20061271 Ver 1_Complete File_20060810

V t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GoVEFLNOR
r tIAq
nh?
t
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
August 2, 2006
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETF
SEQU'.TARY
Ir
271
?D
A D
UG Z 0 ?006
11ETLAND""R
AND - I AIEk- QUALITY
ST0RMyyA7-ER BRANCH
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 33 Application for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 338 on SR 1320 (Roaring Fork Road) over Roaring Fork
Creek, Ashe County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1320(4), State
Project No. 8271230, WBS No. 33381.1.1, Division 11, TIP No. B-4013.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, as well as, the
Pre-construction Notification Form, permit summary sheets, and %z size plans for the above
referenced project completed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The
agency proposes to replace Bridge No. 338 with a new 85-foot single span bridge on the
realignment of SR 1320, north of the existing bridge. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within
the project study area and no bents will be placed into Waters of the United States.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description
Roaring Fork Creek is located in the New River Basin (sub-basin 05-07-02), and is approximately
15 feet wide within the project study area. The NCDWQ classifies Roaring Fork Creek as Class
"C Tr +". The Wildlife Resource Commission also classifies Roaring Fork Creek as a trout
stream, therefore a moratorium is being observed from October 15 - April 15 to protect natural
trout propagation and stocked trout. Since this stream is designated as a trout water, it is also
designated as a High Quality Water and therefore Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will
be adhered to. There are no Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
occurring within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Roaring Fork Creek is not designated as a
National Wild and Scenic River or a State Natural and Scenic River.
Permanent Impacts: There are no permanent impacts associated with this project.
Temporary Impacts: There are 0.002 acre of temporary fill in surface water associated with this
project because of a-24" reinforced concrete pipe that is being tied into Roaring Fork Creek. Once
complete, the banks will be stabilized and re-vegetated.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER-LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CAPITAL BLVD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSIrE: WWWNCDOTORG RALEIGH, NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1593
There are no utility impacts associated with this project.
Bridge Demolition
The existing Bridge No. 338 was constructed in 1967. The single span structure has a clear
roadway width of'24.8 feet which includes two travel lanes over the bridge. The superstructure
consists of an asphalt wearing surface over a timber deck on I-beams and the substructure
consists of timber caps and piles. The removal of this bridge will deposit no fill into Waters of the
United States.
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 July 31, 2006 the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) lists seven federally protected species for Ashe County.
Federally Protected Species for Ashe County
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status Biological
Conclusion
Bo turtle Clemmvs muhlenbetyii No T(S/A) N/A
Spreading avens Geiun radiation No E No Effect
Swam pink Helonias bullata No T No Effect
Roan mountain bluct Houstonia montana No E No Effect
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri No T No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Yes T No Effect
E-denotes Endangered, T-denotes Threatened, T(S/A) denotes threatened due to similarity of appearance
therefore no biological conclusion is required.
Virginia spiraca was originally surveyed on June 24, 2004 and listed as May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect because there was possible habitat within the project area. However, after
review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on November 5, 2004 the.biological conclusion was
changed to No Effect. A re-survey was performed on July 17, 2006 and no species were found.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Avoidance and Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to "Waters of the United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design. The use of best
management practices for construction should reduce impacts to plant communities.
The entire stream is being spanned, therefore eliminating any permanent impacts.
The existing bridge is being used to maintain traffic until the new bridge is complete,
therefore eliminating the need for a temporary on-site detour.
Mitigation: There is no mitigation since there are no permanent impacts.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All other aspects of tlus project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The

NCDOT requests that the temporary fill associated with the installation of a 24" reinforced
concrete pipe be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 33.
Section 401 Pennit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3366 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC
forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Megan Willis at mswillis(u?dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
Sincerely,
F. 1?9' lmallc
k-d/ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buneick, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfctti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael A. Pettyjohn, P.E. Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division 11 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Jennifer Evans, P.E., PDEA Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
3

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(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 Pen-nit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
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: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: mswillis(a-?dot.state.nc.us
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 9
Ill. 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: Bridge No. 338 over Roaring Fork Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4013
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN)
4. Location
County: Ashe
N/A
Nearest Town: Rotcn
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): SR 1320, Roaring; Fork
Road
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the*coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 81'39'00' ON 36'29'00' °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Laurel Creek
8. River Basin: New River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/inaUs/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Residential
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard Bride Construction Equipment
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Improve the safety of travelers along SR 1320.
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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: 0.002 acre of impacts to a
jurisdictional stream as a result of a reinforced concrete pipe tie-in.
Page 3 of 9

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of 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.
Wetland Impact

Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact "Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.)
Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0
4. Individually list all intennittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width. then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
2 Roaring Fork Temp Perennial 15 ft 0.002

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.002
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation. dredaine. floodine. drainace. bulkheads. etc_
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on ma) Name
(if applicable) Waterbody
plicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estua
ry, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Page 4 of 9
I Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.002
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.002
Total Stream Impact (linear feet):
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
S. 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 stotmwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
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.The entire width of the stream
will be spanned. There will be no bents in the water. Traffic will be maintained on the current
bridge until the new bridge can be tied into the realigned road and the old bridge removed
VIII. Mitigation
Page 5 of 9

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 January 15, 2002, 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 NCEEP 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.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm,i?,ide.hthml.
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.
No mitigation is required.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.cnr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Page 6 of 9

Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. 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 ?
3. 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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", 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 multioliers.
I Zone* I Impact I Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitieation
I 1 I 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel, Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Page 7 of 9

Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all' appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
XII. Scwabe 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.
N/A
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. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://12o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. 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).
Page 8 of 9
a
F
g-7•o(o
Applicant/Agent's Sii;nature Date
11
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
A
- -1...1111......... as ..
..y
- SITE ;+ Elm
----- ? ,.
9
16 ?
f' 88
v`" 88
46
` ? 163'...-. ¦
221
ASHE COUNTY
I
1319
.?Wa?k WlIlie
r
1321 Road ?.
I_- 1320
Bryan
Davis
Road
1315
Bi Fo gang
i Laurel Creek j
Creek, Roaring Fork
Road /
1313 l 1320 !
Soup sift ?
can
anch
oad I
Big
1315La rel
R ad i
1310 1316 Roten ,
Little Big Bran h R /
Laurel
Road `-
P rker
Laurel'
Creek
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
13-4913
ON SR 1320
BETWEEN SR 1315 AND SR 1321
SHEET i OF _?
z
O

O
CL a U)
z}
Y
Q Q
a)
Z >
U
0 2 15 C,
M L
L
0
z0U
cm?
w
ZO L 00
-p C? U Q CO U

O
LO fD
Q. M D.
? LU M (1)
Y co
N
cl of
U) LL N Z (A
w rnU
cn z
w ° o
p ?
n
C
)
Q U
Lr)

W
z
>,
O 9
} J_-
F-
Ix ca
2
w
M
N
m
O m
Ix
a `m
N

C
J
>+
t: w
U
M
m
a
Q
0 a
a
w
0
N
J

E
? c r,
c
o .O z c
CN

Z ? ? ?
cv
F M
G7 O N ? ? 7
C/)
F. C C U a

.'=
in a

O

O ' C

z

U O
X L E? v f
CG V 'L
a W U- F W o

N L• U
O p w M
`
C C U C ,
`
7- p
.ln CJ CL E .`? O O M (
?
L In M ?•'j
W U E <
? ?
? a c

U
cn ?

II
E
CL O
o
C, N
o
C,
No
C) U
z
:D E o
Q ? ? s
? c
2
0
D (O O U
U)
` O O
?. E er C)
U

C C

W
IL N m?
C
C
O U
Z C C CJ (O

J
Cl) L CJ
`
U
f. U c
Lij
a
o N

z O
- c
>
m m
p S
co
W
J
F-
W
0
i
C:
c
E c ° U
CJ
11 j `

C N
C C C
O
O
(D _ CJ fUD O
O
O W O O O
CL
W
WU'
U
U in
U
(n N M N
J
O

C

N
J
O ? +
? J
?J 2
L O
N N
+
M

O J
Q
fn z '- N

z
a
t I
' $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$
$$$$USERNAME$$$$
$$$$$$$

09/

08/99
E::xCONTRACT.-
-
.i
-----
---
-
TIP PROJECT:
B-4013

--- --

:

1

O U
10 U
O

• ;10 X
IU
lul
U n
' -n
j r

rri o m o

r o O

P

TENNESS

EE
'
`'
R
O N
O
O
? O Z
x'
W
I I v
?• 1'9 `'11
I to
Cl Z
i h
1?

'ti

\
?
1
?

I

to
I lO IO
lo O
to .RJ x
p
\ 1 g 1
S • O I j _ FF E$ -
; I? ?4?. I° ?. ?
?
y \ \ i IU to €a ??`
b
IN IN • Q
k
to ? ? ? ? IUl la ?
\
\ ` , ..
Im
' ?

II II II II II II

W Iw lo. Iv IA b ?Tj

O

b

\ 1
1
U
N
_ 8 ?.-?rb
gip

D
i?
o = M I I \ \?\?\ -? / i'
?Z SIN
?v; h I,+y ? / I e
ll
] ? W
O Z ?Iti O

y
e
? a ,
•n Gi [h
y '"'ti O 1

? b b C7 ? ? I ? b
R? w I ti ?? r
tu
w
?
?
o w
w x
b
??
0 1
??
?
a ° I• I
a?
ti
/ h,
-a 1 b cn? I I I
I N I?
F ( I I ?.? (00
?D D y r ?? :, ,? I
, ; Ib i
I to
° L ° I 1
I 1 I I I
? fib ??
?

n
a
_ 47
^' a
0 y

^' b
o
ti
?
5?
m=

/? I
I I I
I I I ?i j
I?
??
I
?
r
m4
o. u, O
zr, I n I

h4

_ I I Ida I I t

?
y l L7 f ? ? I I I I I ?
I
?o

^0"3
yy

n

W

a n

o s

a ?• I I ?I

I tilhq
0
'
? y
y'
w r
I
I
I
??? n D
? ?
n
? a? ? i•a
a•3
u"? L ?
? I I I
I I ly
I I
n

b? cn
77
?D
? _
?
o ?O
/ 1?,,
I I
I I?
7
I
t C)
I I ?

j
ti I I I I I
I I

x '? y i ? b I I
I I I >
hl ;n ?1 3/ I

o ?

? I I I W a
W
IW
I
a 7 I I

b
a
y I
3 ? ?
o
o
b ? b ? I i ? ?'9Q I
g' b ?
? o y
a I
? I
I p' ?
? ?? 7
? } z b v I W " °°
Z n Oti 8r ?o I I
1
?,?
I
I i Wi IO
A
a sM I y\ \ I A I

'9 8 Z m
I I
`J7

I
b C? >
ar w I
I I
I I
I I
a Zz I I I m
o y ?'
h`I ti 0
p x cn I
I I
I I
I
-'?•
?6

fffffffffff ffff
i
I- m ? m
m?
? may= °?`.
o fUN= mx???o ?
ro-0ho? v C
T O?m0'°DN? L ? ? O
o? o"„ 80
o ? 1 °o ZZ
n
? t

z

D
O

(n
m

n

_
-DI
2
m

z a

X

C 6' m
m
z
-I
z
m 3

z

0

0
C)
m .
m
_
0 02
REVISIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------- ---------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------- 8/17/99
I J
JK \ X_XX-X - X-I )
1 11313 SI
y X Q
_-__ -- iiJJ
of i --------------- -'
n x\ a?? ? I
/ I d
I r
to
N\ 1 O ? ?mmz? -? ?
y?yo-
p I 1` ? ?? .nm-in
N NO
' \ r
p1\ 1 m mmZ
11\\\ /Z P.. 1\ \ O_n N,1
p ? SZI\ Q O -1p?v?v
\\`c P\ \ F` \ ? wfmom
N
?n n ` o0y 0\
f G
OOOO
n ? o C
n o
m <
N N y r
r
Z Z Z N
I I m,
rmmn „ r
n ? n
? m H r
r \n m
E s m
0
° n n
A
A ?
0000
mmz
?on
i,? r \n
31 -1
2 S
I O A
fnG 7 O
OZ ?
yn ? s
m
fV t R_ YI
J4 ®P
f ^gs9p
J=
??p N =L/
M? O F(
Q? A6
n
a°
6o
UP
/
x ?`/ ill E
/(//?l f\ Cam. C9
a
/
/ a
05
j ,-------
- 11
D °m
a
J ?
> M
?op / ?? ?f
v
n
m
rn
Ul
z
rTI
rn
1.71
1
O
I
r
I
:Tj
O
T)

0
ti

(n D
n

?J2 + ':mo
~A
OX p
rym - n
+ r-
r? o° m of

? ti O O !?-

yo ,-

_
'
c

rn
0
\ A
i- K
1
A
\\ n
-- ------- -----
'Tj O -?'\k\r?
------------ ?
{Q + aC/ ro
?? n ? fl Q b
Q
IS j Q I
?m In I I
\µ l I 1 15
w
ib
I; ? I F
CID
it N
N I O J{
II r
I / aj a
r jxC3
1
Q (C3
a
fl €?rr?
r
Q r
U
Q ? I a.' a
o ? o
:B C3
I n 1 i
1 ?W
r

a
r? ?<am?7tirpD?
II II n II " li " to
n cn NNaN?o
?' l.il't??NtoQN(V
O? OW VItI ?:?
? II 11 II II " II " ?
II O? N ? W o
r,1 LA T) rj
QC:
L
I
I Q«7?{rpD?
G II II II II II
II 01??0
o^ .4 r
J UbW ;i +
d : R IQ Cq

r
I
•
0
m
-n Z
r O
r -I
m
z cn
r
n
mcm
m cm
mo
n?
M n
mm

r
b
$r so y
s ;, 4 ? ItN ?
zp
az m z
z '
o
9? ate
t% ?y 4

CA i0 a Z
0
REVISIONS
EEEEffSYSTIMEEEi EE
EEEEEEEf EEEEEii0u?Ef ESEiiif iif if ES
?z rya????`"??> Cpv J//IIII I
omoa?-o snob ?
? ?? `rub
H ~`? gmlll
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/17/99

