19970059 Ver 1_Complete File_19970127

46
v,w STATE y
-An 1 ISSUE +s 9 7 0 0 5 9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
January 15, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RECEIVED
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:

GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
JAN 2 71997,
ENVIRoN*4ENTAL SCIENCES
_W
Subject: Rutherford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 273 over the Broad
River on SR 1106, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1106(2), State Project
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
No. 8.2890501. T.I.P. No. B-3041.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 273 will be replaced on new location just upstream (west) of the
existing structure with a bridge 137 meters (450 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. No jurisdictional
wetlands were observed within the project area, however, jurisdictional surface waters are
present.
The project is being processed by the Fe ighway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion' in accordance with 23 CF ,1.11 (b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but pose to roceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix (B-23), he provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulation ill be oRowed in the construction of the project.
It is anticipated that foundation investigations will be required that will include test borings
in soil and/or rock for on-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing.
These activities will require authorization under Nationwide Permit 6 for survey. activities.
These activities require concurrence from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
0

2
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to the construction of this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their review.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, F.E., Division 13 Engineer
Ms. Michelle W. Fishburne, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
? r
Rutherford County
Bridge Number 273 on SR 1106
Across the Broad River
Federal Aid Number BRZ-1106(2)
State Project Number 8.2890501
TIP Project Number B-3041
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9-30-96'/
Date
U C?
.? r H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
/? k Ic Z?
Date F ch L. Graf, P.E.
FodCDivision Administrator, FHWA
? r •
Rutherford County
Bridge Number 273 on SR 1106
Across the Broad River
Federal Aid Number BRZ-1106(2)
State Project Number 8.2890501
TIP Project Number B-3041
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC 4(f) EVALUATION
September 1996
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch By:

E. Michelle Wagoner Fishburne, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Robert Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head

-H CARO
?ESS13 14
n : •:
SE AL 9l i
2419
•.,?? ?rgGOp?R
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Rutherford County
Bridge Number 273 on SR 1106 across the Broad River
Federal Aid Number BRZ-1106(2)
State Project Number 8.2890501
TIP Project Number B-3041
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Summary of Project '
II. Anticipated Design Exceptions 1
III. Summary of Environmental Commitments 2
IV. Existing Conditions 3
V. Alternatives 5
VI. Cost Estimates 6
VII. Recommended Improvements 6
VIII. Environmental Effects 7
A. Land Use and Socio-Economics 7
B. Farmland 8
C. Cultural Resources 8
D. Natural Systems 10
E. Air Quality and Traffic Noise 20
IX. Conclusion 21
Tables Page Number
Table 1: Existing Bridge Conditions 4
Table 2: Preliminary Cost Estimate 6
Table 3: Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities 15
Table 4: Federally-Protected Species 17
Table 5: Federal Species of Concern and State Listed
Species for Rutherford County 20
Figures: Figure 1: Project Location Map
Figure 2: Alternative Location Map
Figure 3: Bridge Photographs
Figure 4: 100 Year Floodplain
Appendix A: Agency Coordination
Appendix B: Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement
Appendix C: Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge Number 273 in Rutherford County. This bridge is located on SR 1106
and extends over the Broad River (See Figures 1 and 2). NCDOT includes this
bridge replacement in the 1997-2004 North Carolina Department of
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP project number B-3041.
NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project as
a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no substantial
environmental impacts as a result of this project.
NCDOT will replace existing Bridge Number 273 with a new bridge as shown in
Figure 2, Alternate 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a new 137
meter (450 feet) bridge just upstream, (west) of the existing bridge. The project
includes constructing approximately 450 meters (1475 ft.) of new approach
roadway. The roadway for the new approaches will be 6 meters (20 feet) wide
with 0.6 meters (2 feet) graded shoulders without guardrail and 2.2 meters (7
feet) graded shoulder where guardrail is warranted. The clear roadway width
across the bridge will be 7.2 meters (24 feet). The completed project will provide
a design speed of approximately 40 km/h (25 mph).
The estimated project cost is $1,375,300 including $25,300 for right of way and
$1,350,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1997-2004 TIP
is $1,345,000 with $25,000 for right of way and $1,200,000 for construction.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will be required for the proposed 40 km/h (25 mph) design
speed. This project design speed is less than the statutory 55 mph speed limit
along SR 1106. The low design speed for this project is considered warranted
due to the low traffic volumes, the existing roadway conditions, and the
mountainous terrain.
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures including NCDOT's Best
Management Practices For Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as
applicable, to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. A Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required
for this project. A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23, for impacts to surface
waters of Broad River, is likely to be applicable since the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources has stated that the Broad River does not support trout. The final
permitting requirements will be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers prior to construction.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be required for this project.
4. Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 273, NCDOT will record the bridge in
accordance with the Historic Structures Recordation Plan outlined in Appendix A
of the Memorandum of Agreement (See Appendix B of this Categorical
Exclusion) between the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
and the Federal Highway Administration. Copies of the recordation plan will be
sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of construction.
5. The feasibility of removing deck drains directly over the water will be studied
during the final design phase of the project, and if safety requirements allow, it
will be incorporated in the final design.
6. Foundation investigations will be required for this project. The investigations
will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as will as obtaining
samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
2
IV. Existing Conditions
The project involves the replacement of Bridge Number 273 on SR 1106 over the
Broad River. The project area is located in southern Rutherford County, in the
southwestern part of North Carolina. Rutherford County is mostly mountainous
terrain and is bordered by Cleveland, Burke, McDowell, Buncombe, Henderson,
and Polk Counties within the state and South Carolina to the south.
Rutherfordton is the county seat. The primary routes serving the county include
US 64, US 74, and US 221..
SR 1106 is classified in the Statewide Classification System as a Rural Local
Route. SR 1106 is a winding, mountainous road approximately 13.6 kilometers
(8.9 miles) long and extends through a predominately agricultural, sparsely
developed area with scattered homes along the roadway. The roadway is 4.85
meters (16 feet) wide with no posted speed limit. The beginning and end of the
roadway is paved and the middle section is dirt/gravel. The bridge is located
along the unpaved section of SR 1106. The north approach to the bridge has a
very sharp horizontal curve and the south approach has a less severe curve
(See Figure 2).
The existing bridge is a one lane bridge 144 meters (475 feet) long and 4.9
meters (16.2 feet) wide (See Figure 3). The bridge consists of a reinforced
concrete deck on one Pratt Through truss and one Camelback truss and is
supported by concrete piers, concrete post, concrete beams, and steel piles with
concrete abutments. The posted weight limits for the bridge include11 tons for
single vehicles and 16 tons for trucks, tractors, and semi-trailers. Table 1
summarizes the existing bridge conditions.
Currently, there are approximately 100 vehicles per day which use the existing
bridge. Based on studies of other projects in the area, land use, and field
investigation, approximately 300 vehicles per day are projected to use the bridge
in the year 2020. According to the Transportation Director for Rutherford County
four school buses cross daily. There have been no reported accidents on the
existing bridge.
There are no utilities attached to the existing bridge or in the project area which
will be affected by this project.

