20051544 Ver 1_Application_20050627

~Tydµ STA~4~
N ~sq
•Q~ ,,:~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
o~
~~~
JUN ~/J~$.
l7
~7La,~,o°~ ~U,.
s~ ~~~~°~~ry '
DEPARTIVIEEN"T OF TRANSPORTATION ~R~,~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 15, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Robin C. Young
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3872, McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 195 on SR 1552
over Lake James Creek, State Project 8.2872001, FA Project BRZ-1552 (8)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Roadway Design Unit Conference
Room in the Century Center on December 14, 2000. The following people were in attendance:
Jerome Nix
Neb Bullock
Wael Arafat
Greg Brew
Wayne Best
Raymond Goodman, III
Sonya Sykes
John Taylor
Ray McIntyre
Robin Young
Hydraulics
Structure Design
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way
Traffic Control
Location & Surveys
Program Development & TIP
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received:
Hydraulics recommended the existing bridge be replaced with a new 140-foot (42.7-
meter) long bridge by realigning SR 1552 to the east (downstream) by 90 feet (27.4 meters).
Construct the replacement bridge at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. To facilitate deck drainage, at least a 0.3% roadway gradient should be used on the new
bridge. If an on-site detour were considered, it would require a 100-foot (30-meter) bridge
located east (downstream) of the existing bridge. There is an underground telephone line in close
proximity to the roadway and is attached to the existing bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

State Historic Preservation Office, April Montgomery, commented there is no need for a
historical architectural survey. There is a known archaeological site (site 31 MC2) which may be
affected by the bridge replacement. SHPO recommends the site be relocated and, if it will be
affected, tested to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
Location & Surveys, John Taylor, commented there is an underground telephone line
along the .east side of SR 1552. There was no indication how this line crosses the stream (if it
does). It is recommended to place a new structure to the east to improve the roadway alignment,
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge.
Division 14 Construction Engineer, Max Phillips, recommends the following:
- the new bridge should be placed at a new location approximately 50 feet (15:2 meters) east
(downstream) of the existing bridge.
- Make the new bridge tangent similar to B-2587 which was completed in July 100 and is
located on SR 1552, west of subject project.
- Borrow will be required for bridge approaches.
- The existing bridge is in very bad shape and will probably require repairs before and during
construction of the new bridge.
- Duke Power pulls Lake James down in the winter. The contract should be let so that the
Contractor can construct the drilled piers on the interior bents while the lake level is down.
Lake backwater does not cover the bridge site if it is down 5 feet (1.5 meters) or more. This
would greatly reduce the amount of causeway required. Lake James Creek is very small and
could probably be piped under the causeway in a couple of 24-inch pipes, if this is permitted
by the regulatory agencies.
- Make sure a permit from the Federal. Energy Regulatory Commission is obtained if it is
necessary on this project. Construction of B-2587 was stopped 7 months and NCDOT had to
pay a claim of over $96,000 to the contractor for idle equipment while waiting for the permit.
At this time, unsuccessful attempts have been made to contact Duke Energy. I will continue to
leave messages and call their contact person, Bill Stroud at [phone].
PROJECT INFORMATION
Existing Bridge
Bridge No. 195, built in 1959 is 81 feet (24.6 meters) long with a clear deck width of 15.8
feet (4.8 meters). According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records,. the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 42 out of a possible 100 with an estimated 3 years of useful remaining life. Presently
the bridge is not posted with weight restrictions. However, the bridge report states postings of 11
tons for single vehicles and 14 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
B-3872 Page 2 of 3

Traffic Information
SR 1552 is a Rural Local Route with a statutory speed limit of 45 mph (70 kmh) in the
vicinity of the bridge. The current ADT is 200 vpd (vehicles per day) and the projected 2025
ADT is 400 vpd. Approximately 2% of the traffic are dual trucks and 1 % of the traffic are truck-
tractor semi-trailers.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported during a
recent 3-year period in the vicinity of the project.
This section of SR 1552 is not a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as
needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
Bus Information
According to the Transportation Director of McDowell County Schools, this road has 1
school bus trip per day.
Emergency Management Services (EMS)
According to McDowell County Emergency Management Services (EMS), there are no
alternate routes and traffic must be maintained along SR 1552.
