19960856 Ver 1_Complete File_19960903

a YAr(
Hen
.0 Oww ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 10, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
9<??i 'per
cF`
s
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR A NATIONWIDE PERMI #6 R
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 59 OVER T ORTH TOE
RIVER AND NO. 15 OVER SEABOARD RAILROAD,
YANCEY/MITCHELL COUNTIES. TIP NOS. B-3089 and B-1283.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation requested and received
authorization from your agency to replace the referenced bridges via a Nationwide Permit
No. 23 dated September 24, 1996 (Action ID No. 199604336). After further review, it
has become necessary to perform test boring for a foundation investigation. Please
review the project for authorization under a Nationwide Permit # 6.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3127 (Survey
Activities) will apply to this project and are providing a copy of this letter to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, a copy of
this letter is also being provided to the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission for their
review. Copies of the environmental document are available upon request.
*
?r
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Bill Moore, P.E., Geotechnical Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, P.E., Planning & Environmental

13112,
..:. .- 57
I
\
1308 1!74
?
1170 1168 '1162
?.' -?
131 p ; ? ? r 1172

RIVER .. 1172,
11; 3 • • ? W i n g .,
Boonford 1170 116`
CEY ' Penland
-k
1440
?
"e BRIDGE # 59 l
'

1308 c n
1160
1301 G? g 2
1162
1309 S!
1306
_ :1300 1307 1163
130• 1430, <;::'ry 61
80 ; v 1160 1162
1154
;New%lale 1433 1300
Micaville t 423 / i ' Estatoe -Y?
FA P: rr'f V :
r TOE '
. 1 1 a 1 c
1199
>
- •• ??-
e
• : ....................
8ul aae an
f/ •• -Mrn
e ?oolat MITCH LLr„I .31,
AL ' ..
?'o $ o`us. NA gOjn ea Md •? Plumir
iamsey _! Mounlam _ a•usrrtl e//
lord ?Gr?" •'S I •e
r estre ay 8004
' ^? BanaarL „ eager ?
\? ' a Ala ?1 v InO;
Cree. 6
Swifs ? a nir•rle II
ur 1vr a 'Penlan--19E Lsorucf ` Y ,' A N E Y r' r?
Ip
c.m
I Jr?ensacala I '
?Mw Nmson .?
t 664 f
sr It eeee
zn4 rnfOZ?1114USicK -
`L7 r..Rnr 0.Y\
• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i ? PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 59
YANCEY/MITCHELL COUNTIES
B-3089
3/95 SCALE = 1:60 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
I I
I
3- STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 26, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
9 6 0850
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY

Y.'

M
SUBJECT: Yancey/Mitchell Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 59 over North Toe
River on NC 80 and Bridge No. 15 over Seaboard Railroad. TIP Nos.
B-3089 and B-1283, State Project Nos. 8.1900601 and 8.1880301, Federal
Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-80(5) and BRS-6400(2).
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
"CC'ical xclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
art requ sting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Pe acco ance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
tho ngineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county,
a copy of this document is also being provided to the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission for their review.

