19940456 Ver 1_Complete File_19940516 (2)

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P,E„ Director
May 26, 1994
Transylvania County
DEM Project # 94456
TIP No. B-2642
State Project #8.1000201
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning Branch Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.1 acres of wetlands or waters for the
purpose of bridge replacement at Bridge 82 over Broad River, as you described in your
application dated 12 April, 1994. After reviewing your application, we have decided that
this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2734. This certification
allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of
Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to
send us a new application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John
Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Since ely,
Plreston Howard, Jr. E.
Director
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files 94456.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
,% *.:
-.r
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP C51 fad

?1

4 (Domyrt 1
OR RO M, BLDG.
22
O
i? t? REF. NO. OR O/MTBLDG.
CC J
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:

MAY i 6 IM

wETLA
WATE NDS
UA11
r^ 1
so+SWF°
Tot
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 12, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 23402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Transylvania County, Bridge No. 82 over French
Broad River, State Project No. 8.1000201 Federal
Aid No. BRZ-1129(3), T.I.P. No. B-2642.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991 by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We 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.
The NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to
the Corps of Engineers.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the attached information to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their
review.
9
j 1
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. O' u' n
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. David Baker, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. R. E. Edmonds, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

Transylvania County
Bridge No. 82
Over French Broad River
Federal Project BRZ-1129(3)
State Project 8.2000201
TIP B-2642

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date FoRNicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Transylvania County
Bridge No. 82
Over French Broad River
Federal Project BRZ-1129(3)
State Project 8.2000201
TIP B-2642
Q.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
-f ?,?A td, -S?n
Richard W. Fedora Sr.
Project Planning Engineer
,,,?e???cs3etioso???'
Wayn Elliott F' 't
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head a SEAL i
•
6576
(7???t/`? ?" ¢-"2 _ c?¢ •? `• * ...EEC •` \4.; ..
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Transylvania County
Bridge No. 82
Over French Broad River
Federal Project BRZ-1129(3)
State Project 8.2000201
TIP B-2642
I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 82; Transylvania County. It crosses over the French
Broad River (Figure 1). This bridge is included in the 1994-2000
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project.
The project is classified as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. NCDOT
expects no substantial environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 82 on new location as shown in
Alternate 1, Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a new
bridge that is approximately 45.7 meters (150 feet) long with a 6.1-meter
(20-foot) wide travelway plus a 0.6-meter (2-foot) offset on each side.
The project will require approximately 210 meters (690 feet) of new
approach roadway. The new roadway approaches will have a 6.1-meter
(20-foot) wide travelway plus 1.8-meter (6-foot) graded shoulders at
approximately the same grade as the existing roadway. The completed
project will provide a design speed of approximately 60 km/h (35 mph).
The estimated cost is $355,000. The estimated cost shown in the
1994-2000 TIP is $830,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following commitments will be implemented to avoid or minimize
impacts to the hatchery supported Mountain Trout Water:
(1) Wet concrete will not be placed in contact with river water
(2) High Quality Waters erosion and sedimentation control measures
will be implemented and maintained throughout construction
(3) Abandoned roadway approaches will be restored to'original grade
and re-vegetated
(4) All soil disturbed by construction will be stabilized by seeding
and mulching within 15 days of project completion
i
The following commitments will be implemented to avoid disturbing the
historic Calvert Gaging station:
5) Design plans will delineate the gaging station and area around
the gaging station to be avoided. This area will include the
structure and a 0.9-meter (3.0-foot) buffer on the west, south,
and east sides of the structure. The buffer on the north will
be extended to the river edge. It will flare out to 2.4 meters
(8.0 feet) on the west side and 1.5 meters (5.0 feet) on the
east side at the river edge to include the concrete base of the
station (see Figure 6).
6) The area around the gaging station will be delineated in the
field with stakes so that contractors can easily recognize the
area not to be disturbed.
7) NCDOT personnel will monitor construction activities to assure
the gaging station is avoided.
Foundation investigations will be conducted on this project. The
investigations will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site
testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may
require test borings in streams.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to
issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit #23.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of
the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation,
and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will
be forwarded to TVA for approval under Section 26a.
A detailed scour analysis will be performed during final hydraulic
design. Appropriate scour protection measures will be specified in the
construction plans.
Provision of angler access will be analyzed during design of the
project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1129 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. It is a two-lane paved road that ends
approximately 0.3 kilometers (0.2 miles) south of Bridge No. 82.
Near Bridge No. 82, SR 1129 is 5.5 meters (18 feet) wide with grass
shoulders. Vertical alignment in the area is good. The northern approach
to the bridge is tangent. The southern approach to the bridge contains a «
sharp curve adjacent to the bridge. The deck of Bridge No. 82 is 4.0
meters (13 feet) above ground level. Water depth is approximately 1.2
meters (four feet) in the project area. 1
Bridge No. 82 was built in 1959 and has a timber floor on steel
girder floor beams and timber joists (Figure 3). It is 36.9 meters (121
feet) long with a 3.4-meter (11-foot) roadway width. It carries one lane
of traffic and is posted 9.0 metric tons (10 tons) for single vehicles and
11.8 metric tons (13 tons) for Truck-tractor Semi-Trailer (TTST).
2
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency
rating of Bridge No. 82 is 16.3 of a possible 100.0 with an estimated
remaining life of 8 years.
The current traffic volume is 100 VPD, projected to 200 VPD for 2015.
Truck percentages are 1% TTST and 2% dual-tired vehicles. Speed limit in
the area is 90 km/h (statutory 55 mph).
Traffic Engineering records indicate one accident occurred in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 82 between 1 February 1990 and 31 January 1993.
One vehicle ran off the road near the bridge.
The Transportation Director for Transylvania County Schools indicated
there are 4 school bus crossings daily (one bus crossing twice in the
morning and afternoon).
IV. ALTERNATIVES
There are two build alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 82
(Figure 2):
Alternate 1 (Recommended) will replace the bridge on new location
northeast of the existing alignment. The replacement bridge will have a
6.1-meter (20-foot) wide travelway plus a 0.6-meter (2-foot) offset on
each side. It will be approximately 45.7 meters (150 feet) long. The
project will require approximately 210 meters (690 feet) of new approach
roadway. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. The design speed for this alternate will be approximately
60 km/h (35 mph).
Alternate 2 would replace the bridge at the existing location. The
replacement bridge would have a 6.1-meter (20-foot) wide travelway plus a
0.6-meter (2-foot) offset on each side. The design speed for this
alternate would be approximately 40 km/h (25 mph). A temporary detour
would be constructed to the northeast of Bridge No. 82. The detour
structure would be a one lane bridge approximately 33.5 meters (110 feet)
long. The temporary detour would provide a design speed of approximately
40 km/h (25 mph) during construction.
Closing the road and maintaining traffic off-site during construction
is not feasible because SR 1129 is a dead end road. SR 1129 serves
SR 1203 and various properties beyond the bridge.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The bridge would
continue deteriorating until unusable. This would require closing the
road, or continued intensive maintenance.
3

V. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 shows the estimated costs and component costs of the
alternates.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
RECOMMENDED
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
BRIDGES $ 194,700 $194,700
BRIDGE REMOVAL 9,000 9,000
TEMPORARY DETOUR - 82,700
ROADWAY & APPROACHES 74,600 74,600
ENGINEERING &
CONTINGENCIES 46,700 64,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 325,000 425,000
RIGHT OF WAY 30,000 29,500
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE 355,000 454,500
VI. 'RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 82 on new location as shown in
Alternate 1, Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 82 with a bridge approximately
45.7 meters (150 feet) long. This bridge will have a 6.1-meter (20-foot)
wide travelway plus a 0.6-meter (2-foot) offset on each side.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately
60 km/h (35 mph). The project will require approximately 210 meters
(690 feet) of new approach roadway. The new roadway approaches will have a
6.1-meter (20-foot) wide travelway plus 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders. If
guardrail is required, the shoulders will be 2.7 meters (9 feet) wide.
The new roadway approaches will be at approximately the same grade as the
existing roadway.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 for the following reasons:
1) It is estimated to cost less than Alternate 2
2) It will improve the design speed from 40 km/h (25mph) to 60 km/h
(35 mph)
3) It avoids possible effects to the Calvert Gaging Station. If
Alternate 2 is chosen, the additional length of the replacement
bridge may affect the historical structure.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 1 recommendation.

