20040933 Ver 1_More Info Received_20061018

: ~
~~~,~~~
~.t, - ~
Mrn
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
0
~~~~
~, • H ~
D
"~N~ gNOST`~~GU ~U06
DEPARTN~NT OF TRANSPORTATION ~Mwq
eRRqq~~yy
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPE~C
GOVERNOR SECRETARY'
October 6, 2006
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue /Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 r~
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund V
Cc: ~ Mr. David Baker
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 & 33 Permit Re-Application for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 143 on SR 1304 (Tipton Hill Road/Ray Road) over the North Toe
River, Yancey/Mitchell Counties. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1304(4), State
Project No. 8.28880401, TIP Project No. B-2848.
Reference: B-2848 Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application dated June 1, 2004.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Pre-Construction Notification form
(PCN), permit drawings, roadway plans, stormwater management plan, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Opinion for the above referenced project. A Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit
Application was previously submitted on June 1, 2004. Due to the delays in obtaining the Biological
Opinion the first application was verbally put on hold by the USACE. This permit application replaces
the June 1, 2004 application. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace existing Bridge No. 143 on SR 1304 over the North Toe River [DWQ Index # 7-2-(27.7), Class
"C; TR"] on the Yancey and Mitchell County line. The project involves replacing Bridge No. 143 on a
new alignment to the northwest of the existing structure. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The. water resource within the project area. for B-2848 is the North Toe River. The
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies the North Toe River as "C
Tr". The DWQ Index number is 7-2-(27.7) for this portion of the river that is located in the Hydrological
Cataloging Unit 06010108.
Permanent Impacts: The North Toe River will be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the
proposed project will result in less than 0.01 acre (100 square feet) of permanent impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters, from the construction of bridge piers.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 24O
159$ MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

Temporary Impacts: The North Toe River will be temporarily impacted by the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed project will result. in a total of 0.35 acre of temporary impacts to
jurisdictional streams, in the form of temporary rock causeways and temporary support structures (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 at the time of this application is January 16,
2007 with a review date of November 28, 2006.
Restoration Plan: Upon completion of the new bridge, the temporary fill will be removed from the North
Toe River, to natural grade and the area will be planted with native grasses and or tree species as
appropriate.
Utility Impacts: There will be no impacts from utilities with this project.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing Bridge No. 143 is a one-lane structure with five spans totaling 367-feet. The superstructure
consists of a reinforced concrete deck, asphalt wearing surface, and metal guardrails. The substructure
consists of reinforced concrete earth-filled spandrel arches, reinforced concrete abutments, and
reinforced concrete piers. The depth from roadway crown to the streambed is approximately 28-feet.
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", "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal", "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters", and
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds".
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
As of April 27, 2006 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists nine federally protected species
(Table 1) for Yancey County, and ten for Mitchell County (Table 2). Federal Status and Biological
conclusions are listed in the following tables. A Biological Opinion (BO) for Appalachian elktoe has
been has been rendered by the USFWS (see attached).
Tahle 1_ Federally nrntected cnpripc of VAnvPV (`r~^rot.,

Scientific Name
Common Name Federal

Status
Habitat $iological

Conclusion
Clemm s muhlenber ii Bo turtle T S/A N/A No Surve Re aired
Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E No No Effect
Puma concolor cou uar Eastern cou ar E No No Effect
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying
s uirrel E No No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E Yes May Affect, Likely
to Adversel Affect
Microhexura montiva a S race-fir moss s ider E No No Effect
Geum radiatum S readin avens E No No Effect
Hedyotis ur urea var. montana Roan mountain bluet E No No Effect
S iraea vir iniana Vir inia s iraea T Yes No Effect

Table 2. Federally rotected s ecies of Mitchell County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status Habitat $iological Conclusion
Clernmys ntuhlenher~ii Bo r turtle T S/A N/A No Survey Required
Glaucomys sabrinus color•attcs Carolina northern flying
squirrel E No No Effect
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E No No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E Yes May Affect, Likely to
Adversel Affect
Microhexura montivagct S ruce-fir moss s ider E No No Effect
Gezrrn radiatunt S reading avens E No No Effect
Licrtris helleri Heller's blazing star T No No Effect
Solida o s ithamaect Blue Ridge oldenrod T No No Effect
Spiraea vir iniana Virginia spiraea T Yes No Effect
Hedyotis purpurea var.
morttana Roan mountain bluet E No No Effect
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
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 three 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.
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.
REGULATOR~'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 are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing temporary rock
causeways in the North Toe River. All other aspects of this project are 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 l0 Permit: We are requesting the issuance of a Section 10 Permit for the construction of this
project in navigable waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. 403).
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 Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their records.

~~ r
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Chris Manley at cdmanley(~%dot.state.nc.us or
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, Division 13 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
. Ms. Stephanie L. Caudill, PDEA

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
i7SACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular 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 ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, 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 further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gre ory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

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
boundaries 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 al] 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
USAGE 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:_ Bride No. 143 replacement
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-2848
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Mitchell and Yancey Nearest Town: Ramseytown
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 143 over the
North Toe River on SR1304
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 36°01'30" °N 82°19'00" °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: 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/ma~s/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Huntdale Community: R/R Gas station Saw Mill Church
Natural Forest
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 143 on a new alignment to the northwest of the
existing structure. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge.
Construction and Earth moving equipment will be used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace Bride No. 143.
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. June 1, 2004 NW 23 and 33 application was submitted. BO delays put
permit process on hold. Current application replaces June 1.2004 application.
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:_ Minor Permanent impacts from
the placement of the bridge bends and minor temporary impacts from workpads
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of 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.
Wetland Im act
P
Site Number
(indicate on map}

Type of Impact T
ype of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:N/A
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acrea e, multi ly length X width then divide by 43 560
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
( )
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or

Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Im act Impact ~
Len th
g
(linear feet) Area of
Im act
p )
(acres
1 North Toe River temporary Perennial 180 0.353
1 North Toe River Permanent Perennial 180 X0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) >0.353
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
till, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.353 temp. &
<0.01 erm.
Wetland Impact (acres): N/A
Open Water Impact (acres): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) N/A
Total Stream Impact (linear feet}: 0.353 temp. &
<0.01 erm.
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet}. Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. 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.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
Page 5 of 9
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. In order to minimize impacts to
water resources, NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will
be strictly enforced for the project.
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 January 15, 2002, 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
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP 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/stnn~ide html.
Page 6 of 9

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 Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. 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 ^
3. 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 ^
Page 7 of 9

.. ,
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba} 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ . No
2. If "yes", 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.
* Impact Required
Zone i~~,.,~o c o*~ Multiplier
I 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet trom the edge of Zone I .
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. See attached Stormwater Management Plan
Page 8 of 9

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. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http:;/h2o.enr.state.nc.us!newetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. 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).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
October 3, 2006
Project: 32728.1.1 (B-2848)
Brunswick County, North Carolina
Hydraulics Project Engineer: Henry Wells, PE
NCDOT Hydraulics Project Engineer: Marshall W. Clawson, PE
Project Description:
This project consists of replacing NCDOT Bridge #143 over North Toe River on SR
1304. The existing 367 foot long bridge with a 12 lane, which will be replaced on new
location just up stream of the existing bridge with a 365 foot long bridge. The overall
length of the project including the bridge, approaches, L-line and Y- line improvements is
1241 feet.
Environmental Description
This project is~located in the French Broad River Basin. This bridge crosses a portion of
the North Toe River, which is inhabited by the Appalachian Elktoe.. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies the North Toe River as "C
Tr". No wetlands are located on this project. No buffers were located in the vicinity of
this project.
Roadway Description:
The proposed roadway bridge approaches will have 10 foot lanes and 2 foot paved
shoulders. The project drainage system consists of grated inlets and associated pipe
systems.
Best Management Practices and Major Structures:
• Major Structure
Abridge will be placed from -L- Station 10+15 to -L- Station13+80. In
accordance with current guidelines, the bridge is designed so that the spill-
thru abutments or vertical abutment are located a minimum of 10 feet from
the top of bank on the line backside of the bridge. The bents in the
channel were minimized. The existing bridge had three bents in the
channel, while the proposed bridge has only one. The bridge is also
designed so that no deck drains will be used in order to stop any direct
discharges into North Toe River. All deck drainage will be picked up by
a deck drainage system and discharged into a preformed scour hole.
Page 1 of 2

. .
B-2848 Stonnwater Management Plan
• Grass Lined Ditches
l 0/3/2006
Grass lined ditches were used where possible to further filter pollutants
from highway runoff prior to the runoff into the North Toe River.
Design Details:
Design details for the preformed scour hole is shown in the Roadway Design plans.
Page 2 of 2

