19950786 All Versions_Complete File_19950726

f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 12, 1995

District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
JUL 2 6 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
1n intl
Subject: Haywood County - Rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 85 and 86 over
SR 1164, Bridge Nos. 106 and 109 over SR 1173 and Plott Creek,
Bridge Nos. 120 and 123 over SR 1177 and Eaglenest Creek, Bridge
Nos. 129 and 130 over SR 1251, and Bridge Nos. 138 and 141 over
US 276; State Project No. 8.1942201; T.I.P. No. B-2985
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes deck
rehabilitation for the above-referenced structures. This project is being
processed as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
We expect to proceed with this project under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix
A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of this
project.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the proposed work. In
accordance with current procedures for projects located in the designated
trout counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to
construction. By copy of this letter, we hereby request that WRC review the
proposed project and provide any comments they find necessary. A copy of the
CE document is included for the WRC review.

July 12, 1995 --
Page 2
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call
Cyndi Bell at [phone] Extension 306.
SincereYY
H. Franklin Vick, P.. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: David Baker, COE, Asheville Field Office
David Yow, WRC, Asheville
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
F. D. Martin, P. E., Division 14 Engineer
Julie Hunkins, P. E., Planning & Environmental

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2985
State Project No. 8.1942201
Federal-Aid Project No. BRNHR-23(1)
A. Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
Rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 85 and 86 over SR 1164,
Bridge Nos. 106 and 109 over SR 1173 and Plott Creek,
Bride Nos. 120 and 123 over SR 1177 and Eaglenest Creek
Bridge Nos. 139 and 130 over SR 1251, and Bridge Nos. 138
and 141 over US 276, Havwood County. The existing
reinforced concrete decks are to be removed and
replaced. The existing structural steel is to be spot
cleaned and painted. Shear studs are to be added to all
existing beams in order to strengthen the composite
section. Cracks and spalls in the existing substructure
units are to be repaired. Approach slabs are to be added
at each end of all structures. A previously damaged 36"
I-beam is to be replaced on Bridge No. 123. The
rehabilitated typical section on all these bridges.
except Bridges #138 and =141, will include a 30-foot
clear roadway width. These widths reflect a 2-foot
widening of the existing clear roadwav. Bridges =138 and
=141 will not be widened.
NOTE: Refer to Section D. "Special Project Information,'
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Due to the high chloride content, the
concrete decks need to be replaced. Some minor
substructure repairs and widening of the bridges are also
needed.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (-')R and _4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway- and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains

D.
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
ma}- be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the \EPA
process has been completed.
Special Project Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
No "in stream" construction is proposed for the
subject project. Roadway improvements will be contained
within the existing road shoulders and bridge
superstructures. The two streams in the project corridor
are Plott Creek and Eaglenest Creek, neither of which are
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water. The NCWRC has no
objection to the project as proposed; however,
precautions should be taken to avoid having wet concrete

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
All bridges, except for Bridges #138 and #141, are
to be widened and additional 2 feet from 28 feet to
30 feet. Minor improvements to the shoulders and
guardrail on the approach roadway will be compatible with
the widened bridge typical section. Bridges #138 and
#141, which currently have a clear roadway width of 40
feet, will not be widened.
No seismic retrofit will be necessary for these
structures. All bearings are currently positively
attached to the substructure.
A scour evaluation by the Hydraulics Unit has
determined that these structures are classified as low
risk for scour. Therefore, no scour rehabilitation
measures are recommended for these structures.
5

