20050422 Ver 1_Application_20050308

t
L~ ~'SUT[a
9 ~-~
~• ~-
!q„Y.®-
i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART~~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
March 4, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office p ~ (~ ~ ~~(',.~ D
151 Patton Avenue /Room 208 ~` ((~~
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 MAR ~ $ ~~~~
ATTN: Ms. Angie Pennock DENR • VVpTER QuALt7Y ~ Q 4 2
NCDOT Coordinator '~ ~~~~ BRANCH
Dear Madam:
Subject: Nationwide 23 & 33 Permit Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 61 on NC 197 over The North Toe
River, Yancey/Mitchell Counties. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
197(1), State Project No. 8.1900401, TIP Project No. B-1443.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report along with the Pre-
Construction Notification form (PCN), permit drawings, and stormwater management
plan for the above referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 61 on NC 197 over The North Toe
River [DWQ Index # 7-2-(38.5), Class "C; TR"] on the Yancey and Mitchell County line.
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 61 on a new alignment to the southeast of the
existing structure. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Bridge No. 61 is currently a 270-foot, S span structure, that consists of a reinforced
concrete slab and continuous closed spandrel arch supported by reinforced concrete post
and web bents with reinforced concrete vertical abutments. Removal of the bridge will
result in dropping components into Waters of the United States during demolition;
subsequently, any temporary fill will be removed. The resulting temporary fill is
calculated to be approximately 260 cubic yards.
The NCDOT will adhere to appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal
including those presented in "Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and
Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States",
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPRAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG ~ RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

"Best Management Practices for Bridge Demotion and Removal", "Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters", and "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds".
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The proposed bridge will be on a curved alignment. The proposed structure will be
approximately 340.4 feet in length with a width of 24.6 feet due to the curved alignment.
Bridge No. 61 will include three spans, two at 107 feet and one at 142 feet, and a
reinforced concrete deck superstructure. The substructure will consist of steel girders and
the two bridge piers will be single drilled shaft columns.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Permanent Impacts: The North Toe River will be impacted by the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed project will result in total equaling less than 0.01 acre (100
square feet) of permanent impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, from the construction
of bridge piers.
TemQorary_,Impacts: The North Toe River will be temporarily impacted by the proposed
project. Construction of the proposed project will result in a total of 0.21 acre of
temporary impacts to jurisdictional streams, in the form of temporary rock causeways (see
permit drawings). Temporary rock causeways will be used to provide access for
equipment during construction of the new structure and removal of the old bridge once
the new bridge is in place. It is assumed that the contractor will begin construction of the
proposed temporary rock causeways shortly after the date of availability for the project.
The Let date is June 21, 2005 with a review date of May 3, 2005.
Restoration Plan: Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary fill will be removed
to natural grade and the area will be planted with native grasses and or tree species as
appropriate.
AVOIDANCE AND MI1~IIMIZATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the
planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part
of the project design.
Of the five reasonable and feasible alternatives considered, the chosen, best minimizes
impacts to the sensitive natural ecosystems in the vicinity of the project site and provides
the most economic design. In addition, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds",
NCDOT's guidelines for "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters", and "Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to Trout Waters" will be enforced
throughout the duration of the project construction.
B-1443 Page 2

s
Since, this project will be affecting the federally-protected Appalachian elktoe, areas
adjacent to the project site will be regarded as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" on the
Erosion Control Plans. Please refer to the project commitments for additional detail.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (LJSFWS) lists ten federally protected species (Table
1) for Yancey County, and eight for Mitchell County (Table 2). Federal Status and
Biological conclusions are listed in the following tables. A Biological Assessment (BA)
for Appalachian elktoe has been submitted to FHWA to initiate a formal consultation
with the USFWS, additional copies are available upon request.
T..1.1.. 1 L'ede...allar raa•nton+nrl enaninc of V9nPPV rAlln*V
Scientific Name ~ Common Name ' Federal
Status Biological Conclusion
Clemm s muhlenber ii Bo turtle T S/A No Surve Re uired
Co norhinus townsendii vir inianus Vir inia bi -eared bat E No Effect
Fells concolor cou ar Eastern cou ar E No Effect
Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern fl ' s uirrel E No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E May Affect, Likely to
Adversel Affect
Microhexura montiva a S nice-fir moss s ider E No Effect
Geum radiatum S readin avens E No Effect
Houstonia montana Roan mountain bluet E No Effect
S iraea vir iniana Vir inia s iraea T No Effect
G mnoderma lineare Rock ome lichen E No Effect
T_~1.. ~s L`..d.. ..lla. ....•en4o.1 ~ ano of Mi*n6a11 !`nnn+v
- -- - -------
Scientific Name
Common Namc Federal

Status
Biological Conclusion
Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern fl in s uirrel E No Effect
M otis sodalis Indiana bat E No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E May Affect, Likely to
Adversel Affect
Microhexura montiva a S nice-fir moss s ider E No Effect
Geum radiatum S readin avens E No Effect
Liatris helleri Heller's blazin star T No Effect
Solida o s ithamaea Blue Ride oldenrod T No Effect
S iraea vir iniana Vir inia s iraea T No Effect
G oderma lineare Rock ome lichen E No Effect
Endangered (E) - is defined as a taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Threatened (T) - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of it's range."
T S/A - "Similarity of Appearance" (a species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
species).
B-1443 Page 3

•
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary work bridge across The North Toe
River will be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering). We aze, therefore, requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing temporary rock causeways in the North Toe River. All
other aspects of this project aze being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT
requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10,
pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3403 and
3366 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are
providing two copies of this application to the North Cazolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
A copy of this pernut application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.html. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact Tyler Stanton at [e-mail] or
[phone].
Sincerely,
~-
,,- Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Mazella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Hazold Draper, TVA
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. J.J.Swain, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omaz Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD&EA Project Planning Engineer
B-1443
Page 4

M~~? €) r~ 2U05
nFtiR - waTER QUALITY
user ~~ne MID STORMWATE(3 9RAIrCF1
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.~ ~ 0
(If any particulaz item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 12, 23, & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for fizrther details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone Number: 919-733-7844 Fax Number: 919-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundazies and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge 61 on NC 197 over The North Toe River.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-1443
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Mitchell / Yancey Neazest Town: Burnsville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmazks, etc.): Located 0.64 miles south of NC
226 and NC 197 Junction
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 82.229 / 36.013
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that sepazately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): North Toe River
8. River Basin: French Broad
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application Rural Major Collector. Project area is mixture of rural.
residential and agriculture.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge r~lacement using mechanical highway construction equipment
Page 6 of 12

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit
indicate that rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition. Bridge No. 61 is fast approaching the end of its useful life. It carries
a sufficiency rating of 49.2 out of a Qossible 100 and is considered functionally deficient due
to deteriorating structural integrity and functionally obsolete due to narrow roadway
¢eometry on the bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's} responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12

Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional streams
from the construction of the proposed bridge.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
No Impact No Impact 0 N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema. Gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Im act Perennial or
Intermittent?
(leases ecify)
No Impact No Impact N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditchinglstraightening, etc. [f stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uscs.~ov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.corn, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number *
Type of Impact Impact
(if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)

i 3+00.000 Piers in streambed >0.01 North Toe River Stream
12+40 - 13+48 Temporary Causeway 0.12 North Toe River Stream
Old Bridge Temporary Causeway 0.09 North Toe River Stream
Old Bridge Temporary Fill 0.16 North Toe River Stream
Page 8 of 12

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but aze not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The selected design was chosen to minimize the impacts to Jurisdictional resources and is more
cost-effective.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
Page 9 of 12

lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm~;ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land?
Yes ® No ^
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at (919} 733-5083 to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
Page 10 of 12

If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ^ No g( If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 3023.0 Allowable
2 3659.0 Allowable
Total 6682.0 Allowable
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendiculaz from neaz bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Page 11 of 12

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ^ No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
f_
~Applicant/Agent's Signature ~ Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
3 21 OS
Page 12 of 12

Yancey County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 197
over North Toe River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-197(1)
State Project No. 8.1900401
T.I.P. No. B-1443
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION & PROGR:ANIMATIC SECTION 4(fl
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Y
~ ~ ~~--v3
DATE ~?~-Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.,
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Z ~ ~ - ~_
DATE hn F ullivan III
Division Administrator, FHWA

Yancey County
Bridge No. 61 on NC 197
over North Toe River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-197(1)
State Project No. 8.1900401
T.I.P. No. B-1443
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION & PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(fl
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
9 ~02-~.~ 6~~ ~ 1~~~ ~.~
DATE Jo L. Williams, PE,
Project Planning Engineer
DATE William T. Goodwin Jr., PE, U 'Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Yancey County
Bridge 61 on NC 97
Over North Toe River
Federal Project BRSTP-197
State Project 8.1900401
TIP # B-1443
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" will be applied for this project
"Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to Trout Waters" will be applied for this
project.
The Historic Bridge has been recorded in accordance with the attached Memorandum of
Agreement.
The driveway access to the property immediately south of the bridge will be re-
established aspart of the design and construction of the project.
Appalachian elktoe
This project will be affecting the endangered Appalachian elktoe and as such the
following commitments will be implemented in project construction.
Erosion Control Measures: The areas adjacent to the North Toe River will be identified
as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" on the Erosion Control plans for this project.
Within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas the following shall apply:
1. Provide 50-Foot buffer Zone (both sides of river) which allows clearing but not
grubbing until immediately before grading operations.
2. Limit grubbing operations to within 10 days of grading.
3. Erosion and Sediment Control Measures to be installed immediately after clearing.
4. Require "Seeding and Mulching" to be performed immediately following grade
establishment.
5. Require "Staged Seeding" - 20 foot fill sections or 2 acres, whichever is less.
6. Erosion and sediment Control Measures must be cleaned out when '/z full.
7. Increase sediment storage capacity by 50% above standard BMP guidelines.
Agency Coordination: NCDOT will invite representatives from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the North Carolina Wildlife resource Commission to the pre-
construction meeting for these projects, along with all subsequent field inspections prior
to construction, to insure compliance with all special project commitments.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2
Green Sheet
August 2003

bents with reinforced concrete vertical abutments. The clear roadway width is 15.6 feet (4.8
meters). There are no weight limitations posted for the bridge.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Overhead power lines aze located parallel
to the railroad tracks on the east end of the bridge. An overhead telephone line crosses the river
above the bridge.
The current traffic volume of 1450 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2800 VPD
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes two-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and six-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted in the area and is therefore
statutory 55 miles (90 kilometers) per hour in the project area.
There were two accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 61 during a recent three-yeaz
period. The accidents resulted in personal injuries and property damage. The accidents ocurred
in the sharp curves on the approaches to the bridge.
There aze currently no school buses utilizing this bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Existing Bridge No. 61 will be replaced with a bridge of sufficient width to provide, at a
minimum, two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes with 3.0-foot (1.0-meter) offsets. The roadway grade of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this location. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Upon completion of the project
the existing bridge will be removed.
The existing roadway will be widened to a pavement width of 22-foot (6.6-meter); providing two
11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and shoulder widths of 8-foot (2.4-meter). The project will be designed
as a rural major collector.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Five alternates were studied for the replacement of Bridge No. 61. They are described as
follows. The speed limit through the area is 55 mph. This as a design speed can not be met due
to economic and environmental constraints. Therefore, a Design Exception will be required for a
design speed of 30 mph (90 kph).
Alternate 1 involves replacing Bridge No. 61 on new alignment approximately 92 feet (28
meters) to the east of the existing structure (see Figure 2A). The proposed structure would be
approximately 312 feet (95 meters) in length with a travelway of 22 feet (6.6 meters) and
shoulders of 3.0 feet (1.0 meter). The proposed bridge would be on a straight alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways would be required for a distance of approximately 920
feet (280 meters) to the south and 480 feet (146 meters) to the north.
2

