20051093 Ver 1_Complete File_20050614

9 d .v'n.n,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Fr a ? d
920?'4l ?j
srop,pp ??S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ??
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TINT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 13, 2005
051()96
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Nationwide 6 Permit Application, for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1362 in Ashe
County. State Project No. 8.2712401, WBS Element 33383.1.1,
Federal Project No. BRZ-1362 (1); Division 11, TIP No. B-4015.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to replace
Bridge 165 in Ashe County. The bridge crosses Big Horse Creek just north of the town of
Tuckerdale on SR 1362. Construction on the replacement of Bridge 165 is scheduled to
begin in February of 2007. A completed pre-construction notification form and
appropriate permit drawings are attached for your review.
Within the project area, the classification of Big Horse Creek is "C Tr +". The "Tr"
denotes trout waters, which is a supplemental classification to protect freshwaters for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. Due to this fact, notification to the
appropriate agencies through a Nationwide 6 Permit is required.
The proposed structure is to be constructed in approximately the same location as the
existing bridge. After removal of the existing interior bent, a new bent will need to be
placed in the stream channel approximately 7 feet east of the existing. Two borings, one
at each end of the interior bent are needed to determine foundation potential. These
borings will use 4-inch diameter casing and extend to a depth of 25 to 50 feet. If hard
rock is encountered, coring will be performed using smaller diameter tools.
The borings will be performed with rubber tired drill rigs or low ground pressure tracked
drill rigs depending on the boring location. All disturbances from the borings will be
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PLB SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
limited to within a 2-foot radius of the boring location. Standard drilling practices provide
for the recirculation of drilling fluid to minimize waste. Total temporary impacts to the
streambed equal 12.56 cubic feet. The geotechnical work will occur in the study corridor
depicted on the attached map.
Because this area is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water, an in stream moratorium
and 25 foot buffers will be in place from November 1 - April 15 to avoid impacts on
trout reproduction.
The NCDOT anticipates that these activities will be authorized by Nationwide Permit No.
6. NCDOT will follow the conditions set by a Nationwide Permit No. 6 and by NCDWQ
Water Quality Certification #3494. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0501 (a), we are
providing two copies of this application to the NCDWQ for their records.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Cheryl Knepp at
[phone]. Thank you in advance for your help in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Njoroge W. Wainaina, State Engineering Geologist, P.E., Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael A. Pettyjohn, P.E.
Mr. Heath Slaughter, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Missy Dickens, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington
NWP 6 Application 2 June 2005

OS
arch
Office Use Only: V5 1 U93* orm ' N
Ci,` p
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. ??9?0
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applica IP?.?
1. Processing
B?
?y
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 6
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: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development & Environmental Anaylysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: gthorpe(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 5 of 13
III. Project Information
5
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 165 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1362
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4015
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Ashe Nearest Town: Tuckerdale
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
Please refer to attached maps.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line,
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): ON
6. Property size (acres): please refer to attached drawings
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Big Horse 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area is largely rural in nature with scattered residents.
attach a sheet that
OW
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of eguibment to be used:
Subsurface geotechnical investigations to be conducted by rubber tired drill rigs or low
ground pressure tracked drill rigs
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To determine foundation potential.
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.
A NWP 23/33 and associated approvals from the NCDWQ will be requested for the replacement
of Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1362.
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: No wetland or stream impacts
will occur with this action. Please see cover letter for more details.
Page 7 of 13
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)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
4. Individually list all intermittent 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 hn act Impact
Length
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0 0
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, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
Page 8 of 13
6. List he cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting itom the project:
Stream Impact (acres):
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres)
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
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.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
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 future bridge structure is to be constructed in approximately the same location as the
existing bridge. After future removal of the existing interior bent, a new bent will need to be
placed in the stream channel approximately 7 feet east of the existing. Two borings, one at each
end of the interior bent are needed to determine foundation potential.
Page 9 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on 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.ne.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed.
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.enr.state.nc.us/wro/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):
Page 10 of 13
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
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
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify. V 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 multivliers.
I L- Impact I I Required
Zone* ,._ c_.? Multiplier
1 I 13 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total I I I
* 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.
Page 11 of 13
3.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all
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. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Enhancement, or Payment into the
appropriate information as identified
Page 12 of 13
BRIDGE SURVEY & HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAY
HYDRAULICS UNIT
RALEIGH, N. C.
I.D. No. __ 215 Project No. __-3-U1 l Proj. Station
?I County Bridge Over Bridge Inv. No.
__
On Highway Between and --- §Y-U(zL
Recommended Structure __1CcD50' 1Q35?-CORED SLAB (21' Ef?TICALgBl?1 I?jS W^_W_
z
m
o Recommended Width of Roadway 4"?? Skew
i Location is (Up At, own Stream from Existing Crossing
01 Nearest Shipping Point I on _ -tL(2R1QLK & ?Ql?TF1ERN? R.R., Miles From Bridge
mI Bench Mark is BM. 1 _RR SPIKE IN 8" MAPLE- -BL- STA-12+48--?3'RT
0
z
0
i
z
c
m
v?
v
M
i
i
Y1
wl
w
J
U1
w
N
(W'
lj
01
Fn
E
v
m
N
Elev. _2.LIL45___ft Datum: _kiCA12-23._ ._-
Temporary Crossing _P§IRL_
Designed by: _ _ SUr1QATE 12LSIGN GROUP EA----- -
Assisted by: _ _ EEE JGD-Whig! _
Project Engineer.. _ _ _YLLUNRY v ELL R
Reviewed & Approved by: _. _ _. _vl?. (CfDate ?L CA R 0 Jr
?ijk g ? ?,Z,2