~~EHT OF T
~~~Q. ...,, +,i. y~Zn
f/1
~ b
M'~kcH -yea
United States Department of the Interior"
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
360 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 6, 2006
Mr. Jolu1 F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Attention: Mr. Rob Ayers, Area Engineer
Federal Hibhway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh., North Carolina 27601-1441
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Subject: Bridge Replacements over the Toe River (Projects B-1443 and B-2843) in Yancey and
Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, and Their Effects on the Federally Endangered
Appalachian Elktoe and Its Designated Critical Habitat
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Sen~ice) Biological Opinion
(Opinion) based on our review of the Biological Assessment {BA) on the effects of the subject
bridge replacements on the Appalachian elktoe and its designated critical habitat in accordance
with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as azr~ended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(Act}.
This Opinion is based on information provided in the 141ay 12, 2005, BA; supplemental
information to the BA (requested June 23, 200S, and received February 2'l, 2006); other
available literature; personal communications with experts on the federally endangered
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliQna); and other sources of information. A cornple#e
administrative record of this consultation is vn file at this off ce.
In the BA, you determined that the following federally listed species would not be affected by
the proposed bridge replacements: Carolina northern flying squirrel (Gluucomys sabrinus
coloratus), Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorliinzcs townsendii virginianus), Indiana bat (Myotis
sadalist), Eastern cougar (Puma concolor cozeguar), spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura
montivaga), Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), spreading ovens {Geum radiatum), He11er's
blazing star (Liatris Jzelleri), Roan Mountain bluer (Hedvotis purpurea var. morztana), Blue
Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea), and rock gnome lichen (Gynznoderma lineare). In view
of the information in the BA, we concur with your determination that the bridge replacement
projects will have no effect on these species. Therefore:, ~~e believe the requirements under

section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for these species. However, obligations under section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action
is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Migratory Birds -Swallows were observed nesting at bridge B-2848. The Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and
importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle), their eggs, parts, and nests, except
when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. Both bridges should be
inspected for nesting migratory birds. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) should avoid impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season of March
through September. Therefore, if birds are discovered nesting on the bridges, demolition of the
bridges should take place outside this nesting season. If it is not possible to demolish the bridges
outside the nesting season, the NCDOT should work, in consultation with us, to develop
measures to discourage birds from establishing nests on the bridges by means that will not result
in the take of birds or eggs.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
A consultation history of this project is provided in Appendix A.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
As defined in the Service's section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02), "action" means "all
activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by
federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas." The action area is defined as
"all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the
immediate area involved in the action." The direct and indirect effects of the actions and
activities must be considered in conjunction with the effects of other past and present
federal, state, or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of reasonably certain
future state or private activities within the action area. This Opinion addresses only those
actions from which the Service believes adverse effects may result. In their BA, the
NCDOT outlined those activities involved in the construction and demolition of two
bridges (Projects B-1443 and B-2848) that would affect the Appalachian elktoe and its
designated critical habitat. The NCDOT also considered the effect of their proposal to
protect at least 3,000 linear ft of 100-ft riparian buffers along the Toe, North Toe, and Cane
Rivers. This Opinion addresses whether replacing these existing bridges is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe or adversely modified its
designated critical habitat.
The NCDOT has determined that the subject two bridges are deficient because of
deteriorating structural integrity and are functionally obsolete due to narrow roadway
2

geometry and substandard design. The proposed action calls for the NCDOT to replace
and demolish Bridge Nos. 61 and 143 over the Toe River as follows:
Project B-1443 -The existing Bridge No. 61 over the Toe River on SR 197 was
constructed in 1925 and is a continuous reinforced concrete closed-spandrel arch stnucture.
It is comprised of five spans, is 270 feet (ft) in length, has a roadway width of i 5.6 ft, and
has two piers within the river channel totaling an area of 151.2 ft'. Six altematives to
replacing the bridge were considered, including five build alternatives. The chosen
alternate will require the least amount of roadway approach construction and was designed
to minimize impacts to the river. The new bridge will be on a new alignment,
approximately 180 ft upstream of the existing bridge. It will be approximately 360 ft in
length and 36 ft wide and will require two piers to be placed in the river, which will result
in 57 ft' of fill within the channel. Improvements to the approach roadways will be
required for a distance of approximately 213 ft to the south and 59 ft to the north. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The use of temporary bridges for construction and demolition activities is not feasible for
this project due to the amount of bedrock present at the construction site. A drilled shaft
structure will need to be used for any type of bridge at this site since the presence of
bedrock makes pile driving impossible. Given the deteriorated condition and small size of
the existing bridge, it is not possible to work from the existing bridge to construct the new
bridge.. Therefore, rock causeways will be required to construct the new bridge and
demolish B-1443. The temporary construction demolition causeways used for the project
were designed to result in the least amount of fill in the river while providing sufficient
area to accomplish the construction and demolition. The rock causeways will consist of a
base of clean class II riprap, with about 1 ft of clean class I riprap on top of the causeways.
The causeways will be constructed with pipes to maintain linear flow of the river by
passing water through the causeways. The construction of the causeways will follow a
phasing plan to minimize impacts to the flow of the river; at the narrowest point, 50 percent
of the river will be open. Constructing the piers for the new bridge and demolishing the
existing bridge causeways will result in 4,972 ft' and 3,993.4 ft2 of temporary rock fill in
the river, respectively.
Concrete arch bridges are difficult to demolish because, when trying to dismantle the
bridge, the entire structure acts as one piece. Historically, the preferred method of
demolition for concrete arch bridges was removal with explosives. This method of
demolition caused the entire structure to drop into the waterway. To minimize impacts
from the bridge demolition and reduce the potential for the entire bridge to fall into the
river, the NCDOT has proposed that the contractor construct a support frame at the existing
bridge (as discussed later in this document, the contractor will be required to submit for
approval a demolition plan that provides construction and demolition techniques that
provide equal to or fewer impacts than described in the BA). Temporary support frames
will be placed in the river under each arch. The support frame foundation will most likely
be precast concrete (such as a concrete barrier), but the contractor may choose to use a
timber or steel foundation. Due to the irregular rock streambed, small amounts of riprap or
sandbags may be required to level up the support frame foundation.
3

Project B-2848 -The existing Bridge No. 143 over the Toe River on SR 1304 was
constructed in 1922 and is a reinforced concrete spandrel arch structure. The bridge
consists ofearth-filled spandrel piers. It is comprised of five spans, is 367 ft in length, has
a roadway width of 12 ft, and has three piers within the river channel totaling an area of
349 ft`'. Five alternatives to replacing the bridge were considered, including three build
alternatives. The chosen alternative will have less impact on the natural environment than
the other two build alternatives and will avoid impacting a tributary to the Toe River. The
new bridge will be on a new alignment, approximately 50 ft downstream of the existing
bridge. It will be approximately 366 ft in length and 24 ft wide. It will require one bent,
consisting of two drilled piers totaling 32.0 fr, and another bent with similar dimensions
will be constructed at the water's edge on the east bank of the river.
As with B-1443, the use of temporary bridges for construction and demolition activities is
not feasible for this project due to the amount of bedrock present at the construction site.
The rock causeways that will be required to construct the new bridge and demolish B-2848
were also designed to result in the least amount of fill in the river while providing sufficient
area to accomplish the construction and demolition. The rock causeways will consist of a
base of clean class II riprap, with about 1 ft of clean class I riprap on top of the causeways.
The causeways will be constructed with pipes to maintain linear flow of the river by
passing water through the causeways. The construction of the causeways will follow a
phasing plan to minimize impacts to the flow of the river; at the narrowest point, 52 percent
of the river will be open. Constructing the piers for the new bridge and demolishing the
existing bridge causeways will result in 15,551 ft- and 1,786 ft2 of temporary rock fill in
the river, respectively.
The NCDOT will also use support frames, as described for the demolition of B-1443, to
minimize impacts from the bridge demolition and reduce the potential for the entire bridge
to fall into the river. In addition to the difficult nature of demolishing concrete arch
bridges, the piers at B-2848 are also filled with earthen material. The NCDOT has
proposed the removal of this fill in the initial steps of the demolition process to ensure that
the fill material does not enter the river.
A. Action Area
The action area for this Opinion includes the areas directly impacted by construction
activities; the areas potentially impacted by indirect impacts; a 100-ft (500-meter [m])
boundary around each bridge site, which includes 1,312 ft (400 m) downstream and
328 ft (100 m) upstream of both the existing and newly constructed bridges; and the
areas the NCDOT is considering for riparian buffer preservation and/or restoration
along the Toe, North Toe, and Cane Rivers to help offset impacts from the project.
Therefore, the project area includes the main stem of the North Toe River, Toe River,
and Cane River in Mitchell and Yancey Counties, North Carolina (see attached
Figures 1 and 2).
4

Phvsical Characteristics within the Action Area -The South Toe River and North Toe
River combine near the Town of Spruce Pine to form the Toe River; the Toe River then
combines with the Cane River to form the Nolichucky River, a tributary to the French
Broad River. The North Toe River originates in central Avery County, approximately
5 miles northeast of Newland. From Newland the river flows east for approximately
4 miles to Minneapolis. The river generally flows in a southwest direction from
Minneapolis, through the city of Spruce Pine in Mitchell County, until its confluence
with the South Toe River near Kona, forming the Toe River. The Toe River continues
to flow northwest along the MitchelUYancey County border through Toecane and
Relief until its confluence with the Cane River near Huntdale. The headwaters of the
Cane River arise in Mount Mitchell State Park in Yancey County. The Cane River
flows generally south for approximately 40 miles before joining the Toe River near
Huntdale to form the Nolichucky River.
The Nolichucky River watershed occupies parts of two physiographic provinces.
Upstream parts of the watershed (upstream from about Dry Creek, at river mile 87.5)
and the higher slopes along the eastern side of the river are in the Blue Ridge Province.
The remainder of the watershed and most of the length of the Nolichucky River are
located in the Valley and Ridge Province. The approximately one-third of the
watershed that is located in the Blue Ridge Province consists of high,. steep ridges with
narrow valleys. The mountains in this part of the watershed rise l ,000 to 2,500 ft above
the adjacent lowlands. The western part of the Blue Ridge Province is characterized by
long, narrow individual ridges, aligned parallel to the trend of the range and similar to
the more subdued ridges of the Valley and Ridge Province. The main mountain mass
along the Tennessee/North Carolina state line is a tumbled confusion of peaks and
valleys that appear to have no regular pattern.
Land Use - Most of the land in the action area is forested, with a large portion of it
occurring within the Pisgah National Forest. A significant portion of land, mostly
along the alluvial areas of the middle North Toe River, South Toe River, and Toe
River, is residentiaUgolfcourw (<1 percent) or cultivated cropland and pasture
(14 percent) (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
[NCDENRJ 2005). Historically, the economy of the entire Nolichucky River subbasin
depended on natural resources. The mining of mica, feldspar, kaolin, or olivine in the
Spruce Pine mining district within the North Toe and South Toe watersheds was the
main source of income for the area.
Ecological Significance -The Nolichucky River subbasin is known to support a
number of rare fish and freshwater mussel species (Table 1). The stonecat (Notzrrus
flavus) is found only in North Carolina in the Nolichucky and Little Tennessee River
watersheds. The Cane River contains several rare animals, the most notable of which is
almost the entire North Carolina population of sharphead darter (Etheostoma
acuticeps). The lower stretches of the North Toe and Nolichucky Rivers provide
habitat for the olive darter (Percina squamata), Iogperch (Percina caprodes), and
tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca), as well as the federally endangered Appalachian
elktoe mussel. The wavy-rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis_fasciola) and the hellbender

Table 1. Rare Aquatic Species in the North Toe, Toe, and Cane Rivers.

Scientific Name
Common Name North Carolina
Status
Federal Status
Mussels:
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe Endangered Endangered
Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed lampmussel Special Concern None
Amphibians:
Cryptobranchus
alle aniensis Hellbender Special Concern Federal Species of
Concern
Fishes:
Etheostoma acuticeps Sharphead darter Threatened Federal Species of
Concern
Etheostoma vulneratarm Wounded darter Special Concern Federal Species of
Concern
Percina squamcrta Olive darter Special Concem Federal Species of
Concern
Noturus flavus Stonecat Endangered None
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) have been found in the same reaches of the upper
Nolichucky River subbasin where the Appalachian elktoe occurs.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) maintains a database of rare
plant and animal species, as well as significant natural areas, for the State of North
Carolina. Natural areas (sites) are inventoried and evaluated on the basis of rare plant
and animal species, rare or high-quality natural communities, and geological features
occurring in the particular site. These sites are rated with regard to national, state, and
regional significance. The aquatic habitat of the South Toe, a portion of the North Toe,
the Toe, and the Nolichucky River is considered to be of "National Significance," and
the aquatic habitat of the Cane River is considered to be of "Statewide Significance."
Water Quality Assessment and Best Usage Classification -Historically, sedimentation
and pollution from several mining operations throughout the Nolichucky River
subbasin (primarily in the North Toe watershed) significantly degraded cool-warm
water habitats (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC] ?005).
Feldspar, mica, and kaolin have been extensively mined in this watershed in North
Carolina since the early 1900s (Muncy 1981). Nearly half of the nation's mica is
produced in this region. Sedimentation from mining and agricultural practices in the
subbasin is well documented (Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] 1981, Ahlstedt and
Rashleigh 1996). However, the North Carolina Mining Control Act of 1971 and the
Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act of 1973 have helped improve the water
6

quality of this basin (NCDENR 2003, Ahlstedt and Rashleigh 1996). Recent
bioassessments, including benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling, in the
Nolichucky River subbasin by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality {DWQ)
indicate improving conditions in the subbasin (Tables 2 and 3).
While the sampling conducted by DWQ indicates that water quality is generally good
in the subbasin (based on the parameters that are sampled and evaluated by the DWQ),
there are still areas of concern. Mining impacts are still widespread, while croplands
for corn, tomatoes, and burley tobacco, along with development, contribute to
nonpoint-source pollution, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil, heavy metals, animal
waste, and eroded sediment, that are washed from land or paved surfaces when it rains.
Overall, sedimentation has been considered a significant problem in the Nolichucky
River system for many years. Habitat in the North Toe River between Spruce Pine and
its confluence with the South Toe River continues to be degraded, seemingly from
discharges and runoff from mining operations and the town of Spnice Pine. Floodplain
gravel mining in the upper Cane River watershed, both permitted and unpetmitted
actions, presents a potential threat to loner term channel stability and habitat quality.
Development is increasing throughout much of the subbasin, and erosion and
sedimentation may also be on the rise. Portions of the subbasin may also be impacted
by the direct, indirect, and secondary impacts associated with road construction
activities as a result of the expansion of NC l 9 from Burnsville to Spruce Pine
(NCWRC 2005).
The NCDENR assigns a best usage classification to all the waters of North Carolina.
These classifications provide for a level of water quality protection to ensure that the
designated usage of that water body is maintained. The portions of the Toe River, Cane
River, and North Toe River that are occupied by the Appalachian elktoe have a
"Class C, Trout," usage classification, and the Nolichucky River from its source to the
North Carolina/Tennessee state line has a usage classification of "Class B."
Point-source Pollution -Point-source discharge is defined as discharges that enter
surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined point of discharge. These
~ 15A NCAC 02B.0101 GENERAL PROCEDURES: (c) Freshwater shall be assigned to one of several
classifications, including: (1) Class C: freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life
including propagation and survival, and wildlife (All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a
minimum); or (2) Class B: freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes swimming on a frequent or
organized basis and all Class C uses. Section (e) describes supplemental classification, as: (1) Trout waters:
freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. (4) Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW): unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance which
require special protection to maintain existing uses. (5) High Quality Waters (HQW): including waters which are
rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special
studies, native and special native trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the [North Carolina] Wildlife
Resources Commission. (7) Unique wetland (UWL): wetlands of exceptional state or national ecological
significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses. These wetlands may include wetlands that
have been documented to the satisfaction of the Commission as habitat essential for the conservation of state or
federally listed threatened or endangered species.
7

Table 2. DWQ Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results in the Nolichucky River
Subbasin (DWQ 2003).2

Water Bod
County
Location 1997/2002
Surve ~ Results
Toe River Mitchell SR 1321 Good/Good
Toe River Yancey SR 1314 Good/Good
North Toe River Avety US 19E Good/Good
North Toe River Mitchell SR 1162 Fair/Good
Big Crabtree Creek Mitchell US 19E Excellent/Excellent
South Toe River Yancey SR 11.67 Excellent/Excellent
Big Rock Creek Mitchell NC 197 Good/Bxcellent
Jacks Creek Yancey SR 1337 Fair/Fair
Pigeonroost Creek Mitchell SR 1349/NC 197 Exceltent/Excellent
Cane River Yancey US 19E ExcellentBxcellent
Bald Mountain Creek Yancey SR 1408 Good!Excellent
Price Creek Yancey SR 1126 Good/Fair/Good
include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, small
domestic discharging treatment systems (i.e., schools, commercial offices, subdivisions,
and individual residences), and storm-water systems from large urban areas and
industrial sites. The primary substances and compounds associated with point-source
discharge include nutrients, oxygen-demanding wastes, and toxic substances (such as
chlorine, ammonia, and metals).
Under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA), the discharge of pollutants
into surface waters is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Section 402
of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting program, which delegates permitting authority to qualifying states. In North
'Water quality monitoring programs have been implemented by the DWQ to assess water quality trends in North
Carolina Waters. One method used is the monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates to assess water quality by
sampling for selected benthos organisms. The species and overall biomass, as well as the presence of various
groups intolerant of water quality degradation, are reflections of water quality. A biodiversity rating is given to a
water body sampled, based on the taxa richness of the stream, and a qualitative sampling for intolerant forms such as
mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera), collectively referred to as EPT.
Biodiversity ratings include: Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, and Poor. Excellent and Good ratings indicate that
the best usage classification for that stream is being supported (S). A rating of Good-Fair indicates that the usage is
supported but is threatened (ST). A Fair rating relates to a partial support (PS) of the best usage, and a Poor rating
indicates that the best usage classification for that stream is not being supported (NS).
8

Table 3. Tennessee Valley Authority Fish Community Assessment in the lvolichucky
River Subbasin (DWQ 2003).3
Water Bod Count Location Date Score/Ratin
North Toe River Mitchell US 19 1999 50/Good
North Toe River Yancey NC 80 1997
1999 40/Good
50/Good
Toe River Avery SR 1314 1997
1999 40/Fair
56/Good-Excellent
Toe River Mitchell SR 1336 1997 48/Good
South Toe River Mitchell NC 80 1947 48/Good
Little Crabtree
Creek Yancey US 19E 1997
1999 44/Fair
401Fair
Cane Creek Mitchell NC 80 1997
1999 32/Poor
34CPoor
Big Rock Creek Mitchell NC 197 1997
2000 50/Good
50/Good
Jacks Creek Yancey SR 1336 2000 40lFair
Cane River Yancey US 19E 1997
2000 44/Fair
SO/Good
Cane River Yancey US 19W 1997
2000 40/Fair
48/Good
Cane River Yancey US 19W 1997 46/Fair-Good
Nolichucky River Mitchell SR 1321 1997
2002 50/Good
52!Good
Carolina, the NCDENR's DWQ is responsible for permitting and enforcement of the
NPDES program. There were 23 NPDES permitted discharges in the subbasin in 2003
(NCDENR 2005), although additional discharges have been permitted recently (a new
wastewater treatment plant [WWTP] discharge into the South Toe below
Highway 19E). Most of these discharges are small WWTPs that serve.schools or
subdivisions, including the Spruce Pine WWTP, Newland WWTP, Bakersville WWTP,
and multiple mining process discharges, including Unimin's four discharges.
Nonpoint-source Pollution -Nonpoint-source pollution refers to runoff that enters
surface waters through storm water or snowmelt. There are many types of land-use
3The Fish Community Assessment assigns an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), which is another method of assessing
water quality. The IBI evaluates species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and
condition.
9

activities that are sources ofnonpoint-source pollution, including land development,
construction activity, animal waste disposal, mining, and agriculture and forestry
operations, as well as impervious surfaces, such as roadways and parking lots. Various
nonpoint-source management programs have been developed by a number of agencies
to control specific types ofnonpoint-source pollution (e.g., forestry, pesticide, urban,
and construction-related pollution). Each of these management programs develops Best
Management Practices (BMP) to control the specific type ofnonpoint-source pollution.
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Program (SECP) applies to construction
activities, such as roadway construction, and is established and authorized under the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This act delegates the responsibility for
its administration and enforcement to the NCDENR's Division of Land Resources
(DLR) (Land Quality Section). The SECP requires, prior to construction, the
submission and approval oferosion-control plans o~n all projects disturbing one or more
acres. On-site inspections by DLR are conducted to determine compliance with the
plan and to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMP that are being used. The NCDOT, in
cooperation with the DWQ, has developed asedimentation-control program for
highway projects, which adopts formal BMP for the protection of surface waters.
Additional erosion-control measures, as outlined in Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (NCAC T15A:04B.0124), are implemented by the NCDOT for projects
within WS-I or WS-II water supply watersheds, critical areas, waters designated for
shellfishing, or any waters designated by the DWQ as High Quality Waters. When
crossing an aquatic resource containing a federally listed species, the NCDOT has
committed to implement erosion-control guidelines that go beyond both the standard
BMP, as well as the Design Standards.in Sensitive Watersheds, regardless of the DWQ
classification. These areas are designated as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" on the
erosion-control plans.
B. Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description, that the
action agency will implement to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further
the recovery of the species under review. Such measures should be closely related to
the action and should be achievable within the authority of the action agency. The
beneficial effects of conservation measures are taken into consideration in the Service's
conclusion of a jeopardy versus a nonjeopardy opinion and in the analysis of incidental
take. However, such measures must minimize impacts to listed species within the
action area in order to be factored into the Service's analyses.
The following conservation measures are proposed by the NCDOT to avoid and/or
minimize potential impacts from construction and demolition activities to the
Appalachian elktoe. These measures have been incorporated into the design and
implementation plans for the bridge replacement projects.
10

Conservation Measures for Bridge Design
Deck drains will be placed at the ends of the replacement bridges. Storm water will
be directed into catch basins and will then flow through a vegetated buffer so that
no drainage will occur over the Toe River. Currently, drainage from the decks of
both the existing structures flows directly into the river. Storm water coming off
the approaching roadways at the bridge locations will be managed in a similar
manner. These commitments have been incorporated in the Structure Design Plans
for each project.
2. The replacement of B-1443 will result in two piers placed within the river, the same
number of piers as the existing bridge; however, the piers of the new bridge will
impact 57 ft' of the riverbed, while the existing bridge piers are over two and a half
times that size--151.2 ft2. The replacement of B-2848 will reduce the number of
piers within the water as well as the area of impact to the riverbed. The existing
bridge has three piers within the river channel, totaling an area of 349 ftz, whereas
the new bridge will require one bent, consisting of two drilled piers totaling 32.0 ft`
and another bent with similar dimensions at the water's edge on the east bank of the
river. The reduction in the area and the number of piers in the Toe River is
expected to reduce the bridges' effects on stream-flow patterns at these sites.
Conservation Measures for Bridge Construction
The NCDOT will remove Appalachian elktoes from the impact site and relocate
them to suitable locations upstream of the impacted areas in the North Toe River, at
river mile 25.5, according to the procedures in the approved relocation plan in the
BA.
2. In addition to relocating all mussels found in the footprint of the impact area, the
NCDOT will conduct final mussel surveys in the project footprint just prior to
constntction and will move any additional mussels found to the above-described
upstream habitat.
3. North Carolina sedimentation regulations, entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds,"4 will be implemented during the design and construction of the
4DESIGN STANDARDS IN SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS,ISA NCAC 04B.0124: (a) Uncovered areas in
HQW zones shall be limited at any time to a maximum total area within the boundaries of the tract of 20 acres.
Only the portion of the land-disturbing activity within a HQW zone shall be governed by this Rule. Larger areas
may be uncovered within the boundaries of the tract with the written approval of the Director. (b) Erosion and
sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within HQW zones shall be so planned, designed and
constructed to provide protection from the runoff of the 25 year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of
runoff as calculated according to procedures in the United States Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation
Service's "National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by
any other agency of this state or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association.
(c) Sediment basins within HQW zones shall be designed and constructed such that the basin will have a settling
efficiency of at least 70 percent for the 40 micron (0.04 mm) size soil particle transported into the basin by the
runoff of that two-year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to
procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services "National Engineering Field

projects, as applicable. In addition to these standards, erosion-control measures for
environmentally sensitive areas will be implemented and will:
a. Identify areas adjacent to the Toe River as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas"
on the erosion-control plans for this project;
b. Provide a 50-ft buffer zone (each side of the stream), allowing clearing but not
grubbing until immediately before grading operations;
c. Limit grubbing operations to within 10 days of grading;
d. Require "seeding and mulching" to be performed immediately following grade
establishment;
e. Require "staged seeding"--20-fi fill sections or 2 acres, whichever is less;
f. Clean erosion and sediment control measures when half full;
g. Increase sediment storage capacity above standard BMP guidelines; the amount
of increase will be determined during the preconstruction meetings.
Conservation Measures for Bridge Demolition
The contractor will be required to submit for approval a demolition plan to the Resident
Engineer and the Bridge Construction Engineer prior to beginning bridge removal.
This plan must be sealed by a registered North Carolina Professional Engineer. The
plan must use demolition techniques that minimize the amount of debris that will enter
the river and may include procedures similar to those listed below. If the contractor
provides procedures that do not follow those described below, they will be reviewed for
approval by the NCDOT Resident Engineer and Bridge Construction Engineer and the
Service and must be techniques that provide equal to or fewer impacts than described
below.
1. Prior to bridge demolition, all the asphalt-wearing surface will be removed from the
deck in a manner that prohibits material from entering the river. Approved removal
techniques include milling or scrapping with a backhoe bucket. Depending on the
technique used, containment headers may be required. Typically, this consists of
Manual for Conservation Practices" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the
United States or any generally recognized organization or association. (d) Newly constructed open channels in
HQW zones shall be designed and constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a
vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the slopes are
stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable ditch liners. In any event, the angle
for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion. (e) Pursuant to G.S. ] 13A-57(3) provisions for a
ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion of gland-disturbing activity in a HQW
zone within 15 working days or 60 calendar days following completion of construction or development, whichever
period is shorter.
12

vertical boards attached to the bottom of concrete barrier rail to prevent material
from spilling into the river during removal.
For B-2848 the fill material within the piers will then be removed. The NCDOT
has proposed that the contractor conduct the removal of the fill material by the
following process: a backhoe will load the material into dump trucks, working
from one end of bridge to the other. After as much fill material as possible is
removed with the machinery, the rest of the material will be removed manually (by
shovel). The manual removal of the deepest areas of the piers may have to occur
after the upper portions of the pier have been removed.
For B-1443 the next step of the demolition process will be to remove all the
concrete rail and deck by saw-cutting or nonshattering methods. This material will
be removed from the bridge without dropping material into the stream. For B-2848
the existing steel beam guardrail will be removed by unbolting and cutting as
needed.
4. At this time in the demolition process the bridge superstructure of B-1443 will
consist of the concrete arches connected by small concrete beams (concrete
diaphragms). The B-2848 superstructure will consist of concrete arches connected
by a solid concrete floor. Portions of the concrete deck will be removed by
saw-cutting and lifting out large pieces. Removing portions of the floor will reduce
the weight of the structure for the next step of demolition. However, like the
concrete diaphragms, some portion of the floor must remain to keep the arches from
separating.
5. At this point in the demolition process the remaining portion of the bridge will be
dismantled; every attempt will be made to prevent components of the bridge from
dropping into the river. Temporary support frames will be placed in the river under
each arch. The support frame foundation will most likely be precast concrete (such
as a concrete barrier), but the contractor may choose to use a timber or steel
foundation. Due to the irregular rock streambed, small amounts of riprap or
sandbags may be required to level up the support frame foundation. Support frames
will need to be placed in at least three locations under each arch (midspan and
quarter points). The arches will then be sawed into sections and an attempt will be
made to lift these sections out with a crane. The arches could potentially separate,
and all or a portion of them could fall into the river. The contractor's demolition
plan will detail the maximum amount of the bridge that can be safely removed.
Any portion that falls into the stream will be lifted out with a crane.
The proposed causeways will be used as access for bent removal. Equipment will
need to be staged adjacent to the bent in order to facilitate sawing it into
manageable sections above water elevation. Cranes on the causeways will lift the
sections out. Once the bents have been removed to water elevation, the remaining
mass of concrete will be removed to streambed elevation by underwater sawing or
the use of a hoe ram to break the bent at streambed interface to allow for lifting it
13

out as a unit. During this process, turbidity curtains will be used (if water depth is
sufficient), and the disturbance of the steam bottom will be limited to an area 3 ft
around the perimeter of the bent. The existing footing below streambed will be left