Alternate 2 involves replacing Bridge No. 61 on new alignment approximately 197 feet (60
meters) to the east of the existing structure (see Figure 2A). The proposed structure would be
approximately 312 feet (95 meters) in length with a travelway of 22 feet (6.6 meters) and
shoulders of 3.0 feet (1.0 meter). The proposed bridge would be mostly straight with short
curved section on the south end. Improvements to the approach roadways would be required for a
distance of approximately 902 feet (275 meters) to the south and 380 feet (116 meters) to the
north.
Alternate 3 involves replacing Bridge No. 61 on new alignment approximately 121 feet (37
meters) to the west of the existing structure (see Figure 2A). The proposed structure would be
approximately 345 feet (105 meters) in length with a travelway of 12 feet (6.6 meters) and
shoulders of 3.0 feet (1.0 meter). The proposed bridge would be straight. Improvements to the
approach roadways would be required for a distance of approximately 985 feet (300 meters) to
the south and 540 feet (165 meters) to the north.
Alternate 4 involves replacing Bridge No. 61 on new alignment approximately 131 feet (40
meters) to the east of the existing structure (see Figure 2B). The proposed structure would be
approximately 312 feet (95 meters) in length with a travelway of 12 feet (6.6 meters) and
shoulders of 3.0 feet (1.0 meter). ). The proposed bridge would be mostly straight with short
curved section on the south end. Improvements to the approach roadways would be required for a
distance of approximately 223 feet (68 meters) to the south and 197 feet (60 meters) to the north.
Alternate 4A (Preferred) involves replacing Bridge No. 61 on new alignment approximately 180
feet (55 meters) to the east of the existing structure. The proposed bridge will be on a curved
alignment. The proposed structure will be approximately 360 feet (109 meters) in length with a
travelway of 36 feet (10.9 meters) due to the curved alignment. The inside shoulder will be 8
feet (2.4 meters) to accommodate horizontal sight distance. The outside shoulder will be 3 feet
(1 meter). Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of
approximately 213 feet (65 meters) to the south and 59 feet (18 meters) to the north.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of .the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by NC 197.
Rehabilitation of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge would require the following; repair to cracked and spalling
concrete, rail retrofits to the bridge rail, and would need to be widened to accommodate two
lanes of traffic. Scouring of the substructure would also have to be addressed. Given the expense
of a temporary onsite detour and lack of an offsite detour, these alternatives are not feasible and
prudent.
D. Preferred Alternative
3

After coordination with numerous resource agencies, it has been determined that Bridge No. 61
will be replaced on new alignment as shown by Alternate 4A (See Figure 2B). Alternate 4A is
recommended because it minimizes impacts on the sensitive natural ecosystems in the vicinity of
the site and provides a safe, economic design.
The NCDOT Division 13 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 4A as the preferred
alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the five alternatives aze summarized below.
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 4A
Existing Structure Removal $ 31,800 $ 31,800 $ 31,800 $ 31,800 $ 31,800
New Structure 531,000 531,100 587,000 531,000 559,000
Roadway Approaches 1,016,000 822,300 976,700 131,900 134,000
Misc. & Mob. 477,100 415,800 478,500 208,300 217,200
Eng. & Contingencies 344,000 299,000 326,000 147,000 158,000
Total Construction Cost $ 2,400,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,100,000
Right-of--way Costs $ 436,500 $ 450,500 $ 262,500 $ 282,000 $ 299,000
Total Project Cost $ 2,836,500 $ 2,550,500 $ 2,662,500 $ 1,332,000 $.1,399,000
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Physiography
The proposed project lies on the Yancey/Mitchell County Line approximately 7 miles (11
kilometers) northeast of Burnsville, North Cazolina and approximately 13 miles (21 kilometers)
east of the Tennessee state line. The project is in a rural azea in the northwestern portion of
North Cazolina, which lies within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. Elevations in the
project area aze approximately 2200 feet (671 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD). The topography of the project vicinity is characterized by rolling hills with steep
slopes in some places. Within the project azea, the stream banks are steep along North Toe
River. The project vicinity includes a combination of residential, rural, and agricultural areas.
B. Soils
Published soil surveys were not available for Yancey or Mitchell Counties. According to the
available NRCS mapping (Mitchell County 1989), the detailed map units within the project area
include Biltmore sand, Dillsboro clay loam, Fannin sandy loam, and Chandler-Micaville
complex.
4

Biltmore sand is mapped along the floodplain azeas of the North Toe River. This soil occurs on
0 to 3 % slopes and it is a non-hydric soil that is described as frequently flooded. The Chandler-
Micaville complex is mapped in the northwestern quadrant of the project. This soil occurs on 50
to 95 % slopes and is non-hydric. Dillsboro clay loam (2 to 8 % slopes} is a non-hydric soil,
which is mapped along NC 197, to the north of the river. Fannin sandy loam is mapped adjacent
to the azeas of Dillsboro clay loam. This soil occurs on 15 to 30 % slopes, is non-hydric, and is
described as well-drained micaceous soil on side slopes.
According to the available mapping for Yancey County (1998) the project area includes:
1). Porters-Unaka complex, mapped to the south of the river, is the main map unit within the
study corridor. This non-hydric soil occurs on 50 to 95 % slopes and is described as rocky and
well-drained.
2). Saunook-Thunder complex (15 to 30 %) slopes is mapped in a small azea just south of the
existing bridge. This stony soil is non-hydric and well drained.
C. Water Resources
1. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the French Broad River basin. Two surface water resources, North Toe
River and an unnamed tributary to North Toe River, will be impacted by the proposed project.
North Toe River originates in northern Avery County, approximately 50 miles (80 kilometers)
upstream of the project azea. From its origin, the river flows south to Mitchell County, then turns
to the northwest. North Toe River is 64 miles (103 kilometers) long from its headwaters to its
confluence with the Nolichucky River, which is approximately 14.3 miles (23 kilometers)
downstream of the project area.
North Toe River is 140 to 150 feet (43 to 46 meters) wide within the project azea. The bed and
channel materials consist of bedrock and boulders, as well as micaceous sand. Within the
project azea, the river flows west and consists mainly of a straight run. The riparian vegetation
consists mostly of deciduous trees, and the floodplain appeazs to be seasonally flooded along
some azeas of the bank. At the time of the field survey, the river ranged from a few inches deep
over rapids and riffles to several feet deep in pools. The water was slightly turbid and
streamflow was rapid.
An unnamed perennial tributary to North Toe River parallels the east side of NC 197, on the
north side of the river. The stream is 4 to 5 feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) wide with a cobble, silt, and
sand substrate. On the day of the site visit the stream was 3 to 8 inches (7.6 to 20.3 centimeters)
deep. The confluence with North Toe River is just east of the existing bridge (Figure 2).
2. Best Usage Classification
5

Surface waters in North Carolina aze assigned a classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. North
Toe River and the unnamed tributary [Index # 7-2-(38.5)] is classified as a Class C Tr waterbody.
Class C water resources are used for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental Tr classification indicates freshwaters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I of WS-In or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1 miles (1~.6 kilometers) of the project
study area.
3. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAI~, managed by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) and established in 1982, is part of an on-going ambient long-term water quality
monitoring program. The program has established fixed water quality monitoring stations for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
Several BMAN stations have been established along North Toe River upstream of the project
azea. One station is located at SR 1315 near Loafers Glen in Yancey County, which is
approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) upstream of Bridge No. 61. This station was sampled in
July, 1992 and received a bioclassification of "good". A second station has been established at
SR 1162, neaz Penland in Mitchell County, approximately 15 miles (24 kilometers) upstream of
the project azea. This station was sampled seven times between 1984 and 1992.
Bioclassification at this station ranged from "fair" to "good". Other stations along the North Toe
River, which aze located further upstream than the stations described, also ranged from "fair" to
"good".
Point source discharges in North Cazolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Dischazge
Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All discharges are required to
obtain a permit to dischazge. There aze no known permitted point source dischargers to North
Toe River within the project vicinity.
4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary impacts
during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic community.
Alternate 3 would result in the greatest impacts to the aquatic and terrestrial communities due to
its longer length and skewed alignment. Alternate 4 will have approximately the same impacts on
the North Toe River as Alternate 3 due to the skewed alignment. Alternate 4A offers the least
amount of impacts because of its curved alignment. This alignment requires only two bents,
which can be placed at the edge of the river. The other alternates would require a bent to be
placed in the middle of the river. Physical impacts will be the most severe at the point of bridge
replacement.
6

Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
1). Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed
vegetation removal, erosion/and or construction.
2). Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
3). Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
4). Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
5). Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction activities and construction equipment, and spills.
6). Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
7). Increased scouring of the existing channel due to increased water flows from
the stormwater runoff associated with curb and gutter systems.
It is important to understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities
in which the construction activity occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters should be followed during the construction phase of the project. In addition, Design
Standazds in Sensitive Watersheds and "Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to Trout Waters"
will be adhered to during the project construction.
D. Biotic Resources
Terrestrial and aquatic communities aze included in the description of biotic resources. Living
systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species, which are likely to occur in
these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific nomenclature
and common names (when applicable) aze used for the plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name only.
1. Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a man-
dominated/disturbed community, a floodplain community, and a forested upland (Figure 2).
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each
community description. Many species aze adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the
project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
Man-Dominated/Disturbed Community
The man-dominated or disturbed community includes road shoulders, residential areas, the field
south of the river, and azeas associated with the railroad on the north side of the river.

Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed areas. Regularly maintained areas along road
shoulders, lawns, and fields are dominated by various grasses such as fescue (Festuca sp.) and
ryegrass (Lolium sp.), as well as plantain (Plantago virginica), wild onion (Allium cernuum),
white clover (Trifolium repens), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). The irregulazly
maintained azeas, which include the transition areas between the regulazly maintained and the
forested communities, are dominated by weedy invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and blackberry (Rubus
sp.). Along the raikoad track, which parallels North Toe River to the north, thick mats of
scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale) dominate the embankment.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving
on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fi-uits, and seeds) to both
living and dead faunal components. A turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was observed during the
site visit. House sparrows (Passer domesticus), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos),
northern juncos (Junco hyemalis), and mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) are other common
birds that use these habitats. The field and residential lawn areas may be utilized by gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), American toad (Bufo americanus), and Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis sirtalis).
Floodplain Community
There is an alluvial floodplain present along the northern bank of North Toe River within the
project azea. This azea had recently been flooded by high water. Vegetation along this
floodplain is somewhat sparse and includes scattered sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), black willow (Salix nigra), and iris (Iris sp.). The alluvial soils
along the floodplain consist of a dark brown (lOYR 3/3) well-drained sand. This community
corresponds most closely to the Montane Alluvial Forest community described in Schafale and
Weakley (1990).
The banks of the North Toe River aze steep and rocky. Dominant species along the banks
include sycamore, tulip poplaz (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and yellow buckeye
(Aesculus octandra). The understory is dominated by great rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum) which is dense in some places. The shrub and herbaceous layer includes dog's hobble
(Leucothoe fontanesiana), nannyberry (Viburnum lentago), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
Although only Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensus) was observed during the field activities,
other species which may utilize the trees and shrubs in this habitat include white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), hairy woodpecker (Picoides
villosus), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Species
which may forage and reside along the river banks include raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia
opossum, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens viridescens), and ground skink (Scincella lateralis).
8

