19960129 Ver 1_Complete File_19960207

? wnM
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
February 1, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Dear Sir:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Chief, Southern Section

Subject: Burke County, Replacement of Bridge No. 176 over Hunting Creek on
South College Street, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1319(8), State Project
No. 8.2851101, TIP No. B-2878.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge number 176 over Hunting Creek on South College Street will
be replaced along the existing alignment with a triple 12'W x 13'H reinforced box culvert.
Traffic will be detoured onto existing roadways during construction. The project will not
result in any wetland impacts, however, an estimated 0.07 acres of surface waters will be
filled. No other impacts are anticipated.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate that 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, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
Ca
1?..: ?2 .^ 6 C
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
f= EB 96

i V
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
) ?? M r
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Bob Johnson, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D Smart, PE, Division 13 Engineer
7
v
4-
BURKE COUNTY
South College Street
Bridge No. 176 Over Hunting Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1319(8)
State Project 8.2851101
T.I.P. No. 13=2878
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
?s
A
erg,
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE
i
l L. Graf, P. E. -
Administrator, FHWA

Burke County
South College Street
Bridge No. 176 Over Hunting Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1319(8)
State Project 8.2851101
T.I.P. No. B-2878
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May, 1995
Documentation Prepared By
NCDC Corporation
CARO
pFE ...o ?, y' .
SEAL
i 11301 e
J hn R. Pa n P. E. % '• -?'
Project Manager ?'•.tiiY?;`?y??''?`'-
'dy
for North Carolina Department of Transpation z--; Z_ - 0 ?kv' ? ?
. . A. isx sett, Jr., P.E., nit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. al i
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Burke County
South College Street
Bridge No. 176 Over Hunting Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1319(8)
State Project 8.2851101
T.I.P. No. B-2878
Bridge No. 176 on College Street over Hunting Creek is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program as a candidate for replacement. As presented herein, the proposed
replacement will not induce substantial impacts in the environment and therefore is classified as
a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be imple-
mented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. The amount of land taken from the historic
district will be minimized. The portion of the historic district disturbed by the project will be
informally landscaped using indigenous plant materials, and significant landscape materials lost
due to the project will be replaced in-kind. No other special or unique environmental commitments
are necessary.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Number 176 will be replaced at approximately the same location as the existing structure
on the same alignment as shown in Figure 3. The proposed replacement structure consists of a
triple 12' W x 13'H reinforced concrete box culvert. See Figure 5. The structure will be of sufficient
length to provide five 12-foot lanes for a clear roadway width of 64 feet with curb and gutter.
Sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the roadway to match the existing walkways on South
Sterling Street (NC 18). See Figure 4.
The roadway will be raised approximately 3 feetto improve the vertical alignment between Fleming
Drive and South Sterling Street. College Street will be closed and traffic detoured onto existing
roadways during construction. Morganton's City Manager concurs with closing the roadway
during the construction phase.
Total estimated cost, based on current prices, is $467,000. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $440,000, ($400,000-construc-
tion, $40,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in an urban area of Burke County approximately one-quarter mile south of
the downtown section of Morganton.
According to the City of Morganton's adopted thoroughfare plan, College Street is a major
thoroughfare. The road is not a federal aid highway. College Street extends west from South
Sterling Street (NC 18) across Hunting Creek to Fleming Drive and into the downtown section.
South College Street between South Sterling Street and Fleming Drive is approximately 400 feet
long, with the bridge centered between the two roads. Fleming Drive carries US 64 Bypass and
US 70 Bypass.
Near the bridge, College Street has 30 feet of pavement width with curb and gutter. There are
sidewalks on both sides of the roadway to match those on South Sterling Street. On the west
approach, the sidewalk on south side of the roadway extends to within 50 feet of the intersection
on Fleming Drive. The walkway on the north side of the roadway ends at the bridge.
The speed limit on College Street is 35 miles per hour.
The existing three-span bridge was built in 1933 and has abutments at the ends of the bridge and
timber bents at each side of the stream. Steel beams support the concrete deck and 'church-
window' rails.
The total length of the bridge is 63 feet 6 inches along the centerline of roadway; each span being
about 21 feet long. The bridge is built on a skew of 90 degrees. Clear roadway width on the
structure is 30 feet, and a 5-foot wide sidewalk is provided on each side. Total width of the bridge
is 42 feet. The bridge is posted for weight limits of 21 tons single vehicles and 26 tons TTSTs.
Bridge No. 176 has a sufficiency rating of 30.6, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient and has an estimated remaining life of 3
years according to the February 1994 inspection.
Overhead utility lines parallel the south side of the road and cross over the west approach. to the