10
t ; 1
Z v 1 Ott rt'?,f;.,.-arC .w-1. v I S'. 91
--
-DI
A / z IIYF'I I m /
A,?
44
n a \ :??. .: ?.'I\ ?., \ ? I? ?M?:!?71 i?l•1'1' -1 ? l _ _ - -- - ;? / L I'??Ir ??/??/
\y Irl(
Z
_` ?N\\\ >+( a„• ?\` f Y 1 'riseI m l Qr mill fy4l)1?1 I? ?III?I Iii.. '' ; ??,?`i ril//1?/??/?????? j ;j
o F: _ ?. i I I,, I Y
111
v o- ii,' II,I I
G7 m r ?z ? 1 i ,. a ?? ?t ?-rd ?:t ? ?I I? i li f? pl?' ? ?? /...
Lil
l
?TZ
?wti''
m
u ll?lIl?lll;ili0 I, Z
v
p ?... i??A\\ cn'
::o nz
3>0
!
1 i
It Wit,
.4 iN' S ? I, }' ! ?!r/ ? ?i / ??? ??'?/ Il ?. ? - ?'(pl???Auil/II( ?w '? y ? tit ? f^
,f < ?t :fir / In/?_•V /? c ??? i'? P .y ,' i,I # 1???, ?:
1
? i4. 4 IIII I ??,Y? ? /r ,1??, t??? ^ / ? ( d F .r /
Ill
If, 11111Zj
?r I?' H ?(( ((II IIII' ?. .!... c. ?. IIIII?II` L!'
m •, ? ` `? ,; '?','' .:1. I : ?,"? III'. (I 1,? r t_+,:_ _.;..,. .?t ? ?.. / I? ??\?::. ?::. ,.' ?'-'.?, tp
IZ o ?I. ? ?\; ??:?/ S Tyf' ?/ ? ? ? i?:-l//?/):.. ,?? !,.?lyq?l ? N .. .., .1,•,. ??????
(? ? D r- ? c?lA.. >5 r? i• _ }Y?y? ??, l'`i'?' s i I I i???/?'?? ??+ll? ? ??? yt.._H'. ?I ? ??' \\\\ ::
-TI
-, ? : r?'r. ? ? III •. ?- ?? I ? ll \ . ?
?? : ; ,? ??11, ?, III ,; ? I ? f?1 •'' '? t ? ,x ? ? ? ? x.•,?.?.,/, / ?? i? ?? ?IIIII I?il :?? ? 6 ? • ? °
Cz M6
z
0
r
sssss$SYSTI1dFsssss
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS$$?GNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

RRR
R F A R E 5/14/99

10
0 ?o

A
0 'o
LA 'o
14 10
00
10

O
O 1
1
1
S c

?
^m tN
o

<
;; I CID
m
Z
N ? 2 ? '
'
3
+
?
W
b N o aO
N - o omZ
T ul

1

II
N I? II II
r-

A
?i

P Po

(J
m0
uw
~
r

'?
\ II II
N II II
a
a `? v
t
Ii
f? E
Ic., .
0
I?
I?
I
N
1 I I
In

1
zo
V '
oo

$N?
N Poo
Oll
W ?ow
, FFFnnnnnn

II II II II
+ m, Nv
' N
? lp
IT I

f lp
A?

??
no ro
- 1
o
^n \

N G) ? •1
?
\
O

1

s? 8n
Z? $o

_ a
M
az pm

? a
?r y

-F

Ashe County
Bridge No. 338 On SR 1320 (Roaring Fork Road)
Over Roaring Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (4)
State Project 8.2712301
WBS 33381.1.1
TIP Project B-4013
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Approved:
Date:
A4G'r'egory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
yFy D
ate John F. Sullivan, III, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
i
Ashe County
Bridge No. 338 On SR 1320 (Roaring Fork Road)
Over Roaring Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (4)
State Project 8.2712301
WBS 33381.1.1
TIP Project B-4013
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
July 2004
Document Prepared
by
Wetherill Engineering, Inc.
at Benson, PE
'?., a BENS`
in coordination with
North Carolina Department of Transportation
?A'a?`ry`-Alicp5lckens, PE, Project Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
0 AR
ESSIp
?? SEAI.h?•?

3 W7
w
Ashe County
Bridge No. 338 On SR 1320 (Roaring Fork Road)
Over Roaring Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (4)
State Project 8.2712301
WBS 33381.1.1
TIP Project B-4013
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Roadside Environmental and Design Services
Sedimentation and Erosion Control measures will be implemented according to design
standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 413.0124) and will be incorporated into the
design and followed during the construction of this project.
Division 11 and Design Services
Roaring Fork Creek is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water. Wild brown trout and
brook trout are found in this stream; therefore, in-stream construction is prohibited from
November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Since Roaring Fork Creek is classified as trout waters the NCWRC will be given the
opportunity to review the project for additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat
prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit.
Design Services
Impact attenuators will be installed on both sides of the south end of the bridge instead of
guardrail. This will avoid taking the access of the properties located adjacent to the southern
project limits.
Categorical Exclusidn - B-4013
July 2004
Greensheet
Pagel of l
w r
Ashe County
Bridge No. 338 On SR 1320 (Roaring Fork Road)
Over Roaring Fork Creels
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (4)
State Project 8.2712301
WBS 33381.1.1
TIP Project B-4013
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 338 is included in the 2004-2010 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" (CE).
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The existing bridge, built in 1967, is structurally deficient. According to the NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit, at the time the bridge was last inspected on June 24, 2002, the sufficiency rating
of the bridge was 34.3 out of a possible 100. The bridge is posted with a weight limit of 13 tons for a
single vehicle and 16 tons for the legal gross weight for truck tractor semi-trailers (TTST). The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in a wider and safer bridge. The restricted posted
load limits will also be removed from the bridge.
LP
D ? l
D
D
II. 'EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1320 (Roaring Fork Road) is a two-lane highway. Tile functional classification of SR 1320 is
D
4 rural local. The speed limit along SR 1320 is not posted. The project vicinity is rural with
D residential development. Two residences are located in close proximity to the bridge.
D
The bridge is located between two curves, which switch sides of the creek. The paved portion of the
® approach roadway is an 18-foot roadway. The width of the grass shoulders is approximately 3-4 feet.
B The right of way width is 60 feet, symmetrical about the centerline of the existing; roadway.
The existing; bridge was completed in 1967. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-
beams. Tile substructure consists of timber posts and caps. It is 51 feet long; and provides a clear
roadway width of 24.8 feet between the bridge rails. This width provides for two 9-foot travel lanes
® and 3.4-foot offsets to the bridge rails. The bridge on SR 1320 crosses the creek at an approximate
® 45° angle. Photographs of the existing bridge are shown on Figures 2A and 2B.
The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume for the year 2002 is estimated to be 400 vehicles
per day (VPD) and is projected to increase to 700 VPD in the year 2025. The percentages of tractor-
truck-semi-trailer (TTST) and dual tired trucks (DTT) are estimated to be 1 and 2 percent,
® respectively.
No accidents in the vicinity of the bridge have been recorded in a recent three-year period.
® The Ashe County School Transportation Director has been contacted in regard to the replacement.
The Director advised that closure of SR 1320 and detouring traffic to SR 1319 (Willie Walker Road)
would result in a lengthy and hazardous detour (see letter in Appendix A). Two school buses (four
® daily crossings) are routed on the bridge. The Ashe County Emergency Management Coordinator
advised that the closure would increase the response time for emergency response/emergency
medical services an estimated 10 minutes (see letter in Appendix A).
2
Overhead power and telephone lines are located in proximity of the bridge and may be affected by
the proposed project.
® The land use in the project vicinity is rural with scattered residential.
Research of public records and an on-site inspection did not indicate any evidence of the presence of
hazardous/toxic material in the immediate project area.
d
III. ?iLTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
® Bridge No. 333 will be replaced with a new structure on a new alignment located
® downstream (north) of the existing bridge. The proposed project extends approximately 250
feet beyond the ends of the bridge. The grade on SR 1320 may be raised approximately 1 to
2 feet. The new bridge will be approximately 70 feet in length and 26 feet wide. This width
is measured from the inside of the bridge rails. The 26-foot width includes a 20-foot
® travelway with three-foot offsets to the rail, which is in conformance with NCDOT's Bridge
® Policy for rural local roads carrying 400 to 1500 vehicles per day. The bridge typical section
e
is shown on Figure 3.
The roadway approaches to the bridge will consist of two 10-foot lanes (paved) with four-
® foot grass shoulders. The typical sections for the roadway portion of the project are shown in
Figure 3.
® Traffic will be maintained on-site during construction via the existing bridge.
3
U

B. Build Alternatives

®

d Two build alternatives have been identified in the planning for TIP project B-4013. A
comparison of the cost for the two build alternatives is provided in Item V. Estimated Cost.
a
Alternative 1 (see Figure 4) consists of a replacement of the bridge on a realignment
of SR 1320 approximately 100 feet downstream (north) of the existing bridge. The
existing bridge would provide for the on-site detour during construction and would

® be removed upon completion of the new bridge and roadway approaches.
Alternative 1 would eliminate access to three properties and would require two
residential relocations. One of the three properties, a 46-acre tract of land located on
the north side of the road, is currently vacant. No construction would occur within
the stream banks, as a spanning structure would be provided.

Alternative 1-Revised- (Preferred Alternative) (see Figure 5) consists of replacing the
existing bridge with a bridge on an alignment approximately 65 feet on the
® downstream (north side) of the existing bridge. This alignment will require a design
exception for the horizontal curvature. The preferred alternative's design has been
modified to include impact attenuators to be installed on both sides of the south end
®
of the bridge. This alignment, with the impact attenuators on the bridge, best
minimizes impacts to the human environment by allowing access to the three affected
properties to remain. This alignment would also allow sufficient spacing between the
® new structure and the existing bridge so it could provide traffic service during
construction and be removed upon completion of the new alignment. Based on
®
preliminary design, it appears a three span (2 @ 20 feet & 1 @ 30 feet) bridge may be

® appropriate. The center 30-foot span will clear span the creek bank to bank.
Alternative 1-Revised will not require any relocation of residences. A more detailed
® map of Alternative 1-Revised (Preferred) is shown on Figure 6.

4

The NCDOT Division 1 l Engineer has reviewed the proposed project and concurs with the
recommended alternative.
The local officials have been made aware of the project and concur with the recommended
alternative.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The following build alternatives were eliminated from further study.
1) Replacing the bridge with a culvert on the same realignment of SR 1320 as
Alternative 1 was investigated. The culvert would consist of a triple barrel, 12-foot
by 7-foot reinforced-concrete box culvert. The culvert would be replaced at the grade
of the existing roadway and the grade of the new roadway would be raised
approximately two feet to provide minimum cover over the culvert. This alternative
was eliminated from further consideration because it would eliminate access to one
of the affected properties, an occupied residence, and therefore require its relocation;
and, would adversely affect trout that exist in the stream. This alternative was
estimated to cost approximately $196,000 more than an alternative with a bridge.
This additional cost is due to the skew of the stream crossing which would require a
longer culvert than a bridge and, also, would require a residential relocation.
A bottomless culvert was also investigated which would provide for a spanning
structure and avoid adverse effects to trout. However, subsequent subsurface testing
indicated the stream banks material would not allow a suitable foundation design for
construction of a bottomless culvert.
2) Replacement of the bridge on new alignment approximately 50 feet downstream
(north) of the existing bridge was investigated. This alignment would eliminate or
restrict access to (and possibly relocate) the same three properties while reducing the
5

Q

length of the west approach to approximately 100 feet. Due to the proximity of the
new structure and roadway to the existing bridge, the existing bridge would not be
able to provide traffic service during construction and an offsite detour would be
®
required. A detour route exists which would use SR 1319 and SR 1317. The total
length of this detour would be approximately 15.5 miles in length. In addition to this
circuitous route, the portion of the detour using SR 1319 would involve travel on
unpaved and narrow roads with steep mountain grades. Division 11 staff investigated
this detour and advised a satisfactory detour was not available. 'For these reasons,

this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

3) An alternative that would have replaced the bridge in the existing location by
detouring traffic off-site was considered and eliminated from further study due to the
lack of a satisfactory detour (as discussed above) being available for this site. Also, it
would be disruptive to county school bus operation (four trips per day). It would also

require the relocation of a residence located in proximity to the existing bridge.
Retaining the sharp curvature on both ends of the existing bridge would not meet
acceptable design standards.

Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economically
feasible. It would require significant repairs to the substructure and superstructure because of

® their overall poor condition.

® The "do-nothing" alternative is not feasible. This will require the closing of the road as the
® existing bridge deteriorates to a point where it is unsafe at any posted weight limits.

