20042011 Ver 1_Complete File_20041216

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNVIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- ?a- SEATE
F((
December 14, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Thomas: DA 0 t-11
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
DEC 1 6 2004
WXTER QUALITY
WJJOS Me STORMWATER WM
Subject: Nationwide 33 application, for the replacement of Bridge No. 94 over Laurel
Fork Creek on SR 1111, Watauga County. Division 11. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1111(1), State Project No. 8.2751801 TIP Project No. B-3709.
Please find enclosed copies of the project planning report, project planning report
addendum, permit drawings and %2 size plans for the above referenced project. The
document states that Bridge No. 94 will be replaced in-place with a new bridge
(Alternative B). The original document stated the preferred alternative (Alternative A)
was to replace the bridge on a new location. Detailed hydrological and hydraulic design
studies were conducted for the project. Due to the topography and location of the
existing bridge, being in close proximity of NC 105, it was determined from a
construction feasibility meeting that the best location for the replacement bridge would be
in the existing location with a one lane on site detour (Alternative B). These changes are
noted in the Addendum to the project planning report attached to this application.
The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 94 is a cored slab bridge
approximately 110 feet in length. The existing structure is 77 ft long. The proposed
bridge will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge and will consist
of two 9 ft travel lanes and 2 ft-11 in of lateral clearance on each side of the structure.
The roadway approaches will provide two 9 ft travel lanes with 6 ft shoulders, 2 ft of the
shoulders being paved. Total project length is 375 ft.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE.' WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This project is located in the Watauga River Basin within
USGS hydrologic unit 06010103 (sub-basin 04-02-01). The proposed bridge replacement
is over Laurel Fork Creek, which has been assigned a Division of Water Quality best
usage classification of "C Tr". No wetlands are located within the project area.
PERMANENT IMPACTS: No permanent stream or wetland impacts are anticipated.
Buffer rules do not apply to the Watauga River Basin, therefore there will be no buffer
impacts associated with this project.
TEMPORARY IMPACTS: Approximately 0.03 acre of temporary fill will occur in
Laurel Fork Creek as a result of a temporary causeway and three culvert pipes associated
with the construction of the temporary on-site detour. The culvert pipes will be placed at
grade due to bedrock.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION: The superstructure for Bridge No. 94 consists of a timber
deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps, piles, and bulkheads at
both abutments. It is anticipated that the bridge superstructure and substructure will be
removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. All guidelines
for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge Demolition and
Removal.
Case 2 of NCDOT's BMP-BDR applies prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance
activities within 25 feet of Laurel Fork Creek. Case 2 will be in effect during the brown
and brook trout spawning season and during the rainbow trout spawning season of
October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site
sedimentation during construction.
UTILITIES: According to NCDOT's Utilities Coordination Unit and Project Services
Unit no impacts to waters of the United States are anticipated from utilities as a result of
relocation.
MITIGATION
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation
of wetland and surface water impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands) and Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A (Preservation of the Nations
Wetlands), emphasize protection of the functions and values provided by wetlands.
2
These directives require that new construction in wetlands be avoided as much as
possible and that all practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to
wetlands.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to
provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining wetland impacts. Avoidance
measures were taken during the planning and NEPA phases; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design and include:
• Sediment and erosion control measures will adhere to the Design Standards
for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B. 0024).
• Preformed scour holes will be constructed to diffuse stormwater runoff.
• Trees and vegetation within the 25-foot stream buffer zone damaged during
construction will be replanted with the same mixture of species existing prior
to project initiation.
• "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or
Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina" (October 27, 1992) will be adhered
to throughout the life of this project.
• Sufficient space for wildlife movement under the bridge has been provided.
• Southwest quadrant has 1-1/2:1 slopes to avoid fill in the stream (Detail C -
Sheet 8 of 12 on permit drawings).
• No bents will be placed in the stream.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The Department has avoided and minimized
impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as described above.
There are no permanent impacts from this project to streams or wetlands that require
mitigation.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of February 2003 the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six federally protected species for Watauga
County including the bog turtle, Carolina northern flying squirrel, spruce-fir moss spider,
Heller's blazing star, spreading avens, and Roan mountain bluet (Table 1).
Field surveys were conducted for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, spruce-fir moss
spider, Heller's blazing star, spreading averts and Roan mountain bluet on September 26,
2000. The southern species of bog turtle is listed due to similarity of appearance and a
biological conclusion is not required. No suitable habitat was found during the survey
and no specimens were observed for any of the listed species.
3
A biological conclusion of "No effect" has been rendered for the Carolina northern flying
squirrel, spruce-fir moss spider, Heller's blazing star, spreading avens and Roan mountain
bluet.
A Right-of-Way Consultation was completed on December 30, 2003 evaluating any
potential changes in habitat or occurrences in regards to federally protected species listed
within the project area since completion of the Categorical Exclusion. According to the
consultation, the biological conclusion of "No effect" remains valid for all of the species.
Table 1- Federally Protected Species of Watauga County

Common Name
Scientific Name Federal Habitat
Status Present Biological
Conclusion
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) N NA
Carolina northern flying
squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus E N No effect
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga E N No effect
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T N No effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E N No effect
Roan mountain bluet Houstonia montana
(=Hedyotis purpurea var.
montana) E N No effect
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary causeway and
detour structure will be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the temporary causeway and detour.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certifications number 3366 will apply to
this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0501(a) we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/pennit.html
4
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jon Scott at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ms. Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Harold Draper, Tennessee Valley Authority
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Michael Pettyjohn, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Heath Slaughter, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Carl Goode, P.E., Office of Human Environment
5
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. c 0 1
r--
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:NWP 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge no. 94 over Laurel Fork Creek on SR 1111
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3709
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Watauga Nearest Town: Boone
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The project site is located on SR
1111 near it's intersection with NC 105.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36-11-54N. 81-44-26W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Laurel Fork Creek
8. River Basin: Watauga River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/mgps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Land use northeast (upstream) and southwest (downstream)
of the bridge is mainly a mixture of undeveloped (forested) and residential properties. There
Page 2 of 8
is apower line located south of the bridge that extends between the stream and NC 105. It is
anticipated that no impacts will occur as a result of relocating any utilities.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Bridge
No. 94 over Laurel Fork Creek will be replaced in-place with a new bridge. During
construction, traffic will be maintained using a temporary on-site detour south of the existing
bridge.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of this proposed project is to
replace the existing bridge structure, which is considered functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. Replacement of the existing structure will result in safer and more
efficient traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed project will create
approximately 0.03 acres of temporary fill in Laurel Fork Creek. The temporary fill will be
Page 3 of 8
composed of Class II Riprap for construction of a temporary causeway and from three 96"
culvert pipes placed in the streambed for construction of a temporary on-site detour structure.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
LA
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** . 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hQ://www.fema Q.,ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres
Stream Name* * Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
I Temporary fill to
surface waters 0.03 Laurel Fork Creek 35 feet Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 4 of 8
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Several alternatives for replacement of Bridle No. 94 were considered including a "No-Build"
alternative. The "No-Build" alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing
structure and closure of SR 1111 (Old Danner Road). This is not desirable due to the service
provided by SR 1111. Alternative B (replace in-place with an on-site temporary detour) was
chosen since the existing structure was inadequate for.construction equipment to reach the west
side of Laurel Fork Creek. Alternative A (replace on new location) was originally chosen, but an
onsite visit determined that this would not be feasible for reasons outlined above. Avoidance and
minimization measures include: Sediment and erosion control measures will adhere to the
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B. 0024); Preformed scour holes will be
constructed to diffuse stormwater runoff; Trees and vegetation within the 25-foot stream buffer
Page 5 of 8
zone damaized during construction will be replanted with the same mixture of species existing
prior to project initiation, "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or
Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina" (October 27, 1992) will be adhered to throughout the
life of this proiect; Sufficient space for wildlife movement under the bridge has been provided,
Southwest quadrant has 1-1/2:1 slopes to avoid fill in the stream (Detail C - Sheet 8 of 12 on
permit drawings); No bents will be placed in the stream.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands. or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on' March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
Page 6 of 8
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. -
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify. )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Impact Multiplier Required
Zone* (square feet) Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Page 7 of 8
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Z
Appkicant/Agent's Signature ' hate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
--s R, 111
y•
PROD
1113
LAUREL
- - `' sR 1111 FORK
..: ?. CREEK_
.END
-?' 'SR 1552
VICINITY
MAPS
(NOT TO SCALE)
DJECT
1553
. NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2751801 (B-3709)
BRIDGE NO. 94 OVER LAUREL
FORK CREEK SRAM
.(OLD DANNER ROAD)
NORTH CAROLINA
CL
Z
l 2 \ W

W
\ \?-
Y ? \ It
Z
4 U \
i m
I ?
4
O

M ?i n?-1 A

? o o x ? a ?

co 0,
z A
° F w ?
.W 0 ?
0 44 C
A a

pQ W

a
u
L®
F
r? z
U
W
Q

k y t

I,,
ti
l
?
?',?
9 Il.r X

f hit - rr,...?
4ti Il. '?-aa?rfv - t ,f?J ?f .rte ? ?s.
?- d

k-

a! ?„? S S '? ? ? ? ? ??'; ?,` khyl?S.. ~? i? 't+??Yy.- stir.. ,?.

•-`
?T (?
A r ` DOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

TOP O MAP WATAUGA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2751801 (B-3709)
BRIDGE NO. 94 OVER LAUREL
SC ?1 ?? ?j 99 ° 9
? 1000 f1L I FORK CREEK SR.1111
(OLD DANNER ROAD)
SHEET 3 OF I2- 5 / 17 / 04
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 Charles William Connor 1200 Lloyd White Road, Clover, SC 29710
2 BSHT, LLC 151 Mr. Bish Blvd., Boone, NC 28607
R C
Co p^
7 N m .? O
Z 0
CM c CD

-
N ca N? O O
u'?U M
E
Q(j U p 0 0 O
E cmacu
a) - O C O
F-

? C V
c
O
o s
LL

? m
o
Q 5

a) cm
N C

C 0
O
C
lII V
0

O
j v
W U >

a X
wa
?- = C

EE v o
CL
5
y
C ?

//\ C U
_
? of
O
j
Z
Q N
J m
m °'
?
W ? m °

a 0
?
U p
2a? " te a
I0
C U U)
U
`n o to
rn
?- E
a)
H
c+?
W

C O
O C i
E rn rn J
O
fn
LL
C+O
t+D
1+00
.
.. r
+
co

m ? J

fA Z ? ? N F
Q
H
a /'
REVISIONS
..?._. 41/ :-Prui-.2002'.:Ia.UU'B-S7U91'.Hq1aUHcs•.B7709_H01_P'.H02BPEBMII.agn
N N ?N IN IN ?N N N , N i l i f
:.1 V 1'14 iV IO 00 0 o o
1 y
!14 co o y? I
o o
0 0 ?;
r. ;o to t o <4
- -
..... ........ _. ........ .... _........... .. ....--..- t-
it
{ ? 1 tt ,jam ,
1
(y
It
I. _ , i i F till , I :I
-1
,
t ti ' ? Ir;
4
it t
ts, 1'{ ft
{
(
I 1
i
t l•
t !?
' 1
r I: 4
e`
I . .. ...:............. . . ....:............. ........ . . ..... _... - - +t
i?ii?
t + II t' ?S
_..... .
1
._............. -
,_ '
I
t L-DETOUR: rAI4+70 I ,
•
•)7l I - a a 4
,
r'1 ST !5f 143 , ...: - ! •,?
m? + 7 I ?1
iN
_: _-•. .. -_ ..m ill, i`1 it
?
......:. ._ ...._._ .. ... ..;. ._.: ... I
Ik`?`
ry?11 ?,
-t=DET R STAi5±66D7 q .. o ' \ 1 ` ,; ? d
s 717E . TO . XIST'EOP)
1
C I !
m
.. _.. -...? _ ,.
t 1 1 t _ k.1.F !''
I }
T t 3 ?,
- T i
I -L DETOUR STA 8f2 6
6 -\
u I ND RAD E 12796.
-------- ----- -
r
7
-L DETOUR ST AI IB
t o I ?
--- - ---- ---- - ---------
f .
}.
7 '77'
j t+
14 '0
.... , .._...
f + I .t
! ggglLWlWOOO :.............. { T i I `
00o iii c = -, m
bb 0 bO r '.
C-) Do rri
475 C57
- t?
rn o
-{rn?2 _ 1
LQ 1`10
o a c? y(m/, 7 ?. o
ani C o _ c?
c m - o
C) r
C
I `...
y ..
__... r t '
v, v7 cn v7
ti cn
N {1 m
1 m ?
Fut
...... ---- -..-.- t - _ _ - -, - - m -
z??o ` 10-I 0 o
I{ - -I 1 Y •w I S
I
64 1
._ 7
t j _ i I l t ..t??. l a O_,{ ?
-1 t]t 1- _T I > m + C
' I . 1 f
_T
1 NO 1 WO O o`?
jV !V i00 O i 0 0
10
o? i
0 C A

r- _ -• ?' 7 l i
jp"
ri

As ;1?.?
1.
SEC
jm
i-<
4
O ?
ZK L
Ckpn
0 [
?I?