U

4
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission requested that a
portion of the abandoned roadway approach be maintained as access for
anglers. The existing northern approach would be most applicable for this
purpose. If this approach is preserved for angler access, environmental
commitment number (3) applies only to that approach area not preserved for
angler access. Provision of this access will be analyzed during the
design phase.
The preliminary hydraulics report indicated that significant
potential exists for bridge scour. The hydraulics unit recommends a
detailed scour analysis be performed during final hydraulic design.
Appropriate scour protection measures will be specified in the
construction plans.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not increase the 100-year flood
elevation by more than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the
100-year flood boundaries. Construction of Alternate 1 will not place
significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The
investigations will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site
testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may
require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
A. Overview
Bridge No. 82 is located outside the City of Rosman in rural
Transylvania County. It is surrounded by farm and pasture land. The area
lies on an inter-mountain plateau in the Blue Ridge Mountains
Physiographic Province.
An NCDOT biologist conducted an ecological survey on 21 October 1993
to identify vegetative communities and wildlife species within the project
area. The biologist inventoried and mapped vegetative communities and
wildlife during on-site surveys. The biologist identified wetlands using
methods in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
The NCDOT biologist completed in-house preparatory work prior to the
field visit and studied the Transylvania County Soil Survey, Transylvania
County hydric soils list, and Rosman quadrangle map to identify potential
wetland sites. The biologist used the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map
for Transylvania County to determine if any sensitive resources are
present in the project area and used "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the French Broad River Basin," by the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to determine the best use classification for the French Broad
River. The biologist reviewed the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) files to
determine if any protected species occur in the project area.
5
B. Soils and Topography
Bridge No. 82 lies within the Mountain Soil Region; therefore, it is
within the Broad basins, River Terraces, and Flood Plain Soil System.
This intermountain basin is composed of low mountains, discontinuous river
terraces, and flood plains. The project area lies in a flood plain
characterized by low relief. The elevation in the project area ranges
from 671 meters (2200 feet) to 793 meters (2600 feet).
Well to moderately well drained Rosman fine sandy loam underlies the
project where slope ranges from zero to three percent. Slightly lower
areas away from the river contain hydric inclusions of Toxaway.
C. Biotic Communities
Distribution and composition of plant and animal communities
throughout the project area reflect the topographic positioning,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land use practices.
1. Plant Communities
The NCDOT biologist identified three plant communities in the
project area: Riparian Fringe, Shrub-scrub, and Agricultural Field.
The biologist adopted and modified natural community profile
descriptions, where applicable, from the NCNHP classification scheme
(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Riparian fringe forest is seasonally to intermittently flooded,
and is confined to the sides of the river embankment. Alluvial soils
support a canopy of sycamore, red maple, and tulip tree. Black
willow forms a thick sub- canopy. Viburnum was the only shrub noted.
Giant cane forms dense mats at the waters edge. Japanese
honeysuckle has heavily invaded the area away from the river edge,
suppressing native herbs.
a
Agricultural lands occupy the northwest, northeast, and
southeast quadrants of the project area. These lands are currently
in crop production as well as pasture. Because of routine management
practices associated with farming, this community retains only
isolated remnants of the native character and provides little of the
initial value as wildlife habitat. Corn was the only crop noted. It
was evidenced by stubble. Forage grasses such as fescue, red clover,
white clover, and Lespedeza comprise those pasture areas.
A shrub-scrub community comprises the southwest quadrant of the
project area where agricultural land was abandoned, or where a
previously cleared area was invaded by woody species. A low diversity
of species characterizes this site. It is made up of a blackberry
thicket interspersed with goldenrod, fall aster, and Japanese
honeysuckle.
6
2. Wildlife
The rural nature of the area provides many opportunities for
wildlife. Communities adjacent to agricultural fields and riparian
fringe areas provide ecotonal areas rich for foraging. Fringe
forests provide cover. Semiaquatic mammals may feed upon the many
fish species present in the French Broad River.
Riparian fringe communities are valuable habitat for reptiles
and amphibians. Amphibians in particular, are highly water-dependent
for completion of larval stages in the life cycle. Reptiles, such as
the northern water snake may be found basking on logs or boulders in
the water.
Year-round resident birds observed foraging in pasture and corn
fields are the American goldfinch, song sparrow, and American crow.
The biologist observed a pair of cardinals perching in the riparian
fringe. The biologist expects birds of prey; such as the Cooper's
hawk, American kestrel, red- shouldered hawk, and red-tailed hawk; to
occur over these open lands. These birds prey on rodents, snakes,
frogs, crayfish, and songbirds.
The lower section of the French Broad River supports a diverse
aquatic community including common game fish and pan fish.
3. Biotic Community Impacts
Potential impacts resulting from bridge replacement and the
construction of a temporary detour would be the addition of sediment
to the aquatic system. Siltation has many adverse impacts on aquatic
organisms. It decreases the depth of light penetration, inhibits
plant growth, clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding
benthos, clogs the gills of fish, buries benthic organisms on the
bottom, adversely effects preferred benthic substrate, and spoils
downstream.spawning beds for fish.
Table 2 lists anticipated impacts for each alternate.
Calculations are based on proposed right-of-way limits of 24.4 meters
(80.0 ft).
Table 2. Biotic Community Impacts
Alternates
1 2
Riparian Fringe >0.1 ha (0.1 ac) >0.1 ha (0.1 ac)
Agricultural Field 0.3 ha (0.7 ac) 0.3 ha (0.1 ac)
Shrub-scrub >0.1 ha (0.1 ac) >0.1 ha (0.1 ac)
7
D. Surface Waters and Wetlands
The French Broad River is a large, meandering mountain river which
lies in the French Broad River basin. It flows in a northwesterly
direction, eventually crossing into Tennessee. Waters of the lower
segment of the French Broad River flatten out, are of lower gradient than
the upper reaches, and carry high sediment loads. The pH is close to
neutral, and the river is relatively high in nutrients. Table 3 lists the
physical characteristics of the river observed in the study area.
Table 3. French Broad River Characteristics
Substrate Boulder, gravel, rubble, sand
Current flow Moderate
Channel width 24.0 m (80 ft.)
Bank Height 3.0 m (10 ft.),
Water depth 0.6 m (2 ft.)
Water color Clear
Water odor None
Aquatic vegetation None noted
Adjacent vegetation Riparian fringe
Wetlands associated None
The French Broad River has a Class C "best usage" classification as
designated by the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR). Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation,
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and agriculture.
This river also has the supplemental designation Trout Waters (Tr)*. This
designation is intended to protect fresh waters for natural trout
propagation and the survival of stocked trout. The North Carolina
Division of Land Resources has a special buffer zone requirement which
applies to all Trout Waters. These rules require an undisturbed buffer
zone of either 7.6 meters (25 feet) wide, or of sufficient width to
confine visible siltation within the 25-percent of the buffer zone nearest
the land-disturbing activity, whichever is-greatest. Protection measures
include special numeric instream water quality standards to protect trout.
Catheys Creek is located within one mile north of the project area
and has a state supplemental classification of High Quality Waters (HQW).
Because Catheys Creek is within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of the project
area and drains to the French Broad River, High Quality Waters protection
measures apply to the project.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) (NC- DEHNR, DEM)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are
sensitive to very subtge changes, in water quality. The project lies at a
fixed monitoring site. This site is atypical because of potential urban
8
runoff problems and the proximity to several small point sources. The
point sources include American Thread (cooling water only, 0.015 MGD),
Mitchell Bissell Industry (Chromium plating 0.03 MGD), and the Rosman
sewage treatment plant (0.09 MGD). These sources have not seriously
affected water quality. Benthos data collected from 1986 though 1990
indicates excellent water quality.
Potential impacts to water resources in the study area include
increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion, alterations of
water level due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction, and changes in water temperature and light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover.
High Quality Waters erosion and sediment control measures will be
implemented during the construction of this project to minimize impacts to
water resources.
E. Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The proposed alignment will only
impact jurisdictional areas along defined channel boundaries of headwater
tributaries. These impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). No jurisdictional wetlands are
located within the project area.
The project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion. Conditions
apply for provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work, and discharges undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included.within a
category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. Final permit decisions are left to
the discretionary authority of the COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the DEHNR will
be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which may result
in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
All waters within Transylvania County are Mountain Trout Waters as
designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
This des.ignation requires that applicants obtain a letter of'comment and
recommendation from the NCWRC and a letter of concurrence from the
Wilmington District COE before discharging any dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States that occur within any of the 25
designated counties.
The NCWRC recommends the following to avoid or minimize impacts to
the hatchery supported Mountain Trout Water:
1) Wet concrete not be placed in contact with river water
2) Strict erosion control measures be implemented and maintained
throughout construction
9
3) Abandoned roadway approaches be restored to original grade and
re-vegetated
4) All soil disturbed by construction be stabilized by seeding and
mulching within 15 days of project completion (this is an
adjustment to the 4 January 1994 letter from NCWRC, based upon <
phone conversation with Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mountain Region
Coordinator, Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC--see Appendix
for copy of letter)
Strict erosion control measures will be accommodated by the
application of High Quality Erosion Control measures.
Anticipated impacts to "Waters of the US" are likely to be
authorized under a Nationwide Permit. Generally, no mitigation is
required, according to an understanding in the Memorandum of Agreement
between the COE and the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final
decision rests with the COE.
F. Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to have
a detrimental impact to the survival and well being of any species
classified as federally protected is subject to review by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended.
In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under North
Carolina General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106- 202.19 of 1979. These
species may or may not be federally protected.
Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, protect plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT).
Effective 28 December 1993, the USFWS listed sever federally
protected species for Transylvania County. Table 4 lists these species.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species - Transylvania County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Falco peregrinus
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Geum radiatum
Sarracenia rubra
var. jonesii
Helonias bullata
Gymnoderme lineare
Carolina northern flying
squirrel E.
Peregrine falcon E
Appalachian elktoe PE
Spreading avens E
Mountain sweet pitcher plant E
Swamp pink T
Rock gnome lichen PE
10
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 1 July 1985
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson,
McDowell, Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The northern flying squirrel is widely distributed in northern North
America. It was not known to exist on the east coast south of New York
until well into the 20th century. There are several isolated populations
of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of North Carolina
along the Tennessee border. These populations are in Haywood and Yancey
counties and in the vicinity of Mount Mitchell.
This. squirrel is found above 1600 meters (5,000 feet) in the
vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both
forest types are used to search for food, and the hardwood forest is used
for nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect. The project area does not meet
the elevation or plant community preferences for the Carolina northern
flying squirrels.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) E
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 20 March 1984
Distribution. in N.C.: Avery,
Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes,
Rutherford, Yancey.
Dare, Hyde.
Burke, Jackson, Madison,
Brunswick, Carteret,
The Peregrine falcon is between 410-510 mm long and 910- 1,120 mm
wide including wingspan. In this species, the female is roughly 25%
larger than the male. Plumage along its back is dark with the underside
being lighter and barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by the
dark crown and a dark wedge that extends below the eye forming a distinct
helmet. Like all falcons, it is characterized by pointed wings in flight.
Immature falcons have dark-brownish backs and heavily streaked underparts.
Nesting habitat is rock ledges, cliffs, and broken tree tops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect. No suitable nesting sites are
present in the project area.
Alasmidonta,raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) PE
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3 September 1993
Distribution in N.C.: Macon, Mitchell, Swain,
Transylvania, Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe previously ranged in the upper Tennessee River
system in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, including the
river systems of Little Tennessee River (Graham County) and French Broad
River (Transylvania and Haywood County). There are now only two known
populations of the Appalachian elktoe, one in Tennessee and the other in
the Cane River (Yancey County).
11
The populations of the Appalachian elktoe are threatened by a variety
of man-made factors such as road construction and residential and
commercial development.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect. Recent surveys have revealed no
live unionids in the French Broad River.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 5 April 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes, Transylvania, Watauga,
Yancey.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee
sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke
County have been extirpated and populations in other counties have shown a
serious decline.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and escarpments on
mountains, hills, and ridges. Habitat requirements include full sunlight,
high elevations, and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found
in soils composed of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and
humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION : No effect. No suitable habitat for this
plant is present in the project area.
Sarracenia rubra ssp 'off nsii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: 10 March 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in bogs and streams in
southwestern North Carolina and northwestern South Carolina. The four
North Carolina populations are found in the French Broad River drainage
basin in Henderson and Transylvania counties. This species has been
reported from Buncombe County, although it is not known to currently
survive there.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain bogs and along
streamsides. The habitat is characterized by deep, poorly drained
wetlands with soils that are combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a
high organic content and medium to highly acidic pH. Sites are
intermittently exposed to flooding. This plant is an early successional
plant that relies on drought, water fluctuation, periodic fire, and ice
damage to maintain its habitat.
12
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No suitable habitat for this
plant is present in the project area.
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) T
Plant Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: 9 September 1988
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Jackson, Transylvania.
Swamp pink is a fresh water wetlands plant. It once occurred in
wetlands from New York to Georgia. It is now believed to be extirpated
from New York. Of the 60 known populations, seven are found in North
Carolina. The North Carolina populations are limited to bogs in the
southern Appalachians in Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania, counties.
This species is found in freshwater wetlands areas including spring
seepages, swamps, bogs, meadows, and along the margins of meandering
streams. Soils that it occurs in are described as being slightly acidic
(pH:4.2-4.9), having a thin layer of decomposed organic matter, underlain
by a black to dark gray silt loam that is slightly sticky, with many small
roots and fine mica chips. Populations are found in areas with varying
amounts of shade. Populations in open areas are less vigorous due to
increased competition from other species.
Biological Conclusion: No effect. No suitable habitat is present in
the project area.
Gymnoderme lineare (rock gnome lichen) PE
Plant Family:
Federally Listed: 28 December 1993
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey
The habitat of the rock gnome lichen is primarily limited to vertical
rock faces, at high elevations (> 1220 m/4000 ft) in Ashe, Avery,
Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain,
Transylvania, and Yancey counties. It may also be found in deep gorges at
lower elevations (< 762 m/ 2500 ft) in Jackson, Rutherford, and
Transylvania counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. No vertical rock faces occur in
the project area; therefore, no suitable habitat exists.
G. Air and Noise
The project is located within the Western Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Transylvania County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 771 do not apply.
13
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If vegetation is
disposed of 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 evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, CFR, Part 771, and no additional
reports are required.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, it have no significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise
increases may occur during construction.
H. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies, or
their representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils, as designated
by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS determined Alternate
1 will impact 0.26 hectares (0.64 acres) of prime farmland and important
farmland soil. This is considered a minor amount of farmland. No further
attempts to lessen the impact to prime farmland soil will be considered.
I. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
An NCDOT architectural historian surveyed the area of Potential
Effect of the project for significant historical properties.. The
historian identified one structure, the Calvert Gaging Station (Figure 5),
in the project area.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) considers this property
to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion A for engineering flood control and Criterion C for
architecture.
The following commitments will be implemented to avoid disturbing the
historic Calvert Gaging station:
1) Design plans will delineate the gaging station and area around
the gaging station to be avoided. This area will include the
structure and a 0.9-meter (3.0-foot) buffer on the west, south,
and east sides of the structure. The buffer on the north will
be extended to the river edge. It will flare out to 2.4 meters
(8.0 feet) on the west side and 1.5 meters (5.0 feet) on the
east side at the river edge to include the concrete base of the
station (see Figure 6).
2) The area around the gaging station will be delineated in the
field with stakes so that contractors can easily recognize the
area not to be disturbed.
3) NCDOT personnel will monitor construction activities to assure
the gaging station is avoided.
14
By implementing these recommendations, the SHPO concurs the project
will have no effect on the Calvert Gaging Station (see concurrence letter
in Appendix).
The SHPO recomme
NCDOT archaeologist
resources. The surve
In addition, the sur
suggest archaeologica
location.
The archaeologist concluded the
archaeological resources. The SHPO
recommends no further investigations.
RWF/plr
nded an archaeological
surveyed the project
y detected no evidence
vey detected conditions
1 resources would not
survey for the project. An
area for archaeological
of archaeological resources.
in deep soil tests that
likely be found in this
project will not disturb significant
concurs with this conclusion and
15
?S
Wr= I CD u R?-

