19960821 Ver 1_Complete File_19960827

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt,Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secreta ry
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
NC Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
ID FE F1
September 6, 1996
Rutherford County
DWQ Project # 960821
TIP# B-2624, State Project No. 8.2890301
You have our approval to place fill material in wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing Bridge
#313 on SR 1190 over Rocky Broad River, as you described in your application dated 22 August 1996.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3027. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 6 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
n Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
960821.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
,R

qq ???a
M ". 960821
•?.? 401 lSStj?D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 22, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Rutherford County - Re
Broad River; T.I.P No
1' QUG 2
., 1996
...,", ?1A7??RTtU?it TVP::
it of Bridge No. 313 on SR 1190 over Rocky
; State Project No. 8.2890301
Reference the Categorical Exclusiod approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on
September 22, 1995 for this ?olect. AttaAhed is an Addendum to the Categorical Exclusion,
reflecting a new recommendlkd alignment. We expect to proceed with this project under a
Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22,
1991, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A
(C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of this project.
In accordance with current procedures for projects located in the designated trout
counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to construction. By copy of this letter,
we hereby request that WRC review the proposed project and provide any comments they find
necessary. A copy of the Addendum to the CE document is included for the WRC review.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include
test borings in soil and/or rock for in-situ testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory
testing. This may require test borings in the stream. It is anticipated that this work may be
authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.

2
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE Addendum to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Cyndi Bell at (919)
733-7844, Extension 306.
Sincerely,
V
HFV/plr
Attachment
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, DEHNR, DWQ
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, Planning & Environmental
X. I
I t , ._,,. 1 :1
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 313 on SR 1190
Over Rocky Broad River
Federal Project BRZ-1190(1)
State Project 8.2890301
TIP No. B-2624
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
12
Dater H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
7-11-Z /? /,- - M ? T, - ),-
Date? Nich las af, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
0' `'
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 313 on SR 1190
Over Rocky Broad River
Federal Project BRZ-1190(1)
State Project 8.2890301
TIP No. B-2624
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
i . i g"
Date Johrf Willis s
Project Planning Engineer
%
.%? ........t/•.
Date Waynelliott r : •Q?vEESS?oygr'?9
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head S E A L
c 6916 =
c
•, /? *4#-c IN
J4
•• V. p
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager ??"'++.,,,,,,•++?`
Planning and Environmental Branch

I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved April 7, 1995 and is
attached in the Appendix. The recommended alternate was to replace Bridge No. 313
approximately 460 meters (1500 feet) east of the existing location as shown by Alternate 4
in Figure 2. Subsequent to that time, additional detailed studies have determined that a
more feasible alternate exists. This currently recommended alternate is described in the
original Categorical Exclusion approximately 400 meters (1300 feet) east of the existing
location and is shown in Figure 2 as Alternate 3.
II. DISCUSSION
Alternates 1 and 2, included in the original Categorical Exclusion are non-
competitive and have been excluded from further consideration.
The two competitive alternates (3 and 4) are approximately 60 meters (200 feet)
apart. Each would provide a new bridge across the Rocky Broad River connecting US 64
with SR 1190 (Southside Avenue). Approximately 30 meters (100 feet) of new roadway
approaches would be constructed at each end of the bridge. Each alternate would include
a new bridge 7.3 meters (24 feet) in width and ranging from 55 meters (180 feet) to 63
meters (210 feet) in length.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. A
segment of Southside Avenue would be extended and paved to connect with the new
bridge as shown on the aerial photograph.
The estimated costs of the alternates are as follows:
Alternate 3 $1,000.000, including $740,000 for construction and
(Recommended) $260,000 for right-of-way acquisition and utility
adjustments
Alternate 4 $1,400,000, including $920,000 for construction and
$480,000 for right-of-way acquisition and utility
adjustments
The estimated costs of the studied alternates have increased substantially since the
original Categorical Exclusion was published. In the early stages of project development,
estimates were based on limited, preliminary engineering data. Completion of surveys and
detailed designs indicated the new bridge would need to be higher and longer than
originally estimated. Also, the elevation of Southside Avenue must be increased a few feet
at its intersection with the proposed bridge. This led to additional quantities of fill
material and increased right-of-way damages.
The recommended Alternate 3 has a lower cost than Alternate 4 for the following
reasons:
1. Proposed bridge is shorter.
2. Earthwork quantities are less.
3. Right-of-way damages are less.