TABLE 1: Existing Bridge Conditions
Sufficiency Rating 18.5
Structure Length 144.6 meters (467 ft.)
Total Width 4.9 meters (16.2 ft.)
Clear Deck Width 4.26 meter (14 feet)
Spans 1 @ 12.47 meters (40 ft.-11 in.)
4 @ 11.48 meters (37 ft. - 8 in.)
1 @ 11.35 meters (37 ft. - 3 in.)
1 @ 32.92 meters (108 ft. - 0 in.)
1 @ 41.96 meters (137 ft .- 8 in.)
Year Constructed 1924.
Number of Lanes 1
Sidewalks NO
Vertical Clearance 12.8 meters (12 ft.-6 in.)
Type of Superstructure *Reinforced Concrete Deck on Pratt
and Camelback Through trusses
....................................................................................................................................................
* Note: The Camelback truss for Bridge No. 273 is one of only five remaining in
the state. Because of the rarity of the Camelback truss configuration, Bridge No.
273 is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
(See Section VIII; C)
4
V. Alternatives
The proposed project includes the replacement of Bridge No. 273 on SR 1106
over the Broad River. Project length is approximately 600 m (1900 ft). Built in
1924, the existing one-lane through truss bridge is in need of replacement. Two
alternates for replacing the existing bridge were evaluated.
Alternate 1: Replace with a new bridge on the existing location and detour
traffic over 16.1 km (10 miles) along secondary roads during construction.
As shown in Figure 1, traffic would be detoured along SR 1106, SR 1135,
SR 1119, SR 1111, and SR 1112.
This alternate is not the recommended alternate since it has a higher user
cost for detouring traffic and does not allow improvements to the existing
roadway alignment.
Alternate 2: Replace with a new 137 meter (450 feet) bridge just
upstream (west) of the existing bridge. This location would improve the
existing roadway alignment while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge
during construction. The proposed clear roadway width across the bridge
will be 7.2 meters (24 feet).
The project includes constructing approximately 300 meters (985 feet) of
new approach roadway to the south and 150 meters (495 feet) to the
north. The roadway width will be 6 meters (20 feet) wide with 0.6 to 2.2
meters (2 to 4 feet) graded shoulders. The proposed right of way is 24
meters (80 ft.). The new roadway will be designed for 40 km/h (25 mph).
Replacing the bridge downstream of the existing ridge was not included
as a reasonable alternative since it would not improve the horizontal
alignment and would require a large amount of excavation.
The „Do Nothing Alternative and the Rehabilitation Alternative were also
evaluated as alternative for replacing the existing bridge; however, were
eliminated early in the planning stages because they were considered not to be
practical alternatives. With the Do-nothing Alternate, the existing bridge would
continue to deteriorate until it was unusable. This would require closing the road
or continued intensive maintenance.
Rehabilitating the existing bridge is considered impracticable due to the
deteriorated condition of the bridge. The existing bridge has continually
required maintenance to the members of the truss. The existing bridge has
deteriorated beyond feasible repairs.
Both the "Do-Nothing" Alternative and the Rehabilitation Alternative would lead to
the eventual closing of SR 1106 and since there is a transportation need for the
bridge for the surrounding agricultural area and continued recreational uses,
such as hunting and horseback riding, these alternatives are not considered
feasible.
5
VI. Cost Estimates
Table 2: Preliminary Cost Estimate
Item Alternate 1 Alternate 2
(Recommended)
Structure $691,200 $ 648,000
Roadway Approaches $280,800 $ 432,000
Structure Removal $70,000 $ 70,000
Engineering and Contingencies $158,000 $ 200,000
Right of Way Cost $ 5.000 $ 25.300
Total Cost Estimate $1,205,000 $ 1,375,300
VII. Recommended Improvements
NCDOT will replace Bridge Number 273 on SR 1106 over the Broad River with a
new 137 meter (450 feet) bridge just upstream (west) of the existing bridge, as
shown in Figure 2, Alternate 2. The replacement bridge will be at approximately
the same elevation as the existing bridge with a minimum 0.3% gradient to
insure proper drainage. The proposed clear roadway across the bridge is 7.2
meters (24 feet).
Alternate 2, as described in Section V, was selected as the recommended
alternate because it will improve the existing roadway alignment while
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during construction. This alternate was
also the most cost effective alternative and has minimal environmental impacts.
Construction of Alternate 2 will not increase the 100-year flood elevation by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Construction will not place significant amounts
of fill in the flood plain area. There will be no impacts to utilities with the
replacement of Bridge No 273 since there are no waterlines, telephone cables,
or natural gas pipelines in the immediate area of the bridge.
The NCDOT Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation to construct
the bridge on the west and maintain traffic on the existing bridge during
construction.
6
VIII. Environmental Effects
With the implementation of the current NCDOT standards and specifications, this
project will not have substantial adverse impacts on the quality of the human or
natural environment. Therefore, this bridge replacement project for Bridge No.
273 over the Broad River is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its
limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
Studies were performed to identify potential impacts to the manmade and natural
environment. Separate technical reports were prepared for the natural systems
and the archaeological resources in the project area. These reports (Natural
Resources Technical Report for Proposed Replacement of Bridge 273 and
Archaeological Study for Replacement of Bridge No. 273) are available for
review at the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and
Environmental Branch located at One South Wilmington Street in Raleigh. The
findings from these reports and all the environmental investigations regarding the
existing resources and potential impacts are summarized in this section.
Recommendations for measures to potentially minimize harm to these resources
are also included.
A. Land Use and Socio-Economics
The project area is rural with no urbanized land uses in the project area or the
general vicinity. The predominant economic activity is agriculture with the primary
economic center in the Forest-Spindale area. The project will not adversely
affect social, economics, or religious opportunities in the area.
Rutherford County does not have an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations. The County Planner indicated that there were no plans for
development in this area. Therefore, this project will not conflict with any plan,
existing land use, or zoning regulations, and no change in land use is expected
to result with the construction of this project.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited to the bridge approaches. No adverse
impact on families or communities will occur with this project and no relocatees
will be required from the construction. This project will not have any impact on
public utilities or disrupt any services since there are no utilities located in the
immediate project area.
No adverse impact on public facilities will occur with this project. There are no
publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. SR 1106 is not
a designated bicycle route and there is not an unusual number of bicyclists on
this roadway; therefore, no special bicycle accommodations are required for this
project.
7
B. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition from construction
projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils are defined
according to criteria developed by the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), and generally include soils which produce the highest crop yield
