20000838 Ver 1_Complete File_20000621

TyOMtt??
N Pw,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 19, 2000
000838
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN.: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Rutherford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 over the Second Broad River
on SR 2138, Federal Project No. MABRZ-2138(1), State Project No.
8.2890601, T.I.P. No. B-3238. Request for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 and
NWP 6.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 28 will be replaced along the existing alignment. The replacement
bridge will be 88 m (290 ft) long and 7.2 m (24 ft) wide. Improvements to the approach
roadway will be required for a distance of approximately 38 m (125 ft) to the west and 44
m (144 ft) to the east of the structure. Traffic will be maintained on an offsite detour
during construction.
The approach roadway will be widened to a 6.0 m (20 ft) pavement width to provide two
3 m (10 ft) paved lanes with 0.6 m (2 ft) shoulders on each side in accordance with the
current NCDOT policy. The width of the project right-of-way is 18.3 m (60 ft).
Construction of the proposed project will not impact any jurisdictional wetland
communities.
Bridge No. 28 has Pratt Truss main spans, which are composed entirely of timber and
steel and span the Second Broad River. The deck in the approach spans and the entire
substructure are composed of concrete, however none of the approach spans or
substructure is located in the water. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without
dropping any component into waters of the U.S. during construction. As outlined in
N s Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR),
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW. DOH.DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH, NC
fr ,
this project falls under "Case-3", where there are no special restrictions beyond those
outlined in BMP-BDR.
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 Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
It is anticipated that foundation investigations will be required that will include test
borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory
testing. Since Rutherford County is a designated NCWRC Trout County, these survey
activities will require concurrence from NCWRC and authorization under Nationwide
Permit 6.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Al d prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter
attac ent, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. Since there is not a trout
resource i;#'ttg Area of Rutherford County, there is no moratorium for construction.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to
this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Karen M. Lynch
at 733-1173.
incerely,
?) axi [?( CCA .
?prl William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Owen Anderson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. F. D. Martin, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E., PD& EA Project Planning Engineer

..t
v ?
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138 (Avondale Landfill Rd.)
over Second Broad River
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-2138(1)
State Project 8.2890601
T.I.P. No. B-3238

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

APPROVED:
DA E
r
LAC
WV
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manger
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
? 3i ?s C
DAT / icholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
.r ' t
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138 (Avondale Landfill Rd.)
over Second Broad River
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-2138(1)
State Project 8.2890601
T.I.P. No. B-3238
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1999
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
W.1 T y wobq-
Willis S. Hood, PE Date
Project Manager

