19970190 Ver 1_Complete File_19970303

' r - s
SWE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 28, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
MAR Q 3 1997,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIEWW
n? A tit(+H
Subject: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 175 over the Second
Broad River on SR 1150, Federal Project No. BRZ-1150(5), State Project
No. 8.2870401, T.I.P. No. B-2586.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 175 will be replaced approximately 12 meters (40 feet) upstream
(west) of the existing location with a bottomless culvert approximately 17 meters (56 feet)
long and 10.2 meters (34 feet) wide. SR 1150 will be closed during construction and
traffic will be maintained on existing area roads. Construction of the proposed project will
not impact jurisdictional wetland communities.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 7 b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but p ose top oceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix (B-23). T e provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations ill be fo owed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 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 Water Quality,
for their review.
ea
~ Iti.. ? N
2
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
fIFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
---.,Mr. Kelly Barger_ P. E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Charles Cox, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2586
State Project No. 8.2870401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1150(5)
A. Project Description: (include project scope and location)
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 175 over the Second Broad River
on SR 1150 in McDowell County. The existing one-lane truss bridge will
be replaced with a bottomless culvert approximately 12.2 m (40 ft)
upstream (west) of the existing location. The general location of project
is shown in Figure 1, the proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2,
and photos of the existing conditions are shown in Figure 3.
The proposed bottomless culvert is approximately 17 m (56 ft) long. It is
a single 11.0 m x 2.4 m (36 ft x 8 ft) reinforced concrete structure. The
culvert will have a clear roadway width of 10.2 m (34 ft) with two 3.0 m
10 ft) wide lanes and 2.1 m (7 ft) on each side. SR 1150 will be closed
during construction, and traffic will be maintained on existing area roads
(see Figure 1 for detour route.)
B. Purpose and Need:
The existing bridge dates back to before 1920. The bridge maintenance
records give the bridge a sufficiency rating of 21.6 out of a possible
100.0, with an estimated remaining life of less than five years. The deck
is only 3.4 m (11.1 ft) wide. The existing bridge is posted 9.1 metric tons
(10 tons) for single vehicles and 11.8 metric tons (13 tons) for truck-
tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons, Bridge # 175 needs to be
replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
3-
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
2 Dare:, 1 /9'3
Revised: 1/94
2.
C. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn,
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including
the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
A
3.
4.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j.? Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad
crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
V
s
e,
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
3 Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use
of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant
adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located
on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements ) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected
bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is
no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a
limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit
the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process
has been completed.
D. SMcial Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Construction is likely to be authorized by provision of General
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will also be required for the project.
4
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
3. Second Broad River is not a designated trout water; however,
since McDowell County is a designated "trout county", the project
will be coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC). The WRC has stated that they are unaware of any other
special concerns for this area (see WRC memo in Appendix A,
page A-1.)
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 250,000
Right of Way $ 45,000
Total $ 295,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 200 VPD
Year 2016 - 400 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
6-meter (20-foot) wide travelway plus 1.2-meter (4-foot) grassed
shoulders. Note: shoulders will be 0.9 meter (3 feet) wider if
guardrail is needed.
Design Speed:
96.8 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Local Rural Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 13 Engineer concurs with the proposed
improvements and with the temporary closure of the roadway
during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
11
1*
w
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists gWy of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be completed.
5
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(Refer to the attached natural resources technical report in
Appendix B)
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource.
17 -1
F X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(Based on the March, 1995 USFWS list) X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated? N.A.
(The project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands.)
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? F-1 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? F-1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters ?
(HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? FX1
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F] X
6
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a LAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? (See Figure 4)
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
Cx
?x
?x
?x
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? F-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or ?
business? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? 11 X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or
land use of any adjacent property? 1-1 X

r
w

(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? F-1 X
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
1990)? X
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic -
volumes? F-1 X
' (23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1-1 X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(See SHPO memos in Appendix A, pages A-2 through D X
A-5)
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)? 1-1 X
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F-1 X
8 Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)
The project lies within a designated "trout county" and will be
coordinated with "C. "C has stated that trout do not inhabit the
river in the vicinity of project and that they are unaware of any other
special concerns for this area (see memo in Appendix A, page A-1.)
9 Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2586
State Project No. 8.2870401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-11500
Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 175 over the Second Broad River
on SR 1150 in McDowell County. The existing one-lane truss bridge will
be replaced with a bottomless culvert approximately 12.2 m (40 ft)
upstream (west) of the existing location.
The proposed bottomless culvert is approximately 17 m (56 ft) long. It is
a single 11.0 m x 2.4 m (36 ft x 8 ft) reinforced concrete structure. The
culvert will have a clear roadway width of 10.2 m (34 ft) with two 3.0 m
(10 ft) wide lanes and 2.1 m (7 ft) shoulders on each side.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
I-r9-9? ???. y
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
,? ..oeI P
Date kqp& Planning Unit Head %,?'
i C,' i ?` .~i.
nryn e M
r 19 I328
r a°
e ect Planning Engine G IN
E`o •`?©.°
zles ?"
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date Divisio Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
TIP ID NO. B-2586
FIGURES