with minimum input of energy and economic resources.
The NRCS was consulted to determine whether the proposed alternates for the
replacement of Bridge No. 273 will impact farmland soils. The results of the SCS
study concluded there were no prime, unique, state, or locally important farmland
within the proposed construction limits of either of the two project alternatives.
There will be no impact to these farmland resources from the project.
C. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 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 the opportunity to comment.
A review of the cultural resources was performed within the project's area of
potential effect. The results of this study are summarized below.
Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey was conducted for the project area. The survey did not
locate any archaeological sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places within the area of potential effect (APE). The project will not have any
impacts on archaeological resources within the area and no further
archaeological investigations are required. The State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) concurred with this determination in its August 9, 1995 letter
(See Appendix A).
Historical Architectural Resources
The only structure within the project's APE which is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places is the existing bridge. The existing bridge was
constructed in 1924 and consist of one Pratt Through Truss span and one
Camelback truss span. Pratt Through trusses are among the most common
types; however, this bridge's Camelback is one of only five remaining in the
state. Because of the rarity of the Camelback truss configuration, Bridge No.
8
273 is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion C for engineering. The architectural study concluded that there are no
other structures within the project's APE which are currently on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places.
This project will have an adverse effect to the existing historic bridge. In
accordance with Section 106, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina SHPO, and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation was prepared. This MOA states that a recordation plan
will be required to mitigate the adverse effects to the bridge. A copy of this MOA
is included in Appendix B.
Programmatic Section 4(o Evaluation
Since the project requires the removal of the existing historic bridge and involves
the use of Federal-Aid funds, this project must comply with the requirements of
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (80 Stat. 931, PL 89-670).
The Section 4(f) Evaluation for this project is included in Appendix C. The
Section 4(f) requirements are designed to insure that special efforts are made "to
preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation
lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites."
The "Do-Nothing" and the Rehabilitation Alternatives were evaluated as
alternatives to avoid the replacement of the historic bridge. These alternatives
were determined not to be feasible or prudent alternatives.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge were incorporated
into project. Measures to minimize harm include:
• This project has been coordinated with the SHPO and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. The SHPO has concurred with
NCDOT's findings and the proposed mitigation. (See Appendix A).
Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 273, NCDOT will record the bridge
in accordance with the Historic Structures Recordation Plan outlined in
Appendix A of the Memorandum of Agreement between the North
Carolina SHPO and the Federal Highway Administration (See
Appendix B of this Categorical Exclusion). Copies of the recordation
plan will be sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of
construction.
9
D. Natural Systems
An investigation of the natural resources in the project area was conducted to
identify the resources potentially impacted by the proposed action. Research was
conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Fingerville East), Natural Resource Conservation Service soil
maps of Rutherford County and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and
from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Rutherford County, 1992). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and candidate
species (March 28, 1995) and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
A site visit by NCDOT biologist was made on April 25, 1995 to inventory natural
resources. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Organisms captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1. Physical Resources
The physical resources in the project area such as the topography, soils and
water resources, directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
a. Topography and Soils
This section of Rutherford County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
The topography of Rutherford County is characterized by rolling hills dissected by
broad alluvial plains. Topography in the vicinity of the project area consists of
rolling hills with steep slopes adjacent to the Broad River. Project elevation is
approximately 67 m (220 ft).
There are four predominant soil types in the project area:
Rion sandy loam is present in the upland areas of the northern quadrants of the
project site. Rion sandy loam is very deep, well drained and has moderate
permeability. This soil is present on steep slopes where erodibility is a concern.
Buncombe loamy sand is present within the floodplain areas of the northern
quadrants. Buncombe loamy sand in very deep, excessively drained and
permeability is rapid. This soil is subject to occasional flooding during the months
of February through June for periods less than two days.
10
The Pacolet-Bethlehem Complex. occupies the upland portion of the southern
quadrants. These soils are very to moderately deep, well drained and
permeability is moderate. Moderately steep slopes make erodibility a management
concern.
Toccoa sandy loam is the dominant soil in the floodplain of the southern
quadrants. Toccoa soil is very deep, well to moderately well drained and
permeability is moderately rapid. Occasional Buncombe County and travels
southeast into South Carolina. The basin is characterized as having highly
erodable soils flooding occurs during the months of January through December for
periods of two to seven days.
Foundation investigations will be required for this project. The investigations will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as will as obtaining
samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
b. Water Resources
Hydrolog
Groundwater resources and existing drainage patterns will not be affected by the
proposed bridge replacement.
Weep holes (deck drains) are required for bridge deck drainage to avoid
hydroplaning and provide safety for the traffic. The feasibility of eliminating deck
drains directly over the water will be studied during final design, and if safety
requirements allow, it will be incorporated into the final design.
Floo lains
Rutherford County currently participates in the National Flood Insurance
Program. However, there is not a detailed study in this area. The approximate
limits of the 100-year floodplain are shown on Figure 4. The floodplain in this
area is rural and wooded. There are no buildings in the vicinity of the project
with floor elevation near the 100-year flood level. The proposed bridge
replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any adverse
effect on the existing floodplain.
Water Quality
Bridge Number 273 is located in the Broad River Basin. At the project site, the
Broad River is approximately 53.3 m (175.0 ft) wide with an average depth of 0.6
m (2.0 ft). Water clarity was excellent with light penetration to the river substrate.
The substrate was composed of sand and gravel with isolated boulder deposits
