19940512 Ver 1_Complete File_19940531

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY M
ATTENTION OF
February 13, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199501405 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
Mr. Stephen A. Moore
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Route 1, Box 169C
Marion, North Carolina 28752
Dear Mr. Moore:
Reference your December 16, 1995 application for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to replace/extend 3 culverts in unnamed tributaries to
idening of S.R. 1228
Little Rock Creek in conjunction with the pavi(0,
(Delpha Road), near Bakersville, in Mitchell C orth Carolina. Delpha
Road is presently 10 to 12 feet wide. It will d and widened to 18 feet
and the typical section increased. Less than h of an acre of
headwater stream channel and wetlands will be by the construction.
This project has been coordinated with the NC Resources Commission
(WRC).
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization was
provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for discharges of
dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). You should contact Mr. John
Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding the above mentioned water quality
certification. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
This verification will be valid for two years from the date of this
letter unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked.
Also, this verification will remain valid for the two years if, during that
period, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification
or the activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide
permit authorization. If during the two years, the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that
the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide permit, activities which have commenced or are under contract to
commence, in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized.
This is provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation.
Printed on 9 Recycled Paper
-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
e John Dorney
ater Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
320 South Garden Street
Marion, North Carolina 28752

N. C. D PA TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMIT SLIP DATE Q
TO: REF. NO. OR OOM, BLDG.
lif Jaw
F M: REF. NO. OR ROOM; 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:

1 U)

s JUid 91994
E
_y
WETLA-103) GE-L 15'
. ? I_ Il,I x.V S? (E7?

- ' 1%
an.srn?°?? / I ? ? I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkkNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 6, 1994

District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402,
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT Ill
SECRETARY
Subject: Mitchell County, Bridge No. 13 over Little Rock
Creek, State Project No. 8.180.0601, Federal Aid No.
BRSTP-261(1), T.I.P. No. B-2593.
On May 24, 1994, the N.C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) distributed the Categorical Exclusion document for
the above-mentioned project. Currently, the NCDOT is
considering a modification to the design discussed in this
document. Specifically, it may be possible to minimize
impacts at this location by shifting the temporary detour to
the other side of the bridge. The feasibility and design of
such a shift is currently under analysis by NCDOT engineers.
This letter is provided to advise you of this potential
change in project design. Details of any design change will
be provided to you when they become available.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
7.
# B. Qu
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

-' 4
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. R. E. Edmonds, P.E., Division 14 Engineer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 6, 1994

District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402,
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Mitchell County, Bridge No. 13 over Little Rock
Creek, State Project No. 8.1880601, Federal Aid No.
BRSTP-261(1), T.I.P. No. B-2593.
On May 24, 1994, the N.C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) distributed the Categorical Exclusion document for
the above-mentioned project. Currently, the NCDOT is
considering a modification to the design discussed in this
document. Specifically, it may be possible to minimize
impacts at this location by shifting the temporary detour to
the other side of the bridge. The feasibility and design of
such a shift is currently under analysis by NCDOT engineers.
This letter is provided to advise you of this potential
change in project design. Details of any design change will
be provided to you when they become available.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
f
B.BQu
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

N
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E.. DEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. R. E. Edmonds, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
N
r
v
w STA7Z
1
qq5Q
ul d, MAY 3 1 1994
WETLAND
WATER 01!ALl"I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA `-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 24, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 25402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
pR-
`_. . ?.' L
Subject: Mitchell County, Bridge No. 13 over Little Rock
Creek, State Project No. 8.1830601, Federal Aid No.
BRSTP-261(1), T.I.P. No. B-2593.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore we do not anticipate requesting Pv1sions ndividual
permit but propose to proceed under a N de Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A B-ssued November
22, 1991 by the Corps of Engineers. Th of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
Foundation borings 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.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior
to authorization of both nationwide permits by the Corps of
Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT
hereby requests NCWRC review. The NCDOT also requests that
NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

.