oe??.???H•CARO(,y9'•o
:?• tea.©?ESS1pN•.• ~':.
A?, 4 e
a • \ (? n
SE AL
14509
-? ?•. Gl NE ,. p ?.
S 5. <<? N
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G. e , PE, Unit Head
Cons n ngineering Unit
a ?J S4?0
Stacy B. arris, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
JUN ? 1 ?0t ?I
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138 (Avondale Landfill Rd.)
over Second Broad River
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-2138(1)
State Project No. 8.2890601
T.I.P. No. B-3238
Geotechnical Unit
A Section 6 Permit will be required for any foundation investigations which are necessary 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.
Categorical Exclusion
August 30, 1999
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138 (Avondale Landfill Rd.)
over Second Broad River
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-2138(1)
State Project No. 8.2890601
T.I.P. No. B-3238
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 28 is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 42.8 pu>of(( j; ?
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete. The6 21
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.' .KJN ? (?fl(I!i
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 WETLAF ^s'
WATER lliiLlTY
The project is located in the southern part of Rutherford County approximately 0.2 kilometers
(0.1 miles) west of the intersection of SR 2138 and US 221A (see Figure 1). The area is
predominately rural woodland in nature with some institutional development.
According to the Statewide Planning Unit, SR 2138 is classified as a rural local route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System. SR 2138 is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route
is not a designated bicycle route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists
use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2138 has a 5.4-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 0.6 meter
(2-foot) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is rolling through the project
area. The existing bridge is located on a tangent with sharp curves at both approaches. The
roadway is situated approximately 9.2 meters (30.4 feet) above the riverbed.
The current traffic volume of 125 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 340 VPD by
the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted in the project area; however 16
kilometer per hour (10 miles per hour) curves exist east and west of the site.
Bridge No. 28 is a four-span structure that consists of a concrete deck on steel beams in the two
approach spans and timber deck with an asphalt wearing surface on two Pratt truss main spans.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and reinforced concrete post and web
interior bents. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1920 and is in fair
condition. The overall length of the structure is 86.0 meters (282 feet). The clear roadway width
is 5.2 meters (17.0 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 14.5 metric tons (16 tons) for
single vehicles and 18.1 metric tons (20 tons) for TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but the power and telephone lines are
overhead as they cross the east end of the structure. There are also high voltage power lines just
to the west of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There were no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 28 during the period from
October, 1993 to September, 1996.
Seven school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
111. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge 88 meters (290 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24
feet) wide. The replacement structure will require spill-through abutments at each end. This
structure will provide two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each
side (see Figure 5).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The final design of
the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-
year floodplain limits. The length of the new structure may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at
this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width to provide two
3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each side in accordance with the
current NCDOT Policy. Typical sections of the proposed approach roadway are included as
Figure 4.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 28 that were studied are described below.
Alternative 1 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of
approximately 38 meters (125 feet) to the west and 44 meters (144 feet) to the east of the
structure. The design speed is 30 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour). A design exception
will be necessary for the horizontal and vertical curve sight distance on both approaches. An off-
site detour (see Figure 1) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period. The
length of the off-site detour is approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles).
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new location approximately 92 meters
(300 feet) downstream (south) of the existing structure. The existing Bridge No. 28 would serve
to maintain traffic on-site during construction. The new alignment would have a design speed of
30 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and would be approximately 320 meters (1,050 feet)
in length. A design exception will be necessary for the horizontal and vertical curve sight
distance on both approaches. This alternative is not recommended because of the impact on the
ecosystem in the vicinity and the effect on adjacent properties.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
A curved alignment was considered that stretched from the tangent southeast of the existing
bridge to the tangent northwest of the existing bridge. This alternative was rejected because the
new structure would be a curved girder bridge and would be more costly because of its length
and complexity.
Another alternative considered involves a replacement structure 46 meters (150 feet) south of and
parallel to the existing bridge. This alternative would allow traffic to be maintained on the
existing bridge. This alternative was rejected because it did not improve the horizontal
alignment of SR 2138 and would be more costly than replacing the bridge at its existing location
due to the cost of the fill material.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2138.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 28 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2.
Alternative 1 is recommended because it minimizes impacts on the sensitive natural ecosystems
in the vicinity of the site and provides the most economic design. Also, this alternative will have
a minimal impact on the floodplain and on adjacent properties.
The NCDOT Division 13 Engineer concurs with Alternative 1.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternate 1
Preferred Alternate 2
Structure $ 468,720 $ 513,100
Roadway Approaches $ 79,255 $ 207,220
Structure Removal $ 38,025 $ 38,025
Misc. and Mobilization $ 264,000 $ 341,655
Engineering & Contingencies $ 125,000 $ 200,000
Right of Way & Utilities $ 31,000 $ 33,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,006,000 $1,333,000
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), is $1,095,000, including $75,000 for right-of-way, $870,000 for construction, and
$150,000 spent in prior years.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 18, 1998 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed
bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to 1) search
for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed
bridge replacement.
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Forest City, NC 7.5 minute series
topographic map (1993); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Field
Sheets of Rutherford County, NC (1992); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory map (Forest City, NC, 1995); USFWS Endangered, Threatened,
and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern (May 14, 1998); North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database of rare species and unique habitats (January,
1998); and NCDOT aerial photography of the study area. Research using these resources was
conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on May 18, 1998.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows.
Impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 18.3 meter (60.0 feet)
wide right-of-way limits, the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts
should be less, but without specific replacement structure design information (pier intrusions,
etc.) the worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The proposed project lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which includes all parts
of North Carolina west of the Fall Line and east of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. This province is
underlain by igneous, crystalline metamorphic, or occasionally, sedimentary rocks. The
topography of the project vicinity can be characterized as gently rolling to steep, with elevations
ranging from approximately 226 to 244 meters (740 to 800 feet) above mean sea level (ms]). The
elevation in the project area is about 232 meters (760 feet) above msl. Current land use in the
project vicinity is predominantly undeveloped or rural residential.
4
The soil survey for Rutherford County was in the process of being published at the time of this
analysis. Soil survey field sheets were available to assist in the assessment of the soils in the
project area. None of the soils at the project site are listed as hydric (USDA-SCS, 1991), and
field characteristics generally conform to the soil survey field sheet map.
Buncombe loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded, is mapped adjacent to the
river in all quadrants of the project area. It is characterized as excessively drained, with rapid
permeability, and is normally found in floodplains.
Pacolet-Bethlehem complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded, is mapped on both sides of the
northeast and southwest approaches to the bridge. These soils are well drained and moderately
permeable. They are usually located on summits and side slopes.
The soil survey field sheet maps Pacolet-Bethlehem complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded,
near the outer edges of the project area north of both roadway approaches. Characteristics of this
complex are similar to those listed above for the 15 to 25 percent slopes.
Forest productivity is lower for the Pacolet-Bethlehem complex soils due to erosion and
relatively steep slopes. Buncombe soils are deep, sandy, and excessively drained making them
droughty at times. Site Index (SI50) information for these soils was provided by a representative
of the NRCS in Rutherford County since a county soil survey is not yet available. The
representative stated that for loblolly pine in Rutherford County, the Site Index is 90 for
Buncombe soils, and 70 for Pacolet and Bethlehem soils.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the Broad River Basin, with a subbasin designation of BRD5
(05-08-02) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of Broad-03050105. The Second Broad
River flows through the project area in a south to southeast direction and has a Class WS-IV
rating from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
Class WS-IV indicates waters protected as water supplies. These waters are found in moderately