if
' y9
FF.SS/O
SEAL r-=
9334
Gi N

G R A Y S O N 39 /
?Y C U N T Y o'+
,r
214 '
318 5 333 36
.3s.506. _ saL _ . 69 194 4
?` ~ ? ?.^?? SaP. 4 6b d I q.• _ ' ?^ . 17Z! 5 Q
r •..?5 2 3 ! 3,41 '?f 15 317 .- ;, , lnl
422 •41?<.r q ?? 7
MLVi.w .• 17T3 1.35 l7a Is ,
BdnA 1731 ?: Midi j i; I tlt. H.
421?r < '1 nl? "" w? ` ?• 483 s sia/
388. 17L `? v ' L v28
241
. sroywn 1.9 1772 ; !.0 L.. Appk " x...1.7 11U- 'Y e ? d 36
?' 258 w • > G 1327 1 20
1777 ° o : ?1l?1! I17f
`o 3 . v V;%
Ism 7d t 76=i liifj?7 p'1 s T 9t ? ? "? ?? j)
Q2 17452--s- a •' u
45?
t?32? 172 •LI 30 <p
17lP .,
3
1327 3 6.._ L=M Pl.e.ant j" .il.,. ? n2s o .e 171! ? .4
399 a 191 ?.?? toll
• `
t ' '•0 90
%i: 137! ! 177: 1522 ' T lu7
87 62 173! 131z l7s!
°`
IIA
tl v 121: PC#.It 3 it44 , , tt' 1
:` 339 326 0 C., qh.W F 478 1QL
r m
712 1313 3 tr un `°""' ,3• • ro J. j J17 1.p 8 I '
j A r 1 17!f e O
n1! 't,,i. .e ! I 1 ? 2
I u 1 354 s o °
64? ` 26 ;, . •, nil IU ?'f ? '1! 4 e L nu Oak Jim
` ,.
1.9 Rot" 63 ?s O.1 E: a
1711 58 1212 17!! 3 °? ?? 20 PHOENa 1 ,? 1 $77
Parlw f 1214 ??? 2G8 '• 173 '4 w ti, MM
.im..amol 189 44 h4
285 I,., '
5 o.nd ee x-457
137 342
13? 130 4 275 449 94 57 I!1='7 ? .P
1`49 ,?_, s X13 "1191 44
• • lat7 l I7ai 'p ? S? r: Id
117 A.hlond ,? n 1 4? II? Ilt_. ?? ? ? . a
59 '480 7 474 ea
,r. 8 3`" \ I. IP] tsoN -0
1722 ?.9 POP. 1.08 7
Mt. Paddy a P? s d P4
y i vu 187 !°• .t•• :r:4
?? • 2 v b '?r.P a '•? ?? ° Saalh jP ?;''°"' •.• ::? • -
till. S 4 3 L • ' rv
Sfd TP.. .? ?l o b J • LSIi
18 350 TOP = 3 Y 3 J
1.3 PAS Itm gs772 1177 !r fem.? '? v
51
1245 s> ?;'? .t
,? ? t E PEAK d„n 1.
TH
-.--? 1? 246 •> 5 2 6uffab , > =7 Mr. JEFFERSON '
1123 MTM' a
1EFFEWOh
tk r? ?u. POPA 2 ~1132 1
?•.. G ' ? i3 u ?U
173 OVe '41; ;?? 16 I
3 s ..a•.. 11,1 s
93 q nn
6 t ?2i f 2 N InI ?.+ as.e I]1P
328 11,4 . ?r
4p 329 ?>+, IIt1 ,? 1. ?R,y .'7u JIM
d ros 7 1U4 d 4 Tudwdale !. v.P 371 72 Y 2.7 12?± ti
?lyl1 h ,dam r k
174
11l7
?? u '' 2126 5 J ;34517
L 11 ?-
?' 174! lIi Saw.rk.
1 n 1143
173 ' e ` J82 13 24 f n'
r v
rod ?. t L•' '5.*A Ch
f I 1L'
fft
OWOra 2
0
TUCKERDALE 7d, , 11 .. 11Zt 2.2
11LL0 ;t a 1>37 } .113
355
.? CP..k r
- ` Y ,e y 1111 /,! rk»nropd
Y O
u 14 1,'= ,:R flats, , 1+2?
a !z
\\ ,1.•17 261 11 16"510J1 ? ? 120 ? Lp 1111 -
,.z 125 _, i
?? ? v?\??•; -.?? r .y ?? ??\ ? ? J ?`? ? ? `? ? Off/
:E
J
77
\j -I\v hk 32'
(\ 1 n' J
_"'??? \,,` ?' `? (•i„?-,??? i i ??? ???t 1 `l !?' do a; Yea
?Q•? M? \I\` ? ' _...\ In ? `C• ? ? ? `I
ti)
\? (.-? ? 2 ?i' '-_: ?? ; // ? 4043
3400 ? ,??_\ ?
l `? o duck a? ?' ?f\
\j \j

