Oehsitt itapnti11u and Surely bond fim wah ENR. Hand amew works
wigtypgatiregadaueirefewasaialriaYdLtud Anyartniaedxoder 704ar
lbsa ayes ads estnt be pstt AN& DW applvpi M bard must be raw s (60 drys)
belbn 0to ptrt11p an be awed.
O Nets co wi. owrift pntair 0a4At mho by N.C. Division Fens Ro w rein if posit e+eaeb a der t day
(NIA)
O Spetdat Gmusd Cksescies Bu romg Paew - 22 Oa.eits brpewioa by N.C. Dirsies Penes Rsatrws nglrord "ffraeretlten 1 day
counties in sesskd N.C. wits orpaic aaib 5wt awed ptaadslamias aeiiviliw s1s evNvK LpesWns obsal0 M (NIA)
/. reground at leer sea days beI awl bus is pLnaed."
0. OU Raw" pasilhhr WA e06920 ribs
(NIA)
O Due swirly Paeit Ypenait requited, sponstn1160 days More be& oepetwsioa. Anent
aaat hire N.C. qua88d snottai to: prepare plaat, itspow aasocrue chew
W* emea-d-is aeswdias to ENR opevv.d pia- slay alsolovArs 70 days
pwwit wdor rtreegtrilo eo11ual propose. And a 104 pewit Qa11 Cape of
tvigi aea An impwha ofsiais soonaavy Is warily Nand gasiAoriwe A (60 dar)
ati11imm he efS200.00 moot amwrerrry On appliasiea An adkiiaul
I , iog fir bead as a perentap of dw kohl Project as will be Kgwrw
spa Completua
NomraI Prone. Time
li
it
i
m
)
(dawwy t
me
PER11rfS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCCOURD or REQV1RUITN"
O Pumit to drill e.ploru wy oil w rat well File surety bond of SS.000 Wilk ENR n-ittg to allies of NC cottditiotal Ihat 10 days
any well opswil bydrill opsrafot WSA upon abondmwent be Plu&ed (NIA)
according loENR ruMr mtd nrulatimu.
O Osophysical Etapknimn PMWI ApOkstiatt"wilt ENR at last 10 day, prior a issm of permL 10 days
Apptias(an by MW No 1>< and d Wile "IMM (NIA)
O State Lamm CmaUttLtion Permit ApplieaUw in band on ttlrttttwtr like is chm Must include deswiptiots Ic 17.20 der
drawing st tawm - A proarot ewtrnhip of ripsian property. (N/A)
101 W uw Qusility C.0ficatinn NIA 60 days
(170 days)
O CAMA Permit for MAJOR develop new (270.00 he ntuw seeatgwry appfieatiss SS days
(u0 den)
O CAMA Paring for MINOR devel"i ew SSO.00 fat NAM If M) Sppli=b= 22 dry;
(27 days)
O Sevwel gatrdMk mo.runtemt are Isatad is or near the prejett tees V aey tltostsasaxMs used N bt slswd a deettoryed. please
N.C. Geadesic Sw"y. Gott 276117. RaW$K NC 27611
AbandOMleM of any Welts, if tequirad mud hs in smog larim with Title I SA. Subchpter 2G0100.
Matifteatias of the proper npn#W aWKV is ngtnsted if "os hate artdwWwjW ela?- p tsdts (LISTS) are disonverad daring any excavation opegtioo.
O Compliance With 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal S4trmwatar Rule) is itwired. 45 days
(NIA)
• anrnents (.
Other a
ach adcWom al paps it neresary
beiing armin in Cite enrunaM authority)
/m
/
,b
????!!!!'
//
C,,,,i..*.L . tI? o•?.- -ins
T- 7/w /k y
'