to highly developed watersheds where point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted pursuant to Rules .0 104, Considerations in Assigning Water Supply Classifications,
and .0211, Fresh Surface Water Classifications and Standards, of this subchapter; local programs
to control nonpoint source and storm water discharge are required; suitable for all Class C uses.
A Class C designation indicates the river's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The Classification Date and Index for
this portion of the river is 8/3/92, 9-41-(21.5).
Point-source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within the project vicinity
[0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles)] was conducted for NPDES permitted discharges and two were found.
Tri-Community Elementary School, permit number NC0034673, is located 0.6 kilometers (0.4
miles) north of the project study area and the Cone Mills Corporation/ Haynes Plant, permit
number NCG500165, is located 0.2 kilometers (0.10 miles) southeast of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, storm water runoff from SR 2138 and
surface runoff from areas of exposed soil may cause water quality degradation.
Benthic macroi n vertebrates, or benthos are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data as a
tool to monitor water quality, as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroi n vertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out
approximately six years ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol.
Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling stations
has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical and
physical data. The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as
another method to determine general water quality in the basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a
modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et al.
(1986). The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The Index
incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish
abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors
influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow
regime, and biotic interactions).
The DWQ has a sampling station located at US 221A upstream of the project study area at
Caroleen on the Second Broad River. This station was last sampled in June of 1994, with a DWQ
sampling identification number of 94-30, and includes IBI fish sampling data. The NCIBI rating
of the Second Broad River at this location was determined to be Good.
2. Anticipated Impacts
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-11:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area. Impacts to water resources within the project area will
result due to the placement of support structures (bents) being placed in the river. Construction
of the bridge and approach work will temporarily increase sediment loads. The removal of trees
which provide shade along the banks will likely result in a local increase in water temperature.
The NCDOT, in cooperation with the NCDWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program
for highway projects which adopts formal Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection
of surface waters.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals in the project study area. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in
each community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant
communities is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current
information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field
observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation.
1. Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are Man-Dominated and
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description.
a. Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders and a
forested area south of the northeast approach that contains a foundation of what was possibly an
old home site.
The road shoulders, particularly on the southwest approach, are eroded in many places and
consist of large patches of exposed soil. Other areas contain vegetation such as white clover
(Trifolium repens), poison ivy (Toxicodendron (Rhus) radicans), wild rose (Rosa sp.), and
juvenile water oak (Quercus nigra).
The upland forested area south of the northeast approach has a species composition indicative of
disturbance at some point. A foundation of what appears to be an old home site is located here.
Vegetation mainly consists of 8 to 15 centimeter (3 to 6 inch) diameter Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana) and scattered dogwood (Cornus florida).
Due to the absence of vegetation and exposed soil in many areas, the Man-Dominated
community, particularly in the vicinity of the road shoulders, may not provide adequate habitat
for many species of wildlife. The forested pine area noted above could provide habitat for a few
species of wildlife, however an abundance of species is not likely due to lack of diversity in the
vegetation. On the day of the site inspection a six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus)
and a common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were seen in this community. Pine warbler may
find nesting habitat in the Man-Dominated community and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
might be seen soaring over open areas in search of prey. Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus)
could venture into this community from a nearby pasture in the southeastern quadrant of the
project area and the black racer (Coluber constrictor) might be seen along the edges of this
habitat in search of food such as small mammals, insects, and other reptiles.
b. Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This community occurs in all quadrants of the project area adjacent to the river. It has been
disturbed in the southeast quadrant by what appears to be the removal of fill for the eroded road
shoulder in the same quadrant. All areas of this community that are directly adjacent to the
bridge have been used as dump sites for household trash items. The small floodplain in this
community grades upslope into a steep area with non-alluvial soils, however the vegetation
remains the same so that area has not been classified into a separate community.
Vegetation in this community includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), water oak, ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), giant
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and poison ivy. Species such as Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), blackberry (Rubus argutus), greenbriar (Vitis rotundifolia), honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustruni sinense) inhabit more open and disturbed areas. As
indicated above, adjacent sloped areas consist of the same vegetation, with the exception of giant
cane. Since both the floodplain and the adjacent slopes are fairly small in area, it did not seem
necessary to identify two different communities since impacts to species would remain the same.
A blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) was sighted in the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest on
the day of the site visit and a bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) was identified by sound. White-
tailed deer (Odocileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were also noted in this
community. Species such as the downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) might utilize this habitat for nesting
and insect foraging. Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) may be found searching the litter layer
for seeds, nuts, and various insects and southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) could find
suitable nesting habitat under rotting logs. American toad (Bufo americanus), spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer), green frog (Rana clamitans), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), rough green
snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) are among the various
reptiles and amphibians that could also utilize this community to forage or reside in.
2. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the Second Broad River. Within
the project study area of Bridge No. 28, the Second Broad River flows south to southeast and is
approximately 15 to 18 meters (50 to 60 feet) wide. The Second Broad River and SR 2138 cross
at this location perpendicular to each other. On the day of the field investigation the river had a
moderate sediment load and moderate flow. The depth of the river ranged from about 0.6 to 1.8
meters (2 to 6 feet) and the substrate consisted of sand, silt, and pebbles.
A cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussel and clam species. None
were found in the project area. Dip-netting along the river bank failed to capture any species.
According to the District 8 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), a sampling station just north of the project study area at the intersection of the
Second Broad River and US 221A at Caroleen was sampled in June of 1994. The following
freshwater fish species were found within the Second Broad River during this sampling event:
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), flat bullhead (Ameiurus platycephalus), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), greenhead shiner (Notropis
chlorocephalus), greenfin shiner (Cyprinella chloristia) and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). The river is not designated as "Trout" for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) by
the NCWRC. The NCWRC does not specifically manage any game species in the river with
special regulations. The NCWRC has no construction limitations to recommend other than that
erosion and sediment control measures need to be implemented.
8
3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in locations exhibiting slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Efforts will be made to reduce sedimentation and water
quality impacts.
Terrestrial Communities
Alternative 2 will result in the greatest impacts to terrestrial communities, resulting in the loss of
existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Table 1 details
the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 28 Man-Dominated Piedmont Low Aquatic Total
Replacement Community Mountain Alluvial Community ha (acres)
Impacts ha (acres) Forest ha (acres)
ha (acres)
Alternative 1 0.08 (0.20) 0.03 (0.07) 0.04 (0.10) 0.15 (0.37)
Alternative 2 0.29 (0.73) 0.07 (0.17) 0.03 (0.09) 0.39 (0.99)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 18.3 meters (60 feet) right-of-way width.
• Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where
Alternatives overlapped the existing alignment.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
b. Aquatic Communities:
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Second Broad River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 18.3 meters linear (60 feet) or 0.04
hectares (0.11 acres) of river bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbance
may be less). The new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase
sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful
to local populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of best management practices and the
use of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Program.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
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). "Waters of the United States" are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetlands were found within the project