D. Preferred Alternative

® Alternative 1-Revised, replacing the existing bridge on new alignment, is the preferred
alternative. Bridge No. 338 will be replaced with a new bridge on the realignment of SR

6

13 20 just north of the existing bridge over Roaring Pork Creek (see Figures 5 and 6).
Alternative I -Revised is located closer to the existing bridge than Alternative 1 and as close
as practical without eliminating the capability to maintain traffic on the existing bridge
® during construction. This alignment also allows attenuators to be provided on both south
ends of the bridge to completely eliminate the three access problems associated with
p Alternative 1. Alternative 1-Revised will also provide additional frontage to the creek for the
property located just northwest of the existing bridge, in response to a comment at the
Citizens Informational Workshop. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. Traffic will be re-routed to the revised alignment upon completion and the
® existing bridge removed. Alternative 1-Revised was selected because it maintains access to
all abutting properties, a concern expressed at the Citizens Informational Workshop, provides
for the maintenance of traffic on-site, and meets the project's need for improved and
continuous traffic operation on this section of SR 1320. Alternative 1-Revised is estimated
to be the most cost-effective alternative. Alternative 1-Revised is estimated to cost
® $498,300. A breakdown of the estimated cost is shown in Item V, Estimated Costs.
The proposed design speed is 30 miles per hour. The speed limit on SR 1320 is not posted.
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will be required for the horizontal curvature.
7
Q
V. ESTIMATED COST
TABLE 1

Item Alternative 1 Alternative 1-Revised
Preferred Alternative
Structure (Bridge) $157,200 $157,200
Mobilization and clearing and grubbing $91,300 $91,300
Removal of existing bridge $15,600 $15,600
Roadway and misc. costs (including
pavement removal, detour traffic control,
construction surveys) $104,900 $104,900
Engineering & contingencies $60,000 $60,000
Total Construction Cost $429,000 $429,000
Right of way $296,500 $69,300 ,
Total Cost $725,500 $498,300
The estimated cost in the 2004-2010 TIP is $525,000 including $50,000 for right of way costs.
8

VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. General
A study was performed to inventory and describe the various natural resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts
to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
minimize resource impacts. This study is included in the natural system technical report on
the subject bridge replacement prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated March
12, 2002.
This report identifies areas of particular concern that may have affected the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental
concerns have been addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project
in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The
analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary project boundaries. It may become necessary to conduct additional field
investigations should design criteria change.
1. Methodology
Prior to the field investigation, published resource information pertaining to the
project study area was gathered and reviewed. The information sources used to
prepare this report include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Baldwin Gap);
• Soil Survey of Ashe County, North Carolina (1985);
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory Map;
• USFWS list of protected species (February 25, 2003);
9
f
o North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species
and unique habitats (May 2003);
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photography
of the project study area (1 in. =100 ft.); and
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) water resource data.
A general field survey was conducted within the project study area on July 25, 2001.
Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded.
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Vegetative
communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Wildlife
were identified using a variety of observation techniques including active searching,
visual observations with binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows). Cursory surveys for aquatic organisms, including
tactile searches for benthic macro invertebrates, were performed as well.
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using
methods outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
The project study area consists of an area approximately 800 feet long and ranging
from 50 to 200 feet wide.
10

C. Physical Resources

1. Physiography and Soils

The project lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. The
topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to
steeply sloping banks along the major streams. Elevations in the project vicinity
range from approximately 2,960 to 4,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). The

elevation in the project study area varies from approximately 2,960 to 3,000 feet
®
above msl.

According to the general soil map for Ashe County (USDA, 1985), the project study
area is found within the Edneyville-Ashe soil association. The soils in this
association are described as moderately steep to very steep, well-drained soils that

have loamy subsoil and are found on uplands at elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet.
e
® Soil series found within the project study area are described below.

Colvard fine sandy loam is located throughout the project study area. This soil is a
nearly level, well-drained soil found along the major streams in the county.

Permeability is moderately rapid and surface runoff is slow. The seasonal high water

® table is below a depth of 48 inches. This soil is subject to occasional flooding for
® very brief periods. This mapping unit is not listed on the hydric soils list.

2. Water Resources

®
The proposed project falls within the New River Basin, with a subbasin designation

® of 05-07-02. Waters within the project study area include Roaring Fork.

11

v

a. Water Resource Characteristics

Roaring Fork flows southwest through the proposed project study area with a

width of approximately 15 feet. The flow was moderate on the day of the

field investigation. The substrate consisted of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The
water was clear on the day of the site visit. Water depth ranged from a few
inches in the riffles to over one foot in the pools.

Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina
®
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) [formerly the Division of Environmental
Management (DEM)], which reflects water quality conditions and potential
resource usage. Within the project study area, the classification for Roaring
Fork (Index No. 10-2-14-7, 2/1/93) is "C Tr +". Class "C" waters are
suitable for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
"
denotes trout waters, which is
propagation and survival, and agriculture. "Tr

® a supplemental classification to protect freshwaters for natural trout
® propagation and survival of stocked trout. The "+" symbol identifies waters
subject to a special management strategy in order to protect downstream
waters that are designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).

®
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
® undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds),
or ORW occur within one mile of the project study area.

Point sources, such as wastewater discharges, located throughout North

Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
®
System (NPDES) program. No NPDES permitted facilities are located
® within one mile of the project study area.

®
l2

Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or no defined point of discharge. Stormwater runoff from
SR 1320 and the surrounding residential properties may reach Roaring Fork

and cause water quality degradation through the addition of fertilizers, oil or
®
gas residuals, particulate rubber, or other sources of contamination.

The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an
ongoing ambient water quality-monitoring program that addresses long-term
trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by

sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are

® sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated based on the
number of taxa present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
® Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic
index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data
®
for all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in

final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily
reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects
of such physical pollutants as sediment. Stream and river reaches are
® assigned a final bioclassification of Excellent, Good, Good/Fair, Fair, or
® Poor.

® According to the information obtained from the New River Basinwide Water
® Quality Management Plan (NCDENR, 2000), the DWQ does not have a
d sampling station on Roaring Fork; the closest station is located approximately
® six miles downstream of the project study area on Big Laurel Creek atNC 88.
® The station was last sampled in August 1998 and received a rating of
®
Excellent.

® 13

r 0
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from
activities associated with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing;
on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers
and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement construction. The
following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
above-mentioned construction activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and
increased erosion in the project study area;
o Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal;
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction;
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation
removal;
• Changes in dissolved oxygen (DO) levels;
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas;
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff;
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and
oil from construction equipment and other vehicles; and
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in
surface and groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project study
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the
14
I,
project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities and
revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants
and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community
and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based
on a 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 classification, it is given a
name that best describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and common names
(when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references
to the same species include the common name only.
1. Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial community found in the project study area is the
maintained/disturbed community. Dominant faunal components associated with
these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many species are
adapted to the entire range of habitats found within the project study area but may not
be mentioned separately in each community description.
a. Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes the road shoulders, power line
right of way, and residential properties. A dilapidated shed surrounded by an
overgrown field is located on the west side of the bridge. Many plant species
are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. The dominant
species within the project study area include fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass
(Loliunt sp. ), white clover (Trifoliinn repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense),
15
v

Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), thistle (Cirsium sp.), panic grass
(Panicum sp.), aster (Aster sp.), chicory (Cichorium intybus), blackberry
(Rubes sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and plantain (Plantago
®
sp.). Scattered trees in the area include black walnut (Juglans nigra), tree-of-
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), white poplar (Populus alba), and apple (Malus
® pumila). A small corn (Zea maize) field is located north of the bridge.

The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation
®
(flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components.
An American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura), Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), Blue Jay (Cyarzocitta
cristata), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Cedar Waxwing
(Bombycilla cedrorum), Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), Carolina
e
Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea),
® American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Song Sparrow (11elospiza
melodia) were observed during the site visit. Other species such as Eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), and garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.

®
2. Aquatic Communities

The aquatic community in the project study area includes Roaring Fork. Vegetation
along the creek banks includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet birch (Betula
lenta), sugar maple (Ater saccharum), white poplar, black walnut, cottonwood

(Popidus deltoides), blackberry, and pale jewelweed (Impatiens pallida). A

® Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) was observed along the creek. Stoneflies
® (Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera) were found
® under stones and woody debris in the creek.

® 16

J
According to Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for the North
Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC), Roaring Fork contains wild
brown trout (Salmo trulla) and brook trout (Salvelinus fnntinalis).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting slopes, can result in the aquatic
community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. As a result,
construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs.
a. Terrestrial Communities
The maintained/disturbed community serves as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for fauna. Removal of plants and other construction related activities
would result in the displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals from
construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of
these communities. Often, project construction does not require the use of
the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
b. Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic community of Roaring Fork will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 338. Impacts are likely to result from the physical
disturbance of aquatic habitat. Activities such as the removal of trees, as well
17

as the construction of the bridge and approach work will likely result in an
increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in dissolved
oxygen. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins,
such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The
combination of these factors can potentially cause the displacement and
mortality of fish and local populations of invertebrates that inhabit these
areas.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to
BMPs.
E.
Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CPR 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using
methods outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the
project study area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACE.
18
t
2. Permits
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit
may be required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
A Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the
United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or part, by
another federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation for
the Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
environment, and
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will also be
required. This certification is issued for any activity that may result in a discharge
into waters for which a federal permit is required.
19
it. Bridge Demolition'
NCDOT's BMPs for Bridge Demolition (Case 2) will be implemented. The
existing bridge consists of timber and steel.
b. 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" and sequencing. 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, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts
(40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance - Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate
to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization - Minimization includes examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
20
By

footprint of the proposed project through reduction of median widths, right of
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.

Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not normally
considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that
"no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every pen-nit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is

required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all, appropriate

and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous with the
discharge site.

Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more
than 0.5 acre of wetlands and/or 300 linear feet of streams.

3. Rare and Protected Species

® Some populations of plants and animals have been, or are in the process of, decline
due to factors such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human
related impacts such as destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species listed for
® Ashe County and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction are discussed in the following sections.

® a. Federally Protected Species

® Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected

21

4
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list seven federally
protected species for Ashe County as of the January 29, 2003 listing (Table
2).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats showed
no recorded occurrences of any federally protected species in the project
vicinity.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR ASHE COUNTY
Scientific Name
Status
Common Name
Clemnys muhlenbergii
T(S/A)
(Bog turtle)
Geum radiatum E
(Spreading avens)
Helonias bullata
T
(Swamp pink)
Houstonia montana E
(Roan mountain bluet)
Liatris helleri
T
(Heller's blazing star)
Spiraea virginiana T
(Virginia spiraea)
Gymnoderma lineare
E
(Rock gnome lichen)
NOTES:
E Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
T Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
T(S/A) Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (a species that is threatened due to similarity
of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection).
22
Clemrnys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) T(S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small (three to 4.5 inches) semiaquatic turtles that have a
dark brown carapace and black plastrons. They usually exhibit distinctive
orange or yellow blotches on each side of the head and neck.
The bog turtle inhabits shallow, spring fed fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps,
marshy meadows, pastures which have soft, muddy bottoms, and clear, cool,
slow-flowing water, often forming a network of rivulets. Bog turtles inhabit
damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the mountains and upper Piedmont.
The bog turtle is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject
to Section 7 consultation.
Geum radiatum
(Spreading avens)
E
Family:
Date Listed:
Rosaceae
April 5, 1990
Spreading avens is a perennial herb topped with an indefinite eyme of large,
bright, yellow flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes
and small laterals, and they arise from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow
eight to 20 inches tall. Flowering occurs from June to September, and the
fruits are produced from August to October.
Spreading avens inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes
23
Q
which are exposed to full sun. It is also found in thin, gravelly soils or grassy
balds near summit outcrops. The adjacent spruce/fir forests (generally found
above 5,500 feet in elevation) are dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir.
The substrate at all the population sites is composed of various igneous,
metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.
No habitat is located in the project study area for this species; the project
study area is approximately 2,960 feet above msl, which is well below the
elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact
spreading avens.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Helonias bullata (Swamp pink) T
Family: Liliaceae
Date Listed: September 9, 1988
The swamp pink is a perennial plant that blooms in early spring. Its flowers
are pink and occur in a cluster of 30 to 50. The flowers are located at the tip
of the stem in a bottlebrush shape. Dark green, lance-shaped, and parallel-
veined leaves form a basal rosette around a stout, hollow stem. The stem can
grow eight to 35 inches during flowering and up to five feet during seed
maturation.
Swamp pink occurs in a variety of wetland habitats that are saturated but not
flooded. These include southern Appalachian bogs and swamps, Atlantic
white cedar swamps, swampy forested wetlands which border small streams,
boggy meadows, and spring seepage areas. It is commonly associated with
24

evergreen trees such as white cedar, pitch pine, American larch, and black
spruce.
Habitat is not present in the project study area; no wetlands are located within
the project study area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that the construction of the proposed project will not impact swamp pink.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Houstonia montana (Roan mountain bluet)
Family:
Date Listed:
Rubiaceae
April 5, 1990
E
Roan mountain bluet is a perennial herb with erect or ascending,
unbranched or weakly terminally branched steins up to 8.5 inches tall. Its
inflorescence is a few-flowered cyme with bright, deep purple flowers.
Flowering occurs from late May through August, with peak flowering usually
in June and July. This variety is distinguished from other bluets by its
relatively large reddish purple flowers, compact stature and clump-forming
growth habit, and its exposed mountaintop habitat.
Roan mountain bluet inhabits high elevation (4,200 to 6,300 feet) cliffs,
outcrops, and steep slopes, which are exposed to full sunlight.No habitat is
located in the project study area for Roan mountain bluet; the project study
area is located at approximately 2,960 feet above msl, which is well below
the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed
no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
25

concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact Roan
mountain bluet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) T
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb with one or more erect or arching
stems, which arise from a tuft of narrow pale green basal leaves. Its stems
reach up to 16 inches in height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender
flowers (three to eight inches long), which are present from July through
September. Fruits are present from September through October.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains where
it occurs on high elevation rocky summits. It grows in shallow, acidic soils,
which are exposed to full sunlight.
No habitat is located in the project study area for Heller's blazing star; the
project study area is located at approximately 2,640 feet above msl, is well
below the summit, and contains no rocky outcrops. A search of the NCNHP
database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project
will not impact Heller's blazing star.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
26
V
D
D
D
D