bridge. The lines cross and parallel the intersecting roads; both on the east sides of the roadways.
A utility pole is located on the west approach within 30 feet of the northwest corner of the bridge.
Sanitary sewer lines cross under the bridge on both sides of the stream. A line measuring
approximately 48 inches in diameter crosses between the stream and South Sterling, and a line
measuring approximately 18 inches in diameter crosses between the stream and Fleming Drive.
Both of these lines are about twenty feet below the ground surface, and should not be affected
by the project. On the north side of the bridge, a ductile iron sewer line is supported on concrete
piers at about 5 feet from the edge of the structure.
A traffic count in May, 1993 by the City of Morganton shows that approximately 9,050 vehicles per
day use College Street at the Hunting Creek crossing. This figure is close to that provided by the
Department of Transportation from 1991 showing that 10,300 vehicles per day use College Street.
Approximately 4,700 vehicles per day turn onto College Street from northbound Sterling Street,
while 5,000 vehicles turn onto southbound Sterling Street from College Street. Less than 100 turn
2
northbound from College Street, and less than 300 turn from southbound Sterling Street onto
College Street. According to the Traffic Count office of the Department of Transportation, South
Sterling Street carries approximately 26,300 vehicles per day, and Fleming Drive carries
approximately 10,900 vehicles per day, both in the vicinity of College Street. College Street carries
1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 percent dual-tired (DT) vehicles. South Sterling
carries approximately 2 percentTTST and 3 percent DT vehicles. Fleming Drive carries 4 percent
TTST and 6 percent DT vehicles. Estimated traffic in planning year 2016 at the bridge site is 22,200
vehicles per day, with the same percentage trucks.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Due to the adequate existing horizontal and vertical alignments at the site and the availability of
an off-site detour, the existing alignment was the only replacement alignment considered.
Preliminary hydrology indicatesthat atriple barrel reinforced concrete box culvertwill be adequate
for flows at the site. The culvert length required at the site for the 64-foot clear roadway with
sidewalks is about 120 feet. The roadway section would be raised approximately 3 feet to improve
the transition at Fleming Drive. Concrete curb and gutter and approach guardrail would be
required in the 35 MPH zone.
Consideration was given to enclosing the stream between the proposed structure and the existing
culvert under Sterling Street and matching its dimensions. This would add approximately 100 feet
to the length, essentially doubling the proposed structure, and is not considered reasonable.
In the period from January 1, 1987 to July 31, 1993, a total of 83 accidents were reported on the
section of College Street between Sterling Street and Fleming Drive. Most (78) were multiple-
vehicle accidents, and none were fatal. Eighty-three percent of the accidents occurred during the
work week, and sixty-five percent occurred between 2 and 6 P.M.
A "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate the closing of the bridge. This is not
acceptable because compliance with the recommended thoroughfare plan cannot occur and
safety on the site would continue to decline.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Morganton's City Engineer agrees with the closing of the roadway during the project. Police and
fire department spokespersons said that closing of the bridge would not hinder their activities
significantly. The Director of Public Safety said that his response time to an emergency in the
southern part of Morganton would increase by about 45 seconds. Most of their trucks do not use
the bridge now because of its narrow width and lack of signals at Sterling Street. The Director
expressed his desire for a five-lane section in the replacement. Their station is located on College
Street in the downtown section. Spokespersons for fire, police, EMS, and schools requested
notification before beginning construction.
3
Five busses per day use the route during the school year. Their activities would face only minor
disruption and a detour of less than one-half mile to go to the intersection of Fleming Drive and
South Sterling Street.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost for the construction option in 1993 dollars is given below.
ITEM COST
Approaches $ 125,000
Structure (T-RCBC, @ 120' long) $ 230,000
Structure Removal $ 12,000
Temporary Detour $ 0
Engineering and Contingencies $ 35,000
Right of Way 65,000
Total $ 467,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 176 will be replaced at its existing location. Combining the construction of the
replacement culvert with the widening and construction on South Sterling Street would prevent
efforts on the two projects from being duplicated.
A 5-lane roadway section with 64 feet curb to curb will be provided on South College Street, with
5-foot sidewalks on each side. Preliminary survey information on the site shows that College
Street is on atangent from South Sterling Street across the structure to and beyond Fleming Drive.
The design speed is 35 miles per hour.
The Director of Engineering and the City Manager are in agreement with the construction of a
culvert to replace the existing bridge.
The project will require the acquisition of approximately 0.3 acres of State-owned property
currently owned by Broughton Hospital, but will not affect the hospital's use of the grounds.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The City of Morganton is planning to replace the College Street bridge over Hunting Creek in
Morganton, Burke County. Located in the Western Piedmont of North Carolina, Hunting Creek
is in the south central portion of Burke County. Physiographically, Hunting Creek is located in the
Catawba River Drainage Basin in the uplands of the Piedmont Province of the Appalachian
Highlands.
4