study area during the site inspection.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Up to 18.3 linear
meters (60 feet) or 0.04 hectares (0.11 acres) of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur
due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 28.
2. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit would be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States". Since no significant impacts are expected from this project, a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) level study will be initiated. Categorical Exclusions are subject to
the provisions of Nationwide Permit 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. It states that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. The CE report is submitted to the
USACE to document that the terms and conditions of the Nationwide Permit 23 are met.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since
Rutherford County is a North Carolina trout county, concurrence with the nationwide permit will
also be required from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
If wetlands or waters will be impacted by filling from a proposed project, a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification may be required from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. North
Carolina has developed General Certifications (GC) that will satisfy Section 401 of the CWA and
correspond to the USACE's Nationwide Permits. An application must be made if there are any
impacts to "Waters of the United States".
3. Mitigation
Since no wetland impacts are anticipated, mitigation should not be required by the USACE.
Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than 150 feet are generally not required by the
USACE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACE.
10
F. Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due to
natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Rutherford County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists five federally protected species for Rutherford County as of May 13, 1999.
These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
(Common Name)
Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
(peregrine falcon)
Gymnodenna lineare Endangered
(rock gnome lichen)
Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
(dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
Myotis sodalis Endangered
(Indiana bat)
Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
(white irisette)
NOTES:
Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.)
Species: Falco peregrinus anatum (peregrine falcon)
Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 1/25/82
The peregrine falcon is a bird of prey having long pointed wings, dark blue or slate barred
underparts, pale bluish bills, yellow cere and feet, black top of head and cheeks contrasting with
a white throat and sides of neck. The tail is long, narrow, blue-gray and rounded with narrow
black bands and a broad subterminal bar is tipped white.
Historically, the peregrine falcon was a cosmopolitan species ranging from Alaska and Greenland
south through the Americas to Argentina. However, worldwide populations were reduced during
the 1950's and 1960's due to the use of DDT. The peregrine falcon nests on cliffs, bluffs, talus
slopes, pinnacles, and in the hollows of old trees or in old nests of eagles, hawks, and ravens. In
winter, the peregrine falcon forages in coastal ponds and mudflats.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project area for the peregrine falcon. No nesting sites such as cliffs,
bluffs, or tall buildings exist in the area. It can be concluded that the project will not
impact this species.
Species: Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen)
Family: Cladoniaceae
Date Listed: 1/18/95
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose 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, and flowers are present from April to June.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high
humidity environments occur on high elevation (1220 meters/ 4000 feet) mountaintops and cliff
faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (762 meters/2500 feet) deep gorges in
the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is
almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The
major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of
high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forest 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, Mitchell, Swain, 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. The project area
elevation is approximately 670 meters (2200 feet) and there are no rock faces where this
species might be found growing. This project will not affect the rock gnome lichen.
12
Species: Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: 4/14/89
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus
Hexast>>lis. The flowers are less than 10 millimeters (2.5 inches) long with their sepal tubes
narrow, never more than 6 or 7 millimeters (2.4 to 2.7 inches) wide even in flower. The flowers
are jug-shaped and range in color from beige or dark brown to greenish or purplish. The long,
thin plant stalks originate from an underground root and have leaves that are evergreen, heart-
shaped and leathery. Flowering time for this species is mid-March to early June.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found in the upper piedmont regions of North and South
Carolina with 24 populations found in an eight county area. In North Carolina these populations
are found in Catawba, Lincoln, Burke, Cleveland and Rutherford counties. This species grows in
acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads
and streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the most critical habitat
requirement with this species needing Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine
sandy loam to grow and survive. The dwarf-flowered heartleaf can survive in either dry or
moderately moist habitats. For maximum flowering and seed production, the plant needs plenty
of light, especially in early spring.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf does not exist at the project study area. Soils are
not conducive to the needs of this species. Field work was conducted during the flowering
time of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf and the species was searched for in all quadrants of
the project area but was not present. In addition, the NCNHP database revealed no
reporters occurrences of this species in the project vicinity. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf will
not be affected by this project.
Species: Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat)
Family: Vespertilionidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
The Indiana bat is a medium-sized myotis, closely resembling the little brown bat (Myotis
lucifugus) but differing in coloration. Its fur is a dull grayish chestnut with the basal portion of
the hairs of the back a dull lead color. This bat's underparts are pinkish to cinnamon, the heels of
its feet are strongly keeled and its hind feet are smaller and more delicate than in the M.
lucifugus.
The Indiana bat occurs in the Midwest and eastern United States as far south as northern Florida.
In summer it is apparently absent south of Tennessee. Limestone caves are preferred for winter
hibernation and have average temperatures ranging from 2.8 to 6.1 degrees centigrade (37 to 43
degrees Fahrenheit) in midwinter with an average relative humidity of 87 percent. Summer
foraging by females and juveniles is limited to riparian and floodplain areas with creeks not
being used if riparian trees have been removed. Males forage over floodplain ridges and hillside
forests and usually roost in caves.
13
BIOLOGICAL EFFECT: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists for the Indiana bat since no caves are within the project study area. A
search of the NCNHP database revealed no reported occurrences of this species in the
project vicinity. This project will not affect the Indiana bat.
Species: Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette)
Family: Iridaceae
Date Listed: 9/26/91
White irisette is a perennial herb that grows with a dichotomous, branching pattern and reaches
heights of approximately 1 I to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches). The basal leaves, usually pale to
bluish green, are from one-third to one-half the height of the plant. The fruit is a round, pale to
medium brown capsule containing three to six round or elliptical black seeds. Tiny white
flowers appear in four to six clusters at the ends of winged stems. The dichotomous branching
pattern and white flowers combine to distinguish this herb from other species within the genus.
Flowering occurs from May to July.
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North and South Carolina with four known
populations occurring in North Carolina and one population occurring in South Carolina. North
Carolina's populations occur in Polk, Henderson and Rutherford counties. This species has
apparently always been a narrow endemic, limited to an area in the Carolinas bounded by White
Oak Mountain, Sugarloaf Mountain, Chimney Rock and Melrose Mountain. This species occurs
on rich, basic soils probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in clearings and the edges of
upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope runoff has removed much of
the deep leaf litter ordinarily found on these sites. The white irisette is dependent on some form
of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Artificial disturbances such as power line and road
right-of-way maintenance are managing open areas that may have historically been encouraged
by native grazing animals and naturally occurring fires.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for the white irisette does not exist in the project study area since there are no basis
soils at the site. Field work was conducted on May 18, 1998, which is during the flowering
time for this species. It was searched for in all quadrants of the project area regardless of
soil type, but was not observed. In addition, a search of the NCNHP database revealed no
reported occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. This project will not affect
the white irisette.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) 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. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which ma)
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the
14
NCNHP database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. Table 3 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Rutherford County and their state
classifications (NCNHP, January 1998).
TABLE3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES OF
CONCERN IN RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Aneides aeneus
(green salamander) Endangered No
Dendroica cerulea Significantly No
(cerulean warbler) Rare
Juglans cinerea
(butternut) Not Listed No
Monotropsis odorata
(Sweet pinesap) Candidate Yes
Myotis leibii
(Eastern small-footed myotis) Special Concern No
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
(Southern appalachian woodrat) Special Concern No
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
(Northern pine snake) Special Concern No
Saxifraga caroliniana _
(Carolina saxifrage) Candidate No
Senecio millefolium
(divided-leaf ragwort) Threatened No
Silene ovata
(mountain catchfly) Candidate No
Speyeria dana* Significantly