D
D Spiraea vlrgimana (Virginia spiraea) T
D Family: Rosaceae
D Date Listed: June 15, 1990
D

D Virginia spiraca is a shrub growing from two to 10 feet tall with arching,
upright stems and cream-colored flowers. The leaves are alternate and of
D different sizes and shapes. The flowers are found on branched and flat-
D topped axes. Spiraea spreads clonally and forms dense clumps that spread in
®
rock crevices and around boulders.
D
D
® Virginia spiraea occurs along rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks in gorges or
® canyons. Flood scouring is essential to this plant's survival because it
® eliminates taller woody competitors and creates riverwash deposits and early
® successional habitats. These conditions are apparently essential for this

S plant's colonization of new sites. The bedrock underlying spiraca habitat is
® primarily sandstone and soils are acidic and moist. Spiraea grows best in full
® sun, but it can tolerate some shade. Spiraea is found in thickets with common
p woody vine associates including fox grape (Vitis labrusca), summer grape
® (Vitis aestivalis), riverbank grape (Vitis riparia), and muscadine (Vitis
®
rotundifolia). Other plant associates include royal fern (Osmunda regalis),

® wing-stem (Actinomeris alternifolia), ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius),
smooth alder (Alms serrulata), and shrubby yellowroot (Xanthorrhiza
simplicissima).

Habitat does exist in the project study area along Roaring Fork Creek for this

species. A survey was conducted on July 25, 2001 to determine the presence
or absence of this species. No specimens were found during the survey. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this

b
27

species within the project vicinity. A survey for Virginia spiraea was most
recently conducted on June 24, 2004 by NCDOT biologists. No plants were
observed within or adjacent to the banks of Roaring Creek. However, since
habitat exists for these plants a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
conclusion has been issued.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT, NOT LILLY
TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
/v E?
Gymnodernia lineare
(Rock gnome lichen)
E
Family:
Date Listed:
Cladoniaceae
January 18, 1995
Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. It
occurs in dense colonies of narrow straps (squamules) that are blue-grey on
the upper surface and generally shiny-white on the lower surface; near the
base they grade to black. The squamules are nearly parallel to the rock
surface, but the tips curl away from the rock, approaching or reaching a
perpendicular orientation to the rock surface. The fruiting bodies (found
from July through September) are borne at the tips of the squamules and are
black.
Rock gnome lichen occurs only in areas of high humidity, either at high
elevations, where it is frequently bathed in fog, or in deep river gorges at
lower elevations. It is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage
water from forest soils above the cliff flows at, and only at, very wet times.
Most populations occur above an elevation of 5,000 feet.
28
Habitat does not exist in the project study area for this species; the project
study area is approximately 2,960 feet above msl, which is located well
below the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact
rock gnome lichen.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
b. 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 of
Endangered. FSC are defined as species that are 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
includes listed FSC species for Ashe County and their state classifications
(May 2003).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats showed
no recorded occurrences of any FSC species in the project vicinity.
29
12
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR ASHE COUNTY
Scientific Name North Habitat
(Common Name) Carolina Present
Status
Thryontanes bewickii altus E Yes
(Appalachian Bewick's Wren)
Sylvilagus obscurus SR Yes
(Appalachian cottontail)
Phenacobius teretulus SC Yes
(Kanawha minnow)
Speyeria diana* SR Yes
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Stenehnis gammoni SR No
(Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle)
Lasmigona subviridus E Yes
(Green floater)
Ophiogomphus howei SR No
(Pygmy snaketail)
Speyeria idalia* SR No
(Regal fritillary butterfly)
Gymnocarpium appalachianum E No
(Appalachian oak fern)
Poa paludigena E No
(Bo bluegrass)
Juglans cinerea W5 No
(Butternut)
Saxifraga caroliniana C No
(Carolina saxifrage)
Euphorbia purpurea C No
(Glades urge)
Lilium grayi T-SC No
(Gray's lily)
30
a
Scientific Name North Habitat
(Common Name) Carolina Present
Status
Delphinium exaltatum E-SC No
(Tall larkspur)
Cladonia psoromica C No
(Bluff Mountain reindeer lichen)
Pycnanthennan torrei
(Torrey's Mountain-mint) SR-T No
NOTES:
C Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
E Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
W Watch list (any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in
the state but not warranting active monitoring at this time)
* Historic record -tile species was last observed in the county more than 50 years
ago (USFWS)
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the project study area for Virginia spiraea. A search for
this plant was conducted in the project study area on July 25, 2001; no
specimens were found. The field survey determined that no habitat is present
for any other federally protected species. Additionally, there have been no
recorded occurrences of any rare or protected species within the project
vicinity according to the NCNHP. Therefore, no impacts to either federal or
state listed species are anticipated.
NCDOT biologists most recently surveyed the project area on June 24, 2004.
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were found for the Bog turtle,
Spreading avens, Swamp pink, Heller's blazing star, Roan mountain bluet
and Rock gnome lichen due to lack of suitable habitat. However, the project
31
A •
and Rock gnome lichen due to lack of suitable habitat. However, the project
area contains habitat suitable for Virginia spiraea. A search of the NCNHP
files indicated no occurrence of Virginia spiraea in the project vicinity or
within a mile of the project area. Survey windows for these plants are from
May to October. No plants were observed within or adjacent to the banks of
the Roaring Creek on June 24, 2004. However, since habitat exists for these
plants, a "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" conclusion has been
issued.
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for
Compliance with Section 106, codified as 35 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for
federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted during June 2002. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). A concurrence form from SHPO, dated.November 8, 2002 is
attached in Appendix A. One property, the Laurel Hill Baptist Church, was identified as
needing further evaluation. A historic architectural resources survey and report was
conducted by Circa, Inc. The survey report is dated April 2003. The Laurel Hill Baptist
Church was evaluated and determined not eligible for the National Register. The SHPO
32
B
concurred that Laurel Hill Baptist Church was not eligible for the National Register in a
memorandum dated June 15, 2003 (see Appendix A).
® C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated June 15, 2003 did
not include a recommendation for archaeological investigation to be conducted in connection
with this project. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix A.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
® The project will have the following benefits: The proposed improvements will replace, cost
® effectively, the structurally deficient bridge with a sound bridge. The load restriction will be
® removed from the bridge for truck traffic. The new bridge will provide improved safety due to the
improved sight distance. The design of the new bridge will not change the visual character of the
area and should be aesthetically acceptable to the residences in proximity to the bridge. The proposed
improvement will require additional right of way. No relocation of residences will occur with the
proposed replacement. A detour route of reasonable length is not available particularly for the
® school bus traffic. In summary, the project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
® Replacement of the inadequate bridge and construction of safety improvements will result in safer
B and overall more efficient traffic operations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
® adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Enviromnental Justice in
® Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
® minority and low income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human
d
® 3 3
health and environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined that the
project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle route;
therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected to result from this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if
applicable), and a project level CO analysis is not required. Since the project is located in an
attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by
open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC2D.0520 and
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will
be only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in
traffic volumes after this project is completed. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on
existing noise levels. Noise Receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772.
No additional reports are required.
The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species.
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.
34
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
® No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
The proposed project will not involve lands protected by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act of 1966.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
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. Since the bridge will be replaced at the existing location, the Farmland Protection Policy
Act does not apply.
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 underground storage tanks or hazardous
® waste sites in the project area.
® Ashe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The bridge is within a
Approximate Study Area. The new structure will be designed to match or lower the existing 100-
year storm elevation upstream of the roadway. Since the proposed replacement for the bridge will be
a structure similar in waterway opening size, it is not anticipated to have any significant adverse
impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. Additional hydraulic information is included in the
technical memorandum prepared by Sungate Design Group, P.A. dated September 11, 2002.
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Solid waste will be
disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures." The. Contractor will observe and comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations,
35
v
orders, and decrees regarding the disposal.of solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any
existing land disposal site that is in violation of state or local rules and regulations. Waste and debris
will be disposed of in areas that are outside the right of way and provided by the Contractor.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from the implementation of this project. The project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A mailing list was developed to include property owners located near the bridge. The mailing list
included approximately 25 names. Newsletters, mailed in early March, announced that two
® alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 338 were being studied. The newsletter was also made
® available to the local news media. The newsletter also included an announcement of a Citizens
Informational Workshop to obtain public comments on Alternatives I (bridge) and 2 (culvert). A
copy of the newsletter is included in Appendix B. The workshop was held on March 25, 2003 at
Riverview Community Center in the community of Creston. A copy of the handout presented at the
workshop is included in Appendix B. Approximately 15 citizens attended. Some property owners
expressed concern about access to their property being eliminated. Another property owner said that
® the project as designed would eliminate his property's creek frontage. The property owners requested
that Alternatives 1 and 2 be shifted closer to the existing location and the roadbed location be
® changed as little as possible in order to preserve their access and increase frontage to the creek.
Subsequently, Alternative 1-Revised was developed to respond to these comments and concerns
® received at the workshop. (Alternative 1-Revised [Preferred Alternative] does not eliminate access
® to the existing properties and has increased the frontage of the creek to the property located just
® northwest of the bridge.)
® A local public officials meeting was held on March 25, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. at the Ashe County Court
® House. Alternatives I and 2 were shown. Additional copies of the newsletter, previously sent to
® those on the mailing list, as well as copies of the workshop handout, were made available to those
36
S
attending. The county manager and planning director attended and voiced no objections to the
proposed project.
X. AREAS Or CONTROVERSY
No areas of controversy are anticipated.
XI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Scoping comments were sent to the following agencies. Agencies that responded are marked with an
asterisk. Comment letters are included in Appendix A.
Federal Agencies
US Fish and Wildlife Service-Asheville*
US Army Corps of Engineers-Asheville
US Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency-Raleigh
State Agencies
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources*
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands*
Division of Archives and History*
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Office*
State Clearinghouse
Department of Public Instruction
Regional and Local Agencies
Region D Council of Government
Ashe County Commissioner, chairperson
Ashe County /Emergency Management Coordinator*
Ashe County Board Of Education* .
37
W
D It
-

FIGURES
D

® Figure I Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Photographs (2A & 2B)

Figure 3 Typical Section (roadway & bridge)

Figure 4 Aerial with Build Alternative I
Figure Aerial with Build Alternative 1-Revised (Preferred)

Figure 6 Build Alternative I-Revised (plan sheet)
Figure 7 100-Year Floodplain Map

ID

ID

D
10

38

V
D
1315 1315 13
" 9 Laurel lid
1319 17 Qa
. d Qa 0
1312
7
® ?.1 om 1313
SouRpean Elliott Holl
13 0 '1391' o"' Rd
D i ; o Branch d-
-
I -p ?. m 131 1318
D z • N ( 0 ?a q?no? 1345 \
-, j
® Z? 1 2° 196
9 v Jones f
^ !dG ??c Ra, 0
W i m
0
~/101 mot 1385 ICY,
® jCrne• the 1 au«1 R 1310 - 1316 1317 ?off
•?f1309a??o/!3d 1310 1 c
Rd 1317 1383
0
\d,? s gi Laur
P Dale Sapp Rd
ea\?o nnn9ron ?? T
D 1309 V
Ro `ado I ldG? era h ?9l ? F 1344
D
® Ro dabout Rd 04, -A
1310 9 P?Q a 88` d 71,3
® 'Qa ldG??i ' ° n ° Des
1308 ??d
?o??d ? 1315 a g8 w •"8866041 to N\'
D
-Ra to E 61126 ..
307 1126 ?6V1205
1397 Cabba e Creek F d D 2
® DISTANCE IN MILES
® Ashe County
® PROJECT LOCATION
Virginia
s?
SR 1320
ROARING FORK ROAD)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO, 338 over
ROARING FORK CREEK
B-4013
Ashe County, North Carolina
PROJECT VICINITY
Fiqure 1

0

r "I uh..
4h!. .'d,
B-4013 ASHE COUNTY, VIEW FROM B]
LOOKING
FIGURE 2 A
OF ROARING FORK

}
v

B4012, ASHE COUNTY, VIEW OF RESIDENCE LOCATED AT THE SOUTH
END OF THE, BRIDGE

D
l
J
B-4013, ASHE COUNTY, VIEW
FIGURE 2 B
FORK CREEK LOOKING

"?:%.?r:rir_a?rc?c.? Mbua'',• `S ?F ?,q .. ..-,?i,??94iaWn? ?1
r
x
z

r

1ov

• •
tv, i 1• ,
F Ati Jti .4 r H??i% n,
? r4 t '
' 3r w+
r
`` X ~ ` y
*4-1
WIWI
ii: 1
'1?'r ? Oar J' V 4{ 4
f ilk?''1 AlY i r' i 1r