Alternates 3 and 4 provide essentially the same traffic service. The environmental
consequences of each alternate are considered to be equal and are limited in scope. These
impacts are accurately described in the original Categorical Exclusion.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Five federally protected species are listed in Rutherford County. Each of these
was addressed in the April 7, 1995 Categorical Exclusion. No additional species have
been added as of April 1, 1996. No impacts to federally protected species will occur.
Alternate 3 is recommended due to a substantial savings in cost ($400,000). In
addition, Alternate 3 provides a flatter grade, which is desirable during icy weather
conditions. Alternate 3 displaces a camper that is utilized as a secondary residence for
vacation purposes. It was previously anticipated that Alternates 2, 3, and 4 would conflict
with proposed developments; however, none have materialized.
The N. C. Department of Transportation is currently negotiating with the Village
of Chimney Rock to retain the existing bridge in place for pedestrian usage. A tentative
agreement in principle has been reached. Each end of the old bridge would be barricaded
to prohibit vehicles.
A public hearing will be held in Chimney Rock in the near future to discuss the
alternates under consideration.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and strictly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 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."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the
replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval.
The Rocky Broad River is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water at the project location. Therefore, as a result of coordination with the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission, the following environmental commitments are made:
• Construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
• Temporary ground cover will be placed on all bare soil during construction.
A
• Permanent herbaceous vegetation in these areas will be established within 1,5 days of
ground disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
• Disturbance to riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum during bridge
replacement. Native trees, shrubs and grasses will be planted in disturbed areas to
replace those removed by construction.
• Stringent erosion control measures will be implemented throughout the project
wherever soil is disturbed.
• 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.
s
7-7,

9 '> US 64

"` ?• ::: ''
1190
INDEFINITE CORP. LIMIT
-- - :•::•:. RIVER
PROJECT
13

mss" 1300
4 1301
•17
HIMNEY ROCK •o2
BRIDGE _NO.3_I3 jo
_ Syste
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 313
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
B-2624
0 mile 1/4 FIG.
F'.
1302 1303
6 1304 ??.?????.
Y?' -. Ptrza"?e
YET:. ? C?:J
resyz?j '?.7'? Y O?. p,#
;Fr"
"0 WP, SO O W 1 ? 4l ? ? i ? ?? - aa..}ty¢ -_y ? y"t` ; rG! _ 7f' ?r ryr ?
l
its ?. r r??..?.•.?.'.?l ? "f????? ? ? ,+?x -? .r 1. i±"?

Rutherford County
Bridge No. 313
on SR 1190 over Rocky Broad River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1190(1)
State Project No. 8.2890301
T.I.P. No. B-2624
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:

Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
PLUM= and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
OA07 S -
Date Foid-4cholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 313
on SR 1190 over Rocky Broad River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1190(1)
State Project No. 8.2890301
T.I.P. No. B-2624
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
1'??'atid1 O .cESSI '•
C. 4 719s ?•.??'' 0,
Richard W Fedora, P.E. • 9l
Project Planning Engineer w SE 2 2064 cc:
f ,.
4/a Y lei q__
?'' •. ,? TWA Y N ? ? .. ? `??
Wayne liott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt. P.E.
Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental
r-
Rutherford County
Bridge No. 313
on SR 1190 over Rocky Broad River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1190(1)
State Project No. 8.2890301
TIP. No. B-2624
Bridge No. 313 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program.
The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated.
The project has been classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion."
1. SAY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Best Management Practices will be used to minimize environmental impacts.
Wetland impacts are categorized as bank-to-bank waters of the United States and fall
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and are likely to be
authorized by provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23 (Nationwide permit # 23). Due to the
presence of Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters associated with this project, the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission must review the action prior to issuance of a
Nationwide Permit # 23 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The following commitments will be implemented to avoid or reduce impacts to the
Public Mountain Trout Waters of Rocky Broad River in the project area:
1. Disturbance to riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum during bridge
replacement. Native trees, shrubs, and grasses will be planted in disturbed areas
to replace those removed by construction.
2. Wet concrete will not be allowed to contact water entering or flowing in Rocky
Broad River.
3. Stringent erosion control measures will be implemented throughout the project
wherever soil is disturbed.
4. Temporary ground cover will be placed on bare surfaces, including spoil piles,
as soon as construction is complete. Permanent vegetation will be established in
these areas by seeding and mulching within 15 days of project completion.
A section 401 General Water Quality Certification must also be issued by DEHNR
prior to issuance of a Nationwide permit # 23.
Foundation investigations will be conducted on this project. The investigations will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams.
A majority of people living on SR 1190 would prefer the existing structure remain in
place and used as a pedestrian bridge. NCDOT cannot maintain this structure for pedestrian
use but is willing to transfer ownership of the bridge to the community or any interested
party. Several individuals have expressed verbal interest in taking ownership of the existing
bridge but without a firm commitment the bridge will be removed. NCDOT will continue
attempting to find someone to take liability and title of the bridge to keep it in place.
II. SUNEVIARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 313 should be replaced on new location approximately 1500 feet east of
the existing location as shown by Alternate 4 in Figure 2.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate the replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 180 feet long. The roadway width of the new bridge will be 24 feet. This will
provide a 20-foot wide travelway with a 2-foot offset on each side.
Approximately 200 feet of new roadway approaches will be required. The approach
roadway should consist of a 20-foot pavement with Moot graded shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is S 607, 500. The estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $ 1,070,000.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1190 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is not part of the Federal Aid System.
In the vicinity of Bridge No. 313, SR 1190 has a 13-foot pavement with no
shoulders (see Figure 2). Vertical alignment is flat. Horizontal alignment is tangent, except
on the south side which has a sharp curve. The structure is situated 27 feet above the creek
bed.
The bridge is located in the Village of Chimney Rock. Land use in the project area is
mixed commercial and residential. There are businesses located at the intersection of SR
1190 and US 64. The Dogwood Inn is located on the northeast quadrant while the
northwest quadrant includes a grocery store, cottage, and house. SR 1190 is a dead end
road south of Bridge No. 313 and serves approximately 30 houses, mostly vacation homes.
A 0.3-mile segment immediately south and east of the studied bridge is a part of the
state highway system. This segment has a pavement width of 12 to 14 feet. Beyond this
point, SR 1190 extends for some distance and resembles a semi-private driveway or trail in
poor condition.
West of Bridge No. 313 is another structure crossing the Rocky Broad River. This
bridge is on a private road and serves as the entrance to Chimney Rock Park.
The current traffic volume of 120 VPD is expected to increase to approximately 200
VPD by the year 2017. The projected volume includes 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 2 % dual-tired vehicles (DT).
NCDOT constructed the existing bridge (see Figure 3) in 1961. The superstructure
consists of a timber floor on I-beams and steel through truss. The substructure is composed
of timber and reinforced concrete. '
Overall length is 176 feet. Bridge roadway width is 13 feet. The posted weight limit
is 8 tons for single vehicles and 13 tons for TTSTs. The poor condition of the bridge
prohibits use by garbage trucks, fire trucks, concrete trucks, well drilling equipment, etc.
Bridge No. 313 has a sufficiency rating of 9.4 compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure.
No accidents have been reported on Bridge No. 313 during the last few years.
No school buses cross the studied bridge.
IV. ALTERNATES
NCDOT studied four build alternates for replacing Bridge No. 313 as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replacement at the existing location with temporary detour structure
1300 feet east of existing bridge.
Alternate 2 - Replacement with a new structure 1100 feet east of the existing
location.
Alternate 3 - Replacement with a new structure 1300 feet east of the existing
location.
Alternate 4 - (Recommended) Replacement with a new structure 1500 feet east of
the existing location.
Traffic must be maintained at the existing bridge site in some manner, since there is
no detour route available.
Alternate 1 would replace the bridge along the existing roadway alignment with a
structure approximately 180 feet long. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary detour
structure approximately 1300 feet east of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). This alternate
would retain the present roadway alignment.
Alternate 2 would involve a structure on new location approximately 1100 feet east
of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). Approximately 200 feet of new roadway approaches
will be needed. The structure would be approximately 180 feet long. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 3 would provide a new structure approximately 1300 feet east of the
existing bridge (see Figure 2) and would necessitate approximately 200 feet of new roadway