REVISIONS
t'2U?, 16-371,Y,'Hy rowics\6}704 _RD'(_P.H026 PER6117.Ogn
N ;N N N ?N IN LW N IN i w f{ i 11 13 \
01 E> ,
'! V ;V V 00 00 00 Do 00? sz.
O O ,O O iO ?O IO O t.
, ....._... i ....
_ ........ ............ .. .................
. fig; ,1 ,1
S (
N
I 1 n'
.. _.. -_:.. .._ i 1
rn ::o
?Z? 111 N; I i ? .... Y
?'? .avr
' _..._..? ' ................ .. .... ? ......._ ? ........ ._ ..... _. ...... ? .... ... ? ... _ ....
I I
V
...
y ? !1 ! r I I
76
j m 1 t
I ,
'i
-1
i
,i
IJ
t)
I-
lD I
Wp?
..'. _. .. _.._7 ,_??,
A _
CI) I W ..
I I L OETW STA. 76
iR ! R1 ?. .. . _..:

m
cP°z
;v 8z
,?f' LLL?I ,? :r ?o ?$wA
a r co
' vV
-• 4\ gyp. ?.D
uui ? g
e o
r S N 'I
cy o'
-o ?
s?
N?
Cy
DN
ny
mm
E?
ao
by
?A
T
P
r
nl ? 1 f
+ ?m 11S
1 ?N 1 1 I l
12 SJIt L ?CKE R(1 \
\ 1 cr I i \
. !C`"? `"fin :\ ], i''?Y\\\•ti
'1 r vfti
1* \

REVISIONS
-._ -. .._ tV •?: .. .._r _?._. a!JG t6-ST:)y..nA rau?ics?0374`l_0.GT_F':nGa-FEPWT-a9n
N F :iJ wN ?Q ? N ? N N I N 1 1 ` 1
/ t?j C5 1,I 1 t

V ^.! J V

6 O, !-j 10

CD :?. o
- ........... _ ' ......... _. ..
OD

O
0
....._ ........ ....... __._

.._.__
N

0
CO

0 00

A

0

A OBI 1\

e I s
0 5
n

: o l ? ) i 1 1
1
' .
_ . .. : . ..... ...... .._ : . ....: L.:. .. ..

........ ....................... ...... ...... _.........
.. _... ..........:_._...... .....: . : ..

...
.............

D L
u

1
' y
? . x?
1
''
1
I I i 1 { . I.I?:
?
1

I ? t I
1
N
v
!o IN
r-4
Ia iN
v
?o N I
v
o

I N
co
°o i I N
oo I

I
o N I-
oo I l

o
i N i
oo

o
1 - N
w

o
i

I

sm
.o
rm
?N
n •?
mm
ao
Kp
ps
Np
K
R
?T? luT L I 1 f "'l
\ vvv"' ?m ? 7 I ?
\ m L?
12• SOIL a4AAE /u?. II? t \
• \ I f.W1 TJ ??? } \?
` i \ 8
' C
' y \ `\ CT I
may) g!''+ i
1 rn ?
1 ?
i
z r, -10
-,j P
z 0
Ii {'' 8? ate o
_sb
?z zw m
?cl T49
I
A
- --, ?,-- <IA r,;•Grolzc•. 2002',20.00 te-Ji+i51?My ?rautlcs'•.8IT09_kDY_P$N09_PERIAIT.opn
N RN IN IN N
01 1?4 co
O 0 iO 0 O O O 0 O j
_ .......:........................__;........_...................._L..._...._.._.........._..•........._............._........_.._............._..--?'-------- _.. II,'
1 ?
i
,.-........ ._.... ,... -.,L..... .. _ ......... ?.. _ ......... ........ ?...._...._.. Ilii?
.. .. .._' ..._. ._• 1 l
rn?m I?? i
611
1...... ........._.........?..........--1 • ... ...
p I }}?
1 I ?1to '1' III!" 1
j 1 I ?m? \li1 j
h l
1 11
I
1 _
,
i i it y f
,i
.... . . .... .. . ... _.._ _ ..._-.
ti tt }, i 1
t t tt
m 1 '} j1
W ! ,
{ 1
.. _...... . I .........
C) I
_.._ 1 t t jt
? ? trt't:
k l.
BEGIN C NSTR CTIO \`
{ I2 \ \
1 \\
C, / + 0
... _-. _.....,..C tia _. __... ._.... - .......
-8 GIN ADE,EL
? Zf9079 -I ?Int!s::.
y o??mrn t :n\\
1A. t.
w'-- To Oo m$ ttv ?, W
At' -
-L- !5TA16+44D
L 1
p N'-' 1
I ,? i y •L;
In
9 art
O ( ` m
------- --------- --
I t t \\\
END rr,
y
? 22
I
EN CONST UC lON
I
--- -------------- - ------
I ..
._.:_I ..__.
i 1 \\\\
1 ,..
iJ I # l: -i f I g
w O 1 ,' \\\
1 * ' j -(
! !
1 i?- I 1 I- 1 1 1-
m z3
, ?n off' om - + t'-
77
., 8 ao I t

rm r
x? m +
<02
o
U N ?o L 7 0?ox . n om
p :..

ov?
oaz
O
n
D
nmoo ,
4

'.'

> ?

` t
vD
G ,
{ i t 'i

G
O
2p:V'i,
0
y :?
v
ITt
MM
!?
O
?'-
r '
m
- Z
-'i I pmr -'' T

c
o
i

o + ov?
?
s

v
s
o

T
?

-
eo
o,

I

1
a
n •

0
ZS
:

1 '
!N N J CN N u N N
j V j V 10 V ; OD I 00 00
I 00 ,
114 3
I I ( i
O 0
, I O
? O O
I O
I 0
I O I 0
?
REVISIONS
i}IIIIi \+}? \ `}li
Ott, i•it.
1,, ,i:t 11111 ?1 l??1}
yl??ll?jy?illl,IWill
I
.i
- ?%i i i ? i l ' i ••'
//Yt j l
is

t
t ,
3 I ! j1
!1
i
C i
Cy
rm
s?
m?
¦X
?O
Ta
ap
1
i 1
1 ?.
t`s
ti
\?. It
1
'r
if ?
O
s
A 1
I
i I k 3
i
ON TRA CT: TIP: B-3 709
?o o
cn M N ppow °
O M 1? n I•
m m c O a' ?\
?g °3'
2 O I D •• SC r
z n E:9P ? :
v, .• .
N u, cn n s ?_ ?n T
Z 'O I O rn
ie . rm ?.\ m U
-i 0;0 1 Lq rn D a p; D
?,•
O O O rn;a N :.
z c ,
c 0 rn Z ? < <qo
Dal mv1 FZ -4-Ib m.9 - 'n R? t jk
N N -i V1 m ..p. ...•? i?Rl - -
NN 1
-{ C N
O 1 O r o`
Z 3
Z Z oQ Z< -i C< Ul00
G) ~ m w
+n H a' A.
m
m n II II II II 11 II II 2,' ? ?,
z
m m /a-
C 1-" NA V N laN b % .f
D OCO OU,OA: m _
r-r?3:o 3Qo ?i : n w
Oz W >
v n = Y H /:::i.. ..
S A
O rn m
-? Z Z
rk
-01 -OI l
m Z ?
? O ao t.
C
Cl c?' I o? Zv
--------------
----------- -- y
Oin R'1 0
m +
`m y N yr --
,\
14
0 14 RE
w:
10 0
V o I W e1 r-?
O 10
co 10
O O -
A rn^? Q ?p
O N
- `? - Vo b
+ m
fr s o %\
" b ?j d r
m Rf ?7 I? ?1 O - 04
a 4 0-
DRAKE RD. /
zy ° n
C
DN y c mI Zc , y
b N z 1 0 ':
x D ;` p
n w --I
O NAD 83 y
1 I b " c o
10
_ m Z D
az ?a az n r G1 O
Fn- p? ?e A? rn
?O N?
z e i z c x y z _
to)
T' T
fir" fir' o y -I N T
I? zz II4 Zz D y O W W
W W \ J
y W ( ?o 'o d
ti ? I N;? a
N
?b MM = I >
an
i Z - W ? p
a b ao y I ?? ?, ? GJ I
ill 'I
O
ono m?
?? ?? ? rn Z I
n
y o a I_ 70
"- IPA
j_;
l }
W W -?O a N N N C T? N. 'O "o xm •O rn -0 X OW
X C X, c 3 ?o n0 '?O C Om..
"00 m 0 p 3. O fD -O O O ?• O N. O O O rn < C 0 ,-N? , -00 00 •D -00 m '00 f0
Q to 7 Q 'O -O 'O ;« 'O ?+ 3 -O '0 -.• = m m a IT S CD
Q. m ;a Q o p -° m 0 D Q 3 m m co o n n ?? 3 ?° m' c C) ::E o s p p 0'
m Q'" N O 0 -? co Q 0 -moo. N Q Q S ' Q < -p -°
(D m ID N N <
a ?.. c a o M 0W 3 a 30 o°? T 3 3 °- c° CL ° 3
n m
to '
Cop) -I S N C O 0 °_ ° C - ° Q - C 0 !j fj fj
7tl m 3 0 `" r D D° o `< C?C ^^ Q co -n y (A
W p y, b p. Q ., Q n n 7 ` O M J m Q m
CA 0
Q c y ° m r c o r ?- ` Qo tt o cnu
0 N CA 7 7 ` C 1 O `_J
< ??1'f rt O m 0 m 0 0 C7 rt
S m .a Q
Cm X- 0
m m r a 0. i b
3
m ?+1
:
?, m I p V I i I E ?l I I
n _ I I i m m m n ly (?1 V i T i?
I I I i I I l .?' ? ?

._ I I
I I
I ?
I I I I I I
V7
C -1 ?? -1 -I _N N
-I 0 = r C7 a -p N f77 N = C7 X X X X C 0
• _
_
a 0
Q ? m m H
m m° O°
-?'
W T
m
:r C m. m
rt M C
'D
f ?. N
M

?
'O ,

• O
?
O

°"
Z

O
Q ,
r -"u m 10
< m 3
O --I o m G
: r 3 _
° , O Q
3 n° m m
o m o c cu 0 0 °° Q-
0 1° 3 c !20
• 'a
G W
° -
S 7 'm m a --I Q m 0 m c
o U <
? Q
cQ j .
+ ID rn
m ID O:
- (DD -0 m 0 M ID
- m A 0 (
D m
(n m

n n 7 7C• m m 7
N .? m
'+ W
p m W
D 0 7"
? m
< S
O -? Q M S C
Cr m O to
° C S
m O o
m p a. O
O_
r

rt `
0 O p
n
C H O m
CD 0
e Z, O
O
CD Q N
" 0 Q. m
m 3 O

° m m O

m CD

y
? q M
s° n 3 3 s 3 s c _
IS
2
°
-
0
n m
°
W O N 0 : -4
_ S fD
m
m
O O S
O
C k 7 fy - O _ O : CL
7 m
cow f W ° o x y
N m x ?.
o
m o o
a o..
W 0 ?
, r
-
rt a

n
Z
/00
r ? ? I
-o r T T T rn T T (? --I C) N m i D O 0;v c 0 w 0 X 0 a CA 0;a 0 ;a y 0 70
" M' 0 o m co r m Q 0 0 0- 0 0 H o 0 0 o c- g 9! m m m m° m m m m m m m m m m Q m m
S n n-a v.0 rt.0 -a m C °- I0 rt N 0 N C y. O N 0 y O N• O LA. O -i' L• °
O m m m m m m r y 7 10 ; fQ• -?. fC ••?- lQ -. tQ• -,t to 3 fQ tQ ° fQ 0
7 7 C 7 O Q O O Q- 7 Q. 7 Q- 7 Q_ 7 Q_ 7 Q_
0 Z 1 r °0.. -{ O Q Q m a m a m a m a m a m Q m Q m
(Q IQ IMI JD 3 c? ? ' r 0 CCD -«
.0 r 7 J 3 ° Q- -? CL 7 -" Q- j• Q-, rt Q- N -` °- rt Q- rt Q_
m 7 °- Q `Z C z 3 n O r r 0• O !d m d a d m d d N CL
= Rr "I C N O f?D o D m
Q. CL 3 C 0 0 3 7 0 r- (D 10, °
0 Q m c Q m 3 3 m m r 3 I D =n a' -? co = , G) ,°„ N m Q
cc co o a' m 3 m .? m o n m< mo m r c o 0
m m C ' m H
3 (1rrrrr Ip IO of (D O < N N M O r: r 0 0 r
0 CD
G Q j p -3i °' V 10 I C O ?_ A. 7 to N m O _r 3 0 m y _r 7
O Q_ rt Q- C 1'rl ?? O C m S (Op 7 m m N m O m
0>> IMI 3 W () 0 V 7 f7 O m N m
Q- Q- ° I n Q ° 0 co Q Lr N C m N .
W O p 3 = Q Q' S m m C1 Cr N rtn T C
o_ p7 m 0' m m m C T o
3 _ D_ N
O_ C
b ? C N
in
y I I I I I I
F X - I I I i /?? a o < < ? '? 1 I ? v ? a I?/I E
v a E s E R- I W 1. I `" I I I I I "? a -~i e I I I I C I i I Ib
m m m m -x I I O I I I H N
m m m sl I I I o o < ? ? 9 I
I I ml + I I I I I I ? I I I I I I y I I I i I ? I
N
C
m
II
ar
C
W
N
C
T
D
mrn
r
z
0
z
m
m
a
0
Z Y
C
1
m I- =4
s
0?
Z Q
C/O
0
N ;a y < S N N L- -I T C7 T W W. 'O G) ? C) C7 S r N N y 0 n "C N C) G) G) D -.n ca
O 7' n O (D 3' 3 T Q 0 C k d < C IC C? S 0 3 (o a m 0 3. S IA Q Q a O C
n '^ a o m cQ cc .. - n cn Q° 3 c 3 a W 3 c= 3 3 o m Q 3 a
CL a
m ID fD = -n O O -0 4 3
S O Q y
o a a Q_ o o IZ :L c -«, m N N 3. m S c O tz
0 (D m fl m ?. ° C O Q n ?° •'a 7 H H '1
N.
Q
0 C S N O m m O CD m
O m C 3 Q. O rt
O,
-? O
G C O
y 13 y
cn O $
Z ? sr
C ?z
y? A>
9 :Eo ("o Ed
N z i Li I I
`J z z

:EMi2304 ca:P:os Flr':`.F :aJa;]Y`.Pro \e i'?5_kL".-'i F.[IGM1
y C
DOOM
r
I
t y
o
l ly?
?D
y
rr?
Z I I ° n
o
o r
n
m
ylvc?nrn ~o rl
? cn o k z
O O
O?
~ o
' of '
O
-
n
(,) o ?
°O
ky?
l O
?
cn??cn P
Z ?? p

I I
r r
I f

Op Ul
cn N
O O
O O
O O

I'D Ul
O O
O p
z
rn
O
Z?
Ip
0
?zz
?co
t
?rnN
°Qo
?N -
-71
n? O
LN
EN

r-?
r
I

O
rn
n
rn
rn
0
m
r
b
0
z
m
z
? C y ? N rn N n
Z y O y Ti

Q ~ --1
2

cn C-) D o
?rnU
rn (n

h'o

U)