New Cross Section
Due to some inconsistencies between the 1994 Green Book and the Roadway Design Unit
Design Manual, Roadway Design will be responsible for choosing the appropriate reference and
indicating their choice in their cost estimate.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
We anticipate the completion of the preliminary design (sketches) and cost estimates by
August 2001.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 195 with a new 140 foot (42.7 meter) long bridge by
realigning SR 1552 to the east (downstream). Construct the replacement bridge at
approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained using the existing alignment during construction. A couple of
iterations will be evaluated pertaining to the distance from the existing bridge to
the new bridge.
Note: The longer the distance between the existing bridge and new bridge, the
longer the length of the new bridge and better the roadway alignment. The shorter
the distance between the existing bridge and new bridge, the shorter the length of
the new bridge and worse the roadway alignment.
B-3872 Page 3 of 3

(- ~
McDowell County
Bridge No. 195 on SR 1552
Over Bear Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1552(8)
WBS 33316.1.1
State Project 8.2872001
TIP No. B-3872
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~o ao v 3 '
DA .~%~Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
DATE ~ohn F. Sullivan, III
. Division Administrator, FHWA

McDowell County
Bridge No. 195 on SR 1552
Over Bear Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1552(8)
WBS 33316.1.1
State Project 8.2872001
TIP No. B-3872
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
October 2003
DATE Robin Y. H cock
Project Planning Engineer
/ J
lf;_ ~
DATE. William. T. Go dwin Jr., PE, U Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
McDowell County
Bridge No.'195 on SR 1552 ~- -
Over Bear Creek

McDowell County
Bridge No. 195 on SR 1552
Over Bear Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1552 (8)
WBS 33316.1.1
State Project 8.2872001
TIP No. B-3872
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 195 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is
eligible for the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The location is
shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated.. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 195 has a sufficiency rating of
63.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. This bridge is considered to be functionally
obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
This. bridge had a sufficiency rating of 37.5 in March 1997. Temporary.repairs were required
in order for the structure to maintain traffic. The repairs resulted in an increase in the
sufficiency rating.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located northeast of the town of Marion in McDowell County, where Bear
Creek and Bailey Creek enter Lake James (see Figure 2). Development in the area is
primarily residential and recreational in nature. The immediate vicinity of the bridge of is
forested.
SR 1552 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle
route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1552 has a 20-foot (6-meter) pavement width with 4-foot
(1.2-meter) grass shoulders (see Figure 3). The roadway grade is fairly level with very poor
horizontal alignment throughout the project limits. The existing bridge is on a tangent. The
roadway is situated approximately 21 feet (6.3 meters) above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 195 is a 4-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams -with an
asphalt wearing surface. The end bents and interior bents consist of timber piles and caps.
Bent 2 has ,a concrete footing. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1959.
The overall length of the structure is 81 feet (24.7 meters). The clear roadway width is 15.8
feet (4.8 meters). The bridge is not posted with weight restrictions for single vehicles or
truck-tractor semi-trailers.

A GTE Underground Telephone line is located along the east side of SR 1552. There is no
indication this line crosses the stream. Utility impacts are considered to be low.
The current traffic volume of 200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 400 VPD
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1%truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is statutory 55 mph
(90 kmh).
There were no reported accidents in the vicinity of the project during a recent three year
period.
According to the Transportation Director for McDowell County Schools, there are two school
bus crossings per day on Bridge No. 195..
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure should be of sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot. (3.3-meter)
lanes with 3-foot (1-meter) offsets on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
The existing roadway approaches will be widened to a 22-foot (6.6-meter) pavement width to
provide two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Grass shoulder widths will be 4 feet (1.2 meters) on
each side and increased to 7 feet (2.1 meters) where guardrail is warranted.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
One alternative was carried forward for detailed study for replacing Bridge No. 195 and is
described below.
Alternate 1: (Recommended) Replace existing bridge with a new bridge approximately
125 feet (38 meters) in length and east of the existing. Elevation of the new
bridge will be approximately the same as the existing structure. One lane of
traffic will be maintained along the existing roadway during construction. The
design speed will be approximately 20 mph (30 kmh). A design exception will
be required for the horizontal alignment.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
An off-site detour is not considered to be prudent due to the lack of a suitable detour route.