,?„ ...?,
x 1?
Wood wn 1 ?
McD ELL
0
1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRON ENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1150 OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
BRIDGE NO. 175
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2586
0 mile 1/2 FIG. 1
? ? ` fleaaant Garden 2
`• ?Q?SGpN 70
g 6
• 1 oft
`• 6't 3
`. ` ?Ridgeaest
? Sugar Mill '
w
?+1 h
.00 OI .16 '
17N ??
ZS
S ??
0 STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
PHOTOS OF EXISTING
CONDITIONS
TIP PROJECT NO. B-2586
SOUTH APPROACH
NORTH APPROACH
WEST SIDE
FIGURE 3
179
?r
_ g. ZONE X
vell County Goose
e?
)orated Areas 0 1789
370148 ZONE A o
a
z
1785 ZONE A 0
0
• ZONE X
Y 1788
1147 O 8?a
cr
• 211 2
1
17se J ? as
cot O N
1149
creek BRIDGE NO. 175 ' 1150 1787 ZONE X
'o n %
u pl
147
ZONE A
?k
1148
%
1147
a h It
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS J
c? e? 1
196
J o,
ZONE A C0
z
ZONE X
ZO.'V E A ?' "u
• III > ?_. BR09n
lp?
4Q
11 ?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 175, SR 1150
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
100 - YEAR FLOODPLAIN
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. B - 2586
FIG. 4

TIP ID NO. B-2586
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE FROM
FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
1!? 2 21993

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources CommissC4*6n" ?''"
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, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 20, 1993
SUBJECT: NCDOT Scoping Meeting for Bridge #175 on SR 1150 over
Second Broad River, McDowell County, TIP #B-2586.
Due to temporary staffing shortages, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be unable to send a
representative to the scoping meeting for this project. No
special concerns have been identified by NCWRC biological staff
regarding this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator

A-1
M SWLq CS.r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor DivisiBetty Ray McCain, Secretary WiDecember 21, 1993

Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 175 on SR 1150 over Second
Broad River, McDowell County, B-2586,
ER 94-7440
Dear Mr. Graf:
On December 17, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for
our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of the following historic
structure in the area of potential effect:
Bridge No. 175 on SR 1 150 over Second Broad River.
Bridge No. 70 is the last Pratt Pony Truss in McDowell County. From the
photographs presented at the meeting, we believe the bridge retains its integrity
and appears potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places under Criteria A and C for transportation and engineering, respectively.
Please note removal of the bridge would constitute an adverse effect upon the
structure and measures to avoid or minimize the adverse, effect will be necessary.
This project is also subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge.of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
A-2
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
December 21, 1993, Page 2
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of 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: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett'`
A-3