-

zo
)
ni?yo
?o r
n
Do O
rno
m m ?rq
p coC ?mom ??
:ZE

rn
m

z

rn
ti
?
nn
z?
z

o

-v,00

00
~
? ??
Cn?n z?
? ?s??
'c n?
y?
r-n
rnrn°
?? ??
rn O
??m
°? my
rn
p o rn o
rn rn
? o
rnN

? °CD
y rn yin
? y
??
?c'?in
n nb
y? gyp=
yrn? ?cni'
cn?
,.
??y my
O Zyy
-I n In
o ?y

rn zrn
?
?
z?
p°c? ?"'
?° °-0
rn o
qr
r
orn ?n?i ?rno
Z
.
mo
0o ?
zm ??
?n
o
=ni one ?? o
=rn
?
?rn
C

rn
rl"?
Cep
y ?
z

rn

rn
I?
ZE 2
vJ
? n
O e ? -
r^
fi
•as
O.-!
is
115:r
8e . ,

T
? O

a
< ?
O
n
m
p
C
Z
=
?
o
z m
Z
= o
o
D

i o
!:iYi ':•:'i4 :5:9r,;1-L P%l:"i ?Pucgnuy\w-pJ'•B;'G4-k?T.ITY.G::i1
N N N ? v ,
r
CA Is 1,
,
?
I I
i -JA
ZppCA
- r
Do CA CA M
CA So06A y

'I cn cn rn 'o
g` z

n -
OC - ?? --
???
y'an
CA co QYJ

O _ ?J
C14
p
O
~ ?N n
O
O\
_rl
I ~
~
111
I
N
o
?
x
` O m i -
(A
O -A 2 Q?
? 1, oil `" C m y ---
co

CIO :70
o z

m

o

!1N

r?Ir
O ?
N
0
0

BI
' C) CA
(n V)
?i Z D
>-
O r :?u
O c?
%Iz z
O?11-?
N N '
N ;A
rn (14
0 0

n

Qrl rn
o
O rn
r ?
o?
O cn
I (n
6
O
D ?
cn o
O ?
I o p
CA LM
n
m
+
+
I
O O
G?
C z
Z D
O IF
O
,:G) 5?
? pr
r
I
C
?Qo
Om
r Q0
n n
y D
?rn
? o
O
0
O
L
2
O
O
W
rn?
O
y
n
'v
41
°o
K
0
O
rn
? -p N
c
I
r
m
0
moo
i
O
o I
I=
o ` i
I
0 CA
c7 O `. N
hI ° r ZD
0
0
o `Im I
00 Y ---- -
t I
Z O n
•. c?i? O N
O ?p II
!o I°= i
O `N
O = I
I 1
O N
O .
N H
IPA INTO
m ? rn2i
oat ?°?
N
rn
? C -I ? N m ? n
? c2oj Cy
t N
o
A y rnrn
::u (A
Z
Z
D
Ni
z WD
'1
TN
O
I ?o
p m?
co
O ?
O o C
NC
O
oz
03
0

0
O
so :T?
VJ
o?
I oo EOP
iN n
CIO
Z?
?co
O
N
iflbl

L?
ti
O
Z?
Ip r
0
I ?p0
-- r0
o
r
?2
I I

rn IQQ
jo
\O?N I
I
p O
I'
f;y?a A
m

„o 0
g
o

. o
?y
z
P
'C

o?
o
i -4z ll?,
p'oo
W
I
t?
I 11 11 C
I ?? m
rr

t 1
n

UlO O
0
0
z y
?? N O
oI Z
(n

o
(n ° O
rn
o

O
(?
+r3i
?rn
G?
+Z

0
rn
REVISIONS
..o!Wi "i:u9 O'i:_•a0i a4rf?.f%a•?c•roy?"^ol\63105.. ?D+
N
-f-
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
Ol
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
10
T
O
0
N
O
O
O
I
:I
4J I . -.
a
0-

cm m

W I

--------------
UP-

c
'-.nnLv-.

I'. i
Y
' ? m y m
+
`
?
?N `4N N ? iN N ?N N ?N N =
; V r-4 )CO N co
-
T V O
O
O
i
O O 10 O 0 #O 40 O :O
?y
?jn
.`J

°
$ mm
y
I ?
D
ti
p
o$
N N ti Nmr
o
?
°n 9 Ioa z

N

O
-z
?
f
?=1
I
CJ a ?`

8 py
9z
N
yZy fC
C?
?r
Z.
O °
? o
f
D
1
Ell
o
p
! e
i6/U'1.'?G64 Oi.".3i2G 4}A'?\ncaCw ay"."rr Jl`•P.37U5_RL`Y iU41.UGN
° Q °
F A D C C ° C °` m :j ° 7n I m
H
O I P _
O I
Z I {{Ii {{{ p r
z tl 1 ? $ °o Z
f l
m
! ,`I jloi. poi ? ?? o
Z
N
0
A A m
Z
a
n
n
z
A
°
h
1
l
y

sl
D °
o
P

V
P N
y
p

LG
V Y
i
l
O
O V
°P ?
Z
P °
I I
I ? P V m
A
K I y
F
i
I
I

I
P

O
?

t
I
P
N I

N
A
??
O S

Sz
i j l l

n
CO)
C
?C
Q
pa
y
O
a
h
?c
8 C?:
?z
?c
gz

fi
ze3
C
i
p o
z
°
REVISIONS
ROW REVISION: DATE: - PER ROW CONTACT REVISED EX. PROPERTY LINES AND PROP. ROW ON PARCEL 2.
1310 2'A4 01:28:31M -,\Rooenay\F-0
?N iN ?N iN ?N
?•

fj?
r i
•Y.?, r
J
h ;V i° ? co f IT to 1
t
o !o c « ,

\10-too
m _
ql;n 4
1n
ym
m m
sa
b ?-1 ?xz io ?
x ° x" m 8 q m C
it
m
b N A? b In O?O? ?S? ^-O

J m
L
h
z
X
h
? m
o ?
r ?
N
3
a
°m
Ll
z
rrI
~ o

t; -

W
W ? v •.
s::•o 03
n
. f... iii
I' , Y

.. ._..
N `N 'N LM N 1N jN N •N
1 r14 F? i o 10 N co r? I
0,
;O i0 j0 O ;O !O O O 0
r i
__ g"Y? cmJ
O
M
Z
z
0
0
s s

(v
N
- N

-.

.
? oo .:
-CID
Ul
1 _
?. O o

1

1
i
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
:.
?.
.:. °RaF. R/W ..
{
I. _ t

- l
I

o
1A I;

I

_

I_.

I

o
I .
I I.
Ear'

o I p

C) ~I

C..o ...

'o I

'

1 r-

1 ( -C

1 +

- 0
I
I : _ _

cry::
:
I (YI
i
_... _

_.:
Fes I

?. {
-_?
rn s
?.

_ :4 7.
o

-4 m
..... ,.._ .. .. .. ....... _.. , .... _ 1 _.. ... Lo n

o o
.
: ... -
.. .:

N N
CIO

:.. N_.

c3a N

po N .... lU.. N

o? X

Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111 Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1111(1)
State Project No. 8.2751801
T.I.P. No. B-3709
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
• (0 - 0 gab_-? ?• HQ?a
DATE Gail Gri s, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
DATE ichol s L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111 Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1111(1)
State Project No. 8.2751801
T.I.P. No. B-3709
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 2002
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
; ? r 02-- ? Y6 ? - Tommy aster, ate
Project Manager

o n }
W. S. Hood, PE m 1450 i Date
Principle-In-Charge off'
aaaa? ?.?
For the the Nortt?i arollna Department of Transportation
W Q-4-0;t_
v6
John C. Wadsworth, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111 Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1111(1)
State Project No. 8.2751801
T.I.P. No. B-3709
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification
Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to
by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside
Environmental, and Division Engineer:
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 94
1. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25 foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the
brown and brook trout spawning season and during the rainbow trout spawning season of
October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation
during construction.
2. Sediment and erosion control measures will adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds
(15A NCAC 4B.0024).
3. Trees and vegetation within the 2S foot stream buffer zone damaged during construction will be
replanted with the same mixture of species existing prior to project initiation.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
A copy of the environmental planning document will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and
United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Hydraulics Unit /Structure Design Unit:
This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge
plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of
compliance with the-Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval.
Sufficient space for wildlife movement under the bridge will be provided.
Division Construction:
"Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina"
(October 27, 1992) will be adhered to throughout the life of this project.
B-3709 Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
September 2002
Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111 Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1111(1)
State Project No. 8.2751801
T.I.P. No. B-3709
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 94 is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The bridge location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 33.2 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally . obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 94 is located on SR 1111 (Old Danner Road) in Watauga County. SR 1111 is classified as
rural local by the statewide functional classification system. Land use in the project area is rural,
consisting primarily of light residential development. SR 1111 is a dead end road that serves local
residents as a connector to NC 105. The bridge is located in the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) and will require a TVA Section 26A approval. Watauga County is designated as a trout
county by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The existing bridge is a four-span structure with an overall length of 77 feet (23.5 meters) and a clear
roadway width of 11.2 feet (3.4 meters). It was constructed in 1959. The bridge consists of a timber deck
with an asphalt wearing surface on steel I-beams. The piles, caps, and abutments are timber. Bridge No.
94 currently has posted weight limits of 16 tons (16.25 metric tons) for single vehicle (SV) and 23 tons
(23.36 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST) (Figure 4).
The approach roadway measures 14 feet (4.3 meters) in width. The east approach has a curve with a
radius of 218 feet (66 meters) and the west approach has a curve with a radius of 150 feet (76 meters).
Both curves are off the end of the bridge. The existing horizontal curve only provides for a safe speed of
approximately 20 mph (30 km/h). The speed limit is not posted therefore a statutory speed of 55 miles
per hour (mph) applies.
Land use northeast (upstream) and southwest (downstream) of the bridge is mainly a mixture of
undeveloped and residential properties. There is a small cabin located in the northeast quadrant of the
project . There is a power line located south of the bridge that extends between the stream and NC 105.
It is anticipated that the utility impacts will be minimal.
The 2002 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 22 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected ADT
is 40 vpd by the design year 2025. The percentages of truck traffic are 3% dual-tired vehicles (DUALS)
and 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST).
No accidents were reported near Bridge No. 94 during the period from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 2000.
This section of SR 1111 in Watauga County is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the
T.I.P. as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
B-3709 Page 1
Categorical Exclusion
No school busses cross this bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 94 is a cored slab bridge approximately 100 feet (30
meters) in length with a minimum grade of 0.3 percent to facilitate deck drainage. The proposed bridge
will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. The proposed bridge will consist of
two 9-foot (2.7 meter) travel lanes and 2-foot (0.6 meter) shoulders (See Figure 3).
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two nine-foot (2.7 meter) travel lanes and two-foot (0.6
meter) shoulders (Figure 3). The proposed grade will be approximately the same as the existing roadway.
SR 1111 is a dead end road with a projected design year (2025) volume of 40 vehicles per day (vpd). Per
the NCDOT Design Manual Part I 1-1B, minimum design speeds for local rural roads with current
average daily traffic volumes of 50 vpd or less, a minimum design speed of 20 miles per hour will be
used.
B. Build Alternatives
Alternative A (Preferred) consists of realignment just north of the existing bridge (Figure 2). Adequate
distance from the existing bridge will be provided so that traffic can be maintained on the existing
structure. In the northeast quadrant of the project, valley gutter will be used. This will facilitate drainage
and avoid impact to the cabin. A pile panel retaining wall will be used in the northwest quadrant to
minimize environmental impacts. The roadway approach work will extend approximately 200 feet west
of Bridge No. 94 and approximately 150 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
Alternative B replaces the bridge in place with a new bridge (Figure 2A). During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an on-site detour south of the existing bridge. The roadway approach work will
extend approximately 160 feet west of Bridge No. 94 and approximately 120 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative due to the confined space and close proximity
to NC 105. Construction of an on-site detour would require considerable effort. In addition, use of an on-
site detour may increase construction time and is less economical than maintaining traffic on the existing
structure.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Alternative C consists of replacing the bridge on new alignment north of the existing bridge. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The roadway approach work will extend
approximately 200 feet west of Bridge No. 94 and approximately 125 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
Alternative C was dropped as a preliminary alternative because it will require the removal of the cabin in
the northeast quadrant of the project.
Alternative D replaces the bridge on new alignment south of the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The roadway approach work will extend
approximately 145 feet west of Bridge No. 94 and approximately 190 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
Alternative D was dropped as a preliminary alternative because of the need for a retaining wall and close
proximity to NC 105.
B-3709 Page 2
Categorical Exclusion
The "do-nothing' alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and closure of
SR 1111 (Old Danner Road). This is not desirable due to the service provided by SR 1111 (Old Danner
Road)
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A Preferred consists of realignment just north of the existing bridge. Adequate distance
from the existing bridge will be provided so that traffic can be maintained on the existing structure. In the
northeast quadrant of the project, valley gutter will be used. This will facilitate drainage and avoid impact
to the cabin. The roadway approach work will extend approximately 200 feet west of Bridge No. 94 and
approximately 150 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report, the drainage area at the bridge crossing is approximately 7.0
square miles (18.1 square kilometers). The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 94 is a new
bridge approximately 100 feet (30 meters) in length. The length and opening size of the proposed
structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows, as determined by a more
detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final design phase of the project.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
The speed limit on SR 1111 is not posted therefore a statutory speed limit of 55 mph (90 km/h) applies.
The existing horizontal and vertical geometric design does not meet the design requirements for the
statutory speed limit. SR 1111 is a dead end road with a projected design year (2025) volume of 40
vehicles per day (vpd). A design exception for the proposed design speed of 20 mph (30 km/h) will be
required.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices are as follows:
ALTERNATIVES
A
(Preferred) B
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 7,550 $ 7,550
Structure Proposed 143,000 143,000
Roadway Approaches 76,600 42,700
Temporary Structure 0 33,650
Detour Approaches 0 31,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 102,850 116,300
Engineering Contingencies 70,000 75,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 35,000 55,000
----------------- ----------------
TOTAL $435,000 $505,000