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical and will eventually necessitate closure. of the
bridge. This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1552.
2

"Rehabilitation" of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
New location to the west of the existing structure was eliminated from further consideration
due to the difficulty and cost associated with providing an acceptable horizontal alignment.
The mountainous terrain does not make it cost effective to pursue alternatives to the west.
Replacement farther to the east was considered, however, buffer impacts are a concern and
staying out of the 1200-foot contour will decrease impacts into the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) Property.
D. Preferred Alternative
As recommended in Alternate 1, Bridge No. 195 will be replaced with a new bridge to the
east at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. This alternate is
recommended because it provides the most economic design while minimizing impacts.
Traffic will be maintained along the existing roadway. Total project length will be
approximately 600 feet (183 meters). $ased on preliminary design, the design speed should be
approximately 20 mph (30 kmh). A design exception will be required for the horizontal
alignment.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the alternate are as follows:
Alternate 1
(Recommended)
Structure ~ $ 306,000
Roadway Approaches $ 125,000
Structure Removal $ 11,000
Detour, Approaches & Removal $ 0
Eng. & Contingencies $ 72,000
Mobilization & Misc. $ 61,000
Total Construction Costs $ 575,000
Right-Of--Way Costs $ 40,000
Total Project Cost $ 615,000
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the .study area, are discussed below. Soils and
availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in
biotic communities.

Regional Characteristics
The project study area lies within the east-central portion of McDowell County in the Blue
Ridge Mountain major land resource area. The' topography in this section of McDowell
County consists of strongly .sloping to very steep uplands. Topography in the project area is
sloping with an elevation of approximately 1,240 feet (378 meters) above mean sea level.
Land use in this area consists primarily of forested land characterized by rolling hills and the
project is adjacent to Pisgah National Forest. The bridge replacement project is located where
Bear Creek enters Lake James.. This lake is owned by Duke Energy and is used for generation
of hydroelectric power and for recreation.
Soils
Three soil types are mapped-for the project study area and are described in Table 2. There are
no hydric soils mapped within the project study area and Colvard loam is occasionally
flooded for very brief periods.
Table 2. Soils in Project Area, McDowell County
Soil phase Location Seasonal high Soil drainage/ Hydric
water table permeability Soil?
Colvard loam 0 Parallels Bear 4 - 6 ft below Very deep,. no
- 2% slopes, Creek the surface well drained/
occasionally (in general, moderately
flooded (CoA) occurs on ~ rapid
floodplains and •
along small
streams)
Lonon- Parallels the road Greater than 6 Very deep, no
Northcove on the north (in ft below the well drained/
• complex, 6 - general, occurs surface
~ moderate to
15% slopes on side slopes moderately
(LnC) between rapid
drainage-ways
and adjacent to
intermittent
streams)
Evard-Cowee Found on steep Greater than 6 Very deep, no
complex, 25 - slopes on the ft below the well drained
60% slopes southeastern and surface . 'moderate
(Ewe) southwestern permeability
portion of project
Soils throughout the project site contained bright chromas indicating non-hydric conditions.
Soils and hydrologic indicators were not present on the project site, therefore, wetlands, as

defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were not observed
within the project study azea.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by
the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as aze means to minimize impacts.
Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality assigns streams a best usage classification based upon their
intended uses. A Best Usage classification of "C" is assigned to Beaz Creek. The "C"
classification denotes waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture- and other uses suitable for "Class C" waters.
Secondary recreation involves human body contact with water where such activities take
place in an infrequent manner. Lake James, into which Bear Creek flows, is a water supply
and is classified as WS-V B as of 4/1/99. There aze no waters classified as High Quality
Waters (HQW), .Water Supplies-I or II (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) within 1.0
mile (1.6 km) of the project study azea.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Beaz Creek [DWQ Index no. 11-26-1] is the only surface water directly affected by the
proposed project and occurs in subbasin 03-08-30 of the Catawba River Basin. Bear Creek is
backed up due to lake influence and is lake-like on the eastern side of the bridge where the
proposed bridge will be relocated. This creek is approximately 25 feet (8 meters) wide with
variable depth at this location. Bear Creek originates approximately 2.5 miles (4 km)
upstream in the Pisgah Forest before it enters Lake James.
Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more
intensive sampling of biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide
assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for
specific river basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water
quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life
cycle, are non-mobile (compared. to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species
richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers.
River basins aze reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to facilitate
National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review.

Bear Creek has not been sampled by the DWQ for benthic macroinvertebrates. However,
within a mile of the project site, downstream of Bear Creek in Lake James, the DWQ
monitors an ambient water quality station. The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a
network of stream, lake and estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located
for the collection of physical and chemical water quality data. The classification (freshwater
or saltwater) of a waterbody and corresponding water quality standazds determine the type of
water quality data or parameters that 'aze collected. Water quality in this lake is good and
trophic status has been determined to be `oligotrophic' or nutrient poor, indicating that
organic enrichment is not a problem with this lake.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Cazolina aze permitted through the NPDES
Program. Dischargers are required to register for a permit. There are no point source
dischargers located within a 1.0 mile (1.6 km) radius of the project study area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to surface waters aze anticipated as a result of construction activities. This may
include scouring of the streambed, .siltation, runoff of toxic substances, and damage to the
stream banks. Limiting earth removal, vegetation removal, and in-stream activities best
minimizes impacts to surface waters. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines must be enforced during
the construction stage of the project. Utilizing the full ROW width of 80 feet (24.4 meters)
anticipated impacts to Bear Creek will be ~0 feet. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire ROW, and the river will be bridged,. therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Bridge Demolition and Removal
Bridge No. 195 on SR 1552 is composed mainly of timber and steel. The substructure consists
of timber piles with timber caps and concrete footings. Therefore, Bridge No. 195 will be
removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. This bridge is
classified as "Case 3" where there aze no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study azea, as well as the relationships between fauna and. flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution' of biotic communities throughout the
project area aze reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses
in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems aze presented in the context of plant
community classifications. These classifications follow descriptions presented by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur,
in each community aze described and discussed.
6

Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal
and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and
Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk. (*). Published
range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present
within the project area.
Biotic communities
Three communities are found within the project boundaries: maintained/disturbed,
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest and mountain stream/arm of lake. ~ Community
boundaries within the study area are fairly well defined and terrestrial fauna likely to occur
within the study area may exploit all .communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as
movement corridors.
Disturbed/maintained roadside community
The maintained/disturbed community occurs at the roadside shoulders along the length of the
approaches within the project study area. In addition to various .grasses, typical weedy
roadside species including honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), sericea (Lespedeza cuneata) and
vetch (Vicia sp.) are found on road shoulders. Downstream of the bridge, on the northwest
portion of the project, the road shoulder drops off sharply and a steep hillside is present down
to the lake. The steep, hillside occupies little area and had been disturbed as a result of prior
road construction, therefore it is included in this community type.. Roadside and hillside trees
include chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), sweet birch
(Betula lenta), catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) and red maple (Ater rubrum). Understory shrubs
such as hydrangea (Hydrangea sp.), sweet shrub (Calycanthus floridus) and multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora) are also present.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest community is found in the northeastern quadrant
of the project where much of the new bridge approach will be shifted. This community
consists of low woods that may be intermittently flooded when lake levels are backed up
above normal pool levels. Included in this community is a zone of vegetation that occurs
where lake levels stabilize most frequently. Vegetation adjacent to the lake. includes river
birch (Betula nigra), black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), swamp rose
(Rosa palustris), and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum). The herbaceous plants, false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and cardinal flower (Lobelia
cardinalis) are found along the perimeter of the lake arm.
Canopy trees along the new alignment include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and several species
of pine (Virginia pine -Pinus virginiana, shortleaf pine -Pinus echinata and white pine -
Pinus strobus). Understory trees and shrubs consisted of flowering dogwood (Corpus

Florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), American holly (Ilex
opaca) and saplings of the canopy trees.
Ground vegetation consists predominately of smilax (Smilax sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), aster (Aster divericatus), golden ragwort
(Senecio aureus) and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Mountain stream/arm of lake
Although the upper reach of Bear Creek is considered a mountain stream, at the project study
area, Bear Creek retains lake-like chazacteristics as it is backed up and flow is not discernible.