r M
i/
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 30, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Metal Truss Bridge Evaluations, ER 96-7884
Davidson #257, B-2540
Henderson #61, B-2575
McDowell #175, B-2586
McDowell #70, B-2587
Polk #47, B-2604
Polk #105, B-2605
Polk #44, B-2606
Polk #17, B-3018
Polk #19, B-3019
Rutherford #273, B-3041
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1995, transmitting the metal truss bridge
evaluations for the above projects.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Davidson #257. Bridge #257 is eligible under Criterion A for its association
with the development of the Carolina Aluminum Company power plant at
High Rock Lake, and under Criterion C because it was manufactured by the
prolific Virginia Bridge and Iron Company and is one of only two Pratt
through truss bridges left in Davidson and the surrounding counties.
Henderson #61. Bridge #61, a Pratt through truss bridge, is eligible under
Criterion A for its association with the expansion of the Tuxedo Hydroelectric
Plant under Duke Power's ownership.
Polk #47. Polk #47 is eligible under Criterion C because it is one of only five
Parker truss bridges remaining on the state system.
Polk #105. Polk #105 is eligible under Criterion C because it is one of only
five Parker truss bridges remaining on the state system.
A-4
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
11/30/95, Page 2
Rutherford #273. Rutherford #273 is eligible under Criterion C because it
was manufactured by the prolific Champion Bridge Company and is one of
only five Camelback truss bridges remaining on the state system.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
McDowell #175. McDowell #175 is an example of the relatively common
13-2?? Pratt pony truss bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
McDowell #70 and Polk #44. These bridges are examples of the relatively
common Pratt through truss bridge, and lack special historical significance.
Polk #17 and Polk #19. These bridges are examples of the relatively
common, though locally rare, Warren pony truss bridge and lack special
historical significance.
In general, the evaluations meet our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary
of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
/??
v David Brook r
X/ f
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
Church
R-5
TIP ID NO. B-2586
APPENDIX B
NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 175
on SR 1150
over Second Broad River
McDowell County
TIP # B-2586
State Project No. 8.2870401
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1150(5)
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2586
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
RUBY PHARR, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
NOVEMBER 18, 1994
_.B-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
0
1 INT RODUCTION ................................................................... ......................
. 1
1
1 Project Description ............................................................ ......................
. .. 1
2
1 Purpose ............................................................................. ....................
. 1
3
1 Study Area ................ ............................ :............................ ......................
. 1
4
1 Methodology .................................................................... ......................
. 2
1.5 Physiography and Soils ......................................................
_ ......................
2
0
2 WA TER RESOURCES ............................................................ ......................
. 3
1
2 Waters Impacted ................................................................ ......................
. 2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ............................................ ...................... 3
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification ....................................... ...................... 3
3
1.3 Water uali........
2 ......................
. 4
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources .............................. ......................
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................................................................... 4
.............................................................
3.1 Terrestrial Communities • • . . . . . 4
3. 1.1 Man-Dominated Community ........................................................ 4
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ...................................... 5
3.2 Aquatic Community ................................................................................ 6
3.3 Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities ........................................ 6
.... 7
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community .............................................................
3.3.2 Aquatic Community 7
.........................................................................
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS 8
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues .................................... 8
4.1.1 Permits ......................................................................................... 8
4.1.2 Mitigation .........................I...........................................................9
4.2 Rare or Protected Species ........................................................................ 9
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ......................................................... 9
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species ........................... 11
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 14
B-2
1_0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed replacement of bridge # 175 on SR 1150 over the Second
Broad River in McDowell County. Included are inventories of natural resources
occurring within the project area and identification of environmental concerns which
must be addressed in the planning stages of the project.
1.1 Project Description
Two alternatives are proposed for this project. Each alternative proposes
replacement of the existing 18.6 m (62 ft) long 3.3 m (11 ft) wide steel truss bridge with a
18.9 m (63 ft) long 7.2 m (24 ft) wide structure. A triple barrel 3.6 m (12 ft) by 2.7 m (9
ft) reinforced concrete box culvert is proposed. Proposed right-of-way (ROW) for both
alternatives is 12 m (40 ft). Project length is 137 m (450 ft).
Alternate 1 - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced at its existing
location. The road will be closed during construction. Traffic will use an alternate route.
Alternate 2 - Bridge No. 175 will be replaced approximately 7.5 m (25 ft) west of
the existing bridge with realignment of approaches. Traffic will be maintained on an
alternate route during construction. The road will be closed.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to inventory, catalog, and describe the natural
resources identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these
resources. Recommendations for measures which will minimise resource impacts are
included.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project site lies in McDowell County approximately 3.2 km (2 mi)
south of Glenwood. (Figure 1) This site is in a rural hilly setting. The immediate
landscape surrounding the project site has been altered by man, including fields, lawns,
and roadways. Industry Agriculture, and Recreation are primary land uses in the county.
1.4 Methodology
Preliminary resource information was gathered and reviewed prior to the site visit.
Information sources included: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
B-3

w _Pleasant Garden 2 1?1 s 70
to
? GPN C A arlm a
• ?Pts a 70, 6 r
• ad at
` • r •1 3 1 lenwood
• d beaest 'i
`Jw Sugar Hill 8 Dysartsl
? 1221
40
1714
17r •.
.0. .fW .02
.16
17 171! •?
0 .23
o ..
7s1 30 '