(Diana fritillary)
Rare No
* Listed for Rutherford County by NCNHP but not by USFWS.
NOTES:
Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and needing
population monitoring).
Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Not Listed (species whose status is not listed at this time).
Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
15
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any federally protected species known to occur in
Rutherford County. Habitat is present in the project area for one FSC species listed in the
county. No rare species were observed at the time of the site visit and no impacts are expected tc
occur to protected species.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted on December 18, 1997. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later an NCDOT staff architectural historian
reviewed these photos. None of the properties were considered to be eligible, and in a
concurrence form dated December 30, 1998 and a memorandum dated October 6, 1998 the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural resources
either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic places within the APE. A copy of
the-concurrence form and the memorandum are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In a memorandum dated October 6, 1998 (see Appendix), the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with thi:
project." Therefore no archaeological work was conducted for the project.
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
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
16
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
Bridge No. 28 is located on SR 2138 over the Second Broad River in Rutherford County. The
Pratt Truss main spans, which span the Second Broad River, are composed completely of timber
and steel. The deck in the approach spans and the entire substructure are composed of concrete.
The approach spans are not over the water, and none of the substructure is located in the water.
Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping any component into Waters of the U.S.
during construction.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the
vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland
acreage within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Rutherford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
17
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
18
ALEXANE4
MILLS
POP. 675