approaches. The structure would be approximately 180 feet long. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 4 (Recommended) consists of replacing the bridge on new location
approximately 1500 feet east of the existing bridge (see Figure 2). Approximately 200 feet
of new roadway approaches will be needed. The structure will be approximately 180 feet
long. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This
is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by SR 1190. The Bridge Maintenance Unit
has evaluated Bridge No. 313 and determined that rehabilitation is not possible.
V. TRAFFIC DETOUR
It will be necessary to maintain traffic at the studied bridge site during the
construction period. SR 1190 is a dead and road with Bridge No. 313 the only access across
the Rocky Broad River.
The Division Engineer recommends that Bridge No. 313 be replaced on new
location east of the existing bridge. This will allow traffic to be maintained on the existing
bridge during the construction period.
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS
TABLE 1 shows the estimated costs of the studied alternatives.
TART.F. 1 _ COST ESTIMATES
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE ALTERNATE 3 ALTERNATE 4
(RECOMNENDED)
STRUCTURE $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000
ROADWAY 121,000 213,000 171,500 133,500
APPROACHES
DETOUR 219,000 --------- --------- --------
STRUCTURE 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
REMOVAL
ENGINEERING 85,500 67,500 60,000 565000
AND
CONTINGENCIES
RIGHT OF WAY 116,500 69,000 110,500 178,500
AND UTlL1 TIES
TOTAL $781,500 $589,000 $581,500 $607,500
State maintenance on SR 1190 extends from US 64 to approximately Alternate 2.
The remainder of the road is considered private. Construction of either Alternate 3 or
Alternate 4 would require extending state maintenance on SR 1190. The estimates shown
above include the cost for extending the limits of state maintenance.
VII. RECOMMENDED IlVIPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 313 should be replaced on new location approximately 1500 feet east
of the existing location as shown by Alternate 4, Figure 2. According to a preliminary
hydrographic study, a structure 180 feet long will accommodate the flow of Rocky Broad
River at this point. The structure dimensions may be increased or decreased as necessary
to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The recommended width of the new structure is 24 feet. The cross section on the
structure will consist of a 20-foot pavement with 2-foot shoulders.
The recommended improvements will include about 200 feet of new roadway
approaches. A 20-foot pavement with 2-foot graded shoulders should be provided on the
approaches.
4
SR 1190 will be extended and paved along an existing unpaved road approximately
500 feet to Alternate 4 (the recommended alignment).
The Village of Chimney Rock, as well as individual property owners, expressed
interest in preserving Bridge No. 313 at its existing location and using it as a pedestrian
bridge; however, a formal proposal has not been furnished to NCDOT. NCDOT is willing
to transfer ownership of the existing bridge; however, if no one will accept title and liability
for the structure it will be removed once the recommended new alignment is built.
VIII. BASIS FOR RECON04ENDED ALTERNATE
Each of the studied build alternates provides essentially the same traffic service and
has nearly identical environmental consequences.
NCDOT rejects Alternate 1 because it is not cost competitive.
NCDOT rejects Alternates 2 and 3 because of reported planned homes (on the
south side of the river) that would conflict with each of these alignments. In addition, a
reported future hotel on the north side of the river would conflict with these alternates.
_ NCDOT recommends Alternate 4 because it would conflict the least with proposed
development.
At a Citizens Informational Workshop held in Chimney Rock on 31 August 1993,
members of the public commented on the studied alternates. Several individuals have since
sent letters to make additional comments. These include the following: 1) justification
does not exist for replacing the bridge, 2) a new bridge will adversely affect the privacy of
residents on SR 1190, 3) the existing bridge should be retained as a pedestrian crossing,
and 4) Alternate 4 is the least objectionable of the alignments considered.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General
NCDOT and FHWA classify the project as a Federal "categorical exclusion" due to
its limited scope and non- significant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant 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 significant 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 significant 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 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) indicates that no soil survey is available for
the project area; therefore, they are unable to complete the Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating (Form AD-1006). Compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act has been
fulfilled and no further action is needed.
The project is a bridge over Rocky Broad River located on the east side of
Chimney Rock in Rutherford County in the mountain physiographic province. The
topography of the area is mountainous. Elevations range from 2600 ft on mountain tops to
1000 ft in the valleys.
Preliminary resource information was assembled and reviewed, including U. S.
Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Bat Cave and Lake Lure) and
NCDOT county road map. Other preliminary, off-site work was accomplished by
conducting a review of literature, reference resources and data on soils, water resources,
wildlife populations, protected species, etc., provided by agencies of the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). An aerial of the
subject project (1"=100') was also used as a reference of the surrounding area.
B. Biological Communities
Living systems described in the following sections include plant communities and
associated animals. Plant communities and animals have been separated for ease of
description.
ROADSIDE and RIVERBANK communities are found in the project study area.
Both communities are associated with development.
The ROADSIDE COQ is composed of tall fescue, pokeweed,
nightshade, Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet vine, poison ivy, and plantain.
The RIVERBANK Community includes a mixture of lawns and wooded areas.
Species composition in the wooded sections (lack of stratification) includes tulip tree,
sycamore, beech, scarlet oak, black locust, red maple, white ash, cottonwood, flowering
dogwood, black willow, princess tree, privet, tag alder, rhododendron, kudzu, poison ivy,
Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet vine, Virginia creeper, grape, and violet.
Species composition in the lawn sections of the riverbank community includes tall
fescue, pokeweed, nightshade, rose, Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet vine, poison ivy,
violet, and shepherd's-purse.
Construction of the subject project will result in loss of existing roadside habitat
along SR 1190 and riverbank habitat along Rocky Broad River. The riverbank community
has been fragmented by residential and commercial development which left large openings
in the existing vegetation. Construction at any of the alternate locations will result in the
loss of riverbank vegetation which is an important filter and erosion control device for the
river bank.
r
TART.F. X APPROXIMATE D"ACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES (Acres)
ALTERNATE ROADSIDE RIVERBANK TOTALS
1 0.10 0.50 0.60
