19971010 Ver 1_Other Documents_19971117

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and
Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
44
[D F= F=1
December 2, 1997
Avery County
DWQProject #971010
TIP NO. B-2509
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
fill in 0.2 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing bridge 39 on NC 19 E at
Plumtree, as you described in your application dated November 13, 1997. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Numbers 3127 and 3107. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 6 and
23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be
required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds (T 15A:04B .0024).
2. DOT shall follow guidance provided by DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for minimizing
damage to aquatic resources until a final policy is developed in conjunction with DOT.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask
for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
P ston Ho Jr. P
' 4? 1 1
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files 971010.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
0 Issue[)
A,d yn1n. ? ?.
T
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA C? "' 7 10 -'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
SECRETARY
November 13, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Assistant Chief
Dear Sir:
?? ^

SUBJECT: Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 39 over North Toe River on
NC 19E. TIP No. B-2509, State Project No. 8.172090 1, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-19E(1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. Bridge No. 39 will be replaced in essentially the same location as the existing
structure. The new bridge will be 32 feet wide and approximately 200 feet in length.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary detour approximately
700 feet south of the existing bridge. This will require improving a segment of SR 1123
(Pancake Road) by widening from 16 feet to 20 feet and resurfacing. Using existing
roads for detour would require travel of up to 14 miles. Less than 0.1 acres of
jurisdictional e s will be impacted by the proposed project. Additionally, less than
071 acres o surface waters will be impacted by bridge construction. ?-
ro'ect is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a `Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
reque 'ng an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps
of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations
will be followed in the construction of the project.

2
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (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.
Foundation investigations, including test borings, will also be required prior to
construction of the project. We have determined that these activities may be authorized
under Nationwide Permit 6 for survey activities in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix
A(B-6). This action would not require notification if not for the fact that the project lies
in a mountain trout county. Therefore, NCDOT is requesting authorization of this
activity from the Corps of Engineers under a Nationwide Permit 6.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] extension 315.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DWQ
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2509
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): NWP 6 and 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) : [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Avery NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Plumtree
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Bridge Number 39 over the North Toe River
on US 19E
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: North Toe River
RIVER BASIN: French Broad
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT,
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN: _
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ) NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
2

9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER
<0.1
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WE'
FILLING: < 0.1
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
GLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION): N/A
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER:
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER:
FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: < 0.1
PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Bridge Construction
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Construction of a temporary detour bridge and replacement of bridge
number 39. Road construction equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
To replace a sub-standard bridge to improve safety.
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
The bridge is being replaced in place with a new bridge. The temporary
bridge will be removed and area restored to original condition.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See CE Document
(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: See CE Document
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [xl NO [I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO H
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM.THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural/Residential
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
'? 6A k L-'- +A" /fi-,/ V-Lcu-
1_ I
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
I
f,
i
Avery County
Bridge No. 39 on US 19E
Over North Toe River
Federal Project BRSTP-19E(1)
State Project 8.1720901
TIP # B-2509
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
& FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
6-Z 3 11 r Gy? ?2?-
Dat4,,.H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Fl-.51?7
Date Nicho raf, P. E.
fVA Divisi n Administrator, FHWA
9710.4-0
,yam ,
??n
Avery County
Bridge No. 39 on US 19E
Over North Toe River
Federal Project BRSTP-19E(1)
State Project 8.1720901
TIP # B-2509
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
& FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
June, 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
'(H CARP`
??.•• FESS/p••.?9
SEAL
s 022552 -
Date Jo L. Williams y ••N.•••'' ?Q?
Project Planning Engineer ??'?•,?;?????W???;.?`??
V/-23.77 U4 y i e n1, 77?L
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
*1
Avery County
Bridge No. 39 on US 19E
Over North Toe River
Federal Project BRSTP-19E(1)
State Project 8.1720901
.TIP # B-2509
Bridge No. 39 is located in Avery County on US 19E crossing over North Toe
River. It is programmed in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a bridge
9.7 meters (32 feet) wide and 67 meters (220 feet) in length. The bridge cross section
will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes, a 1-meter (3-foot) offset on the south side of
the bridge, and a 1.5-meter (5-foot) sidewalk on the north side of the bridge.
The approaches will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot)
paved shoulders. Because Plumtree is a historic district, the approach work to the bridge
will be minimized to the extent possible. Therefore, the shoulders may be as much as 3.3
meters (11 feet) including guardrail but will be strongly influenced by an effort to stay
within the existing right-of-way. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters
(100 feet) to either side of the new bridge. Based on preliminary design work, the design
speed should be approximately 30 km/h (20 mph).
Traffic will be maintained during construction by providing a temporary detour
approximately 243 meters (800 feet) south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2.
The temporary structure will be a bridge approximately 51 meters (170 feet) long and
7.9 meters (26 feet) in width. This will require improving a segment of SR 1123
(Pancake Road) by widening the travelway from 4.9 meters (16 feet) to 6 meters (20 feet)
and resurfacing.
The estimated cost of the project is $ 953,000 including $ 900,000 in construction
costs and $ 53,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1997-2003 TIP
is $ 1,525,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be implemented.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Efforts will be made during design and construction of this project to assure continued use
of the county garbage collection site on SR 1123 (Pancake Road) during construction.
The widening of SR 1123 will be accomplished so as not to impact any building along the
roadway to be widened.
This project may have an impact on a 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre) wetland in the construction of
the temporary detour bridge. As such, design will make effort to avoid or minimize damage to this
wetland.
This project must have a January let date and a March availability date in order to
accomplish the project in two construction seasons.
The following commitments result from the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the
Plumtree Historic District:
• Bridge No. 39 will be recorded as described in the Memorandum of Agreement.
• The bridge is to include a sidewalk and will therefore include pedestrain safe two bar
metal rail on the north side of the bridge. The south side will also include a two bar
metal rail with the height adjusted to be level with the height on the north side.
• The contours and vegetation along the area to be impacted by the temporary bridge will
be restored as closely as possible to their original condition prior to construction.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the
replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval.
The North Toe River is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water at the project location. Therefore, as a result of coordination with the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (see attached letters) the following environmental commitments
will be made:
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
• Temporary ground cover will be placed on all bare soil during construction.
Permanent herbaceous vegetation in these areas should be established within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
• As much as possible, heavy equipment will be operated from the river bank rather than
in the river channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the river.
• The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will have another opportunity to comment
on the project during the 404 permit process.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception is anticipated due to design speed.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 19E is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It carries 2000 vehicles per day (vpd) and is projected at 4000 vpd
for the year 2020. The speed limit is posted 35 mph. The road serves as a connecting
route from Tennessee and Boone in the north to Asheville in the south. A local road, SR
1123 (Pancake Road), ties in with US 19E on the north end of the bridge. This road
serves local residents as well as a camp called Teen Valley Ranch. SR 1123 carries
approximately 500 vpd and is projected at 800 vpd for the year 2020.
The existing bridge was completed in 1934. It is 51.5 meters (169 feet) long.
There are approximately 7.3 meters (24 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge
deck and streambed. The deck has 6.1 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width. There
are two lanes of traffic on the bridge. There is a sidewalk on the north side of the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 18.2 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is not posted with weight
limitations.
As a vehicle approaches from the south through Plumtree the road is flat and
tangent until approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from Bridge No. 39 where it turns
sharply (30 degree curve) east onto the bridge. Having crossed the bridge a vehicle
would turn sharply (30 degree curve) back to the north. The pavement to both the north
and south is 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide with grass shoulders.
Traffic Engineering Branch reports that one accident has taken place within the
last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There are six school bus crossings daily over the studied bridge.
There is an aerial three phase electrical service and telephone service along the
north side of the existing bridge structure as well as along SR 1123 (Pancake Road).
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are three "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 39 with a new bridge approximately 76 meters
(250 feet) long and 13.2 meters (44 feet) wide to accommodate for
the horizontal curvature of the alignment. The bridge would be on
new alignment 228 meters (750 feet) in length and immediately to
the north (see Figure 2) of the existing bridge. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 2) Replace Bridge No. 39 with a new bridge approximately 85 meters
(280 feet) long and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide. The bridge would
be on new alignment immediately to the south (see Figure 2) of the
existing bridge. The length of the new alignment would be
approximately 259 meters (850 feet). Traffic would be maintained
on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 3) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 39 essentially at the existing
location. The length of the new structure will be approximately
52 meters (170 feet) in length and (32 feet) wide. Traffic will be
maintained during construction by providing a temporary detour
approximately 213 meters (700 feet) to the south of the existing
bridge as shown in Figure 2. This will require improving a
segment of SR 1123 (Pancake Road) by widening the travelway
from 4.9 meters (16 feet) to 6 meters (20 feet) and resurfacing.
Widening will require minimal right-of-way and will be
accomplished so as not to affect surrounding structures.
The "Do-nothing" alternative is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the
road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
Recommended
COMPONENT ALTERNATE A LTERNATE ALTERNATE
1 2 3
New Bridge Structure $ 649,000 $ 501,000 $ 358,000
Bridge Removal 28,000 28,000 28,000
Roadway & Approaches 280,000 254,000 264,000
On-Site Detour N/A N/A 133,000
Engineering & Contingencies 143,000 117,000 117,000