i
r
B-4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
/IN TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Y7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 175, SR 1150
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2586
FIG. 1
2
(Glenwood), Soil Conservation (SCS) soils map of this section of McDowell County,
NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:1200), North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) water-quality classifications for the Broad River
Basin, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and
unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment on October 10, 1994.
Plant communities were identified and recorded. Wildlife was surveyed using a number
of observation techniques: active searching, visual observations (binoculars), and
recording the identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, scats, tracks, and burrows). Cursory
surveys of aquatic communities were conducted.
1.5 Physiography and Soils
Most of McDowell County is in the east-central part of the mountain
Physiographic Province. The southeastern part of the county lies in the foothill area of
the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The B-2586 project site is in this southeastern
area. The topography of the county is predominantly strongly sloping to very steep
uplands. Elevations in the county range from 294 in (980 ft) to 1699.5 m (5,665 ft). The
project site elevation ranges from 372 m (1240 ft) and 378 m (1260 ft).
The soil found in the vicinity of the proposed project is the Rosman loam. This
soil consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in stream sediments. This soil
occurs on floodplains along major streams and is occasionally flooded for very brief
periods. Slope is 0 to 3 percent. Rosman soil is a coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Fluventic
Haplumbrept. Rosman loam has moderately rapid permeability and surface runoff is
slow. Depth to bedrock is greater than 1.5 in (5 ft). The seasonal high water table is 1.2
in (4 ft) to 1.5 in (5 ft) below the surface.
Rosman loam is not a hydric soil but all areas of Rosman loam are listed as
important farmland. However, the occurrence of this soil at this site is a narrow
foodplain of limited use for farmland.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage Standards, and
water quality of the water resources to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable
impacts to these waters are also discussed.
IL-5