We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the attached information to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. ` nn
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. R. E. Edmonds, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
1 _ !
Mitchell County
NC 261
Bridge No. 13 Over Little Rock Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-261(1)
State Project 8.1880601
T.I.P. No. B-2593
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
16ATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
3I 94 ? 1/?-G?'?
DATE Fo-gNicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Mitchell County
NC 261
Bridge No. 13 Over Little Rock Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-261(1)
State Project 8.1880601
T.I.P. No. B-2593
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March, 1994
Documentation Prepared By"Ac97LJF{ y?'?oov
0
JBM Engineers and Planners
0
o p
o SEAL o
0
0 p
u o
3-29- = 3?
Ke eth W. Smith P.E.
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
Z. 1,2 , Ar:r?_e?
. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit MY
Consultant Engineering Unit

Stacy Y. Blald)vin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Mitchell County
NC 261
Bridge No. 13 Over Little Rock Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-261(1)
State Project 8.1880601
T.I.P. No. B-2593
Bridge No. 13 is included 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. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary.
As required by Section 26a of the TVA Act, final plans for the replacement structure will
be submitted to the TVA for review (see Attachment D).
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 13 will be replaced at its existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure
2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 220 feet long and 30 feet
wide. This structure will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with three-foot shoulders on
each side.
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 24-foot pavement throughout the project limits.
A temporary detour will be constructed to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,087,500. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program, is $1,169,000,
($1,100,000-construction; $69,000-ROW).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the north-central portion of Mitchell County, about three miles
north of the corporate limits of Bakersville (see Figure 1). The area is predominantly rural
in nature.
NC 261 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is a Federal Aid Highway. Mitchell County does not have an adopted
Thoroughfare Plan.
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 261 has a 18-foot pavement with two-foot shoulders (see
Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat across the bridge and both
approaches. The existing bridge is located on a tangent which extends approximately 100
feet north and 50 feet south from the structure. Curves of approximately four degrees and
nine degrees are located to the south and north, respectively. The roadway is situated
approximately 27 feet above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 1,500 VPD is expected to increase to 2,800 VPD by the year
2015. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed through the project area, therefore the
speed limit is assumed to be the statewide maximum of 55 mph.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1950. The five-span structure
consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel girders. The substructure is comprised of
reinforced concrete bents and end bents.
The overall length of the structure is 217 feet. The clear roadway width is 22.0 feet. The
posted weight limit on this structure is 20 tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for TTST's.
Bridge No. 13 has a sufficiency rating of 39.4, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure nor are there any utilities in the
vicinity of the bridge.
Two accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 13 during the period from
May, 1989 to April, 1992. One of the accidents was a single-vehicle incident that was the
result of the vehicle running off the road and striking a fixed object. The second accident
was a two car head-on collision that was caused one vehicle crossing the centerline. The
two accidents resulted in one injury.
Three school buses cross the bridge twice a day.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 13 were studied. Each alternative consists of a
bridge 220 feet long and 30 feet wide. This structure width will accommodate two 12-
foot lanes with three-foot shoulders on each side. The approach roadway will consist of a
24-foot travelway with eight-foot graded shoulders on each side. Typical sections of the
structure and approach roadway are included as Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction
period east (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will consist of a
bridge 190 feet long and 24 feet wide, located about 40 feet east of the existing structure.
The design speed for this alternative is 60 mph. Alternative 1 is recommended because it
maintains the existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment
for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge on new location immediately east of the
existing structure. Improvements to the alignment on the bridge approaches include
approximately 500 feet to the north and 700 feet to the south. The design speed of this
alternative is 60 mph. The existing structure will serve to maintain traffic during the
construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the reverse
horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at the southern end
of the project.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by NC 261.
The Division Office concurs that traffic be maintained on-site instead of closing the road
during construction because of the traffic volumes using NC 261 and the excessive length
of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
The Mitchell County School Superintendent indicates that maintenance of traffic on-site