Total Construction $ 1,100,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000
Right of Way $ 324,000 $ 325,000 $ 53,000
Total Cost $ 1,424,000 $ 1,225,000 $ 953,000
Note: Mobilization & Miscellaneous are included in the costs
4
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a bridge
10.4 meters (32 feet) wide and 67 meters (220 feet) in length. The bridge cross section
will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes, a 1-meter (3-foot) offset on the south side of
the bridge, and a 1.5-meter (5-foot) sidewalk on the north side of the bridge.
The approaches will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot)
paved shoulders. Because Plumtree is a historic district, the approach work to the bridge
will be minimized to the extent possible. Therefore, the shoulders may be as much as 3.3
meters (11 feet) including guardrail but will be strongly influenced by an effort to stay
within the existing right-of-way Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters
(100 feet) to either side of the new bridge. Based on preliminary design work, the design
speed should be approximately 30 km/h (20 mph).
Traffic will be maintained during construction by providing a temporary detour
approximately 213 meters (700 feet) south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2.
The temporary structure will be a bridge approximately 51 meters (170 feet) long and
7.9 meters (26 feet) in width. This will require improving a segment of SR 1123
(Pancake Road) by widening from 4.9 meters (16 feet) to 6 meters (20 feet) and
resurfacing. Using existing roads for detour would involve travel of up to 22.4 kilometers
(14 miles)
Alternates 1, 2, and 3 all have an adverse impact on the Plumtree Historic District.
Alternate 1 takes the Plumtree Bait and Critter Building. Alternate 2 takes several
structures including the former "Tea Room" and Post Office (see description in Section X
Part C, No.'s 8 and 9). Alternate 3 has by far the least impact to the district since it does
not take any buildings and the only "effects" are the taking of Bridge No. 39 and the
widening of a small portion of Pancake Road. Alternate 3 has a significantly lower cost
than the other alternates. The alignment in the vicinity of the bridge includes several
sharp curves with a magnitude equal to or greater than the curves on the bridge
approaches. There is a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of the bridge. There
has been only one accident reported in the past three years. These facts suggest that
replacing the bridge on the existing location will not introduce a significant safety hazard
while minimizing the impact on the Plumtree Historic District. Therefore, NCDOT
recommends Alternate 3.
The recommended Alternate 3 must have a January let date and a March
availability date in order to accomplish the project in two construction seasons.
Preliminary indications are that work in the first construction season may include:
1. Construction of the detour bridge and approaches.
2. Improvements to SR 1123 (Pancake Road)
3. Construction of end bents for permanent bridge.
The permanent bridge could be completed in the second construction season.
Traffic would be detoured approximately one year. The above measures represent
conceptual approximations.
The Division Engineer concurs with the proposed action.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect, or significant
impact on the quality of the human or natural environment.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be moderate.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Avery County, which has 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.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the
project will not impact prime or important farmland soils.
D. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Avery County lies in the Mountain physiographic region. The topography of Avery
County is characterized by mountains with steep slopes and sharp crests. The average
elevation throughout the project area is 914.0 meters (3000.0 feet) above mean sea level.
Soils
Table 2 provides an inventory of specific soil types occurring in the project area.
Table 2 Avery County Soils in the Project Area
MAP UNIT SPECIFIC PERCENT SLOPE HYDRIC
SYMBOL MAPPING UNIT CLASS
CP Congaree fine sandy 0-2 -
loam
Sa State gravelly loam 7-15
There are two soil types found in the project study area. The Congaree fine sandy
loam is an alluvial soil derived from uplands and underlain by granite gneiss and schist.
It has a slope of 0-2 percent. The state gravelly loam is a rolling eroded phase soil with a
slope of 7-15 percent.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project crosses the North Toe River (Figure 2). The North Toe River is
located in the French Broad River Basin. The headwaters of the North Toe River are
located in Avery County approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles) north of Newland. The
North Toe river meanders in a southwesterly direction for approximately 64.5 kilometers
(40.0 miles) to its confluence with the Nolichucky and Cane Rivers in Mitchell County.
Characteristics of the North Toe River where it is associated with project B-2509
are as follows. The river is approximately 1.0 meter (3.3 feet) deep and 12.1 meters
(40.0 feet) wide. The substrate consists of gravel, cobble and boulder. The flow of the
river is fast and there is no aquatic vegetation in the project vicinity. The stream bank is
heavily eroded in the project area.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The North Toe River is designated as "Class WS-
III" This classification denotes waters protected as water supplies which are generally in
low to moderately developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater
are permitted, local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required; Suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses are defined as
secondary uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
The project is located within a Potential High Quality Water Zone and a Water
Supply Watershed. Potential High Quality Waters (HQW) are under consideration for
upgrading to High Quality Waters. Therefore, HQW sediment control initiatives will be
implemented.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. The BMAN rating for the North Toe River has
been assessed by monitoring six stations located on the river at various locations. Results
indicated that water quality deteriorated progressively from Good water quality at
upstream sites to Poor water quality at downstream locations. The station located in the
vicinity of the project study area had a Good water quality rating as of September 1985.
Point Source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Service (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. Several permitted dischargers are located in the
vicinity of the project area. Both the Newland Waste Water Treatment Plant and the
Spruce Pine Waste Water Treatment Plant are located downstream from the project area.
In addition, the Feldspar Corp. and Unimin Corp. are permitted to discharge into the
North Toe River.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water resources such as:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation,
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from construction and toxic spills.
Recommendations:
High Quality Waters sediment control initiatives will be implemented prior to
construction and maintained throughout the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study areas, as well as, the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution between biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area:
Riverine Fringe and Maintained. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Riverine Fringe Community
The proposed project is located in a heavily disturbed area composed
predominately of shrubby plant species. The few trees located in the immediate project
area include black locust and black walnut. Buckeye, tulip poplar and ironwood are also
scattered about. Multifloral rose, alder, elderberry, and willow form dense thickets along
the banks of the river adjacent to the project area. The herb layer consists of chickweed
and hairy bittercress. Fescue is the common grass found throughout the project area.
The Riverine Fringe community provides habitat for an assortment of birds and
mammals. Birds often associated with disturbed riverside communities include red-
9
winged blackbird, white-throated sparrow, song sparrow, and northern cardinal.
Mammals which may visit the rivers edge include white-footed mouse, raccoon and
woodchuck.
Amphibians and reptiles may be locally abundant in the disturbed community
adjacent to the river. Spring peeper, upland chorus frog, and rat snake may be found in
this community.
Maintained Community
The DOT maintained community is composed of the species already mentioned
under the disturbed community heading. Fescue and chickweed are common along the
roadside and are kept in a low growing stage through periodic mowing.
Most of the birds and mammals mentioned previously may also wander into the
maintained community occasionally. Red-winged blackbird, song sparrow and white-
throated sparrow may all be observed in this area. Woodchuck and raccoon will also
forage in this community. Rat snakes will use this area as a corridor to the disturbed
community.
Aquatic Community
The North Toe River the will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource reflect faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
A variety of biological organisms utilize the mountain river community. Brook
trout and rainbow trout are both found in cool mountain streams. The central stoneroller,
whitetail shiner, warpaint shiner and blacknose dace may be present. These fish feed on
detritus and algae and serve as prey for small mouth bass and redbreast sunfish, as well as
brook and rainbow trout.
A species of Special Concern (SC) in N.C., the hellbender is on record with the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program as occurring in the North Toe River in the project
vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section qualifies and quantifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
10
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way of 24.4 meters (80.0 feet).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3 Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Riverine Fringe Maintained Totals
Alternate 1 < 0.08 (0.20) 0.08 (0.20) 0.16 (0.40)
Alternate 2 0.10 (0.24) 0.24 (0.60) 0.34 (0.84)
Alternate 3 < 0.08 (0.20) 0.32 (0.80) 0.4(l.0)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Permanent impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
destruction. Since the project area is heavily eroded and otherwise disturbed it is unlikely
that significant impacts will occur to species that live along the edges and open areas.
However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in numbers. Mobile
species will be permanently displaced as a result of project construction.
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities
will occur from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat.
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms inhibiting their abilities to feed and obtain
oxygen. Filter feeders may be covered by the sedimentation, thus preventing their ability
to feed. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering
of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of
dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light penetration from
removal of stream side vegetation may also increase water temperatures. Warmer water
contains less oxygen and results in a reduction of aquatic life dependent on high oxygen
concentrations.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues- rare and protected species, and Waters of the United States.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States", as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
11
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils, 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including; saturated
soils, stained, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
Two sites each with approximately 0.04 hectares (0.1 acre) of below headwater
wetlands are located within the project area. The wetlands are located downstream of the
existing bridge. The soil colors in the wetlands are 10 YR 3\3. Evidence of hydrology at
the time of the site visit included signs of flow, standing water and saturation within the
soil column. Plant species with wetland indicator status include: elderberry, tag alder and
ironweed.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has instituted a numerical
rating system from 0-100 to gauge wetland quality. This fourth version of the rating
system assesses wetlands on the basis of water storage, bank\shoreline stabilization,
pollutant removal, aquatic life, recreational and educational values of a wetland
community. The DEM rating for these wetlands is 44. The wetlands meet the National