Upland Forest
An upland forest community is present on the south side of the river and north of the floodplain
forest on the north side. The forested areas are mostly open communities dominated by beech
(Fagus grandifolia), black oak (Quercus velutina), hickories (Carya spp.), eastern hemlock, and
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), with Christmas fern in the herbaceous layer. This
community corresponds most closely to the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest community of the
NHP classification system.
Although only a northern mockingbird was observed, a variety of species likely utilizes these
well-developed upland communities. Birds may include blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia),
scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), and purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus). Other species
may include eastern chipmunk (Tamias triatus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei fowleri~, timber rattler
(Crotalus horridus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus).
2. Aquatic Communities
Within the project area North Toe River is amid-gradient, high order river. The bed material
consists of bedrock and boulders, as well as sand substrates. An unnamed perennial tributary to
North Toe River parallels the east side of NC 197, on the north side of the river. The confluence
with North Toe River is just east of the existing bridge. The stream is 4 to 5 feet (1.2 to 1.5
meters) wide with a cobble, silt, and sand substrate. On the day of the site visit the stream was 3
to 8 inches (?.6 to 20.3 centimeters) deep. Water clarity was fair to good in the North Toe and
the unnamed tributary on the day of the site visit. The riparian community contains mostly trees.
North Toe River provides habitat for a variety of species of fish. According to Christopher
Goudreau, the District 8 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC), the North Toe River was sampled at Bridge No. 61 in 1992. Fish species- collected
include central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis),
rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus), telescope shiner (N. telescopis), mirror shiner (N.
spectrunculus), Tennessee shiner (N. leuciodus), mimic shiner (N. volucellus), silver shiner (N.
photogenis), whitetail shiner (Cyprinella galactura), river chub (Nocomis micropogon), longnose
dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), blotched chub
(Erimystax insignis), bigeye chub (Hybopsis amblops), fatlips minnow (Phenacobius
crassilabrum), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), greenside darter (Etheostoma bler~nioides), greenfm
darter (E. chlorobranchium), banded darter (E. zonate), Swannanoa darter (E. swannanoa),
tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca), gilt darter (P. evides), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi).
9

The sharphead darter (Etheostoma acuticeps), which is a state listed threatened species, was also
collected at this location. These species may also utilize the unnamed tributary in the vicinity of
the bridge. Yancey and Mitchell counties are designated as "trout" counties by the WRC.
Reptiles and amphibians which may inhabit this community include hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis), shovelnose salamander (Leurognathus marmoratus) and northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon sipedon).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and aquatic
communities. Any construction activities in or neaz these resources have the potential to impact
biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project azea in terms of the azea impacted and the plants and animals
affected. Temporary and permanent impacts aze considered here along with recommendations to
minimize or eliminate impacts.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project azea will be impacted by project construction from
clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community azea along NC 197. Estimated impacts
are derived based on the study corridor lengths of 515 (1690 feet) for Alternate 1; 1590 feet (485
meters) for Alternate 2; and 1804 feet (550 meters) for Alternate 3; and the entire proposed study
corridor width of 80 feet (24.4 meters). Table 1 details the potential impacts to terrestrial
communities by habitat type. It should be noted that impacts are based on the entire study
corridor width and actual loss of habitat will likely be less. -
Table 1
Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Impacted Area in ac (ha)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Upland Forest 0.59 (0.24) 0.43 (0.17) 0.92 (0.37)
Floodplain Forest 0.18 (0.07) 1.33 (0.54) 0.81 (0.33)
Man-dominated/Disturbed 1.64 (0.66) 0.18 (0.07) .0.11 (0.04)
Total Impacts 2.41 (0.97) 1.94 (0.78) 1.84 (0.74)
Note: Alternates 4 and 4A will have impacts to the Terrestrial Communities very similar to
Alternate 2.
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the loss of foraging
and breeding habitats for -the various animal species which utilize the azea. Animal species will
be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles aze mobile
10

enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less mobile species, such as
many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. Plants and animals found in these
upland communities are generally common throughout western North Cazolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particulazly in locations having steep to moderate slopes, can
result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It
is important to understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in
which the construction activity occurs, but may affect downstream communities. Efforts should
be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures due to the loss of
riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of
these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of
aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts may result to aquatic organisms from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and recolonize
the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and
other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills and other
respiratory surfaces; affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles; altering
water chemistry; and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may caused
decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. Each alternate will cause temporary
increases in sedimentation from construction. However, Alternate 3, which proposes the longest
replacement structure, will have ,greater impact as well as destruction of additional riparian
habitat.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction in order
to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality. Potential adverse effects can be
minimized through the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters. In addition, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds and "Guidelines for
Construction Adjacent to Trout Waters" will be adhered to during the project construction.
E. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory issues:
Waters of the U.S. and rare and protected species.
11

1. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and aze regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under
these provisions.
2. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands do not occur within the project azea. North Toe River meets the
definition of surface waters. North Toe River is therefore classified as Waters of the United
States. The channel is approximately 140 to 150 feet (43 to 46 meters) wide within the project
azea.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No wetlands will be impacted by the project. Project construction cannot be accomplished
without infringing on surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and DWQ.
Within the project azea, North Toe River is 140 to 150 feet (43 to 46 meters) wide. Assuming a
24.4 meters (80 feet) wide study corridor for the replacement structure, the construction of either
alternate will impact a total of 80 lineaz feet (24.4 lineaz meters). Alternate 2 will impact
approximately 0.28 ac (0.11 hectazes) of surface waters; Alternates 1 and 3 will each impact
approximately 0.37 ac (0.15 ha) of surface waters. Alternates 4 and 4A will have comparable
surface water impacts to Alternate 2. Additionally, the lineaz stream impacts aze approximately
the same as Alternate 2. Please note that these estimates aze based on the study corridor for each
alternate. The actual length and area of the stream impacts will likely be less, depending on final
design plans.
4. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. Permits and
certifications from various state and federal agencies may be required prior to construction
activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of CFR 330.5 (a) Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 23, which authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded,
or financed in whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
12

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
that the Office of the Chief Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver thereof, from DEHNR
prior to issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue
or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that results in a
discharge into Waters of the U.S. In addition, the project is located in a designated "trout"
county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission. Final permit decision rests with the USACE.
5. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation for impacts to
surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE. In accordance with the Division of
Water Quality Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 211 .0506 (h)) "Fill or alteration of more than one
acre of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150
lineaz feet (45.71ineaz meters) of streams may require compensatory mitigation. Since there aze
no wetlands within the study corridor, and the length of stream impacts will be less than the 150
linear foot (45.71ineaz meter) threshold, wetland or stream mitigation should not be required for
this project.
6. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals aze declining either due to natural forces or due to their
inability to coexist with man. Raze and protected species listed for Yancey and Mitchell
counties, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction,
aze discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 11 federally protected species for Yancey County and
nine for Mitchell County as of January 2003. These species are listed in Tables 2 and 3.
13

Table 2
Federally Protected Species for
Yancey County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T S/A
Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon E
Felis concolor couguar Eastern cougar E
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E
Geum radiatum Spreading avers E
Houstonia montana Roan mountain bluet E '
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E
Notes:
"E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T S/A" Denotes Similarity of Appearance (a species that is listed as threatened due to
similarity of appearance .with other rare species).
14

Table 3
Federally Protected Species for Mitchell County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing staz T
Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T
Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E
Notes: "E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species, along with a
conclusion regazding potential project impact, follows.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Vertebrate Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: 1997
Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance
The bog turtle is a small freshwater turtle reaching a maximum carapace length of 4.5 inches
(11.4 centimeters). These turtles have a domed carapace which is weakly keeled and is light
brown to ebony in color. The scutes have alighter-colored stazburst pattern. The plastron is
brownish-black with contrasting yellow or cream areas along the midline. This species is
distinguished by a lazge conspicuous orange, yellow, or red blotch on each side of the head.
The bog turtle is semi-aquatic and is typically found in freshwater wetlands chazacterized by
open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow moving streams, ditches, and boggy azeas. The bog
turtle is also found in wetlands in agricultural areas subject to light to moderate livestock grazing
which helps to maintain an intenmediate stage of succession. During the winter, this species
hibernates just below the upper surface of mud. Mating occurs in May and June, and the female
deposits two to six eggs in sphagnum moss or sedge tussocks in May, June or July. The diet of
the bog turtle is varied consisting of beetles, lepidopteran and caddisfly larvae, snails, millipedes,
pondweed and sedge seeds, and carrion.
15

t
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
to the northern population, therefore, the southern population is not afforded protection under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. No habitat exists in the project azea for the bog turtle.
There are no freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow
moving streams, ditches, or boggy azeas neaz the bridge. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the bog turtle in the project vicinity.
Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus (Virginia big-eazed bat) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: 1979
The big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) includes two subspecies which are federally
protected: the Virginia big-eazed bat (C. t. virginianus), and the Ozazk big-eared bat (C. t. ingen).
The Virginia big-eared bat is known from West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and North
Cazolina, with a current population estimated at 13,566. The Ozark big-eazed bat is currently
known from Oklahoma and Arkansas, with an estimated population of 1,800.
Big-eazed bats have light to dazk brown fur and aze medium in size, weighing 0.25 to .42 ounces
(7 to 12 grams). The total body length is about 3.9 inches (9.8 centimeters). Distinguishing
chazacteristics include facial glands on either side of the snout and long ears (over 1.0 inch
/2.5 centimeters).
Virginia big-eazed bats roost in caves yeaz-round. From December through February, the bats
hibernate in caves which range in temperature from 36.5 to 49.1 F (2.5 to 9.5 C). In the
summer, the females gather in warmer caves which range in temperature from 59 to 64 F (15 to
18 C). While females aze raising young in these "maternity caves", males disperse into smaller
groups separate from the females. The diet of the big-eazed bat consists primarily of moths
captured in the air along forest edges after dazk.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Virginia big-eared bat. There aze no caves located
near the bridge. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Virginia big-eazed bat
in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered
species.
Fells concolor couguar (Eastern cougaz)
Vertebrate Family: Felidae
Federally Listed: 1973
Endangered
Cougazs are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the backs of the eazs, and the tip of
the tail, which are black. Young cougazs are paler with a spotted coat until about six months of
age. Adult males from the eastern United States weigh 188 to 240 pounds (70 to 90 kilograms)
females are 30 to 40 % smaller.
16

The eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of their
primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 25 miles (40
kilometers), and they aze most active at night. In North Carolina, the cougar is thought to occur
in only a few scattered azeas, possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian
mountains. There have not been any official cougaz sightings in North Carolina since the 1960s.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the eastern cougar. The project area is chazacterized by
residential, agricultural, and other disturbed areas. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of the eastern cougar in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will
not impact this endangered species.
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Sciurdiae
Federally Listed: 1985
The Cazolina northern flying squirrel is a small mammal weighing about 3 to 5 oz (95 to 140 g).
The adult squirrel is gray with a reddish or brownish wash on the back, and a grayish white to
white underside. It has a large flap of skin along either side of its body which is connected at the
wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the
northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with lazge dazk
eyes.
There aze several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part. of North
Carolina along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 5000 feet (1517 meters) in the
vegetation transition zone between hazdwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types aze used
to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. The squirrel can subsist on
lichens and fungi throughout much of its range, however, the diet can also include seeds, buds,
fruits, cones, and insects.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Cazolina northern flying squirrel. The project area is
characterized by agricultural and residential areas at an elevation of 2200 feet (671 meters). A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the Carolina northern flying squirrel in the
project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat)
Vertebrate Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: 1967
Endangered
The Indiana bat is medium in size 0.24 to 0.32 ounces (7 to 9 grams) with dull grayish chestnut
colored fur with pinkish to cinnamon underparts. This species is very similar to the little brown
17

myotis (Myotis lucifugus) except that the heel of the foot (calcaz) of the Indian bat is strongly
.keeled.
The Indiana bat breeds on the ceilings of large rooms near cave entrances. Mating takes place at
night during the first ten days of October. During the winter, the bats hibernate in limestone
caves which have a temperature of 37 to 43 F (2.7 to 6.1 C) and 87 % humiditiy. The bats hang
from the ceiling in tight clusters. The hibernating colonies disperse in late March and migrate to
amore northern habitat for the summer. Females give birth to a single new offspring in June.
Development to the flying stage and independent feeding usually takes about one month.
Indiana bats feed on insects, preferring the orders Hymenoptera (bees and wasps), Homoptera
(cicadas), and Coleoptera (beetles). The bats forage in the air near the foliage of riparian and
floodplain trees. The ideal foraging habitat is along a riparian corridor with a width of at least
98 feet (30 meters) of woody vegetation on each bank.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No breeding or hibernating habitat exists in the project area for the Indiana bat. The project azea
is characterized by agricultural and residential azeas with no caves or cave entrances present near
the bridge. Foraging habitat may exist along the riparian corridor, however, a seazch of the NHP
database found no occurrence of the Indiana bat in the project vicinity. If the Indiana bat utilizes
this azea for foraging, construction of the bridge should have little effect, as the bats can forage
upstream or downstream of the project. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
endangered species.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon)
Vertebrate Family: Falconidae
Federally Listed: 1970; 1984
Endangered
The peregrine falcon is a medium sized raptor (15 to 20 inches/ 38 to 50 cm) with a long narrow
tail and long pointed wings. The coloring of the adult bird is slate gray with black bars on the
wings, tail and flanks. The lower body is white and reddish buffy and it is extensively spotted
and barred with black. The throat is white with black moustache mazks on the sides of the face.
The typical nesting habitat of the peregrine falcon is along a cliff or series of cliffs, however,
nests have also been constructed in river cutbanks, trees, and ledges of large buildings. The diet
of the falcon consists primarily of small birds which aze hunted in the air. Hunting grounds
include open waterways, fields, and mazshes where the falcon has known to dive at speeds up to
200 miles (322 kilometers) per hour. The peregrine falcon may travel as far as 10 to 12 miles (16
to 19 kilometers) from its nest in search of prey.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
18

The project area is characterized by agricultural and residential azeas with no cliffs or ledges of
lazge buildings present neaz the bridge. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of
the peregrine falcon in the project vicinity. No nests were observed along the river banks or in
neazby trees. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
Invertebrate Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1993
Endangered
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to 3 inches (8
centimeters). Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dazk brown in color, while juvenile
have ayellowish-brown color.
Known populations of Appalachian elktoe in North Cazolina have been reported in the main stem
of the Nolichucky River and a short reach of the Toe River, with a single specimen reported in
the Cane River. Specimens have also been reported in the Little Tennessee River and its
tributaries. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed with
cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and FHWA aze currently engaged in a Section 7 Consultation
regazding this project. The species is present at the project site and will likely be impacted by the
construction of the new bridge and by the demolition of the old bridge but it is not anticipated
that the impact will result in a jeopazdy opinion. A Biological Assessment (B.A.) and
consequently Biological Opinion (B.O.) cannot be rendered until mitigation occurs. Mitigation
cannot occur until the document is signed and Right of Way can be purchased. Multiple
alternatives have been evaluated and alternate 4A has been determined to be the preferred
alternative by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as it minimizes impacts to the river and
surrounding landscape. The placement of the piers has been designed so as to minimize impacts
to the river. A plan for demolition of the old bridge has been submitted to U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service who have reviewed and tentatively agreed with the plan which will be included as part of
the biological assessment. The Greensheet for this Categorical Exclusion will only make
reference to the plan. When the B.O. is ultimately rendered, the final Greensheet, to be included
as part of the permit package, will include a full description of the plan for demoltion.
Microhexura montivaga (Spruce-fir moss spider)
Invertebrate family: Dipluridae
Federally Listed: 1995
Endangered
The spruce-fir moss spider is a small spider, approximately 0.1 to .15 inches (0.25 to 0.38
centimeters) in length, which ranges from light brown to yellow-brown to a dazker reddish brown
with no markings on its abdomen. This species is distinguished by chelicerae which project
forward beyond the anterior edge of the carapace. Other characteristics include long posterior
19

spinnerets, and a second pair of book lungs which appear as light patches behind the genital
furrow.
The spruce-fir moss spider constructs tube-shaped webs in the interface between damp, well-
drained moss mats and rock surfaces. It prefers well-shaded areas of mature Fraser fir and red
spruce forest communities in the highest elevations of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
The spider has not been observed feeding and prey has not been found in the webs. It is likely
that the abundant springtails (collembolans) which occur in the moss mats are the food source for
the spider.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the spruce-fir moss spider. There are no well-shaded
areas of mature Fraser fir and red spruce forest near the bridge. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of this species in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project
will not impact this endangered species.
Geum radiatum (Spreading avers)
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 1990
Endangered
Spreading avers is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avers are present from June to early July.
Spreading avers has basal leaves which aze odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are
kidney shaped and much lazger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avers is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee section of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avers occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills and ridges. Known populations of this plant has been found to occur at
elevations from 5060 to 5800 feet (1535 to 1759 meters). Other habitat requirements for this
species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of sand,
pebbles, humus, sandy loam and clay loam. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for spreading avers. The elevation of the project area is
approximately 2200 feet (671 meters) and known populations occur above 5000 feet (1524
meters). A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of spreading avers in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
20

r
Houstonia montana (Roan Mountain bluet)
Plant Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: 1990
Endangered
Roan Mountain bluet is a cespitose perennial herb with erect or ascending, unbranched or weakly
terminally branched stems to 8 inches (21 centimeters) tall from a basal winter rosette. Cauline
leaves aze opposite, sessile and ovate, 0.3 to 1.2 inches (0.8 to 3.0 centimeters) long and 0.2 to
0.5 inches (0.6 to 1.3 centimeters) wide. Flowers aze reddish purple and funnel-shaped. The
inflorescence is few flowered, with flowers occurring from late May through August, with peak
flowering in June and July. There is considerable disagreement among the experts concerning
whether the Roan Mountain bluet belongs to the Hedyotis or Houstonia genus, and whether it is a
variety or deserves a full species ranking.
Roan Mountain bluet grows on rocky exposures at high elevations ranging from 4600 to 6270
feet (1400 to 1911 meters). Bedrock geology is critical for the growth of this species. All sites
are on mafic (i.e. basic) rock, which contrasts with most other high elevation rocky-summit sites,
which aze typically on felsic or acidic rock. The plants typically grow in gravel-filled pockets
found on north or northwest facing cliff ledges, or on talus slopes associated with outcrop
exposures on the south or southwest slopes of mountain balds. Most sites are kept moist by
frequent fog, mid-elevation clouds, or summer thunderstorms.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for Roan Mountain bluet. The elevation of the project area is
approximately 2200 feet (671 meters) and this species occurs above 4600 feet (1400 meters). A
seazch of the NHP database found no occurrence of Roan Mountain bluet in the project vicinity.
It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 1987
Threatened
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb with an erect stem growing from a cormlike rootstock.
The stiff stems are purple neaz the base turning to green, and are strongly ribbed and angulate.
Both basal and cauline leaves are numerous, decreasing in size upwazd. The leaves aze long and
narrow, with those at the base 8 to 12 inches (20 to 30 centimeters) in length. The stems reach
up to 16 inches (40 centimeters) in height and aze topped by a showy spike of lavender flowers 7
to 0.3 to 8 inches (20 centimeters) long. Flowering occurs from July through September.
Heller's blazing star typically occurs on sandy soil on rocky summits, cliffs, ledges and rocky
woods at high elevation [3500 to 6000 feet (1067 to 1829 meters)]. The plants grow in humus
or clay loams on igneous and metasedimentary rock. Soils are generally acidic (pH 4) and
shallow. Sites occupied by the Heller's blazing star are generally exposed to full sun.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
21

No habitat exists in the project area for Heller's blazing staz. The elevation of the project azea is
approximately 2200 feet (671 meters) and this species occurs above 3500 feet (1067 meters). A
seazch of the NHP database found no occurrence of Heller's blazing star in the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Solidago spithamaea (Blue Ridge goldenrod)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 1995
Threatened
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is a perennial herb with an erect, angled stem 4 to 16 inches (10.2 to
40.6 centimeters) tall This sparsely to densely pubescent herb arises from a stout, short rhizome.
The elliptic leaves aze serrate 3.9 to 9.8 inches (10 to 25 centimeters) long. The flowers aze
yellow and aze borne in heads of 20 to 30 flowers in a compact corymb. Flowering occurs
during July and August.
The Blue ridge goldenrod occurs at elevations above 4600 feet (1402 meters). It is an . eazly
successional species which occurs in the crevices of granite outcrops in full sun.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project azea for Blue Ridge goldenrod. The elevation of the project azea
is approximately 2200 feet (671 meters) and this species occurs above 4600 feet (1402 meters).
A seazch of the NHP database found no occurrence of Blue Ridge goldenrod in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea)
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 1990
Threatened
Virginia spiraea is a colonial, perennial shrub that has a modular growth form. Its growth form is
described as "plastic" and varies depending upon age and environmental conditions. The roots
aze a complex system of horizontal rootstock with mats of small fibrous roots. If.exposed, the
horizontal rootstock gives rise to upright stems. Virginia spiraea typically has a diffuse
branching pattern and grows to 3 to 10 feet (1 to 3 meters) in height. Leaves are simple, ovate to
lanceolate, with an acute base. The leave mazgins range from entire to completely serrate.
Virginia spiraea flowers from late May to late July, with bright to creamy white flowers forming
a coryrnb.
Virginia spiraea is a clonal species, with a root system and vegetative characteristics that allow it
to grow in appropriate disturbed habitats. It is typically found in disturbed sites along rivers and
streams. It requires disturbance sufficient to inhibit azboreal competition, yet without scour that
will remove most organic material or root stock. Typical habitat includes scoured banks of high
22

gradient streams, or on meander scrolls, point bazs, natural levees and braided features of lower
stream reaches.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A seazch of the NHP database found no occurrence of Virginia spiraea in the project vicinity.
Habitat exists along the banks of North Toe River within the project area for this species. The
project area was surveyed in June 1998 where a plant by plant survey was conducted and the
plant was not found at the project site. The site was revisited in 2002 and the species was again
determined not to be present.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen)
Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: 1994
Endangered
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can be
identified by its fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and aze €ound
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 azeas of high humidity. These high
humidity environments occur on high elevation (4000 feet/ 1220 meters) mountaintops and cliff
faces which aze frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (2500 feet /762 meters) deep gorges
in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces
where seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome
lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent
seeps. The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alternation/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forest usually lie adjacent
to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the
counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey. The
lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson,
Rutherford and Transylvania.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the rock gnome lichen. The elevation of the project area
is approximately (2200 feet 671 meters). In Yancey and Mitchell counties, this species occurs on
high elevation (4000 feet/1220 meters) mountaintops and cliff faces. A seazch of the NHP
database found no occurrence of rock gnome lichen in the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) aze not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
23

or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Tables 4 and 5 includes FSC species listed for Yancey
and Mitchell counties and their state classifications. Organisms which are listed as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the
level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
24

Table 4
Federal Species of Concern and NC Protected Species for
_ Yancey County
Scientific Name
Contopus borealis Common Name
Olive-sided flycatcher NC Status
SC Habitat present
No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender . SC Yes
Microtus chrotorrhinus
cazolinensis Southern rock vole SC No
Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed
myotis SC No
Percina squamata Olive darter SC Yes
Sylvilagus obscures Appalachian cottontail SR No
Glyphyalinia clingmani Fragile glyph E No
Pazavitrea varidens * Roan supercoil T Yes
Stygobromus carolinensis * Yancey sideswimmer SR No
Abies fraseri Fraser fir C No
Calamagrostis cainii Cain's reedgrass E No
Cazdamine clematitis Mountain bittercress C Yes
Euphorbia purpurea -Glade spurge C No
Juglans cinerea Butternut WS Yes
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Saxifraga cazoliniana Carolina saxifrage C No
Silene ovata Mountain catchfly C Yes
Plagiochila sharpii A liverwort C No
Plagiochila sullivantii var.
sullivantii A liverwort C No
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii A liverwort C No
Notes: Source, Amoroso & Weakley, 1995, LeGrand, 1995
T-Threatened, E-Endangered, SC-Special Concern, SR-State Rare, C-Candidate,
WS -rare because of severe decline
* -Denotes historic record -species was last observed in the county more than 50
years ago.
25