occupying approximately 5% of the river bottom.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The classification of the Broad River at the
project location is "C". The "C" classification denotes waters that are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project
study area.
11
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses long term trends in water quality. No BMAN information is available for
the Broad River at or near the project location.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists four dischargers
within a radius of 16.0 km (10.0 mi) of the proposed project. Three dischargers
are located within the Second Broad River drainage area which has confluence
with the Broad River approximately 17.3 km (10.8 mi) downstream of the project
site, and therefore, have no impact on the Broad River at the project location.
One discharger, the Rutherfordton waste water treatment plant (RWWTP), outfalls
into Cleghorn Creek which has confluence with the Broad River 9.6 km (6.0 mi)
upstream of the project. The design flow for RWWTP is 1.0 mgd and the outfall is
located approximately 17.9 river km (11.2 mi) upstream of the project site. None
of these point source dischargers will be affected by the proposed construction.
2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the
relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems.
Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: (1)
alluvial forest; (2) upland hardwood forest and (3) roadside/disturbed. Many
faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed.
(1) Alluvial forest is found along floodplain ridges, terraces and active
levees adjacent to a river channel. The hydrology is palustrine with
intermittent flooding during high flow periods. Alluvial forests form a stable
climax forest, having a stable uneven-even aged canopy composed
primarily of bottomland hardwood trees.
The canopy is dominated by various bottomland trees such as box elder,
red maple, sweet gum, river birch, water oak, and sycamore. The shrub
layer was dominated by chinese privet, saplings of box elder, and red
maple. Tag alder dominated river bank areas. The vine/herb layer is
composed of Japanese honeysuckle, coral honeysuckle, poison ivy, and
giant cane.
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include species adapted to wetter
ecosystems. A few species that may be found in this community are two-
lined salamander, spring peeper, gray squirrel*, raccoon*, and white-tailed
deer*. A major predator in this community is the barred owl, which hunts
small rodents, reptiles and amphibians primarily at night.
12
(2) The upland hardwood forest begins at the floodplain edge and extends
up slope. The canopy is dominated by white oak, willow oak, sweet gum,
tulip poplar, shagbark hickory, sycamore, and red maple. The shrub layer
consists of flowering dogwood, ironwood , arrow wood, privet, and a few
scattered fringe-trees. The vine/herb layer was composed of Japanese
honey suckle, poison ivy, cross vine, Virginia creeper, and scattered
populations of May-apple, ground pine and wild geranium.
The upland hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna. The gray
squirrel*, Virginia opossum, raccoon*, eastern chipmunk, and woodchuck*
are inhabitants of this community. The presence of stratification provides
habitat for avian species such as the pine warbler, red-bellied woodpecker,
northern flicker, and downy woodpecker.
Reptilian species include the eastern box turtle, five- lined skink and ground
skink. The black racer and copperhead serve predatory roles by feeding on
small reptiles, mammals and amphibians.
(3) The roadside/disturbed community includes road shoulders and
maintained terrestrial areas under the existing bridge. that are periodically
maintained. Flora along the road shoulder includes fescue, dandelion,
broad leaf plantain, and sage. Vegetation within maintained areas under
the bridge includes Japanese honeysuckle, cross vine, poison ivy and
lamb's quarters.
Faunal species that would inhabit or forage in this disturbed area would be
similar to the previously mentioned terrestrial communities. The disturbed
area within project boundaries represents only a small portion of the
terrestrial habitat and functions largely as a transition zone and movement
corridor.
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, the Broad River, will be impacted by the proposed
project. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water
resource reflect faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities.
The banks of the Broad River, in vicinity of the project area, are steep and rise
approximately 1.8-2.4 m (6.0-8.0 ft) above the surface of the river. Vegetation
occupying the banks (tag alder and other alluvial forest species) reduce erosion
potential from high water events.
Fauna associated with the aquatic community include various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Prey fish including shiners and chubs as well as crayfish and
insect nymphs and larvae provide foraging opportunities for largemouth bass,
sunfish, and catfish. Northern water snake will also forage on fish and amphibians
in this community.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the new bridge will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described (habitat reduction, faunal displacement, etc.). Any construction-
13
related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact
ecological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Both temporary
and permanent impacts are included.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation
and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed
areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area, NCDOT'S Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude unnecessary
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be
strictly enforced.
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing
and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction.
Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 24
m (80 ft). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge 273 will reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction
concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to
become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will
displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by
the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species. This
14
temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase of competition for
the remaining resources.
Table 3: Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Hectares (Acres)
Community Alternative 1
Alluvial Forest 0.11 (0.28)
Upland Forest 0.17 (0.41)
Roadside/Disturbed 0.04 (0.11)
Aquatic >0.01 (0.01
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.32 (0.81)
.......................................................................
Alternative 2
0.19 (0.46)
0.46(l.31)
0.05 (0.13)
0.71 (1.92)
Notes: Alternative 2 includes impacts associated with removal of existing bridge.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from
construction- related work will effect water quality and biological constituents.
Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these
construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization of water and scouring of stream channels. In-stream construction
alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site.
Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and produce siltation,
which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile
filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic
organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light
penetration thus decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhances the
likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the
soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic
compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the
site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation.
Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to