Sandym ush !3
221
A
l Caroleen
11 I
Avondalr
• ',
40 •
B-3238
1l/\
Ul 74 /
n
O g 2013
Z
1921 1926
1926 v
1931
\y Ty / 1928
J Henrie'-to 1930 1990
•
221
•

h?
^? i
/
_?
`
V Thermo: L.i IY ,?JL
? •/
1 !\
?
7
"

? (Un1on
?.i.
I
i ? Alills
I
?
A
E
R
D
Ahe IiOcw R U T H
Ftt OR
Gdhpy? \ J Wesi $ur.i me
1 ur i?
????T4..•.?t?eex'' I,.I- i \ mmsta Ho' ?s Polh,
?
1 akC lnfey _ A? IOQ.lO
?'? "1= ?/, i
15 ,Washburn
RuU 1
01
.iiulrerlcrdlo 0 Fortst OS [
,
1 6 0 I Ci y J
\
pindaf 4 ,
i4
Alexander
A41S\
1 carol" n 2 C 1
ear
4 onsid
. Malf11
i -- _ 10 771 r
AtT
6
1991 J
J r/ i y O
1929
1 120
I Q
1966
4,
1 --J
U
O 1974
N
LEGEND
• • • Studied Detour Route
/TN North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 28 ON SR 2138
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
B-3238
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles miles 2.0
FIGURE 1

?. 9
1r-` l i
?o

-j
1 U-
J
()0
M W
N Q
N Z
r
L -MR i
U.
W
W
O
U-
0
W
Q
O N
r?
?

CO

oWC
W
N
°? N M
} N M
0
P,
q Z U.
q q am

o y, O z 00
m F)

D y
o 0
id ?,
U O Q q
OD
N
z
06
O

O
L? N ci
co p D W Z
W
(? N N
..
o"a
zF--.ww oe a •-
m p ..
W
J
a
U
V)

I

OD
N
Z
W
0
a
O\?jS

RUTHERFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 28 ON SR 2138
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
8-3238
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING NORTH
$6
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
0
FIGURE 3

C >
v ?r W
L N E" a
a c m Z ?
Cl) ¢ U
O C C Q Cz,
O E
b ? o. _
v
z
q

CO
_ L a, c
p > v Q
CO Q C7
C\t
E
N
U O C\2 O C?
C J o Cr. C) U M
L r > 14

I lG O . L C
Z O CL W
E- C4
C.]
?? a Q

r M
W

1 ? Q
n
G • Q
I
?o N
O
- C7
O N 001 T
CO
O
o f
? o
T-- °
3 z
O

V
_71
E

E
F-
w
E'er °
V)
C14 C,i N

p
N O Z r-
O • QN
Q -
I lk

OH 0 CL
?O
_ N
O OC 5R
CLLU ., N

O

a?

C a
? ° F-
z
a
o
co CL _
1 °
1
?
O N Q
V

N O Q Q

oc
O N
0
T
Z

H
CN
N
n
M
O r r,
?

ry Q
O Ln
In
VI IU^
V O`
N O
N

u aa
w
Q Q C7 }
Z Z N Z
0
O
U Z
0 t„

z w
.? U
_.

c
co w
> LO

C Cr)
cx
w
vi
+ n
L C\2

E"'

Q
T a ?m z ly- a u_

u C
m
Ul
O

Cz.
Q
J E 6
O
ro: a_
c
° 0
U Z
O '
0]
.p

O er
N Q m
?
a c
O
C co
0
= UaQ? C)
C4 OZ

? m
c J a O
w V
w
v L
E- a ; Z
w cn
z`0a w x w
F' w
C7
O G] ?-
E-

m
r

o

f-
_

ri w
vZ

'
10
co
z N
O

U
W 0
cn Z
W uj
J

0 W

Ca _
J ?
am
uu

N
w u
= V O
J
0 03 a a

VW Z ce
L) N
O N
O
g LL ? V
o U,? o
F- C4 r M
V J
II
II
? Q II
N
N
ui Q.
p Ln
H

V 0
Q P N N

?
- a
?
-
W z
O Q C7 Z Z

E ^p

u N 0
z V)