B-3709 Page 3
Categorical Exclusion
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
is $470,000, including $35,000 for right-of-way and $350,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include but are not limited to: USGS Boone, NC 7.5
minute series topographic map (1978); United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Soil Survey Field Sheets F-24, E-18, and E-21, Watauga County,
NC (mapping completed 1993-1994); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory map (Boone, NC, 1994); USFWS Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina (March 7, 2002); North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) computer database, via the Internet, of rare species and unique habitats and aerial
photography of the study area. A field survey was conducted on September 26, 2000.
Impacts to terrestrial communities were calculated by measuring all potentially impacted areas up to 10
feet (3 meters) outside slope stakes. Aquatic impacts were calculated by measuring the length and width
of the replacement structure over water. The impact calculations represent the worst-case scenario.
Actual construction impacts are expected to be less.
B. Physiography and Soils
The proposed project lies within the Mountain Physiographic Province, which includes all parts of North
Carolina west of the foot of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. This province consists of a mixture of igneous,
sedimentary, and metamorphic rock that has been squeezed, fractured, faulted and twisted into folds
(USGS, 1991). The topography of the project vicinity can be characterized as steeply sloping, with more
level areas in valleys between slopes. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 2,800
to 3,520 feet (853 to 1,073 meters) above mean sea level (msl). Elevations in the project area vary from
approximately 2,800 to 2,840 feet (853 to 866 meters) above msl. Current land use in the project vicinity
is a mixture of rural residential and undeveloped properties, and scattered small businesses. Expansive
undeveloped areas are mainly associated with steep topography that is not conducive to development.
Watauga County currently has no published soil survey. Soil Survey Field Sheets were utilized to study
the soils within the project area. Soil series descriptions are given below.
Site indices provided within soil series descriptions are a designation of the quality of a forest site. The
indices are based on the average height attained by dominant and codominant trees in a fully stocked
stand at an arbitrarily chosen age. Soil surveys typically use 50 years as a base age.
Cullasaja very cobbly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely bouldery, is located adjacent to the stream
in all quadrants of the project study area. This soil is very deep and well drained. A significant amount
of gravel, cobbles, and stones are found throughout, as well as occasional surface boulders. Permeability
is moderately rapid and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is below a depth of 6
feet (1.8 meters). The site index for yellow-poplar on this soil is 103, indicating a fair suitability for this
species. No other site indices were-provided.
Ashe-Chestnut complex, very rocky, 50 to 95 percent slopes, is found within the study area adjacent to
and on the north side of SR 1111. Chestnut soils are moderately deep and well drained. They consist of a
significant amount of gravel and cobbles as well as occasional surface stones. Soft bedrock is within a
depth of 20 to 40 inches (51 to 102 centimeters). Permeability is moderately rapid and shrink-swell
potential is low. The seasonal high water table is below a depth of 6 feet (1.8 meters). Ashe soils are
B-3709 Page 4
Categorical Exclusion
moderately deep and somewhat excessively drained. Occasional stones are found on the surface and hard
bedrock is within a depth of 20 to 40 inches (51 to 102 centimeters). Permeability is moderately rapid
and the shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table is below a depth of 6 feet (1.8
meters). Site indices for Ashe soils include 56 for pitch pine and scarlet oak, and 78 for northern red oak
and eastern white pine. Chestnut soils have site indices of 78 for eastern white pine, 68 for scarlet oak,
and 76 for northern red oak. These indices suggest that Ashe-Chestnut complex soils have a good
suitability for pitch pine and northern red oak, and a fair suitability for scarlet oak and eastern white pine.
None of the soils described above are listed as hydric or have hydric inclusions.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the Watauga River Basin, and has a subbasin designation of 04-02-01
and a federal hydrologic unit designation of 06010103. Characteristics of impacted waters and possible
sources of pollution are discussed below. Note that consultation with the Tennessee Valley Authority is
required for streams in the project vicinity.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Laurel Fork Creek flows in a southwest direction in the study area. The drainage area at the bridge
crossing is approximately 7.0 square miles (18.1 square kilometers). On the day of the site investigation,
the water was a medium brown color and the flow was moderately swift. There was an abundance of rain
the day and night prior to the investigation. It is expected that the water would typically have a better
level of clarity. Creek depth near the bridge was approximately 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meters), with some
deeper pool areas. The stream width at the bridge, from water's edge, was about 35 to 40 feet (10.7 to
12.2 meters). A series of small waterfalls is visible upstream from the bridge. Investigation of the
substrate revealed mostly small to medium sized rocks. There was a thin layer of coarse sand either
between or on top of the rock in some areas. Bedrock was evident in some areas and scattered boulders
were present. Stream banks appeared stable in most locations due to the presence of rock or vegetation
along the banks and at the edge of the water. The creek is classified on the Boone, NC NWI map as
"riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded".
3. Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Laurel Fork Creek is classified as "C Tr" by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). Class "C" indicates fresh waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. The supplemental classification of "Tr"
indicates trout waters, which are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
The classification index number and date for the above data is 8-10, 5/15/63.
Scoping comments received from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (Appendix)
note that due to the above classifications, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B
.0024) should be strictly adhered to throughout the design and construction of the project. Additional
Scoping comments from this agency note that replacing the bridge with a bridge rather than a culvert is
preferable.
Benthic macroinvertebrates or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers
and streams. The NCDWQ uses benthos data as a tool to monitor water quality since benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Formerly, the NCDWQ used the
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment, but
B-3709 Page 5
Categorical Exclusion
phased this method out several years ago. The DWQ has converted to a basin wide assessment sampling
protocol. Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling
stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical and
physical data.
The NCDWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), as another method to
determine general water quality in the basin wide sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et al. (1986). The IBI method was
developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish
community. The Index incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic
composition, fish abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of
factors influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow
regime, and biotic interactions).
According to the NCDWQ, sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates was undertaken in September 1994
and July 1999 in Laurel Fork Creek at SR 1111. A rating of Good-Fair was given on both occasions.
This is a fairly low rating for the area in general, suggesting that some moderate impacts from non-point
source runoff or local industries has occurred. NCDWQ indicated that during low flow, this site has
heavy periphyton growths, suggesting some enrichment. NCDWQ does not have fish sampling data for
Laurel Fork Creek.
A search within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area was conducted for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges. Point-source discharges throughout North Carolina
are permitted through this program. According the NPDES Unit at the NCDWQ, three minor permitted
discharges are located within the search distance. The permit numbers are N00032166, N00061425, and
N0003804 L
Storm water runoff from SR 1111 and an adjacent unpaved road north of the stream may cause water
quality degradation in the project study area as non-point source pollutants. Non-point source refers to
runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no defined point of discharge. An
additional non-point source of pollution could be runoff associated with the steep mountainside adjacent
to SR 1111. Portions of this area consist of exposed rock and shallow soils. Although most areas are
well vegetated, during heavy rains it could be possible for soil to wash from the rock and eventually into
the stream.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) General Impacts
The Watauga River is less than 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) downstream from the study area. It is classified
in that area as "B Tr HQW". Class "B" waters are suitable for primary recreation and any other usage
specified by the "C" classification. As previously indicated, the supplemental classification of "Tr"
denotes trout waters. The supplemental classification of "HQW" indicates high quality waters, which
may include any of the following: waters rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical
characteristics through NCDWQ monitoring or special studies; native and special native trout waters (and
their tributaries) designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC); primary
nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission and other functional nursery areas
designated by the NCWRC; critical habitat areas designated by the NCWRC or Department of
Agriculture; all water supply watersheds which are either classified as WS-I or WS-II or petitioned to be
classified as such.
B-3709 Page 6
Categorical Exclusion
There are no other waters within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately
undeveloped watersheds), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).
Impacts to water resources can occur during construction. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the
NCDWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects, which adopts formal best
management practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters. The following are some of the
standard methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
¦ strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the project;
¦ reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in the water;
¦ placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff and
decrease sediment loadings;
¦ reduction of clearing and grubbing along stream banks.
Due to the distance to high quality waters downstream from the study area, as well as the trout waters
-- within the study area, BMPs particularly relevant to protection of these special waters will be adhered to.
5. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and
all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These
guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge
Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States",
and "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99).
Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into Waters of the United States will be avoided. The
superstructure of Bridge No. 94 consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of
timber caps, piles, and bulkheads at both abutments. Since the bridge is composed completely of timber
and steel, it will be removed without dropping any component into waters of the United States.
If removal of the substructure will create disturbance in the streambed, a turbidity curtain can be utilized.
Although most of the substrate consists of rock, there are some areas with a layer of sand. Due to the
substrate composition, this project is considered borderline in terms of the effectiveness of a turbidity
curtain. Since high quality waters are downstream within the project vicinity, the turbidity curtain would
provide an extra level of precaution against transmitting sediment.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section, work done in
the water for this project would fall under Case 2, which states that no work shall be performed in the
water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into
nursery areas. This conclusion is based upon the classification of the waters within the project area and
comments received from the NCWRC.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Classification of plant communities is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley
1990). If a community is modified or otherwise disturbed such that it does not fit into an NCNHP
B-3709 Page 7
Categorical Exclusion
classification, it is given a name that best describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for the plants noted, however subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information is available. Terrestrial communities found at this
site include Montane Oak-Hickory Forest and Man-Dominated Community (Figures 2A-2D).
Descriptions are provided below.
a) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest
Shafale and Weakley (1990) note that this community type has a mixed canopy that may vary
substantially. Possible reasons include widespread logging and death of American chestnut (Castanea
dentata). They comment that this community type may be one of the more common in the mountains,
partly because the category is broadly defined. Montane Oak-Hickory Forests occur on dry-mesic slopes
and somewhat sheltered ridgetops at elevations ranging from approximately 2,500 to 5,000 feet (762 to
1,524 meters).
This community occurs within the project study area north of SR 1111 on a very steep slope. Species
observed include chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), black locust (Robinia psetido-acacia), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), buckeye (Aesculus sp.), witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fcstulosum), false Soloman's seal (Smilacitia
racemosa), and aster (Aster curtisii). Oaks were the most dominant canopy species. Shrub and
herbaceous layers were somewhat thin due to the maturity of the forest.
Species noted above that are usually associated with somewhat less dry sites than this were more
abundant along the toe of the slope and near the stream, along with eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis).
Due to the small size of the area where the vegetation changes were noted, the area was not separated into
a different community classification.
b) Man-Dominated Community
The remainder of the project study area falls within this community type, which includes maintained
yards of private residences, and disturbed roadside areas. Common species include aster, goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), scattered saplings of yellow-poplar and red maple,
blackberry (Rubus sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and a small amount of black willow (Salix
nigra) along the stream banks.
2. Wildlife
a) Terrestrial
Wildlife species identified in the field are based upon sight, sound, or other characteristic signs. Field
guides are also utilized to determine additional species that may find suitable habitat in the project area,
but that were not identified during the site investigation.
Although wildlife species were actively searched for, very few were found. A woodchuck.(Marmota
monax) was seen along the roadside just north of SR 1111, and a gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) was
sighted along the stream.
Species that may find habitat in the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest include eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), red bat (Lasiurats borealis), and timber rattlesnake
B-3709 Page 8
Categorical Exclusion
(Crotalus horridus). Cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), white-
breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), and least flycatcher (Empidonax mimus) are among the species of
birds that could find habitat within the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest.
The Man-Dominated Community could provide suitable habitat for Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), black racer (Coluber constrictor), American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis), and eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), among others.
b) Aquatic
Dipnetting and streamside area searches revealed no aquatic species. Typical species that may utilize
Laurel Fork Creek include queen snake (Regina septemvittata), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola), shovelnose
salamander (Leurognathus marmoratus), and green frog (Rana clamitans). Fish species may include rock
bass (Ambloplites rupestris), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), central stoneroller (Campostoma
anomalum), and various species of trout, among others.
The NCWRC noted that Laurel Fork Creek contains both rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown
(Salmo trutta) trout and requests a moratorium of October 15 to April 15 to protect eggs and fry of these
species. NCWRC commented that a bridge would be preferable to a culvert for replacement.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Communities
Of the two terrestrial communities present, the Man-Dominated Community will be impacted the most
(Table 1). Alternative B has additional temporary impacts associated with it. This community is already
highly disturbed and impacts to it are not considered substantial in terms of loss of habitat or diversity.
The Montane Oak-Hickory Forest will be most impacted by Alternative A. Impacts are less than 0.25
acres (0.10 hectares), and occur along somewhat disturbed edges. These minor impacts are not expected
to negatively impact wildlife habitat or any rare plant species. Impacts to this community from other
alternatives are minimal.
TABLE 1:
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 94 Montane Oak- Man-Dominated Aquatic
Replacement Impacts Hickory Forest Community Community
acre (ha) acre (ha) acre (ha)
0.15 (0.06) 0.29 (0.12) <0.02 (<0.01)
Alternative A
0.03 (0.01) 0.20 (0.08) 0.02 (<0.01)
Alternative B
Alternative B 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.06) <0.01 (<0.01)
Temporary Detour
Table I Notes:
Terrestrial impacts calculated to 10 feet (3 meters) outside slope stakes, aquatic impacts calculated using length and
width of structure over water.
B-3709 Page 9
Categorical Exclusion
Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above, calculations were based on the worst-case
scenario.
b) Aquatic Communities
The replacement of Bridge No. 94 over the Laurel Fork Creek may result in up to 0.02 acres (<0.01
hectares) of aquatic impacts. This figure is obtained by measuring the width of the bridge over water
times the length of the bridge over water. Since the existing bridge will be replaced with a bridge, this
figure implies more impact than will realistically take place. Since appropriate guidelines will be
followed relevant to trout waters and BMPs, this project will not result in notable losses to aquatic species
or habitats.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in
33 CFR §328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the USACE.
Up to 35 linear feet (10.7 linear meters) of jurisdictional surface waters may be impacted by this project.
If the on-site detour associated with Alternative B is used, an additional 13 linear feet (4.0 linear meters)
of temporary impacts to jurisdictional surface waters could occur. Since the bridge will be replaced with
a bridge, impacts are mainly related to the width of the structure over water, and do not reflect actual
impacts to the streambed.
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods of the 1987
USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual. No wetlands were found within the project study area.
2. Permits
a) Section 404 of the Clean Water ACT
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344.), a permit is required
from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the
United States. The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be
issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category or categories of activities when: those activities are
substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts,
or when the general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication or regulatory control
exercised by another Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the
action are individually and cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular
activity, then an individual permit must be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case
evaluation of a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general permit.
Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. Activities under this permit are
categorically excluded from environmental documentation because they are included within a category of
activities, which neither individually nor cumulatively have a substantial effect on the human
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the
particular permit.
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
B-3709 Page 10.
Categorical Exclusion
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the state is necessary for projects that require Section 404
Permits. The state has General Certifications that will match the permit type authorized by the USACE.
Although a single form is utilized to request both the 404 Permit and the 401 Certification, the state must
issue the 401 Certification before the USACE will issue the 404 Permit. Written concurrence/notification
is not always required by the state, and varies depending upon the General Certification. If this project
qualifies under Nationwide Permit 23, the NCDWQ must be notified, however written concurrence from
the NCDWQ is not required.
Since this bridge is within a designated mountain trout county, the NCWRC will be consulted during the
permitting process. Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing
Trout Waters in North Carolina (October 27, 1992) will be adhered to for this project.
c) Bridge Demolition and Removal
Permitting will be coordinated such that any permit needed for bridge construction will address issues
related to bridge demolition. Since this bridge is of timber and steel construction, removal will be
accomplished without dropping portions of the bridge into Waters of the United States.
d) Tennessee Valley Authority
Watauga County is under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). This project will be
reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic
analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of
compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval at 2611
West Andrew Johnson Hwy Morristown, TN 37814-3295.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation
policy, which embraces the concept .of "no net loss of wetlands". The purpose of this policy is to restore
and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts to
wetlands, minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. As previously
stated, there are no wetlands associated with this project.
The USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total more than 1 acre (0.45
hectares) of wetlands or 500 linear feet (152.4 linear meters) of perennial and intermittent streams.
The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total more than 1 acre (0.45
hectares) of wetlands and/or 150 linear feet (45.7 linear meters) of perennial streams.
According to impact estimates in Table 1, USACE and NCDWQ limitations for impacts to jurisdictional
waters will not be exceeded by any alternative. However, a final determination regarding . mitigation
requirements rests with the agencies noted above.
F. Rare and Protected Species
B-3709 Page 11
Categorical Exclusion
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due either to natural
forces or many other factors such as habitat destruction and introduced species competition. Rare and
protected species listed for Watauga County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the
proposed project construction are discussed in the following sections.
1. Federal Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS reports six federally protected species for
Watauga County as of the March 7, 2002 listing (Table 2).
'TABLE
FEDFEZ?LLY-PROTECTED SPECIES`
'FOR NVATAU.GA' COUNTY
Scientific Name