during the construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure & Approaches
Structure Removal
Engineering & Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities
Total
(Recommended)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
$ 330,000 $ 330,000
197,240 490,280
339,040 --
23,720 23,720
135,000 131,000
62.500 75.000
$1,087,500 $1,050,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 13 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure
2, with a new structure having a length of approximately 220 feet. Improvements to the
existing approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 300 feet in each direction
from the bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative (see
Attachment A).
A 24-foot pavement width with eight-foot graded shoulders on each side will be provided
on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 30-foot clear width is recommended on the
replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. NC 261 is
classified as a rural minor collector; therefore, criteria for a rural minor collector was used
for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 24-foot travelway with three-foot
shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 60 mph.
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at the existing bridge is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour
route is considered unacceptable due to the traffic volumes using NC 261 and the
excessive length of additional travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 220 feet. The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to
facilitate drainage. Also, the bottom elevation of the superstructure will be no lower than
that of the existing structure so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year
floodplain elevation. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and height of the new structure
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on January 19, 1993 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.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Several natural plant communities occur within the study area, a riparian Alluvial Forest
associated with Little Rock Creek and Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest. The riparian area
immediately adjacent to Little Rock Creek is narrow and steeply grades into the oak-
hickory forest community on the south side of the creek.
The riparian community transitions into the residential and roadway embankment areas,
but grades to an oak-hickory forest to the southeast. Vegetation along this streamside
community consists of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and white pine (Pinus strobus) in a sparse tree layer. The understory is
comprised of blackberry (Rubes sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), thistle (Cirsium sp.), and fescue (Festuca sp.). This community
is more developed on the southeast quadrant of the project where additional species,
including hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliana), great
rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), Christmas fern (Polystichum arostichoides),
and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides) were noted.
Adjacent to the riparian strip and roadway are man-dominated areas. Lawns are prevalent
with vegetation consisting of fescue (Festuca sp.), rye (Lolium sp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), and clover (Trifolium sp.).
To the southeast is a relatively steep, oak-hickory forest community with vegetation
consisting of mockernut hickory (Carya alba), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), red oak
(Q. rubra), and white oak (Q. alba). A relatively dense understory of great rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), Christmas fern (Polystichum
arostichoides), and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides) was also noted. Other
plant species observed included beech (Fagus grandifolia) and locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia).
5
Wildlife (General)
Riparian communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians in
particular are highly water dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle and
some species are totally aquatic.
Reptiles and amphibians likely to occur in the project vicinity include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens),
mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ochraphaeus), green frog (Rana clamitans),
pickerel frog (R. palustris), and wood frog (R. sylvatica).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reports that Little Rock Creek is
designated as hatchery-supported public mountain trout waters but there is no data
currently available on the wild trout population. Other fish species likely to inhabit Little
Rock Creek include stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), shiners (Notropis sp. and
Luxilus sp.), dace (Rhinichthys sp.), darters (Etheostoma sp.), and mottled sculpin (Cottus
hairdi). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommends that a spanning
structure be constructed at this site to preserve instream and riparian habitat.
Riparian corridors also act as natural passageways for mammals. They also serve as
refuges for mammals forced from more disturbed upland sites. Mammals likely to inhabit
the area include opposum (Didelphis marsupialis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
bats (Lasiurus sp. and Myotis sp.), raccoon (Procyon lotor), longtail weasel (Mustela
frenata), chipmunk (Tamias striatus), squirrel (Sciurus sp.), mice (Peromyscus sp.),
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Birds likely to inhabit the study area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red
shouldered hawk (B. lineatus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), tufted titmouse (Paris bicolor), white breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia).
Physical Resources
Soil
Soil series located within the project area are presented and summarized on the following
page.
6
SOIL SERIES
Bandana sandy loam-
0 to 3% slopes
Saunook-Thunder
Complex-15 to 30%
slopes
CLASSIFICATION
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
HYDRIC INCLUSION
None
None
Bandana sandy loam (0-3% slopes) occurs on concave to convex floodplains at elevations
ranging from 2,500 to 2,700 feet. This soil unit is frequently flooded, somewhat poorly
drained and is predominantly located along creeks and branches throughout the County.
This soil type is not classified as prime, unique or important farmland.
The Saunook-Thunder Complex (15 -30% slopes) consists of moderately steep, well-
drained soils on concave toe slopes, at elevations ranging from 2,500 to 4,500 feet. These
soils developed in colluvium from felsic and mafic crystalline rocks. This soil type is not
classified as prime, unique or important farmland.
Water
This bridge replacement project spans Little Rock Creek, a tributary to Big Rock Creek,
contained within the French Broad River basin.
Little Rock Creek has a "best usage" classification of "C-Tr". Class C designates waters
suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife
and agriculture. The supplemental classification of Tr (Trout) indicates waters suitable for
natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, addresses the long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the use of benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive
to very subtle changes in water quality. Specific data for Little Rock Creek are not
available. However, the area's water quality is described, in general, as being excellent.
Table 1, on the following page, describes the stream characteristics of Little Rock Creek
observed in the vicinity of the proposed bridge replacement project.
7
TABLE 1
Observation Point U stream 100 ft. Existing Crossing Downstream 100 ft.
Substrate Boulder, cobble, sand
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width (ft.) 30-40 30-40 30-40
Bank Height (ft.) 10-12 10-12 15
Water Depth (ft.) 1-3 2-4 2-3
Water Color Clear Clear Clear
Water Odor None
A uatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwood fringe - sycamore, hemlock, oak, poplar
Wetlands Bank to Bank
The general gradient of Little Rock Creek is moderate to steep and riffle-pool ratios are
relatively high through the project area. Though some flats are developed behind the riffle
areas, sediment loads will, for the most part, be carried downstream from the project site.
The stream banks are steep and high enough to contain storm surges; therefore,
overtopping floods will be minimal.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
No wetland plant communities will be affected by this project. The stream banks are steep
and well drained and wetland hydrology does not occur in the adjacent communities.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to plants
and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) is subject to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. In the case of state-funded actions, where federal wetland permits are likely to be
required, for example, the FWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action
does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence
of federal actions, the FWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal.
The FWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource
area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 USC 661 et seq.). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and
animals where statewide populations are in decline. Plants or animals with state
designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. These Acts are administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.
8
The FWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were consulted to
identify the potential for occurrences of protected species in the project study area.
Federally Listed Species:
Information from the FWS dated September 20, 1993, indicates that there are nine
federally protected species listed in Mitchell County, (see Table 2). Each species and its
relationship to the proposed project are discussed below.
TABLE 2
COMMON NAME
Indiana bat *
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Roan Mountain bluet
Spreading avens
Heller's blazing star
Blue Ridge goldenrod
Virginia spiraea
Appalachian elktoe
Rock gnome lichen
SPECIFIC NAME
STATUS
E'
E
E
E
T2
T
T
PE3
PE3
Myotis sodalis
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana
Geum radiatum
Liatris helleri
Solidago spithamaea
Spiraea virginiana
Alasmidonta ravenehana
Gymnoderma lineare
* - Indicates no specimen from Mitchell County in 20 years.
E' - Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all of its range.
TZ - Threatened: A taxon that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
PE3 - Proposed Endangered: A taxon proposed for listing as Endangered.
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
The Indiana bat, or social myotis, is a small brown bat with short, mouse-like ears and
a plain nose. The females are less than 2" long; males are slightly smaller. This
migratory species is dispersed in summer across the middle section of central and
eastern U.S. Approximately 85% of the entire species winters in only 6 caves in
Missouri, Indiana and Kentucky. Hibernation in Maryland and Virginia is also known
to occur. The hibernation period is from mid-October until April. It inhabits large
caves, mine tunnels, underground roosts and often under loose bark of trees.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project will not impact habitat suitable for this species; therefore, no
impacts to this species will occur.
9
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus)
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal mammal approximately 12"
long. It is capable of gliding by means of a membrane that is located along the sides of
the body between the fore and hind limbs. In addition, the broad tail aids in gliding.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is distributed in widely scattered areas of the
transition zone between the coniferous and northern hardwood forests, generally at