Table 5
Federal Species of Concern and NC Protected Species for Mitchell County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat present
Contopus borealis Olive-sided flycatcher SC N
Neotoma magister * Allegheny woodrat SC Y
Percina squamata Olive darter SC Y
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail SR N
Pazavitrea varidens Roan supercoil T Y
Speyeria diana* Diana fritillary butterfly SR Y
Abies fraseri Fraser fir C N
Astilbe crenatiloba * Roan false goat's beard C Y
Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush E N
Cazex roanensis Roan sedge C Y -
Delphinium exaltatum * Tall lazkspur E-SC N
Euphorbia purpurea Glade spurge C Y
Geum geniculatum Bent evens T Y
Juglans cinerea Butternut WS Y
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC N
Paxistima canbyi * Canby's mountain lover W4 N
Plagiochila sullivantii var.
sullivantii A liverwort C N
Sphenolobopsis peazsonii A liverwort C N
Notes: Source: Amoroso and LeGrand; 1995 Weakley, 1995
T - Threatened, E -Endangered, SC -Special Concem, SR -State Raze, C -Candidate,
W4 -raze, but believed not native, WS -raze because of severe decline
* - Denotes a historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 50 yeazs
ago.
A review of the NHP data base of raze species and unique habitats revealed no occurrence of any
FSC species within the project azea. There was an occurrence of sharphead darter, which is a
state listed threatened species, during a fish sampling effort at Bridge No. 61.
This section of the North Toe River is part of the NHP Priority Area known as North Toe
River/Nolichucky River Aquatic Habitat. This priority azea is described as a medium-sized
mountain stream in the Tennessee River drainage, which provides habitat for several raze fish
including the sharphead darter, olive darter, and logperch. Water quality in this azea is
26

threatened from sedimentation. Surveys for FSC and state listed species were not conducted
during the site visit.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), has determined that Bridge No. 61, on NC 197 over the North Toe
River, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The replacement of this bridge will
have an impact on the structure. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been
drafted and executed by the SHPO, FHWA, and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to mitigate the effects of the proposed undertakings on the bridge. The
MOA states that prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 61 the NCDOT will record the bridge in
accordance with the Historic Structures Recordation Plan (Appendix A to the MOA).
C. Archaeology
No archaeological sites or historic structures were identified within the project area by
background research or field survey. Therefore, none of the proposed replacement alternatives
are deemed likely to have any effect on archaeological sites that are on or eligible for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will .result in safer traffic operations.
The project will involve taking one home and several outbuildings immediately south of the
bridge. Access to the remainder of the owner's property will be maintained during and after
construction.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
27

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
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 the construction of the project.
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 azea.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Bridge No. 61 is
considered to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and will be removed as part
of this project. The Section 4(f) documentation is included as Section VIII of this document.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There aze no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage
within these classifications.
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. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Cazolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 1.5 NCAC
2D.0520. -
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports aze required.
An examination of records at the North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project azea.
Yancey and Mitchell Counties aze participants in the National Flood Insurance Program. The
approximate 100-yeaz floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain azea. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact azea of
about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent
of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
28

VIII. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(fl
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project: BRSTP-197(1)
State Project: 8.1900401
T. I. P. No. B-1443
Description:
Bridge No. 61 is scheduled to be replaced with a new structure on new alignment shifted to the
southeast of the existing structure. The existing bridge is functionally obsolete due to the
existing horizontal alignment and narrow bridge width and is in a deteriorated condition.
Bridge No. 61 was built by the engineering firm of Steel & Lebby of Knoxville, Tennessee.
Completed in 1925, it is an intact example of areinforced-concrete closed spandrel arch bridge
(type 111). The bridge is also distinguished from other structures of the time by its open two-bar
concrete bridge safety rail and distinctively profile endposts. The bridge possesses integrity of
location, materials, design, and setting. Therefore, Bridge No. 61 in Yancey and Mitchell
Counties is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for design and construction.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or ^
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is ^
on or eligible for listing on the X
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic ^
Landmark? X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation ^
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
29

(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) a bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
MII~IIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning X
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tationneeds, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
3]

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
R T
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
Do nothing X ^
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered ~ X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? X ^
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different
ocation vv~ out ectm a 'storic X ^
mtegnty o e structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/o (iv) a existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic brid a without
ectmg a stonc mtegnty o e X ^
structure.
30

O For bridges that aze adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minim~P harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
Prior to the demolition of Yancey County Bridge 61, NCDOT shall record the bridge in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan. (Note: This has been
accomplished and the documentation delivered to the State Historic Preservation Office.)
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation x
c. LocaUState/Federal Agencies x
d. US Coast Guazd n/a
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on July 5,
1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this
project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The project
includes all possible plamung to minimize harm, and there aze assurances that the measures to
minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
~-~~--~3
Date
u~d'
C
q~~
Date isio Administrator, FHWA
32

N - - 1:~ts
~

\ ~~' \ ' 9
~
Beans Cr. "~ 1325
1327 ~ -
318 ~ Rock Cr.
`~ -•
1317 ,
Ch.
''r' ro 1326 ~,
O
m
1
' ~
~~ ~
Qa(
~
1316 ,
fi
•
~
J ~
.~'
"
• ~ 1338 2.2
a • 4 ~ ~
1309 1326
*,1
~'' 1316
.~ '-
~J ri,• _ i - ~
1e. • ,
~
/ ~ ~^l 1. ~
~•5
97 1313
~
_~ 1308 '~ HonaycuR 1339 ~
• ~ ~
,
_ ~~ NAT1 O N~~
1 •
1312
197 ~ •9 " 9 ~ ~`

,~,
•_ ~ ~
/ ~ ~i
n~ ~ Tipton Hill •P
~~ 1307
-~'~ ~ -,
~ 13x2 ':,~ Rsliof .~ a - - "
C ~
1341
~
, .
;~' •• 1
~
~
. •~ .
C,pl, 1
0 N /
• ~ ~"~
1307 `

`. _ . • .
1311 -~ •$
1340 :b -'/!~= ;' '
1305 '. ~ Hill
r 1310 _+1 _ ~.3 •~ •6 ~ ~
2
`~
~
~
BI9 :
~
~ Q ~ • 2
1. Jn
1306 ~
1340 ;~ ; a
-
` ~
~ 1448 ~ ... .
r
• `
~ ~
'L
- ~ ~ .r
. 2 .'~'
..
'

~i' /
2•
~ 13~ , 6 - 13~
, ~~ 1
•

~ ~
•' ~eyton 1314 ~. Tooac
_ 1336
~
•
13a6
, ,
' ~ Bend Ch. ~
~
_
• 1 3 ~ ~ ~
~ D.-, . ~ ~• S .Q
1345
X.
•R • ~ ~ . 7 ~ ~ ~
1
/
• ~
~.L ,~ 1335 `S
th-
•
S '
/ •
1317 1301,8 ~
01
. . ~
ou
1347 ~ 1345 y
~~ /
bend Ch ,--•
^
5 ~-r-~
•--
?leasan
~~;

/ .
L . ~ ~` Grove ~~
•
Ch.
•• ~
/
"' ~
' 1318
.. .//
~,i
auladnn y Rock 1314 i
s:.....•. c.~ ~ Pbn+
~ • Gaak' `- 7
i ~s~,~
ums'w
t)~B
srille` P~sn
^
~
'~
.'
~ 9;;~ ~
~
1
Y~A
N . ~
,
E ,
U s
Cab t ~
Pansaoola ! ~
rick
~-
H
•

- .
`Murda
to ~ r
'~^''• ,
~
am
son y. s /
::,e
i
' dus
`
J°~'
•~ \ ~-
~ ~`~,;~ 1315 '
1317 /~ ,
8 ~, ° a ~ ,
2.
` /" 1316 p t
.,)
~'. ~' \ 1308 `-' ~ .
y-ranr .
`~;t North Carolina
s Department Of Transportation
~~• ~" Planning & Environmental Branch
~... ~ ...
YANCEY/MITCHELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.61 ON NC 197
OVER NORTH TOE RIVER
B-1443
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

', ~ _
'~. ~
~^ 2'.. ' ~
~'~ ~ t..
~'. ~~~ i'
~A 1 ~ 4. ! f
~' ~;
~i ~ ~~~ ~.,~'r
~.. ~' 1 r ~;,'
a ~ r , .t'.
«~~ .~ ~
v ' ~~,~~'~* 4 ~ ~ r
---. ; ,
~ r"~ ~,
~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ e
t
,' ~ ,~
K
~ ~~ ~ ,
~,~
y ' 3 ~.
F
ti ~~
~' ~~
y. ~ "
~.' ri
h+! a ~~s,' r ,
a
t ~~
~1 4 I+~~ ,
i ~ ,. , ~ ,
{, i
4 ~ k , ~ ~ r '
€ ~ .«~
~ r ~ ~-
~ +~; ~ ~~ ~~ " ~ a
/Ir r
r f/'
r ~rt
~,
r '".^ 3 +
h '.t
€i. _~ '`
1 ~- ti ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~
~~ ~i ~.
r ~~
f
~.
r. ~ ~ ~ ~;
t :': ° "1
A
A
S
. lC!' ~ r
~ F r
~~
rt f.
J ~ ~ 3J
., r
y r. ~
~~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f
~ - 1Y.r..iF w.. }~ ~
Y's3~
} ~: ~. '~"
t ' `
:x _
A x1
,~ r=, $'
~.
M T 1 ~ -• L 1
a
F `^ r .W"3
G3 ~ ~ ~ $.
r~.. ~ ~» ~_?~
~~y ~ ~ z ~ ~
r'+,`
tt: ba3 '
r C',°. ~ i ib.' ~ _ 4
r > ,:.
~ '~
.. ~ _..:...-z_.,~ . ,emu, ~ ~.~ .~., 1:
_ _ __ _.
~ }, 1~: ~~
~ ie. 3' ~~~~ r ~'1
~ *~<' ~, ~. ~ 3. ~ '~~
'~~ ,~ ~ ~»
". ~ _
.a
~ ~ ~:
as _ +. 1i,.j~ ~ ~r.. '~ ~ 4~~ ~.~~ ~ s. ~r
..
~C~,, a ~`" .~ '
w; ~~ ~ ~,'
~ ~ ~ ~ ;; i , , ~'~
f! i yy a
;.~,' ~ i 4' ~ " ~ a
.. ~ z I ~! f
'r; }';s ~ 1~.. ~
~.~ ~
f y!
~ ~ +
~j ~ } ~ i . ~ ~~ 1
~'' .* .. r~~: ..°~
3i
[ M Y:
U: ~~ max. ~ ,~, #~. '~ ~ *~ :~ ~`~~
.,
`~~
F
~q~ F 6 } f ~ ~ ' ~~ f, ~~ ~ ~~
? ~, ~w.f^
;~, ~`
*1 ~ ~
~i i' ii
~ ICI ~
,~
~:.'
~k~ A
..~ .ii.~ ~ 4, ~. ., ,~
r ~' d~ ,'';r" ~ ~ ~
i ~ r~ ~
y t~ ,~:°' a ' ~
~` ~ ~
s •i y
rs„~' <a
+~ ~ ` ,x
Tt € ~e ~_.a ~' i
L ~ ~
P /y y ~' Y H ...1
i'~ ~~~s.~ ~°~. ~ ;. ~3 '~ ~ ~ ~' r .~~ ~,~
~ .p. ~ ~ ~ ~ i* ~ ,~,~t ~ ,., Y ~; (rV r
` ~
~ ~ 1 ([ ~T
,t i~ .~ ~ !~ ~`~ ~ ~~
3 ~, '; ~ ¢`r~'~~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ `,fit ~'~.~,:
(7~ III AA
~ v r ~ ~~ ~ s. ~ " ,a ~. ~, I~~li~ e.,
~~I
}l ~. 1~ ,t Y I~'~
~ '
~; ~ '~ _ ~~Ip'iii' ",
~'~r '" ~ ~~ ;y" ~' _ 'r. ~ `. ilill~ ~
r t 'l
~' ~
4 ~
t
t
r r
'~ : C K.
l a
~ f
~ ~ ~ ~~ y..
] + ~ ~:~ .
5 i -,« ',e
t
pi7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4: ~'.~:1 '~
~ ~ tt
~.
~ ;~ ='~
.'
t ~ f~, ~ f ~ ~ _,
..~. '.~' a a ~3 ~ ,

r '~ o- ~
~~, ~1 ~j~~4AJ~
t dt ('!
~ `t J9
~t ,'f
s I f1~+r1
~ ~ fff ~
s 1
e.~ ~ 7 t
.r ..~e.
s' ~ , ,F