(Common Name) Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii**
(Boa turtle) T(S/A)
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

(Carolina northern flying squirrel) E
Microhexura montivaga

(Spruce-fir moss spider) E
Geum radiatum
(Spreading avens) E
Houstonia montana (=Hedyotis purpurea var. montana)

(Roan Mountain bluet) E
Liatris helleri
(Heller's blazing star) T
Table 2 Notes:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
T Denotes Threatened (a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
T(S/A) Denotes threatened due to similarity of appearance. These species are listed due to resemblance to another protected
species but are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
** The northern population of the bog turtle (from New York south to Maryland) is designated as threatened. The
southern population of the bog turtle (from Virginia south to Georgia) is designated as T(S/A). This designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of the species from the southern population, but has no effect on land
management activities by private landowners.
The Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) is listed as an obscure record in
Watauga County by the NCNHP. The Virginia big-eared bat is not recognized in this county by the
USFWS.
Species: Bog turtle
Family: Emydidae (Subfamily Emydinae)
Date Listed: 11/4/97
The bog turtle has a light brown to ebony colored carapace and a blackish plastron. Shell size ranges
from 3 to 4.5 inches (8 to 11 centimeters). The species is most easily recognized by a yellow, orange, or
red blotch on each side of the head.
B-3709 Page 12
Categorical Exclusion
This turtle inhabits damp, grassy fields, bogs, and marshes. It feeds on insects, worms, snails,
amphibians, and seeds. Since the southern species is not biologically endangered or threatened, no
biological conclusion is required.
Species: Carolina northern flying squirrel
Family: Sciuridae
Date Listed: 7/1/85
This nocturnal squirrel has a broad, flattened tail and folds of skin between the wrist and ankle that are
used for gliding. Total length ranges from 10 to 12 inches (25.4 to 30.5 centimeters). Adults are gray
with a brown, tan, or reddish coloration on the back, and have gray to white undersides. Juveniles have
slate gray backs and whitish undersides.
Carolina northern flying squirrels inhabit mainly the transition zones between coniferous and northern
hardwood forests. Hardwood areas are utilized for nesting, and foraging is conducted in both coniferous
and hardwood forests. This squirrel has a varied diet, which may include lichens and fungi, seeds, nuts,
buds, fruit, and insects. Mating takes place in the spring and the young are born in May or June.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat is not present within the project study area for this species. There are no
coniferous forests, and therefore no transition zones between coniferous and northern
hardwood forests. Research conducted at NCNHP indicated that this species has not been
documented within the project study area or vicinity. This project will not affect the
Carolina northern flying squirrel.
Species: Spruce-fir moss spider
Family: Dipluridae
Date Listed: 2/6/95
The spruce-fir moss spider may range in color from light yellow-brown to reddish-brown. It is very
small, measuring about 0.10 to 0.15 inches (0.25 to 0.38 centimeters). The spider has long posterior
spinnerets and chelicerae (appendage near the mouth, often used for grasping) that extend well beyond the
anterior edge of the carapace.
This species inhabits damp but well-drained moss mats growing on rocks and boulders in well-shaded
areas. Tube-shaped webs are constructed by the spider between the moss mat and rock surface. It is
known from mature Fraser fir and red spruce forests at high elevations in.the southern Appalachian
Mountains.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no Fraser fir and red spruce forest communities within the study area that could
provide habitat for this species. It is also found at higher elevations than that of the project
area. A search of NCNHP records indicated that this species has not been documented
within the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect Spruce-fir moss spider.
Species: Spreading avens
Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: 4/5/90
B-3709 Page 13
Categorical Exclusion
Spreading avens is a perennial herb with mostly basal leaves that arise from horizontal rhizomes. Stems
are from 8 to 20 inches tall (20 to 50 centimeters). Bright yellow flowers are arranged in a cyme and
bloom from June through September. Fruits in the form of achenes are produced from August through
October.
This species is found on high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. It is
also found on thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near. summit outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
It is expected that this species would be found at higher elevations than that of the study
area. Areas of exposed rock exist within the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, however they
are fully shaded and do not provide habitat for spreading avens. NCNHP records indicate
that this species has not been documented within the project study area or vicinity. This
project will not affect spreading avens.
Species: Roan Mountain bluet
Family: Rubiaceae
Date Listed: 4/5/90
This shallow-rooted perennial herb forms low-growing loose tufts approximately 4 inches (10
centimeters) in height. The leaves have a smooth margin and the small flowers are deep purple.
Flowering occurs from late May to August and fruiting occurs from late August to September. Roan
Mountain bluet occurs in the same habitat as noted above for spreading avens.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
As indicated above in the biological conclusion for spreading avens, appropriate habitat
does not exist within the study area for this species. NCNHP records do not document the
occurrence of Roan Mountain bluet within the project study area or vicinity. This project
will not affect Roan Mountain bluet.
Species: Heller's blazing star
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 11/19/87
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb that has erect or arching stems which arise from a tuft of narrow
pale green basal leaves. The stems reach approximately 16 inches (40 centimeters) in height and are
topped by a spike of lavender flowers. Flowering occurs from July to September and fruiting occurs from
September to October. This plant may be distinguished from similar high-elevation plants within the
genus by its much shorter pappus (modified calyx lobes), ciliate petioles, and internally pilose (covered
with soft trichomes) corolla tubes.
Heller's blazing star grows on high elevation ledges or rock outcrops in full sun. Substrate consists of
shallow, acidic soils.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no high elevation ledges or rock-outcrops exposed to full sun within the study
area, therefore habitat for this species does not exist within the project area. A search of
NCNHP records indicated that Heller's blazing star has not been found within the study
area or vicinity. This project will not affect Heller's blazing star.
B-3709 Page 14
Categorical Exclusion
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa, which may or may not be
listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under consideration
for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. Some of these species are listed as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 3 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Watauga
County and their state classifications.
The NCNHP database shows no recorded occurrences of FSCs within the project vicinity.
B-3709 Page 15
Categorical Exclusion
TABLE'3
NORTH CAROLLNA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES
OF;CONCERN IN WATAUGA COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present'
(Common Name) Status
Aegolius acadicus SC NO
(Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl)
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis SC YES
(Hellbender)
Dendroica cerulea SR YES
(Cerulean warbler)
Loxia curvirostra ? NT NO
(Southern Appalachian red crossbill)
Neotoma magister*® SC YES
(Alle hany woodrat)
Parus atricapillus practicus? NT NO
(Southern Appalachian black-capped chickadee)
Phenacobius teretulus SC NO
(Kanawha minnow)
Sorex palustris punctulatus*® SC YES
(Southern water shrew)
Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis SR YES
(Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied sapsucker)
Sylvilagus obscurus•*A NL NO
(Appalachian cottontail)
Lasmigona subviridus E NO+
(Green floater)
Speyeria dana SR NO
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Abies fraseri ? NT NO
(Fraser fir)
Cardamine clematitis C YES
(Mountain bittercress)
Delphinium exaltatum E-SC NO
(Tall larkspur)
Euphorbia purpurea**® C NO
(Gladespurge)
Geum geniculatum T NO
(Bent avens)
Juglans cinerea ? NT YES
(Butternut)
Lilium grayi T-SC NO
(Gray's lily)
Poa paludigena*A E NO
(Bog bluegrass)
Saxifraga caroliniana* ? C
1 YES
(Carolina saxifrage) 11
Table 3 Notes:
Historic record from USFWS. The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
NL Not listed for this county by NCNHP.
• Listed as Sylvilagus transitionalis (New England cottontail) by NCNHP.
** Obscure record from USFWS. The date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
? ? Not listed in this county by USFWS, only by NCNHP.
® Obscure record at NCNHP. The date the element was last observed in the county is uncertain.
Historic record at NCNHP. The species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
B-3709 Page 16
Categorical Exclusion
T Threatened (a native or once native species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
E Endangered (a species whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora or fauna is determined
to be in jeopardy).
C Candidate (species which are considered by the state to be rare and in need of population monitoring.
SR Significantly Rare (a species in need of population monitoring and conservation action.
SC Special Concern (a species of plant or animal which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold or taken
under certain regulations).
NT Not tracked by the NCNHP in this county.
NL Not listed by the State.
E-SC Propagated material only of plant species listed as both "endangered" and "special concern"
may be traded or sold under specific regulations.
T-SC Propagated material only of plant species listed as both "threatened" and "special concern" may be traded or sold under
specific regulations.
+ This species has been found within the project region in the Watauga River. Since the stream bed is mostly rock within
the project section of Laurel Fork Creek, it is not expected that the green floater would be found within the study area.
VI.
Cultural Resources
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on October 10, 2000. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO). They requested more information on two properties and a report was prepared and
submitted to FHWA and HPO. In a memorandum dated June 13, 2001, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) concurred with the report's findings "that there are no historic properties in the project's
area of potential effect". A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated February 5, 2001 stated, "We
have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance within the planning area... There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed
project area ...If, however, the replacement is to be on new location, please forward a map to this office
indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential effect of the replacement
upon archeological resources". A map was forwarded to HPO indicating the location of the new
alignment. In a memorandum dated September 4, 2002 SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the
proposed undertaking and are aware of no historical resources which would be affected by the project."
A copy of the SHPO memorandums are included in the Appendix.
VII.
Environmental Effects
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
B-3709
Categorical Exclusion
Page 17
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 regulation. No significant change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not
disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
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 recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or
local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply. See Appendix.
The project is located in Watauga County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the
air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors located
in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area
Watauga County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project site on
Laurel Fork Creek is located in a designated flood hazard zone and is included in a detailed F.E.M.A.
Flood Study. The proposed replacement will not adversely affect the existing flood plain or modify flow
characteristics. Attached is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Figure 5, on which are shown the
approximate limits of the 100-year flood plain in the vicinity of the project.
B-3709 Page 18
Categorical Exclusion
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will result
from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the
project development with scoping letters. A newsletter was also mailed to local residents explaining the
planning process and the selected Alternative.
IX. AGENCIES COMMENTS
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
Comment:
1. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25 foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the
brown and brook trout spawning season of October 15 through March 31 to protect the egg and
fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
2. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25 foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the
rainbow trout spawning season of January 1 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
trout.
3. Spanning or bottomless structures are preferred over pipes and culverts. Bridge replacements
should be planned and installed so as not to interfere with aquatic life passage and so as not to
disrupt the natural geomorphology of the stream channel and floodplain. Whenever possible,
new structures should rectify any conditions that preclude either of these processes.
4. Concerning culverts or barrels in trout waters, whenever the receiving barrel is wider than the
naturally occurring stream or slopes approach 4% or flow approaches 2 fps, baffles should be
located in the receiving barrel in a manner that will mimic existing natural stream dimensions,
patterns and profiles. Please note that receiving barrels of culverts or pipes buried 1 foot below
normal streambed level that mimic natural conditions should not interfere with aquatic or fish
migration. The barrels should parallel or follow the alignment as the existing channel. The
length of barrels should be kept to the absolute minimum unless increased slope would negatively
impact aquatic life migration and fish passage. Again, the natural geomorphology of the stream
and floodplain should not be permanently affected and should be filly restored upon project
completion.
5. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream
water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds (15A NCAC 4B.0024).
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
8. Trees and vegetation within the 25 foot stream buffer zone damaged during construction should
be replanted within 5 days of project completion with the same mixture of species existing prior
to project initiation.
Response: See Green Sheet for commitments.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA):
Comment:
This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval.
B-3709 Page 19
Categorical Exclusion
Response: The planning document and roadway and hydraulic plans will be submitted to the TVA. See
Green Sheet for commitments.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (HPO):
Comment:
"If, however, the replacement is to be on new location, please forward a map to this office
indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential effect of the
replacement upon archeological resources".
Response: A copy of the preliminary plans were forwarded to HPO. In a memorandum dated September
4, 2002 HPO stated "We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no
historical resources which would be affected by the project." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
B-3709 Page 20
Categorical Exclusion
194
1113
?T
1136
FPISGAH
NATIOr
FOREST
-VO
BrUS?
Lovill
T 1 Fork1 ` -
BOONE
POP. 14,198
- 1409
HOWARD KNOB
ELEV. 4445
1141

i II I 194

1113 i
j

1 LAUREL ............. _ _ - - - ,
FORK
EEK
CR
B-3 709
- 1111
1553 1552 1551

1181 . %1
105 1552
--
•---
1550
38 __ " -
Shu S BLOWING F
POP. 1,323
A
321
105
? _? 1547
w
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
WATAUGA COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1111
OVER LAUREL FORK CREEK
B--3709
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles I.0 miles 2.0
FIGURE 1
C

at C (10
N p O
? ^ L N
0% N
r
?T
A l
l
E N
N
E 00
N C O

00
N
W
H
?
M O
<
Z W
S
0. = > N
V o ?
W F
y -Z

<
V w -

'oo
y
aO O
W N
J
00-N o
J

v
Q ? ? ua

s N
N
a

o

0
J
Q _
?

?
W
Z U t9 ? ?s-

O W r 0

LU = N
U-

O U

Q
? .
,
V
N Z ?2
II ?