2 0.05 0.25 0.30
3 0.05 0.25 0.30
4 0.05 0.25 0.30
Note: Values shown are based upon 80 feet of right-of-way. Actual impacts may be less.
The following inventory of fauna, likely to occur in the study area, is merely a
sample of vertebrates that are known to exist in Rutherford County.
Amphibian species likely to be found in the area include marbled salamander, two-
lined salamander, slimy salamander, red salamander, American toad, Fowler's toad,
northern cricket frog, spring peeper, upland chorus frog, bullfrog, and pickerel frog.
Characteristic reptiles likely to occur in the area include snapping turtle, painted
turtle, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five-lined skink, broadhead skink, worm
snake, ringneck snake, rat snake, eastern hognose snake, northern water snake, rough green
snake, queen snake, eastern garter snake, and copperhead.
Birds common in the vicinity of the project include wood duck, turkey vulture, red-
tailed hawk, belted kingfisher, chimney swift, ruby-throated hummingbird, red-bellied
woodpecker, downy woodpecker, eastern phoebe, barn swallow, blue jay, Carolina
chickadee, Carolina wren, ruby-crowned kinglet, American robin, red-eyed verio, summer
tanager, northern cardinal, house sparrow, and house finch.
Mammals such as Virginia opossum, southeastern shrew, silver-haired bat, big
brown bat, woodchuck, eastern cottontail, eastern chipmunk, gray squirrel, eastern harvest
mouse, white footed mouse, hispid cotton mouse, meadow vole, Norway rat, red fox,
raccoon, striped skunk, and white-tailed deer are likely common inhabitants of the area.
Rocky Broad River is the only aquatic community found in the study area. It is a
mountain river which flows from west to east through the project area into Lake Lure.
This community supports populations of invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles.
Fish likely to occur in the Rocky Broad River include rainbow trout, central
stoneroller, rosyside dace, bluehead chub, greenhead shiner, creek chub, white sucker,
redbreast sunfish, largemouth bass, and fantail darter.
Destruction of terrestrial communities along the project corridor will result in the
loss of foraging and breeding habitats for many of the terrestrial fauna which utilize this
area. Loss of these habitats will result in a reduction and displacement of species found in
the subject project study zone.
The proposed action could have substantial affects on the aquatic environment
found in the project boundaries. Strict enforcement of Sedimentation Control Measures
and Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be observed. Sedimentation of Rocky
Broad River can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are important parts
of the aquatic food chain. Fish populations can also be harmed by sedimentation.
C. Water Resources
Two aspects of water resources are addressed in this document. The first describes
the physical aspects of the resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
second discusses water quality and special use resource categories.
Rocky Broad River is the only water resource located in the subject project area
and is part of the Broad River Basin. Channel width in the study area averages
approximately 30 feet and depth ranges from 1 to 3 feet. This fim flows west to east
through the project study area into Lake Lure. Bolders, cobbles, gravel and sand make-up
the substrate of the river channel. A narrow floodplain borders Rocky Broad River along
the project. River banks at the project study site are moderately sloped.
Rocky Broad River has a best usage classification of C Tr. Class C waters are
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. "Tr" waters are those waters suitable for natural trout propagation and
maintenance of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(OR W) or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 will be impacted by the proposed project,
nor are these resources located within 1 mile of the subject
area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term
trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality.
Good water quality is associated with high taxa richness (the number of different types of
organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation
gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite
different from that in an unstressed stream. BMAN information is not available for the
immediate project area. Cove Creek, downstream of the study site, near Lake Lure
received a Good bioclassification in 1989.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists four upstream
dischargers for the Rocky Broad River study area including: Doran Textile, Inc., Roger
Dixon residence and Hugh Monteith residence in Hickory Creek, and Ramseur Laundry in
Little Creek.
Potential impacts to Rocky Broad River include increased sedimentation from
construction-related erosion. This impact is viewed as temporary; however, poorly
managed application of sedimentation control policies can result in serious damage to the
aquatic environment. Sedimentation and erosion control measures will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project.
D. Soils
Soils information is not available for Rutherford County at this time. Rutherford
County soil survey is currently underway. Scott Keinan (soil scientist for Rutherford
County) stated that soils in the project area are likely well disturbed by development or soils
created from landslides.
E. Surface Waters and Permits
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344).
Anticipated impacts are categorized as bank-to-bank waters of the United States
and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and are likely
to be authorized by provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23 (Nationwide permit # 23). This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed,
in whole or in part, by another federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and the office of the chief
of engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination. However, due to the presence
of Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters, associated with this project, (Rutherford
County is one of 25 trout counties) the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
must review the action prior to issuance of a Nationwide permit # 23 by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
A section 401 General Water Quality Certification must also be issued by DEHNR
prior to issuance of a Nationwide permit # 23.
F. Federally-Protected Species
Federal law states that any action, which has the potential to result in a negative
impact to federally- protected plants or animals, is subject to review by the USFWS
(and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service), under one or more provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The USFWS and other wildlife
resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction over protected species in accordance with the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1979. Certain plants and animals, which are
endemic to North Carolina and/or whose populations are in severe decline, are also
protected by North Carolina laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species
for Rutherford County as of 17 November 1994.
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR RUTHERFORD COUNTY
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
M offs sodalis * Indiana bat E
Falco ere ' us Peregrine falcon E
S' chium dichotomum white irisette E
He lis naniflora dwarf-flowered heardeaf T
G oderme lineare Rock gnome lichen PE
Indicates that no specimen has been reported in at least 20 years from Rutherford
County.