? i
ti
AW"

AMA
a
MI
Y
=
Lk
4
?? N .
-
. .
A?x
. I
•
.
k ?
: ?
?
.
f. .?
W ?
:
-.rw•ww+wwnn.:11M.?
w.•
ni w
?
nrl ..
.?.
.
.
,n.
.::
wA =
:
.
+nv ,
.?n.
•
r w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w• w w w• ••• w w• •• w• w w w ••
ta??Pr?k?
C
r

3

Z

? C
\?I
N ?
d
d o ?®
C?J o P"? p O 0
co "0'01 0 z
z C
a oC?0
r a tv
v
4,,;
x fr
YI
f7 '"J
;aNA
r?ih• ?? ?' 'a.. 'da'fjYtp ' ,fir' ??Fyt? , ? r,. ?_ ,,„?vl f,` \. ? ?1r4 ? r .
? nti ? MI 1 t?Y ••.,y?' 1 .t.
4,;' r r 4 i
x ?
y.
f `c?1 M V, N
L -1
Wirt' r ?'' 'G6 • ?F tt y? ?'4 1x r?.'r , d.l
??®®??vc???v??vv®vt?????,,?EJC;?t???J??cr??J?E
1 ,
ES EESSEEEE SE ES

f3

A
34
H ?
I .
I I
, II
ll`
I
?I \ 1 Q
I I 1 \
? II
l
k 1 ?
1L ? r
0
ffl
. Q
i
Q
C "
I
I
43
0
a
ca a
I ? \k
fQ ? ? p
,I
G
?p
€3 ?3
CIO ?
??r
?,1 r
1 ?
a ? ?l
?l
0 Q Qs
a o' 9 b
> > S
CA m
ozmr
r? 'U m z O ??0p?
'71 ? WWo,z /
00
d pi 0
I
I l;?
\ 1,
•

0
O
c
W?
o
z
•
I lo m
?r a a
QR?

7/99

fl II
( lL L. V g.- l It V
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
ILI BY 106-YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.

Q ZONE AE
® ZONE AH
D ZONE AO

D ZONE A99

D ZONE V
D
ZONE VE

(lase flood elevations determined.
Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of
ponding); base flood elevations determined.
Flood depths of t to 3 feet (usually sheet
flow on sloping terrain); avenge depths
determined. For areas of alluvial fan flood.
ing, velocities also determined.
To be protected from 100-year flood by
Federal flood protection system under
construction;no base elevations-determined.
Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); no base flood elevations deter-
mined.
Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); base flood elevations determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE

OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of
100-year flood with average depths
of less than 1 foot or with drainage
areas less than 1 square mile; and
areas protected by levees from ]DO-
year flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-
year flood plain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are
undetermined.
Flood Boundary
- Floodway Boundary
- - Zone D Boundary
pxf5 -. lt ' • - Boundary Dividing Spec
F Hazard Zones, and
Dividing Areas of
Coastal Base Flood I
Within Special Flood
e, N- Zones.
^--513 Base Flood Elevation I
a
i
F
i
*
v
t
on
n
eet
-? Cross Section Line
(EL 987) Base Flood Elevation
Where Uniform Withi
RM7x Elevation Reference Mar
•M1.5 River Mile
deferenced to the Nationa l Geodetic Vertical Datum o
l,l ZONE X
C
D

ASHE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 338
ON SR 1320 (ROARING FORK ROAD)
OVER ROARING FORK CREEK
TIP PROJECT B-4013
1? 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE 7 1?
APPENDIX A
US Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone 82S-258-3939 Ext 237, Fax [phone]
MEMO FOR: William T. Goodwin, P.E. DATE: June 27, 2002
FROM: Marella Buncick
SUBJECT: Review of NCDOT 2005 Bridge Program
I have completed initial review of the approximately 70 proposed bridge replacements for
NCDOT Divisions 9-14 for the year 2005. I would like to commend NCDOT for
obtaining the natural resource information up front and allowing the agencies to review
the proposals and provide comments so early in the process. It was a large volume of
work for everyone involved but I feel that the input will be much more meaningful at this
early planning stage.
Attached is a spreadsheet with specific comments for each project reviewed. All of the
projects have been assigned a Green, Yellow, or Red ranking depending on the resources
affected and the need for future consultation. As you will note, the majority of the
projects received a Yellow ranking. This is due in large part to the fact that there are
unresolved issues related to listed species. Many of these projects likely will become
Green projects after further field review. However, obligations under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2)
actions are subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
I also have general comments regarding the process and reports. My general comments
follow.
Report Content and Organization
1. The reports would be more easily handled if they were not spiral or otherwise
bound.
2. Maps need to be much better. Without a significant landmark-- highway, larger
town, other feature - it sometimes took a long time to figure out the location of
the project within a county.
3. The reports were organized somewhat similarly, but more consistency would aid
in the review process. Perhaps a table that has the significant features ---stream
width, depth, DWQ class, etc.--also would help.
t,
Q 4. For listed species, it often was difficult to tell whether field surveys had been
conducted or whether the information was limited to a database search.
5. In the future, I would appreciate having the Rosgen stream classification included
as part of the information.
Listed Species Surveys
Projects currently ranked as Yellow will need to be reviewed in the future after the stated
issues are resolved. For those reports with unresolved issues related to listed species, I
would recommend that NCDOT wait until closer to implementation time to conduct final
surveys. In general, after three to five years we need updated information regarding the
project and listed species. Additionally, when aquatic species are involved (particularly
mussels) several surveys may be-required to adequately determine presence or absence.
The three projects receiving a Red ranking will need to be followed very closely to
determine future consultation requirements. These include B-4287 (actually 2 bridge
replacements), B-4286, and B-4282. These projects were ranked as Red because of the
significance of the number of listed resources potentially affected and the river (either
main stem or tributary) involved.
I would encourage NCDOT to require consultants to at least assess habitat for the bog
turtle. While the bog turtle technically does not require Section 7 consultation, it is a
species of concern and NCDOT is actively managing mitigation sites or parts of sites for
this species. Additionally, the Wildlife Resources Commission considers this animal rare
® in NC and participates actively in surveys and conservation efforts on its behalf.

Bridge Design and Construction Practices
I am assuming that FWS comments/recommendations in the past regarding bridge design,
demolition, and construction practices will be folded into each of these projects. Since
NCDOT is also working on a BMP manual that covers these practices, I think it would be
redundant to state them again. However, if any questions arise, please let me know. I
® would like to emphasize that we prefer off-site detours wherever possible, to minimize
effects to resources.
Q
Each of these projects has been assigned a log number. Please refer to these numbers in
future requests regarding the subject projects. Thank you again for the opportunity to
provide these comments. If you have questions, please let me know.
V-
D'.
6F
EY
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
r7
to
O
O
N
}
U.
N
U
tll
O
CL
Q)
rn
a
-0
a)
m
(O
IL
N
O
O
N
U
C
Q)
E
E
O
U
U)
U-
U)
D
?t71OIOIO 01016010 OI^.aOIO+Zl6 66 OOiW IO co O'O r (J) t? r t` ?' O O) `- r O r r,co O'
?. c7 I 1'7;"T V : V ('7 . M 1 CO I (') I C? ! Ch C`7 CO ' cr) : ('7 1 V, c') • ? V• M C) -T Ch (7 C`'7
?J ICV N 1 N 1 I N : N 1CV I N I N I N I N 1 N I N I N N: N' N 1 N N C N. N N N N N N N N, N N N, N. N. N: N N
1710 0,0010:01010 010.Oi0 O 0,010!0 O O.0 O O O'O O 0.010.0.010 O 0:0!0
Z CVAAAININ:
=IN C j C1 NINININININININ?N;CViNININ N'N•N•N'N N,N N N:NIN:N
.?I"!IT;-IV "T rl:V'V V V V v V v V V V ?7 v V ?,?
I I? I j i l l l l 1 I i
Q)I ,
O I I I 1 j I i i 1 i
U) i
LLI I I ! I I I I I '
! I ? I I
I t s I I! 1 , i 1
l c': I j l i E ml I L i
i tn? 1 ! j ?; I ' of
! Iat cIc!c? I I I ,?!
Io! rn rn _rn CUIE
j all u) 'm '? i ' ; T• (n! to I i E I E
a) Q) l al _ a) I y
1 3 1 a) c c
I a) a)! l a)I i I cs 'a: , ml `I to
j>i o nDI I j I c; a I?io)
l o nip I j all c' TI ?I ! NI Q`)
CU LL: 3 3131 ! 1 I t ;_ : LL; L•
al. 0
I I O:
1 O I I Q) a) CU I I O a) p E CT CO , .. _. a
10 CU U), a) I
all cm -C5
Imo' I I ! a a (U Q E
I ?Ia)IQ) a) a) I I ?I V p; NIV CU :E! L? amii i 1.2
CLO•>
1 IEj :l 7l=31?1 I p N rn o' rn •ml L I IQ)I tr
1mI°)Irnjcm all cm j ? t m 7 . c C. o ?irni olrni !miNjy
al C)
C
. O ; d
' rn C ! .0 I 0 1] I 1 . CM: 4l : a" c• .. a) i to : T, to to I
a) (`U m Q I > ! a ! ._ : to tv • a) • a? • I a)
is o 018 16` CI c w! (1), c: E: - c a--p 7 a a a1 ? o
i ml a- Ir- ln .?,. I a) rnl L) .0. o al L N
a) : ?• c 3!l m. Z. a? a)i L
I- I -, y to N -D! r CO m u
I j y... O CO . s= ; I , l
:a 71C 'C a; C: a) a) I C,_.c a) O IT U) M. CD CTI M
alal?.
` a) I 0 0 1 0 ; a I -01 a? CU a (1) a
a) ,, L' to Uj N , is ; a ' C = d
.I mlE.E E.E (D Q)I ola)13 cQ rn.?.? ll.c m c ai:? ?j
?.. 010 I 0 h I N I 1 a) ?I E all-D. CU C O ' a): ! ?.._ N I .0. al
i o! .o fj) N to l to a a , (O : a :'C : O L ? I p ,U U, 0 D L. O. Q) 1 0 j O IO! G)
31 `o! Nl t°'n Ni NI I .. cI El a.? C c, al, ,a a:= o 0. 3;
°" 3 3i a). E
I I to 1 « . O m:
v- : to u) to
?
rJ(9I c0 (OI CDi !w j C 0, CO m Q) 0' C C 3 U. C p I U: a) 7:.? a);?I
c . 1 0 o c a? • ._ ... ; a) ,'> to > > I ,` r
E CD I iQ l cO N i9 3 ' ! Q) ' O : V CU C7 O a, •- 0 to ; . L . `) ; M ; -8 m
I_ I 1 3' 31 6: cm; CM! c, C'= U) rn 0,- o N
wi les dal (.o'?!a• a:0 o a) m m v ?•w v ?'? a
I
? l to , t0 I CO mi 1 CO 1 >; >i-1 : a. to E • E U (a cn
Q)I U);L'LIL.L 0 Q) Q): N tn•a to to c - CU. to
m!a)m
Cr, nlaiaiv;-al l?l.r71 O C C to o. a) 0 7 a) O co; ? o' a o: Q
C C' C,•c, C!2 , OI tn. N O a' to r
E I (9 1 COI COI (O I N 1 ?I N to ai , . ... N Q . In • to . U c/) (O ; U ! ' ? Q) (6 U i CO ! CO ! COI CO i CO i N 17 17 I U : O i tO . 7 I CO ; CO Q) m f0 Q) • a 7 c UJ O a) rn fn I Cn . N
I Q) N ' a) a) . Q7 ! I 1
:?IcLo nlEIm rLo1rota m .I? a) a;- E o a)
:LL L L,.: COi CO' L. ?. (9 `l f9 U LL d ` S LL O w:LL ILLILL
I .o_I rL CL n rnl to m I a) i m a) a) U ' m o . m >:. on all C
ui 1 to I to l to j to l to j a 1 N ' L s a) 1= s= s 1= a)I to s= Q) _ N i to N _ _ ! Cn l n;
L: LiL LI L'•`I??,.a), L!L L L a) ; ' (U CU ' .0 Q) O (O :.(u
' U 010 12 ..O. 2..o ILL ILL i 0. 1 0 1 0 7 1 0; 0 ? : -0, .,.'... 'U > .:. 7 U) ! U' U L L U' a) tll l U' U d
i O j I 1 w_. I Q) ! .«. ! - • CU . N Q) (O W ! CD a) a) I Q)
O O' : d
. 011 T TI p (Ii to i d T T• N : TIT U) . y : O' C) N
Q) ' 0 0 0 I a N 1 tD i a) Q) . - (D (O t • - CL. to . - (0 : Cl: C1, •? .... C3.
N : (D CO , CL: CL. `
I V) N; to to . to to
I 1 13 I a) a) I a)1 a) E n) a) . m a a) Q T T. I o
ialZ Z Z Z,Z m to tnla IZIZ tnIZ1Z O .0 m to 'aia a) 0)•a Q) °)'ota.
N 7 1 7 1 7 7 1 7. N to 1 0 1 0 1 7 7 to 1 7, 7 O. CO . CU CU a) . m: c to
' a) t' Q) I Q) ' Z Z. a) L; L: Q) l a) .;(n
L 7 L.?..,_. .._.....-
Y!?.INININ Q) ) > 7 7 O1tn tn•7; 1tn'N O a)•Q),L:L .7 2
tn l a) I 1 Q) I Q) I to l N Q E a) 1 a) N. , O i N i N 7 7: N+ O O! to : U) C
Q) Q) a
m i=i L L V ... L; ?. Ei E Q.1_:1_; L. L to L E r""?'? to N'?'..._ „•••t?l? 0
to N y N N I N N N N N 1 N L L O: O Q y T, L L y L T. T: L E
OI O OI O' U'` a)1 O:O Q' 0, 0.O' OI
'"' I (n t In 1 N to I N I !n ..-. ..-.. a) T to r.....a.. !n N , w- ...... d
Q -a? 0 CU1 0 U)l a)) 0 a aia:a! 4)j 0 0.01 N'•iJ a;a 0' O•a a: d. 0 Z:-ot'D 41 NI-o; 2; Z'>7,-a, u
'?- I Q) 7 7 1 7 7! 7 7 a) a) ; Q) : a) 1 7 7 7' 7' 7 CU a) I tv • Z: Z. a) N' Z 7 y I Q) I Q) 7 7' U) ' t7 N U) I Q) : t4
>Ia'i tS. Cr (S: Cr CS > >I>,>; Cr O"?•a'I a"> >•>.7.7.> a'7 ?' >'> A'CT' >• I?!?'Q
Q) , Q)
C ; Q) I a) a) a) 1 (U Q O Q) . Q) I cu! a) • - CU . (U 1 - ' - a) W-6.
pIO1L.?jL L1?iL!OIOIOIOIL O O O:tn;N O•a) N x-1010 W,? L;Q,
N Q d
N I N ' to l to 1 to I to [n N : V) , a ! a N a a l to l to to - a alto N `
ca1E cnlV)itn tgl(A1(nl?!?Imi?! 1 U U (Afgj(A _I:?.NI3) U m:E•o o ?I?lm
c c cl`c c ? ? ; ? a? c a) c. : ocl ' a?Cu, a)
!(L) o C.c clolo'c!C!0
Q'l7ILL:W,LL LL ILL ILL 7171 71 71LLjlL.IL U- LL 7 7. 71Z'Z' 7 C!Z'U- Z? 7:LL LL. 7.Z:Z17: 7!
Ilj I I N
C I I t' I I j i ' j I' d
I ! i
(D 0:
! ! ! lol?jo? I ? ? ! 1 '
aI ' I IJ3 1-0113 I CO! (13 ' N. Q) C. CQ i Q C c
.
E E E O
O! I ! ! I a)'1>11]'Y Y: CO to CI E' C C' O
c131a)Imlm?mja)Ic°)I°i °IQ YIQ):a)YII YN Ym Ya)ity a) m; a3' a' o'0- oi? a 2, A. - -.Y o 0 0'o N
I :Y?G Y Y•? > • 3 O' Q'
7! TILiL 1= LIt, C C' C. LI - , 4) O > tn. O. T•a a: C) U U: Ul U a
o I O 1 to I U) I N 1< N 1 N 1 7 7 17 17 ; 7 7 1 :-3 .7:7:7.7 7 (O . CO : (9 (O fO ' L . (D Q) a) CO C C : O N (O
U!=i<:Q;QIIQ;mIM lm!mIM lm!CO,m:m:m M CO'U'UIU U U:U n 0 (.D i=
• i i -i ! ?
co Ir'NIcnItol(D!NiCDihi0O•<.OIr C13: V .(n (D 1` C14-D)10 ? O cD M CDic'7•V to ao'r 1- 00•M.0'M
•CAIr _ r'r l rlr:C`),Cl)l -C,):C') "Ti T V•V•'V• V• 'q-'Ln:Cnl(O (D 1`•1` C) r•N:V• LO U) (D 1` t` 1`147 00
r r r•r r r r r r rir r
O: 0:0i0i010101 0:0:010010 O O'0 O O 0.010 0 00
LL i N ! V' I V' ' V' ' V' I V' '?T '• ? I 'V ? V• ; V' V i V' Q ' ? : 'tT Q 'Q' V' ' V' ' V' ' '7 rt •?T V' V V' ' V V' V' ? V' V' V' V' V'
f- mlm!mlm Lm im lm!m!m :m im;m lm m:m'm m CO m;m:m tm m m m m:m:m CO M. 03 m m mIm m
wi CL (L
a°. cnlg`g'Z12i2; nlcnlcn:n;n.? n ?.tz cr ?'? n!? n U)
n U) n cc -? n.n 0-1
CO IT ' O - • N C') Q r U) I U-3 " w (, t` - t` Q) ? • O O IT
.- - N N. N N N 1^' (O . (D 1 ti O ID 6 O tD O, (t) t? N N I h ti i_ N M (`•) (') V'
M • (? Cn t'7 'T M
M q' '
(`7
'
'
• . 7
.
(h (
M • L7
t? . V, V -T 'T V " V, ; (1) I (h ! ('7
N N N!N;N :N N
N
N
• ' :
:N
dIN •NN N,N N•NIN7N NIN:N N N•N N N'N N N N1
L '
O O O 010IOI010'O O O'O O O O• O!O 010.0 O O O O O10'O
OiO O

D
C) .
E'NI(VIv ',C NA N NI iC' IC IN;N N (N' 0'4 N,N N ,NIN.N:N.CV C( (V N;C-NC N N N
V V
V ?7'et
t V
t'
t
v
1
l
i
?
mo
V V
?
v et v
v;v v 44 v 4;44144 v v
Z
N

U_ all
i

V- a
J t
D c
I
Q n
I

D O` LL

---
I ---- I
-
-
cL 7
7
1

'
m l
i E
Co.
5
l

1 Z5
cu :(
V) a
UI c i 0' 1 0: O I M
T' .- 1 ?I=1
® ?, c 1'C C C! 0
CIO I O N i.0i ICI Im; E
co l ` ca
cr, ;0I c0 c0' c0 I OI«!- j ml chi CM 0)i
: -1 _' CU;
. 071 0 0, tD+ c0I O1 u)i N! i 01 I OI-.
•L' ? E :E:E' C1 O:Oi0.O: '' r.. C
CIO m
W
'

al„r;Y'?C. 010,E 0! 0' 01, O
O
1 0
0. N.
'
>
'?
Q i 7 L L L. OI 71 O' O
011 071 (9 I;>
L' O
.0 WW1 N ?. UI0 i0,•0.-0,0 X71 7?-0
IO
?I Wi O O O: pl (LO
_.O
3
_ n•a:
0
0 !2

0! 0 C N
Z Z...1 c. C0
C01 -:-. c0
;W1
® '
O
CO
>' 0 7 7 C1 ?: 0, 01 3 3 7. 71 0 (D
7
C
In'3;1? cl c? E U'
0 a
?; L In v,
j o' ?? a1 `m a7 a7 ml ol3'?i N CU
U)• .V) 0
V]
1 L L L L: W; UI071CM 10 0 C
Iin
o
1
C C C C a;C/3
,ci a. C.L LL LL. m 0
;
'
T Z (o c0 c0 CO:
Q
CU
U
n U) V) U;L-;,2.w! r- E' E E
i a) 0
!
tT UI N 0 0 0 1 _ , -, .-. 1 u): U). >?. t0 ca • (D i al ?
1, , r_.
_. ) 17
0 0, 0 W )
c0' c0: 0 0• n) a) 0
?'
•
0
U) C . . 0 7 0 7 7 7 (U' to : CU ! Iv :
.
_. j U) N?.in U Q
Q'. 0- 0" O..E:E.? `
® _
0 OI c0. c0, 2 2 2 w• 71 tn: N;..
cn, Zn 1 ca m
E
:
In a) 0, a)

N 1
, E , M Q7:'o ''o l o, a c to . cn
?•o' m m : ?
(D
'
"
•
"
0 c c c
a
O
' Q
' O
In
' C • LL. U_ U_ U_ tOj D.: CU c0 I (C9 7 O
)
n
C0 0 (0 a) : In- rn « :._ Q L L ' C L `
(U 07:tTlQ)iO y
a) y•c0:0 h•M N m;c0 c0 c0 c0 L;N!N
NI-0
C C ?
.
.. L L L L N
7 toI C' C. U) C 'E •C`'C..c C 'E'++ 0' 0r a)
:7
Q• 0; 0 O jV O O O' O O O O M. E: a
! 0 7 . 0)' O! O: O' O7! CM; IT IT. all .a , (U; 0- 0Q. CL. ? O 0
' -O w ,.0O
U) v) O
'

U ?. 0.. O . 0'
E . 0 , O O O O O 0: 0 .
CT'
U) 0 , a; a. •- a. CL. 0.t a, C1. Q. O_: c : •O , 0 0 LL (D CT), 0 01 0 071 0 07
°)
-o ' ..Cl -o! -0 "o -0 -0 ' co I C t U) U) 1 U . In N U)
'- ' -o 'o ,
a) 0 0 i a) a) • 0 a) CO 0 0 1) 0 O O : ? , O U)
U) . a) - a)
.
O' O U O O O O O O O CI 011L.LL.. U U U U L'L. a. 7
'

0 0 0
; U) :L C ' 0
c0 ' c0; M 1 CU! t0 m (9 I U- L L:
_ L.L:L'L L L' L .• (01 (0
d; d. d. (1. 0 ,0 O U_
® .
; 3'. 3 • `- 3 3 3 3. 3 3 3 : o i E - - In in u) U N 0 0 0 0
' 0 •
C C 0
0
'
... .a.. • 0:
..
O' O O O
. O: O' O
. "O O : m! 011 O)1 07: O
a ! .0 0 T
i 0)1 m, 0)I Q)I 07. 0): 011 R
9 ; Co co CO R3
0
(U -
>
Co
--
0
:
.. CO :
c
'
1 Co
07 0110 0 N•
0
0 ;0 -
Y O'O O'O'O OrO'Y. ,C71
cu,a o to -Z9 -,A m Z:c c? :c 25
la;- E:E N1
L
. E:E E;E:E E E!
n
Iaiala;tlla
,
.
.
?,U (1.,10_:_ _:_•_.7;?' M:..a L'0
C I U)I U)1 U)I (1)I ylcn; N,WI N, ui Zr NI(n: N!In;N tn:Ini.
N t rn:toIV)IIn1(n tol ;0•Oio10 0 O`O O O O!O'•Oi0 O O O O O N r Nr U) O
i 0101 0 0. 0' 01 01..-.,?....1 0:w_?.........rw..r_ .......... 01..-ice......- - w...... ?r IA N. ul! N
Vr ti'N: NIN NI(n- tn V ' O . (1); Iv
N. N! VIr N cili tn• tnl?! 0! O: a)I O')' 01? OI L 1 01'0 O 0, O 0' O' N' 0
' U17'7`7!7 0
'
Oi010 0. 0' 0 0 0IN10100.0 0 0 0
w (9ICOiC01C01(Of(Oi(01]:0 01
>•>• 01>•>r >:> > .>. >, 7:0':0" Q! O..>
C,.O'Oi010:0 .2! -6 01-'-' 0+0.-6
!2 ..r..: .. r-- o10i o'0.0;00 0 o:>.ioi'olo o'o 0 o E'er ....
O
0 aI101a!a110 '? ..cn InI cn I C: w i w N'O:N to w 0'UI VI'N'U'to• cn In O U)
I 0. 01>.r0'0'010 0 M. 0:e'0i0'0i0 0 0.0 U) U) 0
7 > ?
0
1
00
0
.
..
.
0,01
co 010
01t1)IN101Nt1)?N.NIcic C: (91a C: a, a i?; ?..:?'.
C C? C ? C c ' c ;71Cr c .C: C ? a _ C G O'>??+?' C
I
;Z!Z-Z!D1 7: 7r E1 7 71 7 7 7• cAl 7i 7 7. 7. 7. 7' r- U- U-;U_LL 7
ix:Z:Z,Z:Z
01
ZI
i ?
1 , M i
,
c! i I U!
Of

r a.l
CU M cu 1
'
O c
a
O"O E ?1Vt C
0 ?
O u c
.
_ _ _
I (U I (U , Q1 (UI (U, N N i O O O 0: O O' O I I >>•>. M f0 . f0
x'313: 3 .3 :3 3;?j c!t.t't''t't't =IO,InI >.,>..7.,?!(Ml(M >
's
O!O O;=I IpIO 0: 0.0x0 0'01 0! ?., C C.cn: CUf: .N C ,O fO;
I
CIOiO'O:O
N U
IO
L:L
?
-F C:
?
:. 1 y C
:
;Y.
1
71mli??oi0o 0 01 UiY Y, 3;L.L L L:L
?'C231100 (0 c0.f01- c0
U'U'UIUIU•U U;-6 00
7 7
7
7 7:7?i7'7.3•3
C O
.
:
1
i
0 mi2;2'ntn.m 2I2I:n. a.Izr( cr-.cr- W. it: ?L(nlcn!U)IU).(n't- l,- ?-
E
E
'
0
U 00 ' N O
; N V ; LD i (O i i--, co am : N I Q) ; a Lo cc) IT O e- V L17 (O i 0, N 1 V u) : t0 t` co O (O r-
i
a0 03 rn rn e- r- '- N M
to Ln co (D (O O tp ' 0
to
O 1 M V
0)
-
'
,
.
:
(n
(A I Q)
. O 1
0) 1 Q)
1
.-.'- ?!r- -L -'NIN:N'N.N N N C,4: C14 N.N101NIN N'N,N N N N c'7 C17 cr),c') cn
;._
,
Q'.OiC'.V''?' :V''T Q
d?V.V"I' V•V 'IT V:"!'Y.CrV'."T Q' V V V
'm cc
m
m
m;
m
m m
D
.
m M.m;M.Co m m m m m
i C
_m m co m_m
:
imi
H m,a7.miC0IC?,m C