rs
2
7
nr)
.
1RECIONAL OFFICU9
Questious reprdiug Most peewxMs sbsubl lwaddasseed to the Ragtasrl t71Eee trtsrhd below.
O Asheville Regional OEice
59 woorks Place
Ashevillk. NC 28001
("4)1314201
O Fayeseville Regional OEice
Suite 714 Washovia 8ri14ing
Farltaville. NC 21701
(919)4$6-1543
O Mooresville Regional ODise
fly Nenh Main Swat. P.O. 8RK 0:00
Meerevilk. NC 2$115
(704)K3.1699
O Washington Regional0mcd
943 W=Nftg an Square Mall
Washington NC 27809
919)946.6401
O Raleigh Regional Office
$200 94"m Drive. Slits 101
RsMigb. NC 27609
(919) !71 4700
O WoRd st" ReRtonat ORtos
127 Cwdmal Drive Ea3ensm
WiMwtgton. NC 21403
[phone]
O winww -Solem Rgiarl 001ce
SSS wasghta" SL
Wlratan,BaMm, NC 27107
(910) 771 -""
Department of Environnie"',
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
1
p?HNR
PROJECT REVIEW Cobou=5
d County. A?-
Project Number:
135
Project Name: No-iLi-Ld
? pr???. •
O i of ;tale a- oeodptil
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
'Box 27687, Rileigh, N.C- 27611 [phone]. intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument ie a violation of N. C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact t.a U. C. gffice of state
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office at 919/733-3.836.•
Rate
l.irY e.'er
Tr2S on and Sedimentation Centime' '
No cc r'rR'=t
This project will require aQpraval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plai prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if ?
born than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required*to satisfy Environmental
?- Policy A(erosion eirid ssdiatentatioa =ust submitted as
part of the .
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Lone (NQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this •
project should be prepared by the rtza"t to Transportation
under the erosion control F_og a delegation Highways from the '.*Molina sedimentation Control Commission.
_ othew (comments attached)
Far care inforr::tion eoaescc Sect-on at 919/733-4674.
..- --•._ ,?•_L•
7 2
I /I <' ,r'Ai. 7 ii•G : 7 t

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DrwstoN OF FONElT R4loURGEs
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
August 3, 1998
MORANIDIM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Bill 44Vm, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: DOT Scoping Bridge No. 317 on SR 1355, Watauga County
PROJECT #: 99.0058 dt Tip # B-3065
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviewed the referenced scoping
document and submits the following comments that should be addressed in the EA
concerning impacts to woodlands.
1. The impact to forest resources by bridge construction will vary depending on the
alternative selected. Lt general the rehabilitation or replacement of the existing
structure on the existing site would have minimal impact to forestland. Therefore,
we prefer the bridge be replaced or rehabilitated on the existing site.
2. If the bridge is replaced on new location woodlands will likely be impacted by the
project. Therefore, the total forest land acreage by type that would be removed or
taken out of forest production as a rmdt of the project should be listed in any
environmental documents. Efforts should be madc to min*n 'e impacts to
woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woodlands
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
• Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Urban woodland
3. If woodlands are cleared inchak provisions requiting the contractor to utilize the
merchantable timber removed during constriction. Emphasis should be on selling
all wood products. However, if the wood products cannot be sold then efforts
should be made to haul off this material or tum it into mulch with a tub grinder.
This practice will minims the need for debris burning, and the risk of escaped
fires and smoke management problems to residences, highways, schools, and
towns.
?0. sox Spool. RAL616N. NC 37020.opol
F"o"8*19-733•ilpi FAR•I9.71"850
AN "W" OppOIITyNITT I AIFINYATITp AeT10N gmPLorpll -90% •ppTCL& W 10% p60T.C0Ns@j"RM pA/p•
C
4. If debris burning is needed, the contractor must comply with the laws and regulations of open
burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through G.S. 113-60.31. Watauga County is a non-
high hazard county and a regular burning permit applies.
5. Include provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to forestland
outside the construction area. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently
damaged by heavy equipment. Efforts. should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk,
compaction of the soil, adding layers of SII, exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum
or other substances.
6. If woodlands will not be impacted this should be plainly stated in the environmental
document.
We:sppreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and encourage its impact on
forest resources be considered during the planning process.
cc: Warren Boyette
T
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIvIS10N OF SOIL AND WATER CONfeRVATION
July 29, 1998
MEMORA
TO: NDUM
Melba McGee