elevations of water temperatures which may impact many species.
15
3. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues; rare and protected species and Waters of the United States.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)
Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used
where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic
characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. No
jurisdictional wetlands were observed within the project area, however,
jurisdictional surface waters are present.
tAnticipatea rermits requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
Rutherford County is one of 25 counties which contains WRC designated 'Trout
Waters". General permits are not available in these counties without consent from
the WRC. A Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23, for impacts to surface
waters of Broad River, is likely to be applicable since the NCWRC stated that the
Broad River does not support trout. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department. Projects are categorically excluded from
environmental documentation, because their construction will neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. Final permitting will be
coordinated with the COE prior to construction.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water.Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the
nationwide #23. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
16
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected S ep cies
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. Table 4 lists federally-protected species for Rutherford County as of
March 28, 1995. A brief description of each species characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 4: Federally-Protected Species for Rutherford County
Scientific Name
Falco g_eregrinus
Myotis sodalis
Gymnoderme lineare
Hexastylis naniflora
Sisyrichium dichotomum
Common Name *Status
peregrine falcon E
Indiana bat E
rock gnome lichen E
dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
white irisette E
.........................................................................................................................................................
*NOTE:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected
species revealed that dwarf flowered heartleaf was observed approximately 305
m (1000 ft) south southeast of the project site. No occurrence of any other
federally-protected species was recorded in or near the project study area.
Falco pereg_rinus (Peregrine falcon) E
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United States in areas with
high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high
cliff ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous
forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-
March to May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds, including
mammals as large as a woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. The
preferred prey is medium sized birds such as pigeons.
17
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Based on extensive in house and field investigations it has been determined that
the only suitable nesting habitat for the peregrine falcon in the project study area
is Bridge No. 273. No nesting peregrine falcons were observed on this structure,
therefore, project construction will have no effect on the peregrine falcon.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) E
The range of the Indian bat centers around cavernous limestone regions in the
eastern United States. The Indiana bat has different summer and winter habitat
requirements. Winter habitat is in caves and abandoned mines that usually has
standing water on the floor. The bats migrate to the winter habitat between
September and November; they stay there with occasional periods of activity until
they emerge in mid-March to early May. Hibernation only occurs in regions where
winter temperatures are stable and are around four degrees Celsius. Little is
known of the summer habitat of the Indiana bat, it is thought that they disperse
throughout their range and spend the summer foraging alone over streams or
along forest margins. They have been found under loose bark on dead and living
trees along small to medium-sized streams.
Optimum foraging is over streams with mature riparian vegetation overhanging the
water by more than 3 meters. Streams that have been stripped of their riparian
vegetation do not appear to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers are extremely
important to this species as foraging areas and migration routes.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The Broad River can serve as a suitable foraging area and migration route for the
Indiana bat. However, due to the size and nature of this project, relatively little
streamside vegetation will be disturbed and will not effect foraging opportunities
for the Indiana bat. Therefore, project construction will have no effect on the
Indiana bat.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) E
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)
mountain tops 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 Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps.
The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests
usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high
elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, 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
Suitable habitat does not exist for the rock gnome lichen within the project area.
Project elevation is approximately 67 m (220 ft) and there are no vertical rock
18
faces with the appropriate hydrologic requirements present within the project site.
Therefore, project construction will have no effect on the rock gnome lichen.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight northern piedmont counties in
North Carolina and the adjacent portions of South Carolina.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin
petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. The leaves are dark green in color,
evergreen, and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and dark
brown in color. They are found near the base of the petioles. Fruits mature from
mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent
slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of
nearby hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist
climate. Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and
as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The Natural Heritage Program has a record of dwarf- flowered heartleaf at one
location on a north facing slope approximately 305.0 m (1000.0 ft) south southeast
of the site. The project site was surveyed plant by plant for the presence of dwarf-
flowered heartleaf. No Hexastylis spp. were observed within project boundaries.
Therefore, project construction will have no effect on dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) E
The white irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North Carolina. This plant
is found in sunny clearings and along the edges of upland woods where a thin
canopy is present. These open areas often are where runoff has removed the
deep litter layer that is usually present. It occurs on rich, basic soils that are
probably weathered from amphibolite. It is dependent on a form of disturbance to
maintain the open quality of its habitat.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The major terrestrial community within the project area is mature hardwood forest
with a dense canopy. The disturbed/maintained community is restricted to a
narrow road shoulder that is frequently intruded upon by motor vehicles.
Therefore, habitat requirements are not present within project boundaries and
project construction will have no effect on white irisette.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and
Animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists speciesof concern, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study
19