in place to avoid additional streambed disturbance.
7. The temporary causeways used for the project were designed to result in the least
amount of rock fill entering the river while providing sufficient area to accomplish
the construction and demolition. The causeways will be constructed with pipes to
maintain linear flow of the river by passing water through the causeways. The
construction of the causeways will follow a phasing plan so that not all causeways
needed for construction and demolition are in the river at the same time, minimizing
impacts to the flow of the river. The use of Jersey-type or similar barrier devices
will be installed around the perimeter of the causeways to help contain the stone
used to construct the causeways.
8. The use of explosives will not be allowed.
9. Saw slurry must be contained by approved vacuum methods.
Additional Conservation Measures
In order to avoid and minimize environmental impacts associated with these
projects, all standard procedures and measures, including the NCDOT's BMP for
Construction and Maintenance Activities and the TVA's Water Management
Standard Conditions will be strictly enforced during the project. Provisions to
preclude contamination by toxic substances during the project will also be strictly
enforced.
2. The NCDOT proposes to relocate all native mussels, including the Appalachian
elktoe, from the footprints and extending downstream 262 ft (80 m) and upstream
66 ft (20 m) of the two bridge replacement projects. The procedure for the
relocation is detailed in the BA. The relocation procedure within the BA provides a
plan that relocates freshwater mussels in such a way as to reduce stress and
minimize the risk of injury while the species are in transit. If at any time during the
relocation it is determined that these procedures are not meeting the stated
objectives, more stringent methods may be developed, in cooperation with the
NCWRC and the Service, to ensure that the mussels are relocated successfully.
During August 2005 the NCDOT, NCWRC, Catena Group, and Service worked
together to choose a suitable relocation site. It was decided that the mussels from
both bridge sites would be moved to suitable habitat within the upstream limits of
the Appalachian elktoe's distribution. Concentrating mussels in a location within
the upper limits of its distribution, where numbers are currently very low, may help
facilitate the continued up-river recruitment trend of the species. The most suitable
site was determined to be on the North Toe River, between Penland and Boonford,
at approximately river mile 25.5. The relocation site will be monitored for the
survival of relocated mussels and the movement of mussels a month after they have
14

been removed from the defined salvage areas. The relocation site will then be
monitored for recovery, survival (of recovered mussels), movement, and growth of
mussels once a year for 5 years after the project is constructed.
3. The NCDOT has initiated a watershed search for potential riparian properties within
the Toe River. The NCDOT has investigated approximately five sites consisting of
opportunities for 100-ft riparian buffer protection and/or restoration. The NCDOT
has committed to purchase (for protection and/or restoration) at least 3,000 linear ft
of these riparian buffers sites. Riparian buffers will be purchased to offset
unavoidable impacts on the Appalachian elktoe population associated with the
bridge construction and demolition.
4. The NCDOT proposes to monitor the river channel and banks at sites upstream, at
the construction sites, and downstream to determine changes in habitat resulting
from activities at these sites. If any problems with regard to stream stability are
detected during the monitoring, the NCDOT has proposed to attempt to correct the
problems. This monitoring will also help evaluate the impacts of construction on
habitat in the Toe River.
5. The NCDOT has developed erosion-control measures for these two projects
specifically to protect the Appalachian elktoe and its habitat. These measures are
listed in the "Conservation Measures for Bridge Design" section of this Opinion. In
addition to these erosion-control measures, an inspection of the erosion-control
devices will be conducted on a daily basis by the Construction Project Inspector
positioned in the District Office in which the project occurs. The Roadside
Environmental Branch of the NCDOT also has Area Field Operations Engineers
who will perform compliance inspections of the erosion-control devices a minimum
of twice a month during the life of a project. In addition to these levels of
inspection, an environmental specialist with the NCDOT Office of Natural
Environment's Biological Surveys Unit will perform periodic site inspections of the
erosion-control measures at the respective construction sites. This person will also
be making qualitative assessments of the Toe River habitat at the construction sites.
These visits will be unannounced and directly in relationship to rain events
whenever possible.
6. The NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch and the
Service will be invited to the preconstruction conference to discuss with the
contractor the provisions of this Opinion. Prior to construction the contractor will
be required to give notification of the construction initiation date to the Service,
NCWRC, and TVA.
15

H. STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND ITS CRITICAL HABITAT
A. Species Description, Life History, and Critical Habitat Description
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped shell, reaching up to
about 3.2 inches (in.) in length, 1.4 in. in height, and 1 in. in width. Juveniles generally
have ayellowish-brown periostracum (outer shell surface), while the periostracum of
the adults is usually dark brown to greenish-black in color. Although rays are
prominent on some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the shell, many
individuals have only obscure greenish rays. The shell nacre (inside shell surface) is
shiny, often white to bluish-white, changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in
the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some specimens may be marked with
irregular brownish blotches.
The Appalachian elktoe has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized
creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water.
The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable,
relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders,
and/or bedrock (Gordon 1991; Service 1994, 1996, 2002). Stability of the substrate
appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the species is seldom found in
stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or cobble (Service
2002). Individual specimens that have been encountered in these areas are believed to
have been scoured out of upstream areas during periods of heavy rain and have not
been found on subsequent surveys (Service 2002).
.Like other freshwater mussels, the Appalachian elktoe feeds by filtering food particles
from the water column. The specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other
freshwater mussels have been documented to feed on detritus (decaying organic
matter), diatoms (various minute algae) and other algae and phytoplankton
(microscopic floating aquatic plants), and zooplankton (microscopic floating aquatic
animals). The reproductive cycle of the Appalachian elktoe is similar to that of other
native freshwater mussels. Males release sperm into the water column, and the sperm
are then taken in by the females through their siphons during feeding and respiration.
The females retain the fertilized eggs in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully
develop. The mussel glochidia are released into the water and, within a few days, must
attach to the appropriate species offish, which they then parasitize for a short time
while they develop into juvenile mussels. They then detach from their fish host and
sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided they land in a
suitable substrate with the correct water conditions. The banded sculpin (Cottus
carolinae) was identified as a host species for glochidia of the Appalachian elktoe at
the time the elktoe was listed, and the mottled sculpin (C. bairdi) was identified as a
host species soon after the listing (Service 2002). Dr. Jim Layzer (Tennessee
Technological University, unpublished data) has recently identified eight additional
species of fish that successfully transformed glochidia of the Appalachian elktoe into
juveniles under laboratory condition. These eight species include the wounded darter
(Etheostoma vulneratum), greenfin darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium), greenside
16

darter (Etheosto~rui blem~ibdes), river chub (Noco~nis micropogora), northern hogsucker
(Hvpentilum nigracans), central stoneroller (Can~tpostorna anomalu~n), longnose dace
(Rhirrichtlrys cataractae), and rosyside dace (Clirzoston~aus fz~nclailoides). The life span
and many other aspects of the Appalachian elktoe's life history are currently unknown.
Critical habitat was designated for the Appalachian elktoe in 2002 (Service 2002). The
areas designated as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe total approximately
144.3 miles of various segments of rivers in North Carolina and one river in Tennessee.
Critical habitat identifies specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed
species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires that each federal agency shall, in consultation with the
Service, ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The following constituent elements are part of the critical habitat designation and are
essential to the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
2. Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks;
3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel;
4. Stable sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than
low amounts of fine sediment;
5. Moderate to high stream gradient;
6. Periodic natural flooding; and
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
In the Nolichucky River subbasin, critical habitat is designated for the Appalachian
elktoe in the main stem of the Nolichucky River, Cane River, Toe River, South Toe
River, and North Toe River.
B. Status and Distribution
The Appalachian elktoe is known only from the mountain streams of western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Although the complete historical range of the
Appalachian elktoe is unknown, available information suggests that the species once
lived in the majority of the rivers and larger creeks of the upper Tennessee River
system in North Carolina, with the possible exception of the Hiawassee and Watauga
River systems (the species has not been recorded from either of these river systems). In
17

Tennessee, the species is known only from its present range in the main stem of the
Nolichucky River.
Currently, the Appalachian elktoe has a very fragmented, relict distribution. The
species still survives in scattered pockets of suitable habitat in portions of the Little
Tennessee River system, Pigeon River system, Mills River, and Little River in North
Carolina and the Nolichucky River system in North Carolina and Tennessee.
Little Tennessee River Subbasin - In the Little Tennessee River system in North
Carolina, populations survive in the reach of the main stem of the Little Tennessee
River, between the city of Franklin and Fontana Reservoir, in Swain and Macon
Counties (McGrath 1999; Service 1994, 1996, 2002), and in scattered reaches of the
main stem of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson and Swain Counties (McGrath 1998;
Tim Savidge, NCDOT, personal communication, 2001; Service 2002), from below the
town of Cullowhee downstream to Bryson City. Monitoring by the NCWRC of the
Appalachian elktoe population in the Little Tennessee River over the last couple of
years has revealed that the population is apparently declining. A single live individual
and one shell were recorded in 2000 from the Cheoah River, below Santeetlah Lake, in
Graham County (Service 2002). Biologists with the NCDOT, U.S. Forest Service, and
the Service have recorded up to 11 live Appalachian elktoes from the Cheoah River,
below Santeetlah Dam, during surveys of portions of the river in 2002, 2003, 2004, and
2005.
French Broad River Subbasin - In the Pigeon River system in North Carolina, a small
population of the Appalachian elktoe occurs in small scattered sites in the West Fork
Pigeon River and in the main stem of the Pigeon River, above Canton, in Haywood
County (McGrath 1999, Service 2002). The Little River (upper French Broad River
system) population of the species, in Transylvania County, North Carolina (Service
2002), is restricted to small scattered pockets of suitable habitat downstream of Cascade
Lake. In the Mills River, Henderson County, North Carolina, the Appalachian elktoe
occurs in a short reach of the river, from just above the Highway 280 bridge (Savidge,
Catena Group, personal communication, 2003) to about 1 mile below the bridge (Jeff
Simmons, NCWRC, personal communication, 2004). In addition, NCWRC biologists
have recently discovered a few individuals of the species at a site in the main stem of
the French Broad River, below the mouth of the Little River (Steve Fraley, NCWRC,
personal communication, 2005).
Nolichucky River Subbasin - In the Nolichucky River system, the Appalachian elktoe
survives in scattered areas of suitable habitat in the Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell
Counties, North Carolina (McGrath 1996, 1999; Service 1994, 1996); the Cane River,
Yancey County, North Carolina (McGrath 1997; Service 1994, 1996); and the main
stem of the Nolichucky River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina,
extending downstream to the vicinity of Erwin, Unicoi County, Tennessee (Service
1994, 1996, 2002). A cooperative and comprehensive mussel survey effort was
undertaken between 2000 and 2003 by the NCWRC, NCDOT, NCNHP, and Service
throughout the upper Nolichucky River system in Yancey, Mitchell, and Avery
18

Counties, North Carolina. Given that many areas in the Nolichucky River system had
not been surveyed since the 1990s, the primary goal for these surveys was reassessment
of the Appalachian elktoe's population status. The survey efforts indicate that suitable
habitat within at least 73 miles of stream in the Nolichucky River system is presently
occupied by the Appalachian elktoe, an apparent 15-mile increase from reported
occupied habitat prior to 2000 (Fraley and Simmons 2004). These surveys also indicate
that this population appears to be growing in numbers as well. Sites where mussels
were found during 2000 and 2003 produced higher catch per unit effort (CPUE) than
the nearest sites sampled prior to 2000 (Fraley and Simmons 2004). However, the
available habitat in the subbasin is a limiting factor; therefore, the Appalachian elktoe is
not evenly dispersed throughout the 15-mile increase in the subbasin.
During August and September of 2004, significant flooding from Hurricanes Frances
and Ivan occurred in the Nolichucky River drainage. The NCWRC surveyed sites in
the Nolichucky River drainage for federally listed and state-listed mussels after the
humcanes and compared the results to survey results prior to the hurricanes. As stated
previously, based on the results in 2000 and 2003, prior to the 2004 floods,
Appalachian elktoe populations in the Nolichucky subbasin were found to be increasing
in abundance and expanding their range. The survey results after the floods of 2004
indicate that recovery was set back to some degree based on reduced CPUE results;
however, Appalachian elktoes were found throughout most of the occupied range
known in 2003, which illustrates the resilience of the species to periodic hydraulic
disturbance, especially in a system, such as the Nolichucky River subbasin, that is more
prone to habitat disturbance from floods. Currently, the Nolichucky population appears
to be a relatively large (at least in terms of spatial distribution) metapopulation that is
more or less contiguous, with at least the opportunity for some level of gene flow
throughout the subbasin (Fraley and Simmons 2006).
Extirpated Sites -Historically, the species has been recorded from Tulula Creek
(Tennessee River drainage), the main stem of the French Broad River at Asheville, and
the Swannanoa River (French Broad River system) (Clarke 1981), but it has apparently
been eliminated (except from a small section of the main stem of the French Broad
River at the confluence of the Little River) from these streams (Service 1994, 1996).
There is also a historical record of the Appalachian elktoe from the North Fork Holston
River in Tennessee (S. S. Haldeman collection); however, this record is believed to
represent a mislabeled locality (Gordon 1991). Ifthe historical record for the species in
the North Fork Holston River was accurate, the species has apparently been eliminated
from this river as well.
Available information indicates that several factors have contributed to the decline and
loss of populations of the Appalachian elktoe and threaten the remaining populations.
These factors include pollutants in wastewater discharges (sewage treatment plants and
industrial discharges); habitat loss and alteration associated with impoundments,
channelization, and dredging operations; and the runoff of silt, fertilizers, pesticides,
and other pollutants from land-disturbing activities that were implemented without
adequate measures to control erosion and/or storm water (Service 1994, 1996).
19

Mussels are known to be sensitive to numerous pollutants, including, but not limited to,
a wide variety of heavy metals, high concentrations of nutrients, anunonia, and
chlorine-pollutants commonly found in many domestic and industrial effluents
(Havlik and Marking 1987). In the early 1900s, Ortmann (1909) noted that the
disappearance of unionids (mussels) is the first and most reliable indicator of stream
pollution. Keller and Zam (1991) concluded that mussels are more sensitive to metals
than commonly tested fish and aquatic insects. The life cycle of native mussels makes
the reproductive stages especially vulnerable to pesticides and other pollutants (Fuller
1974, Gardner et al. 1976, Ingram 1957, Stein 1971 }. Effluent from sewage treatment
facilities can be a significant source of pollution that can severely affect the diversity
and abundance of aquatic mollusks. The toxicity of chlorinated sewage effluents to
aquatic life is well-documented (Bellanca and Bailey 1977, Brungs 1976, Goudreau
et al. 1988, Tsai 1975), and mussel glochidia (larvae) rank among the most sensitive
invertebrates in their tolerance of the toxicants present in sewage effluents (Goudreau
et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that the recovery of mussel. populations may
not occur for up to 2 miles below the discharge points of chlorinated sewage effluent.
Land-clearing and disturbance activities carved out without proper sedimentation and
storm-water control pose a significant threat to the Appalachian elktoe and other
freshwater mussels. Mussels are sedentary and are not able to move long distances to
more suitable areas in response to heavy silt loads. Natural sedimentation resulting
from seasonal storm events probably does not significantly affect mussels, but human
activities often create excessively heavy silt loads that can have severe effects on
mussels and other aquatic organisms. Siltation has been documented to adversely
affect native freshwater mussels, both directly and indirectly (Aldridge et al. 1987, Ellis
1936, Kat 1982, Marking and Bills 1979). Siltation degrades water and substrate
quality, limiting the available habitat for freshwater mussels (and their fish hosts),
thereby limiting their distribution and potential for the expansion and maintenance of
their populations; irritates and clogs the gills offilter-feeding mussels, resulting in
reduced feeding and respiration; smothers mussels if sufficient accumulation occurs;
and increases the potential exposure of the mussels to other pollutants. Ellis (1936)
found that less than 1 in. of sediment deposition caused high mortality in most mussel
species. Sediment accumulations that are less than lethal to adults may adversely affect
or prevent the recruitment of juvenile mussels into the population. Also, sediment
loading in rivers and streams during periods of high discharge is abrasive to mussel
shells. Erosion of the outer shell allows acids to reach and corrode underlying layers
that are composed primarily of calcium, which dissolves under acid conditions
(Harman 1974).
The effects of impoundments on mussels are also well-documented. For the most part,
lakes do not occur naturally in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee (most of
them are man-made}, and the Appalachian elktoe, like the majority of our other native
mussels, fish, and other aquatic species in these areas, is adapted to stream conditions
(flowing, highly oxygenated water and coarse sand and gravel bottoms). Dams change
the habitat from flowing to still water. Water depth increases, flow decreases, and silt
accumulates on the bottom (Williams et al. 1992), altering the quality and stability of
20

the remaining stream reaches by affecting water flow regimes, velocities, temperature,
and chemistry. Dams that operate by releasing cold water from near the bottom of the
reservoirs lower the water temperature downstream, changing downstream reaches
from warm- or cool-water- streams to cold-water streams and affecting their suitability
for many of the native species historically inhabiting these stream reaches (Miller et al.
1984, Layzer et al. 1993). The effects of impoundments result in changes in fish
communities (fish host species may be eliminated) (Brimm 1991) and in mussel
communities (species requiring clean gravel and sand substrates are eliminated) (Bates
1962). In addition, dams result in the fragmentation and isolation of populations of
species and act as effective barriers to the natural upstream and downstream expansion
or recruitment of mussel and fish species.
The information available demonstrates that habitat deterioration resulting from
sedimentation and pollution from numerous point and nonpoint sources, when
combined with the effects of other factors (including habitat destruction, alteration, and
fragmentation resulting from impoundments, channelization projects, etc.), has played a
significant role in the decline of the Appalachian elktoe. We believe this is particularly
true of the extirpation of the Appalachian elktoe from the Swannanoa River, most of the
French Broad River, and long reaches of the Pigeon, upper Little River, and upper
Little Tennessee River systems. We believe these factors also have contributed to the
extirpation of the species from parts of the upper Tuckasegee River, Cheoah River, and
Tulula Creek, though the effects of impoundments are believed to have played an even
more significant role in the loss of the species in the upper reaches of these streams.
The most immediate threats to the remaining populations of the Appalachian elktoe are
associated with sedimentation and other pollutants (i.e., fertilizers, pesticides, heavy
metals, oil, salts, organic wastes, etc.) from nonpoint sources. Much of the Nolichucky
River in North Carolina contains heavy loads of sediment, primarily from past
land-disturbing activities within its watershed, and suitable habitat for the Appalachian
elktoe appears to be very limited in this river system. The species has not been found
in the Nolichucky River system in substrates with accumulations of silt and shifting
sand; it is restricted to small scattered pockets of stable, relatively clean, and gravelly
substrates. The same is true of the other surviving populations of the species.
C. Analysis of the Species and Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected
Species - NCDOT biologists conducted mussel surveys at the two bridge sites on
July 24, 1996. The surveys were conducted from a point approximately 1,312 ft
(400 m) downstream to 328 ft (100 m) upstream of the existing bridges. A total of five
Appalachian elktoes and two wavy-rayed lampmussels were discovered in
2.5 person-hours of survey time at the B-1443 bridge site, totaling a Catch Per Unit
Effort (CPUE) of 2 per hour for the Appalachian elktoe. At the B-2848 bridge site,
seven Appalachian elktoes and two wavy-rayed lampmussels were found in
3 person-hours of survey time, totaling a CPUE of 2.33 per hour for the Appalachian
elktoe.
21

During the cooperative and comprehensive mussel survey efforts mentioned previously,
another mussel survey was conducted at the two bridge sites on September 9, 2002. A
total of 11 Appalachian elktoes and 2 wavy-rayed lampmussels were discovered at the
B-1443 site in 4 person-hours of survey time, totaling a CPUE of 2.75 per hour for the
Appalachian elktoe. At the B-2848 site, 15 Appalachian elktoes and 2 wavy-rayed
lampmussels were found in 3.5 person-hours of survey time, totaling a CPUE of 4.28
per hour for the Appalachian elktoe. The survey limits during these surveys were
confined to the areas immediately under the existing bridges because previous surveys
had documented the species at these sites. The highest CPUE for the Appalachian
elktoe during the comprehensive surveys in the basin was 16 per hour (total of
96 individuals); this occurred at a site in the South Toe River (Fraley and Simmons
2004).
Mussel surveys were also conducted in 2002 by Service, NCWRC, and NCDOT
personnel in habitats in close proximity to the existing bridges. The purpose of these
surveys was to identify potential relocation sites. Neither the exact locations nor the
results of those surveys were recorded.
Densities of Appalachian elktoes vary, depending on many factors that cause their
distribution pattern to be scattered and difficult to generalize. Based on surveys for
Appalachian elktoes from other drainages, the number below the surface is highly
variable and dependent on the substrate. In general, mussels can be very difficult to
locate in the substrate, and most mussel surveys detect only those specimens located at
or on the surface of the substrate. It is likely that additional mussels were present in the
survey areas which were overlooked or were not visible on the surface of the stream
bottom. It is also potentially likely that fewer mussels are currently present at the site
because of impacts from the 2004 hurricanes. Therefore, accurate estimates of the total
number of Appalachian elktoes that will be impacted (both above and below the surface
of the stream bottom) are not possible, but the numbers are likely different from those
recorded during the surveys.
Critical Habitat -Given that the Appalachian elktoe occurs within the area of the two
bridges and Nolichucky River subbasin, it appears that the constituent elements
necessary for critical habitat are present within the project area as well as portions of
the Cane River, Toe River, and North Toe River. Following is a brief description of the
status of the constituent elements within the project area:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool clean water -There is variation in stream flow within
critical habitat; however, there is always permanent flowing water. Based on the
DWQ's bioassessments of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish sampling, the water
appears to be cool and clean enough to sustain a population of the Appalachian
elktoe.
2. Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks -Overall, the stream channel and
stream banks appear to be stable at the two bridge sites, as evidenced by the
22

presence of vegetation on the river banks (trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants) and
an abundance of benthic organisms in the substrate.
3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel -The Cane River, Toe River, and
North Toe River have natural pool, riffle, and run sequences, varied by the local
stream gradient and bedrock influence. There is a natural pool, riffle, and run
sequence at both bridge sites.
4. Stable sand, gavel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than
low amounts of fine sediment -The habitat within the project area at the bridge sites
consists primarily of bedrock, with small patches of gravel and course sand
providing microhabitat for the Appalachian elktoe. At B-2848 there is more
favorable habitat downstream of the bridge, consisting of an island of gravel and
course sand and numerous Appalachian elktoes.
5. Moderate to high stream gradient -The Cane River, Toe River, and North Toe
River are characterized as high stream gradient. Some portions of these reaches in
the alluvial floodplain have some moderate stream gradient, but nowhere can the
stream be characterized as low gradient.
6. Periodic natural flooding -Natural peak events occur throughout the Nolichucky
River subbasin.
7. Fish hosts, with adequate living foraging, and spawning areas for them -Recent
sampling by the NCWRC and TVA identified fairly diverse fish communities,
including many of the potential host fishes for the Appalachian elktoe in the Cane
River, Toe River, and North Toe River.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally
listed species, we are required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area
(50 CFR 402.02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone
section 7 consultation, and the impacts of state or private actions that are contemporaneous
with the consultation in process. The environmental baseline for this Opinion considers all
projects approved prior to the initiation of formal consultation.
A. Status of the Species Within the Action Area
Survey efforts between 2000 and 2003 indicate that suitable habitat within at least
73 miles of stream in the Nolichucky River system are presently occupied by the
Appalachian elktoe; an apparent 15-mile increase from reported occupied habitat prior
to 2000 (Fraley and Simmons 2004). These surveys also indicate that this population
23

appears to be growing in numbers as well. Sites where mussels were found during
2000 and 2003 produced higher CPUEs than the nearest sites sampled prior to 2000
(Fraley and Simmons 2004). However, the available habitat in the subbasin is a
limiting factor; therefore, Appalachian elktoes are not evenly dispersed throughout the
73-mile range within the subbasin. The NCWRC's sampling efforts after the floods of
2004 indicate that, since the last survey efforts in 2000 and 2003, recovery was set back
to some degree based on reduced CPUE results; however, Appalachian elktoes were
found throughout most of the occupied range known in 2003.
As stated previously, the 2002 mussel surveys at the bridge sites indicate that at least
26 individual Appalachian elktoes occur within project area. The CPUE for the bridge
sites was 2.75 per hour for the B-1443 site and 4.28 per hour for the B-2848 site. As
part of the NCWRC's continued monitoring efforts, of state-listed and federally listed
mussels, in 2002 and 2003 the NCWRC surveyed six sites in the Toe River for the
Appalachian elktoe. Three of the six sites had higher CPUEs than the highest CPUE at
the bridge sites, and four of the sites had higher CPUEs than the lowest CPUE at the
bridge sites (Fraley, NCWRC, personal communication and unpublished data, 2006).
This indicates that the mussel population at the bridge sites is average to below average
for the Toe River. Further, while 26 individual Appalachian elktoes at the site will be
relocated (and potentially lost), there are several other sites within the Toe River that
support equal or greater numbers of the elktoe. Therefore, that population should be
able~to recover from this loss, and the conservation measures developed by the NCDOT
should minimize the loss of Appalachian elktoes.
The BA determined the direct and indirect impacts occurring within 1,312 ft (400 m)
downstream and 328 ft (100 m) upstream of the existing and proposed bridge sites.
Considering the placement of the bridges, the total potential amount of impact at the
B-1443 site is 1,820 ft (S55 m) and 1,689 ft (515 m) at the B-2848 site. Therefore
approximately 0.66 mile of the Toe River could potentially be directly or indirectly
impacted by construction and demolition activities from the project. Therefore, within
the 73-mile range of the Appalachian elktoe in the Nolichucky River system, the bridge
replacement projects could have an impact on 0.9 percent of this potential habitat.
The constituent elements necessary for critical habitat are present within the project
area and could be affected by the construction and demolition of the projects. The
following is a list of the constituent elements that may be impacted by the project:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water -There could be impacts to the amount of
sediment that enters the river from the demolition process.
2. Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks -The stream channel could be
temporarily impacted during the construction of the causeways and bridge piers.
Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel -The flow of the river could
change while the temporary causeways are in place.
24

4. Stable sand, gavel, cobble, and boulder or bedrock substrates with no more than
low amounts of fine sediment - As stated previously, the amount of sediment could
increase during the bridge demolition process.
While there could be impacts to critical habitat, most of these impacts should be
temporary, and the conservation measures developed by the NCDOT should minimize
all effects.
B. Factors Affecting the Species' Environment Within the Action Area
Some residential development and agricultural practices have impacted the aquatic
habitat in the action area, particularly the riparian habitat. Because riparian areas have
been cleared of trees and other woody vegetation and rock has been placed on the river
banks, high-water events have resulted in bank erosion and failure at several areas in
the Nolichucky subbasin. The poor condition of the riparian habitat also likely leads to
excessive runoff from adjacent agriculture fields that contain not only silt but also the
fertilizers and pesticides used in those fields.
Two bridges along the Toe River--B-2081 and B-3089--have been replaced within the
last 10 years. No mussels were discovered within the project area of these bridges nor
was critical habitat listed at that time; therefore, the projects were constructed in a
manner that avoided adverse effects to the Appalachian elktoe. During August and
September of 2004, significant flooding occurred in the Nolichucky River drainage.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) proposed the implementation of
the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program to restore areas impacted by the
flooding. In December 2005 we issued a biological opinion to the NRCS for
implementation of the EWP program. That biological opinion assessed the direct and
indirect impacts to 3,325 linear ft of stream within the Nolichucky River subbasin and
any additional indirect impacts to 1,312 ft (400 m) downstream of each of the
18 individual restoration project "footprints." Other federal actions proposed for the
upper Nolichucky River basin include widening and improving Highway 19E for about
29 miles. This will include the widening/extension and construction of several stream
crossing structures within the Nolichucky River subbasin (94 crossings total) and will
require a 404 permit (from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for the filling of
wetlands and alteration of stream channels associated with development of the
proposed "Communities of Penland" along the North Toe River. We do not have any
information concerning any additional federal actions ongoing or proposed for the
action area at the present time.
IV EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, "effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect
effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other
activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action. The federal agency is
responsible for analyzing these effects. The effects of the proposed action are added to the
25

environmental baseline to determine the future baseline, which serves as the basis for the
determination in this Opinion. Should the effects of the federal action result in a situation
that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, we may propose reasonable
and prudent alternatives that the federal agency can take to avoid a violation of section
7(a)(2). The discussion that follows is our evaluation of the anticipated direct and indirect
effects of replacing the subject two bridges. Indirect effects are those caused by the
proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR
402.02).
A. Factors to be Considered
Proximity of the Action -Based on the 2002 mussel survey conducted by the NCDOT,
at least 26 individuals of the Appalachian elktoe occur in the vicinity of the existing
bridges. Although measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the Toe River and the
Appalachian elktoe are included in the project plans, implementation of these projects
will result in unavoidable impacts to the river habitat and to individual mussels.
However, several other sites within the 73 miles of occupied river reaches support
equal or greater numbers of individuals (Fraley, NCWRC, personal communication and
unpublished data, 2006).
Nature of the Effect - In-stream habitat will be impacted permanently by the
construction of the piers within the river channel, 57 ft`' for B-1443 and 32 ft' for
B-2848. Suitable in-stream habitat at both construction sites will also be affected for
the duration of the construction and demolition and likely for some period after
completion of the projects. Portions of the habitat may be impacted permanently by the
construction and use of the causeways. A small portion of the riparian area at both sites
may be cleared for equipment access and could result in temporary increases in water
temperature at each location until reforestation can occur.
Disturbance Duration Frequency and Intensity -Disturbance to the riverbed will occur
over a relatively short period of time from the construction of the bridge piers. It will
take approximately 3 weeks to install each bent. However, the disturbance to the
river's flow pattern at the piers will exist throughout the life of the bridges. The
causeways for construction and demolition will be in place for the length of time
needed to construct and demolish the bridges; therefore, the disturbance to the riverbed
associated with the causeways will be over an extended period of time. Although there
will be direct impacts to the riverbed associated with the causeways, the construction of
the causeways will be phased to limit the amount of causeway in the river at any one
time, and only the causeways needed for an activity will be in place during that activity
and will be removed when the action is completed. The causeways will be constructed
with clean stone and pipes so that the river can flow through, not just over, the
causeways. However, there will still be impacts to the hydrology of the river both
upstream and downstream of the causeways.
26

B. Analyses of Effects of the Action
Potential Beneficial Effects
The construction and demolition of the existing bridges have some negative impacts but
also have some long-term beneficial effects. Specifically, the NCDOT has described
the following beneficial effects that could result from these projects:
Reduction of direct storm-water runoff. Storm water from the existing bridges
enters the river directly from the bridge decks. The new bridges will collect and
direct storm water. into catch basins, and the storm water will then flow through a
vegetated buffer before entering the river. Storm water coming off the approaching
roadways at the bridge locations will be managed in a similar manner. The
elimination/reduction of runoff into the Toe River may result in localized
improvement of water quality and potentially have a beneficial effect on the
Appalachian elktoe.
2. Redcrctr'on in number of bents in the main river channel. The existing B-1443
bridge has two piers within the river channel totaling an area of 151.2 ft2. The new
bridge construction will require the placement of two piers in the river, which will
result in 57 ft'` of fill. The existing B-2848 bridge has three piers within the river
channel totaling an area of 349 ft2. The new bridge construction will require one
bent for construction, consisting of two drilled piers totaling 32.0 ft2 of fill. Given
that bents in the river trap debris during high flows and can change the hydraulics in
the immediate vicinity of the structure (causing scour and deposition), the reduction
in the number of piers in the Toe River is expected to reduce the bridges' effects on
stream-flow patterns at the respective bridge sites.
Direct Effects -Actions that may result in direct impacts include the construction of
causeways for the construction of new structures and the demolition of existing
structures, land clearing for access, potential toxic spills, the removal of causeways
after construction, and the demolition and removal of existing bridge structures. All of
these activities have the potential to kill or injure mussels, either by crushing them;
poisoning them with the release of some toxic substance; or causing siltation, which
may suffocate them. These actions may result in direct harm to individuals or negative
changes in currently suitable habitat.
Substrate Disturbance and/or Habitat Loss
Project B-1443: The construction of this new bridge will require the placement of two
piers in the river, which will result in 57 ft2 of permanent fill. This will be a 94.2-ft2
reduction from the existing structure, which has two bents totaling 151.2 ft` of fill in the
river. Rock causeways will be required to construct the new bridge and demolish the
existing bridge. The temporary construction/demolition causeways used far the project
are designed to result in the least amount of rock fill in the river while providing
sufficient area to accomplish the construction and demolition. The causeways will be
27

constructed with pipes to maintain linear flow of the river by passing water through the
causeways. The construction of the causeways will follow a phasing plan to minimize
impacts to the flow of the river; at the narrowest point, 50 percent of the river will be
open. To construct the piers for the new bridge and demolish the existing bridge, the
causeways will result in 4,972 ft'` and 3,993.4 ft' of temporary rock fill in the river,
respectively. There also will be a minimal amount of temporary rock fill associated
with the temporary support frames that will be placed in the river under each arch to
support the bridge during demolition.
Project B-2848: The construction of this new bridge will require the placement of one
bent in the river, consisting of two drilled piers, which will result in 32.0 ft'` of
permanent fill. This will be a 317-ft' reduction from the existing structure, which has
three piers totaling 349 ft' of fill in the river. Rock causeways will also be required for
construction and demolition of this project. The causeways for this project follow the
design standards listed for B-1443. The construction of the causeways will follow a
phasing plan to minimize impacts to the flow of the river; at the narrowest point,
52 percent of the river will be open. To construct the piers for the new bridge and
demolish the existing bridge, the causeways will result in 15,551 ftz and 1,786 ft' of
temporary rock fill in the river, respectively. There also will be a minimal amount of
temporary rock fill associated with the temporary support frames that will be placed in
the river under each arch to support the bridge during demolition.
There will be a combined permanent loss of 89.0 ft' of stream habitat at the two project
sites. There will also be a combined temporary loss of stream habitat from the
construction/demolition causeways of 26,302 ft2. Based on the surveys conducted in
2002 by the NCDOT, it is likely that at least 26 individual Appalachian elktoe mussels
will be impacted by the project. The NCDOT is proposing to remove individuals from
the impact sites and relocate them (see the "Additional Conservation Measures" in the
"Conservation Measures" section of this Opinion). While the causeways will be placed
in the river only temporarily, it is difficult to predict if the impacts to the streambed will
permanently or temporarily impact habitat and mussel recruitment to the sites. Given
that the habitat at the impact sites consists primarily of bedrock, a reduction in suitable
habitat by substrate compaction from the causeways is less likely.
Impacts from Sedimentation
Because of the topography and the erodible nature of the soils in the project area (fine
loamy soils with moderate erodibility), project construction has the potential to result in
sedimentation in the Toe River. To minimize the potential for sedimentation, the
NCDOT has developed specific erosion-control measures for this project that are
designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas (see the "Conservation Measures"
section of this Opinion). The primary concerns for sedimentation entering the river are
during the removal of the earth-filled material in bridge B-2848 and the demolition of
both bridges. The NCDOT has provided a plan for the removal of the earth-filled
material as well as plans for stabilizing the bridges during demolition, reducing the
likelihood that sediment will enter the river as a result of these actions.
28

Impacts from Chan es in Hydrology
The temporary causeways proposed at both project sites will narrow the channel and
will alter the hydrology, resulting in localized changes in flow patterns at the respective
sites. This change in hydrology and any associated scour could result in the loss or
displacement of mussels. However, the change in hydrology will be temporary, during
the life of the respective causeways, and the design of the causeways (allowing for flow
through the causeways) should minimize the impacts to hydrology and associated
impacts. The NCDOT has proposed to monitor the riverbed and stream-bank stability
before, during, and after construction at both bridge sites. If any problems with regard
to stream stability are detected during the monitoring, the NCDOT has proposed to
attempt to correct the problems.
Impacts to Fish Hosts
In addition to the potential changes in hydrology as a result of the causeways, there is
the potential for the causeways to act as a barrier to fish migration. The disruption of
fish migrations could indirectly impact the Appalachian elktoe if the fish that are
disturbed serve as fish hosts for the elktoe. While temporary disruptions to fish
migration may occur during construction of the causeways, the following design factors
should reduce the long-term effects of the causeways on fish migration: the causeways
will be temporary structures in'the river, at least 50 percent of the channel will be
unrestricted by the causeways at any given time, and the causeways are designed to
allow for linear flow. Given these design features, the causeways are not expected to
have a significant impact, if any, on the natural migration of fish species and therefore
should not impact the life cycle or distribution of the Appalachian elktoe in the Toe
River.
Indirect Effects -Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02).
Indirect effects to the Appalachian elktoe may include permanent changes in channel
substrate or stability that adversely affect the availability of suitable habitat in the
vicinity of the bridges.
The infrastructure improvements associated with these bridge replacements could
indirectly affect and improve levels of service, better accommodate merging and
exiting traffic, or reduce travel times, all of which could have land-development
impacts outside the project area. Given that both projects involve the replacement of
existing structures in essentially the same locations, it is not likely that the new
structures would increase accessibility to the adjacent land or result in changes in the
type or volume of traffic using the structures. Although the existing bridges will be
replaced with wider two-lane structures, potentially allowing access to the surrounding
land by larger trucks (including construction equipment), there are other existing
bridges and road access surrounding the existing bridges that allow for the passage of
large vehicles and provide access to the same land area as the subject bridges.
29

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions - An interrelated activity is an activity that is
part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An
interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the
action under consultation. A determination of whether other activities are interrelated
to, or interdependent with, the proposed action under consultation is made by applying
the "but for" test. That is, it must be determined that the other activity under question
would not occur "but for" the proposed action under consultation. There are no other
projects planned that would satisfy the "but for" test; therefore, there are no interrelated
or interdependent actions that should be considered in this Opinion.
V. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Action Area
Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any future state, local, or private actions
that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area covered in this Opinion. Future
federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section
because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
We are aware of several potential private actions that may occur and produce significant
cumulative impacts. A proposed 40-unit affordable housing development is proposed on
the north side of US 19E in Burnsville, near Mountain Heritage High School and near the
headwaters of the Toe River. In Mitchell County, just north of Spruce Pine, approximately
2,000 to 5,000 acres within the North Toe River drainage area (owned by Penland Bailey
Corporation) is being divided into 0.5- to 2-acre lots, with some of the lots bordering the
North Toe River. A golf course development (planned to be patterned after the Mountain
Air Country Club in Yancey County) is proposed near Altapass in Mitchell County, within
the North Toe River watershed. A 100-acre development is being planned near Huntdale,
in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, with over 13,000 linear ft of the Cane River and over
2,000 linear ft of the Toe River occurring within the property boundary. Although these
actions are being proposed, it is uncertain if they will be developed or if they will need a
federal permit or money to construct the projects. Therefore, we will not address these
developments further in this Opinion. We are not aware of any other future state, local, or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area that would not be
subject to section 7 reviews. Therefore, cumulative effects, as defined by the Act, will not
occur and will not be addressed further in this Opinion.
Cumulative Impacts of Incidental Take Anticipated by the Service in Previously Issued
Biological Opinions
In reaching a decision of whether the implementation of activities outlined in the BA are
likely or are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe, we
must factor into our analysis previous biological opinions issued involving the species,
especially those opinions where the Service allowed for incidental take as the area of
30

habitat disturbed, instead of individual mussels. There have been four biological opinions
for the Appalachian elktoe, one within the Nolichucky River drainage and the others
outside the drainage. In May of 2005 we issued a biological opinion to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on the effect of their permit on the Appalachian elktoe for a sewer line
crossing along the Mills River. The amount of incidental take was linuted to the
disturbance of habitat 20 ft in width at the construction corridor and 100 ft downstream and
upstream of the construction corridor. The three other biological opinions were rendered to
the NRCS in 2005 for the implementation of the EWP program in the Nolichucky, Pigeon,
and Mills River subbasins. These biological opinions limited the amount of incidental take
to all Appalachian elktoes within at lest 3,325 linear ft of stream within the Nolichucky,
Pigeon, and Mills River subbasins and any additional indirect impacts to Appalachian
elktoes 1,312 ft (400 m} downstream of each of the 40 individual restoration project
"footprints."
VI. CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of the Appalachian elktoe; the environmental baseline for
the action area; the effects of bridge construction and demolition; measures identified in the
NCDOT's BA to help minimize the potential impacts of the proposed projects and assist in
the protection, management, and recovery of the species; previously issued Service
nonjeopardy biological opinions that allow various levels of incidental take; any potential
interrelated and interdependent actions associated with the proposed action; and any
potential cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that implementing these
projects is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe.
Critical habitat will not be adversely modified or destroyed by implementing these projects
as proposed.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act and federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is
defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include,
but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not for the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under
the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as
part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the Act, provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.
31

Amount of Take Anticipated
The Service anticipates that incidental take of the Appalachian elktoe may occur as a result of
construction of the subject bridges. During construction, individual mussels may be crushed,
harmed by siltation or other water quality degradation, or dislocated because of physical changes
in their habitat.
There will be a combined permanent loss of 89.0 ft2 of stream habitat at the two project sites.
There will also be a combined temporary loss of stream habitat from the construction/demolition
causeways of 26,302 ft2. Downstream impacts (sedimentation), if any, are expected to occur
within 1,312 ft (400 m) of the construction sites. Because there are no reliable data on the
number of Appalachian elktoes buried in the substrate compared to those on the surface (and
even those on the surface are difficult to detect), it is not possible to base the amount of
incidental take on numbers of individual mussels. Rather, the amount of incidental take will be
exceeded if the project "footprint" exceeds 26,391 ft2 or downstream impacts are occurring more
than 1,312 ft (400 m) downstream from the "footprint" of each project. If incidental take is
exceeded, all work should stop, and the Service should be contacted immediately.
EFFECT OF THE TAKE
In this Opinion the Service has determined that this level of take is not likely to result in jeopardy
to the Appalachian elktoe or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In addition to the subsequent measures listed in the "Reasonable and Prudent Measures" and
"Terms and Conditions" sections of this Opinion, the measures listed in the "Conservation
Measures" sections of this opinion must be implemented. The Conservation Measures are
project minimization measures, for the construction and demolition of the projects, that were
described by the NCDOT in the BA. The Conservation Measures include, but are not limited to,
the following:
The NCDOT will provide, or contract with biologists who have experience in mussel
relocation techniques, for the removal of Appalachian elktoes from the impact site
and relocate them to the approved relocation site on the North Toe River (between
Penland and Boonford) at about river mile 25.5, according to the procedures in the
approved relocation plan in the BA (see plan within the BA). The plan details
appropriate collection methods, tagging and recapture, handling and transportation of
individuals, and monitoring protocols, which includes the monitoring of the
relocation sites for recovery, survival (of recovered mussels), movement, and growth
of mussels for a period of 5 years.
SThe "Conservation Measures" section includes all of the measures listed within the following subsections:
"Conservation Measures for Bridge Design," "Conservation Measures for Bridge Demolition," "Conservation
Measures for Bridge Construction," and "Additional Conservation Measures."
32

2. The NCDOT will monitor the river channel and banks at sites upstream, at the
construction sites, and downstream to determine changes in habitat resulting from
activities at these sites (see plan within the BA). If any problems with regard to
stream stability are detected during the monitoring, the NCDOT will attempt to
correct them.
3. As committed to by the NCDOT within the project description of the BA, the
NCDOT will protect and/or restore 100-ft riparian buffers for at least 3,000 linear ft
of stream within the action area. Given that the conservation area has not been
determined or obtained by the NCDOT at the time of the issuance of this Opinion, the
Service will continue to review sites that the NCDOT is considering and approve the
site that is ultimately acquired.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of the Appalachian elktoe. These nondiscretionary measures
include, but are not limited to, the terms and conditions outlined in this Opinion.
1. The NCDO'T will ensure that the contractor understands and follows the measures
listed in the "Conservation Measures," "Reasonable and Prudent Measures," and
"Terms and Conditions" sections of this Opinion.
2. Containment systems will be developed for particular stages of the demolition and
construction of the bridges to minimize impacts to the Appalachian elktoe and its
habitat.
3. Demolition activities and the relocation of mussels will be conducted during time
periods that will result in fewer impacts to the Appalachian elktoe.
4. The NCDOT will send copies of the monitoring reports for the relocated mussels to
the Service's Asheville Field Office every year for the S-year monitoring time period.
5. During the relocation of mussels, the Service may alter, if needed, methods and plans
for moving the mussels.
6. The NCDOT will notify the Service if their monitoring of the river channel and river
banks reveals changes in habitat resulting from project activities.
7. All appropriate NCDOT BMP for bridge maintenance, construction, and demolition
will be followed or exceeded for these projects, and any additional BMP listed in the
"Terms and Conditions" section of this Opinion will be followed.
33

Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the NCDOT must comply
with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
described previously and outline required reporting and/or monitoring requirements. These
terms and conditions are nondiscretionary and apply to the Toe River.
1. A Service biologist will be present at the preconstruction meeting to cover permit
conditions and discuss any questions the contractor has regarding implementation of
these projects. After the contractor submits plans for various stages of the projects, a
Service biologist will review and provide comments on the plans and will attend any
meetings to discuss implementation of the plans.
2. The NCDOT will ensure that a qualified aquatic biologist is present at critical times
to monitor certain phases of construction, including, but not limited to, initial clearing
for construction, when the causeways are installed, when demolition begins, and
when the causeways are removed. The individual will be present to ensure that the
procedures listed in the "Conservation Measures," "Reasonable and Prudent
Measures," and "Terms and Conditions" sections of this Opinion are being
implemented and that all project plans are being implemented in a manner to ensure
that the conditions of the Opinion are met.
If during demolition the bridge decks start to crumble and enter the river, a
containment system shall be developed and installed to catch debris that inadvertently
falls from the concrete deck of bridge B-?848 and the concrete rail and deck of bridge
B-1443.
4. A containment system shall be developed and installed prior to the removal of the
piers. The conservation measures proposed by the NCDOT recommend placing
turbidity curtains, if the water depth is sufficient, around each of the bents. We are
concerned that turbidity curtains will not be of sufficient strength to capture material
that may enter the river; therefore, we recommend that the design include a
containment system such as the Jersey barriers (with fabric) around each bent.
When constructing the drilled shafts a containment system will be developed so that
material does not enter the river. Any material by-product will be pumped out of the
shaft and onto uplands and to an off-site disposal area or will be treated through a
proper stilling basin or silt bag.
6. The conservation measures proposed by the NCDOT state that the saw slurry used
during the demolition process will be contained by approved vacuum methods.
Given that a wet saw will be used, the vacuum methods should include a provision for
pumping and treating the saw slurry outside the project area.
7. The NCDOT will not relocate mussels between May 1 and June 30, the time at which
Appalachian elktoes release glochidia. The NCDOT will relocate the mussels during
34

low flow, low turbidity, and relatively cool weather; the most appropriate time to
accomplish this would be in the fall.
8. Demolition of the bridge substructure will occur during low flow in order to reduce
the likelihood that sediment will leave the project area and potentially impact
downstream resources.
9. In the BA, the NCDOT proposed to relocate all native mussels, including the
Appalachian elktoe, from the project "footprints," extending downstream 262 ft
(80 m) and upstream 66 ft (20 m) of the two bridge replacements. Representatives of
the Service's Asheville Field Office may determine during relocation of the mussels
that the area the mussels are moved from should be reduced.
10. A Service biologist will review and provide comments on plans proposed to correct
problems that may be revealed in the monitoring of the river channel and banks
within the project area.
11. The erosion-control plan will be in place prior to any ground disturbance. When
needed, combinations oferosion-control measures (such as silt bags in combination
with a stilling basin) will be used to ensure that the most protective measures are
being implemented.
12. Activities in the floodplain will be limited to those needed to construct the proposed
bridges and remove the existing bridges.
13. Work pads will be used when equipment must be staged in the floodplain to complete
the project construction. The work pads will be constructed by placing fabric matting
down prior to placing the stone work pad. All of the stone and matting will be
removed and disposed of off-site or the stone can be used in areas that require
permanent stone protection after project completion.
14. Access roads and construction staging areas will be minimized to the maximum
extent practicable. The access roads and construction staging areas should be
established from the start of the project and designed with erosion-control measures.
The placement of the access roads and staging areas will be discussed with the
Service and determined at the preconstruction meetings.
15. Riparian vegetation, especially large trees, will be maintained wherever possible. If
riparian areas are disturbed, they will be revegetated with native species as soon as
possible after construction.
16. Upon completion of the project the existing approach fills will be removed to natural
grade, and the area will be planted with native grasses and tree species.
17. Construction will be accomplished in a manner that prevents wet concrete from
coming into contact with water entering or flowing in the river.
35

18. Unconsolidated material (such as sand and dirt) will not be placed directly on the
causeways since the material could be washed off of the causeways or settle into the
causeways and enter the river. If unconsolidated material must be placed on the
causeways, a solid barrier will be placed on the causeways prior to the placement of
the material. The barrier and unconsolidated material will be removed anytime
throughout a work day when the water level rises to a point, or is expected to rise
over night to a point, where material could wash off the causeway or during periods
of inactivity (two or more consecutive days). Any equipment that is placed on the
causeways will also be removed anytime throughout a work day when the water level
rises to a point, or is expected to rise over night to a point, where the equipment could
be flooded or during periods of inactivity (two or more consecutive days). The only
exception to this measure is that the drill rig may be left in place for periods of
inactivity; however, it must also be removed if the water rises or is expected to rise to
a point where the drill rig could be flooded.
19. All construction equipment should be refueled outside the 100-year floodplain or at
least 200 ft from all water bodies (whichever distance is greater) and be protected
with secondary containment. During crucial periods of construction and demolition
when the drill rig and crane cannot be moved, the drill rig and crane can be refueled
while inside the 100-year floodplain provided that spill response materials (such as
spill blankets and fueling diapers) are used during the refueling. Hazardous materials,
fuel, lubricating oils, or other chemicals will be stored outside the 100-year floodplain
or at least 200 ft from all water bodies (whichever distance is greater), preferably at
an upland site. Areas used for borrow or construction by-products will not be located
in wetlands or the 100-year floodplain.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes
of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
1. Where opportunities exist, work with landowners, the general public, and other
agencies to promote education and information about the Appalachian elktoe and its
conservation.
2. Pursue additional buffers and conservation opportunities along the main stem of the
Cane River, North Toe River, and Toe Rivers and their tributaries, either individually
or in concert with other conservation programs.
3. Explore opportunities to work with local and state water quality officials in order to
minimize or eliminate wastewater and storm-water discharges into the Cane River,
North Toe River, and Toe River.
36

~. Consult with the Service on projects affecting aquatic habitat in the Toe River
drainage, regardless of funding source; to ensure compliance with all provisions oi~
the Act.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or
benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of tlae implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
REINITIATIUNICLOSIl1'G STATEIt~EYT
This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in your BAs dated May 12, 2005, and
February 2l, 200b. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the reinitiation of formal consultation is
required. where discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has been
retained {or is authorized bylaw) and if: ~ 1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded,
(2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion, (3) the agency action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critics) habitat
not considered in this Opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that
maybe affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is
exceeded, any operation causing such take must cease, pendinn reinitiation. Consultation should
also be reinitiated if new biological information comes to light that invalidates the assumptions
made regarding the biology or distribution. of the Appalachian elktoe within the project area of
the Nalichuckv River subbasin in North Carolina.
If there are any questions, please contact i19s. Denise Moldenhauer of our staff at 828,`'258-3939,
Ext. 22b, or me, Ext. 223. We have assigned our log number 4-2-02-4b0 to this consultation;
please refer to this number in any future correspondence concerning this platter.
Sincea'e ',
~J I ` ~~~~
d
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ib1r. Tom Walker, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Arnly Carps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 2880] -5006
Mr. Brian Wrenn, North Carolina Division of 1~4%ater Quality, Central taffice, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27b04
Mr. Harold Draper, NEPA Specialist, Environmental Management, Tennessee Valley Authority,
X00 ~?~~est Summit I-3ill Drive, WTBC, Knoxville, TN 37902-1499
.-
11

Electronic copy to:
Mr. Logan Williams, Natural Environment Biological Surveys Group Supervisor, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Mc Roger Bryan, Environmental Compliance Officer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 3279, Asheville, NC 28802
Mr. Steve Fraley, Aquatic Non-game Coordinator, Western Region, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 50 Trillium Way, Clyde, NC 28721
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road, Suite M, Charlotte, NC 28227
Regional Director, FWS, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, GA (ES, Attention: Mr. Joe
Johnston)
Field Supervisor, FWS, Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, NC (Attention: Mr. Gary Jordan)
38

Literature Cited
Ahlstedt, S. A., and B. L. Rashleigh. 1996. The Upper Tennessee River Basin: A Biological
Treasure Imperiled. U.S. Geological Survey. Knoxville, TN.
Aldridge, D. W., B. S. Payne, and A. C. Miller. 1987. The effects on intermittent exposure to
suspended solids and turbulence on three species of freshwater mussels. Environmental
Pollution 1987:17-28.
Bates, J. M. 1962. The impacts of impoundment on the mussel fauna of Kentucky Reservoir,
Tennessee River. Am. Midl. Nat. 68:232-236.
Bellanca, M. A., and D. S. Bailey. 1977. Effects of chlorinated effluents on aquatic ecosystems
in the lower James River. Jour. of Water Pollution Control Federation 49(4):639-645.
Brimm, J. 1991. Coastal plain fishes: Floodplain utilization and the effects of impoundments.
M.S. thesis, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 98 pp.
Brungs, W. A. 1976. Effects of wastewater and cooling water chlorination on aquatic life.
EPA-600/3-76-098. Nat. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA. 45 pp.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part 1: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 326:1-101.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fraley, S. J. and J. W. Simmons. 2004. A Preliminary Report on Cooperative Mussel Surveys in
the Upper Nolichucky River Basin in Western North Carolina, 2002 and 2003, Draft
Report. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC. 3 pp.
. 2006. An Assessment of Selected Rare Mussel Populations in Western North Carolina
Following Extraordinary Floods of September 2004. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. 40 pp.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Molluscs: Bivalvia). Pp. 215-273 in C. W. Hart, Jr.,
and S. L. H. Fuller (eds.), Pollution Ecology of freshwater invertebrates. Academic
Press, NY.
Gardner, J. A., W. R. Woodall, Jr., A. A. Staats, Jr., and J. F. Napoli. 1976. The invasion of the
Asiatic clam in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Nautilus 90(3):117-125.
Gordon, M. E. 199 i . Species account for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana).
Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy. 5 pp.
39

r
Ingram, W. M. 1957. Use and value of biological indicators of pollution: Freshwater clams and
snails. Pp. 94-135 in C. M. Trazwell (ed.). Biological problems in water pollution.
USDHEW, PHS, R. A. Tafi Sanitary Engineering Center. Cincinnati, OH.
Harman, W. N. 1974. The effects of reservoir construction and channelization on mollusks of
the upper Delaware basin. Bull. Am. Malac. Union 1973:12-14.
Havlik, M. E., and L. L. Marking. 1987. Effects of contaminants on Naiad Mollusks
(Unionidae): A Review. U.S. Dept. of the Int., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Resource
. Publ. 164. Washington, DC. 20 pp.
Kat, P. W. 1982. Effects of population density and substratum type on growth and migration of
Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Malacological Review 15(1-2):199-127.
Keller, A. E., and S. G. Zam. 1991. The acute toxicity of selected metals to the freshwater
mussel, Anodonta imbelecilis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:539-546.
Layzer, J. B., M. E. Gordon, and R. M. Anderson. 1993. Mussels: the forgotten fauna of
regulated rivers. A case study of the Caney Fork River. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 8:63-71.
Marking, L. L., and T. D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-21 l in J. L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock
Island, IL. 270 pp.
McGrath, C. 1996. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 22-26 in Annual Performance Report
Vol. V, July 1995 -June 1996, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 185 pp.
------. 1997. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 14-24 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VI, July
1996 -June 1997, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 200 pp.
------. 1998. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 12-16 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VII, July
1997 -June 1998, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 184 pp.
1999. Mountain Aquatic Survey. Pp. 28-36 in Annual Performance Report Vol. VIII,
July 1998 -June 1999, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. 225 pp.
Miller, A. C., L. Rhodes, and R. Tippit. 1984. Changes in the naiad fauna of the Cumberland
River below Lake Cumberland in central Kentucky. The Nautilus 98:107-110.
40

Muncy, J. A. 1981. The Tennessee Valley Authority's Cooperative Noncoal Minerals
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Demonstration Project: Avery, Mitchell, and
Yancey Counties, North Carolina. TVA, Division of Land and Forest Resources,
Norris, TN. 71 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2003. Basinwide
Information Management System Reports, website.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2005. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Water Quality Section,
Raleigh, NC. 158 pp. +.Appendices.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan.
Raleigh, NC.
Ortmann, A. E. 1909. The destruction of the freshwater fauna in western Pennsylvania. Proc.
of the Amer. Phil. Soc. 48(1):90-110.
Stein, C. B. 1971. Naiad life cycles: their significance in the conservation of the fauna.
Pp. 19-25 in Jorgensen and Sharp (eds.). Proceedings of a Symposium on Rare and
Endangered Mollusks (Naiads) of the United States. U.S. Dept. of the Int., Fish and
Wildl. Serv. Bur. of Sport Fish. and Wildl.
Tennessee Valley Authority .1981. Surface mines and sedimentation. Impact 4(4):15.
Tsai, C. F. 1975. Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish: a review of literature.
Chesapeake Res. Consort. Inc., Publ. No. 36. Center for Env. and Estuarine Studies.
Univ. of Maryland, Solomons, MD.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Appalachian elktoe determined to be an endangered species. Federal Register
59(225):60324-603 34.
------. 1996. Recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) Lea.
Atlanta, GA. 31 pp.
------. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for
the Appalachian Elktoe. Federal Register 67(188}:61016-61040.
Williams, J. D., S. L. H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1992. Effects of impoundments on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural
History 13:1-10.
41

Figure
~O
.®
~.
. ~.
~~
~.~~.
~`
•titi
~ane~
' Ha 'tat ,~--~~~~
1304 ~ _-J Red 'II
r' 197
&1443.- ti
0
e~
.ti
~ ^ -
`/~.,
~~
LEGEND
County Boundary 0 City Boundary
Bridges Major Hydrology
Primary Roads -Critical Habitat
Secondary Roads
S° r
~~~
~_,.I"\

h ~7' .~
'7
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Mi

'2' . ^
°n Figure 1. Action Area
~.
Y
70
~ l\
i~
8-2848
° s
SR 1304 ~ - ~ Red HiJI ~
i
- ~~' ~'\
bane Ri~'~E~ 197
er ills
i
~. &9443
i y
so
s ~
LEGEND ~~~~
County Boundary C~ City Boundary i ~~~ ~ }•t/! ~`"~ R~r
Bridges -Action Area ~'
Primary Roads Mapr Hydrology ~_~~-- ~°
Secondary Roads ~ Burnsville So1A` ~ 0.5 2 3
Miles

n
- - - SITE ~
a
9
SEE INSET
BELdW
M I TCI-ELV YANCEY COIXVTY
( i// ! ,' /~ ~ v ( I s 1~ O;` ~ ` may- 1\\ -v ..,7 f,~r~ i!/
~r ~ G,tn,T"~' ~~,~ ~r `l~~ `/ `~ ~~n ,1. ~ 4 tip(?r S~. K l J )(. tio'
[Lr(,` ~(1: ;.~%I? ~`lt:,-.`.~(~ r ~~ ~~syl/~1~(L~J~,~lrir .f_., fit``-;~~ - ~ ~/`,~ .i~~
~~ / ~p - I lj ((> >.r~0 ~ ~,., f~~~ ~~ - i ,o'^. ~ v \. , ~ ~. D }li i ~ 4 ~ lrl `) /, {L)' '~ ~•
~l~ l.'~.~: ~I I%~:~ j ~`>l1,'r~~ ' ~\~ 4lv~k~bl~v` v~-~~y~ / '~~ y ~ ,.~, ~~ r~`(~~''I5s, a\vl'/J ~i
, i~ e ~ 1 r '~ l/r `~ It lam, -'' (.-~.-- ~~i~ ` f~, `~ ` . 3~4 i-
..(f+1. + `) , ~~ < C ~" .oo \.~`-, ~ !, ~ -v)~\ ~) ~ ail ,ti 1 ~ r , ~l I 1
\r, ~ ...1~"`i ! .,~ f / / l) r/, v ~ ,\ }'~~~` ~~~'~ 1)i, 'l ~l r 1~'~ /~ 7~ ~~ ~y~. r.
~ ~ \ i .'
R
~J ,~.~. c-...
~Il~ ~ ~~~....)\}l~\~. ~~), .`^~t`"-~ ~~;~~yY )etc ~~~1 ~? ,~ ~'~ ~~`i~,l~_~ 4//%)~lii
'1~1`. , k~ ''',.,, _ . ` _ ^`-, \ ~ ~',~1 .,- \1 1,} t ~~~ //,- -err-. 1~ ~ ; ``J
[Zlll lC.i l I~\.. ~~f / ~J~~' ~ 1- I}~l ~ l (~Rh 11.4 ~ ~_ ~1f 1> _G, .
i~ i (~/ ... ~ , ~' _ t lit 1.
`1~` iii ~ / 1 1` ,.. `~i 4~ ~~ ~,\,~ \I~`;~\`\--~_~
`'^-..t JiL ~/n 1. J• ~ ~ 1 ))~ ~~l \ l~. ~,~I ~~~i/f l\ `, ~ ~\ r~~ rl f{~I j.: ~ `i~\
\ NN S
yy 1. 1` ~ ~~ 2052 ~~~ ~r~^l'_' ~ ~. ~ ~ ti~ I ~ \~ . `<<<
VICI11tITY MAP NTS 1
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
--~^--~-•-'--~~- ~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
R ~ `~~' ~ ~~'~ ~" ~ MITCHELL/ YANCEY COUNTY
j PROJBCT: B.2880~OL (B-Y8~18)
BRIDGE N0.1~3 ON SR 13W
SEP ~+ t.,. OVER NORTH TOE R[VER
j~j ~, ~;+`, "',j SHEET ` OF . 8/15/06

DDnDncrn nninrr nrrv
QUANTITIES OF ESTIMATES (SEE PLANy~FOR LOCATIONS)
VOLUME OF CLASS II RIP RAP= 2175 yds3
AREA OF CLASS II RIP RAP= Oa398 ac
Estimate 2480 Tons Class II Rip Rap
WORKPAD
I' - CLASS I RIP RAP)

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

1
Station
(From/To)

11+g7.50 -L-
Structure
Size I Type

TEMP BRIDGE WORKPAD
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
In Wetlands
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ac)
Fill In SW
(Natural)
(ac)
Fill In SW
(Pond)
(ac)
Temp. Fill
In SW
(ac)
0.353 Existing
Channel
Impacted
(ft) Natural
Stream
Design
(ft}

TOTALS: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.353 0 0
I ci ~ ,~ r ' ~ I, ..
' ' ~ NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~~-F= _ ~~1 ~~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
YANCEY/MITCHELL COUNTY
PROJECT 8.2880401 B-2848
Form Revised 322/01
SHEET OF RrvB/18/2006

Mitchell and Yancey Counties
Bridge No. 143
SR 1304 over the North Toe River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304 (4~
State Project No. 8.2880401
T.I.P. No. B-2848
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June, 2003
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
r
~ ~03
DATE Stephanie dbetter Caudill
Project Planning Engineer
D T Cynthia .Sharer, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit

Mitchell and Yancey Counties
Bridge No. 143
SR 1304 over the North Toe River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304 (4)
State Project No. 8.2880401
T.I.P. No. B-2848
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DA E ~ I~Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
30 ~3 ~ ~v~-...-, ~, .
DATE ~. John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMI'TMENTS ....................................3
II. StiRvlMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................3
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................3
IV. ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 5
V. ESTIMATED COSTS .............................................................................................7
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................7
VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION ..................................................8
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................................8
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................24
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...........:.............................................24
XI. REFFERENCES ...........................................................................26
Figures
Appendix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -Site Location Map
Figure 2 -Aerial Photograph of Project
Figure 3&4 -Photographs of Bridge #143
Figure 5- Typical Bridge Cross Section

Project Commitments
MitchelVYancey Counties
Bridge No. 143
SR 1304 liver North Toe River
Federal Project BRZ-1304(4)
State Project 82880401
TIP No. &2848
Highway Division 13, Hydraulics Unit, Structure Design Unit
In onier to avoid and minimize environmental impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 143,
all standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters and the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions will
be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by
toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
1. In addition to NC DOT Best Management Practices, the contractor must submit a bridge demolition plan
for approval by the Division 13 engineer prior to beginning bridge removal. Since some bridge debris will
enter the water, the contractor must submit a work plan sealed by a PE. The contractor's work plan will
detail the,maximum amount of the bridge that can be safely removed dropping minimal portions into the
water. Also, this plan will indicate any proposed use of explosives and the methods to be used to retrieve
and dispose of all components of the existing bridge dropped into the water. The volume of structural
material to be retrieved from the existing bridge will be approximately 150 cubic yards (114.61 cubic
meters).
1. Construction will be accomplished so wet concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the
river. Demolition of the existing structure will be completed such that minimal asphalt or dirt fill from the
existing deck enters the river. Any debris or construction material that falls into the river will be
removed immediately.
3. Every effort will be made to minimize deck drainage, the overall footprint of bents, any scour problems,
and any debris accumulation associated with the project.
Roadway Design Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadside
Environmental Unit, Highway Division 13, Structure Design Unit
1 Upon completion of the project the existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area
will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species such as Hard Fescuel or Bluegrass or as
recommended by the division engineer.
2. Activities in the flood plain will be limited to those needed to construct the proposed bridge and remove
the existing bridge. Areas used for borrow or construction by-products will not be located in
floodplains.

3. Every effort will be made m minimize work pads fi the flood plain.
4. During and after bridge demolition neither bridge debris, asphalt or dirt fill wiq be allowed to enter
Waters of the United States. Silt fences, silt bags or other suitable sedimentation control measures may
be used at the approval of the Division Engineer.
Highway Division 13, Hydraulics, PDBEA, Structure Design Unit
1. NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to incorporate sufficient measures and
monitoring, as required, in addition to those listed below, to avoid impacts to the endangered
Appalachian Elktoe mussel (Alasmidorita raveneliana).
2. All Elktoe mussel species must be removed prior to construction. Bridge Construction may be subject
to a moratorium. A Consultation in compliance with Section (la) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 will follow this CE document in order to more closely identif)r the specific course of action
necessary to minimize impacts to the endangered Appalachian Elktoe Mussel species.
3. The NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will be invited to the pre-construction conference to discuss with the contractor the provisions
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and penalties for violation of the Act.
4. Stringent erosion control measures included in the Division of Water Quality's High Quality Waters
Erosion Control Guidelines will be implemented during all construction activities.
5. Riparian vegetation will be maintained wherever possible, especially large tn:es.
6. If riparian areas are disturbed, they will be revegetated with native species as soon as possible after
construction.
7. Prior to construction the contractor will be required to give notification of the construction initiation date
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
8. Pre-let surreys will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliana).
9. The North Toe River is classified as a Trout water; North Carolina regulations entitled Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds shall be implemented during the design and construction of this
project,. as applicable. A letter of notification, with reference to impacts to mountain trout water habitat,
will be provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Asheville Regulatory Field Office and the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) office prior to construction of the project.
Categorical Exclusion Commitments
May 2003
2

Mitchell and Yancey Counties
Bridge No. 143
SR 1304 over North Toe River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1304 (4)
State Project No. 8.2880401
T.LP. No. 8-2846
Bridge No. 143 in Mitchell and Yancey Counties is lusted in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP No. 8-2848. The
purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No.143due to its poor condition and substandard design.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. Based on the assessment of the
existing human and natural environment, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 143. Refer to Figures 1 through 4 for location and
illustrations of the project area and existing bridge location.
All measurements contained in this report are in System International metric units, approximate metric
system equivalent units are indicated in parentheses next to the English System equivalents.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The Environmental Commitments Listed on pages 1 and 2 are intended to minimize impacts to the
Appalachian Elktoe Mussel Species and other species dependent upon the North Toe River.
11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing one-lane structure (Bridge No. 143) will be replaced with amulti-span two-lane bridge on new
location approximately 50 feet (15.2_meters) downstream of the existing bridge (Alternate B as shown in
Figure 2). The new bridge will be approximately 350 feet (108 meters) in length and will have a clear
roadway width of 24 feet (7.2 meters) consisting of two travel lanes with 2 feet (0.6 meter) shoulders on
each side of the bridge.
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed after
construction is complete.
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $1,216,000. This amount includes $66,000
for right-of way acquisition and $1,250,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 143 is located on SR 1304 approximately 1.4 mi (2.3 kilometers) south of NC 197 in the
community of Huntdale, North Carolina. The bridge crosses over the North Toe River which divides
3

Mitchell and Yancey Counties. Refer to Figure 1 for the existing bridge location and Figures 2 through 4 for
illustrations of the project area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
Bridge No. 143 is a one-lane bridge constructed in 1922. It has five spans, totaling 367 feet (111.9 meters)
in length, and has a clear roadway width of 12 feet (3.6 meters). The superstructure of the bridge consists
of a reinforced concrete deck, an asphalt wearing surface, and metal guardrails. The substructure consists
of reinforced concrete earth filled spandrel arches, reinforced concrete abutments, and reinforced concrete
piers. Bridge No. 143 was constructed on a vertical curve. The crest of this curve is located approximately
in the middle of the bridge and has estimated 1.0 percent grades on each side of the crest. The bridge
deck in the middle of the bridge is approximately 28 feet (8.5 meters) above the river bottom. The bridge
has no horizontal curvature.
Acxording to the 2002 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 23.0 and is
considered structurally deficient. The original bridge rails were replaced with metal guardrails in 1980 due
to their deteriorated condition.
There are currently no posted restrictions on the bridge.
NORTH TOE RIVER
Bridge No. 143 is located in a meander of the North Toe River approximately 2,500 feet (762 meters)
upstream from the river's confluence with the Cane River. At the existing bridge crossing, the North Toe
River has a drainage area of approximately 44" square miles (1,145 square kilometers) consisting of
mostly steep, heavily wooded,, mountainous ter::. with scattered residential development. The river is
approximately 180 feet (55 meters) wide and has a variable depth of approximately 3 feet (1.0 meters) at
the existing bridge.
Although Mitchell and Yancey Counties are participants in the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) National Flood Insurance .Regular Program, the North Toe River within the project area was not
included in the detailed FEMA study. Design flows for this project were estimated using drainage areas
calculated from USGS gauge and rural regression equations from the USGS Water Resources
Investigation Report 96-4085.
ROADWAY INFORMATION
SR 1304 begins in Yancey County at the south end of Bridge No. 143, crosses the North Toe River into
Mitchell County and extends eastward ending at NC 197. It is classified as a minor collector in the
Statewide Functional Class cation System and primarily serves local traffic. This two lane highway is
approximately 18.0 feet (5.4 meters) in width and has variable width unpaved shoulders, except over
Bridge No. 143. SR 1304 is a one-lane roadway over the bridge serving two-way traffic contra{led by a stop
sign on the south approach of the bridge. The width of SR 1304 measures 3.6 meters (12 ft) over the
bridge.
SR 1304 intersects SR 1417 and SR 1340 at a 65 degree angle on the south approach of the bridge. It is
tangent across the river but makes a sharp (110 degrees) tum at the north approach. SR 1320 intersects
SR 1304 at the north end of the existing bridge in this sharp curve. Refer to Figure 2 for illustration of these
intersections.
4

Vehicles must enter and exit the one lane bridge at sharp angles. It is likely that large trucks have difficulty
negotiating the turns at each end of the existing bridge.
The posted speed limit on SR 1304 in the vicinity of the bridge is 35 mph.
The 2002 average daily traffic volume on SR 1304 over Bridge No. 143 is estimated to be 200 vehicles per
day (vpd) which includes 2 percent TTST vehicles and 3 percent dual-tired (Dual) vehicles. The 2025
design year average da'sly Qffic volume over the bridge is expected to be 300 vpd.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project is located in a rural setting consisting of either scattered residential and commercial
development or is undeveloped mountainous terrain. The small community of Huntdale is located in the
vicinity of the bridge. This community consists of several single family residences, a general store/gas
station, and a church. A CSX Railroad line runs through the community paralleling the north side of the
North Toe River. Both Mitchell and Yancey Counties have experienced very little growth in the past and
are not expected to substantially increase in population in the future.
According to school officials, no school buses cross Bridge No. 143.
Two accidents were reported within the project area between September 1,1992 and August 31, 2002.
The French Broad Electric Membership Corporation has aerial electrical service lines at both ends of the
existing budge and aerial electrical service crossing the North Toe River just upstream. There are no
utilities attached to Bridge No. 143. Utility impacts for this project are expected to be "low".
There are remnants of an old sawmill located at the northeast end of the existing bridge.
There are no U.S. Geological Survey geodetic survey markers located on or near Bridge No. 143.
No major developments or roadway improvements are planned that would impact the historical growth
rates or travel patterns in the area of this project.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three replacement altematives, a "Do-Nothing" altemate, and a "Rehabilitation" altemate were considered
for this project.
Due to the poor condition of the existing structure, the 'Do-Nothing" altemate and the "Rehabilitation"
altemate were eliminated from further study.
Based on the lack of a suitable otf-site detour route, no altematives involving an off-site detour were
considered. Traffic will be maintained on-site using the existing bridge during construction.
5

An 'in-place' bridge replacement,-using an on-site detour, will be cost prohibitive due to the cost of a
temporary detour bridge. Based on this; an `in-place" bridge replacement was not considered.
Three alternatives (A, B and C) were studied for replacing Bridge No. 143. Each of these alternatives
consists of a multi-span bridge having a clear roadway width of 24 feet (7.2 meters) which includes two
travel lanes totaling 20 feet (6.0 meters) in width and a 2 feet (0.6 meter} shoulder on each side of the
bridge. The roadway approaches will have a 20 feet (6.0 meter) pavement width and 2 feet (0.6 meter)
unpaved shoulders.
The following is a detailed description of each of the three study altemates (as shown in Figure 2):
ALTERNATE A
This altemative replaces Bridge No. 143 with a new bridge located approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters)
downstream of the existing structure. The proposed river crossing is in a narrow section of the North Toe
River and would provide a shorter bridge than other altemates under study.
Altemate A will require the grade of SR 1320 to be raised approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) above its
existing elevation from west of the proposed bridge to SR 1304, a distance of approximately 550 feet (168
meters). Raising the elevation of SR 1320 will result in longitudinal encroachment upon the North Toe
River and upon the CSX Railroad tracks. Based on review of Mitchell County tax maps, it appears SR
1320 is on CSX Railroad right of way.
Altemate A is not recommended due to the impacts to the North Toe River and to the CSX Railroad.
ALTERNATE B (Recommended)
Altemate 8 will replace the existing bridge with a new bridge located approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters)
downstream of the existing structure. The existing grade of SR 1320 on the north side of the river will be
raised to match the existing elevation of SR 1304 and the north end of the proposed bridge.
This altemative will be less costly than Altemate C and will have less impact on the natural environment
than Altemate A or C. Altemate B will have a shorter bridge than Altemate C because it will be
downstream of the meander in the North Toe River and west of the horizontal curve in SR 14171SR 1340.
Altemate B will not encroach upon McKinney Branch located north of SR 1340 and east of the existing
bridge.
ALTERNATE C
This altemative replaces Bridge No. 143 with a new bridge located approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters)
upstream of the existing structure. Due to the horizontal curvatures of SR 1417/SR 1340 south of the river
and of SR 1320/SR 1304 north of the river, a longer bridge would be required for this altemate.
A small tributary, McKinney Branch, is located on the north side of SR 1340 approximately 90 feet (27
meters) upstream of the existing bridge. McKinney Branch will be relocated by Altemate C. Altemate C will
also impact remnants of an old sawmill located on the north side of the river approximately 130 feet (40
meters} upstream of the existing bridge.
This altemate will require the relocation of aerial electrical service lines extending over the North Toe River
located just upstream of the existing bridge.
s

.,
Altemate C is not recommended due to the increased cost of a longer bridge and to the impacts to
McKinney Branch.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of Alternates A, B and C, based on 2002 dollars, are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Altemate A Altemate B
Recommended Alternate C
Structure ro osed $ 489,600 $ 622,080 $ 685,440
Roadwa A roaches $ 361,799 $ 232,266 $179,590
Structure Removal existin $ 37,233 $ 37,233 $ 37,233
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 242,368 $ 203,420 $189,776
En ineerin and Contin encies $169,000 $155,000 $158,000
Ri ht-of-Wa and Utilities $41,500 $41,900 $42,600
Total $1,341,500 $1,291,900 $1,292,600
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2002-2008 TIP, is $1,452,000,000 (1,250,000 for
construction, $202,000 for right-of way, with the remainder for planning studies}.
Vl. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 143 will be replaced on new location (Altemate B) with amulti-span bridge located
approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) downstream of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The new bridge
will be approximately 350 feet (108 meters) in length and will be placed at approximately the same
elevation as the existing structure. The bridge will have a clear roadway width of 24 feet (7.2 meters) which
includes two travel lanes totaling 20 feet (6.0 meters) in width and a 2 feet (0.6 meter) shoulder on each
side of the bridge. The roadway approaches will have a pavement width of 20 feet (6.0 meter) and 2 feet
(0.6 meter) unpaved shoulders on each side.
The length and height of the proposed structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydraulic studies and to minimize impacts to
endangered species or their habit.
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed after
construction is complete.
7

VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
A design exception for the design speed will be required for this project due to the horizontal curves on
each end of the new bridge. The construction costs and environmental impacts associated with providing a
design speed of 35 mph, the posted speed limit over the bridge, will be excessive. The design speed of
this project wiN be less than 30 mph.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of studying natural resources is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the
immediate area of potential project impact. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an
assessment of biological features within the. study corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife,
protected species, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from
construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation were derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey {USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic mapping
(Huntdale, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural
Resources Conservation Service draft soils mapping (USDA Unpublished), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1200).
The site was initially visited on February 6, 1997 and several follow- up visits were made to survey for
protected species. The study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for sign cant features. The study
corridor is approximately 305 by 1000 by 600 feet (183 meters). Impact calculations for each altemate are
based on right-of--way width, which is approximately 80 feet (24 meters) for each altemate; actual impacts
will be limited to construction limits and will be less than those shown for right-of-way. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection
in the North Toe River.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications were
modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenGature found in Radford et
al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers {COE) delineation guidelines (DOA
1987}. Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979}. Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected
population -distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Martof et a/. 1980, Webster of a1. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et
a1. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Water Quality (DEM
1989, DEM 1993, DEM 1994). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Mitchell and
Yancey Counties was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records
8

documenting presence of .federal or state listed species wen= consulted before commencing the field
investigation.
Physio4raphy and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Mountain physiographic province. Topography is characterized by
strongly sloping to very steep uplands with narrow floodplains along drainages. Elevations in the study
corridor range from approximately 2040 feet (620 meters) above sea level along the river to approximately
2080 feet (635 meters) along the slope southwest of the bridge (USGS Huntdale, NC quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by the Biltmore sand (0 to 3 percent slope) mapping unit along the
inside bend of the river, Unison loam (15 to 30 percent slopes) mapping unit along the outside bend of the
river, and the Buladean-Chestnut complex (50 to 95 percent slopes} mapping unit along the slope
southwest of the bridge. The Biltmore sand series (Typic Udipsammer~ts) is a well drained to moderately
well drained, non-hydric series located on floodplains and is subject to periodic flooding. The Unison loam
series is a well drained, non-hydric series found on high stream terraces, benches, coves, and copuvial
fans. The Buladean soils and Chestnut soils (Typic Dystrochrepts) are well drained, non-hydric soils found
on side scopes.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 040306 of the French Broad River Basin (DEM 1994). This
area is part of USGS accounting unit 060101 of the Tennessee River Region. Bridge No.143 crosses the
North Toe River approximately 2500 feet (762 meters) upstream from its confluence with the Cane River;
the Nolichucky River is formed at this confluence. A small tributary, McKinney Branch, is also present
within the study corridor. McKinney Branch enters the North Toe River approximately 90 feet (27 meters)
upstream from the bridge. The North Toe River section from the town of Spruce Pine water supply intake
downstream to the Nolichucky River has been assigned Stream. Index Number 7-2-(27.7) by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Water Quality
(DWQ McKinney Branch has been assigned Stream Index Number 7-2-71.
Stream Characteristics
The North Toe River is a large mountain river with swift flow over sandy and rocky substrate. Gravel bars
are present within the channel downstream from the bridge, and large rock outcrops are present upstream
and downstream from the bridge. A series of submerged rock ledges is present beginning approximately
160 feet (49 meters) downstream from the bridge. The North Toe River is approximately 180 feet (55
meters) wide at the existing bridge, but widens to approximately 200 feet (61 meters) immediately
upstream and downstream within the study corridor. River depth is dependent on hydrologic conditions,
and appears to be about 3 feet (0.9 meters) at the bridge. Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is
apparent in the river channel, but some organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) was apparent. Extensive
woody debris has been placed or has accumulated on the left bank upstream from the bridge, which has in
tum served to trap a large amount of sand and sediment.
McKinney Branch, a perennial stream which roughly parallels SR 1340, flaws under a small bridge on
SR 1340 and through a culvert under a driveway leading to private residences to empty into the North Toe
River approximately 90 feet (27 meters) upstream from the existing bridge. McKinney Branch varies in
9

width from 5 feet (1.5 meters) upstream from the culvert, to 3 feet (0.9 meters) downstream from the
culvert. Stream flow on the date of the site visit was swift with 0.2 to 0.5 feet (0.1 to 0.2 meters) of water
flowing overmostiy sandy substrate upstream from the culvert, and sandy and rocky substrate downstream
from the culvert. The banks within the lower reach within the study corridor have been substantially
impacted by residential development and roadway maintenance.
A small, intermittent drain approximately 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meters) wide flows from a culvert under SR
1304 into the North Toe River approximately 360 feet {116 meters) upstream from Bridge No. 143. Water
depth is approximately 0.3 feet (0.1 meters) with swift flow over sandy, mostly vegetated substrate.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated
best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage classification of C Tr has
been assigned to the North Toe River from the town of Spruce Pine water supply intake downstream to the
Nolichucky River, and to McKinney Branch from its source to the North Toe River (DEM 1993). The
designation C denotes that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on
an infrequent or incidental basis. The Tr designation is used for trout waters characterized as waters
suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I, or WS II Waters occur within
1 mi (1.6 kilometers} of the study corridor. Neither the North Toe River nor McKinney Branch is designated
as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and Scenic River.
There are several permitted point source dischargers upstream from the study corridor (DEM 1989, DEM
1994). The nearest facility is more than 10 mi upstream. These facilities, along with flows (in MGD), are
presented in the following table:
Facility NPDES# Receiving Stream Coun Flow
Bakersville WWTP NC0025461/001 Cane Creek Mitchell 0.0750
Feldspar Corp NC00003531001 North Toe River Mitchell 3.5000
K-T Feldspar N00000400/001 North Toe River Mitchell 1.7300
Ledbetter Oil Co NC0076911/001 White Oak Creek Avery 0.0045
Spruce Pine WWTP NC0021423/001 North Toe River Mitchell 0.6000
Unimin Corp-Mica NC0000361I001 North Toe River Avery 2.1600
Unimin Corp-Quartz N00000175/001North Toe River Mitchell 3.6100
No significant non-point discharges were noted in the study corridor.
Despite the number of permitted discharges upstream, the water quality of the North Toe River in the
vicinity of the study corridor has been rated as Good to Good-Fair based on ratings assigned by the
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN). BMAN addresses long-term trends in water quality
at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates and then evaluating species
richness and overall biomass to assess overall water quality (DEM 1969). In addition to BMAN sampling
stations, DWQ has additional benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stations in the North Toe River upstream
and downstream from the study corridor. fn 1992, sampling stations in the North Toe River upstream from
10

the study corridor received Good or Good-Fair biocfassifications, and a station downstream from the study
corridor received a Good bioclassification (DEM 1994).
Another measure of water quality being used is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which
assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community. There is a NCIBI station
on the North Toe River along NC 197, which is approximately 1.3 to 2.6 miles (2.1 to 4.2 kilometers)
upstream from the study corridor. This site received a rating of Good in 1992 (DEM 1994).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Stringent erosion control measures included in the Division of Water Quality's High Quality Waters Erosion
Control Guidelines will be implemented during all construction activities. In order to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 143, all standard procedures and
measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the
Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project.
Because a federally endangered freshwater mussel, the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), has
been found in the vicinity of the existing bridge, the above design and construction standards should be
stringently followed during the life of this project to minimize impacts to this species.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed improvements.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present stream flow in the North Toe River,
thereby protecting stream integrity. Alternatives A and B will avoid impacts to McKinney Branch; however,
a small section of McKinney Branch is located within the right-of-way for Alternative C. The small, unnamed
intermittent tributary to the North Toe River has been avoided by all project alternatives and will not be
impacted.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: hardwood forest, riverine bar, and
maintained/disturbed areas. These plant communities are described below.
Hardwood Forest -Hardwood forest is located on the steep slope near the western end of the bridge and
in a narrow band between SR 1417 and the river. Within the study corridor, this community is represented
by ecotonal edge; no forest interior is affected. In addition to the hardwoods, there are a few needle-
bearing canopy trees. Canopy species include white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern hemlock (7suga
canadense), black birch (Befula lenta), northern red oak (Quercus rubs), black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), tulip tree (Liriodendron tuliprferd), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentaiis).
Subcanopy trees are sparse and include black cherry (Prunus serofina), maple (Ater sp.), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), and canopy species. Shrubs include rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Christmas fern (Potystichum acrostichoides)
and rosettes of various perennials were growing among the hillside rocks.
11

Riverine Bar -This community is represented by two small riverine bars located approximately 91 to 152
meters (300 to 500 ft) downstream from the existing bridge. Extensive sand deposits may periodically
cover much of the rocky substrate. Vegetative cover is sparse and dominated by shrubs. Species present
along the river such as ash-leaved maple (Ater negundo) and silky dogwood (Comus amomum) may
become established as shrubs but are not expected to mature into trees due to frequent overwash and
scouring.
MaintainedlDisturbed Areas -This community includes the roadsides, mowed lawns, garden plots, and
disturbed river bank areas. Scattered trees remain in this community and include black locust, American
sycamore, ash-leaved maple, red maple (A. rubrum), and black walnut (Jug/ans nigra). Herbaceous
species include evening primrose (Oenofhera blennls), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), asters (Aster spp.),
wingstem (Verbesina altemifolia), giant ragweed .(Ambrosia tnfida), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum
cuspidatum), jimson weed (Datum stramonium), lovevine (Cuscuta sp.), panic grass (Panlcum sp.),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense), wild-rye (Elymus virginicus), and foxtail grass (Setaria sp.).
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the projected right-of way; actual impacts within construction limits will be less. A summary
of potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(in Acres)
Plant Community Alternate A Alternate B
Recommended Alternate C
Hardwood Forest 0.47 0.19 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.10
Riverine Bar 0.10 0.04 p 0
Maintained/Disturbed 1.18 0.48 1.33 0.54 1.43 0.58
Total 1.75 0.71 1.56 0.64 1.68 0.68
Note: Hectares shown in parentheses.
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are generally restricted to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. The total potential impact to
plant communities based on right-of--way is similar among the three alternatives, with ranges between 1.58
ac (C .hectares) for Alternative B to 1.75 ac (0.71 hectares) for Alternative A. However, most of this
poten~.::< impact for each alternative is within maintainedldisturbed areas and does not infringe upon
12

y
adjacent natural communities. Alternative A has a higher relative impact-to natural communities (32 percent
of total potential impact) than either Alternative B or C (1fi and 15 percent of total potential impact,
respectively).
~Idlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor consists of maintained/disturbed areas. Birds observed within or adjacent to the
corridor include northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melosprza melodia), blue jay
(Cyanocitfa cristata}, American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
eastem bluebird (Sialis sialia), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileafus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis), and Carolina chickadee (Faros carolinensis). Other birds, such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastem screech owl (Otus asio), tufted titmouse (Pares
bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern oriole (Icterus galbula) and indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea) may be expected to occur within the ecotonal woodland and maintainedldisturbed
communities within the study corridor.
Mammal sign (tracks) observed within the study corridor included cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.), domestic dog
(Canis familiaris), and house cat (Fells catus). Other species expected include gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), opportunistic species such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and various rodents. Due to the season in which the field work was conducted, no terrestrial reptile
or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor.
Aquatic^
Limited dip-netting within the study corridor did not yield any fish; however, the varied riverine habitat and
good water quality is expected to support numerous species of minnows, darters, and other fish. Species
that may be present include central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), whitetail shiner (Cyprinella
galacturus), telecope and mirror shiners (Notropis telescopes and N. spectrunculus), fatiips minnow
(Phenacobius crassilabrum), white sucker 'Cafostomus commersonr), black redhorse (Moxostoma
duquesner), greenside darter (Etheostoma blE: -odes), sharphead darter (E. acuticeps), banded darter (E.
zonate), gilt darter (Percina evides), and mottiec sculpin (Coitus bairdi). Potential game fish which may be
present within the study corridor include rock bass (Amblopl~tes rupestris}, redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) (Menhinick
1991, Rohde of al. 1994). There are no-anadromous fish within this system.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates observed in the stream included the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea). Stream
bank surveys did not yield any shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel presence within the
study condor; however, NHP files indicate that Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and wavy-
rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola) have been found within or adjacent to the study corridor. Field
evaluations indicate that habitat for these species is present within the study corridor.
Limited surveys did not result in documenting any salamanders in the stream. The stream provides
suitable habitat for a few aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as shovelnose
salamander (Leurognathus marmoratus}, blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadromaculatus}, and
queen snake (Regina septemvittata).
13

1 '`
Anticipated Irnaacts to Wildlife -~
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Potential down-stream
impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction
will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Surface Waters and North
Carolina regulations entitled Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, as practicable, during
construction. These measures should be stringently followed to reduce impacts to the Appalachian elktoe,
a federally-endangered species.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of the North Toe River and McKinney Branch are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" {33
CFR 328.3). The waters of the North Toe River and McKinney Branch exhibit characteristics of riverine,
upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded waters (R3UBH).
Alternatives B and C will bridge the open waters of the North Toe River, negating the need for direct
encroachment into riverine waters. Altemative A may impact 00.17 ac. (07 hectares) of open water area of
the North Toe River due to encroachments associated with raising the roadbed northwest of the bridge.
This encroachment into riverine waters may extend up to 30 feet (9 meters) from shore along
approximately 600 feet (183 meters) of river bank. This encroachment for Altemative A wi{I be required for
necessary approach improvements to SR 1320; the remaining open waters of the North Toe River would
be bridged. The open waters of the North Toe River within the right-of-way for each alternative are
presented in Table 3. The open waters for Altemative C include the open waters of McKinney Branch
(less than 0.01 ac (0.004 hectares)) within the Altemative Cright-of-way.
TABLE 3
POTENTIAL OPEN-WATER IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
(Acres)
Plant Community Alternate A Alternate B
Recommended Alternate C
Srid in 0.28 0.11 0.37 0.15 0.33 0.13
Fill 0.17 0.07 0 0
Total 0.45 (0.18) 0.37 (0.15) 0.33 (0.13)
Note: Hectares shown in parentheses.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act {33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the
presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near
the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three parameter
14

4
approach, limited jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor within the linear, intermittent drain
located upstream from the bridge. This drain exhibits characteristics of palustrine, emergent wetlands
(PEM), with evidence of hydric soil characteristics (i.e., gleying), intermittent surface flooding and saturation
at the surface, and dominance by hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation. This drain covers an area
approximately 110 by 3 feet (34 by 1 meters); however, none of the alternatives will impact this
jurisdictional area.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the COE far
CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP
#23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not
suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify
under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington
COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
Mitchell and Yancey Counties are among the twenty-five mountain counties designated as having trout
waters. The COE has implemented discretionary authority to ovenide certain nationwide and general
permits which authorize the discharge of dredged or fill materials into North Carolina designated trout
waters. Generally, projects involving trout stream infringement, including all waters upstream to and above
their headwaters, can be processed under either General Bridge Permit 031 or Individual Permit. Projects
in trout waters require review by the DEHNR, Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Neither the North
Toe River section within and downstream from the study corridor, nor the receiving waters of the
Nolichucky River are designated by the WRC as Public Mountain Trout Waters.
Review of this project by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is required under Section 26a of the TVA
Act. The TVA will require the use of Best Management and Best Engineering Practices as outlined in its
Wafer Management Standard Conditions.
Foundation test borings, if required, will be approved under General 401 Certification Number
3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and the COE will be required.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, utilization of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Surface Waters, as practicable, during
construction is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
15

PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Soecies
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially proposed (P) for
such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA} of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531
et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Mitchell (M) and Yancey ~ Counties
(February 24, 2003 FWS list}:
Common Name
Bog turtle
Virginia big-eared bat
Peregrine falcon
Eastern cougar
Carolina northem flying squirrel
Indiana bat
Appalachian elktoe
Spreading avens
Roan Mountain biuet
Heller's blazing star
Blue Ridge goldenrod
Virginia spiraea
Rock gnome lichen
Spruce-fir moss spider
Scient~c Name Coun Status
Clemmys muhlenburgii Y P
Corynorhinus townsendii Y E
Falco peregrinus Y E
Fells concolor couguar Y E
G/aucomys sabrinus coforatus M, Y E
Myofis sodalis M E
Alasmidonta raveneliana M, Y E
Geum radiatum M. Y E
Houstonia morrtana Y E
Liatris helleri M T
Solidago spithamaea M T
Spiraea virginiana M, Y T
Gymnoderma lineare M, Y E
Microhexura montivaga M,Y E
Bog Turtle -The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches (8 to 10
centimeters). This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright
orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. a1.1980). The bog turtle has declined
drastically within the northem portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result,
the FWS officially proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 4229) to list bog turtle as
threatened within the northem portion of its range, and within the southem portion of its range, which
includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is proposed for (isting as threatened due to similarity of appearance
to the northem population. The proposed listing would allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southem
population resulting from othewise lawful activity.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association with aquatic or
semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). In
North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP
records do not indicate the bog turtle has been documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project
bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T SlA}. T S/A species are not subject to Section (7a) consultation and a biological
conclusion is not required. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle since the
only palustrine emergent wetlands in the study corridor will not be impacted by any of the
alternatives.
16

Virginia Big-eared Bat -The Vrginia big-eared bat, formerly assigned to the genus Plecofus, is an
endangered, isolated eastem subspecies of a more common, widespread species of bat. Vrginia big-
eared bat is distinguished from all other eastem bats except Rafinesque's big-eared bat (C. rafinesquir~ by
its large ears, which equal nearly half the body length. Vrginia big-eared bat differs from Rafinesque's big-
eared bat in having huffy or brownish rather than whitish underparts (Handley 1991), hairs with little
contrast between bases and tips, and having hair on the feet that does not extend beyond the tips of the
toes (Webster et a1.1985).
In North Carolina, Virginia big-eared bats roost year-round in limestone caves at elevations above 1500
feet (460 meters) (Webster et al. 1985). Mines are rarely used for roosting (LeGrand and Hall 1995).
Virginia big-eared bats typically forage within 2 ~mi Q3.2 kilometers from the roost (Handley 1991). NHP
records do not indicate that Virginia big-eared bat has been documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of
the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Virginia big-eared bat due to
the absence of known roosting caves within the study corridor. NO EFFECT
Peregrine Falcon -The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized falcon, reaching a ~yngth between 16 to 20 in
(41 and 51 centimeters), or slightly larger than an American crow (Corvus bracnyrhynchos). Adults have
bluish-gray backs and wings, barring on the pale underparts, and a black nape and crown with a wide black
wedge extending below the eye. Immature peregrine falcons are dark brown above with a heavily streaked
breast, and a dark bar or wedge is present below the eye (NGS 1987). Peregrine falcons feed on medium-
sized birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and pigeons, which they strike in midair. Peregrine falcons
migrate in the fall, but over-wintering birds may be present along the North Carolina coast (Hamel 1992).
Peregrine falcons were extirpated from nesting sites in the mountains of North Carolina, but have been
reintroduced to westem North Carolina through a hacking program (captive-reared and released).
Peregrine falcons nest on ledges on remote cliffs in areas where a mixture of forests and extensive fields,
marshes, or water is present (Hamel 1992). NHP records do not indicate that peregrine falcon has been
documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect peregrine falcons due to the
absence of suitable nesting habitat (remote cliffs) within the study condor. Since NHP records do
not indicate that peregrine falcons have been recorded as nesting in the project vicinity, there are
no impacts anticipated to nesting or foraging habitats. NO EFFECT
Eastern Cougar -The eastem cougar is a possibly extinct eastem subspecies of the widespread mountain
lion species. This species was possibly extirpated from North Carolina by the fate 1800s although recent
sporadic sightings have been reported from remote areas 'of the mountains and coastal plain (Lee 1987).
Mountain lions are large, long-tailed cats; adult males may measure 7 to 9 feet (2.1 to 2.7 meters) total
length with females averaging 30 to 40 percent smaller (Handley 1991). Adult mountain lion tracks
measure approximately 3.5 inches (9 centimeters) (Lee 1987).
Recent specimens of mountain lion taken in North Carolina and elsewhere in mid-Atlantic states have
proved to be individuals of other subspecies that have escaped or been released from captivity (Lee 1987,
Handley 1991}. The eastem cougar would require large tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat that support
17

large populations of whine-tailed deer (Webster et al 1985). NHP n:cords do not indicate that eastern
cougar has been documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect eastern cougar due to the
absence of suitably remote wilderness within the study corridor. NO EFFECT
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel -The Carolina northem flying squinrel is an isolated, endangered
subspecies of the more wide-ranging northem flying squirrel. Flying squirrels are nocturnal and have a
loose, fully furred fold of skin on each side of the body between the wrists and the ankles that enable the
squirrels to glide from trees to other trees or to the ground for foraging. Carolina northem flying squirrel can
be distinguished from the similar southern flying squirrel (G. volans) by larger size (ranging from 26.0 to
10.2 to 12.0 inches (30.5 centimeters) total length) and by having gray rather than white bases of the
ventral hairs (Weigl 1987).
The Carolina northem flying squirrel typically occurs in spruce-fir forests and mature hardwood forest
adjacent to spruce-fir forests at elevations above 4000 feet (1200 meters) (Weigl 1987). Endemic to the
Appalachians of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, this subspecies is known from the Great
Smoky Mountains, Roan Mountain, and Mount Mitchell. NHP records do not indicate that Carolina northem
flying squirrel has been documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Carolina northem flying
squirrel due to the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 2040 feet
0620 meters)) study corridor. NO EFFECT
Indiana Bat -The Indiana bat is a small, brown bat measuring 3.0 to 3.6 inches (7.7 to 9.1 centimeters)
total length. The Indiana bat is distinguished from other eastern bats by having a keeled caicar
(cartilaginous projection from the hind foot), relatively small ears that do not extend beyond the nose when
pulled forward, short toe hairs that do not extend beyond the toes, and two tiny teeth in a gap between the
canines and cheek teeth (Handley 1991).
Indiana bats hibernate in winter in limestone caves usually where standing water is present (Webster of al.
1985). Indiana bats also use mine tunnels for hibernation (Handley 1991). In summer, males continue to
roost in caves, but females roost in maternity colonies located in hollow trees and under loose bark of trees
typically located near streams or small rivers (Webster of al. 1985). Indiana bats forage over tree-lined
streams and upland woods (Handley 1991). NHP records do not indicate that Indiana bat has been
documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Indiana bats due to the
absence of known roosting caves within the study corridor. NO EFFECT
18

Appalachian Elktoe -Appalachian elktoe is a~small, subovate thkidney-shaped freshwater mussel that
grows to approximately 3.1 inches (8.0 centimeters) length, l.4 inches (3.5 centimeters) height, and 1.0
inches (2.5 centimeters) width (Clarke 1981). The shell is thin, but not fragile, and exhibits slight inflation
along the posterior ridge near the center of the shell. Beaks project only slightly above the hinge line.
Lateral teeth are absent; however, the hinge .,plate of both valves is thickened. Small, pyramidal,
compressed pseudocardinal teeth are present, and an interdental projection is present in the left valve.
Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the periostracum (outer shell surface) is thicker and dark brown in
adults. individuals may be variably marked with prominent to obscure greenish rays. The nacre (shell
interior) is shiny, blue to bluish white with salmon, pinkish, ar brownish coloring in the central portion of the
shell and beak cavity.
Appalachian elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Appalachian elktoe habitat has been described as riffle areas with gravel
and cobble substrate (TSCFTM 1990). in North Carolina, this species may now be restricted to the Little
Tennessee and Nolichucky drainages (LeGrand and Hall 1995). Recent WRC surveys have documented
this species in the Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties, Cane River in Yancey County,
and Nolichucky and North Toe Rivers in Yancey and Mitchell Counties. NHP records indicate that
Appalachian elktoe has been documented within the North Toe River within or adjacent to the study
condor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Because habitat for Appalachian elktoe exists within the study
condor, and the species has been documented recently within or adjacent to the study corridor,
detailed surveys will be necessary to determine whether individuals are present within the impact
area. informal consultation should be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
regarding measures to be taken to avoid adverse effects to Appalachian elktoe. Impacts to this
species will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Surface
Wafers and North Carolina regulations entitled Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, ~;
practicable, during construction. UNRESOLVED
A Consultation in compliance with Section (7a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 will follow this CE
document in order to more closely identify the specific course of action necessary to minimize impacts to
the endangered Appalachian Elktoe Mussel species.
Spreading Avens -Spreading avens is an erect, densely hairy, perennial herb to 50 centimeters (20
inches )tail. A basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves is produced from a horizontal rhizome.
These leaves are long stalked and terminated by a large kidney-shaped lobe; tiny. leaflets are usually
present below the terminal lobe (Kral 1983). Small, sessile, serrated leaves are found on the flowering
stem. Lanceolate sepals and relatively tong petal lengths of 1.3 to 2.0 centimeters (0.5 to 0.8 inches )help
differentiate spreading avens from related species (Massey of aI.1983). Bright yellow, five-petaled flowers
approximately 2.4 to 3.1 inches (6 to 8 centimeters) across are produced from June to August; these are
followed between July and October by hairy achenes with a persistent, straight style approximately 0.2
inches (1 centimeters) long (Massey of al 1983). Vegetative parts may emerge in May and persist
through October.
Spreading avens usually occurs at elevations greater than 5000 feet (1524 meters) in mountain grass
balds or in grassy clearings, in heath balds as well as in crevices of granitic rock; it cannot tolerate shading
19

or crowding (Kral 1983). Spreading avens is found in a few northwestern counties of North Carolina, and in
nearby counties of Tennessee. NHP recorcls do not indicate that spreading avens has been documented
within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers} of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect spreading avens due to the
absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 620 meters (2040 ft)) study
corridor. NO EFFECT
Roan Mountain Bluet -Roan Mountain bluet, formerly treated as a variety of the summer biuet (Houstonia
[=Hedyotis) purpurea), is a low, erect to spreading perennial herb with a squarish stem typically growing to
6 inches (15 centimeters) high. The leaves are opposite, sessile, rounded basally but taper to a pointed
tip and have smooth, toothless margins. Small, deep purple, tubular flowers are produced on small
terminal clusters in June and Juiy with fruiting occurring in Juiy and August. It differs from the more
common H. purpurea by having larger, smooth-edged leaves, and by larger flowers, capsules, and seeds
(Weakley 1993).
Roan Mountain biuet is endemic to the high Blue Ridge mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee,
mostly from 4200 to 6300 feet (1280 to 1920 meters) in elevation. It grows in crevices of rock outcrops as
well as in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops (Weakley 1993). NHP records do not
indicate that Roan Mountain bluet has been documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Roan Mountain bluet due to
the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 2040 feet (620 meters}}
study condor. NO EFFECT
Helier's Blazing Star - Helier's blazing star is an erect herbaceous perennial with glabrous stems that
reaches heights of 10 to 4 to 20 inches (50 centimeters). The leaves are simple, linear to lanceolate,
alternate, and arranged spirally along the stem. Leaf size is variable, with a gradual decrease in size up
the stem. The inflorescence consists of compact heads arranged in a raceme-like fashion along the stem.
The heads typically contain seven to ten tubular florets which may be purple to lavender in color. Heller's
blazing star is distinguish~~+ from related species by shorter height and relatively short pappus (modified
calyx lobes) half or less the length of the corolla tube. Flowers are produced from July to September, with
fruiting occurring from August to October (Massey et al.1983).
Heller's blazing star has been found on rocky summits at high elevations in the mountains of western North
Carolina. This species typically is found in full sun growing in shallow, acidic soils on or around granitic
outcrops, ledges, and cliff faces (Kral 1983, Massey et al. 1983). Heller's blazing star is reported to occur
at elevations between approximately 1070 and 1900 meters. NHP records do not indicate that Helier's
blazing star has been documented within 2 kilometers. (32.0 mi) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Heller's blazing star due to the
absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 62040 feet (20 meters}) study
condor. NO EFFECT
Blue Ridge Goldenrod -Blue Ridge goldenrod is an erect, perennial herb growing to 16 inches (40
centimeters) in height with simple leaves in a basal rosette and along the stem. Leaves are serrate, ciliate,
smooth to slightly scabrous above and glabrous beneath, and progressively reduced in size and more
20

sessile towards the inflorescence. The unpleasant aroma of this plant leads to an alternative common
name, skunk goldenrod. Blue Ridge goldenrod can be distinguished from other two goldenrod species
having a corymb~~rm inflorescence and golden rays by its shorter height, involucre bracts not being striate-
nerved, and dist;;:;ution at high altitudes in the mountains {Massey of a1. 1983). Vegetative portions of the
plant may emerge in July and persist through October (Massey of al. 1983). Flowering occurs from late
July to September (Kral 1983).
Blue Ridge goldenrod is found on rocky summits above approximately 4000 feet (1200 meters) elevation in
the mountains. Typically found in full sun, this plant may be found rooted in fine sands that have
accumulated in cracks and pockets of granitic rocks or bluff (edges, or associated with grasses and sedges
on grass bolds contiguous to rock outcrops (Kral 1983). In North Carolina, the current distribution may be
restricted to Avery and Mitchell Counties (Amoroso and Weakley 1995). NHP records do not indicate that
Blue Ridge goldenrod has been documented within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Blue Ridge goldenrod due to
the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 2040 feet (620 meters))
study corridor. NO EFFECT
Virginia Spiraea -Virginia spiraea is a deciduous, colonial shrub that averages 1 to 3 meters (3 to 10 ft) in
height, but may reach heights of 13 feet (4 meters). Its short-stalked leaves are alternate, nearly toothless,
and narrowly elliptic with a pointed tip (Radford et a1.1968). Numerous small, white, 5-petaled flowers are
produced on terminal clusters in June to July. Dried corymbs often persist through winter. Seed production
is reported to be sporadic and most colonies are believed to arise from downstream dispersal and
establishment of fragments of horizontal rootstock (Porter and Wieboldt 1991).
Endemic to the southern Appalachians, Virginia spiraea is restricted to disturbance-prone riverine areas,
specifically along scoured banks of high gradient streams, meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, and
braided features of lower stream reaches (Porter and Wieboldt 1991). Disturbance is required for removal
of woody competitors and to aid in establishment of colonies. NHP files indicate that Virginia spiraea has
been documented on the Cane River more than 5.0 mi (8.0 kilometers) upstream from the confluence with
the North Toe River. NHP records do not indicate that Virginia spiraea has been documented in the North
Toe River within 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The subject project was visited by NCDOT biologists May 8, 2003.
The potential impact zones were visually examined for the presence of this species by walking
along proposed construction area. No spiraea plants were found within the project study area
surveyed. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Virginia spiraea.
NO EFFECT
Rock Gnome Lichen -The rock gnome lichen is a small, squamulose (strap-like) lichen in the reindeer
moss (lichen) family. This species is similar to squamulose lichens in the genus Cladonia by having
terminal portions of its strap-like lobes that are blue-gray on the upper surface and shiny-white on the lower
surface; rock gnome lichen differs from these other lichens by having blackened lobe bases. The lichen
grows nearly parallel to the rock surface to which it is attached, but the tips curl up to a near vertical
orientation. Reproduction appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally. Rock gnome lichen is
21

typically found growing in association with a distinctively colored, reddish-brown moss (Andreaea)
(Murdock 1993).
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. Most populations
occur above approximately 5000 feet (1525 meters) in elevation in areas subject to frequent fog cover, but
the species has been found at lower elevations in deep gorges where a similarly high humidity n;gime is
present. Rock gnome lichen typically occurs on vertical rock faces subject to intermittent seepage
(Murdock 1993). NHP n?cords do not indicate that rock gnome lichen has been documented within 2.0 mi
(3.2 kilometers) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect rock gnome lichen due to the
absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 2040 feet (620 meters)) study
corridor. NO EFFECT
Spuce- Fir Moss Spider -The spruce-fir moss spider is currently known from only four locations. There
are three sites in North Carolina (one in Avery/Caidwell Counties and two in Swain County) and one in
Tennessee (Sevier County). At this time, only the population in Avery/Caidwell Counties in North Carolina
appears to be stable. The other two populations in North Carolina are very small, with only one individual
found at each in recent searches (Harp 1992). The Tennessee population has been considered healthy in
the past, but is currently declining due to habitat loss.
This spider is typically found in damp moss and liverwort mats growing on rocks in well shaded,
mature,.high elevation Fraser fir and red spruce forests (Harp 1992). This spider cannot tolerate
desiccation. The spider constructs its web under the moss, at the interface with the rock. Webs are tube-
shaped, thin-walled,.and generally flat with short side branches. Little is known about the diet of the
spruce-fir moss spider, but springtails (Osier Collembola) are abundant in the moss mats and probably
constitute most of the prey (Harp 1992).
81OLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect the spruce-fir moss spider
due to the absence of suitable habitat within the tow elevation (approximately 2040 feet (620
meters)) study corridor. NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern -The February 24, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concem" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat within the study corridor
has been evaluated for the following FSC species listed for Mitchell (M) and Yancey (Y) Counties:
Common Name
Olive-sided flycatcher
Hellbender
Southern rock vole
Eastern smah-footed myotis
Allegheny woodrat
Olive darter
Appalachian cottontail
Fragile glyph
Scientific Name Coun
Contopus borealis M, Y
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Y
Microtus chrotorrhinus Y
Myotis feibii Y
Neotoma magister M
Percina squamata M, Y
Sylvilagus obscures M, Y
Glyphylinia clingmani Y
22

Roan supercoil .
Yancey sideswimmer
Diana fritillary butterfly
Fraser fir
Roan false goats beard
Piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
Mountain bitterness
Roan sedge
Tall larkspur
Glade spurge
Bent geum
Butternut
Gray's lily
Canby's mountain lover
(cliff green)
Carolina saxifrage
Mountain catchfly
A liverwort
Mount Leconte moss
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
Blotched chub
Sharphead darter
Southern Appalachian
black-capped chickadee
Southern Appalachian
red crossbill
Southern Appalachian
saw- whet owl
Southern Appalachian
yellow- billed sapsucker
Bent evens
Paravrtrea varidens
Stygobromus carolinensis
Speyeria Jana
Abies fraseri
Astilbe cn'natifoba
Buckleya distichophylla
Calamagrostis cainii
Cardamine clematitis
Carex roanensis M
Delphinium exaltatum
Euphorbia purpurea
Geum geniculatum
Juglans cinen;a
Lilium grayi
Paxistima canbyi
Saxihaga caroliniana
Silene ovata
Bazzania nudicaulis
Leptohyemenium sharpii
Plagiochila caduci/oba
Plagiochila sharpii
Plagiochila sullivanfii
var. sullivantii
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
Erimystax insignis
Etheostoma acuticeps
Peoocile atricapillus practices
Loxia curvirortra
M, Y
Y
M
M, Y
M
M
Y
Y
No
M
M, Y
M
M, Y
M, Y
M
Y
Y
M, Y
Y
Y
Y
M, Y
M, Y
M, Y
M, Y
M
M
Aegeolus acadicus M
Spyrapicus varies appalaciensis M
Geum geniculatum M
NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor, nor in the North Toe or Nolichucky River
within 3.2 kilometers upstream or downstream from the study corridor. Two FSC species, olive darter and
hellbender, have been documented within the lower 2.0 mi (3.2 kilometers) reach of the Cane River.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.106-202 et seq.). .
23

NHP records indicate that the state-Special Concern wavy-rayed lampshell (Lampsilis fasciola) has been
documented in the North Toe River within or adjacent to the study corridor. Two state-listed fish species,
sharphead darter (Etheostoma acuticeps) and logperch (Percina caprodes), have been documented in the
North Toe River between 0.8 and 1.0 and 2.3 mi (3.7 kilometers) upstream from the study corridor.
Suitable habitat for these species may be present in the study corridor. Sharphead darter and two other
state-listed fish species, the state-Endangered stonecat (Noturus flavus) and state-Threatened striped
shiner (Luxifus chrysocephalus), which have been documented in the lower 3.6 miles (5.8 km) reach of
Cane Creek and which is located a short distance downstream from study corridor, may be expected to
occur within the study corridor as well. No terrestrial state-listed species have been documented within 2.0
mi (3.2 kilometers) of the study corridor. Impacts to these species can be alleviated by bridging of the main
river channel.
National Forest Lands
Portions of the study corridor north of the North Toe River and west of SR 1340 are located on private
holdings within estab{fished boundaries of the Pisgah National Forest. No National Forest Lands will be
affected.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section _106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or
permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. Pursuant to Section
106, comments were requested from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and were
received on March 3,1997 (see Appendix).
Based on comments received from the SHPO, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this project. Therefore,
no archaeological investigations will be conducted for this project.
There are no structures of historic or architectural importance located within the area of potential effect of
this project.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 143 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment if current NCDOT standards and specifications are implemented. A section seven consultation
will be required concerning the Appalachian Elktoe mussel species following completion of this document.
The project should have an overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing poor bridge
conditions and substandard roadway geometries (one-lane bridge). The new bridge and approaches will
result in safer traffic operations in the project area.
This project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No Significant change in
land use is expected to result from replacement of Bridge No. 143.
24

No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated with theimplementation of the preferred
altemative (Alternate B). No retocatees are expected with implementation of Alternate B.
This project will not have an adverse effect on any prime, important or unique farmlands, therefore it is
exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local
significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected as a result of this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a
project level CO analysis is not required. tf vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it
shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for air quality, no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project, however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes
after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels.
Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway noise setforth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are
required.
The preferred altemative will not adversely affect the existing floodplain and flow characteristics of the
North Toe River.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion due to its limited scope and lack c`
significant environmental consequences. Based on the assessment of the existing human and natural
envirogment, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effect will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 143.
25

~.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1991. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part l: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and
Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79131. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the interior,
Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-
87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp + amendments through 4-1-96.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document:
French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 198 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Handley, C.O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's Endangered Species:
Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
672 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical
Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Lee, D.S. 1987. Fells concolor True, Panther. Pp. 15-18 in M.K. Clark (ed.), Endangered, Threatened,
and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I. A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the
North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 52 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67 pp.
26

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Vrginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Massey, J. R., D. K. S. Otte, T. A. Atkinson, and R. D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and Illustrated Guide to
the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-20. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.r'. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Murdock, N. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildl'~fe and Plants: Proposed Endangered Status for
Gymnoderma Lineare. Federal Register 58 (247): 68623-68627.
National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. -Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 464 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991. Vascular
Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium.
Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Plants. Pp.51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company,
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natura! Resources: Raleigh. 325 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (1'SCFTM). 1990. A Report on the
Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. 283 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Draft Soil Surveys of Mitchell and Yancey Counties,
North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Rubiaceae (Madder Family): Houstonia (Biuet). Pp. 362-364 in: Guide to the Flora
of the Carolinas and Virginia: Working Draft of 27 August 1993.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Weigl, P.D. 1987. G~aucomys sabrinus coloratus (Handley), Northern Flying Squirrel. Pp. 12-15 in: M.K.
Clark (ed.), Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I. A Re-evaluation of the
Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 52 pp. Survey 1987-3. 52
PP•
27

FIGURES

v11TCHELL / YANCEY
couNTr
CAROLINA

LOOKI\IG SOUTH AT BRIDGE #143

LOOKING NOPTH A.T BP,IDGE #143

~l~Ja..~RE
LOOKING NOP,TH AT BP,IDGE #143
LOOKING SOUTH AT BRIDGE #143

e~~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
July 30, 2004
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Permit Application for proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 143 in Mitchell and Yancey
Counties
DWQ No. 040933, TIP No. B-2848
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal~'for a 401 Water Quality Certification
for the aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary
information required for making an informed permit decision. The permit application was
deficient in the following areas:
• The NC Department of Transportation (DOT) has failed to detail the permanent impacts of the
proposed bridge bents to be located in the North Toe River. DWQ cannot issue a 401Water
Quality Certification based on the current application due to DOT's failure to demonstrate
minimization of impacts in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(g).
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application
on hold until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is
received by the NC Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the LTS
Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you
have any questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-
5694.
~knce ely,
`- , ~L ~
~*'
Alan W. Klimek, P.E?~~~~
Director
401 Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Sufte 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NO~hC~Ollna.
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone]! Internet: httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands ~~~~~~~~~
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

cc: Mike Parker, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
File Copy