-1 P 2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincere y,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mrs. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, P.E., Planning & Environmental
NC 80
Yancey/Mitchell Counties
Bridge No. 59 Over North Toe River
and
Bridge No. 15 over Seaboard Railroad
Federal-Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-80(5) and BRS-6400(2)
State Project Nos. 8.1900601 and 8.1880301
T.I.P. Nos. B-3089 and B-1283
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION, REEVALUATION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
lO 27 196 ?. u?'sSk
DA YE Nichola L. Graf, P.E.
0, Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 80
Yancey/Mitchell Counties
Bridge No. 59 Over North Toe River
and
Bridge No. 15 over Seaboard Railroad
Federal-Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-80(5) and BRS-6400(2)
State Project Nos. 8.1900601 and 8.1880301
T.I.P. Nos. B-3089 and B-1283
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION, REEVALUATION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
JUNE 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
`Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G rimes, ., Unit Head
Cons ant Engi ring Unit
Phil Ha is, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
NC 80
Yancey/Mitchell Counties
Bridge No. 59 Over North Toe River
and
Bridge No. 15 over Seaboard Railroad
Federal-Aid Project Nos. BRSTP-80(5) and BRS-6400(2)
State Project Nos. 8.1900601 and 8.1880301
T.I.P. Nos. B-3089 and B-1283
Bridge Nos. 59 and 15 are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project prior
to right of way acquisition.
2. Bridge No. 59 over North Toe River was determined eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. The bridge will be recorded and removed in accordance with the
Memorandum of Agreement (see Attachment No. 2).
3. NCDOT will forward the bridge design to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as requested
in their December 15, 1994 letter (see appendix).
4. NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of this project to minimize
impacts to the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana):
a. High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas will be accomplished.
c. The piers of the interior bents will be installed using the drilled shaft method.
d. A temporary work road will be placed in the river to provide access for the drill shaft
construction. Normal flow rates will not be interrupted by the construction of the
temporary road work.
e. Temporary work roads will not be removed during the month of August or between
March through May.
f. Demolition of the concrete side rails and asphalt overlay will be removed from the top.
Any debris that falls in to river will be removed. Asphalt road will be removed and
ground seeded during growing season.
g. Prior to construction the contractor will be required to give notification of the construction
initiation date to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resource Commission,
Tennessee Valley Authority and NCDOT's Planning and Environmental Branch.
h. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonts raveneliana).
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 59 over the North Toe River will be replaced by a bridge on new alignment in the
same corridor as shown by Alternate B in Figures 2A and 2B. The new bridge will have a clear
roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft) and a length of approximately 150 meters (492 ft). Bridge
No. 59 will also span the CSX Railroad on the east bank of the river in Mitchell County and NC
80 on the west bank in Yancey County before rejoining NC 80 near SR 1300 in Yancey County.
The recommended Alternate B will replace Bridge No. 59 and Bridge No. 15 over CSX Railroad
located on NC 80 just north of Bridge No. 59. Bridge No. 15 in Mitchell County is in the 1997-
2003 T.I.P. (T.I.P. No. B-1283) and is scheduled for replacement in 1998 at an estimated cost
of $850,000.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
grass shoulders, for approximately 100 meters (330 ft) northeast of the bridge and 320 meters
(1050 ft) southwest of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structures during construction. The existing Bridge No.
59 and Bridge No. 15 structures, approaches and roadway will be removed upon completion of
the project.
The estimated cost for replacing Bridge No. 59, based on current prices, is $2,669,000 including
$319,000 for right-of-way and $2,350,000 for construction. The estimated cost to replace
Bridge No 59, as shown in the NCDOT's 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$2,600,000 including $50,000 for right-of-way and $2,550,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 80 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily forest land, residential and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the
bridges. NC 80 in the vicinity of the bridges has a 5.4 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 0.6
meter (2 ft) grass shoulders.
The projected traffic volume is 500 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 1100 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted at the project site but assumed to be 90
kmh (55 mph). Poor horizontal alignment due to the mountainous terrain greatly reduces safe
speed through the project site.
2
Bridge No. 59 is on a tangent with a flat grade and 20 meter radius (90 degree) curves at both
approaches. The design speed is less than 50 kilometers per hour (kmh), (30 mph). The
roadway is approximately 11.5 meters (38 ft) above the river bed. The structure, shown in
Figures 3A and 36, was built in 1922 of reinforced concrete construction and is of a spandrel
arch design. The 73-year old bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historical Places.
The overall length of Bridge No. 59 is 65 meters (212 ft). The clear roadway width is 4.6 meters
(15 ft). There is no posted weight limit.
Bridge No. 15 over CSX Railroad is located on NC 80 in Mitchell County approximately 100
meters (330 ft) north of Bridge No. 59. Bridge No. 15 is a three span treated timber structure
that was erected in 1958. Overall length of the bridge is 25.6 meters (84 ft.) and the clear
roadway width is 5.8 meters (19 ft.). The posted weight limit is 18,160 kilograms (20 tons) for
single vehicles and 23,608 kilograms (26 tons) for truck tractor semi-trailers. The vertical
clearance for the structure is 6.2 meters (20.3 ft.).
Bridge Nos. 59 and 15 have sufficiency ratings of 48.8 and 49, respectively, compared to a
rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported near the bridges during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994. This was a single vehicle accident where the driver was traveling 90 kmh (55 mph) and
ran off the road at the curve which approaches Bridge No. 59 in Mitchell County.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
No school buses from Yancey or Mitchell Counties cross the bridges
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 59. Each alternate consists of a bridge
with a clear roadway width of 8.6 meter (28 ft). This structure width will accommodate a 6.6
meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3.3 ft) shoulders on each side. The approach roadway
will be a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grass shoulders.
The alternates studied (shown in Figures 2A and 2B) are as follows:
Alternate A: Alternate A relocates Bridge No. 59 northwest of and adjacent to the existing
bridge and creates a less desirable alignment between Bridge Nos. 15 and 59 than the existing
alignment. The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the grade on the existing
bridge over the North Toe River. The grade on Bridge No. 15 will be raised approximately 1.0
meter (3.3 ft.) over the grade of the existing bridge over the CSX Railroad. A design exception
will be required to tie the approaches of Bridge No. 59 to NC 80 with an approximate 20 meter
radius curves on both sides of the river, similar to the alignment on the approaches of the
existing bridge.
Replacing Bridge No. 59 to the southeast of the existing bridge was considered also, however
the steep mountainous terrain prohibited the location of the bridge at this site.
3
Alternate B (Recommended): The proposed alignment locates the new structure
approximately 275 meters (900 ft) downstream of the existing bridge. The alignment will require
a structure approximately 150 meters (492 ft) long that will span over CSX Railroad on the east
bank of the river in Mitchell County, the North Toe River and existing NC 80 on the west bank of
the river in Yancey County. This new alignment will allow a design speed of 60 kmh (35 mph)
that is within the character of the mountainous terrain. The structure will provide a clearance of
approximately 14 meters (45 ft.) above CSX Railroad and 19 meters (62 ft.) above the North
Toe River.
Alternate B permits the abandonment of Bridge No. 15 located on NC 80 just north of Bridge
No. 59. Bridge No. 15 is scheduled for replacement in 1997 at an estimated cost of $1.5
million. Removing Bridge No. 15 without replacement will result in the elimination of roadway
access to properties owned by Unimin Corporation (an inactive mining operation) and by CSX
Railroad. CSX Railroad will be accessible by rail.
This alternate will result in two residential relocatees in Yancey County.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridges during construction of the recommended
alternate.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 80.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $20,500 $ 31,800
Structure (proposed) 460,600 1,180,300
Roadway Approaches 78,100 470,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 111,800 336,700
Engineering and Contingencies 104,000 330,500
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 27,500 319.000
SUBTOTAL $802,500 $2,669,000
Replacement of Bridge No. 15 1,500,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 47,000
TOTAL $2,349,500 $2,669,000
Alternate B includes removal of Bridge No. 59 and Bridge No. 15.
4
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 59 and Bridge No. 15 are recommended to be replaced on new alignment (Alternate
B) as shown in Figures 2A and 2B. The mountainous terrain substantially limits the options
available for consideration. While more costly by $320,000 than Alternate A, Alternate B
significantly improves the existing roadway alignment, requires no detour and maintains traffic
on the existing structures during the construction period. The new alignment also provides a
design speed of 60 kmh (35 mph). The existing structures and approaches will be removed
upon completion of the project.
The Division Engineer agrees with the recommendation of the structure being replaced on
new alignment within the same corridor.
The new structure will be located approximately 275 meters (900 ft) north of the present river
crossing. The alignment will require a structure approximately 150 meters (492 ft) long to span
over the CSX Railroad in Mitchell County, the North Toe River and the existing NC 80 in
Yancey County. An 8.6 meter (28 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement
structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter (22
ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3.3 ft) shoulders across the structure.
The proposed approaches to the bridge will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter
(6 ft) grassed shoulders.
The elevation of the new structure will provide the required clearance of 7.2 meters (23.5 ft)
over CSX Railroad and will exceed the required height over the North Toe River for a 25 year
design storm. The replacement structure will maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate
deck drainage. A minimum clearance of 18.3 meters (60 ft.) between bridge piers should be
provided (see TVA's letter dated January 26, 1995 in Appendix). The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies and roadway design.
VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for the design speed will be required. The proposed
horizontal alignment in the vicinity of the proposed bridge will requires major approach changes
to NC 80 to improve the design speed to 60 kmh (35 mph) which is within the character of this
mountainous route. Due to the existing terrain restrictions, additional environmental impacts and
construction costs, major changes to the horizontal and vertical alignment is not justified to
increase the design speed to 90 kmh (55 mph).
5
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in Yancey County (Figure 1) in a rural area southwest of
Micaville, North Carolina. The project site lies within the northern portion of the Mountain
Physiographic Province. Yancey County is a predominantly rural county at the foot of the Blue
Ridge Mountains. Agriculture, including a large poultry processing plant, and light industry
provide the main economic base for the County.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Micaville); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps;
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (Micaville);
USFWS list of protected and candidate species; N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP)
database of uncommon species and unique habitats; and NC Division of Environmental
Management fisheries database. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the
field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project limits by biologists on October
18, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meter (80 ft.)
wide right-of-way limits and the width the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized by steep slopes along the river with more
moderate slopes on the hill tops. Project area elevation is approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.)
above sea level.
This portion of Yancey County contains soils from the Chand ler-Micaville Complex (non-hydric)
and Biltmore Sand (non-hydric with inclusions). The Chandler-Micaville Complex occurs on the
30 to 95 percent slopes along the river and consists of a somewhat excessively drained sandy
loam soil. Biltmore sand occurs along the flood plain of the river and consists of a well-drained
sand to loamy sand.
Mitchell County soils is consistent with Yancey County as stated above.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
6
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and mixed hardwood forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained
areas. Areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium
sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago rugelh)
and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are vegetated by the above
as well as, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera japonica), and
greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Community
This forested community occurs on the slopes along the North Toe River. The dominant
canopy trees in this area include bla ck oak (Quercus velutina), American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and white pine (Pinus strobus). There is an
understory of dogwood (Comus florida), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia), and red mulberry (Morus rubra). The herbaceous layer consists mainly of
honeysuckle, greenbrier, and joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum). Animals previously listed
may also be found in this community along with raccoons (Procyon lotor) and a variety of
woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the North Toe River. Within the project
area the North Toe River is approximately 41 meters (136 ft.) wide and 1 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5
ft.) deep in the middle. On the day of investigation the stream was clear with a moderate to swift
flow to the west. The stream has a substrate of sand, gravel, and large cobblestones.
There was no aquatic vegetation present in the North Toe River at the time of the site visit
(October 18, 1994).
The stream banks were steep to moderately sloped, 1.6 to 10 meters (5 to 30 ft.) high, and
vegetated with the mixed hardwood forest. Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and various amphibians may reside
along the waters edge. Fish species expected to occur at this location include sunfish (Lepomis
sp.), bass (Micropterus sp.), brown trout (Salmo trutta), shiners (Notropis sp.), chubs (Nocomis
sp.), and darters (Etheostoma sp.). Macroinvertebrates observed within the stream include
crayfish (Cambaridae), mayfly (Ephemeroptera) and stonefly larvae (Plecoptera). Chironomid
larvae and oligochaetes would be expected to occur within the sand and gravel substrate.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE (ACRE)
Bridge 59 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.12 (0.30) 0.17 (0.43) 0.03 (0.09) 0.32 (0.82)
Alternative B 0.00 0.73(l.81) 0.03 (0.09) 0.76 (1.90)
(Recommended)
Terrestrial Communities
In the project area the mixed hardwood communities will receive the greatest impact from
construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal
species in residence. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.73
hectare (1.81 acres) of the mixed hardwood community.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the North Toe River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.03 hectare (0.09 acre) of stream bottom.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters", High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines, the
utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the Erosion and Sediment
Control Program and other commitments as stated in Section I. (Summary of Environmental
Commitments).
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the North Toe River / Nolichucky River watershed.
8
Water Resource Characteristics
The North Toe River, which originates near Newland, NC, is a perennial tributary to the
Nolichucky River flowing east to west through the proposed project area and joins with the
South Toe River about two miles downstream. The depth of the stream varies from 0.3 to 1.5
meters (1 to 5 ft.) in the project limits and has a width of 41 meters (136 ft.). The creek
substrate consists of sand, gravel, and large cobblestones. The North Toe River has a Class C
Trout rating from the Division of Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for
fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality, and its
suitability for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) sites upstream from the project
are:
Deneen Mica Company, Inc. (N00000434)
approximately 3.2 km (2 miles) upstream from bridge with mining and material
processing; allowed to discharge 1 to 10 million gallons per day.
2. Calvary Assembly of God (NCG550659)
approximately 4.8 km (3 miles) up stream from bridge with single family residence;
allowed to discharge up to 1000 gallons per day.
3. Ledbetter Oil Company, Inc/Rainbow Pantry No. 4 (NCG510144)
approximately 6.4 km (4 miles) upstream from bridge with a groundwater remediation
general permit.
4. Unimim Corporation/ Quartz Operation (N00000175)
approximately 6.4 km (4 miles) upstream from bridge with mining and material
processing; allowed to discharge 1 to 10 million gallons per day.
5. Taylor Togs, Inc. (N00023566)
approximately 4.8 km (3 miles) upstream from bridge with textile manufacturing; allowed
to discharge less than 100,000 gallons per day.
6. K-T Feldspar Corporation (N00000400)
approximately 8 km (5 miles) upstream from bridge with mining and material processing;
allowed to discharge 1 to 10 million gallons per day.
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR),
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) does not maintain a macroinvertebrate
monitoring station in this area. They do maintain a fish monitoring station at Bridge No. 59.
According to sampling in August 1991 and July 1993, dominant fish species include perch
(Percina evides), stoneroller (Campostoma anoma/um), shiners (Notropis sp.), Northern hog
sucker (Hypentellum nigricans), and darters (Etheostoma sp.). According to sampling
conducted by the NC Wildlife Commission, trout (Sa/mo trutta) are found within the North Toe
River system.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 are located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project study area.
No impacts to sensitive water resources will take place as a result of the project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to the aquatic community will result due to the placement of support piles in
the river channel. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's
"Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters", as applicable. Long term
impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the North Toe River has well defined
banks within the bridge replacement limits. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project
impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project
construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE).
Permits
Construction will be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Nationwide Permit No. 23 is authorized for use by the COE for Categorical Exclusions due to
the expected minimal impacts. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide Permit No. 23
requires a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the DEHNR, Division of Environmental
Management and COE before certification can be issued and use of the Nationwide Permit can
be approved.
Yancey and Mitchell Counties are two of 25 counties in western North Carolina designated as
having trout waters, and the North Toe River is listed as a trout water. Projects in these
counties must be reviewed and approved by the DEHNR, Wildlife Resources Commission prior
to approval of the COE Permit.
10
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact wetlands, no mitigation will be required. Mitigation for impacts
to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination regarding
mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline either due to natural
forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Yancey
and Mitchell Counties, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 10 federally protected species for
Yancey County and 9 federally protected species for Mitchell County as of March 28, 1995.
These species are listed in Table 2.
11
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR YANCEY and MITCHELL COUNTIES
