19950832 Ver 1_Complete File_19950808

State of North Carolina .
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Oda
ED EHNFi
August 9, 1995
Mitchell/Yancey County
DEM Project # 95832
TIP # B-2081
State Project # 8.2880301
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
E coax
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in waters for the purpose of temporary construction,
access and dewatering to replace Bridge #78 over North Toe River, as you described in your
application dated 3 August 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2727.. This certification allows you to use
-Nationwide Permit Number 33 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Sinc ly
re on Ho d, Jr. P.E.
95832.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A .
401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
August 3, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890-
ATTENTION: Mr. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
95Bz
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
r
d i

SUBJECT: Mitchell and Yancey Counties - Replacement of Bridge No. 78
over the North Toe River; T.I.P. No. B-2081; State Project No.
8.2880301
The referenced project was processed as a Categorical Exclusion, which
was approved by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 5, 1993, in
cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. An
Addendum to the Categorical Exclusion has been completed and is attached.
This documentation was prepared in order to address special construction
methods designed to minimize effects on the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana) and two historic properties in the project vicinity. The bridge
is to replaced on new location, along with associated roadway improvements.
It has been determined that the old bridge cannot be removed without the
placement of temporary structures in the river to provide access for
construction equipment. We have concluded that placement of four temporary
causeways in the Toe River will facilitate removal of the old bridge. The
attached cross-section and overhead drawings illustrate the location and
dimensions of the four proposed causeways in relation to the old bridge.
These_ causeways will be placed in four separate phases, so that the river
will only be spanned by one of the four causeways at any given time.
Furthermore, each causeway will provide four 58" x 36" corrugated metal pipe
arches to maintain flow in that portion of the stream, downstream'of A he
causeway, and to reduce potential head and stream velocities. Construction
of these causeways will require temporary placement of six 56'x 21"
prestressed girders in the Toe River during each phase. Placement of Class
II rip rap above the banks will be required during Phases I and II. Washed
rip rap will be used to prevent flow of solids into the stream.

August 3, 1995
Page 2
Prior to construction of the causeways, sediment control devices,
including silt fences and a stilling basin, will be installed. Turbidity
curtains will be placed around each bent. Upon removal of the old bridge and
temporary causeways and following permanent stabilization of all disturbed
areas, all temporary sediment control devices will be removed.
These construction methods have been planned in cooperation with the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These measures are detailed in Section
IX.A.2 of the Addendum to the CE. These conditions will be incorporated into
the construction contract awarded for this project. NCDOT does not
anticipate any permanent impacts to the Toe River as a result of the proposed
work.
Application is hereby made for Nationwide Permit No. 33 for Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering. By copy of this letter, application is
hereby made for 401 Water Quality Certification by the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management. As this project occurs in a Designated
Public Mountain Trout county, review by the North- Carolina Wildlife Resources
-Commission will be necessary. By copy of-this letter, we hereby request the
concurrence of WRC. Attached herein are a project location map, design
drawings, and construction schedule for your review.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please
contact Cyndi Bell at (9.19) 733-3141, Extension 306.
Sincer y
Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
cc: Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. John.Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
Mr. Steve Chapin, DOA, Asheville
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DEHNR
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ed Lewis, Planning & Environmental Branch

Y-__. -.__...r?r??.a- _.. u J G 9 ?:/ 1? 12 G nbwrry BMne I+er a r.
7 a? 1 1 I Elk 11 „ N 451 int Ro
JOITE , , 14. }
i le. - f? vulsdean 67 n%O 1 3964 11
r
f ,% ?ER?? I 2I? , t?3 MITCH LL Ment.19 Is eoU d i• , \ ?': H oKi
ItsrlR 19W L 2 I I V 6 Li tine- • a QUota+;°.:
„-...
?... - / a Fist Pond/ Si A \ t ad Hi Plumtr st?'eola Y/I ?Ciobt 32l
i ' j` • t ` 6 Ramsey 3 Mount Bakersviflo" Gosanor i FOR •' 90 FO
t 10 3 12 ` 13 ? S j M4T+M aY Bsok S 1' v S , r M rl EOteme. ?d Pstter
? 1 ' 1 I WMtarotk ? ` 4siBaeld teanda ' edger ? A L D,-
ry? ails
Its
?i >f 1.7! !?6\ • 6 a 1 ' Creek 6 ?- Q,mwlte Fwe S.ns 7 .. 6wnswt a swl >!t ! n•
04 Pei ` r0 s L aFe113 viii Valmea
i 0 ? PISM 11 19,NIY A2 n E Y19E rll`I 2)11 » Q, Lenoir
ADISON
. Ir / j t : ;
ya Walnut t IV _ e ` :.:.r •, a rocs c ne•;Il
i • Mara Hill ' Ceb alt ?' 6 0 4?e
? II 1 I ,', Pensacola e
Ira -lie ivt! 1 1 ( 3 ?' T dtt vet at Foe S/aTnt Creek M chison
•, ' ``s r +Ma7 N17 1 i0 ?? y 13 Sir. wµd W wn r? Ar `8a
5 q BarRafdSville ,t 1 Mott s/At
F(
?c?` i Syr `?
d 1! MoA? EL
Cp ? 7 Trust ti j 113 5 Sfockswlle I 4 •"1•a ai Ireaelral
23 1 j t er tVt b JO It
Volwrr(I `
ff' ton. e
Alois Wearerrillt a`
Pleasant • -?Csn o I ( • v.n r d«w !i Pleasant Gordon, ink
ST`` J t 01
F Is B U s N 1 0 r E 1,SGAH `? arldn , Jal?
•' of Leicester W 'n ° V to 1 Man treat
S 1 E cBlack y 2 at 10 a R
re tek ? `+ , Mountain • I
emr0oe , New" rove
Crabtree sheville* •'?•,, teen l 1. idlecieat 1 i • L.o...
' .. 2 (12 T s.w., w..
1e J6 take I 02 OS l ' 1 ` 4 Swannanoa t ?" Sugar Hill t OysartswU / ' ' ?^•' ro
;Y t Lna a: 7, ii 11 \ ?? {I 11
1 a n n utb 1 'r. • Ie J, 9 ..._ . - ? /'` 10 t
ay Sri 238 rT 115 Woalrow? I dl tYl j ISA Fairview mss' TANmal I (• J f'"r Gsar Td
t!? • ?? Skyland Gerloa I Union It C:
HatywooAr 4SM171tdale p r Arden / S S ililis It 0_ j
PI GAN-. je ("a' - \? !- - t 0 i? Rat Ctvr Iwmw.Jla ^a Q II T H IC DAC n n n
• S to 20 " SCALE OF MILES ONE RICH EQUALS A??ROK 13 MILES
SCME Of KILOMETERS ONE RICH EQUALS A?PROK 21 KILOMETERS
0 10 211 30 40 It • , _ 1 antt IS [EQUAL TO I Got KILOMETE113 . .
VICINITY MAP
t112 PiSGAH 321.
AREA
M!
1,1 •,yR1?F. ?ep or 764
Pf ::ti+aoAe t,<- 111.t ?N9 (}' 3I! P
i:_ - :. llearlt CI. M 1735 cT 1747
IlEO i..
1216 0P u2y '? ?e
a ' ,
? e0 • 1 7 ?F , 1331 .? '
'
?
` . d 120
?, , •?
• Y ?O
I3?E
,.
1317
..r ?.

` n - O ISM
,.
17
.+r.:.':".
? L Iflt

?5
IH 4 y
127f
' .o i ?. .

r i fi
.. ?: .a 1313 a 31.E
??.a
'1 HtkMYMi
1397 6
\

?1 .3
_ J

•
„2
16
O
na a NAT
o
P
IO
NAL s ??•
. .pp
1313 'v T'ipbn "171
o e
326 .

1220
320 Hunfdol.: `
3.3 {
, R.G.F y It
'
.: f .?•`st ,D 7 .a 1.707 _ :t? 7? ^
:. Red Hi f ;': j•fJ 1221 .J
e
:
R `0 S1 IF
416
05.
-'
?
?/
1
"V
T
t
!303
)

r
4 ?

lI9\7>
?/

Te.can. loaf. i::
?Cr
Gory
tAKERSVIIIE.~
/a FO?. 173
360' ,
r / \ - I J T? 2? ? 1ik •s • ':ti. .9 -
SCALE . 's-
1 0 1 2 3 6 mitis
0 0.3 MAKE
N C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
YANCEY=MITCHELL CO.
PROJECT 8.2880301 (B-2081)
.PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
OVER THE TOE RIVER
BRIDGE NUMBER 78
SHEET OF
SC;-LE
1,= 100,
DISSIRa? cR q \ .
I _. .. CULTIVJED
`t F
--CLA,
RIPS
6 @ 55 R"P
21" CORED SLAB"
PHASE rI?
CAUSENAY
- - 4v CM?
w 7_
25 ,
FNA
E II C
CAUSEWAY
TOE P;'i? E-
56X41I.Si ILLING
BASIN 'N/ _C X 15 BASE
II
Y, IV-
y ?.
C.
CAUSEitiWY
LASS `II SIP eFr r I
'i:LTIVArED
'N C DEPARTMENT OF-TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I
woocs
F
? j .
:.t..`..._?, !_..."'-•???t- -t?, r??rm#t-rrt?: esrti•YttY?l:rkti.?t1-
.`` CE ES
' ATERAL
i ?.r DITCH
it Tll
r
PHASE 1SCCr1JSE'IYAY
YANCEY-MITCHELL CO.
PROJECT 8.2880301 (B-2081)
PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE
OVER THE TOE RIVER
BRIDGE NUMBER 78

w
z
0
H
H ^ E-
.4 ri z
E-f co W
OC a
O cn N W
04 >+O t Ua
En d U oo FC C4
LsJ Z.
C34 1--i
z ac7a,4wa
E+Hw
X c) oa w w

SC
W

O
l--I C . + U UO O W O W
,OWHc0C7FX

o 1-+ co ca Z I
M
z
z
?
i x
z
>
N
W E14: O W 00 00 E-H W (-.
w

SU :
M z u w w Q
nGHH
W
GDU? co a>awcn>a =

Q S

<
O a4
W A
P ao
}UJ .u w a'
L :
z

lP
? \ J

LO i o
W
N `
.
>

(. . o
w
J
02 U,-) Lo

R
O
D 0--o

N N _
ff)
0
L1J
. >(ID
z
09
N N

z
O
- H
Q ,-? z '
E-4 co G o W
. G
O cn - cam, w
a>•o U01
(f? z3v?a>oo
(9 •4:z 0 a H ? LL
aoar-I pa C4
H cxcn ww O
`J H E
O P4 E-+ QO {7 E-H X
?-{ O H co p D
(l)C1J z z - a x z
O? xO WaoGgE0 W
?( aHzc0WW w
??? aH>hoooav? c=
wa oa
A a o
LA I I.
.? ?= z
_ U) (j)
(-5- (Ll Q
,Sl
m
J
p
LO

`O .0 w
J oz w Q
C\j
?Cr w u .
1 -
o
IC\j N =.!i
? I
- 1 -
N
F z
o /
o o c?
N
O
H ^ H
d .-? z
H ao W
\ C4 0
.0u) •CV W
a4>40 U a
En d U CO W
(\ \ Z ia`-a>
(? a c? a . q w Ca l.t_
E-4 C4 a ' O
W (4
L¦.?UO WO
Co
OC?.H00 ED HX
OHODA D lf)
,H •? N N W z
WOZ C4 :t
>4 ME- W ?-
EWUE-tAC4A Lli
Z, E-4 W
d>9WEn>C4,
aH>4 hQOm t?/
.wA 0a4
A C?.O
as
Lli L w n U a
C\1 cv ! Q
O
cr-
0
LO
t
0
C \ j LIJ
w
QQ ° pU J
C\) Lo ?3
r---- Q)LLJQ?
o ~? Q
I o?? ?Q o
i CL P, 'o
COI N O k I 1
N z
o
o o n o
N / N N N

z
O
H .
H ^ E+
Q .-+ z
E-1 00 W
W
O al • (,4
04 >+ O 1 V a
U) d U W Q w
.
a
v
wHr
x a
1900 -lwa • . l.L.
E+Hwoa m
xxcn. ww
w Uowooq
O k. E+ cO C7 E4 X

OHao0 I
H ? cv ?-i W z
zz •Cex
WO >a m CO H W
W H nU
A W
:
Haa
a
zc?WW -T
LJ J >
Qdwcn> Ix x
wO>+
004
a°
ao
ax
? a
n
(-1 z
J
Q
U_
I- O
>;II

.(.n
zw
?° ?°--z LLI
LC) u
(D'?-LL J
Or_ ?U z

N ?(O 0%
11
LLJ ,

O
CNA O
"_`_ N N
r
PROPOSED
r--BRIDGE

?I2o'k-
CAUSEYYAY?
(WASHED STONE)
SECTION
SCALE
HORIZONTAL
1= 50'
zoso
58 X 3G
CMPA
WS
2(
BED
A-.A
,N C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
YANCEY-MITCHELL CO.
VERTICAL PROJECT 8.2880301 (B-2081)
PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
1''_ 10 OVER THE TOE RIVER
BRIDGE NUMBER 78
_____ _..__ SHEET 7 OFD
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR DRILLED SHAFTS
1)INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES NECESSARY FOR CAUSEWAY
CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING STILLING BASIN AND SILT FENCE.
2)PHASE I: INSTALL CAUSEWAY (HEIGTH = 4.0'), INCLUDING
4 @ 58" x 36" CORREGATED METAL PI[E ARCH(CMPA).
CONSTRUCT DRILLED SHAFTS. REMOVE ALL EFFLUENT.
3)R.EMOVE PHASE I CAUSEWAY. INSTALL PHASE II CAUSEWAY, INCLUDING
4 @ 58" x 36" CMPA. CONSTRUCT DRILLED SHAFTS. REMOVE ALL EFFLUENT.
4)REMOVE PHASE II CAUSEWAY. INSTALL PHASE III CAUSEWAY,
INCLUDING 4 @ 58" x 36" CMPA. REMOVE EXISING BRIDGE.
5)REMOVE PHASE III CAUSEWAY". INSTALL PHASE IV CAUSEWAY,
INCLUDING 4 @ 58" x 36" CMPA. REMOVE EYISING BRIDGE.
6)UPON REMOVAL OF EXISTING BRIDGE AND PERMANENT STABALIZATION
OF ALL DISTURBED AREAS, REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT
CONTROL DEVICES.

Yanc#1AY&'h ll Counties
Bridge No. 78 on SR 1338 - SR 1314
over the North Toe River
Federal Project BRZ-1338(1)
State Project 8.2880301
TIP Project B-2081
s.
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE RELIEF HISTORIC DISTRICT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
7-6-gs
Date ?y H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

lr'? G
t, P. E.
Da e NiIV L. G a7 ? Z ?
?ft6ivision Administrator, FHWA

Yancey and Mitchell Counties
Bridge No. 78 on SR 1338 - SR 1314
over the North Toe River
Federal Project BRZ-1338(1)
State Project 8.2880301
TIP Project B-2081
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO THE RELIEF HISTORIC DISTRICT
July 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and
Environmental Branch By:
.r
Ed Lewis
Project Planning Engineer
CARO
. Wi on Stroud .••o?is1,?• ?'y
0' ct Planning Unit Head = •••?? ?!•'9
SEAL
6976
Ile
Lubin Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
I. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PROJECT STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 1
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
V. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
VI. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
VII. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
VIII. ESTIMATED COST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE IMPACT
OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Natural and Ecological Resources . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Plant Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
a. Federally Protected Species . . . . . . 6
b. Summary of Impacts to Protected
Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Permits and Certification Required. . . . . 11
b. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation . . . . 12
B. Historical and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Historic and Architectural Resources . . . . . . 12
a. The Bailey House. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
b. Relief Historic District. . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Impacts to Historic and
Architectural Resources. . . . . . . . 15
3. Section 4(f) Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
C. Contaminated Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
X. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT..)
PAGE
TABLES
Table 1 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES . . . . 5
Table 2 - FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR MITCHELL
AND YANCEY COUNTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
APPENDIX
Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation
Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
Correspondence from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
ATTArUMrMT
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Yancey and Mitchell Counties
Bridge No. 78 on SR 1338 - SR 1314
over the North Toe River
Federal Project BRZ-1338(1)
State Project 8.288301
TIP Project B-2081
1. BACKGROUND
The Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved by
FHWA on December 18, 1991. A copy of that report is attached. The
recommended alternative (Alternative 3) was to replace Bridge No. 78 with
a new bridge on new location on a skewed alignment across the North Toe
River. Subsequent to that time, USFWS elevated the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) from Candidate to Proposed Endangered status.
Also, two properties in the vicinity of the project which were not
addressed in the Categorical Exclusion were determined to be eligible for
the National Register. In response to these developments, a new alignment
(Alternative 4) and special construction methods to minimize effects upon
the Appalachian elktoe are now recommended.
II. PROJECT STATUS
The 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for
right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 1995 and construction in
fiscal year 1996. The TIP funding provides a total of $1,450,000 for the
project, including $100,000 for right of way and $1,350,000 for
construction. The cost of the recommended alternative is $35,000 for right
of way and $1,109,800 for construction for a total project cost of
$1,144,800.
The project is located over the North Toe River between Yancey and
Mitchell Counties in the community of Relief (see Figure 1).
This Addendum to the Categorical Exclusion is being produced to
identify and address impacts to the environment due to the design
modification required due to the presence of the historic properties and
the protected species.
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Possible impacts to the Appalachian elktoe will be minimized during
construction by measures coordinated with and agreed to by US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the Informal Consultation process under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see Appendix, pages A-9 through
A-12). These measures are also listed in Section IX.A.2 of this report.
If pre-let surveys show that individuals of this species are present,
relocation of this species and Formal Consultation with the USFWS will be
needed. In addition, a Water Quality Monitoring Plan, developed in
coordination with the USFWS of the United States Department of the
2
Interior, will be implemented prior to construction in order to gather
water quality baseline data for the North Toe River. Samples will be
taken every two weeks depending upon rainfall until project completion.
Finally, expediting the construction process, minimizing "in-stream"
activity, and, if possible, avoiding "in-stream" activity in the month of
August (spawning period) would minimize impacts to this species. These
measures will be considered during final design.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide Permit 33'CFR 330.5(a) (23) will
be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States." This project will also require a 401
Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the Waters of the
United States.
Impacts to the Relief Historic District and the Bailey House have
been identified and addressed in this document, as well as in the attached
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation (see Appendix, pages A-4 through
A-8). The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred that the
recommended improvements (Alternative 4) will have no effect upon these
two properties. Any major change in the recommended improvements would
require that potential impacts to these properties be reanalyzed.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
One accident occurred near the subject bridge during the four year
period from December 1988 through November 1992. A truck heading
southeast on SR 1315 crossed the railroad tracks and struck a passenger
vehicle head-on waiting to make a left turn onto SR 1315 from SR 1314. No
train related accidents occurred at the crossing.
The sufficiency rating for bridge number 78 has dropped from 26.1 to
17.8 since the approval of the Categorical Exclusion, and the bridge is
now posted 7 tons for single vehicles and tractor truck semi-trailers.
The average daily traffic has remained the same for current year as well
as the design year (800 vehicles per day for 1995 and 1400 vehicles per
day in 2015).
V. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will be required due to the substandard horizontal
alignment recommended. The need to avoid or minimize the taking of land
from the Relief Historic District and the Bailey House forces the
alignment to retain sharp curves on both sides of the bridge. The curve
to the north of the bridge will be a 23 degree curve with a design speed
of less than 20 mph. While this alternative is not an ideal design, it is
the best alternative for preserving the historical properties associated
with the Relief Historic District and the Bailey House, while at the same
time improving safety.
3
VI. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed improvement calls for replacing Bridge Number 78 with a
new bridge constructed immediately south of the present crossing of the
North Toe River. Each of the proposed approaches will consist of a
22-foot pavement with 6-foot grassed shoulders (9-foot shoulders where
guardrail is required). These improvements will extend from the SR 1314/
SR 1315 intersection to approximately 180 feet south of SR 1342 along SR
1338 (0.15 mile). SR 1342 will be extended to intersect with realigned SR
1338 (see Figure 2).
The proposed replacement structure consists of a bridge 352 feet long
with a clear roadway width of 28 feet.
VII. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Three replacement alternatives were originally considered in the CE
approved on December 18, 1991 for replacing Bridge Number 78 over the
North Toe River. The "no-build" alternative was also considered. Based
on the results of planning and design studies, Alternative 3 was the
recommended alternative. However, since the CE was approved, a fourth
replacement alternative has been considered to minimize impacts to the
Relief Historic District, while at the same time avoiding impacts to the
Bailey House. Alternative 4 is now the recommended alternative. Each
alternative is discussed below.
ALTERNATIVES 1 and 2
Alternatives 1 and 2, addressed in the Categorical Exclusion, called
for replacing Bridge Number 78 south of its present crossing. Alternative
1 would replace Bridge Number 78 on new location just south of the
existing crossing much like recommended Alternative 4. Alternative 2
would replace Bridge Number 78 on new location south of the existing
crossing between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3. These alternatives were
dismissed from further evaluation because of environmental and design
considerations.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 calls for constructing a new structure with a clear
roadway width of 28 feet and a length of 515 feet east of Bridge Number 78
on a skewed alignment across the North Toe River (see Figure 2). Traffic
would be maintained on the existing structure during construction. The
installation of gates and flashing warning lights at the crossing of the
CSX Railroad would be required. An estimated 5.7 acres must be acquired
as new right-of-way. This alternative is superior in design to
Alternatives 1 and 2 in that the approaches are proposed to be realigned
on new location. This would avoid sharp curves at either end of the
bridge and would allow motorists a smooth transition across the bridge,
and it would allow them to maintain a speed of 40 mph through the project
area. This alternative would also best serve the anticipated future
traffic increase in this area. The total estimated cost for this
alternative is $1,372,500, which includes $1,326,500 for construction and
$46,000 for right-of way acquisition. A detailed cost estimate for
Alternative 3 is presented in Section VIII of this report.
4
This alternative would require the most approach work and result in
the greatest environmental impact of the four alternatives studied. With
the proposed structure being longer under this alternative, there would be
the possibility of more impacts to the federally-protected Appalachian
elktoe (see Section IX.A.2). Alternative 3 would require more right of
way from the Relief Historic District than the other three alternatives,
but avoids impacts to the Bailey House.
ALTERNATIVE 4 (RECOMMENDED
Alternative 4 calls for constructing a new structure with a clear
roadway width of 28 feet and 352 feet long south of, and roughly parallel
to, Bridge Number 78 (see Figure 2). This alternative will require minimal
approach work. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure
during construction. The installation of gates and flashing warning
lights at the crossing of the CSX Railroad will be required. This
alternative will provide only minimal improvements to the existing roadway
alignment, allowing for a design speed of. less than 20 mph. Therefore, a
design exception will be required. Although the recommended design is
substandard, perpendicular bridge crossings are common in the area. Also,
this alternative minimizes impacts on the neighboring Relief Historic
District, requiring only an estimated 0.92 acre to be acquired for new
right-of-way; this improvement avoids impacts to the Bailey House. The
total estimated cost for this alternative is $1,144,800, which includes
$1,109,800 for construction and $35,000 for right-of-way acquisition. A
detailed cost estimate for Alternative 4 is presented in Section VIII of
this report.
CONCLUSIONS
As stated above, Alternative 3 has a higher design speed than
Alternative 4 (Recommended). However, Alternative 4 has a lower cost than
Alternative 3, requires less right of way, impacts half as much upland
habitat (see Section IX.A.1 of this report), and minimizes impacts to the
Relief Historic District. Wetland impacts are the same for both
alternatives (see Section IX.A.1). The recommended alternative is
considered to be the most desirable means of providing an improved
crossing of the North Toe River, while at the same time minimizing impacts
to the environment.
5
VIII. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of Alternatives 3 and 4 are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Structure $ 803,000 $ 641,000
Roadway Approaches $ 236,000 $ 209,500
R/R Gates & Flashing Warning Lights $ 90,000 $ 90,000
Structure Removal $ 24,500 $ 24,500
Engineering & Contingencies $ 173,000 $ 144,800
Total Construction Cost $1,326,500 $1,109,800
Right Of Way, Utilities $ 46,000 $ 35,000
Total Cost $1,372,500 $19144,800
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE PROBABLE
IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A. Natural and Ecological Resources
1. Plant Communities
Plant communities in the project area are described in detail in
the CE for the project approved December 18, 1991 (see Section
VIII.A.1 of that report). The following are areas of anticipated
impacts to plant communities for Alternatives 3 and 4:
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
PLANT COMMUNITY
Upland
Man-dominated
Fringe/slope
Total
ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
(Recommended)
1.4 0.4
0.1 0.2
1.5 0.6
Wetland
Alluvial Fringe Total 0.1 0.1
Grand Total 1.6 0.7
Note: Values shown in Table 1 are in acres.
6
2. Protected Species
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants or animals with status designations E (Endangered),
T (Threatened), or PE (Proposed Endangered) are provided
protection under the ESA. Several plants and animals are listed
by the USFWS (as of March 28, 1995) as occurring in Yancey (Y)
and Mitchell (M) Counties. A list of these species is presented
in Table 2. An asterisk (*) denotes no specimen has been found
in either county in the past twenty years (1973-1993).
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for
Mitchell and Yancey Counties
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Falco peregrinus
Fe-1-is concolor cou uar
Gl a?ucom rys sabri nus
coloratus
Myotis sodalis
Geum radiatum
G m??noder??me l i neare
He yyotis ppurpurea
var. montana
Liatris hellari
So-Tidago spithamaea
Spiraea virginiana
Microhexura montivaga
COMMON NAME COUNTY STATUS
Appalachian elktoe M/Y PE
Peregrine falcon Y E
Eastern cougar Y E
Carolina northern M/Y E
flying squirrel
Indiana bat M E
Spreading avens M/Y E
Rock gnome lichen M/Y PE
Roan mountain bluet M/Y E
Heller's blazing star M T
Blue Ridge goldenrod M T
Virginia spiraea M/Y T
Spruce-fir moss spider Y E
* Indicates no specimen found in county for at least 20 years.
No habitat for Carolina northern flying squirrel, Indiana bat,
spreading avens, roan mountain bluet, Heller's blazing star, and Blue
Ridge goldenrod exists in the project study area. Habitat for
Virginia spiraea does exist within the project area. Surveys for
this species were conducted along the shoreline and adjacent habitat.
No populations of Virginia spiraea occur in the study area. No
impact to Carolina northern flying squirrel, Indiana bat, spreading
avens, roan mountain bluet, Heller's blazing glory, Blue Ridge
goldenrod, or Virginia spiraea will occur from project construction.
These species are discussed in detail in Section VIII.A.6 of the
attached Categorical Exclusion.
Since the completion of the Categorical Exclusion in December,
1991, the Appalachian elktoe, peregrine falcon, eastern cougar, rock
gnome lichen, and Spruce-fir moss spider have been added by USFWS to
the federally-protected species list for Mitchell and Yancey
Counties. Brief discussions of these species' characteristics and
habitat are provided.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) PE
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length
reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin, although the shell is not
fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The periostracum (outer shell)
of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while
juveniles have a yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian
Carolina: the Nolichucky River (including two
Cane River and the North Toe River in Yancey
respectively) and the Little Tennessee River
Swain and Macon Counties. The Appalachian el
in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobl
cracks of bedrock, and in relatively silt-
substrates.
elktoe exist in North
of its tributaries, the
and Mitchell Counties,
nd its tributaries in
ktoe has been observed
ile and boulders, in
free, coarse sandy
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has conducted
informal Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding possible impacts to the Appalachian elktoe. The
NCDOT has agreed to carry out the following measures in constructing
the subject project:
1. The piers of the interior bents will be installed using the
drilled shaft method, which involves building a riprap rock
road into the river for the drilling machine.
Sedimentation produced is contained in the shaft and is
pumped away to a settling basin onshore. A turbidity
curtain and portadam will be placed around each
bent-drilling location. The work road will be built
halfway into the river, and pipes will be buried underneath
the riprap to maintain hydraulic equilibrium. The work
road will be removed in such a manner as to minimize an
increase in turbidity. If determined necessary, the bottom
layer of rock (for the work roads) should be left in order
to minimize disturbance to the river bottom.
2. Any onshore demolition or construction will be protected by
a rock wall to insure that no runoff gets into the river.
Erosion control matting will be used in areas to be
revegetated (or permanent stone bedding may also be applied
to disturbed slopes). A sedimentation control plan will be
designed which will incorporate High Quality Water (HQW)
guidelines. This plan will be sent to the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission for review and comment at least one month prior
to construction.
3. A second work road will be placed in order to remove the
existing structure. The slurry of cooling water for the
cutting tools will be captured and transported to a
settling basin or tanker. The superstructure will be cut
in sections and lifted by,crane and placed on the shore.
8
The substructure will be cut away at natural riverbed level
and lifted by crane and placed on shore for removal. A
turbidity curtain encircling the bent will be used to
restrict introduction of solids into the water column. If
the pier is cut below the natural river bed level, a
turbidity curtain and a portadam encircling the bent site
will be used to restrict introduction of solids into the
water column.
.
4. Work roads should not be removed during the month of August
or between March through May to avoid the period when
Appalachian elktoe are spawning (August) and releasing
larvae (March through May).
5. A small stream relocation will be required on the Yancey
County side of Project B-2081. Erosion control measures
for HQW waters will be followed.
6. Surveys for the Appalachian elktoe were conducted on August
23, 1994, for both projects (B-1445 and B-2081). No
naiades were observed near the existing bridges and
proposed work areas.
7. Water quality monitoring plans will be developed for each
bridge replacement project and submitted to the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission for review and comment at least one
month prior to construction. Monitoring will include. the
use of a single-stage sampler, a methodology developed and
used extensively by Duke Power Company to assess the
effectiveness of sedimentation control efforts. The U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will evaluate the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's performance in controlling
sedimentation runoff and turbidity for projects B-1445 and
B-2081, which will serve as the basis for decisions
regarding future bridge replacement and construction
projects (e.g., B-2848 near Huntdale).
Additional discussion of the Section 7 informal consultation process
may be found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's letter included in
the Appendix (see pages A-9 through A-12). Based upon the proposed
measures described above, it is concluded that construction of this
project will not impact the Appalachian elktoe. This conclusion of "Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" is applicable provided no Appalachian elktoe
individuals are located directly at the bridge site. If individuals are
located during pre-let surveys, these mussels would need to be relocated
and the conclusion of "May Effect" would apply. In this case, NCDOT would
need to enter into Formal Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. On August 23, 1994, a pre-let survey for the elktoe was
performed by a NCDOT staff biologist. No elktoe was observed and the
biological conclusion "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" still applies.
9
Expediting the construction process, minimizing "in-stream"
activity, and, if possible, avoiding "in-stream" activity in the
month of August (spawning period) would minimize impacts to this
species. These measures will be considered during final design.
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) E
The peregrine falcon is roughly the size of a crow. It is most
easily recognized by the dark crown and a dark wedge that extends
below the eye forming a distinct helmet. Prey for the peregrine
falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including mammals as
large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. Their
preferred prey is medium sized birds such as pigeons.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United
States in areas with high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting
for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but they may also
nest in broken off tree tops in eastern deciduous forests and on
skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from
mid-March to May.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No nesting habitat for the peregrine falcon will be impacted by
the proposed project. The falcon may forage in the vicinity of the
proposed project, but the project will not impact this bird's food
source. No impact to the peregrine falcon will result from project
construction.
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cou uar) E
Cougars are tawny colored, except for-the muzzle, the backs of
the ears, and the tip of the tail, which are black. In North
Carolina, the cougar is thought to occur in only a few scattered
areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian
mountains. The eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness
areas where there is an abundance of their primary food source,
white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 25 miles
and is most active at night.

10
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the Eastern cougar exists in the project study
area. No impact to the eastern cougar will result from project
construction.
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) PE
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer
moss family. This lichen is a.narrow endemic, restricted to areas of
high humidity. These high humidity environments occur on high
elevation (> 1220 m/4000 ft) mountain tops and cliff faces which are
frequently bathed in fog or lower elevations (< 762 m/2500 ft) such
as deep gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen
primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where seepage water from
forest soils above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock
gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in
these vertical intermittent seeps. The high elevation habitat occurs
in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson,
Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain , Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower
elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the
counties of Jackson, Rutherford, and Transylvania.
The lichen can be i dent i f i ed ' by
born singly or in clusters, are black
tips of the squamules. The fruiting
occurs from July through September.
its fruiting bodies which are
in color, and are found at the
season of the rock gnome lichen
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the rock gnome lichen occurs in the project study
area. The elevation of the project study area is 606-667 meters
(2000-2200 feet). Mitchell and Yancey Counties are counties where
the lichen is found at high elevations (>1220m/4000 ft). No impacts
to the rock gnome lichen will occur from project construction.
Spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga) E
The Spruce-fir moss spider occurs in well-drained moss and
liverwort mats growing on rocks or boulders. These mats are formed
in well-shaded areas in mature, high elevation (>1524 m /5000 ft)
Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The Spruce-fir moss spider is
very sensitive to desiccation and requires situations of high and
constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss mats
which cannot become too dry and loose. The moss mats cannot be too
wet, either, because of large drops of water can also pose a threat
to the spider. The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs in the
interface between the moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have
been found to extend into the interior of the moss mat. No prey have
been found in the webs, but the probable prey for the Spruce-fir moss
spider is the abundant springtails found in the moss mats.
11
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the rock gnome lichen occurs in the project study
area. The elevation of the project study area is 606-667 meters
(2000-2200 feet) which is well below the required elevation. No
impacts to the Spruce-fir moss spider will occur from project
construction.
b. 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. The
only exception is the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana). Possible impacts to the Appalachian a ctoe will
be minimized during construction by methods coordinated with and
agreed to by USFWS during the Section 7 Informal Consultation
process (see Appendix, pages A-8 through A-12, and Section
IX.2.A).
3. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the
COE for the discharge of dredged no fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
a. Permits and Certification Required
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (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 regulation for
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 human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs
with that determination.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of the
Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires
12
that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the Waters of the United States.
b. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Permits authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum
of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of the Army. Final decisions concerning
mitigation rest with the COE.
B. Historical and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
Alternative 4 (Recommended) impacts an archaeological site
(31169) identified in the Categorical Exclusion approved in
December, 1991. Additional testing was recommended at that time if
the project activities were to impact the site. In October, 1994,
archaeological site 31Yc99 was evaluated in the field and was
determined to be not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred
with this finding (see Appendix, pages A-1 and A-2). No further
archaeological investigations are recommended.
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 is not considered
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this finding
(see Appendix, page A-1).
Two historic/architectural resources, the Bailey House and the.
Relief Historic District, are within the area of potential effect of
the project. The SHPO concurred that these two properties are
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Information on these two historic sites follows.
a. The Bailey House
The Bailey House is located on the south side of the bridge
in Yancey County (see Figure 2). The interior of the Bailey
house (currently the Kaplan residence), a property located in
the Area of Potential Effect, was not accessible to the surveyor
when the original survey was conducted in 1991; this property
was not addressed in the Categorical Exclusion approved on
December 18, 1991. On November 25, 1992, the Kaplans contacted
the NCDOT to advise them that the residence, which appears to be
a farm house constructed circa 1880, is actually an antebellum
residence whose interiors are largely intact. An architectural
historian from the NCDOT surveyed the interior of the structure
13
on December 27, 1992 and confirmed that the interior is
approximately thirty years older than the exterior and that the
house was, in fact, originally constructed circa 1855.
The original building, a log structure, was constructed by
Mr. John Bailey. "Uncle Sam" Bennett, a Confederate veteran who
survived until 1948, lived approximately one mile from the
Bailey home and recounted to several neighbors that he
remembered playing on the foundations of the house in 1850. Mr.
Bennett also recalled that the house was weatherboarded just
prior to the Civil War and completely surrounded by additions
constructed around 1885 by Mr. John Wesley Bradshaw, who
purchased the farm in 1872. The thickness of several interior
walls (16 inches) supports the fact that the original building
exists within the 1880's additions. The interior of much of the
house remains intact.
Research has revealed that antebellum houses are rare in
Yancey County. Indeed, the two antebellum residences listed on
the National Register of Historic Places in the county are
approximately of the same period as the Kaplan residence. The
current owners (Kaplans) are restoring the interior of the house
to reflect both the antebellum and 1880's periods (as
appropriate) and will be removing the compromising exterior
alterations (circa 1960) as they continue restoring the
property.
The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration have concluded that the Kaplan residence
is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion C for architecture. The State Historic
Preservation officer has concurred with this finding (see
Appendix, page A-1). The restoration of the interior and
exterior of this building currently being performed by the
owners also will provide educational opportunities in examining
the methods of construction of a rare antebellum building.
b. Relief Historic District
Located on the north side of the bridge in Mitchell County
in the small village of Relief is the Dr. J. L. Bradshaw house
(see Figure 2). The village and house were not addressed in the
Categorical Exclusion approved on December 18, 1991. An
architectural historian from the NCDOT surveyed the village and
house in late 1992. Dr. Bradshaw practiced as a country doctor
in Mitchell and Yancey Counties beginning just after the Civil
War. He built a home on the bank of the Toe River at the
township currently called "Relief" circa 1870. He ran his
practice out of his home. In the devastating flood of 1902, the
entire community of Relief was destroyed, including the Dr.
Bradshaw house. He rebuilt on the same parcel of land (but
further uphill from the river) immediately following the flood.
Dr. J. W. Bradshaw took over his uncle's practice in 1913,
moving into the same house in the village of Relief. Mr. John
Bradshaw, a current resident of the town, recalls that his
father was appointed postmaster in 1913 to serve the new post
14
office located in Relief. The town was named "Relief" after the
alcohol-laden bitters (tonic) known as "Harts Relief", which was
manufactured there in a log building destroyed in the 1902
flood.
While Dr. J.W. Bradshaw was a general practitioner, a large
portion of his time was spent delivering children. His nephew,
John Bradshaw, reports that he delivered over 3000 children.
Dr. Bradshaw is said to have owned the first automobile in the
county and the first electrical generator, which served his
office and home. While Dr. Bradshaw used his automobile in his
practice, he kept several horses on his property, as many of his
patients could only be reached on horseback. While his office
served as an examining and operating room, many patients often
stayed in his home while recuperating.
Dr. Bradshaw's house, while having been altered, retains
much original fabric. His office has been dismantled. Several
outbuildings and the barn in which Dr. Bradshaw kept his horses
all remain.
The original village of Relief, located just to the east of
the Dr. Bradshaw house, was constructed just after the Civil
War. The village consists of the post office, the postmasters
house, and a general store. The buildings constructed
immediately after the 1902 flood appear to have been altered
very little. It appears that this assemblage of buildings
(including the Dr. Bradshaw house and outbuildings) comprise a
historic district of approximately 16 acres in size (see Figure
2).
In 1985, Mr. Ted Alexander was employed by the State
Historic Preservation Office to do a county-wide survey of
Mitchell County. The building which served as the Relief post
office and the general store were included in the thirty
buildings entered in the State Study List for possible inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. Additional research
by NCDOT has revealed that the doctor's house and outbuildings,
located in the village, are also contributing structures. The
boundary of the Relief Historic District is shown in Figure 2.
The Dr. Bradshaw house and associated outbuildings and the
Relief post office and general store are clearly associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of the history of both Mitchell and Yancey Counties in
general. The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration have concluded that the Relief Historic
District is eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A for exploration and settlement
and Criterion C for architecture. The State Historic
Preservation Officer concurred with these findings (see
Appendix, page A-1).
15
C. Impacts to Historic and Architectural Resources
Of the four alternatives considered in this report and the
Categorical Exclusion approved in December, 1991, only
Alternative 1 requires the use of land from the Bailey House
(see Figure 2 in the CE). The recommended improvement,
Alternative 4, does not require the use of land from the Bailey
House (see Figure 2). The N.C. Department of Transportation and
the Federal Highway Administration have determined that the
recommended improvement will have no effect on the Bailey House.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this
finding (see pages A-1 and A-3 in the Appendix).
All four alternatives impact the Relief Historic District
(see Figure 2 in this addendum report and Figure 2 in the
approved CE). Alternatives 1 and 4, which require equal use of
land from the district, have less impact on that resource than
Alternatives 2 and 3. As presented in Section VI of this report
(discussion of the recommended improvement, Alternative 4),
Alternatives 1 and 4 tie into the existing SR 1314/SR 1315
intersection on the north side of the river. Alternatives 1 and
4 require the acquisition of approximately 0.92 acre of right of
way from the district south of the bridge (see Figure 2). The
N. C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration have concluded that the recommended improvement,
Alternative 4 will have no effect upon the Relief Historic
District. The State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred
with this finding (see Appendix, pages A-1 and A-3).
3. Section 4(f) Resources
The proposed improvements will not require the use of land from
the Bailey House. Therefore, Section 4(f) of the United States
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 will not apply to that
property.
A small portion of land (approximately 0.92 acre) on the
southern edge of the Relief Historic District between the railroad
and the river will be used by the project; therefore, a Programmatic
Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared (see Appendix, pages A-4 through
A-8). The Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation shows that there are
no feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed use of this land
and that the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
to the resource.
C. Contaminated Properties
The GeoEnvironmental Section of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation reviewed the proposed alignment of the recommended
alternative. Based upon this review, there will be no adverse
effects on the project from leaking underground storage tanks or
soils containing hazardous materials.
16
X. SUMMARY
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no
substantial adverse environmental effects will result from
implementation of the subject project.
EFL/tp
SENT
197 ,Q 1322
SSS/// b
E Poplar
1319
N
1350 s
r 1316 1326
1 ? ? A 4
1349 1313 1316 1326
1320
197 n
1308
1312 ?D 1312
J . ?:::?:•:_ '?:•9 '? Hon
1309 1307
'? N
1343 BRIDGE NO. 78
Locust • 1 O '9
'Pe pers
141S - I P LUS i Tipton Hill 226
Grove.* 1320 Hw*dole 1342 Relief
??J` 3 ?tl h
8 - 1307 •_.:'.
1341 •3 1.0
!? F? .+' • ?, ::Red Hill
":
Sioux
fq ? 311 1310 .: ?;= 1305. . ?•::::•`::_:?
':.?? 1340 0 tiC?y ,CMG 1306 {.,....
.S: Gam. 1340 ? g F?
?, ??..' ??? ? 1448 ?I•? ?` 8L 197
.1 yj.; 8 ? h
i
8 q .3 a I' b 1305
00-
)REST 141
,? 7 Q' 1339.
14441344 (r
_ .? SOS 4
h ri8y ?' 1336
?t?• .• ?Ac 1345 ? 1308
?° ?:,?....::-c: • °• `?'? 1346 •a TOF9` qs
Nil - 1 • •3, ? ? F9 1 1317
1347 v 7
eti 1345 .?
gamseytown ® .8 .5 y 1.335
1354 1348 / 5 p 1336
b 1334_ ry 1333 •6
'd •6 t 1337 1. 1318 3C
13A2!- ?-• 1350 Toledo 197 Z
4 0 ?ffer?4 i 1351 1349" , BOOk ' 1422
1426 •8 A r 14f6 ?'b P b Harris Memorial e
1333 Ch.
1354 : ^3 G{• 1353 ,4 ,3 1317
?. '6 !?P N 1332
?. 1336 1331 w
• 1355 3 1419 -
1337 1333 1
1356 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
j t 16 1358 O TRANSPORTATION
Y DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS a
?_ •?? Q !+ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1361 /•2 5 1445 BRANCH
1336 ` a 1359
1362 5 ?5
1 ,a T BRIDGE NO. 78 ON SR 1338 - SR 1314
1363 ! is N ;o YANCEY-MITCHELL COUNTIES
1 y 1360 t 330 T.I.P. PROJECT B-2081
•4 1365'! •?{i \ ??1
1366 g ?! FIG. I
1367 C ' 1364 ( ` / ' ;77197 % IV 1 1 I

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 25, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 78 on SR 1338/SR 1304 over North Toe River,
Yancey and Mitchell Counties, B-2081, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1338(1), State Project 8.2880301
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On March 23, 1995, members of our staff met with representatives of North Carolina
Department of Transportation to discuss the above project. We would like to summarize
our understanding of which properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places and what effect the project will have on them.
The Relief Historic District, which includes the Dr. J. L. Bradshaw House, is eligible for the
National Register under Criterion A for exploration and settlement and Criterion C for.
architecture. The Bailey House, the log house located on the south bank of the river, is
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture. We believe that the
project will have no effect on these two properties.
We concur that archaeological site 31 YC99 and Bridge 78 are not eligible for the National
Register.
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,
?DIWIWL?k?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Lewis
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1ZP
A-1

_ North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary

January 26, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 78 on SR 1338/SR 1304 over North Toe
River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, Federal Aid
BRZ-1338(1), TIP B-2081, State Project No.
8.2880301, ER 91-7469, ER 95-8091
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 20, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
The report on testing at 31 YC99 indicates that the, site is not eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places and no further investigations are
recommended. We concur with these recommendations.
The above comments.ar.e 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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. FOick
T. Padgett

qtr
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
1ZR
A-2
G -
v

Y

Z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources c,
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 12, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 78 on SR 1338/SR 1304 over
North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties, B-
2081, 8.2880301, BRZ-1338(1), ER 94-8611
Dear Mr. Graf:

APR ) 4i
?L
G(V(S(Cnr pF `r??
HIGHWAYS
Division of Arc+??l?td
William S. Price, Jr.,
Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1994, concerning the above project.
On February 25, 1994, representatives of the Historic Preservation Office and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation met to discuss the project's potential
effects on the two historic properties located in the area of potential effect--the
Relief Historic District and the Bailey House (Kaplan residence). Based upon the
preliminary documentation provd?'t?us aTthe meeting, we concur with the
Federal Highway Administration's determination that the project will have no effect
upon these two National Register-eligible properties..
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, I
David Brook
.Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
,cc: " H. F. Vick
B. Church

A-3
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
FOR IMPACTS TO
THE RELIEF HISTORIC DISTRICT
A-4
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1338(1)
STATE PROJECT 8.2880301
T. I. P. NO. B-2081
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: YANCEY AND MITCHELL COUNTIES, REPLACE BRIDGE
NUMBER 78 ON SR 1338 - SR 1314 OVER THE NORTH TOE
RIVER
YES NO
1. ..Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics, / ?
safety, and/or physical condition of the V
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location? Fv1
(Note: Proposed alinement roughly parallels
the existing alinement).
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the v F-1
existing highway?
4. Does the project require the removal or ?
alteration of historic buildings, tl/
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are ? /
important to preserve in place rather ?
than to recover for archaeological
research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f)
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, v1 F
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect on the historic
site, does the Advisory Council on ? ?/
Historic Preservation object to the
17
determination of "no adverse effect".
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the ?
assessment of impacts and the proposed
mitigation? (see pages A-1 through A-3).
8. Does the project require the preparation ?
of an EIS?
A-5
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT

The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do Nothing -,/- F]
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
-
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? F
I ?

or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ?
-
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? F
I

and (d) create a cost or impact of F I
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the hipthway without using the
adjacent historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures /
? ?
been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii substantial increased costs
or unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (vj a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
A-6
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location ? ?
without using the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
or (iv} such impacts, costs, or
e difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the ?
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed ?
to, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by
the FHWA, the SHPO, and as appropriate,
the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
The bridge replacement design was modified subsequent to approval
of the Categorical Exclusion for the project in December, 1991 to
create a more perpendicular crossing of the North Toe River. This
modification minimizes impacts on the Relief Historic District, while
at the same time avoiding impacts to the Bailey House.

Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
A-7
correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer (see page A-1 & A-3) V
b. Advisory Council in Historic Preservation
c. Property owner
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies V
e. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible and prudent
alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all the possible planning to minimize harm, and
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local
and state agencies.
Approved:
7-6-95
Date
7/&/!??
Date
v. A.'Zff-
,Manager, Planning & Environmental brancn
NCDOT
FOA "Div ion R"dministrator, FHWA
A-8

¦
TAKEa?
United States Department of the Interior ? sic
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806

-i
November 10, 1994
-Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
i
NOV 17 1094 ?
i'SIC- Crr
P ty
I?Y-V fi
?..-inYS 'Pi
V
Subject: Replacement of Bridge Number 78 on SR 1338 over the North Toe
River. Mitchell and Yancey Counties. T.I.P. No. B-2081:
Replacement of Bridge Number 58 on US 19 West over the Cane
River, Yancey County. North Carolina. T.I.P. No. B-1445
This letter concerns the two subject bridge replacement projects and the
Dotential for impacts to the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana). a freshwater mussel species proposed for listing as
endangered. Meetings to discuss these projects with regards to the
Appalachian elktoe were held on April 11 and May 9. 1994. In your
September 29. 1994 (received by fax on October 27, 1994). and October 27.
1994. letters, you requested the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
(Service) concurrence with your determination that the subject projects
were "not likeiv to adversely a-"fect" the Appalachian elktoe. The
following comments are provided in accordance with provisions of Sec.-ion
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-
1543).
As you know, the Appalachian elktoe was proposed for listing as
endangered on September 3. 1994 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal
Resister 58(170): 46940-46944). This species is endemic to the upper
Tennessee River system in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Historical records for the species in North, Carolina include the
r"ollowing river.systems: Nolichucky River. Little Tennessee River.
Litzle River. Swannanoa River: -and 'the- French Broad River.. -Only two ._.: .
populations of the Species are known to survive, one population in the
Lille Tennessee River (flacon and Swain Counties) and one population in
the Nolichucky River, (which includes the main stem of the NolichucKy
[Mitchell and Yancey Counties] and the North Toe River [Mitchell and
Yancey Counties]) In 1992, one specimen was Gund in the Cane River in
Ycnc_y County. Habitat and wager quality degr-a,,resulting prom
imcGundments. stream channelization. dredging. industrial and sewage
I.
A-9
effluent. and the runoff of silt and-other pollutants are believed to
have contributed to-this species' decline. _
Is
Proposed project activities were described at conference meetings and in
permit applications and natural resource technical reports. For both
.projects, each bridge will be replaced by structures built parallel to
the existing bridge. The existing bridges will then be removed. At the
May 9, 1994,-meeting in Asheville, measures to protect known downstream
Appalachian olktoe populations from possible adverse impacts of the
bridge replacement projects were discussed. Per the May 17, 1994,
meeting minutes, the North Carolina Department of Transportation agreed
to the following for both projects (please note that we are including a
few additional measures highlighted in bold):
1. The piers of the interior bents will be installed using the
drilled shaft method. which involves building a riprap rock
road into the river for the drilling machine. Sedimentation
produced is contained in the shaft and is pumped away to a
settling basin onshore. A turbidity curtain and portadam will
be placed around each bent-drilling location. The work road
will be built halfway into the river. and pipes will be buried
underneath the riprap to maintain hydraulic equilibrium. The
work road will be removed' in such a manner as to minimize an
increase in turbidity. If determined necessary, the bottom
layer of rock (for the work roads) should be left in order to
minimize disturbance to the river bottom.
2. Any onshore demolition or construction will be protected by a
rock wall to insure that no runoff gets into the river.
Erosion control matting will be used in areas to be revegetated
(or permanent stone bedding may also be applied to disturbed
slopes). A sedimentation control plan will be designed which
will incorporate High Quality Water (HQW) guidelines. This
plan will be sent to the Service and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission for review and comment at least
one month prior to construction.
3. A second work road will be placed in order to remove the
existing structure. The slurry of cooling water for the
cutting tools will be captured and transported to a settling
basin or tanker. The superstructure will be cut in sections
and lifted by crane and placed on the shore. The substructure
will be cut away at natural riverbed level and lifted by crane
and placed on shore for removal. A turbidity curtain
enc..rrl i ng : the bent.-wi 1 l:. be -used to restrict i ntrocucti on of
solidy into- the water column. -If the pier is cut •below the
natural river bed level. a turbidity curtain and a portadam
encircling the-bent site will be used to restrict introduction
of solids into the water column.
4. ;nor; roads should ncz be removal during the month of August or
between March through May to avoid the pe:" od when Appalachian
elktoe are spawning (August) and releasing larvae (March
through May).
A-10
5. A small stream relocation will be required on the Yancey County
side of Project B-2081. Erosion control -measures for HQW
waters will be followed.
o. Surveys for the Appalachian eiktoe were conducted on August 23,
1994, for both projects (B-1445 and B-2081). No naiades were
observed near the existing bridges and proposed work areas.
7. mater quality monitoring plans will be developed for each
bridge replacement project and submitted.to the Service and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for review and
comment at least one month prior to construction. Monitoring
will include the use of a single-stage sampler, a methodology
developed and used extensively by Duke Power Company to assess
the effectiveness of sedimentation control efforts. The
Service will evaluate the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's performance in controlling sedimentation
runoff and turbidity for projects B-1445 and B-2081, which will
serve as the basis for decisions regarding future bridge
replacement and construction projects (e.g.. B-2848 near
Huntda1e).
if the above provisions'are strictly adhered to. the Service concurs with
a "not likely to adversely effect" determination for the Appalachian
elktoe for these two particular projects. In view of this, we believe
the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: ('_) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered. (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner not considered in this review. or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the action.
The Service appreciates the assistance and cooperation of the North-.
Carolina Department of Transporation, particularly staff members, m
Savidge and Randy Turner. In any future correspondence pertaining to
this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-95-010.
S11'I'cere
.rian P. Cale
Fieid Supervisor
I
Mr. Bob Johnson, .U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-, Regulator y_ Field Offic`
Room 75. Greve Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
Ms. Stephanie u^oudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street. Marion, NC 28752
Mr. John :<<derman. North CaroI4na W;1dlife Resources Commi ssion. Rout= ^,
Box S:B. Pittsboro, NC 27312
A-11

Mr. Roy Shelton, Federal Highways Administration. 310 New Bern Avenue.
Suite 410. Raleigh, NC 27601
Mr. Randy Turner, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning
and Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh. NC 27611-5201
f '
_ e
J
A-12