3
Field investigations of the area likely to be disturbed near this Hunting Creek bridge were
conducted on September 15 and October 7, 1993. The information in this report was collected
by actual observations (sight/sound) and/or signs. Species not seen, butjudged to be in the area,
were determined by known geographical distributions, county records, and analysis of suitable
habitat. Information was also collected from various federal and state agencies. The field
investigations were conducted to determine the natural habitats presently existing in the proposed
project area and to determine how.the disturbance associated with replacing this bridge and
section of roadway would impact these natural areas. Special attention was focused on water
quality, species of special concern (endangered, threatened, or candidates), and potential
occurrence of wetlands.
The study site lies within the city limits of Morganton in an area of intensive commercial
development and disturbance. Several large drain pipes carrying run-off water from parking lots
and streets in the area empty into Hunting Creek north of this bridge. To the south, several
drainage ditches from a low hay field empty into the creek.
PLANT LIFE
Except for the immediate banks of the creek, the area north of the bridge contains no natural
vegetation. A paved parking lot occupies the area northwest of the bridge. A landscaped area
maintained by the city occupies most of the area northeast of the bridge. This area includes
mowed grass, shrubs (azaleas and hollies), and trees Canadian hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
and dogwood, (Cornus florida .
A low mowed hay field maintained by Broughton Hospital occupies most of the area south of the
bridge and roadway. One drainage ditch runs along the base of the road fill and another runs
through the field-both empty into Hunting Creek near the present bridge. Roadbanks and ditch
banks in this area are dominated by a diverse mixture of early successional weedy species that
are periodically cut. The most common plants on these banks and along the drainage ditches
include: honeysuckle (Lonicera is onica , morning glory (Ipomoea hederacea; pomoea
andurata , blackberry (Rubus ar utus , multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora , goldenrod (Solidago
altissima , purple-stemmed aster (Aster uniceus , wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), and frost
aster (Aster ilp osus var. ilosus .
Along the banks of Hunting Creek, only remnants remain of a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest. North of the bridge the high fill banks are dominated by a mixture of box elder (Acer
ne undo , black cherry (Prunus serotina , and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima . South of the
bridge the banks are low and periodically cut. Only a multi-stemmed sycamore (Plantanus
occidentalis) has been allowed to grow to approximately 35 feet high. Other trees exist only as
stump sprouts or seedlings, including tree of heaven, box elder, river birch (Betula nigra), and
black cherry. Vines include Japanese honeysuckle, everlasting pea (Lathyrus latifolius , and
morning glories. Herbs include poke berry (Phytolacca americana), jewelweed (Impatiens
ca .ensis ,pink knotweed (Polygonum ersicaria , white knotweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum),
and wingstem.
5
Other common plants recorded from the area to be disturbed are as follows:
Trees (stump sprouts)
Persimmon (Diospyros vir iniana
Ash (Fraxinus americana)
Willow (Saiix ni ra
Shrubs
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Privet (Ligustrum sinense
Vines
Fox grape (Vitis vul ina
Trumpet vine (Campsis radicans
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans
Passion flower (Passiflora incarnata
Herbs
Cattails (Typha latifolia
Crabgrass (Di itaria sanguinalis)
Purple top grass (Tridens flavus
Fescue grass (Festuca elatior
Horseweed (Erigeron canadensis)
Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida
Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis)
Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense)
(Solanum americanum)
Curly dock (Rumex cris us
Joe Pye Weed (Eupatorium fistulosa
Sedge (Cv_perus refractus
Pink tearthumb (Poly oq_ num sa ittatum
Pigweed (Amaranthus h bridus
Foxtail grass (Setaria viridis
ANIMAL LIFE
Animal life is limited by the heavy traffic and disturbance that occurs at this site. No tracks were
seen along the creek. Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagusfloridanus mallurus , woodchucks (Marmota
monax monax , and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus ni rans may occur in the meadow.
The impact on any animals in the area would be minimal as there is adequate habitat available
for mobile species to avoid the site of construction. Any animals in the area have become adapted
to human activity as a result of the long history of disturbance at this site.
Various frogs, snakes, and birds may be found in the area, but none of special concern. Birds
actually seen included mocking birds and a song sparrow.
6
In 1968, this stream was classified as being too small to be of fishing significance. Therefore, no
fish samples have been recorded for Hunting Creek. According to Bob Brown, local N.C. Fisheries
Biologist, no fish surveys have been conducted in Hunting Creek, but the following species would
likely occur there: bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), highbackchub (Hybopsis hypsinstus),
river chub (Notropsis micropoaon), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), redhorse sucker
(Moxostoma robustum , striped jumprock (Moxostoma rugiscartes).
Other aquatic species are limited due to poor water quality in the past and heavy siltation. The
water quality is compromised by heavy runoff from parking areas and streets in the area.
No unique natural areas are found at this site. Fragmentation of habitat will be minimal.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil
According to soil scientists in the Burke County Soil Conservation Service's office, the soil in the
hay field south of the College Street bridge is Toccoa Sandy Loam, 0-3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded. This is a deep, well-drained soil on a flood plain, formed from loamy alluvial
deposits. Permeability is moderately rapid. This soil is the only naturally occurring soil in the area.
All other areas are completely altered by fill-dirt. No hydric soils are present at this site.
Water Resources
Hunting Creek is a tributary to Lake Rhodhiss at Mile 105 of the Catawba River. At the College
Street bridge, the creek is approximately 24 feet wide with an average flow of 1-2 CFS;
temperature is warm; turbidity is normally clear; and the bottom is silty mud. This is a small,
shallow, foothills stream.
The current (January 1993) water classification forthis section of Hunting Creek is Class C..Class
C waters are to be protected for fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, agriculture,
and other uses for waters of lower quality. However, as Hunting Creek nears Lake Rhodhiss four
miles downstream and one mile from its mouth, its classification is upgraded to WS4, and WS4
critical from mouth to 0.4 mile upstream. Lake Rhodhiss serves as a reservoir for the water supply