10
O
NO
z O
w
w u 0
2 U-
T __ Ln
I FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
r Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 28 ON SR 2138
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
8-3238
Of kilometers I.6 kilometers jig
t
0 miles 0 miles 2.0
FIGURE 6
? A STAN ?
?y
4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 6, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tran nation
FROM: David Brook ?' Y 1
Deputy State Historic Preservation Of lcer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XV, Bridge 28 on SR 2138 over Second
Broad River, Rutherford County, B-3238, ER 99-7419
Q,?GEIVFO
i
OCT 0 8 1998
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
Division of Archives an History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1998, concerning the above project. We apologize
for the delay in responding.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structure
of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Bridge 28. This bridge has been determined to be ineligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so
we can make our survey recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N.. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-18n7 F?D
1
I L! - 1iMAbq1- 2138(1 ? I2
C0;1+CL'RRENCE FOR.NI FO[t PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
Tii E NATIONAL RECi`TirR OF HISTORIC PLACES
* 2.8
Brice Prcjcct Dcsc:iction Y on 5(e- Z138 011
SPCO r J r X
o? ?3
On C1q rcpresc: cativcs ol'the
.??orth Carclina Dcoartmcnt of Trans;.crt:.[ion (ivCDOT)
F-dcral HiL:m?'av Adnlinisumtion (FHwA)
orth Carolina S[atc Historic Presc -.at:on 0~ :cc (SHPO)
Outer
rcv1v-%'cd C11C subicc: orolcc: at
A SCOOMC n1cc=: -:
? Historic arcaltcC:::rat rescurc::s Jl1000_.':011 rC':IC:'.c' SCSSICrL'CClislll[at:Cr.
Otilcr
\II crescnt a?rcc_
tl;cr arc no 0rcpcr . oic % itilin ,llc orcjcc. s arca oC pct ....ai cr.-
than ilIL.,zrs old %vilich arc considcr` a CO :'-= l.r:[crSOR
tl1C'C arC n0 7r0007CiCS ICSS ,
Constdc aacn G %vanin talc 0r0icct s a...a of ootcnual
thCrC wrC Ur 0C:ICS C'. is Cs Cid (Ils: acracncd) widifn C11C Crol= S ai Or OCtCn[:al CG C?•
cC^ Cn C1C ; lsCOf:Cal lnCCr^laL'CC :ullaOlC ar.c tc 0hotCIZI-c'.s oC,,aC:2 orcoc^ . prOCcrt:C°
0cr but 7^ Q
Pr _n Q ° ?cZC arc CCns:acrC : nC[ Ctln:olc:
;cr tiat:onai ?c_istcr a;.d no ; r her aiua[:cn or tncc a cccssa
CCCr,,CS Wid:in ,.. prcjcc. 3 or .c canal .. ts.
tile.. a,.. no Naucnai Rc_?st...-?IStcd .

A??
12D' 1e
Daic
FHwA; ` r dlc Divisi Administratcr, or ot,= Fcdcral Agcnc:
Rcorescn[ativc SHPO
'S ;tc iiis oric Pr??c?. .;cn Otnc
Dam