~~ ~?il
k ~~
~
s /~ Tf'
~~
a~
;)w,

} YLLf , ~~
l~r
~~

yy
'~i
~
x.
e. -
, . b „ "fs
~ ~T.
~
~
:_ ~,
~, ~~ ~
R, .. r..
~ ?~ 'i ~..
~^ ~•,
• wY y
~ -.
k, ~ ..~
j wgg'
~~~ ~ T
r.. .a ~:®
#~74~
s--+
~~ ~
d __
~l
,..
~; .,~ ; ~
~~x='!
.~
t.
,+r
~i. . e
L""

~~ Y~

~. , . _-_
..;

;:' ~ ~' `~
;,~ ~ x~~
~.
~,`
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
'"". ~ ,~ 'y
.
vy
< .
.
~~
'
~' ~i#
,.y
~ 2
a ~ ~ a4

..j
i . ~
-~ I

~~
~ ~ ~~
> a
~~
~ ~
d ~'~ ~ r
<t}
1 ~,~ ~~
`~ ~~, .
~~
~{{k
4.i
'~.'<
~,
Y~, s
to
~: r
C~~ a; .L ``{F
~ T* F'
~`
.,. ;
y,
~jj/ r ~r~'Iyy ~~
•~~1t s .'1' ,~~
- ' t'
~! 3
't
~r'k•; ~
~ ~~ ~ v .~ ~ r~ r...
j~ 2 g ~ ~ !w i '~ A d o
fir,, ~ ~ ~ ~~~
'~ '~`'D~. i~ ~t'~ .~,
h 4 t
c ~.~, a.r
!yyam~ ~ ~; ~" ~~ ' ~v i ~
+w ~
`~ ~~~
~~
`:
K~
l~~ ;t't , r ~=~
1 ~~ y ~
7`'~
x ~ tr
~~s ~s ;if
. ~
s
x s
~ ,,,
> ff ~,
,~*e
t `~~-~
. ,.
,~
~ ~
~ ~t 7y.',
- ~~, ~~
~ti ~
~ .~
~l ~ ~ ~,

?; f7LL
n
~ ~w 1~~~"~ ~ »~
~~~ ~ 1„u '~ r..
~~ _~ .~` ~ Y to y1M~.
$ .~ ~ ti
w~ ~ .r ~
f ~~
,~ ~." '}i
t
i ~; ~~1
y {
~ f / ~ i
S
... ~~•
~, .~ ~,
r ~t -
<r^ ~~ , t ,Y ' :,
t'~ 7 ; ~..; ~ i
~ '.fit i ~; ~ - i ~~~?~ t
}r 3 ~
~' ~ ~ ~` - i
It ~ ~~ ;~
,3 ~
,l a ~s, 3 .3 t~ y _~ w:.
~" I
~ I T +- x ~. S- r ~ a .t, ~ I
4 ~~ y~ i ~ ~. ~ x~~ i
a`, ~,~~ s ~ . .r
_ ~ ~~ Y i
~; ~ . ~ ~ , t ~ ~ I
r s'~' ~ ~ t ~ ~` - ~ d : a'~ ~
~ s. _ ~, ~
~ t t ~ '~~~ ,~~~ ~~ . ~ r
r r r ~~
t t ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ S ,~ ,~ Mf
.. r ~' ~ J>• .A; ~` -:~ Al i
,~ i ~
-.
z ~ r ~ R ~ ~'-~~~ y~ ~ ta, t~,
~.~ r ~ v` - .~ y ~ s 1.
~~:~.w n,: ' ~r~.
r*x J
°~ ~~ir
~4 P.*

~~ ~, ~~
~~
.~
.t y r _
3~1 ~ A ~ ~r
t
~~ _ ~ ~~' i ,~ .++
y,,~ i{ ~ t
S '} ~y~ ~ l
^y'~Y jsj F ~.r(s ~ '~Ti ~~
i~ i T' , Hy~k~ j~ ~t~ »1~~~~~~
J~ 1
t;X
...

Bridge No. 61
Name Plate on Bridge
/ j4ro'jO"T" North Carolina Department of
Transportation
(~ ~ Division of Highways
`° ~~ Project Development &
~~~.,,~,~ Environmental Analysis Branch
Yancey-Mitchell County Line
Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 197
Over North Toe River
B-1443
~ Figure Three ~

View of Railroad
Crossing
View of Railroad
Crossing
~°~ jO"'"`'~~ North Carolina Department of
~' '~, Transportation
~g ~~ Division of Highways
\~ ,,,~:~~j ProjeM Development &
~~,,,~% Environmental Analysis Branch
Yancey-Mitchell County Line
Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 197
Over North Tce River
B-1443
Figure Four

View Approaches to
Bridge from South End
of Bridge
Home to be impacted
by new aG~ment
t4~o*'°"~'`~~ North Carolina Department of
,b ~; Transportation
~ ~' Division of Highways
~~~~ Project Development &
\`~,~-~-~% Environmental Analysis Branch
Yancey-Mitchel! County Line
Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 197
Over North Tce River
B-1443
Figure Five