3
2.1 Waters Impacted
Second Broad River is in the Broad River Basin and arises approximately 11 km
(7 mi) northwest of the project crossing. The river flows generally west to east at the
project site before turning south to join the Broad River at river mile 10.7. The
confluence of the Second Broad River and the Broad River is located approximately 38.4
km (24 mi) south of bridge No. 175.
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Second Broad River is approximately 7.5 m (25 ft) wide, with depths ranging from
0.15 m (0.5 ft) to 0.45 m (1.5 ft) with few pools. The substrate is composed of sand,
gravel and boulders with occasional rocky shoals. Some sedimentation is present but the
water is generally clear.
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
From its source to Roberson Creek, Second Broad River has been assigned a Best
Usage Classification of Class WS-V by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Class WS-V designates waters protected
as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no
categorical restrictions on watershed development or treated waste-water discharges are
required, however, the Commission or its designee may apply appropriate management
requirements as deemed necessary for the protection of down-stream receiving waters.
Class WS-V waters are also suitable for all Class C uses. Class C designates waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. No waters designated as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I or WS-II occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area.
2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water quality
by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and
overall biomass are reflections of water quality. The only sampling recorded for Second
Broad River was taken near Chffside on SR-1973 in Rutherford County - over 32 km (20
mi) south of the project site. A rating of "Good-Fair" was given the river at that point in
July, 1989.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) report lists
no permitted discharge sources for this section of Second Broad River.
B-6
4
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources .
Potential impacts to the waters affected by the proposal project include decreases
of dissolved oxygen and changes in water temperature. This may occur due to removal of
streamside canopy. Other impacts to water resources in the project area could occur from
substrate disturbance, sedimentation and increased turbidity. Increased sedimentation
may clog gills and smother eggs of many aquatic organisms that are important in the food
chains of many other species. A fish kill could result from allowing wet concrete to come
in contact with river water. Best Management Guidelines should be enforced to prevent
degradation of this stream.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships between
dominant plant and animal species within the terrestrial and aquatic communities at this
site. Scientific nomenclature and common name (when applicable) are used for species
described. Subsequent references to the same species will use common name only.
Animal species which were observed directly and indirectly during the field survey
are denoted with an (*). Complete listings of the flora and fauna which may occur in the
study area can be found in one or more of the technical references listed in Section 5.0.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct biotic community types were identified in the project impact zone,
however, there is some degree of overlap between communities, particularly the faunal
components. Many terrestrial animals utilize a variety of habitats and may occur
throughout the area.
3. 1.1 Man-Dominated Community
I
This highly disturbed community includes maintained roadsides, and river banks,
a small field, and mowed lawns. Most of the plants in these areas have either been
planted by man or are "weedy" species adapted to disturbed areas.
The low-growing mowed roadside vegetation includes Fescue grasses (Festuca
spp), red clover Trifolium ratense), dandelion Taraxacum' officinale , plantains
PlantaQo spp), yarrow Achillea mille_ folium), and Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota).
The less intensely maintained road banks and river banks south of Second Broad
'River contain: stump sprouts of alluvial forest hardwoods, thistle Cirsium altssimum),
Joe-Pye Weed (Eupatorium fistulosum , wing stem Verbesina occidentalis), sensitive
B-7
5
briar Sc( hrankia microphvlla), ox=eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), Aster
(Aster spp), goldenrods Solids o spp.) black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), and
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera a onica .
The small field was partially used as a vegetable garden early in the growing
season, but has been allowed to grow up in tall weedy species, including: woolly mullein
(Verbascum thapsus), goldenrods, asters, sourgrass (Rumex acetosella), horseweed
Eri eron canadensis), evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), ground cherry Ph salis
vir ' 'ana broom straw (Andropogon scoparius), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis),
Johnson grass (Sorghum hale ense , crabgrass (Digitariaa sangninalis), and ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisii folia). A small area of slightly higher elevation which will be
crossed by Alternate 2 is dominated by second growth Virginia pines (Pinus virg_iniana)
and a sparse layer of early successional herbs.
Most of the area south of the river is occupied by the mowed lawns of two homes
that are located there. The river banks there have been raised by grading for the home
sites and are periodically cleared.
The Man-Dominated Community is made up of small fragmented areas that would
have limited habitat for resident species Also the presence of man in the area would also
limit animal usage of the area. However, some opportunistic animal species residing in
nearby areas would use these areas as foraging zones. Various species of reptiles, birds,
and mammals may venture into the garden or roadside environment to feed on seeds,
berries, roots, and insects. These species include: Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis)*, northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis), American robin Turdus
migratorius), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) and white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis). Snakes such as the black racer Columber constrictor) and
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sigt is) may venture into this habitat to feed on insects
and small mammals. Cottontail rabbit S lDa s floridanuis mallurus , Eastern Virginia
opossum Didel his vir ' ' na , striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor) frequently forage nocturnally in these habitats and travel along roadways. As a
result, they may become roadkills which may attract scavenger species including turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura and common crow (Corvus brachrhmhos)*, as well as
domestic dogs and cats.
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This palustrine community exists in narrow floodplain adjacent to the Second
Broad River on its south side. The dominant canopy trees are sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra) and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tali ifera .
Other canopy trees present include white ash (Fraxinus americana), and white oak
uercus &a). Subcanopy trees include hop hornbeam (C inus caroliniana
B:-"8
6
American holly (Ilex Maca), dogwood (Corpus florid a), serviceberry (Amelanchier
arborea), persimmon (Diospyros vir miana), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana),
hawthorne (Crataegus flabellata), and wild cherry (Prunus serotina). Shrubs include tag
alder (Alnus serralata), hazelnut (Corylus americana), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima) and dog hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana). Vines present include Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus vir ' 'ana , trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), greenbriars (Smilax
spp.) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). A sparse herb layer includes river cane
(Arundinaria ggantea), false solomon's seal (Smilacina. racemosa), arrow-leaf ginger
ri
(HexasbLhs arifolia), bedstraw G( alium tinctorium ,New York fern (Thelypte s
noveboracensis), grape fern (Bo chium sp.) and violet (Viola sp.).
This small corridor along the river would be utilized by most of the species already
listed. This small community is limited in its ability to support a unique faunal
community.
3.2 Aquatic Community
The vegetation along the river would provide a good supply of terrestrial detritus
to provide food chain energy. The dedritus is decomposed by bacteria or consumed by
macroinvertebrates such as aquatic insects. Aquatic invertebrates are a major component
of stream ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, and as prey species for fish,
frogs, birds, and mammals. Aquatic invertebrates, including crayfish (Cambaridae spp.)
and insects are present in Second Broad River.
Too small to support game fishing, Second Broad River contains the following
species: yellow-fin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), Fiery back shiner otro is pyrrhomelas),
blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), striped jumprock (Moxostoma ruiscartes),
highback chub H bo sis hypsinotus), seagreen darter (Etheostoma thalassimum), and
stoneroller (Compostoma anomalum).
Vertebrate species associated with the aquatic environment include: Queen snake
(Regina septenvittata) which feeds on crayfish; northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus) and two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata); green frog (Rana
clamitans) mainly feed on insects, snails and worms. Raccoons also utilize aquatic
organisms as food including crustaceans, fish and amphibians.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts, resulting from project construction are being addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, it is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the community in which it
B-9
7
occurs. All measures possible should be taken to ensure no sediment leaves the
construction site.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The natural communities that originally occurred in the project area have been
fragmented and reduced as a result of previous development. However, since Alternate l
plans to follow the same route as the existing bridge and roadway and maintain the same
12 m (40 ft) right-of-way that now exists, little additional disturbance or fragmentation
will occur permanently. Alternate 2 will require a larger area of disturbance because the
bridge and the roadway will be replaced along a new alignment. Vegetation will be
removed and more grading will be required increasing the risk of sedimentation reaching
the river. Mobile species will be displaced during the activity associated with
construction and may return but small burrowing animals may be destroyed. Reducing
shelter, nesting and foraging habitat will reduce animal species.
Impacts in hectares/acres, based on 12 m (40 ft) ROW are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Type* Hectare/Acre
Alternative # MD P/LMAF Total
Alternative 1 0.14/0.34 0.01/0.02 0.15/0.36
Alternative 2 0.17/0.41 10- 0.17/0.41
MD = Man Dominated Community
P/LMAF = Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
3.3.2 Aquatic Community
Anticipated impacts to the stream community are related to construction - related
habitat disturbance and sedimentation. Even though disturbance and sedimentation may
be temporary during construction, environmental impacts from these processes may be
long-lived or irreversible.
The aquatic environment is a major food source for terrestrial species, and a means
of predator avoidance for amphibians, and snakes in the area. Construction - related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates. Filter feeders may be
covered and smothered by substrate disturbance and sedimentation resulting from
E- *11 0
8
construction - related erosion. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates may
smother fish eggs, reduce oxygen - carrying capacity, and change water-temperatures.