of several communities. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System lists no dischargers
for the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) accesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates. The species richness and overall biomass are reflections
ofwaterquality. There is no recorded sampling for Hunting Creek. No waters designated as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-1 or WS-II occur within 1.6 km.
(1 mi.) of the project area.
Possible stream impacts from the highway construction at the College Street bridge site will be
limited to some sediment debris during construction. Likely adverse impacts can be minimized
through the employment of silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control measures
required of the contractor and specified in the state approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control
7
Program. "Best Management Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will be implemented to minimize adverse
effects of construction activities.
Overall environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a result of this project.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands
No wetlands exist within this project's boundaries according to the hydrology, vegetation, or soils
found in the area. A few wetland indicator plants are present-but only in the drainage ditches or
immediate stream bank.
Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action which has the potential to have a detrimental impact to the
survival and well-being of any species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by the
FWS under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
Endangered species receive additional protection under separate state statutes. In North
Carolina protection of plant species falls under N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-
202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
The N.C. Natural Program (NCNHP), the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the
U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to obtain current
lists of protected species known to inhabit Burke County.
Federally Protected Species
Six federally protected species are listed by the FWS for Burke County as of March 30, 1994. The
species are listed in Table 1. A discussion of each species follows.
Table 1. Federally protected species listed for Burke County
Common Name
BIRDS
American peregrine falcon
PLANTS
Spreading avens
Small whorled pogonia
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Mountain golden-heather
Heller's blazing star
Scientific Name Status
Falco peregrinus anatum E
Geum radiatum* E
Isotria medeoloides E
Hexastylis naniflora T
Hudsonia montana T
Liatris helleri T
E (Endangered): A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
8
T (Threatened): A taxon that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
* Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20 years.
Falco peregrinus anatum (American peregrine falcon) - E
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70; 6/2/70; 3/20/70
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Burke, Jackson, Madison, Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes.
The American peregrine falcon is a crow-sized raptor 15" - 21 " long with a 40" wingspread. Adults
slate-gray above and pale below, with fine bars and spots of black; narrow tail; long-pointed wings;
conspicuous black "mustaches". Young birds darker below and browner.
This bird is found throughout the United States in areas with high cliffs, high ledges and adjacent
open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges but they may also
nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in
urban areas.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds. They occupy a range from 0.6
to 311 sq. kms (0.25 to 120 sq. mi.) depending on the availability of food. The hunting range usually
extends 16 km. (10 mi.) from the nest. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The majority of the study area contains only disturbed vegetation and does not support suitable
habitat for the American peregrine falcon. No impacts to the American peregrine falcon will occur
from proposed construction.
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) - E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is found only in North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the southern
Appalachian mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been extirpated and popula-
tions in other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 0.2 - 05 m. (8
- 20 in). The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers.
Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound. Terminal leaflets are kidney-shaped and much larger
than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent. Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and
are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves are smaller than the basel, rounded to obovate with
irregularly cut margins. Fruits are hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7 - 9 mm (0.3
- 0.4 in) in diameter.
9
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges.
Habitat requirements forthis species include full sunlight, high elevations, and shallowacidic soils.
The spreading avens is found in soils composed of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, and clay
loam. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for spreading avens. No impacts to spreading
avens will occur from proposed construction.
Isotria medeoloides (Small-whorled pogonia) - E
Plant Family: Orchidaceae.
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982.
Flowers Present: mid-May through mid-June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Surry.
The small-whorled pogonia was known historically from Maine to Georgia, with the exception of
Delaware, along the eastern seaboard and in Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri. In North Carolina
it is found in the Nantahala National Forest, Macon County, Burke County, and near the Town of
Flat Rock, Henderson County.
This perennial orchid has long pubescent roots and a hollow stem 0.1 to 0.3m (4 to 12 in) tall.
Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed.
Leaves measure approximately 40 to 80 mm (2 to 3 in). One or two light green flowers are
produced at the end of the stem. Flowers have short sepals that are only 25 mm (1 in) long.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous forests,
with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils. Flowering
is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study area was surveyed during the growing season. Because of the wide range of habitats
recorded forthis species, all areas within 60' of any proposed construction at this site were carefully
searched. No small-whorled pogonias were found. This project will not impact this species.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) - T
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae.
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989.
Flowers Present: Mid-March through mid-May.
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln, Rutherford.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight northern piedmont counties in North Carolina
and the adjacent portions of South Carolina.
10

This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface
rhizome. It rarely exceeds 0.15 m (6 in) in height. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen,
and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and dark brown in color. They are
found near the base of the petioles at ground level. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy
areas next to streams and creek heads, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. It grows
in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described as upper
piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the south eastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
No dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants were observed. No impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf will
occur from proposed construction.
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) - T
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: October 20, 1980
Flowers Present: Mid to late June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, McDowell.
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub that is yellow-green in color. It usually
grows in clumps 0.1 to 0.2 m (4 - 8 in) across and 0.2 m (6 in) high. It sometimes occurs in clumps
that are 0.3 m (12 in) or more across. The leaves from the previous year are retained and appear
scale-like on the older branches. Leaves are from 3 - 7 mm (0.1 - 0.3 in) long and appear awl-
shaped and thread-like. It forms solitary, terminal flowers 3 cm across on stalks at the ends of
short leafy branches. Sepals 5, basally fused, unequal, persistent; petals 5, distinct, yellow,
slightly to 2 x longer than sepals; stamens numerous (20 to 30). Fruits are 1 - 6 seeded ovoid
capsules, enclosed in a persistent calyx and on 13 mm (0.5 in) stalks.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountaintops. It can be found on exposed
quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds dominated by sand myrtle
(Leiophyllum sp.) which merge into pine forest. Plants do survive in partially shaded areas but do
not thrive. Critical habitat has been designated in Burke County, North Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for this species. No impact to mountain golden
heather will occur from proposed construction.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) - T
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987.
Flowers Present: late June - August.
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Watauga.
11
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue Ridge
Mountains in North Carolina. Of nine historic populations, only seven remain in existence.
Heller's blazing star is a short, stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise from a tuft
of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are acuminate and diminish in size and width upward
on the stem. Stems are 0.4 m (16 in) tall. Flowers (florets) are small and sessile in a compact head
on a common enlarged receptacle, surrounded by an involucre. The lavender heads are arranged
in an elongate, racemiform inflorescence, flowering from top to bottom. Distinguishing character-
istics are its short stature and its very short pappus. Fruits are present from September to
November.
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can be found growing on high elevation
ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas exposed to full sunlight. It prefers shallow acid soils
associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for Heller's blazing star. No impacts to Heller's
blazing star will occur from proposed construction.
Federal candidate and state listed species.
Federal candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. The following table includes federal candidate species listed for
Burke County and their state classifications (Table 2). Organisms which are listed as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SP) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list
of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 2. Federal Candidate Species (and their State Status) listed for Burke County
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
CLAMS
Brook floater mussel
(Alasmidonta varicosa
PLANTS
A liverwort
(Cephaloziella obtusilobula*)
Butternut
(Juglans cinerea
Sweet pinesap
(Monotropsis odorata*)
A liverwort
Status
Federal / State
Habitat
(Plagiochila caduciloba*)
C2 T No
C2 C No
C2 - No
PC2 C No
C2 E No
12
A liverwort
(Pla , ioq_ chila sullivantii var.
spinigera*) C2 C No
A liverwort
(Plagiochila sullivantii var.
sullivantii*) C2 C No
Rock skull cap
(Scutellaria saxatilis C2/P3C C No
Oconee bells
(Shortia alacifolia C2 E-SC No
Short-style oconee bells
(Shortia galacifolia var.
brevis la C2 E-SC No
Definitions
C2 - Candidate 2: A federal classification indicating taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing as endangered or
threatened at this time.
E - Endangered: Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable
component of the state's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
T - Threatened: Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
E - SC - Endangered - Special Concern: Any species of plant which requires population
monitoring, but which may be collected and sold under specific regulations.
PC2 - Proposed Candidate 2: Proposed candidate species are in the process of being added to
the federal candidate list.
P3C - Proposed Candidate 3 C: Proposed as a candidate that has been proven to be more
abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or those that are not subject to any
identifiable threat.
*Indicates no specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
The NCNH records show none of the federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species
have ever been reported from the vicinity of this site. No endangered, threatened, or candidate
species were found, and this project is not expected to impact on any protected species listed in
this report.
13
IV
State Protected Species
The state-listed species described above do not occur at this site. The NCNH records have no
reports of state-listed species from the general.vicinity of this site. The NCWRC listed no special
concern for this site. This project will not impact on any protected state species.
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.
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.
Should any land be acquired for right-of-way or construction from Broughton Hospital, which is in
a historic district, a Section 4F statement will be required. The project bridge is at the border of
the historic district. The bridge is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and is not listed
in the register. 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 an opportunity to comment.
To comply with those requirements, NCDOT conducted a survey and prepared a survey report.
This report is a technical addendum to this Categorical Exclusion and is on file at NCDOT. This
documentation was used in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office.
In his letter to the Federal Highway Administration dated June 8, 1994, the Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer concurred with the finding of 'no adverse effect' of the project on the
Broughton Hospital Historic District, provided certain measures are carried out. Those measures
are listed in Section 1 of this document. The Area of Potential Effect of the project includes part
of the Broughton Hospital Historic District.
14
Y
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a letter dated October 15, 1993, recommended
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. Therefore, no
archaeological work was conducted for the project.
In as much as the existing structure will be replaced in its present location, this project is exempt
from the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
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. Burke 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.
There is a possibility of cut slope instability and some siltation during construction. Stringent
erosion control measures will be employed by the contractor to minimize sediment runoff during
construction as outlined in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program approved by the N.C.
Sedimentation Control Commission. Additional impacts are expected to be negligible. Approxi-
mately 95 percent of Morganton, including the project area, is located within the compliance area
of the Watershed Protection Act.
The project will not significantly alter the existing surface drainage patterns in the project vicinity.
The City of Morganton is a participant in the National Flood Insurance regular program. The land
use immediately upstream is State-owned and is currently undeveloped. Immediately down=
stream, the land is in commercial use. The approximate 100-yearfloodplain in the project is shown
in the Appendix. The streambed is approximately 21 feet below the bridge deck. The amount
of floodplain area to be affected is not considered significant.
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, Hazardous Waste Management Section are not aware of any
tanks in the vicinity of the project.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the alignment would
result in- a crossing of about the same magnitude. The alignment of the project is perpendicular
to the floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm.
15