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
BRANCH
I 0 kilometers 3 FIG. 1 I
BRIDGE NO. 82
ON SR 1129 OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. B - 2642
` ?R)
uTl
IF
?: `..
40
s
r
° ?a P
e
.
k` a s
ALTERNATE 2
-TEMPORARY DETOUR
12`1 ?v!Q 4 e \ ? 1?„ e. s
121
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATE 1
1 - ;N o-
BRIDGE NO. 82 ^
', It I
? y ?

n

" it• s
" . FRANSPORTATI()N
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANiNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH

BRIDGE NO. 82
ON SR 1129 OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
i7 T. I. P. NO. B - 2642
s 3
r 0 meters 30.4
sn FIG. 2
BRIDGE NO. 82
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
B-2642
LOOKING NORTH

LOOKING SOUTH
R
axtiCF?/t
f. ?
e
l!n j
y?
tl
v
SIDEVIEW
FIGURE3
VERT GAGING
STATION
B - 2642
FIGURE 5
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SUB 'CY Calvert Gaging StationPROJECT B-2642,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Buffer Zone Delineation (Not to Scale)
COUNTY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS -
HIGHWAY BUILDING PREPARE Z;Y DATE STATION
0.9-meter (3-foot) rurcKFn RV DATE STR NO SHEET OF_
buffer

x
1.5-
buf:
0.9-meter' (3-foot)-?'?-? t?--'
1
---- -buffer - - - -
Calvert'
;
Gaging ?
Station
-a= -I Br idsze No. 82
T
FIGURE 6
-t r
;Embankment
Co nc Pad
Concrete Pads
t 1 ?-
-meter (5.0-foot)
`er
j
2:4-meter (8.0-foot)
buffer
:o•01
APPENDIX