Removal of shading vegetation could also affect water temperatures. Contact with wet
concrete would also affect water quality and aquatic organisms.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual." For an area to be
designated a "wetland," the following criteria three specifications must be met: 1)
presence of hydric soils, 2) presence of hydro phytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of
hydrology, or hydrological indicators, including: saturated soils, stained oxidized
rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and
surface roots.
No wetland communities were identified within the project ROW. Construction of
the proposed project will have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
4. 1.1 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General Nationwide permit
33 CFR 330.5 (A) - 23. McDowell County is one of 25 counties designated as having
trout waters. Projects in these counties must be reviewed and approved by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission prior to the issuance of the COE permit. Also,
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of the COE permits.
The N.C. Wildlife Commission states that trout do not occur at this project site and
that they are unaware of any other special concerns for this area.
6-11
9
4.1.2 Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with COE.
4.2 Rare or Protected Species
Federal law requries 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 and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, under the
provisiosn of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered
species receive additional protection under separate state statutes. In North Carolina
protectoin 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.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
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 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists three (3) federally protected species for
McDowell County as of November 17, 1994. These species are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species - McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Hedyotis purpurea var. montana
Hudsonia montana
COMMON NAME
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Roan Mountain bluet
Mountain golden heather
STATUS
E
E
T
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T"denotes threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
B-.1L
10
Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus
(Carolina northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 7/1/85
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, McDowell,
Mitchell, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along
either side of its body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and
at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern
flying squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with large dark
eyes. This squirrel is found above 1517 meters (5000 ft) in the vegetation transition zone
between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types are used to search for food
and the hardwood forest is used or nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel.
It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
a
Hedyotis p=urea var. montan
(Roan mountain bluet) E
Plant Family: Rubiaceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1990
Flowers Present: June through August or September
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, Yancey, McDowell
Roan Mountain bluet is a low perennial herb, 0.4 - 2.1 dm high. It usually grows
in loose tufts. A bluet with deep purple flowers borne in dense few-flowered cymes, it is
a compact plant with ovate leaves. Hedyotis p=urea var. montana has corollas 8 - 12
mm long, stems glabrous or nearly so, internodes 0.5 - 4 cm long, cauhne leaves to 3 cm
long and 1.3 cm wide. Basal oval to spatulate leaves form a rosette in winter, usually
withered at flowering time. The deep purple flowers are funnel-shaped, 8 - 12 mm long
with 4 lobes shorted than tube. Mature capsules are roundish, 2.0 - 4.0 mm long and 2.0
- 4.0 mm wide with many seeds. This plant occurs on mountaintops, exposed to full
sunlight, in the shallow acidic soils of high elevation cliffs, outcrops, steep slopes, and
gravelly talus associated with cliffs. Its ideal habitat appears to be a moss-sedge-grass
mantle that carpets a thin, moist to wettish, black humified fine sand over granite rock
outcrops, steep slopes, and bluff ledges. No critical habitat has been designated.
B-13
II
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this species. No impact to Roan
Mountain bluet will occur from proposed construction.
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) T
Plant Family: Cistacae
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 0.1-0.2 in (4-8 in) across and 0.2 in (6 in) high, it
sometimes occurs in clumps that are a 0.3 m (12 in) or more across. The leaves from the
previous year are retained and apper 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, lanceolate flowers that are nearly three centimeters across. These yellow
flowers have five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. Fruit capsules have three
projecting points at the tips, are roundish, and are found on 13 mm (0.5 in) stalks.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops. It can be found on
exposed quartzite ledges in an exotone between bare rock and heath balds dominated by
and myrtle (Leiophyllus sp.) which merge into pine forest. Plants do live in partially
shaded areas, but do not appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas. Critical
habitat has been designated in Burke County North Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study areas does not support suitable habitat for this species. No impact to
mountain golden heather will occur from proposed construction.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are nine (9) federal candidate (C2) species listed for McDowell County.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as "taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time." These species
are mentioned here for informational purposes, should they become protected in the
future. Table 3 lists these federal candidate species.
B-14
12
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species (and their State Status) listed for McDowell County
COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
(Scientific Name) Federal State
Eastern small-footed bat
M offs subulatus leibii) C2 SC No
' Eastern woodrat
Neotoma floridana ma ig ster) C2 SC No
• Cerulean warbler
(Dendroica cerulea) C2 SR Yes
Bog turtle
Clemm s muhlenbergii) C2 T No
Diana fritillary butterfly
S e eria diana) C2 SR No
Butternut
Ju lans cinerea) C2 W5 Yes
Gray's lily
ilium a ') C2 T-SC No
Oconee-bells
Shortia galacifolia) C2 E-SC No
Short-styled oconee-bells
Shortia galacifoli a var. C2 E-SC No
brevis la
Surveys for these species were not conducted during site visits, nor were any of
these species observed.
The North Carolina status of these species is also listed in Table 3. Plants or
animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
Other State designations given and their implications are:
E - SC (Endangered - Special Concern)
T - SC (Threatened - Special Concern)
These species may not be collected from the wild for any purpose without a
special permit. Only propagated material of these species may be traded or
sold under specific regulations.
B-15
13
SC (Special Concern)
Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which
may be collected from the wild and sold under specific regulations.
C Candidate
W5 (Watch Category 5 = rare because of severe decline) includes species which
have declined sharply in North Carolina, but which do not appear yet to
warrant site-specific monitoring.
SR - (Significantly Rare)
Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease).
B-16
14
5.0 REFERENCES
Borror, D.J., N.F. Johnson, C.A. Triplehorn. 1989. An Introduction to the study of
Insects. New York, Saunders College.
Cowardin, L.M. et. al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems
in North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vickburg, Miss.
Federal InjgMgency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. "Federal Manual for
Delineating and Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands." U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative
Technical Publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and Stephan P. Hall. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina." North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virgjnia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM, 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1923. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
Waters of the '" River Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources.
B-17
15
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina". Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh, North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986. "1986 Wetland Plant List for North Carolina". St. Petersburg,
Fla. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 1981. :Effects of
Highways on Wildlife". Rep
B-18
?a way
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANsPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
15 December 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Hunkins , Unit Head
Project Planning
0
FROM: Logan Williams Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report Update for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 175 on SR 1150 over
the Second Broad River in McDowell County, TIP No. B-
2586; State Project No. 8.2870401; Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1150(5).
ATTENTION: Charles Cox, P.E. Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report completed by
Ruby Pharr (November 18, 1994)
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report update addresses Best Usage
Classifications, Water Quality and Protected Species. Please contact me if you have any
questions or need this report copied onto disc format.
Best Usage Classification
The Second Broad River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of Class
WS-V from its source to Box Creek by the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR 1994). Class WS-V designates waters protected as water
supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters; no categorical
restrictions on watershed development or treated waste-water discharges are required,
however, the Commission or its designee may apply appropriate management requirements
as deemed necessary for the protection of down-stream receiving waters. Class WS-V
waters are also suitable for all Class C uses. Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic
life propagation, and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. No
waters designated as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW), WS-I or WS-II occur within 1.6 Ian (1 mi) of the, project area.
B-19
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the
DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. Current BMAN information was examined for
possible updating. There is no BMAN information available for the Second Broad River
in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Federally Protected Species
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
Federally Protected Species listed for McDowell County in the referenced document are
current as of the most current listing on March 28, 1995.
There have been two additional federal candidate (C2) species listed for McDowell
County since the referenced document. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection 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. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to
extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant or Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. The two additional C2 species are listed below.
• Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis
• Bennett's Mill cave water slater Caecidotea carolinensis
cc. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit
Hal C. Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2586
B-20
:•
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