elevations above 3500 feet.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project study area occurs at an elevation of approximately 2900 feet, well below
this species' cited limit. The study area does not support suitable habitat for the
Carolina northern flying squirrel, therefore no impacts to this species will occur.
Roan Mountain bluet (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana)
This perennial herb has a basal rosette of leaves. The flowers are a bright yellow and
the flowering period is from June through September. The Roan Mountain bluet
inhabits high-elevation, rock cliffs.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant; therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur.
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum)
This perennial herbaceous plant is a member of the rose family. The flowers are bright
yellow and the flowering period is from June through August. It is endemic to balds
on high mountains and often occurs on steep mountain faces and narrow ledges.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant; therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur.
10
Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellert)
Heller's blazing star is a member of the aster family. Flowers occur in clusters and are
rarely solitary, blooming late July through August, from the top to the bottom of the
stem. Flowers are lavender to pink or white. The plant occurs on drier mountaintop
cliff edges, in shallow, acidic soils, usually on weathered granite above 3,500 feet in
elevation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant; therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur.
Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea)
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is an erect perennial herb that arises from a stout rhizome.
The yellow flowers are borne in heads and the flowering period is July through
August. The Blue Ridge goldenrod occurs at elevations above 4,600 feet in dry rock
crevices of granite outcrops on the high peaks of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area occurs well below 4,600 feet and does not support suitable habitat for
this plant; therefore, no impacts to this species will occur.
The following protected species discussions are based on research and a subsequent site
visit by Susan Corda Thebert, Environmental Unit Biologist.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
The Appalachian elktoe is a freshwater mussel that once ranged widely in western
North Carolina but now occurs in short stretches of the Little Tennessee River, Cane
River, Nolichucky River, and North Toe River. The Appalachian elktoe has been
observed in shallow, medium sized creeks and rivers with cool, moderate-to-fast
flowing water. It has been reported in gravelly substrates mixed with cobbles and
boulders, in bedrock cracks and also reported in relatively silt-free, course, sandy
substrates.
The shell has a subovate shape and is approximately 80 mm long, 35 mm high and 25
mm wide. Juveniles generally have a yellowish-brown periostracum while the adults
are dark brown in color. The shell nacre is shiny, from white to bluish white, with
salmon, pink or brown in the central and beak cavity parts of the shell.
11
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
According to John Alderman (NC Wildlife Resources Commission) mussel surveys
were conducted downstream of the project study area at the NC 197 bridge at Big
Rock Creek (Little Rock Creek drains into Big Rock Creek). No Appalachian elktoe
mussels were found at this site. Mr. Alderman stated that the Appalachian elktoe is
unlikely to occur in the study area. No impacts to the species will occur from
proposed construction.
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare)
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. This lichen
is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high humidity
environments occur on high elevation (>4000 feet) mountaintops and cliff faces which
are frequently bathed in fog, or lower elevation(<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 at (and only at) very wet times.
The rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in
these vertical intermittent seeps. The 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.
The terminal portions of the rock gnome lichen resemble strap-like lobes, having
shiny-white color on the lower surface. The color of the fungi near the base is black.
The squamules are nearly parallel to the rock surface and are generally 1 to 2 cm. in
length. The fruiting bodies 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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area is located at an elevation of approximately 2900 feet, well below the
4000 feet elevation that the species prefers. The project study area does not support
suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen. No impacts will occur.
Virginia spiraea (.Spiraea virginiana)
Virginia spiraea is a colonial shrub that may reach four meters high, but averages one
to three meters. The flowers are creamy white in tightly packed corymbs, blooming in
June to July. Virginia spiraea is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains,
occurring along scoured banks of high gradient streams, or on meander scrolls, point
bars, natural levees and braided features of lower stream reaches.
12
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Surveys for Virginia spiraea were conducted on February 15, 1994 by walking in the
creek upstream and downstream of the existing bridge. No Virginia spiraea plants
were found within the study area of the proposed project. A population of Virginia
spiraea was discovered, and confirmed by Alan Weakley (Natural Heritage Program),
approximately 200 feet downstream of the existing bridge. Based on proposed
construction, no impacts to the Virginia spiraea population will occur from proposed
construction.
The FWS also identified candidate species, (species that are currently under status
review), that may occur in the project study area. A list of these species is provided in
Table 3, below.
TABLE 3
COMMON NAME SPECIFIC NAME SUITABLE HABITAT