Iftotis sodalis (Indiana bat) E
otis sodalis range is centered around cavernous limestone regions in the eastern
United States. They range from the western edge of the Ozark Mountains in Oklahoma
north to southern Wisconsin, east to Vermont, and south down the Appalachian Mountains
to northern Alabama.
The Indiana bat has different summer and winter habitat requirements. Winter
habitat consists of caves and abandoned mines that usually have standing water on the
floor, called hibernacula. They go into their hibernacula in September or November and
stay there with occasional periods of activity until they emerge in mid-March and early
May. Hibernation only occurs in regions where winter temperatures are stable and range
from 4-8 degrees Celcius. Little is known of the Summer habitat of the Indiana bat, it is
thought that they disperse throughout their range and spend the summer foraging alone
over streams or along forest margins. Females spend the summer in maternity colonies that
contain from 50 to 100 individuals. They have been found under loose bark on dead and
living trees along small to medium-sized streams.
Optimum foraging is over streams with mature riparian vegetation overhanging the
water by more than 3 meters. Streams that have been stripped of their riparian vegetation
do not appear to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers as foraging areas and as migration
routes are extremely important to this species.
Since the project area has been altered by development, foraging and breeding
habitat for this species does not exist in the study project area. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact the Indiana bat.
Falco peregrines (Peregrine falcon) E
The American peregrine falcon is a subspecies of this bird, that is an intermediate
form that is tannish in color. The Arctic subspecies is the one most often seen in eastern
North Carolina. It is nearly white underneath with a gray back Peregrines require open
areas to forage. While it is possible that peregrines could forage in the project vicinity, the
proposed project will not impact suitable nesting sites for this species, nor will it impact this
bird's food resources. It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this
federally endangered species.
Sisyrichium dichotomum (white irisette) E
The white irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North Carolina. It is limited
to an area bounded by White Oak Mountain, Sugar Loaf Mountain, and Chimney Rock.
This plant is found in sunny clearings and along the edges of upland woods where a
thin canopy is present. These open areas often are where runoff has removed the deep
litter layer that is usually present. It occurs on rich, basic soils that are probably weathered
from amphibolite. It is dependent on a form of disturbance to maintain the open quality of
its habitat.
No habitat for white irisette exists in the project study area. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact Sisynchium dichotomum.
10
Hexas hs naniflora (dwarf-f lowered heardeaf) T
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight northern piedmont counties in
North Carolina and the adjacent portions of South Carolina.
Dwarf-f lowered heardeaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent
slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along the 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 southeastern
mixed forest.
No habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists in the project study area. It can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact Hexastylis naniflora.
Gymnoderme lineare (Rock gnome lichen) PE
The rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The
lichen can be identified by its fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in
color, and are found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome
lichen occurs from July through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity.
These high humidity environments occur on high elevation (>1220 m/ 4000 ft)
mountaintops and cliff faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (< 762
m/ 2500 ft) 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 is almost always found growing with the moss
Andreaea in the vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of extinction to the rock
gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests.
The coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome
lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe,
Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Transylvania, and Yancey. The
lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson,
Rutherford and Transylvania.
No habitat for the rock gnome lichen exists in the project area. The low elevation
requirements are met; however, the study area is not in a gorge. No impact to the rock
gnome lichen will occur from construction of the subject project.
No impacts to federally protected species will occur. Although suitable habitat
exists in the study area for several federal candidate species, no surveys were conducted for
these species.
G. Floodplain Issues
Rutherford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
Construction of Alternate 4 will not increase the 100 year flood elevation by more than 30
centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the 100-year flood boundaries. Construction of
Alternate 4 will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
H. Noise and Air
The project is in the Eastern Mountain Air Quality Control Region. The ambient
air quality for Rutherford County is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
11
Standards. This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not
contain any transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate
that it will create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air
Act amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no
additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, each will
have no significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
I. Cultural Resources
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-
owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
_ The 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.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect were
provided by DOT and reviewed by FHWA with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). From that information it was determined that only one property, the Dogwood
Inn, appears to be potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Since the recommended alternate replaces the existing bridge on new location and the
Dogwood Inn will not be disturbed during construcion of the new bridge nor during the
possible removal of the existing bridge, NCDOT believes there will be no effect on the
Dogwood Inn if the property is National Register-eligible. SHPO concurs with this finding
(see concurrence letter in the Appendix).
NCDOT and the SHPO know of no archaeological resources within the project area.
The SHPO comments it is unlikely the project will affect any archaeological resources on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO recommends no
investigation for archaeological resources (see 4 March 1992 letter in Appendix).
X. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will
cause no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a
Categorical Exclusion.
12
FIGURES
r
q? US 64
HIMNEY ROCK •020'
BRIDGE NO. 3137
yste '30
INDEFINITE CORP. LIMIT
1300
i'
41301 1302 1303
51117 •OS i ? '•
r
?? 6 1304 ?:
, ?'• :?
1190
RIVE
t:. R
PROJECT
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 313
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
B-2624
0 mile 1/4 FIG. I