area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed. A review of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina
rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 5: Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
for Rutherford County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Present
MXotis subulatus lgil2ii Eastern small-footed SC Y
bat
Neotoma floridana magister Eastern woodrat SC Y
Dendroica ceruLea Cerulean warbler SR Y
Aneides aeneus Green salamander E Y*
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap - Y*
Saxifraaa caroliniana Gray's saxifrage - N
Senecio millefolium Divided-leaf ragwort - Y
........................................................................................................................................................
NOTE:
Population not documented in Rutherford County in the past twenty
years;
Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal Species of
Concern.
"E", "SC", "SR" denote endangered, special concern and significantly rare,
respectfully.
E. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this area. The project is located in Rutherford County which has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an
attainment area.
20
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP
for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This project is considered an air quality neutral project and a project level CO
analysis is not required. This completes the assessment requirements of the
1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. No
additional reports are required.
The project will not increase traffic volumes in the project area; therefore, no
adverse impacts from traffic noise will occur with the replacement of the bridge.
Temporary increases in noise levels may occur during construction.
M. Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project
will cause no significant environment impacts. Therefore, the project may be
processed as a Categorical Exclusion.
21
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location Map
Figure 2: Alternative Location Map
Figure 3: Bridge Photographs
Figure 4: 100 Year Floodplains
1118 ^ 1.7 .2149 ` 2148
'? 1 3 1118 % 2215 226
I 41127 .2 2215 ,
1
1195• 1132 122 1135 b V
2151 A
)4 v, •s -- ?``, •? .7 2285
2210
1128 1 9 .3 .4 1135 221 •,7
O o ?' .-1 133 .3 1137 "' q
.3 1
1130 1131 i. 1136 ` 2287
*?y 1106 1200 1122 2
134 Holly w 1111 ?- 2125 1.0
I _
BRIDGE NO. 273 Springs 1 i 9 ;
'
°$ "o Ch. 1 2 2230 •7
1106 ` HARRIS .1
? •a
e
1126 S n? 1117 ?`•.4
1214 yA
?? b 1122
r
1111 5
1116
1•
p 1101 6 1116
2.2 1 125
1123
1112 .(P
Z 1124
.5
Pq/
o q .2 11 12 ! 1112 11 11 .1116
1104 g 1.3
A 9
! 1103 x BROAD o°
1111
nos
1109
1113
?? `?-r, f? t 1110 1111 1113 b p 1114•
? Thermal City
•? Union 64 ^18 AM
nrmnel(ltaa T H E R1Fa R D SPARTANBURG COUNTY
sun:hrne SOUTH CAROLINA
?/,w I.- Gila y T West- r
-.ter Ndlia Poll ?
My lure v .?S ??•f 5 'A"? 1yyaShDurn
•^? `tiv , Ruth
?? ! d x'o Forest ostic
o Ci y'
• ` ernge? Studied Detour Route
• \ I sander 74
enru
? Marrrs I [srd T
5
til t
• ALT