H `
4042
??.??? 'fir ? ??'\ .. ? i ?. \ l(???•
FEI
L;z J
? rte' ?' ? Ljl l r.,° J ?_

D
co O
O io f

O co
a
Mro0
z CJ U)
u II u
° W
1- a w>
U
W Q

o ?
rr,
LL
w-l
a
O
w
M N O
F v /- vi
W N 0+r
[O {Y MN
1 N LL ,.. j
z J J Z K W
HF
wNw oV)
Q?) Wm
z
w to
U40
v L,
aM(L
1i-;w
Jao
J)<
HOW
1>_ f
1

i +1
I ti
I N
{ J
w
{
{
1
1
1
1
i
1
1 +I
1 0
I N
rr
1 N
1 W
f
Wd
_
K
V)
0
N Z
HO
V) -C
J a
U L)
ZX
? W
M
H NW
1 w xH
1 ea
1 =w
1
1
N
vi
NXI, \ W
m
zI
a
a
z
d
N
N
1-
z
W
co
0
z
W

?
N H H N
J
W W
H. W
Z Lr: { N
V)
a
WWI

>?Ir {

W
N {

V
? =
LiJ
a3 W
i
m
{
{
{ I
{ J
{ 1
al 1 o
x
w {
z

w J
W ; co Q
+1
{
o z
j ~ O

I - --r ----? w H
_ I
-

{ V
W` Q ? W

N
OF '
^
V J
O I N
OJ N VV QNV O
la.N CW 3J0\
W ti
N
?J 00 J
t N
w
w mOti W
1
N II H zL { O
N

WO
F- w

{
{

a {
z {
a
H
44 V)O

' X
W
-4 Z LO f
N N S ?
ma
N N O F- (
y t co
W J mJ t -
M U m Q W N
W J
m f W
2 Zw
~ H co
2
?- N
1 O W ? O
e•-1
N ?
J N z
w
H 1 W W
lL --' - m
1
a ?
F o
w
co C'i
1 N
Z J J
W toW
Q47!I
vz
H
U+O
x Nd
V• W
J~Q
HVI0
4. U
W
aJ
J I O
V1,-5?
Z,D
Z --
O4 + N
a _.
H .4 W
W V)
m
1
0 J
o i
c
+ Q
O
N Q
?tiCh C)
Nm
11 W
T H W>
? a W> Q
O
+1
1 r
I N
IW
?
O
O O
ti ti N ti
N N -f- N N
1 z
1 W
-IC
xw
{ xH 1
{ +I N. a J
1 W O a 1
1 n = F _
N ENV) I- Q
J
W
J 1_-
N. N 1
!S6 Q
w
?Q
+. p =
ivy a L'i O
V1NQmM•"-?MN W
H 1111 11 11 1111 11
aODJF-mVWj?Jry
F
V
Qo
c O N J
+• = a
O F-
?Om01?M?Vto0 'Z
V)n QOM"-mMN Q
H II 11 II 11 II II 11 u
ao0Jl-M9 NH P-j
LL
O
I

wa

%
V)O
HK J
~W
Hm
O

W? N
e• O
N
w
o?
o
0v
O O
O1-
Q" Z
a
I?
V?\
N
Z 1
J
Q I
O v O
V U)
I
rl
ry )
. W .-a C a:
z (n
F- Q Z
o
LLJ
(a- N
T
o Qt'WZLLJ tD
L
Li
?
la-
0: .
Z
Ld
(L
tA 0 IL.LJ V)
V)
==co
'a
F >-
?
W.OO?Z
a
?o Z M