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 14, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge 82 on SR 1129 over French
Broad River, Transylvania County, B-2642,
8.2000201, BRZ-1129(3), ER 94-8666
Dear Mr. Graf:
EI
4S?
1
T APR 18 1994
L•
)urce - DIVISICN OF
C HIGHWAYS 6
Division o an
William S. for
Thank you for your letter of March 31, 1994, concerning the above project.
We understand that during an on-site inspection, North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff discovered a concrete pad just north of the Calvert
Gaging Station at the bank of the French Broad River. Since the pad is an
essential component of the gaging station, it is considered a part of the National
Register-eligible property.
We have reviewed the revised buffer zone encompassing the gaging station and
the above ground portion of the concrete pad. Using the revised buffer zone,
NCDOT will implement the following three measures to avoid disturbing the gaging
station--with its concrete pad--during the removal of the existing bridge and
construction of the new bridge:
1. The design plans will delineate the gaging station and the area around the
gaging station to be avoided. I-L
2. Prior to construction, the area around the gaging station will be delineated in
the field with stakes so that contractors can easily recognize the area to be
avoided.
3. NCDOT personnel will monitor construction activities to assure that the
gaging station is avoided during construction activities.
Based upon NCDOT carrying out these conditions, we continue to concur with the
Federal Highway Administration's determination that the project will have no effect
on the National Register-eligible Calvert Gaging Station.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
April 14, 1994, Page 2
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,
G- _
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: " H. F. Vick
B. Church

x
7
?' .roman
?Y ? SfATt °?
aw.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray NkCain, secretary
January 21, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 82 on SR 1129 over French Broad
River, B-2642 (ER 93-8119); Bridge 39 on US 276
over French Broad River, B-2641 (GS 93-0017);
Bridge 69 on US 64 over North Fork French Broad,
B-2171 (GS 92-0021), Transylvania County, ER
94-8059
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 23, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Kenneth Robinson concerning the above projects.
One archaeological site, 31TV584, was identified during the course of these three
surveys. The report evaluates this site as not eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. We concur with the evaluation and recommend no
further investigations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
'Sincerely,
?` D 'd Brook ?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
B:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
109 Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Fedora, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
ILA-
DATE: January 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Trout concerns regarding replacement of Bridge #82 on
SR 1129 over French Broad River, Transylvania County,
TIP #B-2642.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
concerns regarding the proposed replacement of Bridge #82 on SR
1129 over the French Broad River in Transylvania County.
Specifically, you requested a memorandum outlining our concerns
with trout waters. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) previously provided scoping comments on this
project in a memorandum to Mr. L. J. Ward dated March 4, 1993.
As described in our previous memorandum, the French Broad
River in the project area is Hatchery Supported Designated Public
Mountain Trout Water, and downstream areas support a fishery for
muskellunge and other game fish. Public use of the area is high,
and the existing bridge site is used for fishing and portage
access to the river. Our primary concerns are adverse impacts to
fish habitat from sedimentation, and the loss or impairment of
public access to the river from SR 1129.
We recommend the Alternative 1 be selected, which involves
replacing the bridge on new location east of the existing
alignment. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. The bridge would be replaced at the
existing location if Alternative 2 is selected; however, we do
not recommend this alternative because of the temporary detour
bridge that would have to be constructed and your comment that
angler access could better be addressed using Alternative 1.
We anticipate providing recommendations to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers regarding the 404 permit application when it
Mr. Wayne Fedora Page 2
becomes available for review.
the following:
January 4, 1994
Our recommendations will include
1) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact river water. This will lessen the chance of
altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
2) Strict erosion and sedimentation control measures should be
implemented and maintained throughout construction.
3) Abandoned roadway approaches, except those preserved for
fishing and boating access, should be restored to original
grade and revegetated.
4) All areas of soil disturbance associated with construction
should be stabilized with vegetation within 15 days of
project completion.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
x
47
e
T
N
a

r? North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [C?
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-73 3-3301
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Larry Cordell. Bridge Maint. Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Micky Clemmons. District 9 Fisheries Biologist
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
SUBJECT: Fishermen Access at NCDOT bridge crossings on
the French Broad River.
DATE: January 11. 1993.
I have enclosed the comments that I have sent to the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) on Transylvania County bridge 00-107.
Primarily. I wanted you to be aware of condition number 4, assuming
that the USACE includes this condition in DOT's permit. On this
project I would like to use the old bridge approach and develop it as a
fishermen access site. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) is open to how much each agency puts into the
development of the site. I believe this to be a great opportunity for
improving access to the French Broad River and look forward to
discussing this project with you. or whoever you think I need to
discuss it with.