0

O N

II
CV
O M °
N E r. Y
S i--
U
=
O
c° II
y
•G
uj
to CL CL.
r-
o

Y
I?
o a .
O
K W II
C u
:

m

m 0

.o .
J U .. C
0 ? W W O LaL U< E

N ..
CL
p-
:)
j3
Nd -
Id .
N W N a w W tn'
A
II
C
Z O uii G G x D
.Q] Fa. _
N H Z Z Z E
m
CL.
Z
(7 J

? 0 O
N p a a' a

0
0
0 J
?.

N
N 0

II II it ?
Q

a
a
a U
?.
O O G N
N C4 N e V

>

Z
~
? O
t
n
X O M D H Z
w V a a r- ? .
B-3709
Looking southwest along SR
1111 across Bridge No. 94.
Looking northeast along SR
1111 across Bridge No. 94.
Side view of Bridge No. 94.
Figure 4
0
M
GO
i
Z
0g _
Q r mm a°
n 0
cc
4
3; ° e°a W c
3
?; i
H
? ?
d.< Q
ym ?c E
3 Q 6
Cd 999
T
?
9
V' ?7 0
O

? m
= C7 $
- e
?
? ?
a
m ?
F
4
o
e
p{? i/\?\ a
i?.-°z
x ? lam-
}?..yy1
iM
oU
w ?
w?
w?

w ?X
? N
s
us ? Z
?
0

LL
cc 5;

V o
W
Z X LL' (~
N
V °
W °
Qa
Ob z
c 7
Otu
0
?T
)V i 2 ?
OW
O
3 m •.,
0)
V n
a1,?4
. 2
2'I
°
W
zL

NI
LL x

a?
?n
w
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 7, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements -Avery County (B-3808); Henderson County (B-3475, B-3662,
B-3663, B-3664, B-3665, B-3666,.and B-3857); McDowell County (B-3673); and
Watauga County (B-3709 and B-3710)
We have reviewed the subject projects and are providing the following comments in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, and it does not include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of the projects. Therefore, our comments are limited primarily to the mown
locations of listed speciesand species of Federal concern. When the categorical exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects, we can then offer
more substantive comments.
Enclosed is a list of species from the four counties involved. This list provides the names of
species that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as
species of Federal concern. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found
in the vicinity of these projects. Our records indicate the following:
Henderson County
Proiect B-3475. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and the federally threatened small-whorled pogorLia (Isotria medeoloides) occur near
this project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further
planning or orr-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further
consultation will be required.
Project B-3665. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesif) occur in the vicinity of this
project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further planning
or on-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further consultation will be
required.
Projects B-3662 and B-3664. These projects occur in the general vicinity of Mud Creek, an area
with several occurrences of bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) and mountain sweet
pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii). Currently there are no known locations of these species in the
immediate project area. However, a lack of any systematic surveys throughout the Mud Creek
drainage may account for the apparent absence of these species. In the areas affected by these
projects, we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any suitable habitat for
these species.
Projects B-3666. B-3663, and B-3857. Our records for Henderson County indicate no known
locations of listed species in the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project areas for these species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
McDowell County
Project B-3673. Our records indicate known locations for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
near this project. Habitat assessments and surveys of suitable habitat should be conducted,in the
project area for this species.. If the bog turtle occurs in the project area, it should be protected
from impacts.
Watauga and Avery Counties
Projects B-3709, B-3710, and B-3808. Although our records for Watauga and Avery Counties
indicate no known locations of listed species in the project areas, we recommend conducting
habitat assessments in the affected area of each project. Any suitable habitat should be surveyed
for these species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no
adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms,, Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-339339, Ext. 237. In any future corresporidence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-01-278.
Sincere
??
Brian P. ole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Stacy Harris, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Mr. Owen Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
1
Watauga County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern Page 1 of 2
Critical Habitat Designation:
Spruce-fir moss spider, Microhexura montivaga - Critical Habitat designation in Federal Register
66:3547-35566.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC*
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC*
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)1
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Kanawha minnow Phenacobius teretulus FSC
Southern Appalachian black- Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
capped chickadee
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern Appalachian saw-whet Aegolius acadicus FSC
owl
Southern Appalachian yellow- Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
bellied sapsucker
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC*
Invertebrates
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Green floater Lasmigona subviridus FSC
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Vascular Plants
Bent avens Geum geniculatum FSC
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena FSC*
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/watauga.html 6/6/2002
Watauga County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern Page 2 of 2
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC**
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia montana (=Hedyotis purpurea var. Endangered
montana)
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered - A taxon"in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range."
Proposed - A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
C1 - A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient
information to support listing.
FSC - A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future
(formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for.listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing).'
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e g., American alligator )--a species that
is threatened due to similarity of appearance with`other rare species and is listed for .
its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are
not subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP - A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential).
Experimental, nonessential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as
threatened on public land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for
listing on private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last.observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrantrecord - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic rec ord - obscure and incidental record.
11n the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle
(from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from
Virginia south to. Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A)
designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the
southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land-management activities by private
landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/watauga.html 6/6/2002
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CPA-106
SOIL CONVERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
P, (To be Completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
12/17/01 4. Sheet 1 of 1
1. Names of Project
B-3709 5. Federal Agency Involved
NCDOT, FHWA
2. Type of Project
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 6. County and State
Watauga, NC
PART II (To be completed by SCS) 1. Date Request Received by SCS.
J J b L 2. Person Completing Form
Coy McKenzie
3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide pr local important farmland? Yes
tIf nwthe`FPPLA'dces noC apply M.,
noE cdtnple?e addiitonal0li s o t r€o
_ 3 ?... y F...IidYZ. ' 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction: 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
8. Name of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by SCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor for Segment
Corridor A Corridor B Condor C Corridor D
A. Total Acres to be Converted Directly 0.23 0.16
B. Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
C. Total Acres in Corridor 0.23 0.16
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland
C: Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of
F2- ' ind to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 Points)
Pfc. _. VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent of Corridor Being Farmed 20
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10
6. Creation of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
7. Availability of Farm Support Services 5
8. On-Farm Investments 20
9. Effects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25
10. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Corridor Assessment (Form Part VI above or a local site
assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to
be Converted by Project: 3. Date of Selection: 4.Was a Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes No
5. lr-son for Selection:
Signature of Person Completing this Part:
Date
NOTE: Complete a form for each.segment with more than one Alternative Corridor
c
.Michael F. Easley, Governor
Usbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jet1'rey 1. Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 4, 2002
y? v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
hIENIOIL1NDUM
TO: Gail Crimes
Project Development and Environmenral ;\nalvsis branch-
NCDOT Division of Highways
F1ZONr: David Brook
SUBJI;Cl': Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111, over Laurel Creek, B73709, Watauga County, ER01-8271
Thank you for your letter of July 15, 2002 forwarding the New Alignment map for the above referenced
project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which
would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763:;In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Far
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Ralci-h. NC 2 4617 Mail Scrvicc Center. Ralciuh 27699-4017 [phone] •733-4633
Restoration 51 i N. Blount St. Ralcil_h .'sC 40 , Ndail Scr%ice Ccntcr. Ralci`-h 27699-461. [phone] •715-4,401
C ..-...... n nl..- e.: v n....... C. r)-1..:-1. X.0 .0.fv XJ.,:1 C..-.:....(........ R..1..;..1, 17A00_1AIR 1010\ 711-17A:.711;-AW)I
C Cil Y yvl?l +?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L.' S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
June 13, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William Gilmore
Project Development & Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
From: David Brook O?
Re: Replace Bridge 94 on SR 1111 over Laurel Fork Creek, 13-37 B- 3}D9
Watauga County, ERO1-8271
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 2000, transmitting the survey report by Mattson, Alexander
& Associates for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our response.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. For purposes
of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and
that there are no historic properties in the project's area of potential effect.
? House and Outbuildings (Numberl)
?` House (Number 2)
The above comments are offered in accord with Section 106.of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800. If you have any questions concerning them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley at 733-
4763. Thank you.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Nicholas Graf, FHWA
Mattson, Alexander & Associates
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] -733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC .4613 `Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
- - e.w S7ATp a.? r ?1 7
S
awn
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
February 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook` `'? i \ X11
Deputy State Histo c Preserva.tion Officer
Re: Replace Bridge #94 on SR 1111 over Laurel Fork Creek, B-3709, Watauga County, ER 01-8271
Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over a
decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site, please send us
photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each structure. These photographs should be keyed to a
map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no building over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the replacement is to be
located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources would be affected
and no investigations would be recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be, in a new location, please
forward a map to this office indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential
effects of the replacement upon archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act and 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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: , Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom.Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] 9715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618 [phone] •715-4801
?E! North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Cliirles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE,1VIanager
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 13, 2000
SUBJECT: Preliminary comments for Bridge Replacement Projects
eff l- Laurel Fork), B-3710 (Brushy Fork), Watauga County and
B-3808 (Henson), Avery County
This correspondence responds to .a request by you for our preliminary review and
comments on the referenced. proposed bridge projects. Biological staff of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has generally reviewed the sites and has not
identified any special concerns regarding them. Records indicate brown and rainbow
trout at both bridges in Watauga County. Henson Creek is a tributary to the North Toe
that contains wild rainbow trout populations. As 'a formal scoping response does not
appear to be forthcoming, the following recommendations should be considered during
your planning process:
1. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the brown and brook trout spawning season of October 15
thro u .,;T? S o f r+u_out .Ci10 FF '+.
t,.."' r^.t°^.t the eg c ^ =.d fi f+
gh1A -4-c l: 3.1 to p . j Stag .M. 0f -sic
sedimentation during construction.
2. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the rainbow trout spawning season of January 1 through April
15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
3. Spanning or bottomless structures are preferred over pipes and culverts. Bridge
replacements should be planned and installed so as not to interfere with aquatic
life passage and so as not to disrupt the natural geomorphology of the stream
channel and floodplain. Whenever possible, new structures should rectify any
conditions that preclude either of these processes.
4. Concerning culverts or barrels in trout waters, whenever the receiving barrel is
wider than the naturally occurring stream or slopes approach 4 % or flow
approaches 2 fps, baffles should be located in the receiving barrel in a manner that
will mimic existing natural stream dimensions, patterns and profiles. Please note
that receiving barrels of culverts or pipes buried 1 foot below normal streambed
Mailin- Address: Division of inland , isheru.: 1'_' 1 &1,11t .;,_rvice Cznrer • Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Bridge Projects, Watauga & Avery 2 12/13/00
level that mimic natural conditions should not interfere with aquatic or fish
migration. The barrels should parallel or follow the alignment as the existing
channel. The length of barrels should be kept to the absolute minimum unless
increased slope would negatively impact aquatic life migration and fish passage.
Again, the natural geomorphology of the stream and floodplain should not be
permanently affected and should be frilly restored upon project completion.
5. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for
sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024).
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the stream.
8. Trees and vegetation within the 25-foot stream buffer zone damaged during
construction should be replanted within 5 days of project completion with the
same mixture of species existing prior to project initiation.
We are not aware of any Threatened or Endangered species in the immediate
vicinity of these bridges; however, we are concerned about potential impacts to listed
species downstream in the Toe. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment
during the early stages of this project. If you have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact me at 336/366-2982.
Cc: Steve Lund, USACOE
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T Stevens, Director
December 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E:; Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele c,. L)
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 94 on SR 1 I11
over Laurel Fork in Watauga County, T.I.P. Project B-3709.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated December 6, 2000, in which you
requested scoping comments for the above project. The DWQ index number for the stream is 8-
10 and is classified as C Trout waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in higher quality waters
(i.e. trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. Please be
aware that tloodplain culverts are required.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Since the impacted water is classified as trout waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly
adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications. Please be aware that trout moratoriums set by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission may apply.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
.12/11/00
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize. wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for,unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in
excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6
for Survey Activities.
J. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands,..
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, storrmwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions
or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
Y
Watauga County Board of Education. a
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
MARGARET E. GRAGG EDUCATION CENTER TEL: [phone]
P.O: BOX 1790 BOONE N.C. 28607 FAX: [phone]
December 15, 2000
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27669-1548
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to your correspondence concerning project7i".,] Q9 #nd B-3710, I would like
to provide the following information.
Bridge 94 on SR 1111 (Old Danner Rd) is on a road that is not traveled by buses in
Watauga County. Closure would have no impact on school' operations.
Bridge 106 on SR 1117 (blast Gap Rd) is crossed five times per day by three buses.
Closing this bridge during school operating months would mean that approximately 70
students would have to be re-routed to provide bus service, resulting in significantly
longer bus ride times and increased transportation costs. It would be better if this project
could be scheduled during non-school months.
If I can provide any further information, please call.
Sincerely,
Poi)
Toni Parlier
Transportation Director
Educate for productive citizenship and life-long learning.
F-RELOCATION REPORT
4 North Carolina Department of Transportation
DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY OFFICE
r 1 E.1.S. n CORRIDOR F-? DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2751801 COUNTY WATAUGA 77 51ternate A Of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-3709 F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1111 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace bridge #94 over Laurel Fork Creek on SR=1111