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
YES NO

?x
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of F X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent F-1 X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/9Y
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
NONE REQUIRED
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B2985
State Project No. 8.1942201
Federal-Aid Project No. BRNHF-23(1)
Pro.iect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
Rehabilitation of Bride Nos. 85 and 86 over SR 1164
Bridge Nos. 106 and 109 over SR 1173 and Plott Creek.
Bridge Nos. 120 and 123 over SR 1177 and Eaglenest Creek,
Bridge Nos. 129 and 130 over SR 1251, and Bridge Nos. 138
and 141 over US 276. Haywood County. The existing
reinforced concrete decks are to be removed and
replaced. The existing structural steel is to be spot
cleaned and painted. Shear studs are to be added to all
existing beams in order to strengthen the composite
section. Cracks and spalls in the existing substructure
units are to be repaired. Approach slabs are to be added
at each end of all structures. A previouslv damaged 36"
I-beam is to be replaced on Bridge No. 123. The
rehabilitated typical. section on all these bridges,
except Bridges #138 and `141, will include a 30-foot
clear roadwav width. These widths reflect a 2-foot
widening of the existing clear roadwav. Bridges #138 and
`141 will not be widened.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information."
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date ('_r H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
?'" Planning 8:. Environmental Branch
,416q V", Z_
Date Wayne lliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Project Planning Unit
5-j b,-l -14 . , ?/,J 6
Date J 1 e A. Hunkins, P.E.
P ject Planning Engineer
10
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
11

ow
< ::0
m hi
m0 cn m
m
E-A co
N cn
z4z
co
Q1

fl o
00
oo
V
o
::i X11
j °er

.'
,?
cam f
???a%'?;,•?. .... :.?/

42

V
? W
m H
cn m
X
?N
N N
cn CD
N
Ro
N
W
O
W
O ?
C?.1
OD
Y .b
? 9 19 ?
\oc -
D?
V cn
m
,,,,
mmo
mOmm
M:j
?n
amp?f
Zom- !
° m?a "gip ?z
CD m X .? O
O om D m
m -
{Z9mm° xzo?
m O °c Z n
*°00
mm
M. 0
c°mz_ >
m ©,°OQ ux-3
°>- a Q.Z 702
2?NNpm ?-C4Z?
O Q.0 0 °
N 9p<<0mmmmm
cn,muno?
vm9
?m
N00
o

\ y
.1C
Y
0 co
m H
m M
cm
cn
vw
rn co
Ep
N
A
N
00
4`
o ?fl
owl
M

i `T .7r?J t
JAMES B. HUNT. JP,
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
06 April 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Phillip Todd, Environmental Biologist Q?
Environmental Unit
SA..m HUNT
SECUTARY
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Inventory for Proposed Deck
Rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 85 and 86 over
SR 1164, Bridge Nos. 106 and 109 over SR 1173
and Plott Creek, Bridge Nos. 120 and 123 over
SR 1177 and Eaglenest Creek, Bridge Nos. 129
and 130 over US 276, and Bridge Nos. 138 and
141 over SR 1513 on US 23/US 74,
Haywood County; TIP No. B-2985;
State Project No. 8.1942201;
Federal Aid No. BRNHF-23(1).
REFERENCE: Memorandum from Stephanie Goudreau, Mt.
Region Coordinator of Habitat Conservation
Program, Wildlife Resources Commision (WRC),
dated 12 March 1993.
ATTENTION: Julie Hunkins, P.E., Project Manager
The following memorandum is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion for the proposed
project.
The subject project involves deck rehabilitation of
Bridge Nos. 85 and 86 over SR 1164, Bridge Nos. 106 and 1C?
'
over SR 1173 and Plott Creek, Bridge Nos. 120 and 173
1.177 and Eaglenest Creek, Bridge Nos. 129 and 130 oee.l.
276, and Bridge Nos. 138 and 141 over SR 1513 on US 23/13c ??.
The scope of work for the project includes concrete decks
removed and replaced, existing structural steel spot c.?
and painted, shear studs added, cracks and spralls in
existing substructure repaired and approach slabs addr-'
each end of all structures. Bridge Nos. 138 and 16x3.
also be widened 0.6 m (2 ft). During construction,
on all bridges, except Bridge Nos. 138 and 140, will be
switched by median crossovers to one side of the four.
divided section. Traffic on Bridge Nos. 3.38 and 3.40