Wetlands Inventory Classification-of PSSIA which is defined as Palustrine scrub\shrub.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The construction of alternate 3 could impact as much as 0.04 hectares (0.1 acres)
of jurisdictional wetlands in the study area. Anticipated wetland and surface water
impacts are derived using the entire right of way; however, actual impacts may be less
than reported because the entire right of way is not impacted by construction projects. In
addition, the amount of impacts will be less due to restrictive conditions outlined by the
COE, DEHNR, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) during
consultation for the issuance of permits necessary for roadway construction. The amount
of wetland and surface water impacts will be modified by any changes in roadway
parameters and or criteria.
These impacts can affect the functions that wetlands perform in an ecosystem.
Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm runoff
which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas. It
is documented that wetlands function to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic
materials from water that flows across them. The presence of wetlands adjacent to
roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
12
Permits
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, a Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5 (a)(23) is likely to be applicable for proposed construction. This permit
authorizes any activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed,
in whole or in part, by another federal agency or department has determined pursuant to
the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work, or discharge
is Categorically Excluded from environmental documentation because it is included
within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment and the office of the Chief of Engineers has
been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the CE and concurs
with that determination.
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county, the NCDOT is
required to obtain a letter of approval from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Final permit decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any activity
which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required. State permits
are administered through the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR).
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: Avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each
of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practical in
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
13
Obviously, if the bridge is to be replaced, some impacts to Waters of the United
States will occur as a result of the proposed project. In addition, removal of the existing
structure will also result in some impacts.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction
of median width, ROW widths and fill slopes.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and the COE. Final decisions
concerning compensatory mitigation rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in the process of decline either due
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the provisions
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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. A brief
description of each federally protected species characteristics and habitat follows.
14
The peregrine falcon (Falco pereg_rinus, Endangered) has a dark plumage along
its back and its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by a
dark crown and a dark wedge that extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas
with high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high
cliff ledges, but they also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and
on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigation of the study area it has been
determined that suitable nesting habitat does not exist within the immediate project area.
This does not preclude the possibility that the falcon may forage in the vicinity of the
proposed project. However, project construction will not affect foraging or nesting
opportunities in the study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus,
Endangered) 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 at the rear. The skin
flaps and its 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
1517.0 meters (5000.0 feet) in 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.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations of the project study area it
has been determined that suitable habitat does not exist for the Carolina northern flying
squirrel. In addition, the proposed project is located at an elevation of 914.0 meters
(3000.0 feet) above mean sea level and does not meet the 1517.0 meters (5000.0 feet)
requirement of this animal.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The spruce-fir spider (Microhexura montivaga, Endangered) occurs in well
drained moss and liverwort mats growing on rocks or boulders. These mats are found in
well-shaded areas in mature, high elevation (> 1524.0 meters/5000.0 feet) frasier fir and
red spruce forest. The spruce-fir moss spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires
situations of high and constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss mats
which cannot become too parched or else the mats become dry or loose. The moss mats
cannot become too wet either because large drops of water can also pose a threat to the
spider. The spider constructs its tube-shaped webs in the interface between the moss mat
15
and the rock surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the interior of the moss
mat. No prey has been found in the webs, but the probable prey for the spruce-fir moss
spider is the abundant springtails found in the moss mats.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations it has been determined that
suitable habitat does not exist for the spruce fir spider. In addition, the project study area
is located at an elevation of 914.0 meters (3000.0 feet) and does not meet the
1524.0 meters (5000.0 feet) elevational requirement of the spruce fir spider.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Virginia big-eared bat (Plecotus virginianus townsendii, Endangered)
is most easily recognized by its large ears and large glandular masses on its muzzle. The
ears are held erect when the bat is awake and are curled around the head when it is
hibernating or at its summer roost. The fur on Virginia big-eared bats is long and soft, it
is brown in color and darker on the dorsal side. The hair on the feet does not extend
beyond the toes.
Virginia big-eared bats occupy caves in the summer and winter. Hibernating
colonies are typically located in deep cave passage ways that have stable temperatures and
air movement, the temperature in these hibemacula may be lower than tolerated by other
bats. Roost sites are generally located in mines or caves in oak-hickory forest. They will
use alternate roost sites but there is no record of long migrations. They are nocturnal and
leave their roost to forage on moths, beetles, and other insects.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations of the project study area it
has been determined that suitable nesting habitat does not exist within the immediate
project area. This does not preclude the possibility that the Virginia big eared bat may
forage in the area. However, project construction will not affect foraging opportunities in
the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum, Endangered) is a perennial herb having stems
with an indefinate 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 terminal 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 1535.0-1541.0 meters (5060.0-5080.0 feet), 1723.0-1747.0
meters (5680.0-5760.0 feet) and 1759.0 meters (5800.0 feet). Other habitat requirements
for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a
16
composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most
populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations of the project study area it
has been determined that suitable habitat does not exist for spreading avens. In addition,
the projects elevation is 914.0 meters (3000.0 feet) and does not meet the 1535.0-1541.0
meters (5060.0-5080.0 feet) elevational requirements of spreading avens.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare, Endangered) is a squamulose
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 meters/4000 feet)
mountaintops and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (<762
meters/2500 feet) deep gorges in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen
primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows
at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing
with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of extinction
to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration\loss of high elevation
coniferous forests. These coniferous forest usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by
the rock gnome lichen.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations it has been determined that
suitable habitat does not exist in the immediate project area for the rock gnome lichen. In
addition, the proposed project is located at an elevation of 914.0 meters (3000.0 feet) and
does not meet the elevational requirements this plant.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Roan mountain bluet Hed otis purpurea var. montana, Endangered) is a
perennial species with roots in low tufts. Roan mountain bluet has several bright purple
flowers arranged in a terminal cyme.
This plant can be found on cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and in the gravelly talus
associated with cliffs. Known populations of mountain purple bluet occur at elevations
of 1400.0-1900.0 meters (4600.0-6200.0 feet). It grows best in areas where it is exposed
to full sunlight and in shallow acidic soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic
and metasedimentary rocks.
17
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations it has been determined that
suitable habitat for this plant does not exist in the immediate project area. In addition, the
proposed project is located at an elevation of 914.0 meters (3000.0 feet) above mean sea
level and does not meet the elevational requirement for the Roan mountain bluet.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri, Endangered) is a short, stocky plant that
has one or more erect stems that arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves.
Leaves are accuminate and diminish in size and breadth upward on the stem. Heller's
blazing star has small lavender flowers and its fruits appear from September to
November.
Heller's blazing star is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the
northern Blue Ridge mountains in North Carolina. Known populations of this plant occur
at elevations of 1067.0-1829.0 meters (3500.0-6000.0 feet). Heller's blazing star is an
early pioneer species growing on grassy rock outcrops where it is exposed to full sunlight.
Heller's blazing star prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations it has been determined that
suitable habitat for this plant does not exist in the immediate project area. In addition, the
proposed project is located at an elevation of 914.0 in (3000.0 ft) above mean sea level
and does not meet the elevational requirement for Heller's blazing star.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Blue Ridge goldenrod Solida o spithamaea, Threatened) is a perennial herb
having erect stems that grows from a short stout rhizome. This herb is usually covered
with whitish hairs. The yellow flowers are born in heads arranged in a corymbiform
inflorescence.
Blue Ridge goldenrod is found only on high mountain peaks in North Carolina
and Tennessee. The Blue Ridge goldenrod inhabits rock outcrops, ledges, cliffs, and
balds at elevations above 1400.0 meters (4590 feet). It grows in humus or clay loams on
igneous and metasedimentary rock. Sites are usually exposed to full sun and have
shallow acidic (pH 4) soils. Ideal sites are intermittently saturated but excessively to
moderately poorly drained.
Based on extensive in-house and field investigations it has been determined that
suitable habitat for this plant does not exist in the immediate project area. In addition, the
proposed project is located at an elevation of 914.0 m (3000.0 ft) above mean sea level
and does not meet the elevational requirement for Blue Ridge goldenrod.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
18
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
An archaeological investigation was conducted on March 2, 1995 to locate and
assess archaeological resources in the project area. Only one archaeological site,
31AV82**, was located. The remains of the mill dam and possible equipment parts of
the waterwheel and turbine for the Tar Heel Mica Company were located on both the east
and west banks of the North Toe River approximately 40 meters (130 feet) from the mill
structure. The remains of this mill dam and as well as the equipment along Pancake Road