i

?cc

i
I
JUN 0 4 1999
- Y? -
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission E-d
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 1, 1999
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138, Second Broad River,
Rutherford County, TIP No. B-3238.
This memorandum responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding the
subject project.
Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent of disturbance in
the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. We prefer bridge designs that do not alter the natural
stream morphology or impede fish passage. Bridge designs should also include provisions for the deck
drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. We are
also concerned about impacts to designated Public Mountain Trout Waters (PMTW) and environmental
documentation for these projects should include description of any streams or wetlands on the project site
and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by construction.
Because Rutherford County is recognized as a "trout water county" by the COE, the NCWRC will
review any nationwide or general 404 permits required for this project. While we do not anticipate
modification of the project because of trout waters. we will evaluate the extent to which the project design
avoids and minimizes impacts to surface waters. We offer the following comments:
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on
the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Structures should be
inspected and maintained regularly. especially following rainfall events.
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
B-3238 Page 2 June 1, 1999
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
4. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area must be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water quality and
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and wildlife.
6. Hcav-, equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and r,;duce the iikelihood of introducing odter pollutants into streams.
7. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mr. Kevin Austin, P.E., Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc., Raleigh
Mr. Steve Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
REC
40C
0199 f op V C,
A! F `r??
tires ' ' .S cb ,5
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch - NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator 701Y/J X" IVIII---?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 6, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138 over the Second Broad
River, Rutherford County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3238.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2xc)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete roadway bridge. We anticipate
that a spanning structure will be required for the site. The Second Broad River is not designated
trout want--r; ho .ever, we are concerned about sedimentation and potential impacts to aquatic
resources in this drainage. Construction impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources will depend
on the extent of disturbance in the stream bed and surrounding floodplain areas. Environmental
documentation for this project should include description of any streams or wetlands on the
project site and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by
construction.
Because Rutherford County is recognized as a "trout water county" by the Corps of
Engineers (COE), the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for this project.
The following conditions are likely to be placed on the 404 permit:
TIP No. B-3238 Page 2 August 6, 1998
1. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of
pier construction. Channel relocations have catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and
disturbance of the natural form of the stream channel will likely cause downstream
erosion problems, possibly affecting adjacent land owners.
2. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be completed in a dry work area.
Sandbag or rock berms, coffer dams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long tern: availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and
wildlife.
4. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion controL
5. If concrete is used during construction of piers and abutments, a dry work area should
be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water.
Uncured concrete affects water quality and is toxic to fish and other organisms.
6. If a causeway is required for project construction, only clean, sediment-free rock
should be used as temporary fill in the stream channel.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If I can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 12, 1999
W c`c_Ly pE.ER TO
IV,
Planning Services Section
nc ran
JUL s 1La?
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to a letter from your office dated July 18, 1998, addressed to
Mr. Steve Lund of our Asheville Regulatory Field Office, and faxed to Mr. Lund on
May 13, 1999, requesting comments on six proposed bridge replacements in five
western North Carolina counties. These counties and TIP Nos. are Madison - B-2583,
Haywood - B-3187 and B-3660, Henderson - B-3191, Jackson - B-3196, and
Rutherford - B-3238, (Regulatory Division Action ID Nos. 199930825, 199930826,
199930830, 199930827, 199930828, and 1999308229, respectively).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. Enclosed are our
comments on these issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
-2-
BCF cy of inc corr.):
VCF (w/o cy of inc. corr.):
Mr. Kevin Austin, P.E.
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 164A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
July 12, 1999
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
Six Bridge Replacements in Five Western North Carolina Counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Bober L Willis Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
Henderson County does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). However, we recommend that the proposed crossing improvement in that
county be designed so as not to significantly increase upstream water surface
elevations. The remaining four counties are participants in the NFIP. The crossing in
Madison County is located within the jurisdictional limits of the town of Marshall, which is
also a participant in the NFIP. Of these, the crossing of the West Fork Pigeon River in
Haywood County and, possibly, the French Broad River crossing in the town of Marshall
involve detailed study streams with 100-year flood elevations determined and floodways
defined. The crossings of Fines Creek in Haywood County and West Fork Tuckasegee
River in Jackson County are on approximately mapped streams, which do not have
100-year flood elevations shown. We do not have flood maps in our office that cover
the French Broad River crossing in Marshall and the Second Broad River crossing in
Rutherford County. We refer you to the community and county for possible flood
ordinance requirements relative to these crossings. A summary of flood plain
information that we have pertaining to the bridges in the NFIP participating counties is
contained in the following table. This information was taken from the pertinent Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream BFE* -FIRM
328 SR 1001 Madison French Broad R. 5178`
79 SR 1112 Haywood W. Fk. Pigeon R. 2687** 8/98
204 SR 1334 Haywood Fines Creek Approx. 7/84
193 SR 1157 Jackson W. Fk. Tuckasegee Approx. 5/89
* Flood map not in our office. Refer to town of Marshall for ordinance requirements.
** Base (100-year) Flood Elevation in feet N.G.V.D.
July 12, 1999
Page 2 of 3
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
For the detail study stream crossings, reference is made to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished
previously to your office. Improvements to the bridges should be designed to meet the
requirements of the NFIP, administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance with all
local ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or
developments should be referred to the local building official.
Except for Rutherford County, all of the affected counties are within the planning
jurisdiction of the USAED, Nashville District. The Nashville District does not currently
have projects that would_be affected by the proposed bridge projects. Mr. Harry Blazek
may be contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the
Nashville District.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund. Project Manager. Asheville
Field Office. Regulatory Division, at [phone]
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required
for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any
adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge
replacements, including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements
will depend on design of the projects, extent of fill work within waters of the United
States, including wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and
other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit No.23, the project
planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed
activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the
aquatic environment. Please be reminded that, prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) should provide a letter of notification to the Asheville
Regulatory Field Office and the appropriate North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission office with reference to impacts to mountain trout water habitat. The
mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the utilization of nationwide
permits.
July 12, 1999
Page 3 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results in
sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if
undercutting is necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be
stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
g. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Lund.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY SCHOOLS TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
298 FAIRGROUND ROAD. SPINDALE. NORTH CAROLINA 28160 [phone]
RUSSELL LYNCH
(TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR)
GLENN WEDS
(COST CLERIQ
BEVERLY GREENE
(I7MS DATA MANAGER)
i FEB 2"6 1999
U
February 25,-L%9 _________________-
MECHANICS
DAVID DLTNKLE
FRANK HODGE
CURTIS HODGE
EARL DAVIS
CALVIN WATSON
KIM MELTON
HARCEJONES
DAVID VANDYKE
Kevin Austin
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering
559 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 164A
Raleigh, NC 27606
Mr. Austin:
This letter is being written at your request. We have 7 buses that travel on Avondale
Landfill Road.
If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Beverly Greene
T.I.M.S. Data Manager