FROM: ?J
David Hanson "v Coll
SUBJECT: NC DOT Insprovemeata to Bridge No. 317 on SR 1355 over the
South Fork New River, Watauga County. Project No. 99-E-0058.
The proposed unproven m a may include repairs or replacement of the
bridge in place or new construction at a now location.
The Environmental Assessment should include information on the amount
and location of Prime or Important Farmland that will be impacted. Alternatives
that reduce impacts to Prime or Important Farmland soils are prefeaed. A listing
of these soils in North Carolina is avail" through the MLRA Team Leader,
North Carolina State Office, Natural Resources Conservation Sen?ice, USDA,
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205, Raleigh, N.C. 27609, [phone].
The Prime Farmland designation is not limited to land currently being
cultivated It is intended to identify the best soils that can be used as farmland
without regard to the present vegetative cover. Only attics that are already built-
up or within city limits are exempted fiom consideration.
DHhl
among
P.C. SOK :7N7. RAL[IeN. NORTH CAReLANA 87011-7487
'NONt O, Y-7aa.uo: MX 919.7164SBD
QN teuA? O?roR?uNmr i A?nRMArlvs AenoN trA?O?Rw - solL w?e?eualew M?f•eeN?uM?R ??nw
f
North Carolina Mc ife Resources Commission
got=== 0 512 N. Salisbury Street, RaleO' North Cinroliaa 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Bacadve Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative. and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ke /A
DATE: July 24, 1998 ?
SUBJECT: State Clause Project No. 99EO058: Scoffing comments for replacement of
NCDOT Bricge No. 317 on SR 1355 over South Fork New River, Watauga
County, TIP No. B-3065, State Project No. 8.2750701, Federal Aid Project No.
MABRZ-1355(1).
This correspondence responds to a request ay you for our scoping comments on the above
referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North
Carolina-Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10;1 NCAC 25).
The proposed bridge replacement has the tential to impact smallmouth bass and rock
bass populations through off-site sedimentation construction. We would recommend that
any instream work (support footings, etc.) be prohibited during the smallmou th bass and rock
bass spawning season from 1 May through 30 June. Our preference would be to replace the
bridge on the existing location. Because of the high use by recreational canoeist and fishermen
that occurs on the South Fork New River, the NCDOT should design the bridge to allow safe
canoe passage so that a portage is not necessary. Also, NCDOT should consider providing
roadside parking (2-4 cars) and a canoe launch at this site in conjunction with the bridge
replacement.
Tbank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early
planning stage. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
3361366-2982.
cc: Kin Hodges, WRC

71
1
North Carolina Departmmt of Cultural Resources
Jams B. Hunt Jc, GoAmw
Betty Ray McCain, Secre:W
August 4, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T oMetion
FROM: David Brook ?
Deputy State st eserva n, ff
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XVI, Bridge #317 on: SR
1355 over South Fork Now River,.
Watauga County, B-3065, Federal Aid
Project MABRZ-1355(1),. State Project
8:2764701, 99-E-4220-0068
DMsion of Archives and Hhuory
M my J. Clow, Director
G IyF0
pUG d 6 1998 x
olvlsior? CF
HIGHWAa--5 v
P
We have received Information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
On July 16, 1998, members of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation and Ko and Associates to review
photographs of properties within the project area. Based on our review of the
photographs, none of the properties appears eligible for fisting in the National
Register of Historic Places and all parties present signed a concurrence form to that
effect.
No recorded archaeological sites are located within the immediate project vicinity,
although several sites are recorded along the South Fork New River. We
recommend an archaeological survey be conducted prior to project implementation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 108 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.
08411w
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 Em Joss Strect • RaMljlt. NorW Catchas 27601.nW
REQUEST FOR REVMW

Pit= nvlew?itbe 8"Ched nwfita m aw 1f em roof nwvM . it your aacmy "Uim additional informmion. C0114w the
appTcont dhtiet4y or tail Reelm D Councll of Governments' CImingnoutt. Plallse submit vollr tesptmsC w ilia Idti :ss I>`IOW In
tM do date fudicated.
Pttoac: (704) 36$•5414
SCH Ntaaftr :,99.1'-4;2040$8 _ Data 7/211/91 Rsponse Date =0199
P sse Sip and Return
M Page Oa?r To:
Region D Cm%W otGovertuneats
C rodnowute Coardiaator
P.O. BOX 1920
Do=, NC 2W
$ayiewyQ:
Jitnliafchford waauga Coumr titaaa6or
Ruponse: .Mrls agency has mvio%vw the notification and offers the Mowing reo MMcnd3d0n: t(:lieck approprivic
"ponte/mvrc than one can be checked)
No Coltwtent
_+_ Favoraw.
avenble.
rotema, Problem ts).
ThL projcot it la agrecarcm with the owlc and objecuves of this 891511CY'S MO-IM?uu.
The prtfj= Is not to »t'iesa with We goats null objectives of this ageoq*s programs.
1deAttfy: }
g c ?i •?c•t
yam: See-
t