Olive darter Percina squamata No
Fraser fir Abies fraseri No
Roan false goat's beard * Astilbe crenatiloba Yes
A liverwort * Bazzania nudicaulis No
A sedge Carex roanensis No
Tall larkspur * Delphinium exaltatum Yes
Bent avens Geum geniculatum No
One flowered rush Juncus trifidus carolinianus No
Gray's lily Lilium grayi No
Cliff-green Paxistima canbyi No
A liverwort * Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii No
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium Yes
A liverwort * Sphenolobopsis pearsoni No
* Indicates no specimen from Mitchell County in at least 20 years.
State Listed Species:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program for protected animal and plant species
reports no state-listed species occurring within the project area.
Impacts
The preferred alternative consists of replacement of the structure at its existing location.
A temporary detour will be constructed to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Construction of the new bridge and approach roadways will impact the ecological
community. Portions of the riparian and upland hardwood communities will be destroyed
by land clearing, excavation, filling, draining and paving. As a result, these communities
will be altered and, consequently, the habitat quality lessened to some degree. During
13
construction, efforts will be made to minimize impacts to the riparian and hardwood
forest communities.
Approximately 0.2 acre of riparian habitat and 1.1 acres of upland forest will be impacted
by the new construction. These losses are relatively small compared to the amount of
similar habitats that are found in the region.
Impacts due to the proposed project will mainly affect aquatic organisms. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization, and land clearing are construction
activities which can result in the direct loss of benthic organisms due to an increase in silt
load. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply for fish and
other vertebrates.
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to Little Rock Creek.
Construction of the new structure, as well as the construction and removal of a temporary
detour could create short-term increases in siltation and sedimentation in Little Rock
Creek. Fill material placement for the approach roadway may enter the stream, and
construction of the proposed structure could result in increased turbidity both on-site and
downstream of the project area. Other impacts might include alterations to water levels
and flow due to interruptions or additions to surface and/or groundwater flow; increased
concentration of toxic compounds from construction, and reductions to sensitive
invertebrate species due to alterations in water clarity and light-incidence resulting from
increased turbity. However, these potential impacts are avoidable. Appropriate measures,
consistent with Best Management Practices, will be implemented during the term of the
project to minimize, control and/or contain the potential impacts.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat: The Alluvial Forest community is not uncommon
but few examples remain intact. The Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest community is
common and small tracts are intact and/or protected. Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest
communities of significant size are relatively rare, however.
Little Rock Creek is not a designated wild or scenic river.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States". In addition, the project is located in a
designated "trout" county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and provide it to the Corps of
Engineers.
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
14
r I
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
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.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
The project lies within the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The
TVA has requested that final bridge plans be submitted to them for review under Section
26a of the TVA Act (see Attachment D).
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented. Fill material from the temporary detour within the
floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to the extent reasonably possible, to
promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VIII. 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 have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
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 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.
15
I
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 is located within the indefinite boundary of the Pisgah National
Forest. However, the proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or
easements from publicly owned recreational land, as described in Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect
on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
To comply with those requirements, NCDOT provided documentation on the subject
project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. There are
no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect, depicted in Figure 6.
Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (Attachment B) indicates that
no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential
effect.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated January 26, 1993
(Attachment C), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required with
respect to historic structures.
This project has been coordinated with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 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. The SCS has indicated that there are no soils classified as prime, unique or
important in the vicinity of the proposed project. Additionally, with the exception of the
construction of a temporary detour, all work will be done within the existing right-of-way.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Asheville Regional
Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The
ambient air quality for Mitchell 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 the air quality of this attainment area.
16