> > =a.cL>'?}==o-,ooh

m cn m.It. cn:o o:= p ID? U) U)
c
U) (f)

0
• t
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Habitat Conservation Coor ' ator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 9, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements:
Catawba County - Bridge No. 79, SRI 156, Anthony Creek, B-4059
Catawba County - Bridge No. 17, SR1486, Wlyle Creek, B-4060
Caldwell County - Bridge No. 7, NC268, Yadkin River, B-4052
Lincoln County - Bridge No. 33, SRI 357, Dellinger Creek, B-4178
Lincoln County - Bridge No. 142, SRI 193, Howards Creek, B-4177
Gaston County - Bridge No. 148, SRI 618, Beaver Dam Creek, B-4116
Cleveland County - Bridge No. 156, SRI 804, Buffalo Creek, B-4076
Surry County - Bridge No. 221, SR1625, Pauls Creek, B-4285
Surry County - Bridge No. 29, SRI 322, Mill Creek, B-4284
Iredell County - Bridge No. 116, SR1521, Third Creek, B-4155
® Watauga County - Bridge No. 320, SRI 153, Beech Creek, B-4316
Watauga County - Bridge No. 16, SR1541, MF SF New River, B-4317
Watauga County - Bridge No. 321, SRI 598, Watauga River, B-4318
Wilkes County - Bridge No. 71, SRI 167, Stony Fork Creek, 4322
Ashe County - Bridge No. 85, SRI 106, Mill Creek, B-4011
Ashe County - Bridge No. 117, SRI 118, NF New River, B-4012
® Ashe County - Bridge No. 338, SR1320, Roaring River, 40
Ashe County - Bridge No. 165, SRI 362, Big Horse Creek, B-4015
Ashe County - Bridge No. 273, SRI 347, Big Horse Creek, B-4016
Iredell County - Bridge No. 228, SRI 854, Rocky Creek, B-4158
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
W
D
D
D
D
Q
0
D
D
Q,,ridge Memo
2
May 9, 2002
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil. .
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
ED 9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.

® 10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
D
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
D 12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
D within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
D
D

W
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
Bridge Memo
3
May 9, 2002
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Q
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
C
Bridge Memo 4 May 9, 2002
'r
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
D stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
® area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
D Project specific comments:
D
0 1. Catawba County - Bridge No. 79, SRI 156, Anthony Creek, B-4059, GREEN LIGHT
D No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
2. Catawba County - Bridge No. 17, SR1486, Wlyle Creek, B-4060, GREEN LIGHT
D No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
3. Caldwell County - Bridge No. 7, NC268, Yadkin River, B-4052, YELLOW LIGHT
Warmwater species including small mouth bass. Some brown trout. Moratorium during ,
NEW spanning bridge preferred.
4. Lincoln County - Bridge No. 33, SR1357, Dellinger Creek, B-4178, GREEN LIGHT
No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
® 5. Lincoln County - Bridge No. 142, SRI 193, Howards Creek, B-4177, GREEN LIGHT
No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
6. Gaston County - Bridge No. 148, SR1618, Beaver Dam Creek, B-4116, GREEN LIGHT
Warmwater fishery moratorium? No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should
D apply.
7. Cleveland County - Bridge No. 156, SRI 804, Buffalo Creek, B-4076, GREEN LIGHT
Warmwater fishery moratorium? No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should
® apply.
8. Surry County -Bridge No. 221, SRI 625, Pauls Creek, B-4285, GREEN LIGHT
Warmwater fishery moratorium? No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should
apply.
M 9. Surry County - Bridge No. 29, SR1322, Mill Creek, B-4284, YELLOW/RED LIGHT
Warmwater fishery moratorium? Check for brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose) due to
proximity to Mitchell River.
10. Iredell County - Bridge No. 116, SR1521, Third Creek, B-4155, GREEN LIGHT
Warmwater fishery moratorium? No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should
® apply.
11. Watauga County - Bridge No. 320, SRI 153, Beech Creek, B-4316, YELLOW/RED LIGHT
Rainbow trout moratorium. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
12. Watauga County - Bridge No. 16, SRI 541, MF SF New River, B-4317, RED LIGHT
Rainbow trout moratorium. NEW spanning bridge preferred. Many listed fish and mussels in SF
New River. Surveys recommended.
U
Dx
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
Q
Q
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
Z)
Bridge Memo
May 9, 2002
13. Watauga County - Bridge No. 321, Slkl598, Watauga River, B-4318, YELLOW LIGHT
Rainbow and Brown- trout. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
14. Wilkes County - Bridge No. 71, SRI 167, Stony Fork Creek, 4322, YELLOW LIGHT
Rainbow and Brown trout. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
15. Ashe County - Bridge No. 85, SRI 106, Mill Creek, B-4011, YELLOW LIGHT
Brown trout moratorium. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
16. Ashe County - Bridge No. 117, SRI 118, NF New River, B-4012, YELLOW LIGHT
Rainbow and Brown trout moratorium. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
17. Ashe County - Bridge No. 338, SR1320, Roaring River, B-4013, GREEN LIGHT
Rainbow and Brown trout. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
18. Ashe County - Bridge No. 165, SRI 362, Big Horse Creek, B-4015, GREEN LIGHT
Rainbow trout moratorium. NEW spanning bridge preferred.
19. Ashe County - Bridge No. 273, SR1347, Big Horse Creek, B-4016, GREEN LIGHT
Small mouth bass moratorium. NEW spanning bridge?
20. Iredell County - Bridge No. 228, SRI 854, Rocky Creek, B-4158, GREEN LIGHT
No special concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: David Cox, WRC
A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
AEI VF4O
'JUN 25 W
• az
U
MOON ?
DEVELOey "
\rAL ANA?-
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 18, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ;',:? - I
SUBJECT: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report, Replacement of
Bridge No. 338 on SR 1362 over Roaring Fork Creek, B-4013, Ashe County,
ER02-8493
Thank you for your letter of May 6, 2003, transmitting the survey report by Circa, Inc.
We concur that there are no properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) that are
eligible for listing in the National Register.
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: Circa, Inc.
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION
RESTORATION
NVWW
Location
507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
i i i N lllount St.. Ralci.gh NC
o.dcr.state.nc.us
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 276994617
4613 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 276994613
4618 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh NC 276994618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] -733-8653
[phone] -7154801
[phone] -7154801
UV v
D:r
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
M ?jck-,A.s
Federal.4id it BRZ-1320(-3) TIP 9 B-4013 County: Ashe
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 338 on SR 1320 over Roaring Fork Creek
On 11/05/22002, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
01 There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
[v?' There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
1-5 5+ is considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located. in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
F] There are no historic properties affected by this project. (.attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
11.05.0 2
Representative DO Date
FHWA. for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representativve,HH \O Date
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
IJ
?z-
_ ty.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indi
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719
[phone] / Fax [phone]
October 28, 2003
Greg Thorpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-.1548
G?1 V,p
NpV 20G3 Q0
z5;
iDIV%.S1011 G/p? N1G1rNA ,??,5
app FAT DEVE??PyS
RE: Wilkes County, Bridge No. 71 on SR 1167 Over Fork Creek, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1167(1),
State Project 8.2761301, TIP No. B-4322
Caldwell County, Bridge No. 7 on NC 268 Over Yadkin River, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-0268 (9),
State Project 8.1731801, TIP No. B-4052
Ashe County, Bridge No. 338 on SR 1320 Over Roaring Fork Creek, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1320
(4), State Project 8.2712301, TIP No. B-4013
Ashe County, Bridge No. 273 on SR 1347 Over Big Horse Creek, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1347 (1),
State Project 8.2712501, TIP No. B-4016
Ashe County, Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 Over Big Horse Creek, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1362 (1),
State Project 8.2712401, TIP No. B4015
Bridge No. 117 on SR 1118 North Folk New River, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1118(3), State Project
8.2712201, TIP No. B-4012
Watauga County, Bridge No. 320 on SR 1153 Over Beech Creek, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1153 (6),
State Project 8.2752301, TIP No. B-4316
Dear Dr. Thorpe,
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians appreciates the invitation to participate as a consulting party in compliance
with 36CFR800. According to the information you provided, the EBCI TIRO is unaware of any known cultural
resources or archaeological sites in the project area significant to our Tribe, or any known cultural resources or
archaeological sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, should any cultural resources or
human remains be encountered during the proposed project's activities, work should cease and this office should be
contacted immediately.
As a consulting party we request that you send all information pertaining to cultural resources within the above-
referenced project(s) area of potential effect (APE) for our review and comment. If you have any questions, please
direct them to me at [phone]. Thank you.
Sincerely,
(-
Michelle Hamilton
Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Lp
D NIATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
, Q R William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\Oe\ pG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?' !^
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
vj
(
D DWI t1`./`M ? Division of Water Quality
D
p
®
© November 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Lo
TO: Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator C( ,eJ

D SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Ashe County, SR 1320, Bridge No. 338 over Roaring Fork Creek,
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1320(4), State Project No. 8.2712301,TIP Project B4013.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced project. Roaring Fork
Creek (index 10-2-14-7; HU 050702) is classified as C trout +. The "+" symbol identifies waters that are
subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0225, the Outstanding Resources
Waters (ORW) rule, in order to protect downstream waters designated as ORW.
During 1998 basinwide monitoring, DWQ aquatic biologists reported streambank erosion and
sedimentation throughout the New River basin that was moderate to severe. The Wildlife Resources
Commission's Fisheries Management Direction for the New River Basin also lists sedimentation of the
New River and tributary streams as one of three major concerns in the basin (NCWRC, May 1998).
Substantial amounts of erosion can be prevented by planning to minimize the amount and time the land is
exposed. Care should be taken to prevent loss of material into Roaring Fork. Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
D ¦ Due to the excellent quality of the resource, NCDWQ highly endorses the replacement of this
structure with a bridge rather than a culvert.
¦ The bridge should be designed as a single span with no piers in the stream.
¦ Storm water shall be designed to be carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and
D diverted through grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device
D prior lo entering Roaring Fork Creek.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 413
oft 0124(a)-(d)] prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
D resources.
¦ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 5 days of
ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
¦ Use a turbidity curtain or other methods (BMPs) proven to prevent violation of the turbidity standard
D for trout waters.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/bmp.pdf).
D
D 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].
9 pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
D Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRCRFLIP r T3? _ =i
® NO
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
D 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
FA 919.733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment 4 0
and Natural Resources
D Division of Water Quality
,7A
?r .
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary P Alan Klimek, Director NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 18, 2002
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dome
NC Division f Water uality, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality, 44rUnit
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B4037, B4076, B4116, B4016,
B4052, B4015, B_,-t U B4012, B-4011, B-4202, B-4199,
B-4196, B4195, B-4322, B4317, B-4316, B4285, & B4028.-
On all projects, use of proper sediment and erosion control will be needed. Sediment and erosion
® control measures should not be placed in wetlands. Sediment should be removed from any water
pumped from behind a cofferdam before the water is returned to the stream. Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) must be
® implemented prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream
aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation must be planted on all bare
soil within 10 days of ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
This office would prefer bridges to be replaced with new bridges. However if the bridge must be
replaced by a culvert and 150 linear feet or more of stream is impacted, a stream mitigation plan
will be needed prior to the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. 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.
®
Any proposed culverts shall be installed in such a manner that the original stream profile is not
altered (i.e. the depth of the channel must not be reduced by a widening of the streambed).
Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert
® extensions.

Wetlands/401 Unit 2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite 250 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
® Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
W
D 's
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Public Schools of Forth Carolina
NC Department of Public Instruction
School Planning, Division of School Support
6322 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6322

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Www.schoolclearinghouse.org
?V VE
November 25, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: J. David Edwards, Section Chief, School Planning d
p?c 2 2002
NTA?
SUBJECT: Ashe County, SR 1118, Replace Bridge No. 117 Over North Fork New River, Federal-
Aid Project No. BRZ 1118(3), State Project No. 8.2712201, TIP No. B-4012
Ashe County, SR 1320, Replace Bridge No. 338 over Roaring Fork Creek, Federal-Aid
No. BRZ-1320(4), State Project No. 8.2712301, TIP No. B4013
Ashe County, SR 1362, Replace Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek, Federal-Aid
Project BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401, TIP No. B4015
Ashe County, SR 1347, Replace Bridge No. 273 over Big Horse Creek, Federal-Aid
Project No. BRZ-1347(1), State Project No. 8.2712501, B-4016
Enclosed is a response from Ashe County Schools in regard to the National Environmental Policy Act
inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure
Delivery Address: 7066 NC Education Building, 301 N. Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
An Equal OpportunitylAffinnntiveMion £mptoycr
Ashe County Board of Education .
Donnie R. Johnson. ,S We uendent • Charles L King. Chairman • Charles IL Jones, Jr., Vice Chairman • Dr. Lee Becknorth • Bkhard Blackburp • Dorothy WYhe;tpooo
PO Box 604, 320 South Street • Courier No. 15-65-01 • Jefferson, North Carolina '28640
:.336) 246-7175 [phone] Fax
. October 28, 2002
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, Section Chief
School Planning .
Department of Public Instruction
D Mr. Knott:
In regard to your letter concerning the replacement of bridge No. 338. over Roaring Fork
D Creek on.SR 1320 and the impact on an existing br proposed. school site.or bus routes.
We currently have two buses routed in this area that pass through both the a.m, and the
p.m. hours: Closure. of SR 1320 would result in a lengthy and hazardous detour. Willie .
Walker Road (SR 1319) is a road that we try to avoid if possible.
® There. is not any impact on an. existing or .proposed school site in the immediate area. I
® hope this information is be necial. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at
D [phone]
• Since?rel?'???? ' .
Stan Douglas
Transportation Director
D Ashe County School Bus Garage

Board of Education: ,
Asho -County
.
® Donnie R. Johnson, Superimmlent • Charles L King, Chair man • Charles A Jones, Jr., Vice Chairman = Dr. Lee Beckworth - Richard Blackburn • Dorothy Witherspoon ..