b
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?N,C _ -puI„
FROMy y?
l/// / R/7EF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
6
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS 6R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
L?J
4L

'JP1 ,
o- D ?TJ0WN
OCT 2 21993. ?111 ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WATWETLANDS rY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Charles R. Cox, P. E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 175 on SR 150 Over the Second
Broad River, McDowell County, Federal Aid No.
BRZ-1150(5), State Project No. 8.2870401, TIP No. B-2586
A scoping meeting was held on October 14, 1993 in the Planning and
Environmental Conference Room. Those in attendance were:
Abdul Rahmani
Jerry Snead
Ray Moore
Danny Rogers
Kathy Lassiter
Roland Robinson, Jr.
David Foster
Wilson Stroud
Missy Dickens
Kitty Houston
Charles R. Cox
Hydraulics Unit
Hydraulics Unit
Structure Design Unit
Program Development Branch
Roadway Design Unit
Roadway Design Unit
DEHNR
Planning and Environmental Branch
Planning and Environmental Branch
Planning and Environmental Branch
Planning and Environmental Branch
After a brief review of the scope of the project, the meeting was opened
to discuss areas of concern.
The two alternatives discussed were: replacement of the existing bridge
in the same location; and realignment of the roadway/structure on new
location east of the existing bridge. Division of Environmental Management
(DEM), absent from the meeting,' had responded earlier with a desire to
replace the bridge on existing location. The NCDOT design groups felt that a
slight realignment of the roadway and structure would be a better choice.
Hydraulics commented that a box culvert (triple barrel) would be
adequate for this project; however, due to environmental concerns, a
bottomless culvert, as well as a replacement bridge, will be considered
during the planning process.
A
October 20, 1993
Page 2
SR 1150 is currently being paved as an 18-foot section. Roadway Design
stated that a 20-foot pavement width will be proposed for the segment of
SR 1150 to be improved under B-2586. A replacement bridge will require a
24-foot clear roadway width. The approach roadway will have 4-foot useable
shoulders; 3 feet of additional grading on each side will be required for
guardrail installation.
McDowell County is a trout county; however, this section of the Second
Broad River is not a trout stream. The waters are classified as WS-V. No
other major environmental concerns were known at this time.
SHPO was absent but also commented earlier. No archaeological sites
were identified; therefore, no archaeological survey is needed. No National
Register architectural/historic properties are located in the area. The one
concern is the bridge structure itself; this bridge is the last remaining
Pratt pony truss bridge in McDowell County. Its historical significance will
need to be evaluated.
The existing traffic is approximately 200 vehicles per day (VPD). The
projected traffic is 400 VPD in the year 2013. The Division Engineer wrote
that bridge closure during construction was not a problem for the local
traffic since a short detour route (less than 2 miles) was available.
CRC/wp