This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise
levels and air quality will be insignificant. 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 Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health 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.
Mitchell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 7. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
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.
In the vicinity of the project, there are two single family residences within the limits of the
100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
17
0
f? ?t 1337 r°n?cl1/ Roan High Bluff
'iner°°{ 1.3 4r ELEV. 6267
1345
A -

N
?O 1342 1344
5
1354 1343 .8
is 1
0 •?"
te
.
1351 '
a Iii
9
1340
6e; ..,
wr
Glen
G{

.
?
C
;.?
b
1339
??
??
?
• ?P
' b BRIDGE NO. 13
'
??` 12
?
??? 261 ?? \e? 121:

1
22 , s ?-
1197 Buladean .?.?,?????
MITCH LLti?1?
7 L 7
\ ed Hil Plumt?
n Bakersville/
• 5
•? 4 Ledger I? '
g
'- 6 \ ,

EPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA D
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
U
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
MITCHELL COUNTY
NC 261
BRIDGE NO. 13 OVER
LITTLE ROCK CREEK
B-2593

„ o1216
0 .6
Loafers 7
9 Glory
o BAKERSVILLE
10 POP. 373
tisb 8 80 ,;, 9
11815

1220
1218
' .

1221 v
1214
cr 1217
1213 1.
1 217 12 19
ch t? 121

`.` •` .
'? ,
1213
121

s
4 .2
1211_ .6
•3 3 Clarrissa
?:;- .6 1203
1-205
- - -
8 1
1202
119

.6 1199
FIGURE 1
'v 9't
x Nx X,
41
/yl 10?j
0?1
91
A
oe/
41 LO -I
to'vCHz
n zz?z?
' r- C)
W zm x Z O p ('1
n
rn :0z
Noo 0 F O O 9
-rn+ 0?;
W ??
- = a o
z
('W 0 x
C
-1
° mo
m< z h7C?Oz
° ?m < <? d

O ?

? z
C
7o ? H
O
m ?f
N
E
z
$ b

s a

? r

NC 261
MITCHELL CO.
BRIDGE NO. 13
B-2593
SIDE VIEW

SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3

O
a
F
z F
z
? G
i
F ?
?z
O
x
¢
A
?
zOow ?Y
z
¢
aFxQ O
C)
U

OFw?
C40 M
S
vN vLo
-i
CO) u o z z x i z z X O m
a ?o
z? W
°
J
o ?_ o
m?
zE-?A
O
J fs
o

3
? o +?
t
?r?rr o ?t ?r
J J

O O
U V

UC L)w M
d
++

L4J 3

C)
H

C? ti
w
= a

O CO
r_
= T-
Q W Q a a

J
J y
'-
V U
a a L

F
H m
?
C7

3
3 a?
c ?
h
' in O N
x
W
a
a
Q

CO) CO)
t o
N o
s
3 a ?
H Fy-
-j aat'

ai u u n
3 vI V/
Y J a It
w
cc
D
C7
LL

O i
I
z Q i
w z i
H ?

Q0
A > x
o W z >
x
0 a o ?
ao?
N
V °`
O

z ?

M
z F+ A a ca
E.V.,
A w
H

a

v f
s
4
p O
O ;a ? ? ?rs•pE ?t+E

04

H

0
z
0
V

W
Cl)

r
?
0
U
0
U

'o
a
>

> M
CL
>

0
Lo 0
w 0
co
M ?
h C Q
I I
? I
tm N I
L!! II
LA

.? O
O O
O
N
V Q
a
0
w
v
0
G?

a
11
%7

- t?
A
? Ti
a
t

,
x
1116.,
?\ ?
R
E
}v1 Y F 4 1
m P
s

s l
, 3 q-
z fl.,
30
o,a 1
.
t

W

? 7 ;_
k
! ??
• ?
. ?„ th sR:? <, r ?. ?
? ?.:. a <?a ?.?.? .? 4
j¢
k;
F .E.
hV?
R
q fN, ?kh?G
Y t 6?,.
.h

?
r
?

o
i
w
? 1 ? ? 71 l

o ab_dyz
a o
y
A
? w?n'z
rn N o CD G? 0 Y
-rni ??_,rnn
W
, a ? y ?
?W
p
c
_
o mo Z zwz?
0 71 m t C C7

zCA
? y

-n z trf

C >
'

m
rn

D?I
ml
Z'
D
<I.
m
i

1? G
a
a
s
F

Za
ROAD
NC 261
Rock
I BRIDGE NO. 13 1
100 - YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
\ ryco
_.