ESTIMATED: DISPLACEE$ INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee Owner Tenant Total Minority 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0: VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 C 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-201u 0 S at 50 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-15o 0
ANSWER.ALL QUESTIONS 2q-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 3 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70m 11 250-400 13
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-500 0 70-100m 19 400-600 15
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 uP 0 100 UP 31 600 UP 9
displacement? TOTAL 0 61 37
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). There are no relocatees on this project.
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10 . Will public housing be needed for project?
11 . Is public housing available?
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14 . Are suitable business sites available (list Comments: (A) Available housing list was comp iled from a
source). Partial list and does not indicate the total available housing in
15 . Number months estimated to complete Surry County.
RELOCATION? N/A,
A. A Adams `?. 6-14-2002
. f
-
Right of Way Agent Date .
all's
A roved hi(
I
Date
corm 15.4 Hevised 02195 d vi+yMcIl a i %.Uyy. JlbllU. nclv?ck-- -w-"
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
r E; I.S. [-] CORRIDOR r-? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2751801 COUNTY WATAUGA Alternate B Of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: 8-3709 F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1111 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace bridge #94 over Laurel Fork Creek on SR-11.11
: INCOME LEVEL ' : ': ;.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Tvne of
Displacee Owner Tenant Total Minority
Residential 0 0 0
Businesses 0 .0 0
Farms 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 1 1 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers.
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available after
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? N/A
" Adams /--? 6-14-2002
Right of Way Agent Date
4111-
I
(0-M-021
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 VALUE OF DWELLING' DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
2040M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 3 150-250 0
40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 11 250-400 13
70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 19 400-600 15
100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 31 600 UP 9
TOTAL 0 61 37
REMARKS (Respond by Number)';
There are no relocatees on this project.
Comments: (A) Available housing list was compiled from a
Partial list and does not indicate the total available housing in
Surry County.
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d vnyuI'll a 1 wNy. 0111M nc?wauv I „y- 'I
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

4
. Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111
Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1111(1)
State Project 8.2751801
TIP No. B-3709
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date' Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project evelopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date ` John F. Sullivan, III
7(' '' Division Administrator, FHWA
Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111
Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1111(1)
State Project 8.2751801
TIP No. B-3709
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 2003
Documentation Prepared by
And
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
s•Z'7-2ta3
Date John Wadsworth, PE
Project Manager
+.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111 Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1111(1)
State Project No. 8.2751801
T.I.P. No. B-3709
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification
Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to
by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design, Hydraulics Unit, Roadside
Environmental, and Division Engineer:
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 94
1. Instream work and land disturbance within the 2S foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the
brown and brook trout spawning season and during the rainbow trout spawning season of
October 15 through April 1 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation
during construction.
2. Sediment and erosion control measures will adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds
(15A NCAC 4B. 0024).
3. Trees and vegetation within the 25-foot stream buffer zone damaged during construction will be
replanted with the same mixture of species existing prior to project initiation.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
A copy of the environmental planning document will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and
United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Hydraulics Unit/ Structure Design Unit:
This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge
plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of
compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to,TVA for approval.
Sufficient space for wildlife movement under the bridge will be provided.
Division Construction:
-Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina"
(October 27, 1992) will be adhered to throughout the life of this project.
B-3709 Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
May 27, 2003

c
Watauga County
Bridge No. 94 on SR 1111
Over Laurel Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1111(1)
State Project 8.2751801
TIP No. B-3709
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved September 12,
2002. Figure 1-identifies the vicinity and location of the proposed project. Alternate A,
the recommended alternative, provided for the replacement of Bridge No. 94 with a new
bridge on a new alignment just north of the existing bridge (Figure 2). During
construction, traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge. Apile panel wall will be
used to in the northwest quadrant to minimize environmental impacts. Roadway work for
Alternative A extends approximately 200 feet west of and 150 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
A second build alternative evaluated in the CE, Alternative B, replaced the bridge in
place with a new bridge; as shown in Figure 2A. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site detour south of the existing bridge: Roadway work' will extend
approximately 160 feet west of and approximately 120 east of Bridge'No. 94.1
At the February 2003 field inspection for the project it was determined that the
structural capacity of the existing bridge was inadequate for construction equipment to
reach the west side of Laurel Fork Creek. This Addendum documents revising the
preferred alternative to Alternative B (Preferred) due to constructability problems
associated with Alternative A.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
See the attached Green Sheet for a list of environmental commitments made by
the North Carolina Department of Transportation to avoid and minimize environmental
impacts of the project.
III. DISCUSSION
Four (4) preliminary alternatives were initially evaluated for this project. Two
alternatives were subsequently eliminated from additional study and two (2) build
alternatives were selected for this project: Alternative A and Alternative B.
B-3709 - May 27, 2003
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
Page 1

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two nine-foot (2.7-meter) travel
lanes and two-foot (0.6 meter) shoulders (Figure 3).. The proposed grade will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway.
The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 94 is a cored slab bridge
approximately 100 feet (30 meters) in length with a minimum grade of 0.3 percent to
facilitate deck drainage. The proposed bridge will be at approximately the same elevation
as the existing bridge. The proposed bridge will consist of two 9-foot (2.7-meter) travel
lanes and 2-foot (0.6 meter) shoulders (See Figure 3).
SR 1111 is a dead end road with a projected design year (2025) volume of 40
vehicles per day (vpd). In accordance with the NCDOT Design, Manual Part L 1-1B,
minimum design speeds for local rural, roads with current average, daily traffic volumes of
50 vpd or less, a minimum design speed of 20 miles per hour will be used.
B. BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A consists of realignment just north of the existing bridge (Figure 2).
Adequate distance- from the existing bridge will,be provided so that traffic can be
maintained on theexisting structure. In the northeast quadrant of the project; valley
gutter will be used. This will facilitate drainage and avoid impact to the cabin. A pile
panel retaining wall will be used in the northwest quadrant to minimize environmental
impacts. The roadway approach work will extend approximately 200 feet west of Bridge.
No. 94 and approximately 150 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
Alternative B replaces the bridge in place with a new bridge (Figure 2A). During
construction, traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour south of the existing bridge.
The roadway approach work will extend approximately 160 feet west of Bridge;No. 94
and approximately 120 feet east of Bridge No. 94.
C. REVISED PREFERRED, ALTERNATIVE.
A Combined Field Inspection was held on the project on February 19, 2003. At
the inspection it was determined that the existing bridge was inadequate for passage of
construction equipment, particularly a crane, necessary to construct the new structure and
remove the existing, bridge., This, effectively eliminates Alternative A as a build
alternative for the project. In addition it was determined that an: on-site detour as
evaluated in Alternative B was feasible. Due to the constructability problems
associated with Alternative A (Preferred), it was agreed to revise the preferred
alternative to Alternative B.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative B as the preferred alternative.
13-3709 May 27, 2003 Page 2
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion

D. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
The speed limit on SR 1111 is not posted' therefore a statutory speed limit of 55
mph (90 km/h) applies. The existing horizontal and vertical geometric design does not
meet the design requirements for the statutory speed limit. SR 1111 is a dead end road
with a projected design year (2025) volume of 40 vehicles per day (vpd). A design
exception for the proposed design speed of 20 mph (30 km/h) will be required.
IV. ESTIMATED COST.
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
ALTERNATIVES
A B
Preferred
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 9,440 $ 9,440
Structure Proposed 142,800 176,000
Roadway Approaches 84,520 75,245
Temporary Structure 0 33,600
Pile Panel Wall 18,000 0
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 6-3,570 66,715-
Engineering Contingencies 56,670 64,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 35,000 55,000
----------------- ----------------
$410,000 $480,000

he estimated cost of the project as shown, in the Draft 2004-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program is $470,000, including $35,000 for right-of-way and $350,000 for
construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The description of project area natural resources and impacts for both of
the alternatives remain the same as reported in the original Categorical Exclusion.
Anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities are shown in Table 1.
There are no wetlands in the project area.
B-3709 May 27, 2003
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
Page 3

TABLE 1:
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 94 Montane' Oak- Man-Dominated Aquatic
Replacement Impacts Hickory Forest Community Community
acre (ha) acre a) acre (ha)
Alternative A 0.15 (0.06) 0.29 (0.12) <0.02 (<0.01)
Alternative B (Preferred) 0.03 (0.01) 0.20 (0.08) 0.02 (<0.01)
Alternative B
-Temporary Detour 0.00 (0.00) 0.14 (0.06) <0.01 (<0.01)
Table 1 Notes.
Terrestrial impacts calculated to 10 feet (3 meters) outside slope stakes, aquatic impacts
calculated using length and width of structure over water.
Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above, calculations were
based on the worst-case scenario
The revision of the Preferred Alternative from Alternative A to Alternative
B will result in an increase to aquatic resources of less than 0.01 acres (0.1 ha).
B. FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS reports six federally protected species for
Watauga County as of the February 25, 2003 listing (Table 2).
There have been no additions to the federally protected species list for.
Watauga County since completion of the Categorical Exclusion. The Biological
Conclusion for all six species in the Categorical Exclusion was "No Effect" due to
lack of suitable habitat in the project area.
B-3709 May 27, 2003 Page 4
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES*
FOR WATAUGA COUNTY
Scientific Name
Common Name) Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii**

Bo turtle) T(S/A)
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

(Carolina northern flying squirrel) E
Microhexura montivaga
(Spruce-fir moss spider)
E
Geum radiatum
E
(Spreading avens) .
Houstonia montana (=Hedyotis purpurea var. montana) E
Roan Mountain bluet)
Liatris helleri
T
(Heller's blazing star)
Table 2 Notes:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
T Denotes Threatened (a species likely, to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant "portion of its range.
T(S/A) Denotes threatened due to similarity of appearance., These species are listed due
to resemblance to another protected species but are not biologically endan gered or
threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
* * The northern population of the bog turtle (from New York south to Maryland) is
designated as threatened. The southern population of the bog turtle (from Virginia south
to Georgia) is designated as T(S/A). This designation bans the collection and interstate
and international commercial trade of the species from the southern population, but has
no effect on land management activities by private landowners.
C. Cultural Resources
There are no architectural resources in the area of potential effect (APE) of
the project that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. This is documented in the State Historic Preservation Office's (HPO)
memorandum dated September 4, 2002 included in the Appendix.
In a memorandum dated December 30, 2002 and included in the
Appendix, the HPO stated "Because of the location and topography of the
proposed project area, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by
the proposed construction."
B-3709 May 27, 2003 Page 5
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion

D. Special Topics
Permits
(1) Section 404 of the Clean Water ACT
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344.), a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States., The.
USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be
issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category or categories of activities
when: those activities are substantially similar in. nature and cause only minimal
individual and cumulative environmental impacts, or when the general permit,
would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory control exercised
by another Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental
consequences of the action are individually and cumulatively.minimal. If a
general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an individual permit
must be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation
of a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall .under Nationwide Permit 23, ,
which is a type of general permit. Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved
Categorical Exclusions. Activities under this permit are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because they are included within a category of
activities, which neither individually nor cumulatively have a substantial effect on
the human environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must
satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit.
A 401 Water Quality Certification; administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity that may result in a discharge into waters
for which a federal permit is required.
(2) Tennessee Valley Authority
Watauga County is under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the
effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of
compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA
for approval at 2611 'West'Andrew Johnson Hwy Morristown, TN 37814-3295.
B-3709 May 27, 2003 Page 6
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
VI. . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. All environmental impacts
identified and evaluated in the original CE for the two build alternatives remain.valid
The project is a Federal Categorical Exclusion due to its limited scope and lack of
significant environmental consequences.
13-3709 May 27, 2003
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
Page 7

i
194
t-9T
6rUS?
Lovill
321 Fork-
421
i 1141
1113
1113
1114
1760
LAUREL
1136
111
.,PISGAH
NATIONA
FOREST l

? 94
BLOWING R
POP. 1,323
- 1409
HOWARD KNOB
ELEV. 4445
\, 321
off, ? ?
-iQ 154
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
WATAUGA COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 94 ON SR 1111
OVER LAUREL FORK CREEK
B-3709
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles I.0 miles 2.0
1111
105
Sh
A
B-3 709
1552,-----
1652
BOONE
POP. 14,198
FIGURE 1
!1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S. Brook.'Administrator
Michael 1. Easley, Covernor Division of Historical Resources
Lisheth C. F.%ans, Secretary David J. 01-Am Director
Jell*rcv J. Crow, f)eputy Secretary
September 4, 2002
MFMMANDUM
TO: Gail (;rimes
project Development and FInvironmental Analysis Branch
NCI)M' Division of Highways
1-1ZOM: David Brook
S1 T91:.CT: ' liri(ilvc• No. 94 on Slt 1111, over Laurel Creek, 13-3709,'%atauga County, ER01-8271
Tllanlc you for tMit- letter of.) Lill' 15, 2002 forwarding the New r\ligmment map for the above referenced
project
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which
would be affected by the project. 'T'herefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
'['he above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
\dvisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
'T'hank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location,
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Ralcieh. NC
Restoration 515 N. Blount.St. Raleigh . NC
Survev & Planning 5 13 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC
Mailing Address
-1017 (ail Service Center, Raleigh. 27699-4617
4613 MaiI ,Service Center, Raleigh 27699•--4613
401 N Mail Scr\ ice Center, Ralci,h 2769Q_4(-)18
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone] •715-4801

North Carolina Department,of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David US. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson.'Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December 30, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental ;Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM. David Brook `G=??'•.c? ? 1?!.
SUB E-C 1: Bridge No. 94 on SA 1 11 1 over Laurel Fork Creek, B-3709,
Watauga County. ER 01-8271
Thank you for your letter of September 27, 2002 transmitting the Categorical Exclusion
.(CE) for: the. above project.
Because of the location and topography of the proposed project area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological sites which may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the proposed construction. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council;on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at. 3.6;CFR Part:800.
Thank you for your. cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
DB:doc
cc:., Wadsworth, FhwA
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] 9733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC. 460 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699=461:1 [phone] •715-4801
C.....,o., R. Pl.,....:.... - ;I;\! Rl--t Cr Rnln;nh V(' 181!2 AA .,;1 Cnr..;rn (".,.,ram R?lv:.,& ?'71.00_d?14 /OI ON 712_.t'7f.1 -11 G_A2A1
N ?