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Felis concolor couguar' Eastern cougar E
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus3 Carolina Northern flying squirrel E
Plecotus townsendii virginianus' Virginia big-eared bat E
Myotis sodalis 2 Indiana bat E
Falco peregrinus' Peregrine falcon E
Alasmidonta raveneliana3 Appalachian elktoe E
Geum radiatum3 spreading avens E
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana3 Roan Mountain bluet E
Liatris hellerr2 Heller's blazing star T
Solidago spithamaea2 Blue Ridge goldenrod T
Spiraea virginiana3 Virginia spiraea T
Microhexura montivaga' Spruce-fir moss spider PE
Gymnoderma lineare3 rock gnome lichen PE
notes:
1 denotes federally protected species listed for Yancey County.
2 denotes federally protected species listed for Mitchell County.
3 denoted federally protected species listed for Yancey and Mitchell Counties.
denotes no specimens of that species have been found in at least 20 years.
Eastern Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of 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 they are most active at night.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the eastern cougar. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
12
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along either side of its
body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear.
The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to
tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of North
Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 1517 meters (5000 ft.) in
the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types are
used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites.
No habitat exists In the project study area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. Since
the project area elevation is approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.) and no transition zone
between conferous and hardwood forest are present, it can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Virginia big-eared bat is a medium-sized bat with forearms measuring 39 to 50 millimeters
(1.54 to 1.97 inches) long and typically weighing 7 to 12 grams (0.25 to 0.42 ounce). The
overall body length is approximately 96 millimeters (3.78 inches), the tail is approximately 46
millimeters (1.81 inches), and the hind foot is 11 millimeters (0.43 inches) long. The bats long
ears, approximately 2.5 centimeters (0.98 inch), and facial glands on either side of the snout are
distinctive. The fur is light to dark brown depending on the individual's age.
The Virginia big-eared bat utilize caves year-round as roost sites. Most known populations
hibernate during the winter in caves having temperatures ranging from 2.50 to 9.50 celsius
(36.5° to 49.1 ° fahrenheit). In summer, males separate into smaller groups away from the
females. The females roost in maternity caves to raise the young. The maternity caves have
temperatures ranging from 15° to 18° celsius (59.0° to 64.4° fahrenheit).
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Virginia big-eared bat. Since the
project area does not contain any known caves, It can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Indiana bat is a medium-sized myotis, with fur a dull grayish chestnut. Little is known of
this bat's diet beyond the fact that it consists of insects. Males forage the densely wooded
areas at tree top height. This bat has a definite breeding period that usually occurs during the
first 10 days of October. Limited mating may occur in the spring before the hibernating colonies
disperse. Hibernating colonies disperse in late March and most of the bats migrate to more
northern habitat for the summer. Migration to the wintering caves usually begins in August.
Limestone caves are used for winter hibernation. The preferred caves have a temperature
averaging 37 degrees to 43 degrees Fahrenheit in midwinter, and a relative humidity of 87
percent. A few bats have been found under bridges and old buildings, loosed bark and the
hollow of trees. Summer foraging by females and juveniles is limited to riparian and floodplain
13
areas. Creeks area not used if riparian trees have been removed. Males forage over floodplain
ridges and hillside forests and usually roost in caves.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Indiana bat Although riparian
vegetation exists along the North Toe River, the absence of known caves in the project
area indicates that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Peregrine falcon is a bird of prey having long pointed wings, dark blue or slate barred
underparts, pale bluish bills, yellow cere and feet, black top of head and cheeks contrasting with
a white throat and sides of neck. The tail is long, narrow, blue-gray and rounded with narrow
black bands and a broad subterminal bar is tipped white.
Historically, the peregrine falcon was a cosmopolitan species ranging from Alaska and
Greenland south through the Americas to Argentina. However, worldwide populations were
reduced during the 1950s and 1960s due to the use of DDT. The peregrine falcon nests on
cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, pinnacles, on the ground, and in the hollows of old trees or in old nests
of eagles, hawks, and ravens. In winter, the peregrine falcon forages in coastal ponds and
mudflats.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the peregrine falcon. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
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 elktoe exist in North Carolina; the Nolichucky River
(including its tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and the Little Tennessee
River and its tributaries. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse
sandy substrates.
Habitat does exist in the project study area for the Appalachian elktoe. Field
reconnaissance did not reveal evidence of any bivalve of any type within the area of
immediate impact.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
14
The North Carolina Department of Transportation conducted an informal Section 7 Consultation
May 22, 1995, with USFWS and Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources,
Wildlife Resoures Commission regarding possible impacts to the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana). The NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction
of the subject project per the discussions:
a. High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas will be accomplished.
c. The piers of the interior bents will be installed using the drilled shaft method.
d. A temporary work road will be placed in water to provide access for the drill shaft
construction. Normal flow rates will not be interrupted by the construction of the
temporary road work.
e. Temporary work roads will not be removed during the month of August or between
March through May.
f. Demolition of the concrete side rails and asphalt overlay will be removed from the top.
Any debris that falls in to river will be removed. Asphalt road will be removed and
ground reseeded during growing season.
g. Prior to construction the contractor will be required to give notification of the construction
initiation date to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Wildlife Resource
Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority and NCDOT's Planning and Environmental
Branch.
h. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana).
Based upon the proposed measures described above, it is concluded that construction of this
project is not likely to adversely affect the Appalachian elktoe. USFWS concurred with this
biological conclusion (see reply in Appendix).
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are
kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at
elevations of 1535 to 1541 meters (5060 to 5080 ft.), 1723 to 1747 meters (5680 to 5760 ft.)
and 1759 meters (5800 ft.). Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and
shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam
and clay loam. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
15
No habitat exists In the project study area for the spreading avens. Since the project
area elevation is approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.) and the absence of other habitat
requirements, it can be concluded that the subject project will not Impact this
Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial herb, having shallow roots that form low-growing loose
tufts approximately 10.16 to 15.0 centimeters (4.0 to 5.9 inches) tall. The flowers occur on a
cyme, are bright, deep purple in color, and bloom from July to early August. The Roan
Mountain bluet occurs on high elevation cliffs, spruce-fir forests, rock outcrops, and steep
slopes which are exposed to full sunlight. The underlying substrate is typically composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Roan Mountain bluet. Since the project
area elevation is approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.) and does not contain high elevation
cliffs, rock outcrops or spruce-fir forests, it can be concluded that the subject project will
not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Holler's blazing star is a perennial herb with an erect stem from a globose, semiglobose or
tapering rootstock. The leaves of Heller's blazing star are alternate, cauline and basal, and
decreasing in size upward. The inflorescence occurs in spikes or racemes, flowers from the top
to the bottom of the stem, and is present from late-July through September.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, and
typically occurs on sandy soil on high elevation rocky summits, cliffs, ledges and rocky woods
which are exposed to full sunlight.
No habitat exists in the project study area for Heller's blazing star. Since elevations
throughout the project area are approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.) and no rocky
summits, ledges or cliffs are present, it can be concluded that the subject project will not
Impact this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is an erect perennial herb, approximately 10.2 to 40.6 centimeters
(4 to 16 inches) tall, arising from a short rhizome. The leaves are cauline and often basal,
elliptic, 3 to 6 centimeters (1.2 to 2.4 inches) long, 0.8 to 2 centimeters (0.3 to 0.8 inches) wide,
serrate, and ciliate. The flowers are yellow in color, occur in compact corymbs of 20 to 30 flower
heads, are 2 to 4 millimeters (0.1 to 0.2 inches) in length, and bloom between July and August.
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is typically found growing in full sunlight in the crevices of granite rock
outcrops of open mountain summits at elevations above 1402.1 (4600 ft.). This species is
considered to be an early pioneer species on rock outcrops.
16
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Blue Ridge goldenrod. Since
elevations throughout the project area are approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.) and no
rock outcrops were observed, it can be concluded that the subject project will not impact
this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Virginia spiraea has arching and upright stems that grow from one to three meters tall. This
shrub often grow in dense clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in size, shape,
and degree of serration. They are green above and usually somewhat glaucous below. The
cream colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in branched, flat-topped
inflorescence. Virginia spiraea is easily located during the late fall while herbaceous growth is
minimal and the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats in the mountains of North Carolina.
Habitats for the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls,
point bars, natural levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient to
prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely remove small, woody species.
This species occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various other
disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in areas with full sunlight, but can survive
in shaded areas until it is released from competition.
Experts on this species report that most Class C streams in western North Carolina
probably contain suitable habitat for this species. Surveys conducted June 7, 1996,
approximately 60 meters upstream and 180 meters downstream along the banks of the
North Toe River revealed no specimens of this species. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The spruce-fir moss spider measures approximately 3.0 to 5.6 millimeters in length. The most
reliable field identification characteristics for the spruce-fir moss spider are a pair of very long
posterior spinnerets, the presence of a second pair of book lungs which appear as light patches
posterior to the genital furrow, light brown to dark reddish-brown back, and the absence of
markings on the abdomen.
The spruce-fir moss spider is typically found in well-drained moss and liverwort mats growing on
rocks or boulders, in well-shaded areas of mature, high-elevation Fraser fir (Abies frased) and
red spruce (Picca rubens). The spruce-fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and
requires conditions of high and constant humidity.
No habitat exists in the project vicinity for the spruce-fir moss spider, since the project
area does not include high elevation red spruce-Fraser fir communities. It can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact this Proposed Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
17
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can be
identified by its fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found
at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high
humidity environments occur on high elevation (> 1220 m /4000 ft.) mountaintops and cliff faces
which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (< 762 m /2500 ft.) deep gorges in the
Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is
almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The
major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of
high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe,
Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey. The lower elevation
habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and
Transylvania.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the rock gnome lichen. Since elevations
throughout the project area are approximately 719 meters (2360 ft.), It can be concluded
that the subject project will not Impact this Proposed Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Candidate
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Yancey
and Mitchell Counties. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Candidate (C), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
18
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
YANCEY and MITCHELL COUNTIES
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Myods subulatus le&P Sc No
(Eastern small footed bat)
Microtus chrotorrhlnus carolMensis, Sc No
(Southern rock vole)
Sylvilagus transitionalis' SR Yes
(New England cottontail)
Neotoma florfdana maglster2 Sc No
(Eastern woodrat)
Clemmys muhlenbergii T No
(bog turtle)
Cryptobronchus alleganiensis' Sc Yes
(hellbender)
Eurycea junaluska' Sc Yes
(Junaluska salamander)
Percina squamata3 Sc Yes
(olive darter)
Paravitrea varidens3 T No
(Roan supercoil)
Speyeria diana2 SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Abies fraseri3 C No
(Fraser fir)
Suckleye disdchophyl/a2 E No
(piratebush)
Astilbe crenatilobe *2 C No
(Roan false goat's beard)
Bazzania nudicaulis .3 C No
(a liverwort)
Calamagrosds caMlP E No
(Cain's reedgrass)
Cardamine clematitis "' C No
(mountain bittercress)
Carex roanensis2 C No
(a sedge)
Delphinium exaltatum " 2 ESC No
(tall larkspur)
Euphorbia purpurea' C No
(Wolfs milk spurge)
Geum geniculatum2 T No
(bent evens)
Juncus trifldus carolinianus2 E No
(one-flowered rush)
19
Table 3 (con't)
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Leptohymenium sharpii •' c No
(Mount Leconte moss)
Ullum graye T-SC No
(Gray's lily)
Paxistima Canby? W No
(cliff-green)
Plagiochila sullivantit var. sullivantii* 3 c No
(a liverwort)
Saxifraga caroliniana' C No
(Gray's saxifrage)
Senecio millefolium2 T Yes
(divided-leaf ragwort)
Scutellaria saxatilis2 c Yes
(rock skullcap)
Silene ovata' C No
(mountain catch-fly)
Sphenolobopsis pearsom * 3 C No
(a liverwort)
Ploglochlle caduclloba' E No
(a liverwort)
notes
Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
denotes no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
E denotes state Endangered species, which are afforded protection by state laws.
T denotes state Endangered species, which are afforded protection by state laws.
C denotes state Endangered species, which are considered by the State as being rare and needing population monitoring.
SC denotes Special Concern species, which are afforded protection by state laws.
SR denotes Significantly Rare species for which population monitoring and conservation action is recommended.
W denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation concern, but not warranting active monitoring at
this time.
1 denotes species listed for Yancey County.
2 denotes species listed for Mitchell County.
3 denotes species listed for Yancey and Mitchell Counties.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any protected species known to occur in Yancey or
Mitchell Counties. No impacts to protected species will result from any of the proposed project
alternatives. Also, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and
no records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
20
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge and improved approaches will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on the communities are anticipated. The proposed project will result in the
relocation of two homes.
The relocation program for the proposed project will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. A copy of the Relocation Report is included in
the Appendix.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, coded at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated February 21, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that Bridge No. 59 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the SHPO
letter is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, recommends "an archaeological
survey be conducted if this involves a new alignment." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is
included in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted
prior to right of way acquisition. A report of survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA to
the SHPO for review. Further consultation will be conducted if necessary.
Coordination with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service indicates no prime, important, or unique
farmlands will be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, this project is exempt from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act, and no further coordination is necessary.
21
The project is located in Yancey and Mitchell Counties which have been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to
create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis ( if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Yancey and Mitchell Counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. The North Toe River in the area of the project site is included in a FEMA approximate
study as shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to
be significant.
4(f) Involvement
In a Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects, dated June 15, 1995, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the FHWA that the project would have an adverse
effect on Bridge No. 59 since the bridge will be demolished. A copy of the Concurrence Form is
included in the Appendix.
The following alternatives were fully evaluated:
(1) Do Nothing Alternative. The "Do Nothing Alternative" is not feasible and prudent
because it would not correct the existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance
problems of the existing structure. Additionally, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge; this is not prudent due to the traffic service provided
by NC 80.
(2) Preservation of Existing Bridge. The County Managers of Yancey and Mitchell Counties
(Attachment 3 & 4) declined accepting responsibility to maintain and preserve the
existing historic bridge upon completion of a new bridge. The NCDOT will require the
structure to be demolished after the new bridge is open to traffic.
22
(3) Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge. Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge
Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its
age and deteriorated condition.
None of the alternatives discussed above are found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible and reasonable planning to minimize harm to the historical bridge was performed as
an integral part of this bridge replacement project. Approval of the programmatic 4(f) by the
FHWA Administrator is included as Attachment 1 of this document. Bridge No. 59 will be
documented per the Memorandum of Agreement (Attachment 2).
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due
to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
23
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA.
Page, L.M., B.M. Burr. 1991. A Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classification and Water Quality Standards. 15ANCAC2B.0306.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, NY.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Soil Survey of
Yancey County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
24
E
19W N
Sioux, Gr
itamser '• Moy
q}add'Frin' iY BOOk
Bard !7 .?
Creek
Srics o.o..u.
" -,ej-
ti
Bulaaean
MITCH
i ;
•
• .......
41
.•
ILL
d H il•:
u?
Plumir
v.Ile /
BanGiN eoYli
Y'AINe E Y,'- 19E
?y' _J IfI Ctlo tl
l I Pensacola ebAw;
k ?Mwcroson ??'
MI M?IptMII 9 .
vl lit ly?lw r frJe•
an?mC1yI S
???•tl u51Ck .
:r=te., .? I
? rexn.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
l.? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
k''n„?,,,.•r R PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
AN
BRIDGE NO. 59
YANCEY/MITCHELL COUNTIES
B-3089
3/95 SCALE = 1:60 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
1 1
t iiY
.. I
32?(lJlJ 33S) 3NIl Hoi VIM
m
U.
O N
W Z
W LL
Z ?
Q o pp
QQOZ(?n5 U) LLJU o
?w00 WZ=M '- N
?2ZZ? t?rr? i II ..
m2u p m w E
op O Q
zo m n W
ao U Cl)
"a; U Z o
4A Z Q