have been determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and
determined as non-contributing elements to the historic district (see attached May 31,
1996 letter from SHPO).
HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
An NCDOT architectural historian surveyed the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of
the project for significant historical resources. The historian identified the community of
Plumtree as being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see attached May
22, 1996 letter from SHPO).
The proposed project will be replacing a bridge considered to be a contributing
element to the historic district as well as require a temporary easement for the proposed
detour alignment. Therefore, the Federal Highway Administration, State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and North Carolina Department of Transportation concur
that this project will have an Adverse Effect upon the Plumtree Historic District (see
attachments for correspondence relating to Section 106).
Through coordination, the SHPO, FHWA, and NCDOT have addressed the
adverse effects and adopted mutually agreeable mitigation measures to lessen the effects
of constructing the project. The measures are agreeable to the three agencies in addition
to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and those residents representing the
Plumtree Historic District. The attachments to this document contain a copy of the
Memorandum of Agreement for the project. Section X of this Categorical Exclusion is
the Final Section 4(f) evaluation. It includes a description of the historic district and a
discussion of how the project will affect historic resources.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
NCDOT held a Citizen's Informational Workshop (CIW) for B-2509 on
June 4, 1996. This workshop was at the Plumtree Presbyterian Church. Representatives
of NCDOT Division 11 included the Division Engineer, the Division Construction
Engineer, and a Division Right of Way Agent. In addition, a member of the Planning and
Environmental Branch was in attendance to explain the project, answer questions, and
receive comments. Several property owners from the area attended the meeting. The
general reaction to the recommended alternate was positive.
There is not a formal committee representing the National Register Eligible
Plumtree Historic District. However, a representative (Dana Hill) of the Vance family
19
who owns the majority of the properties in the district attended the workshop and stated
no objections to the project since it permanently impacts only the bridge.
X. FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
A. Background
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 of the Categorical
Exclusion with a wider bridge on the existing alignment. Approach work will extend
approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of the new bridge.
Traffic will be maintained during construction by providing a temporary detour
approximately 213 meters (700 feet) south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2.
This will require improving a segment of SR 1123 (Pancake Road) by widening from
4.9 meters (16 feet) to 6 meters (20 feet) and resurfacing.
Because of the structural deficiency and operational inadequacy of the existing
bridge and alignment, the North Carolina Board of Transportation approved this project as
part of the Federal Bridge Replacement Program. This project will replace a deteriorated
bridge. The current sufficiency rating of the bridge is 18.2 out of 100.0. The proposed
project will replace the deteriorated bridge with a new structure, providing a safer crossing.
The existing Bridge No. 39 is located within the proposed Plumtree Historic
District. This district is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. All three
studied alternates, including the recommended alternate, require taking land within the
district. Therefore, the project must proceed within the requirements of Section 4(f) of the
USDOT Act and Section 138 of the Highway Act, as amended.
B. Alternatives Affecting Section 4(f) Resource
There are three alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 152 that do not avoid effects
to the historic district. Each requires acquisition of right of way and construction within
the historic district. These alternatives are described as Alternate 1, Alternate 2, and
Alternate 3 in Section V of the Categorical Exclusion.
C. Description of 4(f) Resource
Thirty-three (33) properties are identified in the Property Inventory, but not all of
these resources lie within either the area of potential effect (APE) or the proposed district
boundaries. Twenty (20) resources are located within the APE for the subject project, and
eighteen (18) of the structures in the APE are included in the proposed district boundaries.
Six (6) resources lie outside the APE but are included in the proposed district boundaries.
The seven (7) remaining resources lie outside both the APE and the proposed district
boundaries.
Property Description and Background Information
A post office was established officially at Plumtree in 1874, although the Toe River
valley had been settled earlier in the nineteenth century. The village developed on part of
the W. W. Avery land grant holdings. Throughout the nineteenth century Plumtree
developed more quickly than most all other communities in the area due, in large measure,
to its central location. Plumtree became a major trading center with two large stores (C.
20
W. Burleson & Son, whose slogan was "We carry everything," and T. B. Vance, General
Merchandise), productive mines and farmland, and a successful mica mining and
processing industry.
The development of Plumtree in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries is
associated closely with the lives of several men: Charles Wesley Burleson (1844-1929)
and two brothers, Thomas B. Vance (b. 1865) and David T. Vance (1872-1922). C. W.
Burleson owned a large farm in the Toe River valley and was involved in many aspects of
the community. Mr. Burleson discovered the first mica mine near Plumtree in 1870 and
operated a processing plant for a short time. He served as the first postmaster, ran a large
general store, maintained a productive farm, and donated the land for the Plumtree School
for Boys.
The Vance brothers, Thomas and David, were directly involved in the developing
mica industry centered around Plumtree. The two brothers were responsible for
establishing the first mica grinding mill (possibly only the second in world at the time) in
the valley in the 1890s. Thomas Vance went on to become the second postmaster of
Plumtree, own and operate a large mercantile store, and play an active role in the Plumtree
Presbyterian Church. David T. Vance founded the Tar Heel Mica Company in 1908, one
of the oldest and most productive mica processing plants in the nation, served two terms as
sheriff, and became a member of the county road commission in 1915. Given David
Vance's business acumen, it is probably not coincidental that Avery County began issuing
bonds to improve its main roads in 1915, especially between Plumtree and Cranberry--a
shipment of mica from Plumtree to England incurred one-third of its freight charges
between Plumtree and Johnson City, Tennessee.
Property Inventory
(C) designates a contriubting element to the historic district. (NC) designates a non-
contributing element to the historic district.
1. Bridge No. 39. Completed in 1934, the Plumtree Bridge is a reinforced concrete
tee-beam structure (Type 104) with a concrete handrail pierced by small arched
openings. The bridge was built by the Hobbs-Peabody Construction Company of
Charlotte and replaced an earlier bridge located just south (downstream) of the
present structure (see property 10). Bridge No. 39 is one of 507 structures of this
type over fifty years of age on the state system, and of these structures, 124 were
built in the 1930s. (C)
2. T. B. Vance House. Thomas Beauregard Vance's late-nineteenth century, two-and-
one-half story, frame, side-gable dwelling served as a dormitory for the Plumtree
School for Boys in 1900-1905. A steeply pitched cross-gable projection and two-
story wraparound porch, overlooking the river, dominates the facade of the
structure. T. B. Vance, a local businessman involved in mica mining and
mercantile interests, lived in the house all his life. Drs. E. H. and Mary M. Sloop
may have boarded in the house during the years (1908-11) when they practiced
medicine in Plumtree. The Sloop's daughter, Dr. Emma Sloop Fink, was born in
this house in 1909. (C)
3. T. B. Vance mercantile building. This two-story commercial building is
constructed of plainly finished and molded concrete blocks similar to those of the
Tar Heel Mica Company building. This commercial building features three
unequal storefronts across the main facade but none of the original storefronts or
upper-level windows remain intact. The building probably housed T. B. Vance's
21
store although this has not been confirmed. Vance's store was reportedly one of the
best stocked in the county but its business extended far beyond the boundaries of
the Mitchell and Avery Counties. (C)
4. Tar Heel Mica Company. The Tar Heel Mica Company was begun by David T.
Vance as early as the 1890s and was incorporated in 1908. Most of the nation's
mica was mined and processed in the Plumtree-Spruce Pine region throughout the
first half of the twentieth century. The Tar Heel Mica Company is one of the oldest
and largest fabricators of mica. (C)
The building housing the mica company operations was built in two stages. The
eight-bay, two-story building was constructed in 1912. The molded concrete blocks
on the second level of the building were made at the site. The long, one-story wing
was added in 1919 and also features molded concrete blocks on the upper part of
the facade. Although the building is somewhat deteriorated, the Tar Heel Mica
Company continues to operate out of this facility. (C)
5. Company Building #2. This one-story concrete block building, built in 1951, is
associated with the Tar Heel Mica Company. The building's use is undetermined
but is likely related to the modern grinding and processing operations. (Non
Contributing (NC))
6. Company Building #3. This one-story concrete block building, built in 1945, is
associated with the Tar Heel Mica Company. The building does not appear to be
used at present. (NC)
7. Storage building. The purpose of this small, frame, shed-roofed building sheathed
with corrugated metal siding is unknown. (NC)
8. Tea Room. This one-story, molded concrete block building was constructed in the
1920s by the Tar Heel Mica Company as a tea room. For a number of years the tea
room was the most important meeting place for social gatherings. People would
come from as far away as Spruce Pine to have lunch. The balcony of the tea room
extended out to the river. The first barbershop in Plumtree was located in the
basement. (C)
9. Former Post Office. This frame, almost cubical building was built c. 1920 and
housed the post office. The small building features German siding, four-over-one
double-hung windows, and a glazed door with vertical lights. (C)
10. Stone pier. This stone pier located on the east bank of the Toe River just south of
the Bridge No. 39. The stacked stone foundation probably remains from the
structure replaced by the present bridge. (C)
11. Log dam. The log dam dates from 1936 when it was constructed to replace an
earlier dam which had rotted. The earlier dam had been constructed in 1910.
Originally, the mica grinding process was achieved with direct water power--water
from the river was diverted into a flume and an overshot waterwheel to power a
turbine. (C)
12. Company Building 44. This multi-story, concrete block building housed the mica
grinding operations of the Tar Heel Mica Company for a number of years. Built in
1934, the building is a long hipped-roof structure with clipped gables and a wing
extending out to the river. The building does not appear to be used at present. (C)
22
13. Plumtree Presbyterian Church. The Plumtree Presbyterian Church was organized in
1905 and held its first services in a nearby school building known as "Bluebonnet."
The present frame church building was constructed c. 1912, and features a well-
detailed bell tower. (C)
14. C. W. Burleson Store. The one-story, front-gable portion of the building was
probably built in the 1860s while the large, two-story addition was constructed
around the turn of the century. The older portion of the building reportedly was
purchased by C. W. Burleson from Ben Aldridge some time shortly after the Civil
War. This frame building is sheathed with board and batten siding and features
paneled front doors flanked by two bay windows covered by a shallow hip roof.
The large frame addition features an intact storefront and stepped parapet. Most of
the interior fixtures and furnishings, including the original display cases, were sold
to the Tweetsie Railroad Park. A molded concrete block addition is accessed from
the far end of the common porch.