4f
ec? North Carolina Department Of
Sj" Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RUTIHMORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 273 ON SR 1106
OVER BROAD RIVER
B-3041
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 0.5 miles 1.0
tl, ?,.Y
Sid 441
Z 3tL101H 001 iaa; p w
w,
r110S06SZ'S .L03fO8d 3,LF,LS
1b0£-9 ? *A "J
?. {. K . `
y UHAR1 GV0112 HH.L HaAO 901INS NO
?I FLZ'0\ 30ORIH
*..,
,UKIO0 (rd001IHH1.11d
'I HO\FTIH ns\36C\OHLL\3 a\'t' 04L4.\'t"Id
S,IF:IIHNOI 30 ..\OISLUQ Yr 'v g
VOISV102[dS'.vVH.L
HO L\3I1. Wd3Q F.\J'IOUYD H NO.\
ni, 01J,
c .}tr
h
h k
%
,w
r
w:l
.r•,',.
F /
K r 1.
?r r - v
? a

-CLZ rOX HOGIU9

NOL,VDOI ONI.LSM IV 3DGMI aoridau
13,LV.KHa,L'I`d
O&J-11 s 3 ,IO Isam aDv Iclau
Z a,LVN\?I3,L Iv

ro-
r;

V

O ?

H ? C
C7
0
0
n O ? o O m
O `. % O fl C1 ?
U
% c;u Ow E-.
O .. c. J
O O J r ' j ti
C q
CJ O
L Q

O d G o
J
H O n. ?
.r
7 F.
? O
`Lm
P?
V
A
h+?l
F+?I
l?
M?
M
rh+?}
M
I/?l

SOUTH APPROACH OF BRIDGE FACING NORTH SOUTH APPROACH OF BRIDGE FACING SOUTH
NORTH APPROACH OF BRIDGE FACING NORTH
SOUTH APPROACH OF BRIDGE FACING NORTH

\ .
??_ /^? ?
?
'
•-- i ?'r l
?
-??
,' ., ? ?, ,.: _
%ti
_ ?
,? •?: i ` ?? 1 , ?. -f,. il
.
_?. 1 273'
Ol
®,

?•.1;O? 1;1126
W,a
?,. 265

PROJECT SITE

'? '1
? ? ?`' ?% ?
?
?' ? ?'
,'
? 111
?'`
?'
i
1
• .? ?
1
_ -
- .
•
i
?
,
>
?.
?, . •_? •.`
?: ? ,, 1, . •.?I,.? :?? 1.

-Qr
1112 ?N

J / 1106
-
czs-
1104
-
"
1103. ._ -
- \\ _?• `_ ` - 1

2987 ??; _ ,'? - c y. `•

APPROXIMATE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN

NORTH CAROLNA DEPART)WEVT OF
TRANSPROTATION
S
'
?? _? OF HIGHWAY
DIVISION
• p
-
\ I ??? VVV PLANING AND EWIRON.M N BRANCH
MAL
\ ?\ RUTHERFORD COV'M
BRIDGE NO
273
.

11 ?? 1100
, O N SR1106 OVER THE BROAD RIVER
B-3041
-- Z g ; '
?• ?, T STATE PROJECT 8.2890901
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX A
Agency Coordination
v4$?N
,v., W W ,a
FEB 1 3 1995
DIVISION 0'
HIGHWF?`';-?...
VIRONN4''??
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 7, 1995
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for Bridge #273 over the Broad
River along SR 1106, Rutherford County, TIP #B-3041.
This correspondence is in response to a request by Mr. John
Williams of your staff for our preliminary comments regarding the
subject project. According to Mr. Williams, the existing bridge
over the Broad River will be replaced with a new bridge.
The Broad River in this area does not support trout;
therefore, trout are not a concern on this project. If a 404
permit is required, our comments to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers with reflect this.
We have the following recommendations for minimizing impacts
to fish and wildlife resources of the project area:
1) Construction should be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact river water. This will lessen the chance
of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
2) In order to provide long term erosion control, permanent
herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities. Mulch
should be used to protect the soil before vegetation becomes
established.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during
the early stages of this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
?S
,,. sWE v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 9, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 273 on SR 1106 over Broad River,
Federal-Aid BRZ-1106(2), TIP B-3041, State
Project 8.2890501, ER 96-7053
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Kenneth Robinson concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Mr.
Robinson has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation
since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Siq„cerely,
'id Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DBalw /
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?yya,,.SUTF o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 30, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: ' . Metal Truss Bridge Evaluations, ER 96-7884
Davidson #257, B-2540
Henderson #61, B-2575
McDowell #175, B-2586
McDowell #70, B-2587
Polk #47, B-2604
Polk #105, B-2605
Polk #44, B-2606
Polk #17, B-3018
Polk #19, B-3019
Rutherford #273, B-3041
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1995, transmitting the metal truss bridge
evaluations for the above projects.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Davidson #257. Bridge #257 is eligible under Criterion A for its association
with the development of the Carolina Aluminum Company power plant at
High Rock Lake, and under Criterion C because it was manufactured by the
prolific Virginia Bridge and Iron Company and is one of only two Pratt
through truss bridges left in Davidson and the surrounding counties.
Henderson #61. Bridge #61, a Pratt through truss bridge, is eligible under
Criterion A for its association with the expansion of the Tuxedo Hydroelectric
Plant under Duke Power's ownership.
Polk #47. Polk #47 is eligible under Criterion C because it is one of only five
Parker truss bridges remaining on the state system.
Polk #105. Polk #105 is eligible under Criterion C because it is one of only
five Parker truss bridges remaining on the state system.
109 Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
11 /30/95, Page 2
Rutherford #273. Rutherford #273 is eligible under Criterion C because it
was manufactured by the prolific Champion Bridge Company and is one of
only five Camelback truss bridges remaining on the state system.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
McDowell #175. McDowell #175 is an example of the relatively common
Pratt pony truss bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
McDowell #70 and Polk #44. These bridges are examples of the relatively
common Pratt through truss bridge, and lack special historical significance.
Polk #17 and Polk #19. These bridges are examples of the relatively
common, though locally rare, Warren pony truss bridge and lack special
historical significance.
In general, the evaluations meet our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary
of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
P'
David %oo -
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
"8. Church