r.
ltWowed lh
Names Apney: Date:
Zseph Vval?M'?j ti
r
r

July Zo, 1998
William D. Gilmore, P-E., Manager
planning and Environmental Branch
NC Dopart'me^t of Transportation
post Office Box 25201
Aaleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
RE! Bridge 0317 on NCSR I= over South Fork New River
near Mr. Gil?oro:
will require a floodplain
Replacement of the from subject bridge
development permit f froree thiy,offiCe. as well as subaisslvn of an
enginver' i "no-Impact certificate- for construction in the tlaedway•
No other permits from this office are required.
Regarding tnvironeental impacts, the Now River is a treasured 10Ca1
natural resouree, not only in Watauga County, tiut in the co?+nstream
counties as well. It has receivea'fedev-sl d&`ibnathens and oa'Nerth
been classifted as Outstanding R0souree Stte
Carolina. Seeau*e of these designations as well as the heavy use of
there is a high level of public interest in
the river for recreation. ou can expret sipnifieant interest in the
the river. Accordingly, y
proposed. project from an environmental Standpoint. co recommend that
the Department hold early, and as-frequeOt-as-p
mvetings1workshop3, etc. on the projoat• I alga recommend that the
De0artwtnt take special ea" to protect the river from degradation
curing construetion.
'thank you for the Opportunity to Cpmment. If you neto further
information, dv not hesitate Vc contaCt ¦o•
Sincerely,
G? na!
;.i
F„r?an A. I . C. v.
Joseph R• ?
DirvCtOr
RELOCATION REPORT
E.I.S. CORRIDOR f7 DESIGN
PROJECT: 18.2750701 COUNTY WATAUGA
B•3005 VA. PROJC N/A
North Carolina 0eparterient of Transportation
AMA MOCATIOM OFPM
Alternate
IESCRIPTION OF PROJECT' BRIDGE 4317 ON SRI 305 OVER Ht Zuv' n
,' ... ,.; OF THE NEW RIVER
a ?rariV
11MATED DIdPVtCEE
i"no of I I 1 _ . t ..__ _:.. 1 n. i sw ! 15-25M
ALL of
2K
NiE f;.gWrfit
0

uis laGQO
Residential 1
1 ......... -
0 0 0
0

0

; VAWt a owilt.?ta
tst
AY
For Rent

T
Businesses 0 0
0 0 0 ow Tenerife For Sale
oaOM
0 =also 0 `
I=ems o
0 0 0 oaoM o s a„<o 0
20.40M
0
13ario
0
NOn•PrOfit 0' tO?OM 0 1f0?s0 0
At?atatmc?f? 0-roe. o 0
ira- eMall OYES- answers.

be
Cos
l relocalion sa"'
i 4
=040
-010ft
0
' 0 704110M

00 up 0

0

i0s up 0

0
X 1. a
will Spec
W, schools or cxxrrches be affect by 0 soup
100 u? ,
0 0
0
,. 0
•.
X Z. TOTAL ' 0
dlspiacement?
RKS lt?s ber
nd Num
X 3 W2 business sarvlces so be available after
I . r
re no Oi
splac
ees on any
. Mise This is a negative report. There a
X 4 WA
any business be dlsaced? K sO
.
s
Indicate size, type, eslims
employees, minorities. etc.
X 5. VyM reWation cause a housing shortage?
S
r Source for available housing (Yst).
.
.
X 7. Will sddrdOrful housing Programs be needed?
i X a. should Lost Resort Housing be C0n6dered?
X g, Are there large. disabled, sk", etc.
:•,
X . 1o hrr?ilts?
WIN pubkC housing be needed for prgect?
.
X 11. Is pubie housing available?
X 12. Is it fek there will be adequate OSS housing
housing available *g" relocation paned?
X 13. Will thane W a Mbiarl Ot housing wiMn

. financial means?
x % Are suitable MMnessptes available (Net

1 ?. source).
Number months estimated to complete
d raxnber of the alternates.
t
MOCATIOII? NIA

a?Gts Wa?c
SAP ???
?.0?1RppSgO?U?
6'fo-1VEO
•
X51998 ??
.
SEQ F
p?v4µWA'f 8 ?

2 COPY Area Rewcotwn

c NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WATAUGA COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLJNA BRIDGE
AM IN oxronn''en enEns ? ?NO? 317
I)
PANEL 202 OF 325 ZONE x
ZONE X •
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
UMMiCNPORATED AREAS 770M OV2 E
ct 303 ZONE X
ZONE
NaRp io Uw7 The Iw M M6ER UwR eplsw .Dana be wm ZONE X
!M Akan- ma0 ordm: "w CDMMUMTY KNBER shown
ado sna. be us" on wuwmn spocmem la pN supnKt \
MAP NUMBER Q
37189CO202 E H FORK 3i
RIVER
?\\ EFFECTIVE DATE : ZONE X-
\,1 JANUARY 17 1997
ZONE AE
r
i
va?
3q?q
Fw' M 50
AbaCOQ/ /
X
3034
RI
5
303:
ZONE X
X