LLI
N CD
H
Lo
F
F
-i
-?
a
CL
o w LLJ Z
W
VN
CL0>
O
3
H
z
J
a
Z H
^J z
IL x
F
O
Z
,v)
W
J
H
a`
O) p)
? r
00
1
? m
m
Q u
o T
F WAIF Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
01 QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
November 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Missy Dickens, P.E.,. Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator G4xyz?
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Ashe County, SR 1362, Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek,
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401,TIP Project B-4015.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced project. Big Horse Creek
(index 10-2-21(4.5); 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 Big Horse Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
¦ The proposed alternatives were not discussed sufficiently in the scoping letter to be able to provide
comments as to the potential environmental impacts of these options. A Natural Systems Technical
Report may be able to provide more insight into the impacts.
¦ 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
diverted through grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device
prior to entering Big Horse Creek.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B
.0124(a)-(d)] prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
¦ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within S 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
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).
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].
r• Tnhn Thnrnnz TT.RA(F Rnlaigh FiaLl Offrra 40
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
y III, ,
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 14, 2002
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUMA TO: Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management life - 161 A
SUBJECT: Ashe County, SR 1362, Replace Bri ge o. 165 over Big Horse Creek,
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401
TIP No. B-4015
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed
improvements to Bridge No. 165 in Ashe County. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2004 and
construction in fiscal year 2005.
The proposed project will consist of replacing the narrow, one-lane, and structurally deficient
bridge with a wider and safer structure on new alignment. Two alternates have been identified for study.
Alternate 1 will consist of a realignment of SR 1362 and a permanent structure located on the upstream
side of the bridge. Alternate 2 will consist of a realignment of SR 1362 and a permanent structure located
on the down-stream side of the bridge. It is anticipated that traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals
which may be required by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally
funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by November 22, 2002 so that your
comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Missy Dickens, P. E., Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 218. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
0 S? 702,

MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
a.is STATFo,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
`,? 0 a.5 @ C rr ,e k.
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
,i
1402
\ 1364.01
1353 '511368
? 1353 \ ti ?
^sm
e9y`. 1367o -- ?' m
d
Bee T?R 1367 S
1362
?y Hill Rd
\ 1353 nd,? °-n om ..?
1324 1366
.` Brandon
Fast4/e yo 62
yo Cleek Ira P ers Rd Tuckerdale
'se' Rd 1353
1334 sk 1324 i
r N
n ?.
33
1 o0y? ' \? a 1 0
0
N 1338 ` Ra 1334 1324 ` Ile
hp e \
e per,
Qa 1324
'1353
1335 ?
1324
'. I AAI-
Virginia
s e Count - --
y
? 9
16 ?n
194 ? 'ate
N 4y
N
C ?
194 ?
221
94
194 O 89 ?
/e 88 S
221
aa?..
9a 221
•, 16
194
G'?y 163
t 194 ?-
221 U
ro:?ec.: ova; _ an • • ,.

? rnGn?%?15 Ray Davis Rd
No
152
F
656
o
t.1S4'152D0.q
'1516
?c^P
PPI
l?
X 1516
o t?? k
ro eo°? 1519 1522
194 P n
`DO&
1518 1516 1,?
a 2
G
73
DISTANCE IN MILES
Ashe County
SR 1362
(BIG HORSE CREEK ROAD)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 165 over
BIG HORSE CREEK
B-4015
Ashe County, North Carolina
PROJECT VICINITY
Figure 1
9 ?

X 1
M`,1P
, W71
Natural Resources Technical Report
of NORTH Z

o
?FNr
OF TRAN se°?
© 7d 2-

Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 165
. Over Big Horse Creek
Ashe County, North Carolina
State Project NO. 8.2712401
NCDOT TIP NO. B-4015
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 165 ON SR 1362
OVER BIG HORSE CREEK
ASHE COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. 8-4015
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2712401
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ -1362(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4015
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BY:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
March 12, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... ...........................................1-1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................... ...........................................1-1
1.2 PURPOSE .................................................................... ...........................................1-1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ......................................................... ...........................................1-1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ...........................................1-2
1.5 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................1-3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS ................................... ............................................ 2-1
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................... ............................................2-1
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics .................... ............................................ 2-1
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ...... ............................................ 2-3
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .......................................................... ............................................ 3-1
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ................................ ............................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community .................. ............................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Oak-Hickory Forest Community .............•..•.... .........••••............................... 3-2
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ..............; .......................... ............................................ 3-2
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ............... 3-3
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................. ............................................ 3-3
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities .................................... ............................................. 3-3
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ............................................................... .............................................4-1
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: JURISDICIONAL ISSUES ........................4-1
4.2 PERMITS ................................................................... .............................................4-1
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition .......................................... .............................................4-2
4.2.2 Mitigation ....................................................... .............................................4-2
4.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ........................ ................. ............................ 4-3
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species ......................... .............................................4-4
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern ......................... ........................................... 4-10
4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................. ........................................... 4-11
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................... .............................................5-1
TABLES
Table 4.3.1 - Federally Protected Species for Ashe County ...................................................... 4-4
Table 4.3.2 - Federal Species of Concern for Ashe County ..................................................... 4-10
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1.1 - Project Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................1-4
Exhibit 1.1.2 - Project Study Area ...............................................................................................1-5
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Photographic Record
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek on SR 1362
in Ashe County, North Carolina (Exhibit 1.1.1).
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical report is 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 report identifies areas of particular concern that may affect the selection of a preferred
alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be
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 parameters and/or
criteria change.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) provided aerial photography detailing
the proposed project study area (Exhibit 1.1.2). 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 (Park);
• Soil Survey of Ashe County, North Carolina (1985);
1-1
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map;
• USFWS list of protected species (March 22, 2001);
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (January 2001);
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photography of the project study
area (1:100); 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 (Exhibit 1.1.2). 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 macroinvertebrates, 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).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Michael P. Eagan
Education: Bachelor of Science Biology, University of South Florida
Prescribed Fire Boss: Florida Division of Forestry No. 19982847
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Stantec, Raleigh, NC, October 2000 to present.
Land Management Specialist, Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Brooksville, FL, 1999 to 2000.
Ecologist, Biological Research Associates, Inc., Tampa, FL, 1991 to 1999.
Expertise: Threatened and Endangered species surveys, natural community
assessment, mapping and management, wetland mitigation design and
monitoring.
1-2
1.5 DEFINITIONS
Definitions used in this report for area descriptions are as follows:
• Project study area - denotes the potential construction area;
• Project vicinity - includes an area extending 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) on all sides of the project
study area;
• Project region - equals an area represented by a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-
minute quadrangle map with the project study area occupying the central position.
1-3
a
0
`QP,? B? Try Rd. ?
S
Bl9 ? 1353 V? 1?? ? 136
Qo. o
AS ,p ? ,p o
gL 0,
0i o o OR
?o wdetso^ Brandon
SR 1
Q
Site Location
Tudcerdale
SR
0
0
?a
--
i _ 8coa OerD ? // / .
. JNOO _ .. ? ?4
? ? , nndersort Ce
$5 em \ 3 -
V . 'Eu
\ - J? Worm
- .vcwe,sL`a

L n. Li1W • I{Wi?? _
Ashe County
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
SR 1362
Replace Bridge No. 165
over Big Hose Leek
B•4015
nshe couny, Nord, Carolina
Project Vicinity
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.1.1
US Geological Survey April 8, 1994
Legend
"'M Maintained-Disturbed Community
Oak-Hickory Forest Community
Aquatic
- - - Project Study Area
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
i
SR 1362
Replace Bridge No 165
over Big Horse Creek
B•4015
Ashe County, North Carolina
Project Study Area
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.1.2/
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 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 2,720 to 3,200 feet (829
to 975 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project study area varies from
approximately 2,720 to 2,800 feet (829 to 853 meters) 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 a loamy subsoil and are found on
uplands at elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet (914 to 1,219 meters). Soil series found within the
project study area are described below.
Colvard fine sandy loam is mapped along the creek. 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.
Edneyville loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes, is mapped on the hillside west of the creek. This soil is
a well-drained soil found on side slopes. Permeability is moderate. Surface runoff is very rapid and
the hazard of erosion is very severe on bare and exposed areas. This mapping unit is not listed on
the hydric soils list.
2.2 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 Big Horse Creek.
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Big Horse Creek flows south through the proposed project study area with a width of approximately
2-1
37 feet (11.3 meters). The flow was moderate on the day of the field investigation. The substrate
consisted of cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt. The depth of the water ranged from a few inches in the
riffles to over two feet (0.6 meters) 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
Big Horse Creek (Index No. 10-2-21-(4.5), 2/1/93) is "C Tr +". Class "C" waters are suitable for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture.
"Tr" denotes trout waters which is 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-11: predominately undeveloped watersheds), or ORW occur within one mile (1.6
kilometers) downstream of the project study area. Big Horse Creek is listed as HQW upstream 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 in or directly upstream from the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no defined
point of discharge. Stormwater runoff from SR 1362 and the surrounding residential properties may
reach Big Horse Creek 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 on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPTS)
is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data
2-2
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 have a sampling station at Big Horse Creek at the project
site. The station was last sampled in March 1990 and received a rating of Good-Fair.
2.2.2 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;
• 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 should be strictly enforced
2-3
during the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities and revegetating stream
banks immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts.
2-4
3.0 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.
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are maintained/disturbed
and oak-hickory forest. 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.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes the road shoulders, power line right-of-ways, and the
overgrown field and dirt road 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 (Lolium sp.), red clover (Trifolium pratense),
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), thistle (Cirsium sp.), aster (Astersp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum bilforum), milkweed (Asclepias
sp.), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), phlox (Phlox sp.),
sneezeweed (He/enium autumnale), fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata), Oswego tea (Monarda
didyma), Turk's cap lily (Lilium superbum), soapwort (Saponaria officinalis), and plantain (Plantago
sp.).
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
3-1

and dead faunal components. A Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), Carolina Chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), Eastern Meadowlark (Stumella magna), Fox
Sparrow (Passerella iliaca), and Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 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.
3.1.2 Oak-Hickory Forest Community
This community is found along the hillside west of Big Horse Creek. The canopy layer includes
white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), tulip
poplar (Lidodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia).
The understory consists of dogwood (Cornus florida) and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). The
herbaceous layer includes miterwort (Mitella diphylla), violet (Viola sp.), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.).
Red-bellied Woodpeckers (Melanerpes carolinus) were observed in the area during the site visit.
Other species which may reside or forage in these areas include Downy Woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), Eastern Screech-owl (Otus asio), White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),
American toad (Bufo americanus), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), Southern flying
squirrel (Glaucomys volans), and Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
The aquatic community in the project study area includes Big Horse Creek. The vegetation along
the east bank of the creek (along SR 1362) is dominated by tree species such as sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), yellow birch (Betula lutea), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia), and yellow buckeye (Aescu/us octandra). Rhododendron (Rhododendron
sp.) is found along a steep, rocky portion of the east bank while black willow (Salix nigra) and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) area scattered along both banks. The west bank of the creek
is dominated by the weedy herbaceous species mentioned above in the maintained/disturbed
community. Stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and water
pennies.(Coleoptera) were found under stones and logs in the creek.
3-2

According to Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC), Big Horse Creek contains wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) and
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
3.3 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. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The maintained/disturbed and oak-hickory forest communities serve 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.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic community of Big Horse Creek will result from the replacement of Bridge No.
165. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitat. Activities such as
the removal of trees, as well 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.
3-3

4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 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 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the 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.
4.2 PERMITS
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from
the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States".
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 fumished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
4-1
IN
A Nationwide Permit 33 will be required if an on-site temporary detour is needed during construction
of. Bridge No. 165. This permit authorizes temporary structures, work and discharges, including
cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills or dewatering of construction sites;
provided the associated primary activity is authorized by the USACE or the U.S. Coast Guard, or
for other construction activities not subject to the USACE or U.S. Coast Guard regulations.
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.
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The removal of the substructure may create some disturbance in the streambed. Conditions in the
stream will raise sediment concerns since the substrate contains silt; therefore, a turbidity curtain
is recommended.
According to comments received from Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for
the NCWRC, Big Horse Creek is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and classified as
Hatchery Supported by the NCWRC. As stated previously (Section 3.2), wild brown trout and
rainbow trout are found in this stream; therefore, instream construction is prohibited from November
1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
4.2.2 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
4-2
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 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 permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts, which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters
of the United States. 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 acres (0.2 hectares) of wetlands and/or
300 linear feet (91.4 meters) of streams.
4.3 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.
4-3
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists seven federally protected species for
Ashe County as of the March 22, 2001 listing (Table 4.3.1).
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 4.3.1
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR ASHE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
(Common Name) ,
Clemmys 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).
4-4
Clemmys muhlenbergii
(Bog turtle)
Emydidae
T(S/A)
Family:
Date Listed:
November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small [three to 4.5 inches (7.6 to 11.4 centimeters)] semi-aquatic 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: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Spreading avens is a perennial herb topped with an indefinite cyme 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 (20 to 51 centimeters) 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, 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 (1,676 meters ) 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.
4-5
No habitat is located in the project study area for this species; the project study area is
approximately 2,960 feet (902 meters) 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, which 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 (20 to 89 centimeters) during flowering and up to five feet (1.5
meters) 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 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
4-6
Houstonia montana (Roan mountain bluet) E
Family: Rubiaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Roan mountain bluet is a perennial herb with erect or ascending, unbranched or weakly terminally
branched stems up to 8.5 inches (21 centimeters) 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 (1,280 to 1,920 meters)] 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 (902 meters) 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 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 (41 centimeters) in height
and are topped by a showy spike of lavender flowers [three to eight inches (eight to 20 centimeters)
long], which are present from July through September. Fruits are present from September through
October.
4-7
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 (805 meters) 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
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) T
Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: June 15, 1990
Virginia spiraea is a shrub growing from two to 10 feet (0.6 to three meters) tall with arching,
upright stems and cream-colored flowers. The leaves are alternate and of different sizes and
shapes. The flowers are found on branched and.flat-topped axes. Spiraea spreads clonally and
forms dense clumps that spread in rock crevices and around boulders.
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 plant's colonization of new sites. The bedrock underlying spiraea 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 woody vine associates including fox grape (Vids 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 (Alnus serrulata), and shrubby yellowroot
(Xanthon-hiza simplicissima).
Habitat does exist in the project study area along Big Horse Creek for this species. A survey was
4-8
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 species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed
project will not impact Virginia spiraea.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) E
Family: Cladoniaceae
Date Listed: 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 bome
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 (1,524 meters).
Habitat does not exist in the project study area for this species; the project study area is
approximately 2,960 feet (902 meters) 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
4-9
4.3.2 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 4.3.2
includes listed FSC species for Ashe County and their state classifications (January 2001).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats showed no recorded
occurrences of any FSC species in the project vicinity.
TABLE 4.3.2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR ASHE COUNTY

' -
Scientific Name tat
Hab
, rs t
(Common Name) Caraiina t?
` { -
tRs?at
?

t
? Statt?s??d z >X? ?-
< - - tiff y
- -z.C :r„ter
Thryomanes 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)
Stenelmis gammoni SR No
Gammon's stenelmis riffle beetle
Lasmigona subviridus E Yes
Green floater
Ophiogomphus howei N
SR o
(Pygmy snaketail)
4-10
Korth z

ScientrficName ; a
'
'Car blrna Y ?Habitiat
?r

ts g
i P
4Gcrpmori Name) Status rese
.

Speyeria idalta* SR No
(Regal fritillary butterfly)
Gymnocarpium appalachianum E No
(Appalachian oak fem
Poa paludigena E No
Bo bluegrass)
Juglans cinerea W5 No
Butternut
Saxifraga caroliniana C No
Carolina saxifrage)
Euphorbia purpurea C No
Gladespurge)
Lilium grayi T-SC -No
(Gray's lily)
Delphinium exaltatum E-SC No
all larkspur)
Cladonia psoromica C No
(Bluff Mountain reindeer lichen)
NOTES:
C
Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation

E action is recommended).
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 - the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago (USFWS)
4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the project 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
4-11
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.
4-12

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.
Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
Hemmerly, Thomas E. 2000. Appalachian Wildflowers. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Justice, W. S. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Wild Flowers of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginias. University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000.
5-1
New River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1985. Soil, Survey of Ashe
County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States,(The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred
Knopf Publishing, New York, New York

5-2
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Photographic Record
B-4015
Photo #1: Bridge No. 165 facing north.
Photo #2: Bridge No. 165 facing south.
B-4015
Photo #3: Big Horse Creek facing upstream.
Photo #4: Big Horse Creek facing downstream towards the bridge.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Pn ODE EWIRA"U
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT IM
EC vet,
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Fish Far. 1140?PPE'I'I'?
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 18, 2004
Bin
5&W irns;'spsarirrg -
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P. E., Manager Hod Aram -
Program Development Branch ?stlrlrlt
Beauttfl?ifon
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project.Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion for Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362
(Big Horse Creek Road) over Big Horse Creek, Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401,
WBS 33383.1.1, TIP Project B-4015
Attached are three copies of the subject report, including 2 copies for your files and
1 copy for distribution to FHWA. No significant adverse environmental effects are expected as a
result of the project; therefore, no other distribution of the report is necessary.
GJT/plr
Attachment
cc/atta: Ms. Deborah M. Barbour
Mr. Art McMillan
Mr. Jay A. Bennett (2 copies)
Mr. Greg Perfetti (2 copies)
Mr. J. V. Barbour
Mr. D: R. Henderson
Mr. Njoroge Wainaina (2 copies)
Mr. Charles W. Brown (3 copies)
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr. (3 copies)
Mr. E. C. Powell, Jr.
Mr. Don G. Lee
Mr. Troy A. Peoples (3 copies)
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. Mike Bruff

Mr. William H. Williams, Jr.
Mr. Tom Norman
Mr. M. A. Pettyjohn (3 copies)
Mr. C. O. Wiggins, Jr.
Mr. Doug Lane
N. C. State Publications Clearinghouse (10 copies)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
Ashe County
SR 1362(Big Horse Creek Road)
Bridge No. 165 Over Big Horse Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1362 (1)
State Project 8.2712401
WBS 33383.1.1
TIP Project B-4015
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Approved:
D te: Gregory . Thorpe, Pi. D., E vironmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ate . John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA
r
f
.J

I

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 18, 2002
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dome
NC Divisio>z, f Wat r uaiity, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality, 4W Unit
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B-4037, B-4076, B-4116, B-4016,
B-4052,8-405,_, B-4013, B-4012,E-4011, B-4202, B-4199,
B-4196, B-4195, B-4322, B-4317, B-4316, B-4285, & B-4028.
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 (15ANCAC 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
mil-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]
Y
u?
J
n
OF Wq7- r overnor
W 3cretary
\O? OG North Carolina Department of Environn sources
7 A Director
Quality
November 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
M FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Ctx?
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Ashe County, SR 1362, Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek,
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401,TIP Project B-4015.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced project. Big Horse Creek
(index 10-2-21(4.5); 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 Big Horse Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
¦ The proposed alternatives were not discussed sufficiently in the scoping letter to be able to provide
comments as to the potential environmental impacts of these options. A Natural Systems Technical
Report may be able to provide more insight into the impacts.

¦ 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 V
diverted through grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device
prior to entering Big Horse Creek.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B /
.0124(a)-(d)],prior to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
¦ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within S 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
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.pdO.
401 W
f
ater
a §
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance o
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].
'
F Ri1Pigh FiPlrf flffirP
Pr Tnhn Thmmac TT4AC

Unit
ti
tifi
th C
li
Di
i
i
f ?L. [JE14I
,
on
ca
aro
na
v
Nor
s
on o
Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Cer
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA tiOANDE EWIROU Wh"1ALUDC
Unit Heat!
DEPART OF TRANSPORTATIOWil Ze ._..
EC ear Veg.
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Maid fir. S} ?p
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 18, 2004 _? ,, 9? %1014
S&W r imoadm
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P. E., Manager Hod Area` - --
Program Development Branch tt?r fit'
genut?ica?on
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project.Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion for Bridge No. 165 on SR 1362
(Big Horse Creek Road) over Big Horse Creek, Ashe County,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401,
WBS 33383.1.1, TIP Project B-4015
Attached are three copies of the subject report, including 2 copies for your files and
1 copy for distribution to FHWA. No significant adverse environmental effects are expected as a
result of the project; therefore, no other distribution of the report is necessary.
GJT/plr
Attachment
cc/atta: Ms. Deborah M. Barbour
Mr. Art McMillan
Mr. Jay A. Bennett (2 copies)
Mr. Greg Perfetti (2 copies)
Mr. J. V. Barbour
Mr. D. R. Henderson
Mr. Njoroge Wainaina (2 copies)
Mr. Charles W. Brown (3 copies)
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr. (3 copies)
Mr. E. C. Powell, Jr.
Mr. Don G. Lee
Mr. Troy A. Peoples (3 copies)
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. Mike Bruff
Mr. William H. Williams, Jr.
Mr. Tom Norman
Mr. M. A. Pettyjohn (3 copies)
Mr. C. O. Wiggins, Jr.
44
Mr. Doug Lane
N. C. State Publications Clearinghouse (10 copies)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
VmH3 `IOW.IjSIUILUpV uOISIAIQ
III `uuntllnS •3 uIIOf J
gouu.zg sisXjnuV Iuluou-mo.iinug pup juoT-udojanaQ joafojd
.zojoaJlCj Ju0uz02VU'eW 1V}uauzu0.zin g `•Q - I `odzogL kro2aao-:V
uoijujaodsuu.islo;uatupvdaQ au
pun
uoPu.llslutuipV Svmg2lH inaapad
uoi;uj.aodsun.is, jo juatupudaQ SIl
uoisniax:l juai.102a;ua
SIOt-g oafo.ld JuL
I'I'£8£££ SUM
IOKILZ-813afoad OMS
(I) Z9£I-zuu laa fold mv-lwapaa
V31D OSIOH 21R .10A0 S9I 'ON a2pi.Ig
(puoH 310a.13 as.zoH 21g)Z9£I HS
aI' OIL,

:pano.zddV
,?4unoa agsV

J

w

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Alan Klimek, Director
June 18, 2002
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Memorandum To: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Through: John Dome b
NC Divisio>;1, f Wat . r uality, 401 Unit
From: Robert Ridings
NC Division of Water Quality, 40° Unit
Subject: Review of Natural Systems Technical Reports for bridge
replacement projects scheduled for construction in CFY 2005:
"Yellow Light" Projects: B-4037, B-4076, B-4116, B-4016,
B-4052"13401
, B-4013, B-4012, B-4011, B-4202, B-4199,
B-4196, B-4195, B-4322, B-4317, B-4316, B-4285, & B-4028.
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
§?hin 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]

F w A rF r ovemor
Q R W :cretary
O? ?G North Carolina Department of Environn sources
Uj 7 A Director
Quality
November 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Cf_?
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Ashe County, SR 1362, Bridge No. 165 over Big Horse Creek,
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1362(1), State Project No. 8.2712401,TIP Project B-4015.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced project. Big Horse Creek
(index 10-2-21(4.5); 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 Big Horse Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
¦ The proposed alternatives were not discussed sufficiently in the scoping letter to be able to provide
comments as to the potential environmental impacts of these options. A Natural Systems Technical
Report may be able to provide more insight into the impacts.
• 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
diverted through grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device
prior to entering Big Horse Creek.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B
.0124(a)-(d)] prior to any ground-disturbing activities to, minimize impacts to downstream aquatic
resources.
¦ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within S 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
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)
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].
VXF
nr• Tnhn Thnmnq1JRAC'F Rn1Piah FiPlrl (lffirP - - - -- ?_?
?lCUEtiI
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr,state.nc.us/ncwetiands/