Federal Aid A $R?.- t?o f, 1 TIP # 91.3041 County ?utHEl oR p
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSI MNT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
?F.PL.MPi P,WDGB rJ,. 2?3 •rJ 5K- 11arv r/E? bRowD Q-?yE?
On Kay 14, 1 M lx, , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located-within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse. •
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
tL, 1114"
Represent OT, Historic Architectural Resources Section D e
i i
61w,
HW for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency to
T-
)-Representative, S O ate

s/z S
tate Historic Preservation Officer
(over)
. J
Federal Aid # ibR titc? CZl TIP 9' 304+ County WiSfF090
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
?'Rtc" 110. 273 CDE, - Av?sE_-
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA SHPO 1;1--)
i' y
. ' ,
APPENDIX B
Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement
¦ I
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.6(a)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 273
ON SR 1106 OVER BROAD RIVER
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. B-3041, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2890501
FEDERAL AID NO. BRZ-1106(2)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
replacement of Bridge No. 273 over Broad River in Rutherford County, North Carolina, a
property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will have an
effect upon the structure, and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f);
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) participated in
the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Bridge Maintenance Unit of NCDOT has investigated the feasibility of
potential future use of Bridge No. 273 subsequent to replacement and found that due to
corrosion and previous rehabilitation of the structure, the bridge is structurally unsuitable
for relocation and continued use;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on Bridge No. 273.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Prior to the demolition of Rutherford County Bridge No. 273, NCDOT shall
record the bridge in accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation
Plan (Appendix A). The recordation plan shall be carried out and copies sent of
the record sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of construction.

Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO
and implementation of its terms evidences that FHWA has afforded the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Rutherford
County Bridge No. 273 on SR 1106 over Broad River and its effect on historic properties,
and that FHWA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic
properties.
D
ATE HISTORIC PRESERVA
Concurring Party

X/)
ACCEPTED for
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
N I , w
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 273
Rutherford County, North Carolina
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrative/description of Bridge No. 273
Photographic Requirements
Photographic views of Bridge No. 273 including:
Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
Overall views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction or design
Format:
Representative color transparencies
35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to
be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
A . 1 r
APPENDIX C
Programmatic Section 4(fl Evaluation
I c ,
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
Federal Aid Project Number: BRZ-1106(21
State Project Number: 8.2890501
Transportation Improvement Program Number: B-3041
Description: Rutherford County. Bridge No 273 on SR-1 106 over the Broad
River.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or a
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is
on or eligible for listing on the x
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic a
Landmark? X
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do Nothine X F-1
Does the "Do Nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered x
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? X
, A L
Yes N
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affecting the historic x
integdly of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/or (iv The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting _the historic integrity of the x
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
E (i)deficient The bridge is so structurally
that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
r% s 0a r
Yes No
The project includes all possible planning x
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
O For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
OFor bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
Prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 273, NCDOT will record the bridge in accordance
with the Historic Recordation Plan outlined in Appendix A of the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO. The recordation
plan will be carried out and copies of the record sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to
the start of construction. (See Appendix B of this Categorical Exclusion for a copy of the
Section 106 MOA).
!? c t
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies
d. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
APPROVED:
30-96"
Date A it Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportion
93JO A 02, -/ 2Ya Z d Z ff 2 2
ate vi ' Administrator, FH A
F°l
lip
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
'O
TO
R : c
, CRiC IAMB REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
WANT-
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM,' LOG.
? )6N??1 WILt,?hM?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION -
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? ' TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:.-
1
t
n
OCT
WET
WATER - 61994
LANDS GROUP
UALITY SLCiFS-i 3
I?
? ?-
R ?•
???L•? ,_

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP.ANSPORTATION
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 273 on SR 1106
in Rutherford County over Broad River, B-3041
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 7, 1994 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/plr 030tOZ 'JW
Attachment

WA Lj'/u „1 no-r ny
S Cy
/kho C. Ad
nfo q-zv
?fnol

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9-30 94
TIP PROJECT B-3041 DIVISION 13

1y STATE PROJECT 8.2890501 COUNTY RUTHERFORD

F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1106(2) ROUTE SR 1106
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:SR 1106, BRIDGE NO. 273, RUTHERFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BROAD RIVER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 144.8 METERS; WIDTH 4.9 METERS
475 FEET 16.2 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 1,200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 100,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................$ 1,300,000
CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL ROUTE

am MUM so
MANKAW
!i '
Thwmsl ify?1? fi4 F?rat tfi
? 5
,
himne ock U H E
a Lure ? T Gilk y
O ?` aka Lue _ ?? ?.S 5
N 6
` ?Oa
Ru orrtord o
I oind
OIL
moms so goA
?„ - - ? •s .? 221
128 4 3 1135
o s+ 3 :. ,3 + p
•-1133 2 1137
d 1130 1 131 is 4 1136 1106
?' 1200
6 1134 Holly . t t 22 f i l l
1195 Springs 1119
Ch.
`1•.2
1106
1126 'S
1214
?.? b 1122
5
1101. 1106
2.2 1 125
1123
1112
1124
,
5 --
q 1104 1 1112• ' 1112 111
5 t'3
1103
1102 1105 . -111
b .4
1104-. 10 C
h 7109
.? 1102 1106
? T 108 ?;L t
1110 7111 f
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

.6
/
/
/
/
¦
/
¦
f
¦
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 273
ON SR 1106 OVER BROAD RIVER
B - 3041
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
0 miles 1 miles 2

-".. 11 / \ ?.. ? ,y :' r :^? .. 1 •'I ." \\?, ?: / ? '
O ? ?P i I

-
• 265 I -•?_? . ?;? ? ? ? ` `"?
? ` 1.t ? \ // ` ,? \? ??? ?, ,\ .
land
Wl?

104

•
? ? \ rte., `t. ? ?- `J ??
, ?
Y

\\v'

J/
-

IJ"
-4 v v,

I
D
X
?t \ ?

13 7 T,
USGS Map
Fin ervil l e East -
7.5 Minute Quadran gle
Ii ,cfL ? ,-? \ (?? ,??. .. 1106. `? ??n-? r '/^.\.; ? I? I I .'•- >' • (?li_!1- -