No rare or endangered species are known to exist in the project vicinity. Replacement of the bridge
will cause some temporary impact on the quality of the stream, but the impact will be mitigated and
water quality maintained within acceptable limits by standard erosion and sedimentation control
measures.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no 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.
16

b

• • • • •

•
•
I'
10
a •\
n'
w `
•
• % ?. ? 1{I

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIROMENTAL
BRANCH
MORGANTON. N.C.
COLLEGE ST. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BURKE COUNTY
T.I.P. B-2818

FIGUR
E 1
V
4
NonrOLK
h
IIM50.,
M49
R M51 Q? AD
/ C /ZONE X?
Sin c J \ O
5Olt ?` •. ,,n fie i4tryu\
`` AG? - ZONE X
?S?tir;, `- RM52 s`
PROJECT
-ZONE X 1 LOCATION \
AN ?
z
RM5
10 ZONE X
ZONE AE \9^
ZONE X
m,
,
NNV ZONE X
100 YEAR ELOOOPZ\H
ZONE X CAT7 OF A10RGANT0f l ?
COLLEGE STR.E.ET BRIM, -
q? REPLACEMENT i
/ T. I.P B - 2e778
.RM54 \
,oss ZONE X -
\ qk .''
• FIGURE 2

^T
i
r.3 tJ
r ?? r•
X(
r
rip
.t a
11
??`? ?' .',', ? . it-.? ? ?, '? ? ? ? ??`.••?¢?
. fi't' -l '.tr ?`. ° ?,?,?tt•?.f r ^'? ,,.t A.?,r .h ? -s
r J• .•? t,??, q,?' 1n d i ' FA
+k? .y _?j?y?""'. - .. `•: ??'t l1' :i?? ??Jrt'r%?? 'lt .?'?tl. ?f'i (f?i• ?? I.'. .. .?E
!j
rv ?I
r.

FIGURE 3

i
in

D

O o C9
0
O Z U _
U
I

N

U Z
O
I
a
is a a-
m m
N a.
a
v Y
W ^
00
° O W

N _
?--
r
C.D
W Z ?
---- ?7- ??mN0r?,0

N
Z = ?- 00
0 0 ? f-
0

1 I r
Q M
WLLJ
V J> C) W
`o° Q
O YOOWOZ
a
w
to
O- a:
m
-
J F
Q
,? • U OZJ¢
F-
O to Q
W
(n
N
F- ?
L.LJ
p p
W
M
LL.
W
F-- ? J m

D ZO WW 0
Q
C-4
r- U Q U
Z
e
tV U o W a

a I o
in m
EL
o
I
-- a
a
-
to ? ?
FIGURE 4
o

to ?
W
w -? w 00
m U

wZ?
P ?
Lo 00
}-V)
V) :3 ZmN000
0 Z m= - OON
OWQ;
m
o = ?U
C
LLJ
wJ00?
0
(*?) «0-s1-- - z yo
co Mo Z
m 1HO13H 1388ye O ::) t- 0 0_ a_
F- m '
Q
W
V) 0 z
Q
?
Cl --?
Q (Dw
00
w
U m
LL
N
.- C-L
O`
m
1-
FIGURE 5

A,

LGc, /.?t, vt/?.jT cG tAt v c S r?z?c T ?3 E' ,17) C, c
.