4
I am also enclosing'- drawings of the steps that I talked about on
the phone. At that time I did not realize that the old road and bridge
approach were available on the above mentioned project. But perhaps
you could use something like this on any future bridge replacements on
the French Broad River,.or other streams where fishing access may be a
consideration. When you have a project that may provide opportunities
for improving fishing access. I will be glad to meet with you early in
the planning process so that we can work something out before the
permit application is 'prepared.
I appreciate your openess to fishing access considerations and
look forward to working with you on those projects where access
improvements may be possible. Thank you.
CC: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau. Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Lawrence Kearson. Boating and Management Coord.
Mr. Richard Guier. Regional Supervisor

s
L
(?1
I
11
00,
' V
?^^. Trt `?? (>+? ?l ??n C?
?I .k Aom
C z
7 E
j
y.T ? J
cz

-a:

i
w
A. . -w
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
?? Z4?93
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
eri c Ga?c?rr??n BEM
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
`
V y ay n@ Ve AQ la p?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS E FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

d~,a. SfA7g q,
m?
Gunn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 82 on SR 1129 over French Broad River,
Transylvania County, B-2642
A scoping meeting was held on March 4, 1993 initiating the subject
project.
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
The following is a list of those in attendance:
Don Sellers Right-of-Way
Robin Stancil DCR-SHPO
Ray Moore Structure Design
Sue Flowers Roadway Design
Herman Lancaster Roadway Design
Wayne Fedora Planning and Environmental
Ted Devens Planning and Environmental
Maria Lapomarda Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
John Olinger Hydraulics
Danny Rogers Program Development
David Yow NCWRC
Eric Galamb DEM
J
Based on available information, it appears the subject bridge should be
replaced on new location, east of the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained the existing alignment.
Two alternates were discussed for replacing Bridge No. 82:
1) Replace on new location, east of the existing alignment, and
maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction. The
construction cost estimate for this alternate is $325,000.

March 23, 1993
Page 2
2) Replace at the
consisting of
this alternate
WF/wp
Attachments
existing location with a temporary, on-site detour,
one travel lane. The construction cost estimate for
is $425,000.
'r
r
i
}
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 01/19/93
REVISION DATE: 03/19/93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: B-2642

STATE PROJECT: 8.2000201

F.A. PROJECT: BRZ-1129(3)

DIVISION: FOURTEEN

COUNTY: TRANSYLVANIA
ROUTE: SR 1129
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: SR 1129, BRIDGE #82, TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION X
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (%)
J i
i
r
r
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 100 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 200 VPD
TTST 1 % D T 2 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 121 FEET; WIDTH 12 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 150 FEET; WIDTH 24 FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 110 FEET; WIDTH 12 FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 325,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 16,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 341,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 700 ,000

TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 16 ,000

SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 716 ,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 716,000

i N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLID
117-51E)3
TO: . NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
REEF
?t 1`
EeAc- 0a1aml ^?
?
'Vem K
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
L C
pie.
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:

+,a 5fA7Eo
K291993
N STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TTMNSPORTATION TLANDS GROUP
UALITY SECTI
JAMEs B. HUNT. JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS UNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 22, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1129 over French Broad River, Transylvania County,
B-2642
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 March 4, 1993 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Wayne Fedora, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr
Attachment
\G(4
a?

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 01/19/93
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: B-2642
STATE PROJECT: 8.2000201
F.A. PROJECT: BRZ-1129(3)_
DIVISION: FOURTEEN
COUNTY: TRANSYLVANIA
ROUTE: SR 1129
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: SR 1129, BRIDGE 432, TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
(C 23
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ; ;o;

.7
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD.5S
TTST 1 % DT % Zoo 2D I S
1
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: k1/"-
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 121 FEET; WIDTH 12 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
1t)Q --??
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST .......................................$
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ S 700,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 16.000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 716,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................$ 716,000
BCU'- W arc - Gf Xivi ?U?ft n'-
??ed
L

1376 1 17u
.1
C9 P ?'N N
11W
ts79 CONNESTEE
'poor FALLS
1734
1119
Itoe `?1 ?? / \ ?
t.,. ror.s17 ;. '3'
U44 17 ?' ltm
3A t tm (/
BRIDGE NO. 82
r...___ 1134. ?•? ,... ? .n _ ._.
1140',
?u s
izz, 1p
N A
11.7
,,.7 ry _ a - ?cF
14
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 82
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
B-2642
0 miles 2
1 1 FIG. 1