Z ' 23

U
'
_ U ?.:.
?z

?k V
CYI
. LL ?B? CtY1ln .. _ ax
tia.Y •-
71,
3 , -

w I
Kit
?
P #

a,
f

o,w AswI
m
P

S.u
t
ZV
71 =i'll,

et
MML
?''?..
C K
t i Re

lz
Ali
ae
a ? _ c.

E
h' 1
t
1
iEAST END
RIDGE # 59
FIGURE 3A
r.
YANCEY AND
MITCHELL COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. 59
B-3089
NORTHWEST END
OF BRIDGE #59
? r
YANCEY AND
MITCHELL COUNTIES
BRIDGE NO. 59
B-3089
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 59
LOCATION FOR ALT. B
PROPOSED ROADWAY
i
APPROXIMATE SCALE
METERS
I- I
0 1000 2000
YANCEY/
MITCHELL
COUNTY
B-3089

ZONE A
MITCHELL
COUNTY
BOONFORD
HWY.
o ' 1
*1` 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
BRIDGE # 59
YANCEY
COUNTY
Y
U?
WING
TOE
?o
Rp.
y
r
6
r
N
FIGURE 4

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-80 (5 )
State Project
T. 1. P. No
8.1900601
B-3089
Description: Replace Bridge No. 59 over the North Toe River
in Yancey/Mitchell Counties
Yes No
'.. Is the briaoe tc be replaced or rehabilitated with
Feoera funds? X 17
2. Does the project require the use of a historic bridge
struc-?ure wnicn is on or eligible for listing on the ?
National Register of Historic Places? X
3. 15, the bridge a National Historic Landmark? X-
4. Has agreement been reached among the FHWA, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through pro-
ceaures pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic -
Preservation Act (NHPA)? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO-BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be
feasible and purdent:
1. Do nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety hazards?
Yes No
_X_ 17
7 x
=o
Attachment No. 1

2
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different location without - ?
a fecting t e istoric integrity of the structure. X
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already been located
at the only feasible and prudent site
or/and (ii) Adverse social, environmental, or
economic impacts were noted
or/and (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
or/and EDdue The existing bridge cannot be preserved
to the extent of rehabilitation,
because no responsible party will
maintain and preserve the historic
bridge, or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without affecting
the historic integrity o the structure. X
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements and
meet National Register criteria
or/and (ii) The bridge is seriously deficient
geometrically and cannot be widened
to meet the required capacity and
meet National Register criteria
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning to - ?
minimize harm. X
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the
historic integrity of the bridge is preserved,
to the greatest extent possible, consistent with
unavoidable transportation needs, safety, and
load requirements.
3
b. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the
point that the historic integrity is affected or
that are to be removed or demolished, the FHWA
ensures that, in accordance with the Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, or
other suitable means developed through con-
sultation, fully adequate records are made of
the bridge.
For bridges that are to be replaced, the
existing bridge is made available for an
alternative use, provided a responsible party
agrees to maintain and preserve the bridge.
d. For bridges that are adversely affected, agreement
among the SHPO, ACHP, and FHWA is reached through
the Section 106 process of the NHPA on measures to
minimize harm and those measures are incorporated
into the project.
Specific measures to minimize harm are discussed below:
County Managers from Yancey and Mitchell Counties have elected
not to accept responsibility to maintain or accept liability
for Bridge No. 59 (Attachment 3 and 4).
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), NCDOT and FHWA whose correspondence is
included as a Memorandum of Agreement. The proposed mitigation
of the removal of Bridge No. 59 is through photographic inventory
and to record as agreed upon through the following Memorandum
of Agreement (Attachment 2)
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
Ct ORllI",ATIO\
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Presenvation Officer 1
h. Ad,%ison• Council on Historic Preservation x
c. Local State Federal Agencies t
d. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
StN L\ ARY A\"D APPRON"Al.
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5. 1983.
All required alternati-% es have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
Therc are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge, The project
includes all possible planning to minunize hann, and there are assurances that the measures
to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
X11 appropriate coordination has been successfully completed
Appro\ cd:
s6
1 ate managcn Planning & F.mii•onmental Branch
tiCDOT
Z u?iS L
)atc Dkis n Administrator. FHWA
i
C00:d , VLZT'ON Xd/Xi LT:80 96/9T/ZO
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.6(a)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 59
ON NC 80 OVER THE NORTH TOE RIVER
YANCEY AND MITCHELL COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. B-3089, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1900601
FEDERAL AID NO. BRSTP-80(5)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
replacement of Bridge No. 59 over the North Toe River at the Yancey and Mitchell
County line, North Carolina, a property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, will have an effect upon the structure, and has consulted with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800,
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) participated in
the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1:HWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on Bridge No. 59.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
Prior to the demolition of Yancey County Bridge No. 59, NCDOT shall record the
bridge in accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan
(Appendix A). The recordation plan shall be carried out and copies of the record
sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of construction.
-H?d
20d 890tt : ON -121 NOZtH nNd QNd JN I NNd : Q I Te :8 d -96,-9T
600'd 6LZT'ON XH/X1
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO
and implementation of its terms evidences that FI-MA has afforded the Council an No. 59
and its
opportunity to comment on the replacement of ??? into ccount ?the effects of the
erect on historic properties, undertaking on historic properties.
pr- FEDERAL
NOR
AY
LT:80 96/91/ZO
TION
STATE HISTORIC
.TE
to 15 s
VATION OFFICER DATE
R CAROLINA D PA 1-4T OF TRANSPORTATION D
Concurring Party
K? L?r 1 L.ar .vs
ADVISORY COUNCM ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
?Is
DATE
hod 990# : ON 7=1 NCa I r)N? QNd ON I NNd : Q I Zi 6 l t. ?6,-9T-92--J
2001d VLZ1'0N X2i/X1 LI:BO 96/9I/ZO
APPENDIX A
Historic Structure Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 59
Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrativedescription of Bridge No. 59
Photographic Documentation
Photographic views of Yancey County Bridge No. 59 including:
Overall views (elevation and oblique views)
Overall views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction and design
Format
Color transparencies (all views)
35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs, negatives, and color transparencies to be labeled
according to Division of Archives and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) se of all photographic documentation and the historical background
information will be deposited with the North Carolina Division of Archives and
History/State Historic Preservation Office to be made a permanent part of the
statewide survey and iconographic collection.
-0? °0tt ON 721 NC's! I r)N3 QNH CN I NNN : Q I 77-60 I ?3 96 q Z -H3?
Count)' M& seer
Earl Nelson Tipton
KTAwINfO 1a?
(low
opffirt ?VU tr
Room 11, Courthouse
Burnsville, North Carolina 28714
[phone] • [phone]
September 1, 1995
Mr. Phil Harris
Dept, of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201,
Raleigh. N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Harris,
board of Can il"llonm
Keith Presneil, Chairman
John Renfro, Member
silty Ray Bailey, Member
In regard to Bridge No. 59 over North Toe River Yancey/Mitchell
Counties, Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-80(5). Yancey County
officials have elected not to maintain or accept liability for this
structure.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
Earl N. Tipton
County Manager
ENT/bl
Attachment No. 3

MITCHELL. COUNTY
P.O. BOX 409, BAKERSVILLE, NC 28706 704.888.2138
September 8, 1995,
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E„ Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 58 on NC 80 'over North Too River
Yancey/MitchoN Counties, Federal-Aid Project No. BR$TP-80(5)
State Project No. 8.1900601, T.I.P. No. B-3089
Dear Mr, Vick:
In a regular meeting held on September 7th, the Board of Commissioners
unanimously agreed that Mitchell County does not want to accept responsibility
of the above named bridge.
If your office needs further information, please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ey
Assistant County Manager
Sep 131995
Attachment No. 4
'?"- Z0d TOT# _ON X31 AN3-19 9I NNU-1d lOQ OWQ I _6ti_t7T_nHl S6 bti-d3S- - -
FISH AND W"LIFE SERVICE
AehevtUe Field Office
W RIdgefield COUrl
Asheville, North CamWta 288W
July 27, 1995
E:i
CF. !
JUI 3 i
GMS104 OF
fi', QHWAY ?
L%1 `
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, ntal Branch
Planning and Envir xWe
Division of Highways
North Carolina DePartment of Transportation
P.o. Box 25201
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
excIusio
during the survey).

(received on July 1995).
in your transmittal letter of July 17. 1995 ion els no (A1 nt
r concurrence that the subject lroh ect is not likely to
you requested ou
illy endanger PP
adversely affect the federa C.
anng comments are providedsiawn accordance (16eL1 S. C
as
rav ns11)• The follo Act of 197,
Section 7 o?A} Endangered Species
re, Mr. John Fridell of our staff r?o???de?ntMay122o?g95.
As you are awa for the subje p
Section 7 consulation meeting rovided as an attachment to Your
The July 12 , 1995. meeting summary p
list of eight environmental COMmit
letter includes a nors to mijnim zeoany t-a rum ell located
Carolina Department of rrenCeoo aA tNCDOT iroatental
impacts to a known occused roJect• we believe these env
ownstream of the prop P fitments are implemented.
commitments accurately summarize the measures agreed upon at. the fief
meeting. Thus, if these eight environments C t likely to adversely
S, Fish and wildlife Service (rorased) lonnors with the
the U
determination that the project. as p
affect A
also agreed upon atithe ), alfed rere ally rePlease note that it was threatened
survey for Virginia sberaonduet N in the general protect area.
plant species, s, should be either forwarded to our office (if the
The survey result the project area) or noted hin the Qro?°t13rea
species is observed within
n document (if the species is not located w
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Proposed replacement
Qiver. Mitchell and
united States Department of the Interior
of Bridge Number 59 over the North Toe
VanrPV Counties, T

The Service appreciates the excellent coordination and cooperation from
future
your staff with regard to this pproect, In
concerning this project, please
Sin ely,
. w,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comrrrission.
320 S, Garden Street, Marion. NC 28752
Mr. John Alderman, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Route 4,
Box 518, Pittsboro. NC 27312
Mr. Bob Johnson.ArmmlY Roo Corps ofshegv
151 Patton Avenue, illeerJNCRZ8841t5006Fie1d office,
T_P s F"d erai Aid r P?R?r7- Lo(s) Ccu r; yAtJL?yZNlIrU{ELL_
C0NCL-R.RENC E F0R:tii
FOR
ASSESSN EN-T OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
REPS-,?cE 3????G? ?1• ?°? oa N? go o??- iJ?,?r?t TOE. ?,?EZ.
On J uae Iii 4 l'1°I S , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department or Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
v North Carolina State Historic Preservation. Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the suoiect prciect and agreed
`ere are no ecfecs on the National Register-listed procerr? ,vi?.ii? t:e jroiec:'s area cf -ocentiai
effect and listed on the reverse.
efiec on e National ?e?ister-eiicioie )roverties .ccated wit.`iin the _•roiec:`s area
;! ere are no
of ocientiai et ec: and listed on u le reverse.
a,, of ec: on u-e Natir)nai e2ister-•.!sted orcoe^?ioroce, es .vitlZin : e roiec: 3r°?. Cf
.jai =e - :e CrCCe;` iDiCCer :eS are .iSzz CP...e
? here iS an eIFeO: On the :VatiO["1 e?ister-eagi0le prooe;?fioroce-ies : Ll iln file ?mieO.'s area or
c? enual effect. ne prooe:-t/oroce:Lies and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
Qr?
Zepr NCDOT Date
'Date'
H,vA, the Division AaIIlIll$ilaCOr, or ocher : eneral Agent
R ?esentative, .SHPO Date
-Slam `llistoric Preservation Officer Date
(over)
TIP ?io?] Federal Aid .'r a??i P - go ( County /A,.???•i?M?T?yEL? .
-?--- ?-
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if prope-y is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potentiai effect for which there is an effec,. Indicate groper-ty status (Nt-R or DE,
and describe effect.
}V R;vC_e 1??0. G1? ? ?E) - ApvE9?F EFFtGr'

Initialed: NCDOT ?FHwA / GS' SFIPO

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray :McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 59 on NC 80 over North Toe River, Mitchell
and Yancey Counties, B-3089, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-80(5), State Project 8.1900601, ER 95-
8398
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1995, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the vicinity map and photos of Bridge No. 59. For purposes of
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that Bridge No. 59 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion C as an intact example of a concrete arch and deck bridge and one of
four closed-spandrel arch bridges remaining in the state.
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,
`David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
`8-. Church
?G'
109 East Jones Street • Raleign. North Carolina 27601-2807
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
X E.I.S. FICORRIDOR a DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1900601 COUNTY Yance i
T.D. NO.: B-3089 F.A. PROJECT BRSTP
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 80, Replacement of
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total
Individuals 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2
Businesses 0 0 0
Farms 0 0 0
Non-Profit 0 0 0
ANSWER ALL UESnONS
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers.
X 1. Will special relocation services be net
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by
displacement'
X 3. Will business services still be available after
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X S. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
n/a 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 16 months
Tenants For Sale For Rent
0 S 0-150 0 a20M 0 S o-150 0
0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 immo 0
1 250-+00 0 40-70M 0 250-400 0
0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
0 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 UP 0

areieriu t"mixinnd by ivumberl
3. Will not be disrupted due to the project
6. (a) Mitchell News - Journal
(b) Howell-Sparks Real Estate
(c) Lunsford Realty
S. As necessary in accordance with State Law
11. County of Mitchell Community Development Program
12. Howell-Sparks Real Estate, Ray Howell. owner and local
newspaper indicated that sufficient decent, safe and
sanitary housing properties would be available for the above
displacees.
Relocation Aje6t D roved b Date
hell I Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
#59 Over the North Toe River
INCOME LEVEL
15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0
E of bwLLLIIVG DSS D*iUjr4G AVAILABLL.
Minorities 0-15M
0
0
0 VA]
0 Owners
0 0-20M
20-4Obt
40-70M
essary? 70-100M
too UP
TOTAL
rmm, IS • Reasea sroa Original & 1 Copy: state xetocuion Hgem
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
V
` -fa 0 6 i"S
DMSIGN G
Tenresus vafty AutWty, 400 west Summa Her onus, Kr,0*20, rW-9$ ve 37W2-1499 HIGHWAYS
January 26, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Managor
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highvays
post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27b11-5201
Dear Mr. Vick'
ADDITIONAL COMMMS ON GROUP VII BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
As a followup to my letter of December 15, 1994, I wish to provide
additional comments on the environmental review of bridge replacements
B_2804 (Avery County, SR 1164 over North Toe River) and B-3089 (Yancey
County, NC 80 over North Toe River). IQ presQn A search of TVA 's heritage database revealed ntheppossibaf bridgece of mile
a sunflower, Helionthus
B-2804. This species is a candidate for state listing as enndgerebe
or threatened in North Carolina. If the new bridge is proposed
built in a different place, the area should be surveyed during the
spring/summer growing season by a qualified botanist.
Both projects (B-2804 and 8-3089) appear to be located on streams used
for boating and rafting. Thebe provided, and no refore, a minimum clearance of 60 feet should be
bittveen bridge piers should
of the river channel.
located in the deepest p
In addition to the above information, the 26a application for approval
of these bridge replacements should include documentation of
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act or a statement
of intentions to do so with each request.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments- Should you
have any questions, please call Harold M. Draper at [phone].
Sincerely,
Dale V. Wilhelm, Liaison
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
luaw9"UT ; TzauamuOaTnu,
3nV fZTTod Tvlu9=Oa;nuS TeuoTleN
UOSTSTl 'wTaq?Th 'A aTaQ
'dTazaoUIS
66177-Z064E aasssuuaz '6TTTnx0u)i
X-OS IM 'a1TzQ TTTH aTwwn£ ZsPM OOb
ID-V LZTTod Teauawuo-ITnug TeuotapN
uostet7 'mTaglTM 'A eTEC
:U'l
xauapuodsaaacz. palpTaa_rdgN .zo; ssaappp aq: @2UFq? asaa?d `t.IOTarppF ul
CggLC aassauua_ `aaodsSUTX
enTAQ 6.auaH a.io3 50117
RTZ aline '-4u?q Tesapeg a$ttTzaR
-Juswa?rUVK pur^1 3TOn3990g YtT
1lauuaQ -;, aTppeaz ' ZR
: ssaIppt BuTroTTo? a:;. De 7k9w92eueR pueZ zionxasaH uo,sTon
zaddn s =;,? _oe v.? ?sw?ld -;;u;6Tdwo:, air suttsap 85p:3c uauM et,:-
zo TrAca ar ac.ad ;rtU j'CN pt4aona,suo-, aq ,rus ruojjvt-.Tdsal •10 Spuvj
?TTond as `7p?luC, pooj; uot.?gineu TRUT7oa;;e 'uo-cloil;: Sqo zat;lc
ao ' s7,Avr. aurusiandde - yep ou JM41. Se.:Tnbaz 10y b'A.l eta Io -oyZ UCTS39S
peo.:T Tsg
pavoopaS pu7 :af_Ih aol ulaox lano pg ON uo •e1uno, ieoup.;, `6800-2 ¦
aol L'-AaUN zano pgT- Er; uo ?.1L-noO %.an? `vUfi?-? •
:.ZV VA1. aqa 30 v9Z uataaag ABOar. VAL w0.:;
TE'ACIddF 9?Tnbdz fe¢ plia paus:alpN, 1:z.:HA aessauuas at;. u? f`?uTsso::.
wt•a;as a:.?Or_r.- E,??:c.:C or._ guT:ioTTc; aka 1sq? sseadd? :,; 'puT7G.=P?
ct_ao?? ::.e?sar. U. s.aaCoza 32pTaq u8813 TJ $o M®tne.: Trl amuoztnua
e1:1 uc s.uawwov iuldovs aptnozd o. Eatun:;zoddo t?q, ao; noL -4uvi
STOgfO?d :NH3?3Ot'id3h 2)Q'fiE :_A df102T? NQ SLtMRWC)';
:M:)IA -Ali irea
/?2?~ S?IVMHJI?~ ? ' \
(L'? 20 NOIS1A11:11
*111C ?
sWi L 33Q

TOZS-TT4LZ rutTose:) glsoh 'TOTOT"
TOZSZ x019 aotD0 lsod
5xv- illE go U01611"TQ
uoTlp°,zodsuvlj. o wowtztidaQ WUTTGJEJ g{ ION
9DUeJS TeauamuozTAUS Ptm 3uiaapTd
xaSleur .19.d 1.43TA uTT HZJ 'E '_iR
766T "rT zagwacaQ
ZOEZt eee9eUU6: OJJAADuy 'A•wn jnH pLUWrI ,• 12(OM,Our ' *Um 4awA msauui
? N
sJ?5L?7L ?`w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc 1''
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Williar
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tcat?sportation
i
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
DEC 1 3 1994
. ory?
Arc>firgeandci
.,
ce Jr., DiC N.,
11,
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2822, Davidson County on SR 1743 over Abbott's Creek on which
we commented by letter of March 22, 1994 to Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway
Administration, we have no recording of having seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
Wang Engineering Company, Inc., to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-
Earley to check our maps and files or to have her review aerial photographs or
maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge #3 on SR 1547 over Duck Creek, B-2647, Union County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
may be located in the floodplain and first terrace areas of the proposed project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Bridge #148 on SR 1132 over Rocky River, B-2808, Cabarrus County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
K
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994. Page 2
may be located within the proposed project area. We recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify
the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Bridge #90 on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek, B-2857, Randolph County
Bridge #404 on SR 2830 over Richland Creek, B-2858, Randolph County
Bridge #1 on SR 1526 over Grants Creek, B-2865, Rowan County
Bridge #78 on SR 1556 over East Prong Deep River, B-2833, Guilford County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the immediate project
vicinity. We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed project upon as yet
unrecorded resources until we have a location and project details. Please forward
this information when it is available.
Bridge #56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, B-2126, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV40 1 is located on both sides of NC 150 north of Reedy
Creek and may be affected by the proposed replacement. As soon as the project
location anc details are available, please forward them to us for our review. If
affected, 31 DV401 should be tested to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Bridge #84 on NC 1 50 over Fryes Creek, B-2821, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV41 4 is located east of NC 1 50 and north of Fryes Creek.
It is probable that this Archaic and Woodland period site will be affected by the
proposed bridge replacement. We recommend that the project area be surveyed
and, if affected, 31 DV414 be tested to determine its eligibility for the National
Register.
Bridge #139 on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek, B-2822, Davidson County
Although no archaeological survey was recommended in our preliminary comments
concerning this project (our letter of March 22, 19194), a thorough staff review
suggests the proposed project area may contain unrecorded archaeological
remains. Our earlier comments did not incorporate the recommendation of our
staff which indicated a high probability factor for the broad floodplain and first
terraces within the proposed project area. Therefore, we recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify
the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Bridge #72 on SR 1164 over North Toe River, B-2804, Avery County
Bridge #54 on SR 1122 over Warrier Creek, B-2874, Wilkes County
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
i
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 3
activities.
Bridge #59 on NC 80 over North Toe River and Seaboard RR, B-3089, Yancey
County
We recommend an archaeological._surv_ey_be conducted if this involves a new
alignment or if there is any other new disturbance.
Bridge #74 on SR 1695 over US 421 and Southern RR, B-3175, Guilford County
Bridge #101, SR 1917 over Norfolk Southern RR, B-2867, Stanly County
Bridge #50 on SR 2245 over Kings Creek, B-2817, Cleveland County
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf
t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. SOX 1800
WILMINGTON, NORT14 CAROLINA 28402.100
INRERY,a W T3 December 19, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P,E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
111e 1r, G , v
DEC 1 9 1994
ciVIISIG a CP
?HIGHWAvS
?MrIR?NNI?''? This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1994,
subJect. "Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement
Projects." The bridge replacement projects are located in various
Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed.
comment on this project. If we
please contact us.
We appreciate the opportunity to
can be of further assistance,
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
i
Sincerely,
r"
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Ms. Peggy Goss (CEORN-EP-P)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
r
December 19, 1994
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINfiTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for group VII Bridge Replacement Protects" in various
Western North Carolina counties
1. FLOW PLAINS: _P_0C
All of the bridges, except for those in Avery and Yancey Counties, are
within the planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE),
Wilmington District. These bridges are located within counties or communities
which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From the various
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Flit), it appears that both appr!:*0R.ats study and
detail study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-
year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined.) A summary of flood
plain information pertaining to these bridges is contained in the fallowing
table. The FIRMS are from the county flood insurance study unless otherwise
noted.
BRIDGE ROUTE STUDY. DATE OF
NO. NO. COUNT' STREAM TYPE FIRM
56 NC 150 DAVIDSON REEDY CK. APPROX 5/80
148 SR 1132 CABARRUS ROCKY R. DETAIL 5/81
50 SR 2245 CLEVELAND KINGS CK. APPROX 7/91
84 NC 150 DAVIDSON FRYES CK. DETAIL 5/80
139 SR 1743 DAVIDSON ABBOTTS CK DETAIL 5/80
3 SR 1547 UNION DUCK/GOOSE CK. APPROX 7/83
78 SR 1550' GUILFORD E FORK DEEP R DETAIL 11/88
90 SR 1928 RANDOLPH MUDDY CK. APPROX 7/81
404 SR 2830 RANDOLPH RICHLAND CK DETAIL 7/81
1 SR 1526 ROWAN GRANTS CK DETAIL 11/79
101 SR 1917 STANLY NONE-NO FL HAZ --- 12/81
54 SR 1122 WILKES WARRIOR CK APPROX 5/91
74 SR 1695 GUILFORD NONE-NO FL HAZ --- 9/88
* within city of Greensboro jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
For the detail study streams, hydraulic computations may be required
to show that the new structures will cause no rise in the 100-year natural
water surface elevations. If changes in the floodway are required to meet
the 1-foot maximum surcharge above the natural, these changes should be
coordinated with the respective counties for modification to their flood
insurance maps and reports. We also suggest coordination with the counties
for compliance with their flood plain ordinances.

December 19, 1994
Page 2of3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Western North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS (CON'T)
Avery and Yancey Counties are within the planning jurisdiction of the
USACE, Nashville District, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with
respect to any construction or development involving the flood plains. The
Nashville District does not currently have any projeets in the area.
Therefore, there would not be any impacts to or from any Corps projects due to
the proposed project. Ms. Peggy Goss should be contacted at (615} 736-505.5
for further information and comments from the Nashville District. Flood plain
concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a permitting process.
A 26a permit is required for all construction or development involving streams
or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at
[phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting
process. The projects should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program and be in compliance wit; all local
ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain
regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
AND WETLANDS: POC - Ral
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuarz to Section 404
of the River and Harbor Act of 1977, as amended, within the State of North
Carolina is handled by the Regulatory Branch of the USACE, Wilmington
District.
Section 404 permits will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated
wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements, including
disposal of construction debris. The replacement of these bridges may be
eligible for nationwide permit authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)) as a
Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the amount of jurisdictional wetlands
to be impacted by a project and the construction techniques utilized. Please
be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits within any of the
25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation (s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the Wilmington District Engineer. In addition, any
jurisdictional impacts associated with temporary access roads or detours,
cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should be addressed in the
Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by Nationwide
Permit No. 23. If such information is not contained within the Categorical
Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.

I
December 19, 1994
Page 3 of 3
U 5 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects' in various
Western North Carolina counties
WATEM AND WETUAND3 CO EVIL (C 'T1

When final plans are complete, including the extent and location of any
work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
could appreciate the opportunity to review those plans for a project-specific
determination of DA permit requirements.
he bridae 'n question is over Goose Creek instead of Duch Creek as stated
in the letter. it appears that the project is at or very close to a known
popuiation of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter clam. As such,
4ationwide Permit No. 23 would not apply and an individual DA permit wouia je
required. :t is recommended that North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCOOT) immeciately contact. the U.S. Fish and W.idlife Service, Asheville
Field Office, to discuss this issue and get ;Hors spec,+?c in-ormation on
heelsolitter vocations in this area.
For adcitional information, please ._ontact ,he following individuals:
Raleigh Feld Office -
POC - ?chn Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Oavidson,
Sail-ford, and Wilkes Counties
POC - Jean Manue?e at (919, 375-3441, Extension 24, fvr Randolph .punt
Asheville Field Office -
POC - Steve Lund at [phone] for Cabarrus, Cleveland, Union, and
Stanly Counties
POC - Steve Chapin,at ('i(x) 1i1-4014 for Avery and Rowan Counties
POC - Oavid Baker at [phone] for Yancey County
3.
The Natural Resources Management Branch concurs in the Bridge No. 54
replacement over Warrior Creek in Wilkes County. However, this replacement
may involve Corps lands from the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir project. We
request review of preliminary'plans and environmental reports so that we can
grant the NCOOT an easement, right-of-entry, or other real estate requirement
if the wor+ is outside of the Department's existing right-of-way.
.r
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-118$, 919.733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMC)RANDUM
TO. ?Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DE14NR
=RCM: David Cox, Hichway Project C-_ordinator
Habitat Ccnservation Prccram ,
CAT`" . December 6, 1994
SL-B.=ECT: Request for comments cn Group VII ?ridce
Replacement ?ro=ects in North Carolina, SC::
Frcject No. 95_^299.
Staff bioicuists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (.NCWIRC) have t::e fo'_lcwi :c preliminary Comments
on the subject bri ce rer,lacemen..s. Cur comments are
orcvided accordance w-:t^ provisions of the Nor:h Caro'"Ia
Dnv=_onmenta= Pcl_cy Act (G.S. et sec, as ame::Ge,; 1
NI
CAC 25, .
After revj ewi":C the information cr :vided and data we
Hare on the subject streams we have the follow= na comme nzs
and recommendations:
1. E-21-26, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Reedy Creek.
..'wo small tributaries intersect Reedy Creek in the
vicinity of the NC 150 bridce. There is a broad,
forested floodulain along this section cf stream which
may be wetlands. The stream is approximately 30 feet
:labi gat .
ay : a_r fish
wide with sandv s'anstrate and has-
There are no known endangered or t_:_eatened fauna
concerns at this s_te. We recommend that the br=dge be
replaced with a spanning s;._ucture, on-site with road
closure. NCDO': should avoid any channel relocation,
survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation
and erosion ccntrcl measures.
2. 5-2304, Averv Coun_ y, cn Sic 1164 over Ncrt Toe River.
The Ncrth Tce RI'ver is hak;itat fcr many ocll:ticn
o , 74
Memc ?aCe a Decen- er
^lerant cLC':atic' spec-as and _S listed as DF`?TW at
s- e . we also st ck :h_-'s section, oy the river
yearly with catchable-s-'zed Downstream we ave
Lcund the Appa_ach-an e_k_ce 'A1asmidcrr-a rav=nel?ara;,
fererally listed endangered (E' and the blocctlside
_;gperch (?E?'?; ^d bur7c :_, State 1-s`.ed endangered.
We veccrr,mend sedimentation and erosion. controls for
H_c:. ?ual_ty waters (HCw) be amplcyed to protec? the
listed species downstream. we also recommend close
coordination w-tn our Z_strict 8 Fisheries 3_cl^cis-,
Chris -1cudreau, [phone], cn this prc ect.
3-280e, Ca_arr'us county, cn SER 1132 over tockv :cover.
3t :?g q-_e, Rccky River :aS a w_Ge forested
-ccdcla-n some o_ wrich may ce wetlands. This -ec-_?--
River '--as excel-en: -_.-stream cover wit:: a
Yvvid'?^
r;, c.k'? suhSt2-0...°, damp pcc:s and ..ice riffles
exc? _ _en z fish `rab_tat . There are r_c known threatened
AnaancrPr°_d 'asr_a a: site. we reccmmer_d that
7ht ur- Ce be replaced c- -. rte wit;: road __cs-.:re.
.
work S['_ _C Ce z trf _-rme i in nr-l or May
?__s" , nc in-?t-sEm cover S, cL:_:. be r e'llcved -:'.C_
::he clu a.-_,:::e-" _ccatC, :5=raalll rr 'm
t:he cr_dce . ,- e also 'recommend z=ac `ICDC'T su_-rev fc-
weLlanc-s and -a;._tain st_andar- ?_-,di '.er_„at_cr. anti
eres_cr ccntro_ s t. rcuc ac te : r? _? . If ccss - ble,
:re a=:? c._at ?,CCC: pr^v_de s safe ca?'kinc ale= =or
.^er-nen as thy-'s area _z currently near--v 'ised to
N7 n.•c ..lvn-nc-
3 Cle-Je=and County, cr. Jig 22145 Cver z_nas Cres.-:
f_°_^.ery daz at t is site ana no
we ^d're nO recent
=__reaten'ea c r enc.an crerec sauna 1S e_ ZeCte^, t , CC. ;U='
____.s v'=n1 v. we .e--d C_C'se C ;CrC_: at?vr: ` I:n
cur C:lstr_ct 8 Fisheries -Eic-1cuist, Chris Cc'?:?r°au
(704; 5e2-4360, on this pro-'ect.
c . g-2g2? , Dav-dson Ccunt-r, cr. ?;C _50 over = ryes -reek.
F ryes Cree_< is a small s _raa i witft a sandy Sulosmretc
arc hasccr 'is:nery :.abi tat . We do nor- oppose a
vert at cac-on . However, the culve_ Shcul'
be claced cne foot below t::e nat'1ra7 stream cad and
have a ''drv" ccx to allow wildlife lz)assace.
'c. B-2622, Davidson County; cn _R 1743 cver Acbctts Creek.
A;;bctts Creek -s a small stream with a fair f_sherv.
"here are no kncwn th,aatenec or er_aance_-ed fauna at
his site. we rave nc spec-_sic reccmmen'wat_cns a-. this
Cv1RC , ?C= , =.=L_ K
Memo
Face 3

:,ec:em'-e- , 1994
7. 3-2647, Union County, on SR 1547 cver DUCK Creek. Th-4 s
.nay actually ce on Gcese Creel{. Cccse Cre°:c is a Smali
sz?.'-"°_a:".l with geed peels and riff=es, rocky 5ucstrat- and
exceilenz '_n-stream cover. There appea'l's _c to quality
tettcmiand hardwood wet=ands on 4Ct7- sides cam= z -he
strea-n. Goose Creek is excellent- fish and wildlife
.lab=tai and serves as habita_ for t-e Car-l_na
peels-o -ter (Lasrnigcna decc.ata) which is =ederG_1y
listed endan5ered .E;. We recommend NC-CT hold an
on-site visit wit:. --he G.S. -_S:° and';rl_Id:__4-_ Se=-74ice
and NCWRC )erscrne-- =c discuss this pro;; ect.
o. S-2823, Guilford County, on SR _SSE Over =as= Prong
-e,=z' river. :he sc_°eam at th,_ =ccz=_or. _s =-c s<.a=_
to ?e cf t_shinc sicnificance; :awever, it __ a
tricutar•. to the water supply to We
reccmmend _nat NCDCT s,:rvey we.-:;Ian-_4S a..
iccat _cr_. This strea,;. likely ser-:es as an _==:a n..
ccrr_dor, therefore, we ?r.?_•rr .. --_s
_^(Ze „:t repiacec, wizn a
Randcith L-oun-_;', C1_ ---c =_ver _ , r rr°?..
-.':_s V. Mr ? prcvlces _ _ai_ __-sheer ?
We -D refer that -he t?__?uE ce ze~'_acec w,= . a
-canning structure.
ekr This stream,,. is -:o =7a-- at ...-tea _:c C_vtl
significance.
__ . 3-2SS=, Rowan County, "n SR .=2 cvtr
Grams reek is medium sized =cream with 1--n= Look .
_' It
The =•am =s sur= cL'n ded 1.'y wco±cG _ cWlaric° , -Css 1_^.,-
wet _ ands . We re?_'aest t:iat NC=T
We recommend t:^at the cr?cge be replaced cr.-si-e w?
road clcsure. we also request =hat z-'--ere ', e nc ___-
water wcrk ir. April or May.
=_. -2 5 Stan7ev C.unty, on SR 1G_7 ?v°_r
Ncr=o_k/Southern Rai_-cad. No comment.
B-2874, Wilkes Ccunty, -on SR 1122 cvtr Warrior Cr, ®tx_
Hie war__c_ Creek _s a warmwatar stream atiti__;{=mater
25 fret wide and has a su szrate of silt, ,Sand, gravel,
cchhle, ,' cul ders and 'cedrock. We reccmmenz s zan Bard
do=_ and erosion ccntrc_I measures ce used at this Site.
_4 3089, Yanc?_ CcLnt`!, 02: INC Cv :ver iVcr! = River
and SAawoard Rd l cac. Th=s secz_cn e :,crIn _ce
R? rer ?cnta:._. many : c__ac_or: _ :t ;la=ar:c s:;et_s.
cwnszream ___ Che Tc'e River _-:e

Mel
Fa^Q -
Ce??rruwer ' ??
tas .m .'._Jc?..:a rave le__aiG, , L°cera-_y __s?2.C. er_?arcerc_
(Ei effective =2%23/54, -as beer. -cum-d. Apprcximate_lr
'?1cLChside
2 miles downs=ream c= °_ prcjeC_ the
lccpe1- ;rerc na bur-or.? state ?istec sncan=erec,
has ;ern f=una near the 7,ouch of ..ne South Tce River.
we recommend sedimentation and erosion ccntro:c fcr
wazers 'F(, i be am-o_cve,4 to protect the
_:cted s-ecies downstream. We a=sc re=mmenc, cicse
coci, .4 wi..a cur ?Jstr?ct S Blc_Cc:;st,
Chris C;cuareau, 706?. .:-is pro;ecr-.
_I. B--_;5 Cu_-`cru ?cu._cy, or- SK ever JS 42_ and
Scut-ern =a__rcad. Nc comment.
Ir_ adc___cn any spec-=-f_c _cmmc!.=3 ='he're, __.- tiCw=
_:car=LS the :1c--G _. rout= :°-'r :_..._?a ?dre_sc i=aCCS L?:
_._ arc? v__?=_?_ . escu ces .:e r_c_...-?;
e 1e nos. .he NCnCT shcul- _n staii anu ma,....=_-
???=:r,er_=ac-.;::
zrevenz: we= ccr_c_ __e cntact_ is va_a= _n
_=--- =--c_ 7: :e se c=_eama. :ec..._--= cf hi,i:i-es v-- -
-p a: n_nG --_•1c=?res `-- Scme -VCa, -n!F `?:G?°c. Z. .. r.. .. °_ .,,c
Cu, e __ rE'ccmmencec w..`.°_3
.___-?w w_- ____ passage a-'-"'q
_ - ; e7t.-- i.,.. an6 ve.- ci? at _ hway
.._ 2Sinc3.
?C •'i ?iw -e-_4 i•w'"...,:A? aSs__z-ance `.r N'.../v-_
_=ncar__s recar?_nc l:r_;=e rer__=_-emen=_,
`cx, :?..h a r'--•I `?-?t G_ -?. .:_l:'a?'. ?5 •J .,..a...{
%cr G n'.i . _-m?men: .;n ::VSO
tom
s_"_ar= 3ryan=, .J`_SLr::_ _ F _sher"Le_c 1s_^=lst
Wayne C'"ac^nan, D:.szr_vc 6 'isheri-?s Bio;cglsc
`hr_s Gcudreau, D_st. _ct ? 713::er_=.. __
,ce `Rickey, .,c? -,sher_ss caisz
Rand-f wi_son, Vcr_came; =_:dar_?er=d ?peeies Sect:cr. Mar.
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Civisicn of Envircnmentcl Management
Jcmes B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jcncthon B. Howes, Secretory
A. Preston Howerd, Jr., P.E., Director
LT.N;WA
11
DEHNR
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FRCM: Monica Swihart Nater Quality Planning
SJBjECT: Project Review #95-0298; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Manacement recuests that the following topics be considered i_.
t=1 e Manning and Environmental Studies (Categorical Exclusions)
prepared on the subject project:
A. _Ce'1tifJ the stream ClaSS1CatloriS of the streams
Potentially impacted by the bridge replacements. "he stream
classifications snculd be current.
B. =denti`v the linear feet of stream channel izat4cns-
_elccations. If the aricinal stream banks were 'J°cetate^,
-t 1s recuested that the channeli.zed/relccated stream banks
be revecetated.
C. Wi11 permanent spill catch basins be utilized? LEM recuests
that these catch basins be placed at all water su=7 y stream
crossincs. ldent_:y the responsible party for ma,nzenance.
D. Identify the stcrmwater controls (permanent and temr_orar-%)
to be employed.
Please ensure that sediment and erosion and contrc_ measures
are not placed in wetlands.
Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possib_e?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers recuested
from DEM.
P.C. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolinc 27626-OEZ5 Telechcne 919-723-7015 FAX 9'(9-713-2496
An Ecud Cccertumv Affirmcrive Acticn Emcicyer 50%rec vc,ec/ '0% CCSr-consumer cccer
,?

Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Paae 2
G. Will borrow locations be
should avoid wetlands to
Prior to approval of any
contractor shall obtain
in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
the maximum extent practicable.
borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
401 Certification from DEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing bridge alignments as much as
possible? Why not (.if applicable)?
To what extent can traffic congestion management technicrues
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
?. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The :mitigation plan may state the
followina:
Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitiaation is the preferred method of
mrt_gat_cn -'7n-kind -nit-gat-Lon within the same
watershed is preferred over out-cf-kind mitication.
?. M___gat-cn should ce _n the f.,-lowina order.
restoration, creation, enhancement, and last-•.7 bank-'nc.
ivrr_ten concurrence of 4C'. Water Quality Certifica_-on may
'-e recui_ed for this project. Applicaticns recuestina coverace
1nder cur General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
recuire written concurrence. ease be aware that 401
?ert? f-C?t_Cn may be denied i- wee_' and impacts have not .^.ee.^.
a-rc4dea and minimized to the max--mum extent practicable.
11,777er.mem
?. Eric Galamb
' „ Stat• of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourcas
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. 7 Due Dace:
95-C) )a,-t _9
(.LAS 121-0
After review of this project It has txen determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicted nuy need to be oCtaineC in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Cuestions rt,garding these permits should be addressee to the Regional Office indicates on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are availstie from the sarrK
Regional O}fiea. Normal Process
Trine
,
PERMrTS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REOU1REMENTS tstalul°ry time
i
h
l
I)
Permit to construct A overate wastewater trsatrnent Application R7 days before te;in construction or &wa . of X7 days
facitities, sewer system. extensions, L sewer cWnsirvetion Contracts On-Litt ir+s?ec:ten. P-.SI•a,-•.plitation
systerns not &W argin; into stale surface waters. }acnnrcal conference usual t9C deyf)
NPDES • permit to disv%arge Into surface water arzior A;.;IrCition tat: days bill" bean airwity O+*stte inapearon. SC-1Z. days
pertt to Operate and construct waatewaler facilities larte.appliUllion Conference usual ACC:tioally. Obtain permit 10
J nrscnargins into state surface waters. construe* was'"ater trea:neent lac l ly•g'anle!t afte' NPDES Reply (NIA)
time 30 days after recce;: of p+ta or ensue of NPDES
peril+nrclCrer is Later,

30 Cays
1
j water Use hrnut
la't?ppliC.alWn lecnni;.si nteren:.e usually necessary
t:a

- I
(NIA!
11
day)
y

well Construction Permit
j{
Ccr*Ioiete azp(icati0n mus! be rece?.ed and permit issue-
l
I
11 prior to the Ins:a+lauon of a wll. 0S days)
- - Apcli=ion CCpy must be Le'tieC on satin wlacent prcDe^,y S! Cays
- e1;4 t+ed Fill permit owner On site insoec:icn. Pre a;pi ca!icn conference usual Ftuin;
- may reCu,re Easement 1C Fill from N C C-epa^.ment of (9J days)
AOmintstrstio and Federal Dre•:ge and Fill Permit.
!!!
Permit to Construct & C;<rate Air Pollul.Cn Apaiemant
"
1 I 6:. days
IM.06M
fa::lil,e$ anC!o• E'rLSS.C- SJ Wd•1 LS per 15A NCAC
111 NIA

1
(9C cave)
44 Any o;en burnin; a: Sdc.Led wit?, to Cjec: prooczx
If must be in eorr;',ance .In t_A NCAC 20.0° .
II
r,d motlhon Or renc.a:,c's 0' itru"!a,es con:amen;
aSCesl Cs rLa:e•:a' r-,us: Ge in czrn;1.an:.L with 1!?A 6C dav$
NCAC 200-:°_ wh.c'% rec.,res nCtifi•:a:On and removal NIA
;r,or to de ncltt.cn Con'act Astts:ds Conlro Gfou;
Sts 733•CS20
^
' coc days;
COm;fet Source Fe,mlI required unGer 1SA NCAC 20
08:C
j
•t .e tCime^.:al,Or, is ice'; C^ Centre! Ac: C' ,S7.1 must .te pi ;2•'} addressed (o' any fanc d,s:u -rig aC::YCy Ar. e'C S'am' d se: ".e^Ialic'
eoniro! plan wilt Ge re,J,red if one Cr rrlo:e sc'es lO De d,s:ur-„eC P,an Iced with plc;t• ',e2,cr'a, C'!-Ce !?snC C. A"!y Sec:: a: ads: 3C I 2: Cays
Case Ce%,e be-, a:!-!, A fee c' S3C rot the firs: acre a^c Si^ X for er:- ado f,cna' a^e or ^,a, mu• ac d^^:^. the -!an 3r days;
'i Tne Sed,m•enta!,cn. PVlut cn C-nifo! Act of 1572 mu.: t-e ad::es:ed w;fh res;ec: to Ir.e re'ereenced Lc,--al CvC,nanee: ('_z days)

i fain ng Permit G'. site fns;eCtiCn ususl Su:e!y bx nC fi;ed wilt. E'rr•NP. E:nC aMount
vale: wilh type mane and num;er C' aces Of affected :a^C Any area
mined Q,eafer than one ac'e must ;,e ;-e rnile- The a"'•c;na!e bjond
musf ;e rece•red `,erore the p? mil Can Ge iSSued. rt.
3C Cays
IF" Cays)
i North Carchna e,;rning permit Cn sile ins;,ec: on by N C. Division Fore,-: Rescwces it ;,ermit 1 day
e2ceed_ days
I (NIA)
-
G,ounC C'eara-.:e a n; Permit 22
?_ el Cn .:c inLpec!;on by N 0 C;,ision Fc:e„ Rr urce, re?Ji Ed -:f more 1 day
CJUnfiCS In eca_•.!a! N C wilt. Cr;an)c so1Lt Ulan rise ac'e: of Q'Ound C!earinr es a,e ;n YC'red ins;+C:?Cnt (NIA)
Ihcu C Ce requct:e^_ al feast ten Ca; s t?rcre actual turn is p:anned.-
p; 1:C days
I, rest Refining Facitttiss NIA lr+ Al

1 If ,_
ni! re Muir, , a::' c t c E• Ca; a :re
?C
ruetion•
;
`
,
;
muL .
A Nr N C r,2'r„•d e^ '.n^ !c r^ a ins,
, 1y$
Pe.-;:t
y
?^. ?
Gl?. ?i r, a.i•CY'
?C.
L'
_
=
f
Iu J
;.
e'_ .r• -J d' ; .2 ,?:mil ur m..;;?_;fe CJ r? piGy'flm, And
(• dA v $)
f a A' '::L; ,n, rt. Cis, .. ?:', :.r_ n i _! .. C ij;C . ne•.e3'
r
rrr (1 10:alc (_ c_: Gl]f on 1
td y
• . J.f eC
t « _.
4 ^
r , r
j

r A ?`U //-?
• '' '' State of North Carolina
Fe':lewing '?r;c2 ? n ?
Ceoar,ment of Environment, Health. and Natural Resources / ;
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Nur^cer ?i Cue Cate
Atter 'evle'.v ;1 :his -.roject It has been de!ermined !hat the E?fNR cermltist and/or aocrcvals indicated may neec to be octalned In
orcer to :nis :rciec: :o comply vitn North Carolina Law.
Cuestlons regarcing these permits snouid be acdressed to the Regional Office indicatec on the reverse of the 'orm.
all aooucatlons, intcrmation ane gwaelines relative to these plans and cermlts are available from the same 1crmaf P•cces-
Regfonal Office. Time
-_----
PERMITS ,s:awtcrv ::n^
!CATION PROCEDURES or n'EOUIRE:`+tENTS ;
SPECIAL APPI
m
_
J
n1
Permit !o construe: 3 operate wastewater treatment Application go days before begin construction or award of 20 aavs
lac:tities, sewer system extensions. 3 sewer construction contracts On-site tnsoecnon. Post acoucation
systems not aiscnargmg Into state surface waters. tec:inical conference usual 90 days)
NPOES permitt to c:sci-iarge Into surface water anelor Application 180 clays before begin activity. On-site InsoecUon .0 120 aavs
oe'mit 'c operate anc construct waste'rrater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Acattionally. Oblaln oermtt ;0
nlscnarg,cg ntC state surface water<_ construct wastewater Ireatmenl facility-g,rantea arrer NPOES =eafv NIAI
time. ?0 aavs after ecetot of plans or Issue of NPOES
permit-whtcnever .s later.
0 nays
?
-;'a,e. ,,;? - TIt Pre?aooltcanon recnnfcal coherence usuany necessary
- N1A,
' Javs
I '/Vy'I _Jn5(ruCl:On =ernlf Complete aoollcatlon must be receivec and perr.t ssued
- pnor to the ?nsiallatlon at a well. I ° cavs)
? ?]a
s
Application Copy :rust be servea on each aalace.^.f :loarlan Crocerty
) - _ - -
?err.t '
-
owner. Cn-site Inspecton Pre-aocucanan ccnre•e,,ce .sual =-iling
- may reoufre Easement :c =;il from N C Deoari,-i ?t 'r
Aaminlstratlon ana =eoeral Oreage ana ? it Pe'n;l
-? =. . _:-_..._. ? _cerate AIr -_. _:Icn ?ca1e^•P^; I _- ! _, _?..
_I _s.en Saur___ -- - 't_A `JC?C _'H 06CD ViA _. _.
I
_ ?,. .,._ ? ___cc:atea .vltr, _.._-lec: _roac_a;
mus' Ce __Cl;ance .vltn 1Gr `JCAC _7 c°2c
I
a:._ns JI -:ruc:_:es .Jntalnln.
._c._.._ a.? 3I mus: be In .ono ante wtn
-- ._-_ cubes nct'' _ :.cr. 3nc '_. ..,.at wa
- _ ;r _ ctac: _ces.c_ :, r;!rcl ;roue
•eaulrea vncer '°A rJCAG ?C 0200. I
___ ;uticn Centre: -c: ;1 '9? mus; Je aroeeriv aaaressec'or acv 'ana cisiurcing ac:lvlty --cn __::rnenlancn
(? culrea t Jne _r rcre sc-es 'o be olsturbea. P!an 'ilea .win rocer Regional C'hce Banc a Sec , east _-C __
1! - =.c:lolly A -r r ^.N r c n
a.s s; acre ane <_ 00 'or eat clrlonal acre oar mu ^ Canv _lan
us: oe aoares<_ea with reseec 'nP reierrencea '_JCaI CPC -ar. e
- I
On•site Inspection usual. Surety oonc tiled wlm EnNR. 5onc amount
_I 'A • - varies .vain type •r.:ne ana numcer of acres of attec:ec ano. Any area
minea greater tnan cne acre must be oermuea The acorooriare oona tiu
must be receivea before the oermtt can oe Issued
- :_. 9. __ m;, :n site :nscec.?er Cv v - Div" n =crest Ras ,..___ f .e'
-I exceeas 4 aavs I ??1,A
,.__ranr,e 9urmnr, __ mIl _ On site Insaec:icn CV N O ?Iv,sion sorest Rescur.^-es 'eaulreC l more z':
_I .,.. o_ ._coia? 'J : :vlln organic sells than five acres OI yrouna clearing ac:Ivltles are 'r,v Olve C. InsCeC:Ions Pl•.:,
sncula be recuestec 31 '!east ten aavs before ac:.:al burn Is Clannecl
<"n -av_
- i I
It oe!mlt 'e,utrp,-, 3CCIICaUOn 60 Cavs oe!Ore CeC'n ConSirUC:ion
_i AC., ;Cant -ruse _ 'J .. :uallfleu, _n; ,eer 'C: :recite Glans ...
?. in5.... _. _J.^51 :x::.,. .erl!IV ,,,ns. .:n , ar. .:n^ 'O _n'dR 3CUrr.
I j °'l :;:Any `.1,ic 419" ? ^'JIrQ ?Prlnll '1^4P' mn;;aut;^, ?; n:.'nl J ^.gram ..? ? .' ? .
=nr?; ne•?:L nti?a_:.:;n iI;2 5 neG?::
.:.r': 'c very; ?.;?.r:: :;dssun;ation nlnunuln ,i 5200 CO must 3c
.Cmcanv 'ne icQ-:jliCn An aaCllu?nal JrOCC°_SIr,` ee l).1SP•a Jn a
I Je'CCnfaCe )r :lie 'Otal JrCIeCt '_D?; ??nl be ,gnul.ar rCnn CtPI:On
q ,.'^

U

-

?/i \ / i Ypc vc P-oc c

SveC?lc-,c!o11S LCC :11i V^, _.
e S? i ;l::nS anG
'SC
'=--
C.
^" I-nusz (D e uC!)!'G\'e ' cllc vlViSiCl1 vi 011111f:11'nl ullUl'
T'L.i1.?. i ?l^ _ _ : _. =eC

C \?7;;cc. _uc?:i'? n 733 =460.
i CC iCll'C'i':?CiCl1, CJllC?CC Me
C171-
-
_
(ftc

- - -- -' sc s.:e: =cr .... _...s__ r. . _,a: ;ne:1=_s C-
-.. _.. c:,. s,:cu:c
L._.--..c,

cu:c ;e ?.r• :s?._ _..?.? _r.... _? .::e :e:..o';f?. ?r ce?_c.ic:_.. .-
c,
? =-- 'tea==
.,,_
_
:ii
•
,
, `
-
nl
\
?
.
`
.
,c
__..
?
C -±:!C:
._e.?n. _... _... ,.i .. .. .. ??. ..
L?
..rca'C- __ ..; ?.a. .:.?..-.

Si1Gll1C'. )C ;G'?..,.. .. .. t`.. ,, .. ...C. ?? :C;l _1 C: ,. _i:.- `'ar...

_ 1 v.

S•cc.icn/3ru1c'i.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COM4ENTS Charies H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: - G County: -,e- r /
Project Name: . 'f, Z o"j
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) .cr mcre infcrmaticr, contact the Geodetic Survey office at (919) 733-=836.
Reviewer Date
E_csicn and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning anv land-disturbing activity if mcre
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Envirormental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion.and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
ccrmcre information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Rsleign, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
I
U.4,?,
r STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 28, 2000
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa St., #B
Asheville, NC 28806
ATTN: Mr. Mark Cantrell
Dear Sir:

DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
WETLANDS',
`?!ATFR_Oll,y?i
SUBJECT: SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
APPALIACHIAN ELKTOE FOR PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 59 OVER NORTH TOE RIVER ON NC 80;
MITHELL/YANCEY COUNTIES. 6 • .3689
Attached is the Biological Assessment for the subject project. This assessment
was completed by the NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch. NCDOT is requesting your concurrence with this assessment of Not Likely to
Adversely Affect.
Mr. Michael Wood is the contact person for this project. If you have any
questions or need any additional information, please contact him at [phone].
Sincerely,
'?/.c.41,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. Chris McGrath, NCWRC
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
f

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 21, 2000
Memorandum To: Mike Wood, Permit Specialist
From: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the Appalachian elktoe mussel
for proposed replacement of bridge no.59 over North Toe River on
NC 80; Mitchell/Yancey County, B-3089.
References: 1). July 12, 1995 Meeting Minutes, Prepared by Phil Harris
2). July 27, 1995 Concurrence letter from USFWS
3). April 20, 1999 Memorandum from Michael Wood to Cindy
Sharer discussing reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 59 over the North
Toe River. The federally Endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana) is
known to occur in the North Toe River in Yancey and Mitchell Counties. A Section 7
meeting was held on May 22, 1995. At that time the closest known documentation of
Appalachian elktoe to the project area was approximately 6.4 kiolometers downstream.
A series of environmental commitments were developed at this Section 7 meeting that
would avoid/minimize potential downstream impacts to this species (Ref. 1). The US
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurred with NCDOT's conclusion of "Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" the Appalachian elktoe based upon the adherence to the commitments
generated at the May 22, 1995 meeting (Ref. 2). Since the completion of this Section 7
Consultation, the documented range of Appalachian elktoe in the North Toe River has
expanded considerably. This species has now been found approximately 5 miles
upstream of the project near Penland. Because of this new information as well as other
factors, Section 7 Consultation was reinitiated for this project (Ref. 3). A field meeting
was held on March 11, 1999 to readdress project-related concerns for the Appalachian
elktoe. The following commitments were generated as a result of this meeting:
Bridge No. 59 over the North Toe River will be left in place. Monies dedicated for
bridge demolition will be utilized to rehabilitate the existing bridge. NCDOT will be
responsible for maintaining the bridge.
2. Wolf Branch will be relocated on site. The relocation will attempt to mimic the
existing conditions of the stream including the installation of a cross vane rock weir,
as detailed on sheets 3 and 4 of 7.
3. A temporary causeway will be used to facilitate bridge construction. The causeway
will span the entire river and the water will be diverted through 4 @ 60" corrugated
steel pipes. This design will allow for the causeway to be overtopped on a 2-year
storm and allow a flow velocity of 8.8 feet per second.
4. Equipment that poses the potential to leak hazardous material, such as hydraulic fluid,
onto the causeway, shall only be placed on the causeway during periods it is
operating. Otherwise, it will be stored in a staging area that is not prone to flooding
from the river.
5. ` All drilled shafts within the river shall pump the resulting sediment to an appropriate
sediment retention basin.
6. A final mussel survey will be conducted within the project footprint in late either late
spring or early summer of 1999. If the survey reveals the presence of the
Appalachian elktoe, the Federal Highway Administration will need to initiate formal
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. The decision to relocate Federally-endangered mussels will
be considered during the formal consultation process and will be dependent on
specific biological factors relative to the geographic area of impact and the species in
question. In addition, it may become necessary to redesign the causeway.
7. NCDOT will institute High Quality Waters (HQW) sediment and erosion control
measures throughout the project. Steambank reforestation will be completed as
detailed on the attached detail sheet. The only variations will be the inclusion of tag
alder (Alnus serrulata) among the Type 1 trees and possible changes in the Type 2
trees, depending upon availability.
8. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides will be
used carefully and as little as possible during construction.
9. The Resident Engineer will provide written notification that construction is to begin
to Chris McGrath of the NCWRC, Mark Cantrell of the USFWS, and Tim Savidge of
the NCDOT Natural Systems Unit, one month before the onset of construction.
Commitment #6 stated that a final survey be conducted at the project site,
including the area of the proposed causeway. A number of surveys had previously been
conducted at this site and no Appalachian elktoes were found (Table 1).
Table 1. Mussel Surveys Conducted at the B-3089 Site
Date Personnel Man-hours results
10-23-95 TS, MH, JF 6 No mussels
10-05-98 CM, SM - No Mussels
10-07-98 TS, LW 4 No Mussels
10-14-98 TS, MW, CM, SM 2 No Mussels
Survey Personnel: TS (Tim Savidge-NCDOT), MH (Mark Hartman-NCDOT), JF (John
Fridell-FWS), CM (Chris McGrath-NCWRC), SM (Scott Marsh-NCWRC), LW (Logan
Williams-NCDOT) and MW (Mike Wood-NCDOT).
Tim Savidge, Logan Williams and Mike Wood conducted a final survey at the B-
3089 site on May 24, 1999. Survey methodology involved SCUBA, mask and snorkel
and view buckets. A total of 6 man-hours were spent and no mussels were found.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Based on the survey results it is apparent that the Appalachian elktoe does not
occur within the immediate project area. The species does however, occur at various
sites in the river, both upstream and downstream of the project area. Degradation of the
river habitat in the project area has the potential to affect this species. With the
implementation of the commitments listed above adverse impacts to this species can be
avoided. Based on the adherence to these Environmental Commitments, it can be
concluded that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the Appalachian
elktoe.