C
/SST rZ: ?"?/Si/.iG ?GLLCL?C 5i2?L_7? f3 Gr?C
'S /17-

1 4

Lock- -/6 ?- s>,_E'1-vl T e'ccce-c?? Sr

1
J
c
LUG??.../;`? 1_?.y; N? ?ic'C-1.?? .? c'C/ $ ? i•J?i /Cc; ?? ? i:J/9. G. Z.1 ??/r?=.S

.. SIAI,
3
No: th Carolina Department or Cultural Resources
!roes B. Jr., Govcmor
13cttY RUY :.: ;Cain, Secretary
Octc?jcr 15, 1993
Garry T. Shook, P.E.
NCDC Corporation
211 NC 127 SE
Hickory, NC 28602
Re: Replacement of College Street Bridge over Hunting
Creek, Morganton, Burke County, B-2878, ER 94-
7470
Dear M.. Shook:
Division or Archives and Ilislory
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1993, concerning the above project.
We understand that North Carolina Design Consultants has been retained by the
city of Morganton to prepare environmental docurnents and design for the above
project. We have reviewed the information provided to us regarding the bridge
replacement and would like to comment.
Although the College Street Bridge is over fifty years of age, we believe the
structure is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The
bridge appears to have little historical or architectural significance. College Street
Bridr.e, hr,,,,vever, is located immediately adjacent to the Broughton Hospital
Historic District which was included in the National Register on November 9,
1987. We have enclosed a copy of the historic district's boundaries for your use.
-ro d.-termine the effect of the project upon the historic district, we would like the
following additional information:
1. Alt',ough the bridge will be replaced in approximately the same location, what
are the project's construction limits? Will any right-of-way or easements be
required from the historic district? Will any land within the historic district be
uscd for construction staging?
2. Wha; roadway construction is necessary to accomplish the bridge tie-in?
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on cur p.esent knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
igccs•wil! be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
109 E.a; Joncs S(rcc( • Ralci1,
'h, ?IcIW Carnlina 274M.??n-2
4
Garry T. Shook
October 15, 1993, Page 2
The above comments are ;Wade I)ursuant to Section 106 of Ilia National Historic
Preservation Act of 1936 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regu;4;ici.s 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,
envir crimental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincere'
David Prook
Dcl)uty Stale Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: N. Graf, Federal Highway Administration
F. Vick, NCDOT
B. Church, NCDOT

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
HISTORIC SITES
F. A. Project BRZ-1319(8)
State Project 8.2851101
T. I. P. No. B-2878
Description: Replacement of College Street Bridge over Hunting Creek
in Morganton, Burke Countv
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or physical
condition of the existing highway facility on

essentially the same alignment?
X ?
2. Is the project on new location? F-1 X
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the existing highway? x F-1
4. Does the project require the removal or alteration of
historic buildings, structures, or objects? F1 X
5. Does the project disturb or remove archaeological
resources which are important to preserve in place a
rather than to recover for archaeological research? 'X
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) site considered ?
minor (i.e. no effect, no adverse effect)? X
b. If the project is determined to have "no adverse
effect" on the historic site, does the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation object to the a
determination of "no adverse effect"? X
7. .Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the assessment ?
of impacts and the proposed mitigation? X
8. Does the project require the preparation of an EIS? F X
15

2
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be
feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothinq. X ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? F I X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? F-1 X
and (d) create a cost or impact of extraordinary measure? F-1 X
2. Improve the highway without using the adjacent
historic site.
X
?
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards
,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management
measures been evaluated?

X

El
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate) See Attachment 1
(i) substantial adverse environmental impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation
,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the historic site X a
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
16

o?' (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and. (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties
of truly unusual.or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
3
MINIMIZATION OF IIAR14
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm necessary to preserve the historic
integrity of the site. a
X
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed to, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by the FIIWA, the
SIIPO, and as appropriate, the AC11P. a
' X
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are described
as follows:
1. The amount of land taken from the historic district
will be reduced as much as possible.
2. The disturbed portion of the historic district will
be informally landscaped and significant landscape
materials lost due to the project will be replaced in-kind.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation. Prior to
17

4
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a.' State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council-on Historic Preservation N
C. Property owner x
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
e. US Coast Guard NSA
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible and prudent
alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local
and state agencies.
Approved:
41Z S
Da e
7 z
Dat
Manager,
/G/.
' anning Environments
NCDOT
on Ram=inistrator, FH14A
ranc
18