During the site visits, Bear Creek was approximately 25 feet (8 meters) wide where the new
bridge is to be constructed. Bottom substrate includes sand, gravel, and cobble. Water clarity
of Lake James is generally good and at the water's edge, a branched macroalga, Chara, a .
stonewort, which has a preference for clear waters, is found growing in abundance.
Wildlife
The physical characteristics of the terrestrial and aquatic communities in an area will affect
the fauna that are present and use the azea. This section addresses the fauna likely to be found
in the project study azea.
Terrestrial Fauna
Mammalian fauna likely to occur throughout these communities includes Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon* (Procyon lotor), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and gray fox (Urocyon cineroargenteus). Reptiles and
amphibians common in this azea include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), which is
terrestrial. as asub-adult (eft), American toad (Bufo .americanus), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta).
Avian fauna likely to occur in this area includes permanent residents such as gray catbird*
(Dumtella carolinensis), northern cazdinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), goldfmch* (Carduelis
tristis), eastern phoebe* (Sayornis phoebe), chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse*
(Parus bicolor), Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), pine wazbler* (Dendroica pinus)
and pileated woodpecker* (Dryocopus pileatus). Migratory species that may use the azea for
feeding and nesting include red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceous), yellow wazbler* (Dendroica
petechia) and other various species of warblers.. Wild turkeys* (Meleagris gallopavo) (as
well as turkey hunters) were observed during the site visit.
Aquatic Fauna
Common fish that may reside in the Bear Creek arm of Lake James include bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), gizzard shad (Dorosoma

cepedianum), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and carp (Cyprinius carpio). Crayfish
(family: Cambaridae) and their chimneys were observed neaz the lake edge.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present within the study azea. Project construction may result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived' using the
entire proposed ROW for new location and excluding azeas under pavement for impact
calculations. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community type . Alternate 1
Maintained/disturbed 0.37 (0.15)
Piedmontllow mountain alluvial forest 0.23 (0.09)
Total Impacts 0.60 (0.24)
Values cited aze m acres (nectazes).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 195 may reduce habitat for faunal species,
thereby diminishing faunal numbers on a temporary basis. However, .due to the size and
scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas .modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway
while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more eazly successional habitat. Animals
temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities aze sensitive to small changes in their environment. Although direct
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from .these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects. Impacts often associated with in-stream
construction include increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream
construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site.
Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit- feeders), fish and
amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. These organisms aze slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site
alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes.
Erosion and sedimentation carry. soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic
communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the
0

formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth
of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to
elevation of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important
issues -waters of the United States and raze and protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as
defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Section 328.3(a). Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), are those azeas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under .normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and must follow the statutory provisions
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. The alluvial forest in the northeastern quadrant of the
project azea was examined for wetland characteristics. While hydrophytic vegetation was
present, hydrologic indicators and hydric soils were absent. Bright, high chroma soils were
present on the project site. Based on these criteria, jurisdictional wetlands aze not present
within the project boundaries.
Beaz Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological,. physical, and. water quality aspects of this creek
aze presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The anticipated total impact to surface waters from the proposed project is 80 linear feet (24
lineaz meters) which is derived by using the entire proposed ROW width. Usually, project.
construction does not require the entire ROW; and since this area on new location will be
bridged, actual surface water impacts may be considerably less.
In addition, as previously mentioned, there is not potential for components of the bridge to be
dropped into Waters of the United States. However, NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for. Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this
bridge. According to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, this project will not require a
moratorium.
10

Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the USACE for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the
United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal
agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the
Council on Environmental Quality Regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) 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;
(2) thatthe office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 401 Water Quality Certification is
required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit. This project will also be affected by
the Catawba Riparian Buffer Rules, which are applicable to manipulations occurring on buffer
zones within the mairistem Catawba lakes from Lake James and downstream. These rules
were temporarily adopted effective June 30, 2001. In the rules, statute 15A NCAC 2B .0243,
decrees .that bridges are deemed allowable. Uses designated as "allowable" may proceed
within the riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives to the requested~use.
In addition, these uses require written authorization from the DWQ. The project must
minimize impacts to buffers and comply with .the Catawba Riparian Buffer Rules. Buffer
mitigation. for use with future projects could be acquired by restoring and replanting the
approach where the current bridge is located.
Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland and
stream mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity
of Waters of the United States. Mitigation has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR Section 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
The concept of `avoidance' examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States.. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the .Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE states that in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should

be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses
on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include:
strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMPs for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination
of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation
on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream"
activity; and litter/debris control.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of
the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss" of functions and values may not be achieved in each and. every
permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement
of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of .Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section
9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of February 24, 2003,. there
are four Federally Protected Species for McDowell County (Table 4).
12

Table 4. Federally Protected Species for McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle Threatened (due to
similarity of
appearance)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened (proposed
for de-listing)
Hudstonia montana mountain golden heather Threatened
Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Threatened
Threatened -- a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened due to similarity of appearance -- (e.g., American alligator)--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section consultation.
Clemmys muhlenbergi (bog turtle)
Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (southern population)
Animal Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: June 4, 1987
The bog turtle is a small semi-aquatic reptile, measuring 3.0 - 4.5 inches (7.5-11.4 cm) in
length, with a weakly keeled, dazk brown carapace and a blackish plastron with lighter
markings along the midline. There is a conspicuous orange or yellow blotch on each side of
the head. This species exhibits sexual dimorphism; the males have concave plastrons and
longer, thicker tails, while females have flat plastrons and shorter tails.
The bog turtle is found in the eastern United States, in two distinct regions. The northern
population, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, southern New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Delaware is listed as Threatened and protected by the Endangered Species Act.
The southern population, occurring in Virginia, North Cazolina, South Cazolina, Tennessee,
and Georgia is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance.
Preferred bog turtle habitat consists of fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, mazshy meadows and
pastures. Areas with cleaz, slow-flowing water, soft mud substrate, and an open canopy aze
ideal. Clumps of vegetation such as tussock sedge and sphagnum moss aze important for
nesting. and basking. This species hibernates from October to April, hiding just under the
frozen surface of mud. The diet consists of beetles, moth and butterfly larvae, caddisfly
larvae, snails, nematodes, millipedes, seeds, and carrion.
The primary threats to the bog .turtle aze loss of habitat (from increased residential and
commercial development as well as draining, clearing, and filling wetlands) and illegal
collecting for the pet trade. Nest predation and disease may also play a role in the population
decrease.
~~

This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appeazance, and is therefore not
protected under Section 7 of the Endangered ~;pecies Act. However, in order to control the
illegal trade of individuals from the protecte~. northern population, federal regulations aze
maintained on the commercial trade of all bogturtles. No survey is required for this species.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: Mazch 11, 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida; other nesting occurs in coastal areas of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and raze nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in the
southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be. identified by their large white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dazk-brown to chocolate- brown in color. Immature eagles lack the white head
plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color with blotchy white on
the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight, bald eagles can be identified by their flat
wing soar. Adults range is length from 2 - 3 feet (60-90 cm) and have a wingspan ranging
from 6 - 7 feet (183 - 213 cm).
There aze several factors that affect an eagle's selection of a nest site. Eagle nests aze found
in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the
largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human
disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests are
approximately 3 meters across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish aze the major
food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food
may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting habitat such as open waters or tall trees does occur within the project area.
During site visits on Apri120 and June 7, 2001 the azea was surveyed for bald eagles and their
nests. No individuals or nests were spotted. A known bald eagle nest is located approximately
7.5 miles (12.1 km) east of the project (B-3872) site. This nest is located in a tree on the edge
of Lake James. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of raze species and
unique habitats in November 2000 and July 2001 did not indicate known occurrences of
nesting bald eagles in this vicinity. It can be concluded that the proposed bridge replacement
will not affect the bald eagle.
14

Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather)
Threatened
Plant Family: Cistaceae ~`
Federally Listed: October 20, 1980
Flowers Present: mid to late June
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub that is yellow-green in color. This
shrub usually grows in clumps and retains its leaves from the previous yeaz which appear
scale-like on the older branches. Leaves appeaz awl-shaped and thread-like. `~ Mountain
golden heather forms solitary, terminal, lanceolate flowers. These yellow flowers have five
blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. Fruit capsules have three projecting points at the
tips and aze round in shape.