V'
W
r
:E O
? r
E z z
s
N c o
?
Z
_
E
;
E

C V c r ;-
W W
N^ ZZ O
N W U
H
U
.
QO W J
CL
O
ado -

E J W 1w N
Q? ? au N
r ?
O, N Q _
r
Z V 0
19
CL z W
i O
O
.? ,o _
3 "' v
U
N? p p
LU
- O U-

z?
I
co
t N
i

a
u

c. ca 01
n c m _
^ W
H Q U
Q0?a ad
0
?
«
c?u Z
Y
O
0 in
0
U
uul
LL.
tl ?A Q W Q
Z
emu`
E O >ZQD
s d
H
;
w W Q
~
O w ?. 91
ZOO.W
0 O W
m O

M
W
Y
tL.

E
I
I
N W o z I
O ° W V
4n O II W-
= 0 " m ,0
H o `u 11
r. .p Y
C) cr Z ?
II
W
?
o v
.
? ? C

Q
u J
?
U
V C
o
U U E
ui
W W
W Vf W -
d
H a
fA Q Y Y
II
O' N
W
N
Z
Q
W
Q
W
Q
II
•C
LAJ x
g O Q W 0 Z Z Z m
Q O
a _ .?
Q
Z
Q
E Vl V
W
O
N p < Q a

N
V1 J
OC
O 0 0 D
CV
N V•
N 0
"I
Z
II I II O

~ I
?-
Q F6
V
0 Q A. LL-
C14
C) M
0 to
CV Cn
N
O O 0 s
N N N V
- c Q
} }
O
?= Z J V
j? O W N Z
.Wr V O
W E
.?

APPENDIX
13-3709 May 27, 2003 Page 8
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
B-3709 and B-3926
Subject: B-3709 and B-3926
From: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan-2005 09:30:18 -0500
To: "Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @vnet.net>, Marella Buncick
<[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Sue Homewood
<Sue.Homewood @ ncmail. net>
Sue Homewood and I visited both of these bridge projects yesterday.
Our interest is the proposed on-site detours using culverts.
The B-3709 project is on Laurel Fork which is approx. 35' wide and
dominated by boulder and bedrock substrate. DOT is claiming costs
and constructability issues as reasons for the culverts.
Unfortunately, there is very little room to operate due to the close
proximity of NC 105 and the orientation of the SR 1111 and the
stream. Division staff indicated that they would like to set one
pipe at grade and have the other two pipes laying on the substrate.
This will be very difficult based on what we saw. The boulders and
bed rock downstream of the bridge are large and it would require a
lot of disturbance to set even one pipe at grade.
We discussed the bridge option. DOT indicated that it may require
some closure of SR 1111 to key the bents into the bedrock (unable to
drive piles). Hovever, SR 1111 is a deadend road with no other
state maintained access roads. There is a private bridge and access
road but DOT seemed reluctant to use the bridge due to structural
integrity issues. This seems to rule out the off-site detour.
Regardless of the on-site detour option, there is going to be a lot
of impact. The construction time was estimated at 10 months with a
projected September start date which would span the disturbance
across two trout spawning seasons. I'm inclined to say that this is
more than temporary impact. DOT will be providing the alternatives
analysis for bridge and culvert options.
The B-3926 project is on Meat Camp Creek which has a boulder,
cobble, and gravel dominated substrate. DOT states in the
application that the skew of the road would be unsafe for a bridge
detour and there is no reasonable off-site detour.. From our visit
it appears that the skew would not be that great-.but I'm not a road
engineer. The stream is approx. 10' wide and could be easily
accomodated by a pipe. In between the two bridges is a large
driveway culvert that is perched approximately 1-2' above the stream
blocking passage. I'm not advocating the argument of "the stream
has a culvert upstream so it's okay to culvert below", but I do
think it is something to consider in this case.
My personal opinion is to use bridge detours on both projects. My
professional opinion is to use a bridge detour for B-3709 and allow
the culverts for B-3926. I'll have some pictures of B-3709 soon to
send out as well.
1 of 2 2/2/2005 10:23 AM
Re: B-3709
Subject: Re: B-3709
From: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:47:28 -0500
To: "Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @vnet.net>, Marella Buncick
<Marella_Buncick @ fws. gov>
Thanks for your responses. Your thoughts are very similar to mine on
these projects. The B-3709 project has a bedrock channel bed. DOT's
reasoning is that piles would be driven into the bedrock for a bridge and
would create more impacts than laying culverts on the bedrock. I have
serious doubts about this. I will be in Watauga Co. tomorrow to look at
these and other sites. I'm supposed to meet with the Div. bridge
engineer to get some more details. We will be meeting at the B-3709 site
at 10 am if you are interested (sorry for the late notice). I'll pass
along any information I get. Thanks
Brian
Marla J. Chambers wrote:
I haven't gone over the applications thoroughly yet, but I did find that
for
the Meat Camp project (B-3926) they claim due to residential development
the orientation of the stream there's limited space for the detour & a
detour bridge would contain an unsafe skew. I'm not sure I understand
that
as a skew shouldn't be a problem at the speeds people should be going on
an
on-site detour. The Meat Camp project is actually 2 bridge replacements
fairly close to each other; are the conditions the same at both that
would
prohibit a detour bridge at either?
Our Biologists didn't express any major concerns about the detour
culverts,
but we don't want to see any more land disturbance and sediment entering
the
waters than absolutely necessary. There are sensitive species either
within
or downstream of the two projects. If it's not in the application
somewhere, perhaps we need to get a better explanation/justification for
the
proposed temp. detours.
Marla J. Chambers
Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator
N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm.
12275 Swift Rd.
Oakboro, NC 28129
[e-mail]
phone & fax: [phone]
cell: 704-984-1070
-----Original Message-----
1 of 3 2/2/2005 10:22 AM
Re: B-3709
From: Marella_ [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent:
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:57 AM
To: Brian Wrenn
Cc: Marla J. Chambers; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: B-3709
Although there are no listed species involved, I would strongly
encourage
NCDOT to use bridges for these temporary crossings. If they have to use
a
triple barrel culvert they have a big enough creek that a bridge is the
most appropriate solution both economically and hydraulically---this is
even more so if there is very much slope or bedrock in the channel. In
addition, I would contend that the culvert could create permanent
impacts
to the channel and banks. If the project goes longer than anticipated
or
there is flooding, the likelihood of permanent impacts increases. There
is
also the fill being put in and taken out and the potential for that (or
some portion of it) to end up in the creek.
We have asked for offsite detours as a way to avoid these impacts. If
they
can't provide another route around, then I think a bridge is the only
environmentally acceptable solution for the temporary crossing. I
assume
the reason they are proposing this is cost??
let me know if this is helpful.
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
Brian
Wrenn
<brian.wrenn@ncma
il.net>
To "Marla J.
Chambers" 01/07/2005 01:59
<[e-mail]>, Marella
PM Buncick <Marella Buncick@fws.
CC
Subject
B-3709
2 of 3 2/2/2005 10:22 AM
Re: B-3709
This is a bridge project in Watauga County with an onsite detour that
consists of a triple barrel culvert stream crossing. DOT is reporting
this as temporary impacts. The stream, Laurel Fork Creek, is class C;Tr
waters. DOT is aware of the spawning season work moratorium. What are
your thoughts on the culvert v. a bridge for the onsite detour? What
are your thoughts on leaving a temporary culvert in place through the
trout spawning season? I have another bridge project with the same
situation also in Watauga on Meat Camp Creek. Thanks
Brian
3 of 3 2/2/2005 10:22 AM

CG-Ul

b
skt-,
5
s.
e.
4r,
t1?C

a *r U?- o

v", Uat?4 10- vs _?Ofnn?ee,
i
Re: B-3709
Subject: Re: B-3709
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:56:45 -0500
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
CC: "Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @vnet.net>,
[e-mail]
Although there are no listed species involved, I would strongly
encourage
NCDOT to use bridges for these temporary crossings. If they have to
use a
triple barrel culvert they have a big enough creek that a bridge is
the
most appropriate solution both economically and hydraulically---this
is
even more so if there is very much slope or bedrock in the channel.
In
addition, I would contend that the culvert could create permanent
impacts
to the channel and banks. If the project goes longer than
anticipated or
there is flooding, the likelihood of permanent impacts increases.
There is
also the fill being put in and taken out and the potential for that
(or
some portion of it) to end up in the creek.
We have asked for offsite detours as a way to avoid these impacts.
If they
can't provide another route around, then I think a bridge is the
only
environmentally acceptable solution for the temporary crossing. I
assume
the reason they are proposing this is cost??
let me know if this is helpful.
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
Brian Wrenn
1 of 3 1/11/2005 4:14 PM
Re: B-3709
<brian.wrenn@ncma
il.net>
To
01/07/2005 01:59
Marella
PM
<[e-mail]>
"Marla J. Chambers
<[e-mail]>,
Buncick
cc
Subject
B-3709
This is a bridge project in Watauga County with an onsite detour
that
consists of a triple barrel culvert stream crossing. DOT is
reporting
this as temporary impacts. The stream, Laurel Fork Creek, is class
C;Tr
waters. DOT is aware of the spawning season work moratorium. What
are
your thoughts on the culvert v. a bridge for the onsite detour?
What
are your thoughts on leaving a temporary culvert in place through
the
trout spawning season? I have another bridge project with the same
situation also in Watauga on Meat Camp Creek. Thanks
Brian
2 of 3 1/11/2005 4:14 PM
Re: B-3709
Subject: Re: B-3709
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:57:55 -0500
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
CC: "Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @vnet.net>
I don't want to belabor this but if they can't get the culverts on
the
bottom, then they can't ensure passage. It seems there may be a
creative
solution besides driving piles---maybe keying a temp foundation into
the
bedrock with something. Have they really exhausted off-site
opportunities?
UuGGHHHHH! Question as much as you can---this division has done
some UGLY
culverts and we've had our battles. Because they don't have
federally
listed species----aquatic----I've not been able to get much of
anywhere
with some of them. Given some of the challenges they have with
topography
and geology they should be more creative....
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
To
Brian Wrenn
<brian.wrenn@ncma
il.net>
"Marla J. Chambers"
01/11/2005 03:47 <[e-mail]>,
Marella
PM Buncick
<[e-mail]>
1 of 5 1/11/2005 4:14 PM
Re: B-3709
cc
Subject
Re: B-3709
Thanks for your responses. Your thoughts are very similar to mine
on
these projects. The B-3709 project has a bedrock channel bed.
DOT's
reasoning is that piles would be driven into the bedrock for a
bridge
and would create more impacts than laying culverts on the bedrock.
I
have serious doubts about this. I will be in Watauga Co. tomorrow
to
look at these and other sites. I'm supposed to meet with the Div.
bridge engineer to get some more details. We will be meeting at the
B-3709 site at 10 am if you are interested (sorry for the late
notice).
I'll pass along any information I get. Thanks
Brian
Marla J. Chambers wrote:
I haven't gone over the applications thoroughly yet, but I did
find that
for
the Meat Camp project (B-3926) they claim due to residential
development &
the orientation of the stream there's
& a
detour bridge would contain an unsafe
understand
that
limited space for the detour
skew. I'm not sure I
as a skew shouldn't be a problem at the speeds people should be
2 of 5 1/11/2005 4:14 PM

D
ro
j zT
°
m
r

rn
A
}
CF)

CO t
CO O
.
f? CO CO
p r r o 3
m '

w m w
0

to o
o
w
-
N N
f

O D
n
CD
N CD
G C
(D N
(D
0
D Q_

o
W
0 RI

Al Q
6 -?
m
CD cp
r
D
`D z

O n A? - C
CL
N
M
`° D

N
S m '0
0 m
° `

'° ao
Q 3
N

gCD
a
=r (D =r CD
cL S. N 2 C
CD
Q
T

O Z
CN

n 7

D
? C

T

O n = 7

w O • 3
1

0
OD v C T

m
5
x,

CL
o?w
CD
o x m
m

P
0

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNOR
November 10, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
R IN @WeO I
NOV 15 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMYN4TER BRANCH
LYNDo TIPPET r
SECRETARY

Subject: Request for mitigation confirmation for the replacement of Bridge No. 94 over
Laurel Fork Creek on SR 1111, Watuaga County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1111(1), State Project No. 8.2751801, Division 11, TIP No. B-3709, WBS
#33249.1.1
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 94 over Laurel Fork Creek on SR 1111 in Watauga
County. The current bridge is 77 ft long will be replaced in-place with a new bridge
approximately 110 ft long. The proposed replacement structure is a cored slab bridge and will
include two 9 ft travel lanes with 2 ft-11 in of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The
roadway approaches will provide two 9 ft travel lanes with 6 ft shoulders, 2 ft of the shoulders
being paved. The total project length is 375 ft. A temporary on-site detour will be constructed
just south of the existing bridge.
Impacts to jurisdictional resources have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent
possible. Of the remaining impacts to jurisdictional resources, 106 ft of cold water stream will
be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. There are no wetlands or buffer
impacts associated with this project.
The project is located in the Mountain Physiographic Province in Watauga County in the
Watauga River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 06010103, sub-basin 04-02-01. The
I
project crosses Laurel Fork Creek. Jurisdictional impacts and proposed compensatory mitigation
are as follows.
Stream Impacts and Compensatory Miti ag tion: Stream impacts requiring mitigation total 106
feet. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designates Laurel Fork Creek as a cold water stream.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed to consist of mitigation provided by the EEP for 106 feet of
cold water stream impacts.
Please send the letter of confirmation to John Thomas (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120,
Raleigh, NC 27615. Mr. Thomas's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the
project is April 19, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr.
John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Jon Scott [phone].
Sincerel
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. John T. Thomas, USACE
Mr. Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Ms. Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management