19940836 Ver 1_Complete File_19940908

w..
SFP - 81994-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLI
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 2, 1994 H ? ?) ?p
District Engineer
Army Corps
S ."?,f Engi.ieer 1 S?
P. `'J . Box 1 8, 9 0
vY1ll.l_ ytGi .North Ca::G1=na ..84t?2

Dear Qi .
S :b j ec:.. TraI: : l vaili a Of D'r d No .
7, 7
b-?;-j-_' , Sta4- F1'GjeCt ?G.
P_,... Da- Nr
to re-lace ti1-- above- of __ enc_ . __uct .? on __eTrv .. :,_ y i1.
-?1-
m11e a?;3w ?? nor S v "r C pp t :-` ? 1^7 1 _ r e?" cvee,... :z 4
construction. -TI-Le new b tic ?i??l to l0c- a oil ??U `let
FTe t ai?d "rJ1 ` i _..IGI : pla•. e'_; nt cf Dri; ae 4 ia= t (f.v n d
2, 50 feet long.
his pro-iect 's being processed ati a Catecg(Drlca.l
EYci:is_on _n acccldance wit 1.3 C-R 771. -1' (...;) . we ex-'Dect t'o
p'roc _ e'_. 'TP7it Irl tLhJLs p :: o?ect ltrl °_? Natlo !;^Tide
accord,a ce wit-h 33 CP: ;30 Appedi<_ A (E-22) is Sued NoVE :ber
- 1, by the U. Arm; CGr° - Gi EiLyill -er s . i'he
G. _s:ions vi Sec icn 3-10 .4 and?Ap pendlI . A Gf tii.=S_
-_ uiations w7ll be `ollow-ed _ll t51_ CGIlSr; _iC ?i(7i1 J= t111S
prGjeC?.
Tile i+orth Carolina Wildlife Resource:. Commissicn (WRC)
ila. _7Gt_4-:_=d that file French rroao River i5 .`iatC erlr
suppc ri.ed Designated Public Mountain Trout `!1a`ar at th S
location. Tit accordance with currel?t procedures for projects
1ccated in the designated trou% count-ieS the conct_r_ei_ce of
aRC fiLi.`t be obtaiIled pi +Cr Lv ^^ol:StillCtion. Ey CGpJ c:: this
letter, we hereby request that WRC review the proposed
project and pr vide any comments they -find necessary. A copy
of the CE document is included fcr the WRC review.
En
i
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ii Qui ?, P.E.
Lant Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJo/clh
Attachment
cc: COE, Asheville Field Office
Micky Clemmons, WRC, District 9, Waynesville
Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
John Dorney, DEHNR, BEM
John Parker, DEHNR. DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Earger, P . E . , Program Development
Don Morton, P . E . , Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, F.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
F.D. Martin, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Julie A. Hunkins, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental

US 276
Bridge No. 39 over French Broad River
Transylvania County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-276(1)
State Project 8.1000501
B-2641
•
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
for Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
7 zz 4 ? ozQ
Date For Nicholas Gra , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 276
Bridge No. 39 over French Broad River
Transylvania County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-276(1)
State Project 8.1000501
B-2641
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1994
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
CAR0,
Ju 'e A. Hunkins, P. E. SEAL t _
P ect Planning Engineer = t 1$496
;?GF.GINEE .?
Vde E 11 i of ''f
ge e Replacement Project Planning Unit Head q
l?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
US 276
Bridge No. 39 over French Broad River
Transylvania County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-276(1)
State Project 8.1000501
B-2641
Bridge No. 39 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 39 should be replaced on new location about 120 feet west
of its present location, as shown by Recommended Alternate 2 in Figure 3.
The recommended structure consists of a bridge 40 feet wide and 250 feet
long. The recommended bridge width will accommodate a 24-foot travelway
with 8 feet of lateral clearance on each side.
The approach roadway will provide a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot
graded shoulders. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure
during the construction period.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 1,144,000. The
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $ 1,105,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No wetlands will be disrupted by
implementation of this project. Best Management Practices will be
utilized to minimize construction impacts.
Per request of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the
following measures will be incorporated into the proposed project:
(1) If concrete is used, construction will be accomplished so that
wet concrete does not contact river water.
(2) Native trees and shrubs will be planted at the site of the old
bridge once the structure is removed to provide bank stability
and shade the river.
(3) Temporary ground cover will be placed on all bare soil during
.construction. Permanent vegetation in these same areas will be
established within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to
provide long term erosion control.
2
To reduce the potential for impacts to water resources,
and erosion control measures (Best Management Practices) wi
enforced during the construction stage of this project. I
operations will be carefully planned to minimize disturba
existing stream banks. Any material excavated for footing!
water will be removed from the immediate vicinity to previ
eroding back into the water. Runoff crossing the construct
be directed into temporary silt basins via lateral ditches w
dams to slow and filter the runoff prior to discharging int
Approach roadway fill slopes will be stabilized with see
temporary silt ditches, silt fence, etc. shall be provided
fill. Grass berms along the top of the fill slope will be i
runoff laterally to temporary slope drains, which empty in-
sediment basins. Early placement of rip-rap slope protectio
implemented to protect against surface erosion. Special att
given to proper installation and maintenance of all ero.
sedimentation control devices.
sedimentation
1 be strictly
:onstruction
ice of the
in or near
!nt it from
ion area will
ith rock check
o the river.
ling, and
it the toe of
sed to convey
:o temporary
i will also be
?ntion will be
ion and
Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife ResourceIs Commission
(NCWRC) indicates the French Broad River supports heavy fishing pressure
in this area. The NCWRC has requested that NCDOT examine the feasibility
of retaining right-of-way to allow room for anglers to park -their vehicles
off the side of the road near either the existing or new ridge. In
addition, the NCWRC has requested that access be provided to? allow anglers
to carry car-top boats safely to the river to a canoe ramp. (Consideration
will be given during design of the project to retaining the existing right
of way and grading the old approach roadway at the existing bridge site to,
provide access to the river once new bridge construction is complete. No
new barriers, such as rip rap, should be introduced at the a cess point to
the river; this will facilitate use of this area by fishermen and boaters.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 276 is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal-Aid System.
The proposed project study area lies in Transylvania County
(Figure 1) in the extreme southwestern part of the Mountain Physiographic
Province. Transylvania county's major economic resource include
agriculture, industry, and tourism.
Development in the project area is predominantly rural. A few
residences are located in the general project area.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 276 has a pavement w dth of about
21 feet with 2-foot to 4-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). Th posted speed
limit on US 276 is 55 MPH.
The existing bridge is located on a poor horizontal alignment (see
Figure 3). A sharp curve of about 18 degrees exists immediately north of
Bridge No. 39. The roadway is nearly tangent immediately south of the
bridge.
3
SR 1540 forms a "T" intersection with US 276 approximately 300 feet
south of Bridge No. 39. A private drive is located on the northeast
quadrant of the project about 350 feet north of the bridge.
Overhead utility lines cross over US 276 on the south approach,
approximately 80 feet from the end of the bridge. A conduit is attached to
the east side of Bridge No. 39. No other utilities have been identified
in the immediate vicinity of the project.
The current traffic volume of 4800 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected
to increase to 9100 VPD by the year 2016. The projected volume includes
1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DDT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 2), constructed in 1927, consists of
reinforced concrete floor on girders, supported by concrete piers and
vertical full-height abutments. The 5-span structure is approximately 186
feet long and has a 20-foot clear travelway. A commemorative plaque on
this structure designates Bridge No. 39 as "Wilson Bridge."
The bridge is hydraulically inadequate, as it is overtopped by the
10-year storm.
Bridge No. 39 is not posted for restricted weight limits.
Bridge No. 39 has a sufficiency rating of 42.1 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure. The estimated remaining life for this
structure is 10 years.
Seven accidents in the vicinity of the project were reported during
the period from November, 1989 to October, 1992. While one of these
accidents occurred on Bridge No. 39, three of the accidents occurred at
the US 276/SR 1540 intersection south of the bridge.
There are a total of six school bus crossings daily over this bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 39 were studied. The alternates
studied assume traffic is to be maintained on-site during the construction
period due to lack of a suitable detour route.
The replacement structure for the alternates studied consists of a
bridge approximately 250 feet long. A minimum deck width of 40 feet,
which would provide for two 12-foot travel lanes with 8 feet of lateral
clearance on each side, is recommended.
The approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot paved travelway with
8-foot graded shoulders. The roadway grade at the proposed structure will
be approximately two feet higher than that of the existing bridge to
improve the hydraulic conveyance of the structure. A minimum gradient of
0.3% is recommended for deck drainage.
4
The alternates studied, shown in Figure 3, are as follo s:
Alternate 1 - Replace bridge approximately 80 feet west of its present
location. The structure would be on a sli ht curve.
.Approximately 1450 feet-of new approach roadway would be
required to tie the replacement structure into the existing
roadway. A minimum design speed of 55 MPH would be
provided.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - Replace bridge on new location about 110 feet
west of its present location. The replacement structure
.would be located on a tangent. New approach roadway
construction to the replacement structure will be necessary
for a total distance of about 1320 feet. A minimum design
speed of about 55 MPH will be provided.
Alternate 3 - Replace bridge on new location about 120 feet east of its
present location. About 1300 feet of new approach roadway
construction would be needed. A design speed of about 40
MPH would be provided.
Cursory consideration was given to replacement of the bridge at its
existing location. This method of bridge replacement would require the
construction of a costly temporary structure on-site to maintain traffic
during construction. In addition, replacement of the bri ge at its
existing location would not provide any improvement in the poor horizontal
alignment on the north approach to the bridge. For these reasons, this
replacement scenario was eliminated from further consideration.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
US 276.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due
deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternates studied is as foll
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Temporary Detour
Structure Removal
Engineering & Contingencies
Right of Way, Utilities
Total
Recommender
Alternate Alternate
1 2
$ 756,000 $ 696,000
313,000
24,000
158,000
247,000
24,000
133,000
62,000 44,000
$ 1,313,000 $ 1,144,000
o its age and
ws:
Alternate
3
$ 756,000
252,000
24,000
155,000
57,000
$ 1,244,000
5
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 39 should be replaced approximately 110 feet west of its
present location, as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 3. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during the construction period.
The recommended structure is a bridge about 250 feet long and 40 feet
wide. The size of the structure. may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
The proposed bridge width will accommodate a 24-foot travelway with a
minimum of 8 feet of lateral clearance on each side.
Approximately 1320 feet of new roadway will be constructed to tie the
replacement bridge into the existing roadway. The recommended alignment
will improve the horizontal alignment through the project area and reduce
the sharp curvature of the roadway on the north approach to the bridge.
The approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot graded
shoulders.
The toe of fill ditches on the upstream (west) side of the existing
roadway will require relocation to accommodate the proposed replacement
structure and associated approach roadway.
Of the alternates studied, Recommended Alternate 2 provides an
improvement in the horizontal alignment through the project area at the
lowest cost. Recommended Alternate 2 is estimated to cost $ 100,000 less
than the next less costly alternative. Recommended Alternate 2 and
Alternate 1 both provide a 55 MPH design speed while Alternate 3 would
have a design speed of about 40 MPH. In addition, Recommended Alternate 2
results in the least amount of impact to Prime Farmlands of the
alternatives studied.
The division engineer concurs with the recommended alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not
the quality of human life or natural
NCDOT standards and specifications.
have a significant adverse effect on
environment with the use of current
The topography of the project area is flat (typical of river
floodplains) with increases in elevation to the north and south as NC 276
meanders over mountainous terrain. Low river bank levees are also located
6
on both the
Transylvania
level, while
sea level.
north and south bank of the French Broad River.
County ranges from 1265 feet to 6043 feet abc
project area elevation is approximately 2100 fE
The Transylvania County general soil map contains
associations. One soil association (Rosman-Toxaway-Trans
crossed by the proposed project. This soil association
well-drained to very poorly drained, nearly level soils that
by loam and fine sandy loam or that have a subsoil dominan
clay loam on floodplains. This association is mainly four
French Broad River and its larger tributaries. Most of thi!
has been cleared for agriculture.
Man-dominated and mixed hardwood forest are the two
communities found in the subject project study area. Dom
components associated with these terrestrial areas are disc
each community description; however, many species are ada
entire range of habitats found along the project alignment
mentioned in each community description.
The man-dominated community, which is highly disturbed,
shoulder, lawn, garden, and agricultural habitats. Many p'
characteristic of the roadside, are adapted to disturbed at
habitats. The intensely maintained (mowed) areas are doming
Festuca spy, plantain P1 anta o sp. , and dandelion Tar
Areas, such as ditch banks with less frequent maintenance
exhibit more rank herbaceous and scrub/shrub vegetation, in
dogwood Cornus amomum , black willow Salix ni ra , tag
serrulata), red maple Acer rubrum , elderberry Sambucus
privet ( Li gustrum spy, blackberry Rubus sp. , rose Rosa
Viola sp.), and dock Rumex sp.).
Agricultural fields, created in the floodplain of the
River, are the dominant community component in the project a
the last crop to have been grown here. This portion of the
community is frequented by red-tailed hawk Buteo 'a? macen
forages over open habitats for rodents, such as rats, mice
reptiles, and amphibians.
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
and capable of surviving on a variety of forage resources,
vegetation (flowers, leaves, seeds, and fruits) to animal m
and dead). Virginia opossum Didel his virginiana), eas
Scalo us aquaticus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardina'
crow Corvus brachyrhynchos), and mourning dove Zenaida m
examples of species attracted to lawns and gardens by the
feeding stations and abundance of cultivated forage items
humans. Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), rufous-:
Pi ilo er_ythrophthalmus), white-throated sparrow Zon
albicollis), and several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.)
less well-maintained margins or ecotones of road shoulders,
fields, and gardens.
Elevation in
ve mean sea
yet above mean
six soil
flvania) is
includes
are underlain
fly of silty
d along the
association
terrestrial
nant faunal
ssed below in
ted to the
nd may not be
includes road
ant species,
d maintained
ted by fescue
ixacum sp.).
schedules
:luding silky
lder Alnus
;anadensis),
spy, violet
French Broad
^ea. Corn was
man-dominated
Lis which
rabbits,
1pportunistic
ranging from
fitter (living
tern mole
is), American
icroura are
year-round
provided by
tided towhee
)trichia
inhabit the
agricultural
7
Mortality among animals, which migrate across roadways, provides
forage for opportunistic species such as turkey vulture (Cathartes aura
and Virginia opossum, which may in turn become fatalities and subsequently
forage items themselves. Reptiles and amphibians, including toads, frogs,
turtles, and snakes, may sun themselves on the roadside and even lie on
the road surface at night to absorb heat. A black rat snake Ela he
obsoleta was observed sunning on the eastern outer edge of the bridge
structure.
The mixed hardwood forest community forms a narrow buffer along the
banks of the French Broad River. The forest tends to be wider on the
river's north bank. The open canopy is composed of sycamore Platanus
occidentalis), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and beech Fa us
grandifolia). Birds such as northern parula Parula americana) and
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea are common nesters in this
community layer. Subcanopy growth is spotty and is dominated by American
holly Ilex o aca , black willow, and tag alder. Moderate to light ground
cover, consisting of blackberry, rose, leucothue (Leucothoe sp. ,
yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), and violet, becomes less dense
with increased distance from the river bank.
Animals previously mentioned may be found in this community, as well
as two-lined salamander Eur cea bislineata) and slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus), which may reside under vegetative litter. Eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina and rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus
are likely to range throughout the project study area.
The aquatic community in the study area includes the French Broad
River and an unnamed tributary of the French Broad River. These
waterbodies have been loaded with sediments as a result of agricultural
practices and urban development. Few areas of natural vegetation are left
to act as buffer zones for storm runoff.
River and stream banks, which are steep and heavily eroded, exhibit
vegetation previously mentioned in both biotic community descriptions.
Animals such as bullfrog Rana catesbeiana) and wood duck Aix s onsa may
be found along the waters edge, along with mountain dusky salamander
(Desmognathus ochrophaeus), crayfish (Family Cambaridae) and segmented
worms (Oligocheates), which exist under stones and other debris on the
river/stream bed. Some fish species likely to be found in this section of
the French Broad River include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
river chub Nocomis micropogon), flat bullhead (Ictalurus platycephalus),
brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), muskellunge Esox masquinongy),
smallmouth bass (Micropterous dolomieui), largemouth bass (Micropterous
salmoides), and redbreast sunfish Le omis auritus .
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations
exhibiting moderate to steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is
important to understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to
the communities in which the construction activity occurs.
8
Few natural communities occur in the project area,
communities have been highly fragmented and reduced as a
previous development. The man-dominated community compon
project area will receive the greatest impact from habital
resulting in the loss and displacement of plant and animal
to terrestrial communities will result in the loss of exist
and displacement, as well as, mortality of animal species
residence. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communitie
implementation of Recommended Alternate 2 will be approxima-
of man-dominated community and 0.6 acre of mixed hardwot
community. The total terrestrial impact of the project is e
3.2 acres, which is based on a 100-foot impact width.
As mentioned previously, the aquatic component of the
has already been altered by siltation from erosion due to dE
agricultural practices along the French Broad River floodpli
construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment lc
French Broad River. Construction-related sedimentation can
local populations of invertebrates which are important pai
aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of
feeders may be covered and smothered by sedimentation rest
construction related erosion. Local fish populations can a'
by construction-related sedimentation. Increased sediment
suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish e
depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction ii
oxygen carrying capacity, and changes in water temperature.
The French Broad flows west to east through the propose
and is approximately 60 feet wide and averages 5 feet deE
substrate is composed of silt which overlays rock, gravel,
unnamed tributary flows south to north along the west side
joining the French Broad at the existing bridge. This strei
depth is approximately 1.5 feet and 0.5 foot, respectively
Resource Best Usage Classification relative to the water re!
project site is Class C. Class C waters are suitable for
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary rec
agriculture.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NF
dischargers for the project area. The Benthic Macroinvertel
Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water qualit,
monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroi
Good water quality is associated with high taxa richness (t
different types of organisms) and the presence of many intoli
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sens
and leads to a community structure quite different from t
unstressed waterbody. Water quality associated with the F
River west of the project alignment ranges from excellent t
upon sampling between 1983 and 1987, however no current BMAP
is available for the immediate project area.
and those
result of
!nt of the
reduction,
ife. Impacts
ing habitats
:urrently in
with the
ely 2.6 acres
d forest
;timated to be
project area
velopment and
in. Project
ads to the
be harmful to
,ts of the
the filter
lting from
so be harmed
loads and
]gs, reduced
i the water's
project area
>. River
id sand. The
of US 276,
n's width and
The Water
)urces at the
quatic life
eation, and
DES) lists no
)rate Ambient
r at fixed
nvertebrates.
he number of
!rant species.
itive species
hat in an
rench Broad
fair based
I information
9
Impacts to water resources in the project area could result from
sedimentation and turbidity, as well as, non-point discharge of toxic
substances from increased roadway surface area (engine fluids and
particulate rubber). To reduce the potential for impacts to water
resources, sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management
Practices) will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of this
project. Construction operations will be carefully planned to minimize
disturbance of the existing stream banks. Any material excavated for
footings in or near water must be removed from the immediate vicinity to
prevent it from eroding back into the water. Runoff crossing the
construction area will be directed into temporary silt basins via lateral
ditches with rock check dams to slow and filter the runoff prior to
discharging into the river. Approach roadway fill slopes shall be
stabilized with seeding, and temporary silt ditches, silt fence, etc.
shall be provided at the toe of fill. Grass berms along the top of the
fill slope will be used to convey runoff laterally to temporary slope
drains, which empty into temporary sediment basins. Early placement of
rip-rap slope protection will also be implemented to protect against
surface erosion. Special attention will be given to proper installation
and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control devices.
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters
of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. However, no wetlands will be impacted by
the subject project. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project
impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Anticipated Surface Water Impacts fall under the jurisdiction of
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. Transylvania County is one of 25
counties designated as having trout waters. Projects in these counties
must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission prior to issuance of the COE Permit. Also, Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance
of COE permits.
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not required
by the COE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests
with COE.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The
investigation 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. These activities will
require authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 6.
10
A letter of comment has been obtained from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding the propose project and
is included as Attachment 1. Per request of the NCWRC, the following
measures will be incorporated into the proposed project:
(1) If concrete is used, construction will be accomplished so that
wet concrete does not contact river water.
(2) Native trees and shrubs will be planted at the site of the old
bridge once the structure is removed to provide bank stability
and shade the river.
(3) Temporary ground cover will be placed on all bare soil during
construction. Permanent vegetation in these same areas will be
established within 15 days of ground disturbing a:tivities to
provide long term erosion control.
Coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource
(NCWRC) indicates the French Broad River supports heavy fis
in this area. The NCWRC has requested that NCDOT examine th
of retaining right-of-way to allow room for anglers to park 1
off the side of the road near either the existing or new b
addition, the NCWRC has requested that steps be constructe
bridge to allow anglers to carry car-top boats safely to the
canoe ramp. Consideration will be given during design of tt
retain the existing right of way and grade the old approach i
existing bridge site to provide access to the river once i
construction is complete. No new barriers, such as rip rap
introduced at the access point to the river; this will facil
this area by fishermen and boaters.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of End
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threat
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of th
Species Act of 1973, as amended. The U. S. Fish and Wildl
(USFWS) lists seven federally protected species for Transylvi
of March 30, 1994. These species are listed in the table be'
Commission
ling pressure
feasibility
heir vehicles
ridge. In
1 near the
river to a
e project to
oadway at the
iew bridge
, should be
itate use of
angered (E),
tined (PT) are
Endangered
ife Service
nia County as
ow.
11
Federally-Protected Species for Transylvania County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta veneliana
Falco peregrinus
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Geum radiatum
Gymnoderma lineare
elonias bullata
Sarracenia rubra
var. jonesii
Appalachian elktoe PEO*
peregrine falcon E
Carolina northern
flying squirrel E
spreading avens E
rock gnome lichen PE
swamp pink T
mountain sweet
pitcher-plant E
"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).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species that is proposed to be listed
as endangered and which is protected under law while its status is
under review).
"*" No specimen from Transylvania County found in at least twenty years.
A description of and biological for each of these federally protected
species is included in Appendix A.
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. The following table includes federal candidate
species listed for Transylvania County and their state classifications.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
12
Federal Candidate Species (and their State Statu)
Listed for Transylvania County
COMMON NAME STATUS
(Scientific name) Federal /State HAB ITAT
Rafinesque's big-eared bat C2 SC N Q
Plecotus rafinesquii *
New England cottontail C2 SR N O
Sylvilagus transitionalis
eastern woodrat C2 SC N
Neotoma floridana magister
bog turtle C2 T N
Clemmys muhlenbergii
green slamander C2 E N O
Aneides aeneus
hellbender C2 SC N
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
French Broad stream crayfish C2 W3 N
Cambarus reburrus
Transylvania crayfish ostracod C2 SR N
Waltoncythere acuta
Diana fritillary butterfly C2 SR YE
Speyeria diana
Alexander's rock aster C1 C N O
Aster avitus
gorge moss C2 E N
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Manhart's sedge C2 C Ni
Carex manhartii
A liverwort C2 C Ni
Cheilolejeunea evansii
French Broad heartleaf C2 C N
Hexastylis rhombiformis
Fraser's loosestrife C2 E Y6
Lysimachia fraseri
Carolina mnium C2 C N
Mnium carolinianum
sweet pinesap C2 C N
Monotropsis odorata
A liverwort C2 E NO
Plagiochila caduciloba
A liverwort C2 C N
Plagiochila echinata
A liverwort C2 C NO
Plagiochila sharpii
A liverwort C2 C N
Plagiochila sullivantii
var. sullivantii *
13
A liverwort C2 C NO
Plagiochila virginica
var. caroliniana *
A liverwort C2 C NO
Plagiochila virginica
var. euryphylla *
Pringle's eurhynchium C2 C NO
Platyhypnidium pringlei
highlands moss C2 T NO
Schlotheimia lancifolia
Oconee-bells C2 E-SC NO
Shortia galacifolia
Oconee-bells C2 E-SC NO
Shortia galacifolia
var. brevistyla
NOTE: Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
"*" No specimen from Transylvania County found in at least 20 years.
No habitat for protected species occurs in the project study area.
No impacts to protected species will result from proposed project
construction.
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. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect
on air quality of this attainment area.
It is noted 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.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels will be insignificant. Noise levels
could increase during construction but will be temporary.
• This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). Correspondence from the SHPO is included as
Attachment 2. The SHPO concurs that the only structure in the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) which is over 50 year old -- the bridge itself --
is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register Of Historic Places.
Bridge No. 39 is a type of concrete bridge which is prevalent throughout
the state.
An archaeological study for the subject project area has been
completed and reviewed by the SHPO. The SHPO concurs with NCDOT's
findings that significant archaeological resources will not be affected by
this bridge replacement project (see Attachment 3). No additional
archaeological investigations are recommended for this project.
14
Transylvania County is a participant in the National Food Insurance
Regular Program. This crossing of the French Broad River i included in
the detained flood study. The existing floodplain is rural with some
wooded areas along the riverbanks. There are no buildings with floor
elevations below the 100-year elevation in the floodplain, and the
proposed bridge replacement project will have no adverse effect on the
existing floodplain, and the proposed project will not increase the
100-year floodplain elevation more than 1.0 foot. The placement of minor
amounts of fill material in the floodplain in conjunction with this
project will not seriously affect the floodplain. The approximate limits
of the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure 4.
Coordination with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service indicates that
all of the alternatives studied will impact prime farmland. Alternates 1
and 2 would impact roughly the same amount of prime farmland, at 2.22
acres and 2.21 acres, respectively. Alternative 3 would imp ct 2.54 acres
of prime farmland soils. However, the assessment indicates that the
farmland impacts of the proposed improvements do not exceed the numeric
threshold at which consideration of mitigation or other alternatives
should occur. Because of the limited amount of farmable land in
mountainous Transylvania County, the alternative which affects the least
amount of farmland (Recommended Alternate 2) is most desirable. The
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (Form AD-1006) is included as
Attachment 4.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
JH/plr

1352
1350 5
-r?l\
1341 /

64
::::•:' 1359 Cre
k 2 6
D
e
Lamb
1
1 : c
n 2.4
504
.
15330
Pisgah Forest
t •i J'•
\'
•
• • Sta.
' :?:?
•
? i'•'•? i •??
,BREVARb'a
'Z;S
i h to 1600 I.
R0 P ??.. X323 y% 1600 1601
1.0 1574

1540 J 1602

1595
64 N4 1596&'
76 1543
1540.2 1580

1541
?
y O
64 2
1

i:: ;ry 9 0
.•:: * r 1603
..........
Ij•

1540 P
11194
LAPP.
Q
? •9
• 1537
1114 ?
8 ? ?..
1184 •

NORTH CAROLINA :NT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
US 276
BRIDGE NO. 39
OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
B-2641
0 mile 1
FIG. 1
B - 2641
BRIDGE NO. 39
ANSON COUNTY
LOOKING NORTH ON
US 276 FROM
BRIDGE NO. 39
LOOKING SOUTH ON
US 276 AT US 276 / SR 1540
INTERSECTION FROM
BRIDGE NO. 39
SIDE VIEW OF
BRIDGE NO. 39
FIGURE 2

¦
40
PROJECT SITE Mile 196
¦
AREA NOT INCLUDED
100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN
Round Top Cern
I
\\•

Mile
200
A
z
. o
\? •
,V.Carr Hill Ch
R coy .?\
•• e
-41 ?Y
o

I I
II
II
Bec
o ?o?nson ?. ?
1
O?
1
US 276
BRIDGE NO. 39
OVER FRENCH BROAD RIVER
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
B-2641
FIGURE 4
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Julie A. Hunkins, P. E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping comments regarding impacts to trout from
replacing Bridge #39 on US 276 over French Broad River,
Transylvania County (TIP #B-2641)
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
comments regarding impacts to trout from replacing Bridge #39
over the French Broad River in Transylvania County.
The French Broad River is Hatchery Supported Designated
Public Mountain Trout Water at the bridge and for 22 miles
upstream. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) also stocks this area with muskellunge, a popular
gamef ish .
The NCWRC does not object to any of the alternatives
presented, as our major concern is that the existing bridge be
replaced with a new spanning structure. Other recommendations
include the following:
1) If concrete will be used, 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) Native trees and shrubs should be planted at the site of the
old bridge once the structure is removed to provide bank
stability and shade to the river.
3) Temporary ground cover (e.g. hardwood mulch, straw, etc.)
must be placed on all bare soil during construction.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
ATTACHMENT I
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to prov de
long term erosion control.
The French Broad River supports heavy fishing pressure in
this area, and the NCWRC would like to increase access to t e
river where possible for anglers. We request that the NCDO
examine the feasibility of retaining right-of-way to allow ioom
for anglers to park their vehicles off the side of the road near
either the existing or new bridge. If this need can be met, then
constructing steps near the bridge would allow anglers to c rry
car-top boats safely down to the river to a canoe ramp. The
NCWRC would be willing to work with the NCDOT to provide t is
access.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this informat'lon
request in the early planning stages of this project. If I can
be of further assistance, please contact me at 704/652-4254.
cc: Mr.. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
d ? STATE o
NOV 2192
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resrces
James G. Martin, Governor Divisio hnyoid'1-iistory
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William i e, r., Director
October 29, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
3 ? o n us Z 79
Re: Replace Bridge No. 2_' over French Broad River,
Transylvania County, B-2641, 8.1000501, BRSTP-
276(1), GS 93-0017
Dear Mr. Graf:
On October 13, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
We feel that Bridge No.12?76_ -the only structure over fifty years of age in the area
of potential effect--is not eligible for listing in the National Register since it is a
type of concrete bridge prevalent throughout the state.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
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
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ATTACHMENT 2
Nicholas L. Graf
October 29, 1992, Page 2
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: `L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
•" ha
e.a 57ATt o?
V
ti.s

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, 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 1 129 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, 31 TV584, 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
?-DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
ATTACHMENT 3
109 East Jows Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be cornoleted by Federal Agency) Oats Of Land Evaluation Reauest SGT a ?c c? 3
Name Ot Project l1 a\-o y 1 Feoeral Agency involved
rroposed Land Use County And State
?C C\N cJe -4-4-- C lnM? S ?Vcr'0. Ca. t ?• G
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Recstved By SCS
Ooes the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(/f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additions/ parts of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated
-- Average Farm Size
1 '7
Maior Croo(s)
n „ I ? Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres. -2,1 u ? 2 % ` . D-- Amount Of Farmland As Defined in PPA
Acres. - % L
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Sits Assessment System Oat* Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
PART I I I (To be c
F
d b
d
l
l Alternative Site aun
y
e
era
omp
ete
Agency) Site A Site a Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 3• 3.
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 3, a 3 , 3.5
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland ! ;;, `7 q-
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted r I rL L, f t L: ?i• I of
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 7cf, Q •a `
PART V jTo be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sale of0to 100Poinis)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria IThem criteria are aapWa#d In 7 CFR 6583•(6) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use C? 0\
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use \d O \a D
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed p
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government ap
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farts Unit Compared to Average \O O o
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland p p
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 75 tj -75 -?5
10. On-Farm lnvestmems p O
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services o
12 Compatibility With Existing A 'cultural Use
o .:
,;
: ,
:•.:::;:: ; :.. .
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 $ L{ g y ?L{
'ART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 ?3 . $ 3 8 to 3 % '>''`' ` '-?
Total z Site
s:tMAssessment (From Parr V/ above or a lots/
160
g y
?? y
L)
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above ?lines) 260 Liz • 8 1 y - •`? I Li (- • 3