2
maintained on existing structures during construction with
traffic separated by a temporary precast median barrier.
METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations
taking place. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Clyde, Hazelwood and Waynesville), Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base
uncommon and protected species and unique habitats. A
general field survey was conducted by walking the proposed
project study area on--25 March 1994.
WATER RESOURCES and WETLANDS
The subject project crosses two small streams, Plott
Creek and Eaglenest Creek. These streams are in the French
Broad River basin. A best usage classification of Class C,
Trout stream (Tr) has been assigned to these streams by the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Class C waters are those waters
which have water quality uses suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture; Tr is a supplemental water
classification including waters suitable for natural trout
propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area.
No "in stream" construction is proposed for the subj.-c.
project. Roadway improvements will be contained within the
existing road shoulders and the bridge superstructure. For
protection of surface waters, best management practices
(BMPs) and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be
administered to ensure no sediment and/or toxic compounds are
deposited into the previously mentioned water resource.
Measures should be taken to reduce the amount of probeb
concentrations of toxic compounds (oil, gas, etc.) relatt,_
construction activities from entering the Pigeon River.
These toxic compounds have the potential of adversely
impacting water resources.
No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will occvj-
construction of the proposed project. No permits frog:,
federal or state agencies are anticipated. WRC was notified
of the project and its plans; WRC had no objection to ::bf-
project as planned (Reference).
4
3
BIOTIC RESOURCES
One terrestrial community exists in the project study
area, a MAN-DOMINATED community which includes road
Fhn+slders, median, embankments and ditches. Portions of this
;.tctity are highly disturbed by mowing and herbicide
control; thus, much of this habitat stays in a low growth
state. Many plant species characteristic of the roadside are
adapted to disturbed and maintained habitats. The
characteristic vegetative components found in one bridge
study area is consistent throughout each individual bridge
study area and will be described together.
The dominant ground cover vegetation is tall fescue
(Festuca sp.). Other types of vegetation occurring in the
study areas include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
Hercule's club (Aratia spinosa), henbit (Lamium
amplexicaule), wild onion (Allium canadense), Juniperus sp.,
silverberry (Elaeagnus sp.), flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida), oak (Ouercus sp.), white pine (Pinus strobus), and
red maple (Acer rubrum).
IMPACTS TO BIOTIC RESOURCES
Impacts to biotic communities are expected to be
minimal. Anticipated impacts will occur only to the man-
dominated community. The predominant area to be impacted are
the median crossover for traffic. The vegetation to be
impacted by these median crossovers are fescue and/or
z;.i_Iverberry. The widening of bridge Nos. 138 and 141 will
impact fescue and Juniperus sp. although no impacts to the
median will occur at these bridges.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or
are in the process of decline. This decline in species
population has been caused by either natural forces or the
.Les' inability to coexist with man.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered.Species Act of
1973, as amended.
As of 30 March 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
lists the following federally-protected species for Haywood
County (Table 1).
4
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species
for Haywood County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe PE*
Felis concolor couguar eastern cougar E
Glaucomvs sabrinus Carolina northern
coloratus flying squirrel r
Gymnoderme lineare rock gnome lichen- PE
Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout.all or a significant portion of
its range)..
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a 'species that is proposed
to be listed as endangered and which is protected under
law while its status is under review).
"*" No specimen from Haywood County found in the past twenty
years (1973-1993).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program data base for
federally protected animals and plants revealed no records of
these species in or near the project study area.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) PE
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum
length reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin although the
shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe i.s
dark brown in color, while juveniles have a yellowish-broithi
color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its
tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and
the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The
Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly subGs.- ':
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bed G,c-e..
and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No "in stream" construction is proposed by the c=-O:,"
project. No impact to the Appalachian elktoe will
from project construction.
_(_elis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) E
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the
muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip of the tail, which
are black. In North Carolina the cougar is thought to occur
in only a few scattered areas, possibly including coastal
swamps and the southern Appalachian mountains. The eastern
cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there
is an abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed
deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 25 miles and
they are most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the eastern cougar exists in the project
study area. No impact to the eastern cougar will occur from
construction of the subject project.
Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus
(northern flying squirrel) E
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well
furred flap of skin along either side of its body. This
furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front
and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad
flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with.
large dark eyes.
There are several
flying squirrel in the
the Tennessee border.
meters (5000 ft) in the
hardwood and coniferous
to search for food and
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
isolated populations of the northern
western part of North Carolina, along
This squirrel is found above 1517
vegetation transition zone between
forests. Both forest types are used
the hardwood forest is used for
NO EFFECT
No habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel
exists in the project study area. No impact to the Carolina
northern flying squirrel will occur from project
construction.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) PE
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. The lichen can be identified by its
fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black
in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The
fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
6
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to
areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments
occur on high elevation (? 1220 m/ 4000 ft) mountaintops and
cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower
elevation (< 762 m/ 2500 ft) deep gorges in the Southern
Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on
vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils
above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome
lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adrea_e'
in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of
extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to
habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forestr,,
These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habita,
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation
habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Graham, Haywood,..Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the
rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson,
Rutherford and Transylvania.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for the rock gnome lichen occurs in the
project study area. No impact to the rock gnome lichen will
result from construction of the subject project.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) E
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long
pubescent roots and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a
whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are
somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are
produced at the end of the stem. Flowers of small-whorled
pogonia are present mid May to mid June and have short
sepals.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth
deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous forests, with an open
canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers
acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is
relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for small whorled pogonia exists in the
study area. No impact to small whorled pogonia will oc?
from project construction.
There are twenty federal candidate (C2) species
for Haywood County (Table 2). Federal Candidate species
not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act a)id
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Sertin-,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Thre.,
or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as

sms who are vulnerable to extinction although data are
.sLifficient to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Th-c°-,.-?.tened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened at
Cime. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
't'hreatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
He_r_itage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
?if;n-?-ded state protection under the State Endangered Species
).nd the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 2. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
for Haywood County
SCIENTIFIC NC
NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Microtus chrotorrhinus southern rock vole SC N
carolinensis
Sylvilagus New England
transitionalis cottontail -* N
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler - N
Thryomanes bewickii Appalachian Bewick' s E N
altus wren
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T N
Crvptobranchus hellbender SC* N
alleganiensis
Speveria diana Diana fritillary - N
butterfly
Buckleva distichophylla piratebrush E N
Carex manhartii Manhart's sedge - N
Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur E-SC* N
Euphorbia purpurea wolf's milk spurge - N
Juglans cinera butternut - N
Leptohymenium shrarpii Mount Leconte moss -* N
Plangiochila caduciloba a liverwort E* N
I-11angiochila sharpii a liverwort E* N
s':iangiochila s. var. a liverwort
sullivantii -* N
P.l.i.ielia nudicaulis Rugel's ragwort
;;:,ie ovata mountain catchf ly - N
Sphenolobopsis pearsoni a liverwort -* N
Trillium pusillum Alabama least E N
var. 1 trillium
NOTE: Population not documented in Haywood Coun ty in
the past twenty years;
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Federal Candidate.
A review of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program uncommon and protected species and unique habitats
?e
? t
8
revealed a 1937 observation record of purple fringeless
orchid (Platanthera peramoena), a federal and state candidate
species (C), within 1.6 km (1 mile) of Bridge Nos. 138 and
_ 141. This population is located 910 m (3000 ft) southeast of
these bridges.
c: V. Charles Bruton,
NI. Randall Turner,
File B-2985
Ph.D.
Environmental Supervisor
1?.
O -A t ? ? ? c
cR ? lr ? d
9 0? ?
. 3
t o

? m
r
V1
CA s
QN
U
U
w W W ?'
W W w T?
W u
W
?

-ice -P ?' Z

-P
N x LA
N
z
U
(A
A
ON tz

rOS ? J ? R7 ZZ'1 0?

^ o
?
R)
a
A
? x
N u MINIMUM WiO?NI 6 Cpq
? 0 p p_ p p p ? d p
woes no+
f"d
Inc
e

W I DEN (3R IOGE
DECK REHR811.ITATION
X X X x X OECK REPL !CEMENT
VPGRAOE SRIQGE RA1LS

UPGRADE RPAM510N TOINTS
-x, x x x X X POD b
l
g
i j z,
a
!
REPAIR oR REPL Ac E ? n
X ?C
EXI5TING

RIJISE BRIDGE 50PER 57RuCTuRE
OEM81 /G 5 (C- lea', o
X x X >c X PAINT 5TRUCTURAL 57EEt-

9EPAIR CuRTAIN WA[LS
AND/oR EAID 01APHRAGMS =
REPAIR CRACIT6 AND/on SPAJ.15 7A
/!G CONCRETE GIADERS
REPAIR CRACAS AIJO/oR 5PA445
G1
/N 5u55T RucTU RE' rn

REPAIR 5LoPE ERo5loN
1 NVG ST I GATE
APPRoAcH DRAINAGE
- .T S? C7
o T C
g
4 1J A
? u N
G v
G V
0 q
?' ? O ? O o

a

?
0
W ' W
?
' 1? N J l 7
b

N U

n =?
o -
c ?
Z
R I'
G (40
S
s
V3
w
I
p
rn
N
C)
o'
z
v
sr -A
T ?
o a
ro
a
?- n
s ?
v
o
w
v
n`
.? n X11
V?. X
C ?
lb
w a +
t I
.tk
O ")
? I _

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date
0
i
z
0
0
TIP#
State Project#-tS,
F.A. Project#_ hJeN k+r
Division 14
Count y_?? (J{?A
Route__
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
Purpose of Project: eT?C? ?P?'1?.??????.?'onS'
vc U Method of Replacement:

1. Existing Location - road closure
2. Existing Location - on-site detour
3. Relocation
4. Other
Will there be special funding participatio by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes_______
No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
)
Page 1

i
rrw ?. v o
?S ??6 (v6i is 23 13? ???T
/$ Gov t b `fp° z1 Z-°? ;
-lit 0,04
?? ? 3?? 3?, Sao
?ol? 2,;600 33, 3? 33?
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: CurrentupD Design YearupD
TTST_ 3 % DT %
Typical Roadway Section:( see- attad _ / ?&h ee,-6
Existing Structure: Length feet Width
feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length feet Width feet
or
Culvert - Size @ feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length feet- Width feet
or
Pipe - Size inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) .............
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) ..............
Force Account Items.
Total Cost..........
o.
i
Z
0
0
TIP Construction Cost....... .... $ rove
....................
TIP Right of Way Cost ............................... $ 770-
TIP Total Cost..,
Page 2
'r
1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Additional Comments:
0, l.?w A
Prepared By Date
v
I
z
v'
0
Page 3
f
BRIDGE NUMBER
85
86
i 106
109
s 120
123
138
141
B-2985, Haywood County
EXISITING BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE
Length Width Length Width
108 ft. 28 ft. 108 ft.
108 ft. 28 ft. 108 ft.
167 ft. 28 ft. 167 ft.
167 ft. 28 ft. 167 ft.
147 ft. 28 ft. 147 ft.
146 ft. 28 ft. 146 ft.
245 ft. 40 ft. 245 ft.
252 ft. 40 ft. 252 ft.

J
V`Y
,O
+
F
N
,O
_ f l ..
l+
I??I
0-) Cl)
O N
r1 %--I . >'
C -O C
O 06 oz3 C
cOCOO OU
YON -•
u r-i ,[ "O
O 14-- O O
p 3
0 czl- - U
0 CD -?L CO
-O ?I N •I--) S
H c I (U Ca
p f a CD -
m0:UZco
Cn N
) P •1-•) r -I CV
•I LO
co N O O) U) OD
•I-> > r4 CO 0 CY)
- ri O IZ W N
ri f-I I
-H CO -0 -0 a) M
-0 0:) C C >
co 4t co co o
Cu o6 M 1? r-1
CMG n n ?t
Ln c-i c-1 c-I
CO c-1 7-1
N CC r o6
1 M Cn Cn
Cl) CY) co
CV _0 F I ti C'•)
•H O 1v 'H
C/) S-1 > >
::D m O O yl. y.

I `r
0.
:J 0 .17 r0-C
?!yI
0 0
0

c-i
i ;X.-

W

LLJ
C-6 W
CO u

0 !J.
H m

i
„, so
-I ¦
0
co
co CD
Co 1-
r1 CV
Cn
W
O OC
--OC >
m O
\` ?•
'N vi

CO
co
qtz
06
CD
Il) c-1
00 ci
m
W Cn
U
o O lr
H W
m
co CD

w
J
J
> d
N N
a:
Z ?
Q

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
(^ _ ? ? , ? ^
TO:
clo r& GOom 6 REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
DEMOK- CCU{
FROM: - - REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
_ itAt? Aunk,ny P t
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE '-- ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ?. PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS - ?. ? FOR. YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE 1ANO SEE ME ABOUT THIS ` .? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ?? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
' ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
?

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J.HARRELSON December 3, 1992
SECRETARY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Julie A. Hunkins, P. E.
Project Planning Enginee
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for B-2985,
Rehabilitation of Bridge Nos. 85 & 86,
106 & 109, 120 & 123, 129 & 130, and
183 & 141 on US 23-74 in Haywood County
A scoping meeting was held on Thursday,
November 5, 1992, at 10:30 AM in Room 470 of the Highway
Building. The following people attended:
Robin Stancil State Historic Preservation Office
Eric Galamb DEHNR-DEM
Don Idol Bridge Maintenance Unit
Darin wilder Program Development
Ray Moore Structure Design
Jesse Gilstrap Traffic Control
Don Hurlbut Roadway Design
Don Sellars Right of Way
Julie Hunkins Planning & Environmental
Traffic projections, road classification, and other
pertinent project information were provided at the scoping
meeting (see attached revised scoping sheets).
Don Idol of the Bridge Replacement Unit has reviewed the
subject bridges and provided a summary as to the improvements
which should be included for each bridge (see attached
summary sheet).
After reviewing the project area with the Bridge
Maintenance Unit, it is recommended that Bridge Nos. 129 and
130 be added to this rehabilitation project. These bridges
are in poor shape and have sufficiency ratings which are
lower than all but one of the other eight bridges included in
this project.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Traffic should be maintained on-site during construction
by using median crossovers. Traffic Control, Roadway Design,
and Structure Design will be coordinating to develop a
project phasing scheme to maintain traffic during
construction. It should be noted that off-site detours may
be required for wide loads and that the loop(s) at the US 264
interchange (at Bridge Nos. 138 & 141) may need to be closed
for a short period of time.
Deck replacement is required instead of rehabilitation
of the existing bridges due to the excessive chloride content
present in the superstructures. only rehabilitation of these
bridges is included in the TIP, and it is anticipated that
the construction cost contained in the TIP will need to be
increased due to the necessary deck replacements and the
addition of two more structures to the project. A cost
estimate on the improvemelas needed as a part of this project
is not available.
It appears that additional right-of-way will not be
needed for this project since most of the structures are
located in interchange areas. The bridges will be widened a
minimum of two feet, but it is anticipated that any
associated shoulder widening can be accommodated within the
existing right-of-way.
JH/jh
attachment

PROJECTBRIDGE
SCOPING SHEET
TIP#I A S
State Project# 19 4 Z?I
F.A. Project#??[?tt ?3((
Division /
County p
1
Route (,(
Date 4145-2--
Revision Date_ z5o. y
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning ?
Design
Purpose of Project:
L C V C C'(' 1
? ?OnS
Description of Project: hl fr j-y bdd4L Snh _-7 'R -
1
Method of Replacement:
1. Existing Location - road closure
2. Existing Location - on-site detour ?
3. Relocation
4. Other
J
i
z
0
0
H
Will there be special funding participatio b
municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
1
Page 1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current
,-X-<
50VPD Design Year 4 VPD
4?
TTST?`X DT %.
Typical Roadway Section:( sez atko _ / ? ee4-)
Existing Structure: Length feet Width
feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length feet Width feet
or
Culvert.- Size @ feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length feet Width ______feet
or
Pipe - Size inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) .............
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) .............
Force Account Items.....
Total Cost......
-4
TIP Construction Cost .............................
TIP Right of Way Cost.........
TIP Total Cost....... 4
............................... $
a
{
i
2
n
y /
j?
Page 2

-12777-
./9y? __2m/?
?is? ??
-------------

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Additional Comments:
- IMF l.?
Prepared By Date
4 U,6,,--, ??, J xb"Nj
0
i
z
0
o'
Page 3

BRIDGE NUMBER
85
86
106
109
120
123
138
141
B-2985, Haywood County
EXISITING BRIDGE
Length Width
108 ft.
108 ft.
167 ft.
167 ft.
147 ft.
146 ft.
245 ft.
252 ft.
28 ft.
28 ft.
28 ft.
28 ft.
28 ft.
28 ft.
40 ft.
40 ft.

PROPOSED BRIDGE
Length Width
108 ft. .30-
108 ft. 30
167 ft. )v
167 ft. _
147 ft. 30
146 ft. 3
0

245
ft. X?
//
,,
252 ft. cz!

a ?•
4 ? v

0 co <;1

'':i#A
£ 5 r;;;
m H
?o o
(n m
m

?-N 00
?"
1:•::
....
i
I .W
... ,.
:. :.:::

00
CF)

.
\?i 'Aft ? A A
: }

?
?
•J?r" iw?N 7. ODD
I?
wJ N
?
: .

Jr y
S
O Z \
O• m
P cn
o
0. ,
m
m
N ifs
I o o I?
(i /J
1

. o l
.31 .0
A$
j•I ?G7 ?+ I-
DL.
?J.0, ti* O, w
1 g V +,
J

zhz O O w =
< < Fj Cn
N (D (D N •
W Fj Fj O_ N
co co W
(n (n (D I
(20 m m V
F I-- co •-
F-? I-A F- cn
•P V V ?7
F? V W Ro (D
:3-
0 O O z4z 0)
< O 7 OD 0
CU CD 0- OL a)
Fj
N
N m•UO P.
(O C 0) F- < ct
00 Cr) CO O (D CO
N (D ct y (D
V (n
rn O H y
(n (D F? N
2 ct (D N O_
a) 77 rn CO
`< C7 - •A (D
£ Fj ..
O (D -ttz p
O (D 4*Z (D
GL?vF-'F- n
- N O 7C"
C7 O O) (A
O O
C Z) CNgoO
O O_ D
ct
N O
W (D

r

??
??
:''
O,
4,
?,
d- o

1 I 0?
y
O V ?
t ? M
q, a
S S
N S ?
V ?
i
G Q
` M
v ?
2
Q 1
Z n ?
4T c
ac ?'
e
o g
m ? c
4r
2 2
?u O
a
.yl U
uj
n
m
8
1
# Z
Q

v
n
w
M
^
d v
?.

V
?p
M ^

,
D
h
„?'
Y?
h ; Zo

O
II
'y

J
o, a

? w
h
c
?
n ? ? O p ? ? ; bQ

'
1
?'
?
? 'et
cI
p
Q
n p 0 O
ri V 1,
(`?

1
tt
n
y N ei N f y (? \

U v V ? .Q V i ? 1
39 HtvI bNO H Ieovddlf
31b9(1.9 3ANI
NOIGON3 3do75 NIdd3N
3Hn1-.,nN 159n9 N/
a
S77tdS b?/ON6 SN?b?I? ?//bd7?1
- - - -
56130X1`) 31367)NOD •Nl
tO S7'YbdS VoIONV 5W2va0 vlbdgu
5W9VWHd 610 ON3 bl/Pbf
z
577bM NrH1Xn? btbd3N
-133LS IWL-16?/1S 1Nldd X x k X
C?I^I?d Nn?l?) 5; 9 NINH39
k 3?lnl?nXLSN3dO5 3901tlH 351661

9NI1SIX3
3Db7d.4bl Na Yllld-4Y
}- o 91vlLS1X3 N301M

Oad x x x

511VIOX NO1sNVdX3' 30M4fl
9VVY 9901x8 30Hbl9dA
1N3W3:)b7d-4Y )1930 X X x x X
NO11H11719F/fl.gd X030
3901 YE7 N301 M
C,Ib.1 arlvw1 +*H saop) - - -
? Q O O O O ? ? O ?
}d 9 IN301M W(lWINIVV n `? `'< < '` K n

r ?
v
• ?
v
+
W o ? ? '2
>

• p
?U ?
.0 W 1Q
I

h
S ::s
h
1
h

h z N 2 x N

r

p
M
? ?t-
r
'?
tQ`-
c-
r
d-
M M cn ? M M cn M
Y" h h
41 2'

4 ? O
a D 0 r
? CC) c
c
n 2 - -