r ~Y
~'
e ^` SgrF u
p . l- ~,
fi~ t ~r--,~~ s"
~~~~~
.~ .,.
~.~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hun- Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 4, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C..- 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 61 on NC 197 on North Toe River,
Mitchell and Yancey Counties, B-1443, Federal
Aid Project BRSTP-197(1), State Project
8.1900401, ER 97-8345
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
,/°~ `1 ~
~' r:..
;' ~ -
{-~ I%'r +
~- ,
t ~ G.~ , - _
~ ~ - ~':
On March 11, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, Bridge 61 is the only structure over fifty
years of age within the general project area. We recommend that an architectural
historian from NCDOT evaluate the bridge for National Register eligibility and report
the findings to us.
We recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted for bridge replacement
on a new alignment.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, Nonh Carolina 27601=_'807 P~~

Nicholas L. Graf
4/4/97, Page 2
Thank you for youf cooperation and consideration. tf you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
r
(/David Brook / Z~J
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ~H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

Fec%rul :ticl # BRSTP-197(1) TIP n B- I -4-I~ C'uun~t•: Yancey/'~1itchell
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description:. Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River
On February 19, 1998, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
~ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
~ Other
reviewed the subject project at
~ Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
~ Other
All parties present agreed
~ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as House #1 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Repre entative, NCDOT Date
FHW t for the Div Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
~~
'L ' 1.~~ 1
Representative, SrHPO Date
~~ ~ ~ ;Ld~lc~~ /a ~~
State Historic Preservation Offic Date
If a sun•e}• report is prepared. a final cop}' of this fotm and the attached list will be included.

F~~cierui.-!id ~STP-197(1) TIP :~B-1-13 County: Yancey/vlitchell
CONCURRENCE FORivI FOR .~SSESSNIENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: I~g~2lace Bri~;P ~Io 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River
On flay 28, 1998, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
~ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
~ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
~ there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located. within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
~ there are no effects on the National Register-eligible propertyiproperties located ~~•ithin
the project s area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
^, there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
0 there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
projects area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:

Represent DOT ~ Date
~,~i ~ C~~k~ (v~z~48
FHWA. r the Division dministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
~~ ~ ,; _

~ ,~ •
/
;~
Representative. S O
----- Date
~
,~
,~ ~~
~

race stone Preservation Officer Date

~,~ .....
"~ ~ °'b
~ ~s
~= ,?~
. -...
>a...~-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
mes B. Hunt Jr., Goveraor
;tty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 6, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River,
Mitchell and Yancey Counties, B-1443, Federal
Aid Proiect STP-197(11, State Project
8.1900401, ER 98-8760
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Clow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1998, transmitting the historic structure
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:
Bridge 61. This bridge is an intact example of the rare reinforced-concrete
closed-spandrel arch bridge, and is distinguished by its open, two-bar
concrete bridge safety rail and distinctive imposts. It is eligible under
Criterion C for construction/design.
The report 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.
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.r~cerely,
~; ~, ~
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
~B. Church

Federal Aid # STP-197(1) TIP # B-1443 County: Yancey/Mitchell
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River
On July 16, 1998, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
~ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
~ Other
reviewed the subject project at
~ Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
~ Other .
All parties present agreed
~ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as House #2 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
'~
~. !Lt
FH W.
• ~ G `,
Date
?//~-,
for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, S PO Date.
_~
~ .,
State Historic Preservation Officer D to
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

..
dw, STA7E s~
y ./rq
.4T S
ra
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 21, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study, Replace Bridge 61 on NC
197, Mitchell and Yancey Counties, TIP B-1443,
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-197(11, ER 98-9337
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Ctow, Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Nick Harper concerning the above project. We concur with your
determination of no eligible archaeological properties within the area of potential
effect.
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.
Sincerely,
,~ ~ lw
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ~W. D. Gilmore
T. Padgett

v ~. •
d,A StA1F v
~' ~"~' "~
~ -
w.
•~or+0•
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
~~
O
S~:P ~ .8 ~~9~
r
2 ~ f'~~slO~ _
~ ~~~ ~''
sicn of Archd 2
September 10, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River, Yancey
and Mitchell Counties, TIP B-1443, State Project
8.1900401, Federal Aid BRSTP-197(1), ER 99-7286
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1998, forwazding the Memorandum of Agreement for
Bridge 61. I have signed the Memorandum of Agreement and am returning it to you for
submission to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Eazley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
%~ ~n~~
~, ~. ,
ti
Jeffrey J. row
State Historic Preservation Officer
JJC:sIw
Enclosure
cc: ~''~ W. D. Gilmore
B. Church
1f19 Fast Zones street • Raleish. North Carolina 27601-2807 ~-,~

,~
!j
f ~t ~ ~~
o ~~
~~
~~
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINLS7RA770N
Region Four
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
September 23, 1998
Mr. Don Klima, Director
Eastern Office of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. No. 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
IN REPLY REFER TO
HO-NC
E,
~~s~ ~~~+
~y c''`'r,0 ~,
,~ ~j ~ z J~9~ ~.
:,7ti.`t~~~r~*; ti's
~-~T:.. :''°.
Subject: Bridge No. 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River, YanceyTMitchell
Counties, Tip No. B-1443, State Project No. 8.1900401, Federal Aid No.
STP-197(1)
Dear Mr. Klima:
Enclosed for your review are copies of the following information:
1) A description of the undertaking;
2) A description of the efforts to identify historic properties;
3) A description of the affected historic property;
41 A description of the undertaking's effects on the historic property;
5) A description of any proposed mitigation measures or alternatives
considered dealing with the undertaking's effects on the historic
property;
6) A summary of the views of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
and any interested parties.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWAI, in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHP01, has determined that Bridge # 61, on NC 197 over the North Toe
River, is eligible for the National Register of Historic. Places. The. replacement of this bridge will
have an impact on the structure. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been
drafted and executed by the SHPO, FHWA, and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to mitigate the effects of the proposed undertakings on the bridge.
The MOA states that prior to the demolition of bridge #61 the NCDOT will record the bridge
in accordance with the Historic Structures Recordation Plan (Appendix A to the MOA).
This information is provided to your office pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(b) and Ic). Please review
the attached MOA. If the MOA is acceptable to your office please execute and return to the

• '. i+•
s
• ~
Mr. Klima
September 23, 1998
Page Two
FHWA. Should you have any questions please contact Mr. David Snyder of my staff at
1919)856-4350,- Extension 104.
Sincerely yours,
I' G ~-~t,~~~'
~~
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, NCDOT
Mr. David Brook, SHPO, NC Department of Cultural Resources

4 ~
ACtvISOTy
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, IVW, #E809
Washington, DC 20004
~~srF i-1 ~ c~~
OCT 14 1998
Ivir. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E:
Division Administrator
Region Four
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Tninsportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh NC 27601
REF: Replacement of Bridge 61 on NC 197 over North Toe River
Yancey/Mitchell Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
The enclosed Memorandum of Agreement for the. references pro; ~~ l+~ ~r~t~l ~ *~
Council. This acceptance completes the requirements of Section 106 of the National ~€istoric
Preservation Act and the Council's regrtlations. We n~~orrtrRend that ,yau pro~~ a ropy of the-
fully-executed Agreement to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
1
1~«~ ~ ~ ;~
" ~
~~fj ston Co
~storic Preservation Analyst
Office of Planning and Review
Enclosure
Fti44A • Ai~^ r~!~rc~rJ~J
DiV. ~ «:~;....~..........._
ASST. Uil P_.^,. '~' -- -------

~~;-
. ___. _
r,
,... _ _ _ _ .

_._.i
.. '
~
~
i
_ ... _
_
._ __
- -;
•s ---... .. .....,
4...._ _..
'.'......., _., ,
a
~ ~ ..-.

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO
and implementation.of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge No. 61
on NC I97 over North Toe River and its effect on the historic property, and that FHWA
has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on the historic property.
GHW.
NORTH

NORTH CAROL
Concurring Party

TION
'ATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ACCEPTED for
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DATE
g-
DATE
/~
TE

., .•.
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 61
Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina
Description
A brief physical description and narrative statement of significance
Photographic Requirements
Photographic views of Bridge No. 61 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)
8 x 10 inch black and white contact print (all negatives)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
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 Ottice to
be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.

i
® North Carolina Wilcllife Resources Comssic~~
.i12 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham
North Carolina Lepaitrnent of Trtu.::portat~on
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ~ ~, ;~.
DATE: April 23, 1997 ~~''~~"~' ' . ~~-~~~~'-
SUBJECT: Preliminary comments for the replacement of Bridge #61 on NC 197 over North Toe River,
Yancey and Mitchell Counties, TIP #B-1443
project.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our preliminary comments regazding the subject
The North Toe River does not likely support trout this far downstream; however, it does support several
species of gamefish (black bass, sunfish, muskellunge) and nongame fish. In addition, the river supports a
population of the Appalachian elktce, a federally threatened freshwater mussel species. We have the following
recommendations regazding this project:
1) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be contacted to determine if the project has the potential to
impact the Appalachian elktoe. Contact is Mr. John Fridell at 704/258-3939, extension 225. The Service
may make additional recommendations if this species could be impacted by the project.
2) If concrete will be used, work 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) If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the river channel in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the river.
4) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all baze soil within 15 days of ground
disturbing activities to provide long-tenor erosion control.
5) If the bridge is replaced on new location, native species of trees and shrubs should be planted along the
river at the site of the existing bridge over the North Toe River upon removal of this structure to add bank
stability, shade, and a travel corridor for wildlife.
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. John Fridell, USFWS

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
State Project 8.1900401 (B-1443 )
Mitchell/Yancey County
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge Number 61 carrying NC 197
over the North Toe River in Mitchell and Yancey Counties. The existing two lane 82.7 m
(270 ft.) long bridge will be replaced with a two lane 109 m (360 ft.) long bridge. The
North Toe River has a Class `C' Trout water classification and supports a population of
the Appalachian Elktoe, a federally listed endangered freshwater mussel species. The
overall length of the project is 0.191 km (0.07 mi.). Traffic will be maintained on site
during construction.
The existing 7.2 m (24 ft.) roadway is a two-lane road with 3.0 m (10 ft.) lanes and 0.6 m
(2 ft.) grassed shoulders. The proposed 11.4 m (38 ft.) paved road is a two-lane road with
two 3.3 m (11 ft.) lanes and 2.4 m (8 ft.) shoulders. Where there is guardrail at the
beginning of the bridge the entire shoulder will be paved to help prevent erosion of the
fill slopes. The proposed structure will have a travelway of 10.9 m (36 ft.). This will
include an inside shoulder of 2.4 m (8 ft.) to accommodate sight distance and an outside
shoulder of 1.0 m (3 ft.). The existing bridge is 5.2 m (17 ft.) wide. Approximately 561
sq m (6.032 sq ft) of additional pavement will be added .as a result of the project.
The following best management practices and measures were taken during the design of
the project to reduce the stormwater impacts:
1. Drainage from the proposed bridge will not be allowed to .discharge directly into
the North Toe River. Drainage on the existing bridge presently runs off directly into
the river. Deck drains will be utilized at both ends of the bridge.
2. Storm drainage that is collected at the south end of the bridge where guardrail is
used will be discharged into a stormwater retention basin whereas currently the
stormwater drains directly to the river.

NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT
8.1900401 -
(8-1443)
.~
r
~~
~C~®~
~~~~~~~~
T'I~Alll~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
KITCHELL,/ YANCEY COUNTY
PROJECT:8.1900~01 (B-1~~3)
BRIDGE N0.61 ON NC 197
OVER THE NORTH TOE RIVER
SHEET ~ OF l() 3/ 10/ 0~ I

~~~~ ~~~

.-

fp 'i.d p Isl ~4 _~?
~~ ~
€'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p
,a p,l,a/ a ~ ~ ~ a
b ~ ~ ~} ~,Q~ r ~ 7 I ~ £?
~' ~' ~ ' / / d ~ Q
Q ~i a ~ b
~ 49 ; / ~ b
Q 1/111 Q ~ / / 1 Q p.^
1 / ~ / 1 ~ ~ x
~ -/ Qf3 t 1~`~ r
,~~~ "~ >
~~\ ' /
a ~ ~
~>
~ ;a ~
~~,ti
i r ~
,§
N
f9
O
cP ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ •_
a © ~ ~
? ~ v
~' ~ a ~ ~
\ _
~ ~
~0b ~ ~
~~ ~
\ ~3,
~~ a
,~
~ ~ p
/~ y~
~ '
a~"
a~
~ ~
~
,Q~~a $g~
~~~
~ ~ ~~• ~
~. ~
\
1~~,.
~ ~
~
\ \ ~
g 6
~ ~+T
~~ Sig w \ ~\~ ~
!7
,.
_ i p ~~
~1~
a ,~ a
~~lrll~~ `\\Q ~ O ~ / -
V'~ N
E~ ~ ! /C~ ~
~' ~ ja ~ ~,
a ~ ~ "~
/ , \a=
p ~~ d a
= ~ ~ ~ m
p 1 l;
Q / ~ ~~
a ,
_ 1 i
/ 1
A
~ ~~
~' a`s ~
~ ~+~ ~ } ~
TI Z y 4 ~
_~
r~ ~ ~ ~
rm ~,~y ~~
~z~' z"
m~~ O
~~~
D~
~~
mD
-~
mc~
~;~
~~~
mmi A
~ 4~ ..
. ~~ °~
Q I I a
11
~' 1 1 ~ ~.
11 ~
{~
b-~
_11 ~ ~~~~
~, i 1 ~.
_ 1 1 p.
b-1
'1 ~ ~
d 1 1 a.
Q11 ~ p
III
11
p -1 ~ f~,
i 1 1 •d ~
ii~j 1 ~ ~ , , u, _
d 1 I ~ Q ~
2 ,1 ~
2y ; 1 ~i ,p s
~ q /,
o ~ ~ 4
/ / „~ Qu+
~ / ~ _' w o
~~ / / a ~3
~ aii
~,
_ ~„
d ~, ~ ~
~ ~
a ~,
~~ a ~ ~
°~~
~' • Q
`
~~ ~ • ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
;q~,' ~ ~'
~i
~i i
~
~~
f3 ~ ,
~i /
~
~
..
3/i •
~ ~
~3 c~
p// Q
~ iiS~~
~~ ~ / a ~
~ ~ _ _, ~
O
/,~ 'W
4' ~
~~ ~
~,. ~v,,., '~
~- ~ i ~ a ~?
~ ~ ~ // / w ~ ,`~'
~ '~ ~ • ~ ~ d ~ ~ R
~~ q~ ?~
j
~~
,~
~/ /
9 '~'
1 /
~/ , / ~•
~, /o ~ ~ ~
.1 1 .~;
,~ ~ ~ 1 ~.
-1
~~'~ 1 - z-~.a
.~
_d'~'Q
6 0~ R
4 b /~-
4 n ~~ d _
f~ ~ i~/ ~ _
/~/a
ti p~ ~ d
~ I
d' 1~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~`\ \
~~ ~ 4
qb4~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~`

$p
_~
>~
K
p4e
<s
N

D
m
o R
r or
,
" ~zm
-~
-~
v ~
uNi Zr
rp
~ Na
$
'
V X
Zo
~ mav
o u u n o

a~UE~d~~d~©

v
Roa ~ a
~3,/a ~ ~ ~
~,/,~ o ~
i,~
F

i ~
~ , W
~ / ,~
~ ,
i~
r
i
i
~~
~~
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~~E~A~~]L MITCHELL/ YANCEY COUNTY
PRflJECT:8.1900401 (B-1443)
BRIDGE N0.61 ON NC 197
OVER THE NORTH TOE RIVER
OF ~~ 3/10/04

~- ~+

z

w 'P
Q
~ ~-
~
~.
"
°'
a o
~'
~ o ~
ow a v ~ w
~~
wa
F-U ? w
U o
c z
O
~
Q

~° ~ ° z z ~.