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE Q? p} 23
TO: E
- REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
n
FRO REEF... NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
/ oo
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS
?
F;CR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER l
/
FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

V
e??4
auw ?`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPxANSPORTATI
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager ?y L
Planning and Environmental Branch •
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacement of Bridge No. 175
on SR 1150 Over the Second Broad River, McDowell County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1150(5), State Project No.
8.2870401, TIP Project B-2586
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 14, 1993 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
process. If
please call
CRC/pl r w S IZ ?- q I ( 0,
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets,
Charles R. Cox, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
Attachment
cla-? ?
( - 4c 1 1--
- 4.? d ?
ill n , G? d ?G? - ? ) - -? (IIAllk-S 6)()<

-r
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
;r
• Pleasant Garden 2
i N
` ?P\St'P 8 10 r•
• `? I oft:...
• ` ? eid¢ecrest 7
Sugar Mill
1794
1•
.02
o9 v .16
L
u i9o
a '
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF.
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 175, SR 1150
McDOWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2586
1 0 mile 0.5 FIG. 1
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 09/08/93
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING XX
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2586
STATE 8.2870401
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1150(5)
DIVISION
COUNTY McDowell
ROUTE SR 1150
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Replacement of Bridge # 175 on SR 1150 over Second Broad
River
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO XX
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 (o)
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT ZOO VPD; DESIGN YEAR Oo VPD
TTST % DT %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 18.9 METERS; WIDTH 3.4 METERS
62.0 FEET 11.0 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
CULVERT - BY METERS
BY FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) .................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION,
UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITION) ........... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS ....................... $
TOTAL ................................ $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ..................... $ 600,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ..................... $ 90,000
SUBTOTAL $ 690,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................... $ 80,000
TIP TOTAL COST ....................... $ 770,000
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Functional Classification: Local Rural Route
PREPARED BY: Charles R. Cox, P.E.
DATE: September 8, 1993