The Burleson Store played an important part in the development of Plumtree. The
general merchandise store attracted county residents from a wide region and was
recognized along the north-south trade route. Mr. Burleson was one of the most
involved members of the community. (C)
15. Wilkins Cabin. This double-pen, half-dovetail notched log house reportedly dates
from the early to mid-nineteenth century and is thought to be the oldest standing
structure in Avery County. Oral tradition dates the property to the early-nineteenth
century as the Connolly Trading Post. In 1867, C. W. Burleson purchased the
cabin, which is presently owned by his granddaughter. The structure was
extensively remodeled in 1964. (C)
16. Clock tower. This structure was constructed in recent years for a movie set. (NC)
17. Smokehouse. This single pen, frame smokehouse was rebuilt in recent years for a
movie set. (NC)
18. Post Office. The present post office is housed in this modern brick building.
(Outside district boundaries)
19. House. Modern multi-story dwelling. (Outside district boundaries)
20. Commercial building. One-story, concrete block commercial building possibly
over fifty years of age. (Outside district boundaries)
21. House. Simple one-story, side-gable, frame dwelling with front-gable porch
constructed in 1930s. (Outside district boundaries)
22. House. Simple one-story, side-gable, frame dwelling constructed in 1930s.
(Outside district boundaries)
23. House. This one-story, frame bungalow, probably built in the late-1920s, displays
simple Craftsman details and a front-gable porch. (Outside district boundaries)
24. House. Two-story, side-gable, frame house with a shed-roof carport addition to the
rear possibly dates from either the late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century.
23
Several associated outbuildings including a barn and (possibly) a tenant house.
(Outside district boundaries)
25. Robert and Lou Martin House. This c.1910, two-story, colonial Revival foursquare
dwelling was owned by Mrs. Lou Martin, a granddaughter of C. W. Burleson, and
her husband. The facade of the house is dominated by the projecting polygonal
center bay surmounted by a cross-gable roof. A broad wraparound porch supported
by Tuscan columns extends on two sides of the house and prominently projects in
the area of the center bay. The house is covered by a hip roof with two hip-roof
dormers located on the sides. The house sits atop a slight rise and is well shaded by
mature trees. (C)
26. House. This simple, one-story, front gable, Craftsman style house with German
siding probably dates from c. 1920-25. (C)
27. House. This one-story, side gable, Craftsman style house also dates from the early
1920s. The house is similar to its adjacent neighbor with its German siding and
modest details but features a broader range of Craftsman-style elements. (C)
28. House. This c.1920, one and one-half story dwelling features a number of typical
Craftsman-style elements including the broad side-gable roof with central gabled
dormer and engaged porch supported by tapering posts. The exterior of the house
has undergone some alterations and additions, most obviously the carport to the
south. (C)
29. House. Mobile home. (NC)
30. J. P. Hall House. The Hall House was begun in 1914 by Rev. Joseph P. Hall,
organizer of the Plumtree Presbyterian Church and Plumtree School for Boys. The
two-story, gambrel-roof, brick and frame house appears to have undergone some
alteration in the 1940s or 50s. The Rev. Hall is reported to have chosen only the
finest materials for his residence, most of which were shipped from Johnson City,
Tennessee. The Hall House sits atop a rise and overlooks US 19E and the river
from the west. (C)
31. David T. Vance House. The D. T. Vance House dates from 1911 and was built by
David Vance, founder of the Tar Heel Mica Company. The two and one-half story,
hipped-roof, frame foursquare dwelling sits well above the highway surrounded by
mature vegetation and overlooks the river from the west. The Vance House
features two gables on the front facade, wraparound porch, two projecting side bays
with gable roofs and a full height rear ell. The interior includes maple floors, a
fireplace built by Mr. Burgess, a local mason, and plaster walls. The Vance House
was reportedly the first house in the area to be plastered. (C)
32. Yellow Mountain Baptist Church. The Yellow Mountain Baptist Church,
organized in the early 1870s, was the first congregation in the area. The present
church building dates from 1924 when the church was rebuilt on its original site.
The church building consists of the irregularly-coursed, stone veneer sanctuary
surmounted by a clipped gable roof and T-plan Sunday School building with its
steeply-pitched cross-gable roof and corner bell tower. (Outside district boundaries)
33. Yellow Mountain Cemetery. According to the index of Avery County cemeteries,
many of Plumtree's prominent residents are interred here, including members of the
Avery, Buchanan, Burleson, Wiseman, and Vance families. The Yellow Mountain
24
Cemetery contains over 300 graves dating from the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. Although the earliest gravestone dates from 1855, less than one-fifth of
the graves are nineteenth century. The cemetery is situated on a sloping hillside site
overlooking a bend in the North Toe River. (Outside district boundaries)
Boundaries
The potential historic district at Plumtree is centered around the buildings of the Tar
Heel Mica Company and C. W. Burleson's store. The proposed eligible boundaries begin
at a point north of Bridge No. 39 where Plumtree Creek enters the North Toe River and
proceeds along the creek to US 19E. The proposed boundary then follows the right of way
line east of US 19E to the junction with SR 1122. The boundary follows the right of way
line on the north side of SR 1122 before turning southeast to include the Martin House
(property #25) and then turning in general southwesterly direction to the east of Plumtree
Presbyterian Church and the houses located on SR 1123. The boundary crosses the river to
the south of the Tar Heel Mica Company Building No. 4 (property #12). The boundary
follows the river downstream a short distance before heading northwest across a field and
US 19E at a point south of the J. P. Hall House (property #30). The boundary proceeds
along the right of way line to the west of US 19E before turning northwest at a point south
of the David T. Vance House (property #31). The boundary roughly parallels US 19E west
of the structures fronting the highway to a point at the corner of the T. B. Vance House
(property #2) lot. The boundary then heads southeast in a straight line to the river at point
north of Bridge No. 39 and follows the river north to the beginning.
The proposed district boundaries are drawn to include the greatest concentration of
resources associated with and situated around the C. W. Burleson Store and the Tar Heel
Mica Company. Of the twenty-four (24) resources contained within the proposed district
boundaries, five (5) of the resources are less than fifty years of age and, therefore, non-
contributing elements of the district. The resources located around the bridge and to the
south are generally associated with the mica company and the Vance brothers. To the
north of the bridge the resources are generally associated with C. W. Burleson and his
store. The resources encompassed by the proposed district boundaries retain sufficient
integrity of design, materials, setting, feeling, and association to reflect the important
historical aspects of the development of Plumtree through the late-nineteenth and early-
twentieth century.
D. Alternatives Not Impacting the Section 4(f) Resource
There are three alternates that would not require taking land in the district. These
alternates are no-build, rehabilitation, and complete avoidance. However, because the
bridge is increasingly a hazard, NCDOT is unwilling to leave the bridge in place under any
circumstances. Therefore an "adverse effect" is unavoidable since the bridge is a
contributing element to the district. Section 4(f) requires evaluation of any prudent and
feasible avoidance alternatives but there are none for this project.
1. No-build
The no build alternate would not require new construction. It would require Bridge
No. 39 to remain in-place and state Bridge Maintenance forces to make necessary
improvements to keep the bridge in service. However, NCDOT has determined that the
bridge has deteriorated to a point where the bridge must soon be closed to the traveling
public because of the hazard it poses. Closing US 19-E is not feasible or prudent.
25
2. Avoidance
The "adverse effect" on the district is due to the removal of Bridge 39. To avoid
this impact would require leaving the bridge in place which NCDOT is unwilling to do
under any circumstances. The bridge is structurally deficient and continues to deteriorate
beyond repair. It poses an increasigly significant safety hazard even with the removal of
traffic from the bridge.
Even if it were possible to leave in the bridge, the alternate which avoids an
"adverse effect" is not feasible or prudent because it would require re-aligning US 19E
outside of the historic district. Because of the steep climbing mountains forming the valley
surrounding Plumtree (see Figure 9) this would require blasting out a passage over 100
meters deep and over 1000 meters long which would be prohibitively expensive. Creating
a canyon of this nature would tremendously alter the visual effect of the setting. It would
also have the effect of making access to the district more difficult and therefore far fewer
people would be able to appreciate the historic community. Finally, it would be outside the
scope of purpose and need of the project.
E. Alternatives to Minimize Harm
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither feasible nor advisable due to the poor
condition of the existing abutments, scour along the footings, spalling across most of the
surfaces, and general oxidation of much of the reinforcing steel in the bridge.
F. Recommended Alternate
Bridge No. 39 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 with a bridge 10.4
meters (32 feet) wide and 67 meters (220 feet) in length. The bridge cross section will
include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes, a 1-meter (3-foot) paved shoulder, and a 1.5-meter
(5-foot) sidewalk.
Traffic will be maintained during construction by providing a temporary detour
approximately 213 meters (700) south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2. The
temporary structure will be a bridge approximately 51 meters (170 feet) long and
7.9 meters (26 feet) in width. This will require improving a segment of SR 1123 (Pancake
Road) by widening from 4.9 meters (16 feet) to 6 meters (20 feet) and resurfacing.
Although the widening will require some right-of-way, it will not significantly impact any
structure or impact the character of the district.
G. Effects to Section 4(f) Resource
The recommended alternate will have two permanent effects on the district and one
temporary effect. Bridge No. 39 is considered a contributing element to the district and its
replacement will be a permanent effect. The widening of Pancake Road from 4.9 meters
(16 feet) to 6.0 meters (20 feet) will also be a permanent, although minor, effect. A
temporary bridge crossing 213 meters (700 feet) south of the existing bridge will exist for
the duration of the new bridge construction. This is a temporary impact in that the
landscaping will be re-shaped to its original condition.
26
H. Mitigation Measures
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out to minimize and
mitigate harm to the district:
1. Recordation
The Historic District and its setting will be recorded before any construction is
initiated as outlined in the attached Memorandum of Agreement.
2. Design of Replacement Bridge
The bridge will be designed to incorporate three bar metal rails.
3. Re-landscaping of Temporary Alignment
The contours and vegetation along the area to be impacted by the temporary bridge
will be restored as closely as possible to their condition prior to construction.
1. Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the United States Department
of Interior (DOI), and local residents representing the Plumtree Community. FHWA has
notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the adverse effect on the
Plumtree Historic District. The ACHP has reviewed and given approval to the
Memorandum of Agreement (see Attachments).
J. Conclusion
Based on the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
avoid Section 4(f) impacts to the Plum Tree Historic District. The proposed project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic district.
K. Approval
The FHWA has reviewed this project and determined it meets all applicable criteria
set forth in the 22 August 1983 Federal Register. Therefore, the following signature
documents that this Final Section 4(f) Statement is approved for the replacement of Bridge
No. 39 in Avery County.
Approved:
Dates.eeder nLarson, P.E., Regional Administrator
a l Highway Administration
'4?
27
FIGURES

ti
J8
40 400010 or
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
N
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
AVERY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39
ON US 19E OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
B-2509
0 kilometers 0.30 kilometers 0.60
I Figure 1
0 miles 0.20 miles 0.40
c ,?r
rF,
Igo -
7N

Y ? N

a`

441,
7
K
r
y
VL
rM o
IL U.
I
., r
1ffi4
O Q
Q „in'v? %r
?SY °I

lY7 ?
w C' ?
Q a C 7 y
o y
O O ? ? I? QQ ? v

xh? od
y ?z? 3
oa
?,
O w 3
K
'-7 ? CO Q
n

N _
r
FIGURE 3
INTERSECTION OF US 19E (right), PANCAKE ROAD (left)
FIGURE 4
SOUTH. APPROACH TO BRIDGE NO. 39
FIGURE 5
OLD MILL WHEEL AND TURBINE
FIGURE 6
FORMER TEA ROOM
FIGURE 7
TARHEEL MICA COMPANY (EAST SIDE 19E)
FIGURE 8
OLD MILL BUILDING
North Carolina Department Of
' Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
APPROXIMATE HISTORIC DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES SUPERIMPOSED
ON TOPOGRAPY
0 meters 60 meters 120
Figure 9
D feel 200 feet 400
IN,
d p ?" $
ATTACHMENTS
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
May 17, 1995 C, E 1.Y
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration fAY 9 ' 1995
Department of Transportation i
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 2 DIVISIC!VOF
C HIGHWAYS
Re: Bridge 39 on US 19E over North Toe River,
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-19E(1), State Project ??RONIVIE??
8.1720901, TIP B-2509, Avery County, ER 95-
8918
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Anna Gray concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one noneligible archaeological site was located
within the project area. Ms. Gray has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
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.
Si erely,
Da Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
A. Gray
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3P
V
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 22, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 39 on US 19E over North Toe
River, Avery County, B-2509, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-19E(1), State Project 8.172090 1,
ER 96-8877
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
. Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
G t' V F
SAY 2 4 1996
?i
M!
Thank you for your letter of April 30, 1996, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of .
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Plumtree Historic District. This village contains numerous late nineteenth and
early-twentieth century resources and is eligible under Criterion A for
community, commercial, and industrial development; Criterion B for its
association with C. W. Burleson and Thomas and David Vance; and Criterion
C for architecture and engineering.' We believe the boundaries for this
district should possibly include additional resources to the north and south of
the proposed boundaries. However, the northern and southern ends of the
district are outside of the area of potential effect for this project, so we
believe it is not necessary to firmly establish these boundaries at this time.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

471
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 13
May 22, 1996, Page 2
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,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou S
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor ?TSivisiort o?iAicfiives'arid Rislofj(_ _J
.._.' k?CeX 7i'cSvJ,[o{ I
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 31, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #39 on US 19E over North Toe
River, Avery County, B-2509, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-19E(1), State Project 8.1720901
Dear Mr. Graf:
On May 16, 1996, Renee Gledhill-Earley and Debbie Bevin of our office met with
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to discuss the
above project and its effects on the Plumtree Historic District, a property eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Given our understanding of the three alternates under consideration, we believe
that they all would adversely affect the district. Alternates 1 and 2 would cause
the demolition of several contributing structures including the bridge. Alternate 3
requires the demolition of the bridge, a contributing structures, but avoids
impacting any other contributing structures. Therefore, of the three alternates, we
believe Alternate 3 is the least damaging to the district, although it still causes an
adverse effect due to the demolition of the bridge.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
S*iprely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
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. 39
ONUS 19E OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
AVERY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. B-2509, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1720901
FEDERAL AID NO. BRSTP-19E(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
replacement of Bridge No. 39 over North Toe River in Avery County, North Carolina
will have an effect upon the Plumtree Historic District (the District), a property eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800,
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) 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, FHWA 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 the District.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Recordation. Prior to the demolition of Avery County Bridge No. 39, a
contributing resource within the District, 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 shall be sent to the North Carolina
SHPO prior to the start of construction.
II. Bridge Rail Design. The design of the replacement structure shall consist
of a standard, pedestrian-safe two-bar metal bridge rail symmetrical on both sides.
III. Guardrail. NCDOT shall install standard guardrail on the bridge
approaches. The guardrail will not restrict access to or physically obstruct any structures
located within the District.
IV. Landscaping. NCDOT shall revegetate the area of the temporary detour,
located approximately 243 meters (800 feet) south of the existing bridge and shown in
Figure 2, following the removal of the detour structure. NCDOT shall replace the
existing vegetation in-kind and restore the contours of the detour area. NCDOT shall
replace, in-kind, any plant materials damaged or lost within two (2) years of installation.
V. Dispute Resolution. Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty
(30) days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO
to resolve the objection. If FHWA or the SHPO determines that the objection can not be
resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council.
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will
either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take
into account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Part
800.6(b) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a
request will be taken into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(2)
with reference to the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be
understood to pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry
out all the actions under the MOA that are not the subject of the dispute will remain
unchanged.
a
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO,
its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and implementation of its terms evidence that
FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the replacement of
Bridge No. 39 on US 19E over North Toe River and its effect on historic properties, and
that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.
FEDEPOE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Poc
Z Z
75AT-E
3 :17
NORT A STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DATE
NOR H CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AT
Concurring Party
0?01- ? z
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures Recordation Plan
• for the Replacement of Bridge No. 39
Avery County, North Carolina
Photographic Requirements
Photographic views of Bridge No. 39 including:
Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
Overall views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction or design
Format:
Representative color transparencies
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 and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Clear photocopy of aerial map showing the Area of Potential Effect for the project
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation 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.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Braiich, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Q V S-
C
DATE: March 22, 1995 Y
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge #39 on US
19-E over North Toe River, Avery County, TIP #B-2509.
This correspondence is in response to a request by you for
our preliminary comments regarding replacing Bridge #39 along US
19-E over the North Toe River in Avery County. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has developed four
alternatives for this project, all of which involve a new
spanning structure:
Alternative 1 - replace bridge just upstream of existing bridge.
Alternative 2 - replace bridge just downstream of existing
bridge.
Alternative 3 - replace bridge approximately 800 feet downstream
of existing bridge.
Alternative 4 - replace bridge approximately 950 feet downstream
of existing bridge.
I conducted a site visit on 21 March 1995. The North Toe
River is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water and likely supports wild trout also. The bridge is located
within the small community of Plumtree. Land use in the area
included mostly residential development and pasture.
Our major concern with this project is replacing the
existing bridge with another spanning structure, which the NCDOT
does propose to do. We do not prefer any one alternative over
the others, except to note that Alternatives 1 and 2 may impact
fewer acres of wildlife habitat than Alternatives 3 and 4.
However, we do not have any strong opinions on a preferred

alternative given the land use in the project area and would not
object to any of the alternatives presented in your letter.
For your information, in May 1993 the NCWRC reviewed a 404
permit from landowners proposing to stabilize the left river bank
(looking upstream) just upstream of the bridge. At that time
landowners had lost approximately 10 feet of pasture to erosion
in this area. During my recent site visit, no action had been
taken on the project and it was evident that recent flood events
had eroded this bank even more severely. We would appreciate any
assistance you could give to stabilize the river bank in this
area if Alternative 1 or 2 is constructed.
I plan to make the following recommendations on this project
when I receive a copy of the application.?for a 404 permit:
1) If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the
river bank rather than in the river channel in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the river.
2) If concrete will be used, construction must be accomplished
so that wet concrete does not contact river water. This
will lessen the chance of altering the river's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
3) In order to provide long term erosion control, permanent
herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities. Mulch
should be used to protect the soil before vegetation becomes
established.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during
the early stages of this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist

.
: Nord Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, R.leigh,14orth Carolina 27604-1188.919-733.3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. GoudreaJ, Mt. Region Coordinator ?
Habitat Conservation Pro,-,rani _
DATE: July 26, 1995
SUBJECT: Additional scoping contmellts for replacement of Bridge #39 on US 19-E ever
North. Toe River, Avery Courim . TIP #B-2509.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the subject project. We previously commented on this project in a n?emo=durn dated 22 A?I«rcli
1995 to Mr. Wavne Fedora of the North Carolina Department of T ranspor<ation (NCDOT).
Since that time, the NTCDOT has added another alternative to avoid impacting the historic district
in Plumtree. T1us alternative would consist ofreplacing the bridge at its existing location. In
addition, a temporary bridge would be crnstn:!.ted approximately 800 feet downstrezun of the
existing bridge to serve as a detour.
Our previous comments would also apply to the newly proposed alternative. Again, we
are pleased that the existing bridge M111 be replaced with ano+lter bridge. We do not have any
strong opinions regarding a pre erred a ternative and would rot oriect to any of the proposed
alternatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704'652-
425?.
ENT OF l
QP 'y
01
'Noah 3..ea
ER-97/97
ohn (?J?11? a L
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf MAR 111997
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Dear Mr. Graf:
?R 4
LL ?1'
This is in response to the request for the Department of the Interior's comments
on the Draft Categorical Exclusion/Section 4(f) Evaluation for Bridge No. 39 on
US-19E over the North Toe River, Avery County, North Carolina.
We concur that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed
project, if project objectives are to be met. We also concur with the proposed
measures to minimize harm to the Plumtree Historic District, including Bridge No.
39 which is considered contributing to the historic district. We recommend
continued cooperation and coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer in order to complete the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which
should include measures to avoid or minimize harm to the Plumtree Historic
District. A signed copy of the MOA should be included in the Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation.
The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of this
project by the Department of Transportation.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sinc rely,
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office Environmental
Policy and Compliance
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
91 R w
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?r ?Q ?a,lam? -D ? M
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
?'. NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? 'NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
Q RETURN,WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
Q NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY . FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?. INVESTIGATES. AND REPORT
COMMENTS.

OCT - 1994
WET
WATER LANDS GROUT'
QJA?n TF-
,?

., A
M svvFa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 27, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge No.
39 on US 19E over North Toe River, Avery County,
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-19E(1), State Project
No. 8.17720901, T.I.P. No. B-2509
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 3, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/pl r © t ` 06
-P t
Attachment Ivy <-? Vvs . r --
A? ?r ?ijoGrS ?e`L ,?GnTS y j/Pd?
lu?%!?i'cS ? ?tA?nl ?h,?o?yZ ?y1 In?
?a s)

e*
1
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9/8/94
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2509
STATE PROJECT 8.17720901
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-19E(1)
DIVISION ELEVEN
COUNTY AVERY
ROUTE US 19E
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39 ON US 19E OVER
NORTH TOE RIVER IN AVERY COUNTY
USGS QUAD SHEET: CARVERS GAP
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE _
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT:
00N
r y

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1900 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 3800 VPD
TTST 2 DT 4 %
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 20-foot travelway
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 169 FEET; WIDTH 27.3 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 925,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 43,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 968,000
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
'0?tc t ?j -(?m "-I/ - lq?
w1?S.
227 -; -r-c / oo POD
a ?, as i? r&+e

?'dW??`
AN,,

5,504
1131'
• ff1128
Cr.
7 1,31
?r 1126
? 183
Henson
Creek
Ch.
? •9
\ 1 127 .?
1 SPA
I?
i ` til
0
19E
SPEAR TOPS Z
ELEV. 4,852 11X

- - Dam N .
•
-+ ;
a 1 193 N 1181
"
cn a 0
• 2
1 182
. 9
1138

'i 1140
Hum
BIG ELK
MOUNTAIN
N
•
1120 1119

1121
1197
P 1
A 1114 1174
A
^
1122 ? 2.1 1119
rkm*w
1176 1117
BRIDGE NO. 98 1118

19E
1114
1204 6
BUCK HILL
i
•4111
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
D8 19R
BRIDGE NO. 89 OVER
NORTH TOR RIVER
AVERT COUffff
T.I.P. M. 8-2309 PI8 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
1 1 1
nal
ive h
IR,ich 1
\Dou b ea
=a- 600
\\? \? ???\.?Z Housto? Cem ?
? 1 I J- •?
i
O CRY
Ysa
M.
ar,
?ch
it? iae
IX,

Main `r
urch 4
11
`' II
11

II ?I I,q Peras 01 IN, --7,::?7
• 3
I a ?' _„1 cn
kChI_n3
II \ \?
s
IS1? -
C 3990
r
3989
r\ ` 2'30"
i?
e
., °
\. Conley
II°sJChape
?; cx\
?r I .`? oo ??
\?v?r 39SI
?\ 11Z-
O
P
3986
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 39
ON US 19E OVER NORTH TOE RIVER NEAR PLUMTREE
Project 8.1720901 B-2509 Avery County
A citizens informational workshop will be held on
Tuesday, June 4, 1996 in the Plumtree Presbyterian Church
Fellowship Hall located on US 19E in Plumtree. This will be
an informal open-house workshop conducted between the hours
of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to attend may do so
at their convenience during these hours.
The purpose of this informational workshop is to present
information, answer questions, and receive comments during
the planning and early design stages of the proposed
replacement of Bridge Number 39 on US 19E over North Toe
River. Improvements to Pancake Road (SR 1123) will be
included in this project.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending. Anyone desiring additional information about the
workshop may contact Mr. John Williams, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or by telephone at
[phone] - Extension 235.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the workshop. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Williams at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
workshop.
RECEIVED
MAY 1 71996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
?" ,.,,,u
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP D DA E
n
11 21
TO:
' REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Er
, c- leh
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Way ? "ca P ?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN To ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
-? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?PREPARE REPLY: FOR MY SIGNATURE. ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ?INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

??
*ea®
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on
US 19E over North Toe River, Avery County, Federal Aid
No. BRSTP-19E(1), State Project 8.1720901, B-2509
I held a scoping meeting on November 3, 1994 to initiate the subject
project.
Based on consultation with those attending the meeting, we will study
two alternates for replacement. One would replace the bridge just upstream
of the existing bridge and the other just downstream. Each alternate would
maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction. The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 76.2 meters (250 feet) long, with an
8.6-meter (28-foot) wide travelway. The grade of the new bridge will be at
approximately the same grade as the existing bridge. Depending on the
results of historic resources analysis, other alternates may need to be
studied.
Based on current information, Alternate 1 is the most likely alternate
to be selected. The estimated construction cost is $1,050,000.
The Roadway Design Unit prepared a construction cost estimate for each
alternate. The estimated construction cost of Alternate 1 is $1,050,000.
The estimated construction cost of Alternate 2 is $800,000.
There are no National Register-listed historic structures in the project
area. The State Historic Preservation Office has reviewed photos of the
structures in the project area. The SHPO recommends an architectural survey
of the project area. There are no recorded archaeological sites in proximity
to the bridge. SHPO recommends a survey for archaeological resources.
Mr. Eric Galamb commented that the Division of Environmental Management
classifies North Toe River as WS III, trout. This classification requires
High Quality Waters erosion control methods. He prefers that "weep holes"
not be used for drainage, and that piers should be constructed on existing
sandbars wherever possible.
?1%
r ?
November 21, 1994
Page 2
The Division 11 engineer recommended replacement upstream of the
existing bridge.
The estimated project schedule is for right of way in May 1997 and
letting in May 1998.
WF/plr
Attachments
Attendance Sheet
Scoping Meeting--B-2509
November 3, 1994
Art McMillan
Sid Autry
Danny Rogers
Eric Galamb
Kenney McDowell
Brian Williford
Ray Moore
Betty Yancey
John Williams
Wayne Fedora
Roadway Design
Location and Surveys
Program Development
DEM
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Structure Design
Right of Way
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9/8/94
TIP PROJECT B-2509
STATE PROJECT 8.1720901
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-19E(1)
DIVISION ELEVEN
COUNTY AVERY
ROUTE US 19E
REVISION DATE 11/18/94
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 39 ON US 19E OVER
NORTH TOE RIVER IN AVERY COUNTY
USGS QUAD SHEET: CARVERS GAP
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE _
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION X
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($)
W
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1900 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 3800 VPD
TTST 2 %- DT 4 %
EXISTING TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 20-foot travelwav
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 51.5 METERS; WIDTH 8.3 METERS
169 FEET; 27.3 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 76.2 METERS; WIDTH 13.2 METERS
250 FEET; 44 FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $1,050,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 43,000
TOTAL COST ..................................... $1,093,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 925,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 43,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................. $ 968,000

??
-Qp- dOp--40_
Mot
He to
n 184
4
a
lk
r,,y Suga
be
y 7 oun4ar t
`` )
/3 3964
4
rnneapolr
19E ewland
g Li v-11e
AV

/?? Cromnor ?I FOR.
'• Edgemont
/ ,` +a e

uff
Fronk 141
5,504 Dale

1 1
193
182
Cr. 1 138
30 140
~
1 L 31 BIG ELK
19E Hughes
\
1 131 MOUNTAIN N

.29
N r3 Sr. 1
1128
\ s N 1120 41;w '
119

• 4 1121
2 1 126 1197
0 ?1 183 - ? /• S ? P 1
Henson
1114
Creek s A A
1174
Ch.
'127 .? 1122 .1 W 11i9
\ Spear
Plumkes
p
` ) 1176 1117
BRIDGE M). 39
cl 1 1 i 8
114
1 1

r

®
W ' 1204
pyoft O

Aor 19E v 1 1 1 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
SPEAR TOPS = BUCK HILL-
e4 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
4
ELEV
852 Qt ?,
`_
.
, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
W BRANCH
. O 1109 US 19E
BRIDGE NO. 39 OVER
NORTH TOE RIVER
AVERY COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. B-2509 FIG 1
0 kilometers 1.6 0 miles 1
t I t t t 1

Wll
ll`<? .

?H sto ?Cem f
I., i
II )` ?, Y
W
V `'?? l?rJ r?-
.?%???
ive h t
34
\ y y
ixy
• ? r h?
oijb)'e ea
4
1
°u f
\\ ' \? 284
• 8
i i stn
?? i
11 I
•. H 1/1 fl \\\ if-,
pe
1(I((
peras 3
ON J ar11?CfIC In 3
N
Q
W
/2
.3990
D
N$ 3989
11
o h? 2'30"
n'
?G a
'? ti y
1 ?Q i W
\ e it mine 9?\ ??! Cj{¢/ ? ?
CL
Conle y
vi
\x •? ?'
?l) O
.J •r ? ?? i 3987
Ih '000
n
D \\
II
x (?f 3986

b-r -1-*' .p ..-.f.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO:
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
? NOTE AND FILE
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS
? PLEASE ANSWER
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
DATE / 1 - 6
EF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
Rl7I. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? PER YOUR REQUEST
? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? SIGNATURE
? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
T r7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION l 01Vy
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NC. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Wayne Fedora
FROM: J. D. Cochran, P.E.Q
DATE: November 29, 1994
"ICIR
Dec. 0 *0
q
SUBJECT: Project 8.1720901 (B-2509) Avery county
F.A. Project BRSTP-19E(1)
Bridge No. 39 on US 19E over North Toe River
We recently completed four alternates.with construction costs for
this project. Two of the alternates were based on recommendations
from the scoping meeting held on November 3, 1994 and two
additional alternates designed to reduce property damage and
increase design speed. These four designs were forwarded to the
Planning and Environmental Branch on November 17, 1994.
Your memorandum of November 21, 1994 indicates that only alternates
1 and 2 will be studied with alternate 1 being the preferred
alternate. These two alternates will greatly impact the only
businesses in a very small and isolated community. The buildings
and the entire area could also be considered to be historic. Even
if further study determines that the buildings do not have an
architectural value, economic loss of these jobs could be a
hardship to this community.
The four alternates that we would like to be studied are:
Alternate 1 - North side of existing bridge, 2501 long, reverse
16 degree curves on bridge, 35 MPH design speed,
construction cost $1,050,000.
Alternate 2 - South side of existing bridge, 280' long, tangent
on bridge, 35 MPH design, speed,
construction cost $800,000.
Alternate 3A - South side of existing buildings, 250' long, tangent
on bridge, 35 MPH design speed,
construction cost $800,000.
Alternate 3B - South side of existing-buildings, 270' long, tangent
on bridge, 45 MPH design speed,
construction cost $925,000.

J Mr. Wayne Fedora
November 29, 1994
Page 2
Alternate 1 will be very difficult to construct with reverse curves
in the center of the bridge. It could also be the most expensive
alternative after right of way estimates are completed.
We have also reviewed this project with Mr. Bill Garrett of the
Citizens Participation Unit. Our recommendation is that a Public
Information Meeting showing these alternates be presented to this
community after a draft of the Categoric Exclusion is completed.
If you need additional information, please contact me or Art
McMillan.
JDC
Attachm
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
ents
G. T. Shearin
Sid Autry
Danny Rogers
Eric Galamb
Kenney McDowell
Brian Williford
Ray Moore
Betty Yancey
John Williams
Roadway Design
Location and Surveys
Program Development
DEM
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Structures
Right of Way
Planning and Environmental
i
y ?

?? If

?t

B-2509 06-E 3 2_ _ 2 .5 C)
Df- 20
AlT 3P.
?v Iv ?E ?c S5 ?r r?
h

y
-Z.5091 I,+-001
p 1 O6 ?--- 3' - 2'-'- 3 L.= Z 20
a
G : ?" = ( 1NcR? n+f22,s
A-' 7

r';; '??.
3'
. ?',,;.
?,:; w,, ,
1?;