ar
4i
Will C,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

'?
! PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
f'? er t??+5?° BRANCH

MITCHELL COUNTY
NC 261
BRIDGE NO. 13 OVER
LITTLE ROCK CREEK
B-2593
FIGURE 7
l a

ST/m: or Nm"i I I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAMI> R. I ZUNI. IR. SAM 1 I(tNl
DIVISION UI I i IC;I IbVAYS Sr?'itrrAll)
Go." F KNolt
Post Office Box 3279
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
June 22, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: L. J. WARD, P.E.
FROM: W. D. SMART, P.E. ((?? ,v ,Je,l:
SUBJECT: Planning Report Prepared
By CRSS Engineers, Inc.
B-2112, Burke County
B-2582, Madison County
B-2593, Mitchell County
This is to advise you of Division 13's concurrence of
the consultant's bridge replacement project(s) recommended
alternates.
JGB/lc
cc: CRSS Engineers, Inc.
ATTAC'HVTF'iT A

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 15, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 13 on NC 261 over Little Rock
Creek, Mitchell County, B-2593, 8.1880601,
BRSTP-26(1), ER 93-9096
Dear Mr. Graf:
C E
O
JUL 2 0 199J
j`
d History
Yrect9
ONWIEV
Thank you for your letter of June 24, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the information provided to us and understand that no
properties over fifty years of age are located in the area of potential effect. Based
upon the information provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
and our files, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determination
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located in the area of
potential effect.
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
RBgulations 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,
%
XaL.Q
'?
' David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?P
ATTACHMENT B
i N
t'l E
North Carolina Department of Cultural dues ??
Janes B. Hint, Jr., Governor Division of Archives an History
Bell Ra McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., in ctor
0 1.
January 26, 19930 '1993
MEMORANDUM ?` r i'!1SIGN Ci= ?:??--'?
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T anspo"rtation
FROM: David Brook ?i
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 13 on NC 261 over Little Rock
Creek, Mitchell County, B_2593, ER 93-7963
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Mitchell County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian for the Department of
Transportation survey the area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
Please submit photographs of all structures over fifty years of age, keyed to a
map, along with a location description. Also include a brief statement about the
structure's history and explain which National Register criteria it does or does not
meet. If there are no structures over fifty years of age in the area of potential
effect, please notify us in writing.
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 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.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27001-2907
ATTACHMENT C
CC). XC#A1A J SJµ 'uL
3?1q lq3
NA
re t v.t c z- s) t
31zs 1q3
Tennessee Valley Authority. Norris. Tennessee 37828
March 8, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
GEl V
MAR 12 1993
L
?L DIVISION O-
HIGHVVAYS --

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECTS: BRIDGE ON SR 1140 OVER ALARKA CREEK - SWAIN COUNTY; T.I.P.
NO.: B-2170, BRIDGE ON NC 208 OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK - MADISON COUNTY;
T.I.P. NO.: B-2582, AND BRIDGE ON NC 261 OVER LITTLE ROCK CREEK -
MITCHELL COUNTY; T.Z.P. NO.: B-2593
This responds to your January 8 request for TVA•s comments on the
subject highway improvement projects.
The proposed bridge replacements crosses floodplains identified by
approximate methods for streams where we have no available flood data.
However, all counties are participants in the National Flood Insurance
Program. All bridges should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program and for compliance with Floodplain
Management Executive Order No. 11988. Also, all three bridges should be
designed such that the bents are at least 70 feet apart and no bents are
located in the deepest part of the riverbed.
Final plans for the bridges should be submitted to TVA for review under
Section 26a of the TVA Act. Along with these plans, please include a copy
of a letter from the state Historic Preservation Officer stating that the
proposal complies with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and a copy of
the hydraulic analysis of the effects of the bridges on the 100-year flood
elevation.
:nce L. alvert
Land Resources
ATTACHMENT D