C 0

cn ~
w ti
p ~
A H
h..
-' Q F 4 ~ w w
~- o ~ ~ O

}w~
a°°v
~~o
owm
o- ~ v
~Q
w~ ~
~- ..
,win
o
~ °a~
Q
~ W W J
~

J N ~
O O F--d
> z Z
.--.
b w
J
~ a
~ U
~ ~
,~ O

b
~-
,~ ~, O
o ~ z

0 _
- ~
0 w
~
a ~a
~~
a

w
a
Jw
(nom U~

Q~
U ~

z
o a
E.. o
y` ~ ~ o
i
W
~z~~W ,•,
o
~30~~~
zx~~z~
~~~ozw
~-x~ooo
z
c~~,
o~x
O
p~~ o~~
~"z~ooz
w~a~.wz ~

>_V~Ax
A~'
m
a
~
x ~
W ~ n. W w
Ca O ~'
U
z

°e
~
E
S
LL

E ~
~
d ~ ~ O
Z O 0
~~
~
~ ~~ o
Q w U E

a

w
Q
2 () V
~
O
N
~ ~ m 0 0 0
~ ~
w

~ ~ ..
~
~ ~~
c a ~
o
v
tL
N ~
C ~ ~
m O
z Z
LL `-'

Q .~ C ~
N O
~ t d
dUg
N ~ ...
H
V
a
c ~
-°

~ ~
V m
~~,~
o
F- a x~
~ ~ w c
~ 0

a 3
=~
lLL
~
Z
~
~ ~.
a~ ~
~~
o
g
W
3
~~
=`-°m o
LL

N W N
~ ~

N ~
~
~ W
0
~ ~
U ~ U ~
~
~
~
LL
N
fn fn I~
O
~ J
W
r ~ ~

~
r O
W w
(~
J
C ~ Q Q

.
~
°- ~ a, O
~
N ttty m
~ m
O ~
W
o ~
z
J
~ O ~
N Z O
F-

~U11tTR
~o ~
~ N ~ N
3 C ~ G
~ ~ y
.~ ° ~ °
y
. ~ ~g
~' b
v o 8 ~
~ o ~
~xxxx~~x x
~~ o
~~~N~~2S
2R 2R aR ° a
a a
Z Z
~ ~ v
N~ ~
1
o ~ ~
p O y
s
u u n
_o _0 0
~ ~ N
~ ~ ~
~ ~ b
C1
e
w
w~ ~ ~ ° ~
m H g~
~~ ~~ ~xR
y 0 8
b~ ~
y~+ A
O
rn
~ A
~ y
a
y
~~
~x
~ ~ ~~
6+
a. ~'~C
y
~~o
N
Z
QZ~
o~~
Z ~ y
OZ
ado
N
z~z
~~
~~
i m m
I~Oc
z
A
~v~
v~
~S
mZ
~~
C
N
v
3
0
T: C20I180
0
~co
Z
m

iVI
I I
II
~~
~~
~~
/~
~~~
,~
~~~
/ ~ '
~ ~ ~
///'
~ , ~
' ~ ~ g //
-' i
/, ' ~ /
i~
i
i,
i~
.,
~ x
a
i~
~D
m
~~
~,~~
4~
op
rv
~,
~I~
~~
++
$O V
O
~~
~~
~y
O
y~
y
~~
e
~y
i~
~i
~ ~ ~ ~i
\ ~~
~~ ~
i
\\~~ ~ /
\ ~~
~ ~~
'i
~~ ~
1 ~ ~/
/ ~
,,
/ ,/
/'
1
~'~

~~
~~
9.i~a~
O
-~Ct~
•~-~

V V
N
~a
~~
y
~' b

O
O
W
n
~.a
V
~, ~
\ ~\~
1
~--~~~ ~
~~\\\r0
\ ~~ yi
~a ~
y
a

NAD 83
B 1443
n
a
n
n
0
z
~~ ~
~~~
~~
.~ ~
~'
v
a
k
o,

~ ~
® ~
®~
l,A~f
W
CGS ~

~li~
I'I~ ly
~~
a fi w
~ ~ ~
o~
'~
~', ~ ~'
O ~ ~
<_ ~ _
n r ~ ~
Z ~' ~
~ ~
~ O
o°,
~ ~,~. ~
~ ~ \
~i
~~(.~
y ~-~
0

I I

~-.~ ..,...a...
aa..., .,
~~
~~ .
Z~
v
z
0
ti T
w ;
~~ 3 z
O ~ -~
~ v
rn
w
~ ~
HINGE POINT
FOR CUTS ~
o. w c
J Z
3 H
N
S
0
~ 3 3
~ ~ ~ y
-v ^'
y H v
+ rn I O~ ~
N I 3 0, y
° O I I v, ~
Q " v II 00 ~ ~ ~
~' o ~jl < ~"' 3 ~ O
~ I I ~~
>Z II ~ z
N
N ~
a- ~ o N Z
a ~~ ~ o
O~
aka
'~ ~.} 1 g
d` 11
3~ 11 ~
'~ ~ 11
~~ ~~ ~ 11 <
O
c~ z~ ~ 1 Q
z~ v~ _.
v y
S
,~ 1 n
~1
7
~ ' wf
a ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~
2 x v
ay\ ~ G ' C
~: r>
~ ~- ~.'~
'~
~_~ s ~ ~
~,~ $~ ~
~_
< '. S I
~ ~ D ~~
J
N ~ w N ~

A p AT m
~
rnv
~ e ~
~ v ~~
~v
<
oZrn~e
;sO v
<
ZT~
7O
;'O
3s~m
3 r~r?~ ~~m ~~ r~i~
m0= Oo mp= po Oa
g
v N~
O
a ~3
g N~ 03 3
~
~
~
~
~~ t~
~~ O~~
~ n ~+ ~
jO~
p~
~ ei i
~~n
~O
~ -~
~A A
~c~Z ~>
H~ ~-i
A
pn n rnAn p p ~A
;i ~~ °~~ ~~ ~3
O~ ~N c
3v ~ 3Tm Z~ A
A
rn p ~ 3 7sA
~ > ~^
Z..C
v3 ~ C Z
G
3 nrn
x
n

°_~°
o
~
=~~ ~~ ~ m
~aa p' ~ y

~ Z

~ c ~ ~ ~ N

m~ ~ ~ ~r~, p ~p
b A -o -o
o
Z ~ ~z
~

~~ ~ Zoo oa r

~~

~ o~
'~' 700
Z m~
~-~

la= fR
ZAao
AO
m~ `~f;rn11~ 3A
ra q~im
3 ~A ~~
Z
0 p
3 r~irnC ~s
m
N
z7OPmn
A
m3 ~ C
~v
_"'~ -~
~~ N m
~m
o
w
~
~

~T~ o

i

~:
a '~ ~ ~ a a o
' ~ ~ = ~ ti? P
~-Ir~pv €~ r ,~ ~ -
I ~- ~ I a
III IItpO /~\,~ ~` 1~ ~~I~~/i~~' ~ \ .
- ~~ Q -
Q ~ ~
NaNN~ I Q I I ~~
Np ~ I O f~ ~ ~ I O ~ a/ / //yam
a~~Na I a o O I I ,, ~ o
/ / a fJ
, / -
,/ I~ o ~; Q
/ 3 ~ ~ -
/ a ,~,Q ~ E
~ q =~
/~~ -~,~
~', M.6b.f0.00N
/ o ~ w Zbl'b5
a
v,
~~"~"~ E~ I ~ p ~ I ~I ~ -p / / Q q Q
~~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ ~
~-x~p~ Q o 0 o N ~ I ~ p a/ t a n D D D '~
unN~o p p N ~ ~ I I ~ gyp/ /1 ~ ~
- ~ J ~ J
~(+A~w Q~ W~ I/ ~ Q a / I- += o O O O ~
II \ I' o
~~ ~ ~~, II I/ ~~~ 1 =~ p o O 00 R

(~/ ~
- ~ .\`
E , ~r, ~ -
Q Q ,f3a` ,/'' a` ' ~\`~ `~ /Ifar~ _ ~~a ~ m m rn ~ b ai/ ~ ~ €3~~,~3y,fl
O
0
O G~r~i
-' ~
~ a
~~ ~ ~
a ~i ~ ~ .
/' ~~
p Q
i ~~
~
+
>r ~ ~~

Q
O ~
I
n -
~
0

. I
p
, ~~ y
~ N
~~ Q
~-a
e3,.
N i
s
/
_fl
/~
~/ b
vN ? / / t,.
~~V t~ /l ~
I /
/(~
/ /
/~
I~ a
/`
€~
/ = ~?
E3 I _~
I Q-
p / IQ ~~
/ /~ p, /
E~ r l; ~ n- /
I ~ 1
i I ~3
a /
g ~
I / ~ }3
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~g ~ d
r ~ y ~
RRR ~ ~ ~ ~ S
y ~y
i ~ 1 ~' `1 M ~ p
~~~ ~~~~~
,a e
~~ ~ ~ R~~~
~~ ~ ~
~~^p
N II II N C
~~ ~~
~~
~ ~
~`Irp
N 4 N II
~~~~
~ ,~
~ ~~
y~
~~
~~
ti~
?~ ~/ /
~~ ~ ~ ~i / p
~ ~~ -- ~ -~
~~ + -' ~ p ~ 4 / ~NAD~ 83
.~ ~~+ ~
<3 ~ ~~~
~~
~\ N ^
~ BR,o ~ ~ ~
~ °F . ~ ^+
~ s~ ~
~ ~~~
+ ~~ ~
~o \ ,
3
~ / ~/i.
~_
b
r~
Q~Z
~ )
~~
~~~ ~ m
r
I
y
C,,I
-~A
N v
=CZ
N ~p
m fv11171
~~ m
o~~
Z
II r p
~ 1
~ I ~.
~ ~ i/.
0 0 ~~~'~~ I I a
3, i
Cr1 ~ _~'I'~}~' c
O ~ ~ . g~ 1 .0 .7m
a J a / ~I
_,~~
a a-, /ca
_ /,n~
Q ~ ,/ / 1:7
_ /
/
/ /
\ ~ a, / _
/
{~ ~ '/il ~
'- fl~l Q
~a =
~3,~~~~ Q
E~ Q~ ~~Q Q
°~,~~ ° ~~
~/ ~/
fl_ ~+ +
j~ `
d +~`~ /, ~ V V ~ f
S g - a/ /
/ / ~ ~
g
~ ~k"'/ / •
7~.>~
d` F a
~ a/ /

~.
_
a
Q ' /
~ Z
m
~~

\~
~~
~~ ~
~ /'
•,
/ ~
i /
/ //
! 1
~/ /
~ ,'// ~~

w ~ Y
Y

a ~ 3
I

v
m
~- °
~
4/ W
~ N
~'
to a Z
N

N

w
w w
~
$
('~

mo
~a o.
~

I
y
a
0
~,~
I I
_
I, a
o
I 1
~ IId~~
I
~ ~

-,nr~,, I I
~:Y I I

~ j'y
13.076 r~
02.43'S6'Yke
4i~
' I
I 1 `^
I I

- \~
N
q
I I
(
`\// I
~I A mw
L~ ~
~I
N _ N~
~ p Q
N
D
~.}I I 1G
m 3 ~ f3

°~~ ~
I I
I
I
--
~,, I I ~" u
H
.`1~~~i
I I
I 1 I~
~, w
l; p ~
N =
_ I I / ^+ Q
~ I / /
I I
' / E~,/~. Q
~
I I ,.
'~ i
~
~~
I
'
~i
' a
/ -
/ / in ~' .^ ~'. ~n a

~i3 '~3
/ c
Q / / ~ .
~`\~~ ~ ~~I .14.5£.bM ~~
/ prIZ9'1 ~' ~\`
O ~ > ~~
N 8
~+ ~ A ~ ~
~ +
~ ~~
~ a ~ O S~
w O d n ,,
Q ~= m
~ Z
.p
n
' ~I' Vii, ,v~ p
'. ~,~ ~ = p, , . ~ ,ad.
f },/, . k
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~k
Z / a% \
~~i ,
\ ~' ~h~.
N
t~y o
o~
I,a-ov ~ ~ ~ a,%~\
_ ° °' ~ C
n ~n,
nom ~ ~ W
n n R~ ~ `~'~/i
C
_ r
~ ~ VVVJ/~~J/
~ ~,
Tom,
~~ ~~ ~ ~,
~~ ~ ~ ~-~
p ~
~~ ~
~ ~y
N

_._..~
r
_~
`~p
''~
V 7
rn
n
-_~
O
z
z
0

0
c
z
v

m
~ ~~
YLC ~ L•.?
aft
G;y ~ C"~

~
~,
~-;~ ~~
..~
~--~
~
~: ~ S ;~
1
~~ =i /~
~>
~Z
S
~•
~~~~
_ \.J
o~ '
a
~ ~~

I
z
a
m
z
m
v
m
w
O
m
rn
G
Z
r-
N
N
cQ
Z
`T
N