DOCUMENT INSERT:
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) FOR
MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH HISTORIC SITES
DESCRIBE SECTION 4(f) RESOURCE HERE
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land
from a historic site which is adjacent to the existing roadway and since
the project meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register
(December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the
requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic site,
have been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) improve the highway without
using the adjacent historic site; and (3) build the replacement structure
on new location without using the historic site. These alternatives were
not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic site has been
performed as an integral part of this project. Measures to minimize harm
include the following:
LIST MITIGATION MEASURES HERE.
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), whose correspondence is included as
Attachment 2 . The SHPO has concurred that this project, as proposed,
(will have no effect, has a no adverse effect) with regard to the historic
property. Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the
FHWA Division Administrator is included as Attachment 3 of this
document.
19
Attachment 1
BRIEF EXPLANATION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE
Alignments of the roadways on both ends of this project dictate the need to use the Broughton
Hospital Historic District property.
At the west end of the project, the alignment of the roadway is in a horizontal tangent with South
College Street beyond the end of the project. Moving the proposed roadway off of the historic
property would result in an offset intersection, where traffic moving along South College Street
would have to turn to continue through the intersection. An offset intersection is considered an
undesirable solution and would be downgrading the existing tangent alignment.
At the east end of the project, the existing intersection with South Sterling Street is aligned to
facilitate right turns from South College Street. Moving the proposed roadway off of the historic
property would result in an intersection that is ator near right angles. Since the right turn movement
from South Sterling Street is unnecessary and proposed to be eliminated from the project, the
relocation would be undesirable. Moving the intersection off of the historic property would reduce
the distance between the intersections of South Sterling Street with South College Street and
Fleming Drive, which is also undesirable.
The adopted thoroughfare plan of the City of Morganton is better facilitated with the current
alignment. Without using the historic district property, the project would not fully address the
existing problems atthe site and would result in undesirable conditions on the proposed roadway.
Attachment 2
1 RAJA o
3 i ?-
N??.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Junes B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
June 8, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 175 on College Street
over Hunting Creek, Burke County, B-2878,
8.2851101, BRZ-1319(8), ER 94-8916
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1994, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the preliminary documentation provided to us to determine the
project's effect on the National Register-listed Broughton Historic District. We are
unable to concur with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA) determination
that the project will have no effect on the historic district since it causes "physical
destruction, damage or alteration to all or part of the property" [36 CFR 800.9(b)].
Please note that on January 4, 1994, members of our staff met with
representatives of FHwA, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), and NC Design Consultants to discuss the project's effect on the
Broughton Historic District. At the meeting we agreed the project would not
adversely affect the historic district if the following measures are carried out:
1. NCDOT will reduce as much as possible the taking of land from the historic
district.
2. Using indigenous plant materials, NCDOT will informally landscape the portion
of the district disturbed by the project and replace, in-kind, significant
landscape materials lost due to the project.
Given that the project has not changed since the January 1994 meeting, we
would still concur with the finding of no adverse effect conditioned upon the
aforementioned measures. With the no adverse effect determination, FHwA could
prepare a Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation for the 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.
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Catalina 27601-2807
M
Nicholas L. Graf
June 8, 1994, Page 2
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.
Sincecely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. _Church
hn ?. Patton,
Preservation Officer
NC Design Consultants

.n Of A 1P,
0
11bU d
Attachment 3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 4 10
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 17, 1994
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
0
r.
M AY 19 1994
?i?31?;s9 OF
IqVIRON
~
Subject: Section 106 Consultation - Replacement of Bridge No. 175
on College Street Over Hunting Creek, Burke County, N.C.,
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1319 (8) , State Project No. 8.2851101,
T.I.P. No. B-2878
Enclosed are two copies of a document that describes the activities
involved in constructing the subject project. The document
identifies the Broughton Historic District as the only property
within the project area of potential effect that is listed in or
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The project will require approximately 0.22 ha of construction
easement and 0.10 ha of new right-of-way on the edge of the
Broughton Historic District which is listed in the National
Register. The section of land proposed for the project is far
removed and well screened from the core of the district. The land
is not landscaped or maintained. The document explains that the
land involved in the action will be landscaped with indigenous
plants as part of the project.
Based upon the attached information, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that the project will have no
effect on the Broughton Historic District. Your concurrence in
FHWA's determination is requested. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Vince Barone of this office at 856-4350.
Sincerely yours,
or Nicholas L. Graf P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
r?
cc:
- ----? Mr. H. Frank Vick, P. E. , NCDOH
q
W Attachment 4
14 Advisory
Cowicil On
Historic
Preservation.
fhe (11r11'rrvl O(rice Ilnilrtina
11(1(1 I'rrrrisylvinia ;??r.nue, NW, #nm
t\ashinglcm. UC 200MI
Mr. Nicholls L. G ra f
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Adminisi.rat.ion
.'310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27G01
RIFT: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 176,
Morwinton, Btirke County, North Carolina
Project No. BRZ-1319(8)
Dear Mr. Graf:
On August. 25, 1994, the Council received your determhm[imi i.hat. the referenced
project would have no adverse effect upon the Broughton Hospital Historic District,
which is included in the National Register of Ilist.oric Places. 13ase(1 upon the
material which accompanied your determination, incinding the concurrence of the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (811PO), the see no reason to
raise an objection provided that the project is implemented in accordance with the
conditions set forth in the letter of June 8, 1991, from the North Carolina SHPO.
Both this letter and your supporting docunnent.at.ion should he retained in your
envit'0nnlent,1I Project files as evidence of your compliance with section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Upon completion of the project, in accordance
with the recommended conditions, the requirements of Section 106 and the
Council's regulations will be fully met for this project.
Should you have any questions, Please contact MaryAnn N.nber at. [phone].
We appreciate your cooperation.
astern Office of Review