!to Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Amrum*m Used?
Yes ? No ?
sason rot
ATTACHMENT 4?

APPENDIX A:
Federally-Protected Species in Transvlvania Countv:
Biological Assessments and Conclusions for
Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on US 276
over French Broad River
Federallv-Protected Species in Transylvania County:
Biological Assessments and Conclusions for
Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on US 276
over French Broad River
Alasmidonta zraveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
Status: Proposed Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 9/3/93
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe. Graham, Haywood. Macon,
Mitchell. Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum
length reaching up to 8.0 cm. Its shell is thin although the
shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is
dark brown in color, while juveniles have a yellowish-brown
color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its
tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and
the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The
Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock
and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat for this species exists in the project study
area. It can be concluded that the subject project will not
impact the Appalachian elktoe.
Falco pereorinus (Peregrine falcon)
Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 3/20/84
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Brunswick, Burke. Carteret.
Dare, Hyde, Jackson, Madison, New Hanover,
Rutherford, Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes,
Yancey.
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back
and its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most
easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that
extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.
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.
Preys 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 i-
medium sized birds such as pigeons.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No nesting habitat exist for this species in the roject
study area. It can be concluded that the subject prof et
will not impact this federally endangered species.
Glaucvmys sabrinus c.oloratus (northern flying squir1rel)
Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 7/1/8
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham, H ywood,
Jackson. McDowell, Mitchell, Swain. I
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a larg well
furred flap of skin along either side of its body. T is
furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the ront
and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad
flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to ,lide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with
large dark eyes.
There are several
flying squirrel in the
the Tennessee border.
meters (5000 ft) in the
hardwood and coniferous
to search for food and
nesting sites.
isolated populations of the northern
western part of North Carolina, along
This squirrel is found above X517
vegetation transition zone b tween
forests. Both forest types re used
the hardwood forest is used f r
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the
northern flying squirrel. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this federally endangered
species.
A-3
Geum radiatum (spreading avens)
Status: Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early Jul-,
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke,
Caldwell, :Mitchell. Stokes, Transylvania,
Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an
indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symriietrical
flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to
early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-
pinnateiy compound: terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and
much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or
absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and
Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and
escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known
populations of this plant have been found to occur at
elevations of 1535-1541 meters (.5060-5.'080 feet), 1723-1747
meters (5650-5760 feet) and 1159 meters (5800 feet). other
habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight
and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition
of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus.
Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for
spreading avens. It can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this federally endangered species.
G.virinoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen)
Status: Proposed Endangered
Federally Listed: December 28, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery. Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood. Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford,
Swain, Transylvania, Yancey.
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the
reindeer moss family. The lichen can be identified by its
fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black
in color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The
fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to
areas of high humidity. These high humidity environments
A-3
occur on high elevation (> 1220 m/ 4000 ft) mountaintops and
cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lowe -
elevation (< 762 m/ 2_500 ft) deep gorges in the Southe n
Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs n
vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest so'ls
above flows at (and only at) very wet times. The rock gnome
lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Idreaea
in these vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of
extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly t
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
No habitat exists in the project study area for the rock
gnome lichen. It can be concluded that the subject p oject
will not impact this Proposed Endangered species.
Helonias bullata (swamp pink)
Status: Threatened
Plant Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 19SS
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson. Jackson, Transylvania.
Swamp pink is a perennial plant that grows from tuberous
rhizomes. It has lance-shaped, smooth, evergreen leives that
.row in basal rosette. Swamp pink has a hollow stem that is
topped with a short, dense, spike-like raceme of pinL or
purplish flowers.
The North Carolina populations of swamp pink ar6 limited
to bogs in the southern Appalachians in Transylvania
Jackson, and Henderson counties. Swamp pink is found in
freshwater wetlands areas including spring seepages, swamps,
bogs, meadows, and along the margins of meandering s reams.
Soils that it occurs in are described as being sligh ly
acidic (pH:4.2-4.9), having a thin layer of decompos-d
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 but populations in open areas are less vigorous due
to increased competition from other species.
=\-4
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for swamp
pink. It can be concluded that the subject project will not
impact this Threatened species.
Sarl'acenla rubra var. jonesiY
(mountain sweet pitcher plant)
Status: Endangered
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: :March 10, 19SS
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous,
rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect
and in clusters.' Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet
shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood.
Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately veined
with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely
haired and usually partially filled with liquid and decaying
insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are borne singly on
erect scapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers are present
during late May and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in bogs and
streamsides in southwestern North Carolina and northwestern
South Carolina. This 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the
mountain sweet pitcherplant. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
;-

i'
US 276
Bridge No. 39
Over French Broad River
Transylvania County
B-2641
t

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date
TIP# - Z 41
State Pro j ect# D . I ooo 5-0
F.A. Project#_ UST'-Z?L(I)
Division 14
County_ Tra n ly/,(n 1/.l,
Route 5 7.76
Purpose of Project
Description of P
-for
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
. t.
Replace Obsolete Brid e
ie t:
J
i
z
0
0
ti
Method of Replacement:
X. Existing Location -road closure
2. Existing Location - on-site detour
3. Relocation
----- --
4. Other Will there be special funding participation b
developers, or other? Yes y municipality,
- No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) ?1
Page 1
t
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current VPD Design Year
TTST % DT %
Typical Roadway Section:
VPD
Existing Structure: Length] K feet Width ,ofeet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length feet Width feet
or
Culvert - Size @ feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length feet Width feet
or
Pipe - Size inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) .............................. $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) ................................ $
Force Account Items ................................. $
Total Cost......
Z
0
0
y
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $ 0
TIP Right of Way Cost......... Q
TIP Total Cost......,
Page 2
.r
'j
F
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
a
K
z
0
0
-i
Additional Comments:
Ala

Prepared By
Date
Page 3
ij
------- - _ -- --- - -- N
---- l- -
?,?
ii
- ?.i
_??
.'?
--___.-_ ? _ - I
-_?' -__-

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP

' REF. NO. ROOM" DG.
FROM
REF. OR ROO BLDG.

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:
r
d STAEo
2 8
?? ?"" ?• rWAT)ECRY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA NUSCROUP
ALITY SE
CTION'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON October 19, 1992 WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Julie A. Hunkins, P. E.
Project Planning Engine
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for B-2641,
Replacement of Bridge No. 39 on US 276 over
French Broad River in Transylvania County
A scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, October 13, 1992,
at 10:00 AM in Room 470 of the Highway Building. The
following people attended:
Eric Galamb
Robin Stancil
Abdul Rahmani
Jerry Sneed
Sue Flowers
Herman Lancaster
Ray Moore
Gerald White
Danny Rogers
Patrick Riddle
JoAnn Giglio
Julie Hunkins
DEHNR/DEM/Water Quality
Dept. of Cultural Resources/SHPO
Hydraulic Design
Hydraulic Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Structure Design
Program Development
Traffic Control
Traffic Control
Planning & Environmental
. Additional information on traffic volumes and hydraulic
design was provided at the scoping meeting (see attached
revised scoping sheets).
The speed limit through the project area is 55 MPH. The
roadway alignment on the north approach is poor; which lends
an opportunity for an improved alignment by replacing the
hridge on new location.
Early coordination with the division office indicates
that traffic should be maintained on-site during the
construction period. Additionally, the division office
requested that an alternative on new location (east of the
existing bridge) be considered; traffic coul_" be maintained
on the existing bridge during construction.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Based on the classification of US 276 as a rural minor
arterial and the projected traffic volumes, the recommended
structure width is 40 feet; this width will accommodate a
24-foot travelway with 8 feet of lateral clearance on each
side.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends a replacement bridge
240 feet long. The roadway grade should be approximately two
feet higher than the existing grade, and the bridge should be
placed on a minimum grade of 0.3 o for drainage purposes.
As a result of the scoping meeting, two alternatives
will be studied. In each case, traffic would be maintained
on the existing structure during the construction period.
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replacement of the bridge east of its existing
location.
Alternate 2 - Replacement of the bridge west of its existing
location.
The Division of Environmental Management has indicated
that wetland areas be assessed for all of the alternatives
evaluated in the planning document. The removal of old
approach roadway fill should be investigated for potential
mitigation of possible wetland losses.
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office
indicates that there appear to be no historic architectural
resources in the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE).
JH/jh
attachment
. ,r

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
i
z
0
0
TIP#_ Zl 41
State Project#_ R. dQQ ??
F.A. Project# B' 5 17P
'
Division 4
Date
Revision Date qo7?
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
County_ Tra0
Route ___U S Z'V
Purpose of Project: Replace Obsolete Brid e
Description of Project:
?t P,YI 1 2 t-0 a l'i V
Method of Replacement:
1. Existing Location - road closure
2. Existing Location - on-site detour
3. Relocation ?
4. Other
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes___
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
Page I

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
K
OO 50o v P?
Traffic: Current '07F77) VPD De,?jgn Year VPD ZU/? ?/DO V/°'D
TTST % DT -%
1?y v = la?o? 1)/9 = ('o
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Length_]M feet Width feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - LengthA&
eet Width0 feet
or
Culvert - Size -@ _feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length feet Width feet
or
Pipe - Size inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) .............................. $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) ..............
Force Account Items ................................. $
Total Cost.. ...................... $
TIP Construction Cost $- 1 (2,50, 60 0
TIP Right of Way Cost......... 2 O Q
TIP Total Cost .......................... $ o64 o oO
0
i
z
0
0
Page 2
i ;/ '. }

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
v
z
0
0
-1
Additional Comments:
Prepared By
i141?92? Date Z y
A"Z. iq
AL /
ca V.
Page 3