" PO Box 604,320 South Street • Courier No. 15-65401 a Jefferson,'North Carolina 28640
[phone] 9 [phone] Fax

November 6, 2001

.. Davis Moore
Project Developrnent.& Environmental
' Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
. 1548 mail Service Center .
?.. ' Raleigh, NC .27699-1548
... Dear Mr. Moore:

The following information is in response to your letter addressing TlP projects.
Bridge No..85•on Highway SR 1106'Q-4.O 1
We (Ashe County" Board of Education) currently have two buses crossing this bridge
twice daily. These buses can be'rerouted around this bridge. '
Bridgc,No.117 on Highway SR 1118: Q- 4o 1 a .
We (ACBE) currently have.one bus crossing this-bridge twice daily.. .Two. students live
across the bridge, one near the-bridge and one one-half mile..away. They could walk to
the:bridge and catch the bus or parents could bring them out to meef the bus.. The -
distance would be too.great to reroute through. Watauga .County. Route time would be
: _one hour plus..

'Bridge No. 338 on:HighvvaySR 1320.40 i3
We (ACBE) currently have two -buses crossing this bridge twice daily. It would be . ':
difficult to reroute for this bridge. Route time would be :forty-five minutes plus, with ,
additional ride time: More in the winter.

Bridge No. 165 on Highway SR 1362 13-4019.
' . We (ACBE) currently have two..buses crossing this bridge twice' daily.. Rerouting around '
?' this.bridge would take thirty minutes plus. More in the winter:

v -_
Q

! 11-1111

94 -!e
A oif.2r?v22
Davis Moore June 7, 2001
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RE: Proposed Replacement of Bridges 85, 117, 165, 273 and 338
Dear Mr. Moore,
In regard to the proposed NCDOT bridge replacements, we offer the following
information on how emergency response/emergency medical services will be affected by
the proposed projects:
1. Replacement of Bridge No. 85 on SR 1106, over Creek, Ashe County, Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1106(4), State. Project No. 8.2712101, TIP No. B4011:
Closure of this bridge could be handled by re-routing and would add an estimated
10 minute additional response time for emergency response/emergency medical
services.
2. Replacement of Bridge No. 117 on SR 1118 over Hoskin Fork Creek, Ashe
County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1118(3), State Project No. 8.271220 1, TIP
No. B4012: Closure of this bridge would create an unworkable situation for for
emergency response/emergency medical services as there is no other route to
access the upper portion of Sutherland Road (SR 1118).
3. Replacement of Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362 over Big Horse Creek, Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401, TIP No. B-
4015: Closure of this bridge could be handled by re-routing and would add an
estimated 10-15 minute additional response time for emergency
response/emergency medical services.
v
?r
D
f
4. Replacement of Bridge No. 273 on SR 1347 over Big Horse Creek, Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1347(1), State Project No. 8.2712501, TIP No. B-
4016: Closure of this bridge could be handled by re-routing and would add an
estimated 10-15 minute additional response time for emergency
response/emergency medical services.
5. Replacement of Bridge No. 338 on SR 1320(4), State Project No. 8.27123 TIP
No. B4013: Closure of this bridge could be handled by re-routing and would add
an estimated 10 minute additional response time for emergency
response/emergency medical services.
For further information, please contact my office at [phone], or
einc a ashecountvgov.com.
Sincerely,
Y
Emergency Management Coordinator,
County of Ashe
150 Government Circle Suite 2400
Jefferson, NC 28640

A M c lYl,,,,B'
McMeans
v
APPENDIX B
1 4
ti
s
a n+?
March 2003
North Carolina Department of Transportation
O
U
w

A"CDOT has beC,,!un the projec'tllllllinb;, k:nitr es to replace
Brid (fe #338 oil Rrltlring Fijr Road 1,, Over r.'?lwl' -
For/? C rE ekl Ashe Count), (T ransportei lion l ril j7l`o 11em ell t
Pro?raln Projeet.B-401 0
?'? Lanni Rd -(?aia f 1319X 1317 app
13, ?/ 1.QJ, ,gyp .
LLJ
V?
1313 \ -i .yA?o Fey,p
tlr? 1
L,j 1 -.,i &f?+dl1E :? 137 r , 138 Ra
ute ?'
i e 4
f--? t6? y3es as R,? l?
1317 Z?1310 171
'310 N
`,h30T'A'Rp ? } - ? G I/I/I
d1+4 ??. 1317 1
SRC
0-6.
G?n t y ?i
P-L1?' ?> t 'M ,Gl?b(?y, 1Nt3?4
I?W.keaA Rd 138
17 ]IO
_ v
0!
f % 113I56E u? iEB?
V ?6d 512e 91,1176?
`307. PROJECT LOCATIOHh-r
0"-
1397 ??-. L-? ?ea> 0 I Z
= 40 IN AILS
BRIDGE TO BE REPLACED
Bridge No. 338 on Roaring
Fork Road over Roaring Fork
Creek (SR 1320) was built in
1967. The bridge is narrow and
does not meet current design
standards. NCDOT is studying
two alternatives that would
replace the old, narrow bridge
with a new, wider bridge or box
culvert at the same location.
Traffic on Roaring Fork Road
will be maintained at the site
during construction.
Construction of the new bridge
should take about one year.
Additional right of way will be
required near the bridge.
CITIZENS
INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP
NCDOT will host a Citizens
Informational Workshop on
March 25, 2003 from 4 pm to 7
pm at the Riverview
Community Center, 11719 NC
Highway 88 West, Creston.
This will be an open house
format; drop by anytime
between 4 pm and 7 pm to see
the alternatives being studied
and to offer comments and
suggestions.
I _, tl,???st.
t '.
?^=
NCDOT appreciates and
encourages input and
comments from local
citizens. If you have
comments or concerns or
know of any issues that
may help us in our planning,
please attend the Citizens
Informational Workshop or
contact us (see back page).
W
D '
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
f

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?Q.
m
6
ND R Tly
O?
-? o

ASHE COUNTY
SR 1320 (ROARING FORK CREEK ROAD)
BRIDGE NO. 338
OVER ROARING FORK CREEK
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (1)
State Project 8.2712301
TIP PROJECT B-4013
MARCH 25, 2003
ftwp
RIVERVIEW COMMUNITY CENTER
11719 NC HIGHWAY 88
CRESTON
F TROD
-A 0
V
(U,4?-a Yno"taiiiaiwd *J"&Aap
ASHE COUNTY
SR 1320 (ROARING FORK CREEK ROAD)
BRIDGE No. 338
OVER ROARING FORK CREEK
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (1)
State Project 8.2712301
TIP PROJECT B-4013
MARCH 25, 2003
PURPOSE
This Citizens Informational Workshop is being held in order to involve the public
in the project planning process. We welcome all suggestions and comments.
Attached to the handout is a comment sheet for you to write down your
opinions or concerns for our consideration.
Even if you have no comments, you may provide us with your name and address
so that we can include you on the project mailing list.
If you wish to comment further on this project, please contact:
Nate Benson, PE, Wetherill Engineering, Inc., 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite
164, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606, 919-851-8077, [e-mail]
OR
Missy Dickens, PE, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548, Phone [phone] ext.218,
[e-mail]

?t try 7V"
Ja 7
pt?A.? ..` P ?'tg ^?? .,.r ?4J?',? a, • F
'Via
!,?? " ?'
< ''4 ,? _:,r? aati:a„q P?'?° 3 dr!'.' •? ''t, u,' g::• ti §??' ?tq?k y,.. MhFt;? W, ?? `? ?•q ? ?{
h;.b 3 atAr,I 's '?.#v, ,i., 'fit L' s y} y
75
A, , ?? :',' ; ri ' k yr' i•.; :'srq! 'w'i'ts 'v' t it a? r ,ln ? '.;.ts9 rz', , ,;?, X
47:;?,,?5
4' r¢`? `?'' r x $' t r. •. ' .v9.. Sryn §Mamty. " , o-? ?' 4 t ?.y
s 4: Ssx' ^}. ^ } a 4`.: ?. .e.? # ;E4 ???,.? a M• 1t.6..' '7S, i§ a a:°
?j ,k <`$'; k'?3? ?'?ti` ?. F ?C• ?` ? ??B ? '', f ? bh tea, ? ? ? t ? i j9i fi e' $? r „? ,?. 7
x,.,.,' d•k :, a yep.' w t .ems r' "a ,, n n I; rrr
¢ ??y p??y? ? ? r? ; d ? ;, ? °44;? z+k ?k?t 'a a . ? •'? r t .r, ?" ?; 4,r"?'-` ? y t r
a
???p o ?, ?? rc;? E ,._rra #ya r+ ?Y, r ? . ? t € .r y ?.t .' f' '?, °_ '? `V .y??., t •?j?,
,
?^ 6
;xj
5?(t t £$ kb ' ao R si ry3? ?? www??, ?A ?
Cr1 } e
as ,. n?.r 4 ,?_ + Sp {7q ? ,? ,t?k • i t€`^
'it" 'a rt{r?„
sv,?.'
„r 41
,
30
Fi y { J 2; t : r'? ''aaa C r ;, a w++`?„Mt . `r. ;p ras'i. r'd. t ,t
mo
Ilk
p*`{Y L njP TAW tea .., {? jY i ? ,J v .k` nr ?tr' ?k? a(y q k' 5 i
` t A {
F
?lY ry
? ''¢?id ? •? az ,.^ u?Ng?y` g4,'?t3 .& ,?,. 4A {? ??' ? eri, 1F .? ...t r ? ,. Y
6 ?' t M ?1 fi' ? -41
71
i '4" x °.1WIt
a r 5 ti,
t k
r ?4 s „FR
"s 1 vv y?ig?, rW : - `ka4_
A "r' {i ?tv t?'+Y"r I ^ ? ? "2? '? ? r = ,? L ?AF'i $ ? y mt ? yt j9gi ? ra 4 ?{ Fh ^
si? d
t,
gyp "'s?, y. ,v u'44 ?24 ?Zo
t b € i i! "i Y" a f13 fie y p' is
RRRR i f YI b
hit
I
x }y
x$y }{} m -
WAY 9
r p
7 o-, 0
lot
t t+' e Al"
y ( q1 r c
I flak
t r, ! ? j? )_r m }!- fief 4 lY ?'? `N ':
e C9 A "? ? r $ I?? r
lot
my'
s '? 4 Syr .frn
4's i 1 Y&.'¢w q. 3 Rk 1,?ry3 p S 7 bz
+ 9 J Sf 1 WLe r
V'
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1
? d
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
o Two alternates for replacing the bridge are shown on Figures 2a and 2b.
(It is anticipated that one of these alternates will be selected as the preferred
alternate for replacement.)
o Alternate 1 includes a bridge and Alternate 2 includes a box culvert.
v The proposed alternates will begin approximately 400 feet south of the
bridge and end approximately 250 feet north of the bridge.
® Additional right of way will be required to contain the improvements.
A residence located near the end of the existing bridge may be affected.
o A major change in the elevation of the roadway is not anticipated.
o The proposed roadway and bridge cross sections are shown in Figure 3.
o Traffic will be maintained on-site (that is, the road will remain open during
construction).
o The construction period is anticipated to be one year.
o Traffic on the bridge is estimated to be 400 vehicles per day in the year 2002
and is projected to increase to 700 vehicles per day in the year 2025.
Approximately 3 percent of this traffic is trucks.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS
o The proposed improvements will replace the structurally obsolete bridge
with a wider bridge or a box culvert.
o The load restriction will be removed for truck traffic.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
An environmental document-a federal categorical exclusion-is being developed.
Preparation of this document includes an analysis of impacts to the human and
natural environment. Information gathered during this analysis, as well as cost
estimates and public comment, will be used to select the preferred alternate. This
document will be made available to the public later this year. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2004 and construction in 2005.
'A 4''1 F'
ciar4a 1"040wJ140-41421 W""Zop
COMMENT SHEET
ASHE COUNTY
SR 1320 (ROARING FORK CREEK ROAD)
BRIDGE No. 338
OVER ROARING FORI{ CREEK
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1320 (1)
State Project 8.2712301
TIP PROJECT B-4013
MARCH 25, 2003
NAME
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS REGARDING PROJECT B-4013:
PLEASE FORWARD YOUR COMMENTS TO:
Nate Benson, PE, Wetherill Engineering, Inc., 559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite
164, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27606
OR
Missy Dickens, PE, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548