, -. -1
N - - I `
x` r.
a r
, ` y P a.
I r I
1"?• 7". ,
9 fA Iir
i i,,'F f ,?: - ? t £££ 7 h
? ?'
sa.
u
d M f ?'
3
.1 .1A
r} ,
i i? ;
3 r x
I4 R
t,?Y Y ??4
L 1 r Ott ' w# A ""s?
?th? t S§s, hF?_
. < -•r L 5
# i k
.,, (f)
k?" , , 1, " ? - -, . ., ? I .
It g
k- I p 'N. , 4 L t 'e - F fl ?.
I 4 .: . , - - - , il", ?
it ,.?? ? .0?, -1-1. - .7 --
A ! pF
i ? , , ;; I I - w
ea
-- 3 6.-. a i .• r
=t'
- l , ? ko"
? ,I --?. . ? . ? ?, I - . , ., , , -- ? :o.?', moz
r s 40 "I ?
- ? .,/ eke ' ?
1 ) f 1r a
?
, 1-1
1 . . - I -r- -? -4 -1 IN- , -
[ a s ' `* , R5rr ' - t'k.`.i t Ri- ?w rA ', 1.. •N?. AyI 0 ,
"'' D`? S+" 'i s :C>t *i" ' { µ }t ?'. I I . F
r- t ..: iN ;m..e? t .,r_. / r. ?a if .. -
t Ek y? get j) R S -1 I -< ;y ?.
k
Ne
. ' f& x a_ xg 1? C s E ,l
rr ' I r "? r ,,, ' r X.6 , J
r N.: I ',: t"" i:.44 't - Y• ?, ,: , .3 1 yUX }. -
lt., C f F t L i ?'?
11
+ i ' ff1
I I
,7 r t ? ''F ,4`.
, : I E , ." , 1 `?,? , 4
f ', •!. t
.
! if ., ,, A . - ,, - * 1. -
r i [ -
1 r'. r - - 'A F ,,, ;-
1
?) v?' li" (¢
- _ , - 6.. .
"Y« °•
. a - a
. .. ij -' - 5 '?'. >r
y
'fi,..
?.
7
v " i
11 I
k
¢pg
?.
-- ? ` 7 ' m
[_
B _f , < g. 7fi'" * ,1T ` m 4t_ T?4'a•..sfSF . ` ? ,'•. t '
C ) 3 l es•-. x:i
#: .r .`.. (? ?. . , , i ?
4 ?.? cIRS?, :. t 4 rv[? fir;,.
-1
r I 4. - y .
`?I
r ?? °t=-: r; ,;
{
?i ' -
¦ a r r_r_w _ xE
- - I 11 -.??11- ,-- , - I ?, - N, -', ? - ?
I 4 r s 7 'Z1
' ? PC k > ?,4
,. - of "'a 1 '.? `` ` +st. sp, g ; i e:
I p
? f ? ?' y `
11 " i l t+ f b w ?--t x
. Y ref u, 4,:
'rH , b 1 ' f ? F;1
}<.
7 t S.:F f h X tq- ? ',
Rt B f 1 } r .
?a 7 - .
515 1, i: ?:` ,?, i , ., , ? I I . 1. -1 F79411AW, ; ? 11 ? ,
1 n a I
r E ? i ' r '' ! _ ! '? .•y
iry: - w ::.
'1 ?. r 'F fy:. +
1, P i V,, . ? f D ' c ' ?:
e
.% ? i , 0 .? , ,
S
I .7 L.?k. ' k, 1 J 'y f rl
a; A to k d .
. I. ., I " ., - ., ". I ,?W ? p I . . Ja,
s p s is „t t
' I fix; i r bJ." f ! ,
"i [
,r '. `? 1
. { I
M
?- I 1. I.- V,W? ., , , . 't^ i l'n
s
} k>
4
' .
, , , , I ; ?, . - " ? ?v ?
? f .. .?? 4?. ;. , I ? ?
k
1 C b ;
11
; t}n { x : '.. 7
6
), i t F M 1. q `t f j ?
E i '}
,+ , t a i -. ?'r ? r A)y, itF'.- L ? •, t I'." .
a r. :?
TI L; §= {
[ti; v n-r ? . '. ,?.. - ;v??. . , '?: ? '
?,
!f ,r
d , i _I i`R
R.
1 - of -0 3' rpla y i d' ?Z, y,
r,
i '
. , F-,_ fig::.
?. i i. .-
t?.
'k? " ,?;;,-? .? a -.1 ... " 11 i'? !? -?,', ? , . , *'? ,'.'.,,:,.L " n??L`:I, ", , 4.? , I
4; i? . a .
! f J, t 4 t
7Y { A5t ? 7"'. 1 , ; * . - ?
d
i?y 4 I
fS 4 W', t FJ ?? } -: 'erg
?[ s r
?*' ? , " ? 4. 1 - v -? "I
... +' ?t
_ ", ' t ,
%?/o/ , .! w I I F I ?Yr i nc L)
f i?-,?x , i,, i ,F. . Y
:: I
'?K 1.11 ,
3
11 ;'? r # t y
..r
". ? -.?s ? I I I ? 'A . 'A ? I 'V. ? L
Z' ?
I
:?? ? ? -i ? .
+ >n"I , 'v
/` , -
1 A', 14 ? . "'A I I
*Y y
r
it. !
s{
; 71 xi. ,?, , f
{r! a, 2
0 ' '
T. t fI , ,I I ' F"'
?• r.-s.I .k,
10 Y'1 4 I* I
SIDE VIEW
BRIDGE NO. 313
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
B-2324
SOUTH APPROACH
NORTH APPROACH
FIGURE 3
100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN
Spp ? /
600,
r
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX

,.moo
1 .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr., Director
July 6,.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. 313 on SR 1190 over
Rocky Broad River; Chimney Rock, Rutherford
County, B-2624, 8.2890301, BRZ-1190(1),
ER 94-9024
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1994, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the historical and architectural evaluation of the Dogwood Inn
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Based upon the
documentation provided, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHwA) determination that the Dogwood Inn is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A in the area of tourism.
Also, we have reviewed the preliminary documentation provided to us to
determine the project's effect upon the Dogwood Inn. Given that the bridge and
roadway will be relocated to one of the empty lot sites east of the existing bridge
and the historic property will not be disturbed during construction of the new
bridge or possible removal of the existing bridge, we concur with FHwA's
determination that the project will have no effect upon the Dogwood Inn:
So we may keep our files updated, please notify us if the existing bridge will be
accepted by either the owners of the Dogwood Inn or the town of Chimney Rock
and remain in place.
The above comments are made pursuant to---Serction 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 acrd-the Advisory Council on Historic Rfc?servaiiu?,'S -
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
°;::;?icholas L. Graf
July 6, 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.
Sincer y, -
v
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: , H. F. Vick
L, ?dhurch

r

?d yaoq
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 4, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator CNAR6 Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge No. 313 on SR 1190 over Rocky Broad River, Rutherford County, B-2624, BRZ-1190(1), GS 92-0060 Dear Mr. Graf:
On February 5, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on
historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with
our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at
the meeting, we would like to offer our preliminary comment4 regarding this
project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no National
Register-listed or state study list properties located within the area of
potential effect. We feel that the buildings identified as Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, and 8 are not eligible for listing in the National Register since they are not
distinctive representatives of their types. As for building No. 1, we need
additional information, i.e., interior photographs and historical background
since this property initially appears to be potentially eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Please note that if either of the empty lot sites (east of existing bridge) are
chosen for the new location of the bridge and the roadway, then we would
need photographs of the structures 50 years of age within that area of
potential effect.
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,
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
March 4, 1992, Page 2
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward° to receipt of the additional
information and either a Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment
which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: J. Ward
B. Church
{
r

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: January 24, 1992
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacing Bridge No. 313 on SR
1190 over Rocky Broad River, Rutherford County, B-2624.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments of scoping sheets for replacing Bridge No.
313 on SR 1190 over Rocky Broad River in Rutherford County.
Staff field biologists of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) conducted a site visit on January 24, 1992.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act (G;S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The Rocky Broad River in this area has a width of
approximately 50 feet and substrate of large boulder, cobble,
gravel, and sand. The river provides high quality habitat for
rainbow trout, and fishing pressure in this area has been
described as heavy. This section of the river is Hatchery
Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters except where
posted against trespass. Narrow riparian areas are vegetated
with mixed hardwoods and grass. These areas serve as a travel
corridor for wildlife and provide shade to the river. In
addition, this vegetation stabilizes the banks and minimizes
- sedimentation into the river.
Due to the size of the existing bridge (176 feet long, 11
feet wide), we assume that the bridge will be replaced with
another bridge. We have the following general comments:
1) Disturbance to riparian vegetation-should be kept to a
minimum during bridge replacement. Native trees, shrubs,
and grasses should be planted in disturbed areas to replace
those removed by construction.
2) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact water entering or flowing in Rocky Broad River.
This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated
with bridge construction.
3) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
4) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist