19920049 Ver al_Complete File_19920214

SrATp °
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALI-TY SFCTION
February 1.4, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Ferrell
401 Certifications
Ann B. Orr
Regional Manager
THROUGH: Forrest R. Westall
Regional Water Quality Supervisor
FROM: Michael R. Parizer o 1
Environmental Specialist.
SUBJECT: DOT Bridge Replacement.
NCSR 1338 and NCSR. 1-3.19•
State Project No. 8 . 2880301,
Mitchell and Yancey Count:i e
I have received a copy of a letter from Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., N. C.
Department: of Transportation to the Corps of Engineers advising that this
project is being processed by the Federal. Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" and are proposing to proceed with construction
under a Nationwide Permit.
I strongly object to the N. C. Department of Transportation's
position on this matter and in accordance with the Department of Army,
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers, General Permit, Action I. D.
Number. 198200031 1. b. and c., the Department of. Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources may have need to review the project if determined by
the Corps Area. Coordinator.
The North '.Coe River is classi f.ied as Class C--Trout waters in. this
section of the river. Based on past. c?xper_ienc::e with Department of
Transportati.on projects it will be necessnty, for the Division of
Environmental Management, well. as otlir-r agencies, to review the
proposed project to ensure that. Water Quality of the North Toe River will.
be protected during construction acti.vi.t-AeF.
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Fmplover

Ron Ferrell Memo
February 14, 1992
Page Two
Based on our experience, the DOT does not provide the necessary
controls or manage construction contractors well enough to protect Water
Quality without input from this Agency and periodic on-site review of
construction activities. Again, I object to issuance of the Notice to
Proceed from the Corps of Engineers without review of the proposed
project by this Division.
If you have questions, please call. me at 704/251-6208.
xc: Bob Johnson, COE
GJ
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CARO ,f`?fA? wl?y
DEPART MENT OF TRANSPORT A71ON
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201 f<r.
E' D I

OF HIGHWAYS
January 16, 1992 "-"-' 'WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
?z
, I ' 1992
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
y. -
Dear Sir:
Subject: Yancey and Mitchell Counties, Bridge No. 78 on SR 1338- SR 1314
over the North Toe River, State Project 8.2880301, Federal
Project BRZ-1338(1), TIP Project B-2081
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with Section 330.5(a)(23) of the Interim Final Rule for
Regulatory Programs issued July 22, 1982, by the Corps of Engineers. The
provisions of Section 330.5(b) and 330.6 of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
;? - V• V.011 DM
L. J. ard, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
o Attachme
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
e'`.. STATF
I,
nt
John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Charles Wakild, Environmental Management, w/report
C. W. Leggett, P. E.
J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
W. D. Smart
An Equal Opportunity/ Atli rmative Action Employer
Yancey and Mitch
Bridge No. 78 on SR
over the North
State Project
Federal Project
TIP Project
all Counties
1338 - SR 1314
Toe River
8.2880301
BRZ-1338(1)
B-2081
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
to L. J. Ward, P. E., Mana r
Planning and Environmental Branch
i?
12 Date Nic s L. Graf, P. E.
f`fK Division Administrator, FHWA
Yancey and Mitchell Counties
Bridge No. 78 on SR 1338 - SR 1314
over the North Toe River
State Project 8.2880301
Federal Project BRZ-1338(1)
TIP Project B-2081
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER, 1991
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:

Ed Lewi s
Project Planning Engineer
ee-E-Tijottli CAR 0(
Waynt •.
Bridge Project Pla Wing Engi a Unit Head =.. ?? ?'q?• ,=
• SEAL
• t 7754 ?
H
. an l in Vick ?'•?,n`???NEE..?,?
'"P
P. E., Assistant Manager.
' ''•••••r' C ?.•'
Planning and Environmental Branch '%gNXIIil `l? .
Yancey and Mitch
Bridge No. 78 on SR
over the North
State Project
Federal Project
TIP Project
all Counties
1338 - SR 1314
Toe River
8.2880301
BRZ-1338(1)
B-2081
I. STATUS OF PROJECT
The project was included in the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. The TIP funding for this
project is estimated at $969,000 which includes $19,000 for right-of-way
and $950,000 for construction. The current estimated cost for this
project is $1,376,000 which includes $46,000 for right-of-way and
$1,330,000 for construction.
Bridge Number 78 is situated on the North Toe River which divides
Yancey and Mitchell counties (see Figure 1). The sufficiency rating index
for the existing structure is 26.1 compared to 100.0 for a new structure.
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not anticipated
this project will have a significant detrimental effect on the human
environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in
route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable to
the project.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. Approximately 0.1 acres of wetlands will be
disrupted by the project. Best management practices will be utilized to
minimize these impacts. An archaeological site which might be impacted
could be eligible for the National Register.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Structure
Bridge Number 78 was built in 1969. It has a clear roadway width of
11.0 feet and a structure length of 306 feet. The bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 26.1 and an estimated remaining life of 10 years.
The bridge is currently posted for 8 tons for SV and 11 tons for TTST.
Since the bridge is a one-lane two-way structure, motorists must first
look to insure the bridge is clear of oncoming traffic before they proceed
to cross. During periods of limited visibility, such as dense fog,
flashing yellow signals warn motorists that the bridge is closed. No
school buses cross the bridge.
2
B. Roadways
SR 1338 approaches the bridge from Yancey County. SR 1338 is not a "
part of the Federal-Aid System. It is classified as a rural minor
collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The roadway
has 20 feet of pavement, and the shoulder widths are approximately 3 feet.
The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour. It has an existing
right-of-way width of 30 feet, and there is no control of access.
Motorists traveling to Mitchell County must slow down and maneuver through
a sharp 90 degree turn in order to cross the bridge.
SR 1314 approaches the bridge from Mitchell County. SR 1314 is not a
part of the Federal-Aid System. It is classified as a rural minor
collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The roadway
has 20 feet of pavement, and the shoulder widths are approximately 1 foot.
The posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour. It has an existing
right-of-way width of 30 feet, and there is no control of access.
Motorists traveling to Yancey County must slow down and maneuver through a
sharp 90 degree turn and an at-grade crossing with the CSX Railway in
order to cross the bridge.
C. Railways
Railroad Crossing Number 244 150H is located in the town of Relief
where a one-track CSX rail line crosses SR 1314 immediately east of Bridge
Number 78 (see Figure 2). No protective device other than advance warning
crossbuck signs are at the existing crossing. The train volume for this
crossing is 12 trains per day, and the maximum train speed in this area is
25 miles per hour. There is also a defect detector system in place on the
railroad just north of the bridge.
D. Traffic Volume
The existing average daily traffic crossing the bridge is 800
vehicles per day (vpd). The design hourly volume (DHV) is 10%, and trucks
constitute 4% of the total traffic. The projected average daily traffic
crossing the bridge in the design year (2011) is estimated to be 1400 vpd.
E. Accident Study
One accident occurred near the bridge during a recent four year
period, July 1986 through June 1990. A truck heading east crossed the
railroad tracks and struck a passenger vehicle head-on waiting to make a
left turn onto SR 1315. No train related accidents occurred at the
crossing.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed project calls for replacing the existing structure south
of its present location (see Figure 2, Alternative 3). A 28-foot clear
width structure, consisting of a 22-foot roadway with 3-foot paved
shoulders, will be required according to current design policy. The
proposed structure, to be built on a skewed alignment, will be 515 feet
3
long. The roadway approaches to the bridge will require some minor
relocation due to the proposed design speed of 40 miles per hour. A
design execption will need to be requsted for the proposed 40 mph design
speed, and advisory signing is warranted. The roadway approaches will
have 22 feet of pavement with 6-foot shoulders.
Alternative 3 is the only alignment that provides an acceptable
design speed. Traffic will be allowed to maintain a more uniform speed
through the project area. The recommended alternative will also best
serve the future traffic increase in this area.
The CSX crossing of SR 1314 will remain an at-grade crossing with
gates and flashing light signals provided to warn motorists of approaching
trains. The calculated exposure index, obtained by multiplying the design
year ADT (1400 vpd in the year 2011) by the number of trains per day (10
to 12), is 14,000 to 16,800. Based on guidelines for new construction
involving railroad crossings, a grade separation would normally be
provided in rural areas with an exposure index of 15,000 or more.
However, in this case a grade separation is not warranted because the
exposure index barely meets the minimum criteria, and the costs associated
with raising the grade of the roadway to obtain the required vertical
clearance over the railroad tracks is excessive. Gates and flashing light
signals are required if the exposure index is greater than 3,000. The
gates and flashing light signals are warranted since the minimum required
exposure index of 3,000 is easily surpassed.
Additional right-of-way along SR 1314 and SR 1338 will be required in
order to construct the proposed improvements. The estimated construction
cost for the project is $1,330,000, which includes the cost of the
proposed structure, signing and signals, traffic control and the
relocation of the approaches. Additional right-of-way to be required will
cost an estimated $46,000, which gives a total project cost of $1,376,000.
V. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to replace an obsolete bridge having
poorly aligned approaches with a new structure. The new structure will be
wider and longer and will cross the North Toe River on a skewed alignment.
The proposed approaches will be constructed at a higher design speed in
order to allow motorists to maintain a constant speed as they travel
through the project area (see Figure 2).
4
VI. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Three replacement alternatives were considered for Bridge Number 78
over the North Toe River. Also considered was the "no-build" alternative.
Each of the replacement alternatives considered utilize a slightly longer
bridge than the existing structure and a clear roadway width of 28 feet.
The roadway approaches should consist of a 22-foot pavement with 6-foot
useable shoulders. The following is a breakdown of each alternative.
The "no-build" alternative would avoid the negative impacts of the
proposed project, such as the disruption of the environment. However,
benefits of the proposed action, such as the potential for the improved
crossing of the North Toe River, would also be eliminated. The long term
benefits resulting from the replacement of the bridge crossing of the
North Toe River will more than compensate for any unavoidable adverse
impacts. In addition, replacement is recommended due to the structure's
age, deteriorating condition, and obsolete design. Finally, the amount of
traffic service provided by the bridge would not permit permanent closure
of the crossing. Consequently, a "no-build" decision is not considered
feasible and it is not recommended.
Alternative 1 calls for constructing a new structure of 350 feet long
south of and parallel to Bridge Number 78 (see Figure 2). This
alternative would require minimal approach work. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. The
installation of flashing warning lights and gates at the crossing of the
CSX Railroad would be required. This alternative does not improve the
existing roadway alignment. This alternative impacts the archaeological
site south of the bridge.
Alternative 2 calls for constructing a new structure 440 feet long
south of Bridge Number 78 on a skewed alignment across the North Toe River
(see Figure 2). This alternative would require approximately 500 feet of
approach work. Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure
during construction. The installation of flashing warning lights and
gates at the crossing of the CSX Railroad would be required. This
alternative slightly improves the existing roadway alignment, however, the
design speed is 20 mph. This alternative impacts the archaeological site
south of the bridge.
Alternative 3 (Recommended) calls for constructing a new structure
515 feet ong south of Bridge Number 78 on a skewed alignment across the
North Toe River (see Figure 2). The design speed would be 40 mph.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
This alternative would require approximately 1500 feet of approach work.
The installation of flashing warning lights and gates at the crossing of
the CSX Railroad would be required. This alternative would have the
least impact on the archaeological site south of the bridge, and may not
affect any significant resources at all.
No other construction alternatives were studied. The recommended
alternative is considered to be the most feasible means of providing an
improved crossing of the North Toe River.
5

VII. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
Alt. 1 Alt. 2
Structure $524,000 $ 659,000
Roadway Ap- $134,000 $ 131,000
proaches
R/R Gates & $ 90,000 $ 90,000
Flashing
Structure $ 28,000 $ 28,000
Removal
Engineering $103,000 $ 123,000
& Conti-
gencies
Right-of-Way, $ 44,000 $ 40,000
Utilities
Total $923,000 $ 1,071,000
(Recommended)
Alt. 3
$ 803,000
$ 236,000
$ 90,000
$ 28,000
$ 173,000
$ 46,000
$1,376,000
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Natural and Ecological Resources
1. Plant Communities
a. Uplands
Upland communities likely to be impacted by the proposed
project are either man-dominated agricultural and roadside
zones, or fringe areas along the upper reaches of the
floodplain. On the Mitchell County side of the river this
floodplain is broad, ranging up to 100 feet wide, while on the
Yancey County side a narrow fringe lies in an area which is
frequently flooded. The slopes leading down from the railbed
and the roadbed on the Mitchell County side of the river are
heavily vegetated with early successional plants. For
convenience, these upland areas will be referred to as
Fringe/Slope Communities.
Widening and realignment of the approaches leading to the
bridge will impact parcels which are mostly residential and/or
agricultural. At least two agricultural fields and a
6
residential site may be impacted on the Mitchell County side,
while on the Yancey County side three agricultural fields and a
residential site may be impacted.
Predominant vegetation varies at each impacted site, but
lawns, pastured areas, and roadside shoulders and slopes have
tall fescues/creeping fescues/chewing fescues Festuca spp.) and
bluegrasses Poa spp.), or combinations of these as
groundcovers. Other planted areas include zones of ornamental
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plantings associated with
fencerows and fringe areas adjacent to the existing roadbeds.
These plantings include black walnut Ju lans ni ra , Canadien
hemlock Tsu a canadensis), sycamore Platanu occidentalis),
redbud, (Cercis canadensis), black locust (Robinia
psuedo-acacia), tag alder Alnus serrulata), sumac Rhus sp. ,
muscadine grape Vitis rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Joe pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum),
black erry Rubus spp.), and horsetail (Equisetum h emale .
This last plant occurs in dense stands along the toe and fill
slopes of the railroad bed.
Very few woody species are located in the upland zone on
either side of the river. Balm of Gilead Po ulus candicans)
and black walnut Ju lans ni ra are the only woody species
sighted in the upland impact zones. Among the more abundant
herbaceous plants in these areas are Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica), cranesbill (Geraniuma carolinianum),
bedstraw Galium triflorum), wild onion Allium sp.), chickweed
Stellaria media)-, henbit Lamium er ureum , rasp erry Rubus
0 oratus mul ein Verbascum tha sus , milkweed (Asclepias
s. , blackberry Rubus spp.), princess feather (Polygonum
orientale), sheep-sorrel Rumex cris us , pokeberry (Phytolacca
americana), and dicentra Dicentra cucullaria). Princess
feather was observed on both sides of the river, where it grows
in profuse colonies 4 to 6 feet high.
b. Wetlands
Wetlands are variously defined, but ecologically, they tend
to be ecotones, or transitional areas between uplands and deeper
water systems. These areas can be important to wildlife and,
depending on individual attributes, can serve to buffer flood
flow and remove pollutants from surface waters.
Two relatively small wetland areas are located at the
project site. On the Mitchell County side, wetlands occur from
near the toe of the river gorge to the river's edge. This
alluvial floodplain is covered with newly-deposited silt from
periodic floodflow activity. On the Yancey County side, the
wetland is limited to a narrow fringe along the river's edge.
Only a few trees occur in these areas, mostly sycamore,
cottonwood Po ul s deltoidus), balm of Gilead and black willow
Salix ni ra . ther woody plants in this community winclude
wetland dogwood ornus amomum , and silky willow (S. sericea).
The herbaceous ve etation stratum includes common rush Juncus)
and woolrush Scir us species, as well as, cattail T ha
latifolia) and a'se nettle Boehmeria cylindrica).
C. Anticipated Ilmpacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated Impacts to both upland and wetland plant
communities are considered relatively minor. The only sites
which should receive direct impacts by grading activities are
the man-dominated Wand fringe/slope communities. Most of these
impacts are antici ated as part of improvements to approachways.
Since these communities are highly disturbed and successional,
post-project establishment of groundcovers will ultimately give
rise to similar fringe communities, the impacts are viewed as
temporary.
Similarly, only minor impacts are anticipated in the
limited wetland zo?es. The only activities which are likely to
impact these areas] are contractor staging, demolition and
construction of b idge supports. These activities are
short-term and sho ld have no adverse consequences on these
wetland plant communities. Soils in these areas are sand-silts,
which are less likely to experience adverse compaction from such
activities, a fact' which potentially impairs hydrological
function in many b ttomland wetlands. More severe impacts are
anticipated to the aquatic wildlife and to the water quality of
the North Toe River. Estimates of anticipated impacts to plant
communities are pre ented in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alt I Alt II Alt III
Upland
Man-dominated 0.8 0.6 1.4
Fringe/slope 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total 0.9 0.7 1.5
Wetland
ATTuvial Fringe Total 0.1 0.1 0.1
Note: Values shown are in acres. Fringe/Slope and Alluvial
Fringe areas are not anticipated to receive fills,
therefore values given in these categories are
overestimates.
8
2. Wildlife
The project is likely to impact both terrestrial and aquatic
communities. The narrow impact zones within the terrestrial
man-dominated and fringe/slope communities are, in some areas,
contiguous with larger forested and open habitat expanses. The
wetland zones are adjacent to both the aquatic and terrestrial
environments and are suitable refuge and forage zones for a number of
more specialized animals. The interfaces between uplands and
wetlands and between aquatic and terrestrial habitats are ecotones
which provide special foraging, nesting and refuge opportunities to
numerous animal groups. A list of animals sighted during field work
is presented in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2. WILDLIFE SIGHTINGS IN THE STUDY AREA
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Sialia sialis
Accipiter cooperii
Odocoileus virginianus
COMMON NAME
common crow
eastern bluebird
Cooper's hawk
white-tail deer
a. Terrestrial Communities
Such mammals as opossum Didel his virginiana),
short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leuco us , southern flying squirrel Glaucom s
volans , eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus , raccoon Proc on
lotor , bobcat (Lynx rufus , eastern cottontail (Sylvilaqus
floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus vir inia , and occasions ly woodchuk
Marmotamonax), long- tailed weasel Mustela frenata , and gray
fox Uroc on cinereoargenteus) are li e y to be common
inhabitiants of the area.
Amphibians apt to frequent the predominantely terrestrial
areas include the American toad Bufo americanus), northern
cricket frog Acris crepitans), nad spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer). Likely reptiles would include eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus),
corn snake Ela he uttata), rat snake (E. obsoleta , eastern
king snake (Lampropeltis etulus , copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), and timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus).
Common birds in the vicinity of the project are likely to
include common flicker Cola tes auratus , common nighthawk
(Chordeiles minor), blue-jay (Cyanocitta cristata , common crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee Parus
carol iniensis), white-breast nuthatch Sitta caroIiniensis),
eastern bluebird Sialia sialis , and Coopers Hawk (Accipiter
coo erii .
b. Aquatic Communities
The North Toe River and its adjacent wetlands obviously
have the capability to support a rather rich aquatic and
semi-aquatic fauna. Large mountain streams are known to support
more diverse andnla life than do smaller-order streams. Brown
trout Salmo trutta , rainbow (Oncorhynchus m kiss , and brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are known to occur in various
reaches of the river. Other species of fish likely to be found
in the river include various chubs (Hybopsis/Nocomis/Semotilus
spp.), shiners Notro is spp.), dace (Phoxinus Rhinichthys
spp•), minnows (Phenacoibius spp.), carpsuckers (Carpiodes
spp.), suckers (Catostomus spp.), hogsuckers (Hypentelium spp.),
buffalo Ictiobus spp.), redhorses/jumprocks (Moxostoma spp.),
bullheads catfish (Ictalurus spp.), madtoms Notorus spp•),
sunfish Le omis s pp.), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui),
darters (Etheostoma Percina spp.), and sculpin Cottus spp•).
Amphibians which live in the aquatic milieu (or which spend
portions of their life-cycles in the water) include hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), eastern newt (Notophthalmas
viridescens , common mudpuppy Nec'turus maculosus), Cherokee
salamander (Desmoganthus aeneus), and spotted salamander
Amb stoma maculatum), as well as the American toad, northern
cricket frog and bullfrog Rana catesbeiana). Likely reptiles
would include snapping turtle Chel dra serpentina), eastern
musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus , and northern water snake
Nerodia Si edon .
Avian fauna in the area which interact frequently with the
aquatic environment includes the belted kingfisher Cer le
alc on , and the great blue heron Ardea herodias .
C. Anticipated Impacts to Animal Communities
The proposed action does not pose as a significant threat
to terrestrial fauna. These areas, considered highly modified
and disturbed, are attractive to a range of opportunistic
wildlife which experience increased fitness in these areas.
Their adaptive behavior has enabled them to enjoy a relatively
safe existence at the fringes of man's domain, often cohabiting
the same structures (rodents, owls, barn swallows, lizards,
etc.). Impacts to these habitat zones are not likely to be
severe in terms of diminishing populations, etc. Some temporary
fluctuation in populations of animal groups which utilize these
areas is anticipated during the course of construction, but
post-project levels are expected to return to normal.
10
Slow-moving, burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will
be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile
organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. y
Competitive forces in these adoptive communities will redefine
population equilibria.
The proposed action is likely to have substantial effects
on the aquatic environment unless strict enforcement of
sedimentation control measures are observed. Demolition
activities are likely to place sediment into the water column,
as will pier/end bent installation activities. Sediment-loading
of the stream channels by such activities can be harmful to
local populations of aquatic organisms, including sport fish
such as small-mouth bass, trout, and bream (or sunfish), as well
as invertebrates such as molluscs, crustacea, and insect larvae,
important parts of the aquatic food chain. Strict measures will
be enforced to control sediment loss.
3. Water Resources
a. Streams. Rivers. Impoundments
A single, major water resource , the North Toe River, is to
be crossed by the proposed action. The North Toe is a major
tributary of the Nolichucky River, which flows north into
Tennessee. The Cane River, flowing north from its headwaters in
southern Yancey County and the South Toe, originating in the
Pisgah Forest, drain several hundred square miles of watershed
enroute to their confluences with the North Toe River.
The width of the river channel at the site of the existing
bridge is between 170 and 200 feet. The flow is swift and the
river bed is variously composed of silt, sand, cobble, and
boulders. Generous riffle and pools were observed up and down
the river. These areas serve as excellent refuge and foraging
zones for a variety of aquatic species. Depth of water varies
from less than an inch to several feet in deep pools. Although
the river channel is too wide to be shaded by riparian
vegetation, the fast current and the mountain elevation
adequately provides for moderate ambient water temperatures for
cool-water adapted fish such as trout and smallmouth bass.
b. Water Quality
This section of the North Toe is classified as C Tr water
by the N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR-DEM) in
their 1990 "Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the French Broad River Basin" (15A NCAC 2B
0.0304). Waters rated Class C are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival-, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification Tr
indicates that the water is suitable for natural trout
propagation (brook trout) and maintenance of stocked trout
11
(rainbow trout). Water quality standards designed to protect
this best usage classification are specified by NCDEHNR-DEM in
15A NCAN 2B 0.0100/0.0200.
Visual assessment of this section of the North Toe River
indicated that water clarity was good. No debris, scum or foul
odors were noticed in the water of adjacent areas.
Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates at various stations
in or near the study area, as part of the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), researchers found the
water of the North Toe and its nearby tributaries to be of
"good" quality. This rating generally holds true north of
Spruce Pine, but deteriorates below this community.
In his 1968 publication "A Catalogue of the Inland Fishing
Waters of North Carolina", F. F. Fish discouraged fishing in
the North Toe River due to the effects of mining operations in
the region. This condition has undoubtedly improved
dramatically. The South North Toe River has been designated as
a ORW (Outstanding Resource Water) by NCDEHNR-DEM.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
As indicated earlier, water quality is likely to suffer due
sediment runoff from construction activity. Unless adequate
measures are taken to intercept the bulk of this sediment
runoff, serious impacts to water quality in the study area and
in downstream sections of the North Toe River are predicted.
Although not a Designated Public Mountain Trout Water, this
stream is reported to support adequate populations of sport
fish, in addition to numerous non-game species. Water quality
declines can have rather immediate impacts on respiratory
functions of fish and filter-feeding benthic organisms such as
mollusks and crustacea. Strict adherence to Best Management
Practices will be observed and special emphasis will be placed
on sedimentation control measures. Recommend that erosion
control design conform to High Quality Water standards, which
specifies, among other things, that erosion control devices be
constructed to accommodate 25 year storm events.
4. Soils
The site lies within the Blue Ridge Belt Ashe Metamorphic Suite
and Tallulah Falls Geologic Formation. Mineral soils in upland areas
originated from metamorphic rock, formed during the Late Proterozoic
Era. Some of the soils likely to be disturbed in this project are
fill soils, introduced during original roadway construction.
Published soil surveys are not available for either Yancey or
Mitchell Counties.
12
Wetlands
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U. S. C 1344), the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has
primary responsibility for reviewing actions which propose to place
fill into "waters of the United States". Jurisdictionally, wetlands
are defined as "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions."
Based upon the estimated magnitude of anticipated impacts to
wetlands, it is likely that the proposed action will be authorized
under General Permit CESAW-C082-N-000- 0031. In order to qualify for
this permit authorization, several special and general conditions
must be met. Final and discretionary permit authority rests with the
COE.
In keeping with the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act
of 1977, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/COE Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA), effective February 1990, and aspects of Executive
Order 11990, projects should be designed to avoid wetland
encroachment wherever possible; and to mitigate wetland losses when
necessary. The proposed action clearly meets the avoidance
criterion, since wetland impacts in all the studied construction
alternatives are considered to be unavoidable by virtue of the
project's water dependence. In terms of minimization, anticipated
impacts by all three construction alternatives are considered to be
virtually the same. Public safety and transportation service
considerations (replacement of an outdated facility) is the
compelling justification for the project.
The proposed action will likely be authorized under a General
Permit, and mitigation will be covered by that permit.
6. Protected Species
Under federal law, any action, which is likely to result in a
negative impact to federally-protected plants or animals, is subject
to review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under one
or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also
exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. North Carolina laws are also
designed to protect certain plants and animals which are endemic to
North Carolina and/or whose populations are in severe decline.
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants or animals with status designations E (Endangered),
T (Threatened), or P (Proposed) are provided protection under
the ESA. Several plants and animals are listed by the USFWS as
occurring in Yancey and Mitchell Counties. A list of these
species is presented in Table 3.
13
• TABLE 3
Federally-Protected Species in Mitchell/ Yancey Counties
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME COUNTY STATUS
Glaucomys sabrinas
coloratus Northern Flying Squirrel M/Y E
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat M E
Geum radiatum Spreading Avens M/Y E
Hedyotis ururea
var. montana Roan Mountain Bluet M/Y E
Liatris helleri Heller's Blazing Star M T
Sollidago spithamaea Blue Ridge Goldenrod M T
S iraea virginiana Virginia spiraea M/Y T
Northern Flying Squirrel
This mammal is known from five isolated localities in North
Carolina and Tennessee. These populations are thought to be
remnants of a population which used to be more wide-spread
throughout the Southern Appalachians. Shifts in seasonal
temperature norms, habitat destruction through logging
operations and intense competition from the southern flying
squirrel are thought to be the principal factors for this
organism's decline.
Since it is a cold-adapted animal, its range is in colder,
boreal regions at high elevations. It is known to occur
primarily in the ecotone between the coniferous and northern
hardwood forests at elevations above 5,000 feet.
No habitat considered even marginally suitable to this
species is located in the project study area; therefore, it is
highly unlikely that the proposed action will result, in any
impacts to the northern flying squirrel.
Indiana Bat
The Indiana bat is a member of the family Vespertilionidae,
a taxonic group which includes two other Endangered bats known
to occur in North Carolina, the gray bat (M. griscecens) and the
Virginia big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii virginianus).
This rare species is confined to mountain habitat. Only.a
handful of verified records of this species occurring in North
Carolina are known. Its presence on the Tennessee side of the
Great Smoky Mountains is well-known. Although this bat prefers
caves for roosting, only one of the confirmed sightings of
roosting bats on North Carolina was in a cave.
14
Based upon an absence of suitable habitat in the project
area, and based upon an absence of compelling evidence that this
species is a permanent resident of North Carolina, it is
unlikely that the proposed action will impact this animal.
Spreading Avens
An erect, hirsute perennial member of the family Rosaceae,
this herbaceous plant displays basal rosette of leaves, arising
from horizontal rhizomes. Stems are 2 to 5 decimeters tall,
with extremely dense, spreading hairs. Basal leaves are
odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflet reniform and much
larger than lateral leaflets. Leaf margins are slightly lobed
and serrate with long petioles. Inflorescence is a terminal,
few-flowered cyme. Flowers are small with 5 yellow petals.
Flowers during June-October and fruits occur during the July
through October interval.
This species is endemic to balds on high mountains. It
often occurs on steep rock faces and ledges. In North Carolina
the species is known from high elevation locations in Ashe,
Avery, Buncombe, Mitchell, Transylvania, Watauga and Yancey
Counties.
The relatively low elevation of the project study area and
the absence of balds, rock faces and ledges rules out any
reasonable possibility of this species being located in the
vicinity of the proposed action.
Roan Mountain Bluet
This species, a member of the family rubiaceae, has been
previously listed as Houstonia montana and Houstonia purpurea
var. montana. It is endemic to a few scattered mountaintops in
North Carolina and Tennessee. It is a shallow-rooted perrenial
that forms low-growing, loose tufts 1 to 1.5 decimeters tall.
The inflorescence is a subsessile, few-flowered cyme. Bright
purple flowers appear in July and August.
Of the seven historical populations, six remain. Two are on
the Avery-Watauga County line, one on the Mitchell-Avery County
line, two in Ashe County, and one in Watauga County. The
species grows at high elevations (above 4,500 feet) in shallow
acidic soils, exposed to full sun. These sites are usually
associated with high elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes
and gravelly talus adjacent to cliffs.
No such habitat occurs in the project area; therefore it is
safe to conclude that this species will not be impacted by the
proposed action.
15
Heller's Blazing Star
A member of the family Asteraceae, this plant is a
perennial herb with one or more erect, or arching stems arising
from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. The stems reach
to 4 decimeters or more i height and are topped by a showy spike
of lavendar flowers 1 to 20 centimeters long. Flowering occurs
from July through September with fruits present from September
through October.
The species is endemic to a few scattered summits in the
southern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, where it grows
on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acidic
soils. Of the nine historical populations recorded, seven are
known to remain in Avery, Caldwell, Ashe and Burke Counties.
The study area of the proposed action is not suitable as
habitat for the species, therefore no impacts are likely.
Blue Ridge Goldenrod
This member of the family Asteraceae is a short,
rhisomatous herb with erect stems which are angled and sparsely
to densely hairy. The leaves are alternate, simple, elliptic,
smooth, toothed and distributed all along the stem and often
basal also. The flowering heads are usually 20 to 30 flowered
in compact clusters of yellow flowers. Flowering usually occurs
during July and August.
The plant is distributed in a very narrow range and is not
very abundant where it occurs. It is known from Avery,
Mitchell, and Watauga Counties. Found only in high elevation
balds and rock crevices, this species has adapted to a harsh,
dry environment. The absence of suitable habitat confirms that
no impacts are likely to occur to this species.
Virginia Spiraea
A member of the family Rosaceae, this simply or
sparsely-branched colonial shrub forms long wands of erect or
reclining branches up to 2 meters long. The leaves are
alternate and narrowly elliptic to oblanceolate. Leaf margins
are entire or with a few low teeth. Leaf surface glaucous
beneath. Inflorescence is a terminal, compound corymb,
displaying small white flowers during June and July. Fruits
appear during August and September.
The species is a prolific sprouter and forms dense clumps
that spread in rock crevices and around boulders. Most vigorous
in full sun, but can tolerate some shade. The species occurs in
a constantly fluctuating environment and requires disturbances
for successful colonization, establishment and maintenance. Its
"preferred" habitat is scoured banks of high gradient streams,
meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees or braider features
16
of lower stream reaches, usually at water's edge. It is often
found in the presence of other deciduous shrubs which,
superficially, resemble it.
The species is presently known from 24 stream systems in 6
states from West Virginia south to Georgia. At present the only
confirmed locations are in Ashe, Macon, Mitchell, and Yancey
Counties.
The large channel width of the North Toe River is not
considered ideal habitat for this species ; however, a vigorous
survey of shoreline and adjacent habitat was conducted to locate
any specimens of this plant. This species does not occur in the
study area or adjacent sites, so no impacts to this species by
the proposed action are anticipated.
In addition to these species, the USFWS also reports the
possible occurrence of several Candidate species in these
counties. Candidate species are not protected by law, but may
be in line for elevation to one of the protected status
definitions in the near future. This contingency would require
a reinvestigation of potential impacts to the elevated species
prior to right of way acquisition or construction. Most of
these species are also designated as protected species by one or
more North Carolina laws. A list of these species and some
indication of whether suitable habitat may exist in the project
study area is provided in Table 4.
b. State-Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by
the State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 to 113-337) and
the State of North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979 (G.S. 196:106-202.12 to 106-202.19), administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA),
respectively.
The following are Federal Candidate Species which are
listed by the USFWS as possibly occurring in Mitchell and/or
Yancey Counties. Many of the species are also protected by one
of the two North Carolina laws mentioned in the previous
paragraph.
17

TABLE 4
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES IN MITCHELL AND YANCEY COUNTIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Percina
transitionalis
Percina squamata
Cryptobrachus
alleganiensis
Clemmys muhlenbergi
Sylvilagus
transitionalis
Astilbe crenatiloba
Geum geniculatum
Lilium gravii
Paxistima canbyi
Saxifraga carevana
Saxifraga
caroliniana
Euphorbia purpurea
COMMON NAME COUNTY HABITAT STATUS
Olive Darter M Yes -
Olive Darter Y Yes SC
Hellbender Y Yes SC
Bog Turtle Y Yes T
New England
Cottotail Rabbit M/Y Yes

Roan False _
Goat's Beard M Yes -
Bent Avens M No T
Gray's Lily M/Y No T
Cliff-green M/Y No -
Carey's Saxifrage M No -
Gray's Saxifrage M/Y No -
Wolf's Mild Spurge M No -
Note: Yes/No response in Habitat column denotes availability of
suitable habitat in project area; Status given is NC status.
None of these species were observed during field surveys, but their
presence can not be ruled out. Additional field work would be necessary
during appropriate seasons to determine whether or not they may occur
within prospective impact zones of the proposed action
c. Summary of Impacts to Protected Species
Based upon the results of in-house research and field
surveys conducted in the study area of the proposed project, no
impacts to federally-protected species are anticipated. Among
the state-protected species listed for the area, most are not
likely to occur in the study area due to an absence of suitable
habitat. Three aquatic species, protected by state laws, may
occur in the study area, although all three are mobile.
18
B. Historical and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeoloqical Resources
This project is being coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with the Federal Highway
Administration's procedures for compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Federal-Aid Highways Acts (Department of
Transportation Act as amended). The SHPO has requested that this
archaeological study be conducted in order to evaluate the project's
probable impact upon archaeological resources, if any, and to
determine if additional measures will be necessary to mitigate the
effects of the project upon any significant archaeological sites.
The project area was surveyed on April 24, 1991. One
prehistoric archaeological site was found during the survey of the
proposed bridge replacement project. This site was designated as
31Yc99 in the State Archaeological Site Files. It is located on the
Yancey County side of the river, on the footslope of the ridge
bordering the river. The site covers about one-half acre of land and
is bifurcated by SR 1338. The hillslope flattens out somewhat at
this point, and the slope is gentle enough to cultivate. Artifacts
collected from the site include pottery and chipped stone tools that
indicate a Connestee Phase occupation. At the time of the survey,
the lower field, between SR 1338 and the river, had been recently
plowed and ground surface visibility was excellent. The upper field,
above SR 1338, had been planted in rye grass and visibility was
approximately 50%.
This site, 31Yc99, appears to be a small Connestee Phase site of
the Woodland. Period. The site would potentially be affected by any
of the three alternatives of the proposed project. However, the
degree of disturbance will be minimal with Alternative 1 and
Alternative 3 (Recommended) . Depending upon the final alternative
chosen, and the final design of the approach roadways, additional
testing of the site may be required to ascertain if it is eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. This report recommends
that the final design plans be reviewed when they are available. If
action is necessary to mitigate the effects of the bridge replacement
project on the archaeological site, the appropriate form of action
.would be data recovery through archaeological excavation and
analysis.
The soil at the site is a brown loam, with numerous rocks and
cobbles. A number of the cobbles appeared to have been fire-cracked,
others had been utilized as hammerstones or as quartz cores. In
addition to flakes of local quartz or quartzite, some flakes of chert
were recovered from the site. This chert probably originated in the
ridge and valley section of Tennessee.
Although the presence of pottery and fire-cracked rock indicates
that the locality served as an occupational site (small hamlet or
base camp), the likelihood of intact features surviving under the
disturbed plowzone is small. Test excavations will be required to

19
ascertain if enough of the cultural features of the site remain to
warrant its eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places
if Alternative 1 or 2 is approved for construction. The Alternative
3 (Recommended) alignment may have only a small impact upon the site,
and may not affect any significant resources at all. A review of the
final design plans will be necessary to determine if the site is
adversely affected by Alternative 3 (Recommended).
Since there are no visible remains or features that would be
appropriate for public display and interpretation, prehistoric site
covered in this study would not warrant preservation in place as a
public exhibit. Therefore, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act (Federal-Aid Highway Act as amended) will not
apply to this site. Comments from the State Historic Preservation
Office are found on page A-4 of the Appendix.
The results of the archaeological study indicate that additional
testing will be required only if Alternatives 1 or 2 are selected.
If Alternative 3 (Recommended) is selected, final plans will be
reviewed for effect, and the decision to perform additional testing
will be made then.
2. Historic and Architectural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
architectural historian conducted a review of the project. Bridge
Number 78 is not historically significant, and there are no other
buildings, structures, or districts located in the area of potential
effect of the project that are listed in or are eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. There will be no use of
land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or
waterfowl refuges. In conclusion, no Section 4(f) lands will be
affected by the project. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with these findings (see Appendix, A-3).
C. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland
of all land acquisition and constructions projects. To comply, a request
was made to the United States Soil Conservation Service (USSCS) that they
identify all soils considered prime or important farmland that may be
impacted by the proposed bridge project.
The USSCS responded that soil surveys for Mitchell and Yancey
Counties have not been completed, and are unable to determine the
existence of prime farmland soils or complete Form AD-1006 as requested.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential farmland impacts is
required under the Act (see Appendix A-1 and A-2).
20.
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The drainage area for the North Toe River at this location is
approximately 420 square miles. Yancey County is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance regular program, however, the North Toe River at
the project site was not included in the detailed flood study. The
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure 4. The
proposed project will not significantly affect the floodplain. Existing
drainage pattern and groundwater will not be significantly affected by the
project construction. Siltation due to the project construction will be
minimized with use and maintenance of standard erosion control devices and
measures.
F. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Yancey and Mitchell Counties
has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation
control measures, the conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CRF), Part 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and
772 and no additional reports are required.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no
substantial adverse environmental effects will result from implementation
of the project.
.,EMENT
97 1322 _
KIVf%K ?? Poplarb
- -? \
R R 1319
00 1
1350
9J O 0
1316 ???? 132!
l,Cr
1349 1313y~ 1316 1326
c
I 1320 197
f?
`O tr v9 `t 1312 l D 1 312 1308
.•:, , i
I' I 1309 1307
1343 197 9
Locust ?'.• R Peers
131.5 i Tipton Hill pp 226
.1415 Grove .
1320 HUntdale'.'., 134 I}
-?. x--3.5 Relief :A ?b
Cli 1341 .3 8
Cs, 10 1307
P
ROJ
1305 Red
' Sioux ?Ph I Sao 9tiC<<?,311 -1310*,
' O 3. 1306-
1 F
4 1 340 \ A 1448 COG `?Ty Itf 197 6?
1 ,L ). ?t , T a
1418 3 .2
Its .? /' ` b 1305 h
FOREST ta?7 7
3, ? °• 1339 1444' a, 1344 , 1305 4
1336 PP
N1Cy
1 345 f?'\ TO Fq,S ? 1 308
19 b ° 1346
W ?• •?, ??V 1317
Fq
0` Ramseytown ® 1348 r, -13x5 •y 1335 o, 7
-31 .5
1354 1348 / 5 p 1336 + 1
b 8 i
1334 1333 ? 6I
`y
W .6 00
13 2 • 1350 / 1337 Toledo 197 vt 1318 1
?- ) A Itl ? - O
qi
f?rr ,
f 1,351 1349,- Day '--1422
4.0 'a ; Book
t 426 8 A' f tai 6 b P G.) o Harris Memorial
.1 (b
1354 1 333 Ch.
O,
? 1353 •4 5 13-17
7 6
2 1332
1 31
4 ?. 336 5 Fork 13
• 135\ 5
,3 ) 1419 1333
?i 1357
' 1356 'S? J'v
1'6 h __1358 o NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
13.61 ? 5 1445 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1 336 ? 1359 ? BRANCH
= 1362 5
T BRIDGE NO. 78
?136? 1 /O 1360 w ? o YANCEY-MITCHELL COUNTIES
\\\ 1330 T.I.P. PROJECT B-2081
.4 1365'1
13,66 •? h'q? 9/90 FIG. 1
? s
t Y

I!1

LOOKING TOWARDS
MITCHELL COUNTY
ALONG BRIDGE
LOOKING TOWARDS
YANCEY COUNTY
ALONG BRIDGE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT or
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Ler_ BRANCH
•
LIMITS OF
100-YEAR FLOOD
B-2081
FIG. 4
100-YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
BRIDGE NO. 78

1
ZON
?y0? tip``
C'0 \OG?
ZONE A
)_ZONE A
100-YEAR FLOOD LI MIT

o fi STATE o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J.HARRELSON
SECRETARY
June 13, 1991
MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Lewis
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: Leza Wright Mundt.,.*
Environmental Unit
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Farmland Report, B-2081, SR 1338 and SR 1304,
Bridge No. 78 over the Toe River, Yancey and
Mitchell Counties.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and
construction projects. To comply, a request was made to the
US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) that they identify all
soils considered prime or important farmland that may be
impacted by the proposed bridge project.
The SCS responded that soil surveys for Mitchell and Yancey
Counties have not been completed, and they are therefore
unable to determine the existence of prime farmland soils or
complete Form AD-1006 as requested. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential farmland impacts is required under
the Act.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
UNITED STATES SOIL
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURE SERVICE
•
Ms. Leza Wright Mundt
Community Planner
N. C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: Bridge replacement projects
Dear Ms. Mundt:
4405 BLAND ROAD, SUITE 205
RALEIGH, NC 27609
TELEPHONE: [phone]
April 24, 1991
This is in response to your request for completion of SCS pz(rt of form
AD-1006 for several bridge replacement projects.
1. 8-1359, NC-150,
County. We are
AD-1006 at this
been completed.
mapping unit of
only if it has
Bridge No. 79 over Grants Creek, Rowan
unable to complete your request for a
time. The soil survey for Rowan has not
However, the bridge is located in a
Chawacla soils which is prime farmland
been drained and protected from flooding.
2. B-2102, NC-90, Bridge No. 2 over Lower Little River,
Alexander County. Enclosed is the completed AD-1006
form.
3. B-2050, SR-1006, Bridge No. 113 over Third Creek,
Iredell County. Enclosed is the completed AD-1006 form.
4. B-2081, SR-1338 and SR-1304, Bridge No. 78 over the Toe
River, Yancey anti Mitchell Counties. We are unable to
complete your request at this time. The soil survey for
Yancey and Mitchell Counties have not been completed.
We regret the negative response.
If there are any questions, contact Betty McQuaid at [phone].
Sincerely,
Bobb a J. Jones
State Conservationist
cc: T. H. Wetmore, Jr. w/o attachments
K
J. Crandall w/o attachments
Encloseres
r
A-2

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 17, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Replace Bridge No. 78 over North Toe River,
Yancey and Mitchell Counties,PB-2081, ER 92-7343
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 1991, concerning the above
project.
We have reviewed the project and concur that no historic structures are
located in the area of potential effect for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, 1 4-?.b?
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
J cc-1 L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-3
0
r
/
North Carolina Department of
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 31, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, NI.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Replacement of Bridge No. 78 over Toe River,
SR 1338/1304, B-2081, Yancey and Mitchell
Counties, ER 92-7023, ER 91-7469
Dear Mr. Graf:
A lair soon of Archiu'?s nd History
z "William S. Priqq, r., Director
70/
9-2061
Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1991, concerning the above project.
One archaeological site, 31YC99, was recorded during the survey by
Thomas Padgett. Mr. Padgett recommended that testing be conducted at
the site to assess significance if Alternates 1 or 2 are selected for
construction. He also recommended that the final design plans be
reviewed for potential effect on the site if Alternate 3 is selected.
We concur with these recommendations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Cledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
S v'David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slww
cc: 'L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Poole ulstnbute 10.
Oudeck Vick-L---`_ O-Oulnn
Ne Prevatt
wm _ 6ruto
Modlin Elliott Shuller- -
rewell --~ Webb` Nedwide
GPringer
Cultura e?uTC??
A-4