Hudsonia. montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops, with known
populations found at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (850 to 1200 meters). It can be found
on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between haze rock and heath balds dominated by
Leiophyllum which merge into pine forest. Plants do live in partially shaded azeas, but do not
appeaz to be as healthy as those found in open azeas. A critical habitat azea for mountain
golden heather exists in Burke County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Hudsonia montana such as mountain tops and heath balds does not exist
within the project azea. Project elevation of the site is lower than. that at which this plant
typically occurs. Furthermore, no plants of mountain golden heather were observed on June
7, 2001. It can be concluded that this project will not affect mountain golden heather.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia)
Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a hollow stem.
Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem. Flowers of
small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small whorled pogonia grows in second growth deciduous or deciduous-coniferous
forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and spazse herb layer. This plant prefers
acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in azeas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or
high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
15

Typical habitat such as second growth or deciduous coniferous forest does not exist within the
project study area. This azea was surveyed on June 7, 2001 for protected species and there
were no plants of small whorled pogonia present. In addition, The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of raze and unique habitats does not contain records for this species in this
azea. Therefore, the bridge replacement project will not impact small whorled pogonia.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are thirteen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for McDowell County as of Mazch
22, 2001. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and
aze not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they aze formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern aze defined as those
species that may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly candidate
species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information
to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which aze listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by
the North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program list of rare plant and animal species aze afforded
state .protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Cazolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status and the presence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study azea. This species list is provided for informational
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for McDowell County
Scientific Name Common Name State
Status Habitat
Contopus borealis ~ Olive-sided flycatcher ~ SC no
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR no
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian woodrat SC* no
Neotoma magister Alleghany woodrat SC no
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave water slater SR/PE no
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR no
Carex roanenis Roan sedge. C no
Delphinium exaltatum Tall lazkspur E-SC ** no
Hymenocallis coronaria Rocky shoal spider lily W3 na
Juglans cinerea Butternut WS no
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC no
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C no
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla Northern Oconee-bells E-SC no
• "T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora (plants) is determined to be in jeopardy or a native wild animal whose continued
16

existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined by the WRC to be in jeopardy
or endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected
and sold under regulations adopted .under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes (animals) and the Plante Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
• "C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
.populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North
Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
• "SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range,
occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
• "W1"--A Watch Category 1 species is a rare species whose status in North Carolina is relatively
well known and which appears to be relatively secure at this time.
• "W2"--A Watch Category 2 species is a rare to uncommon species in North Carolina, but is not
necessarily declining or in trouble.
• "W3"--A Watch Category 3 species is a species which is poorly known in North Carolina, but is
not necessarily considered to be declining.
• "WS"--A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat;
populations may or may not be known to be declining.
• "/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
• -- Historic record -the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
• * * -- Obscure record -the date and/or location of observation is uncertain:
Surveys .for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species incidentally observed. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of.rare
species and unique habitats (November 2000, July 2001) revealed no records of Federal
Species of Concern in or near the project study area.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally
funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity
to comment on such undertakings.
17

B. Historic Architecture
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject. project and there are no
known properties of architectural significance within the proposed project area. The HPO
concurs that this project is not likely to affect any resources of historical significance .(see
letter dated February 14, 2001).
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project.. One known
archaeological site, 31 MC2 was surveyed. During the course of the survey, the site was
relocated: No further archaeological investigation is required, nor is the site eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (see letter dated October 11, 2001).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human
or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments listed on the Project
Commitments Sheet (Green Sheet) of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT
standazds and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the azea.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and .construction
projects. There aze no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in
the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
farmland acreage within these classifications.
18

The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning -shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary.. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and no additional report is required.
A field reconnaissance survey by NGDOT's Geotechnical Engineering Unit revealed no
regulated underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any
significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
VII. AGENCY COMMENTS
North Carolina Division, of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Treatment of stormwater should be taken .into consideration and no deck drains will be
allowed to discharge water into Bear Creek.
Duke Power
The boundary of the Energy Plant is the 1200-foot contour, which is considered full pond for
Lake James. Since NCDOT is encroaching (crossing over) Duke Power Property, a Federal
Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) Application must be submitted. Coordination has
begun between NCDOT, and Duke Power. Requirements from the FERC regazding permits
must be met prior to letting.
l9

r ,ram„ .,,,~.,.,.,,. ,.,.,.,~
Sevier
.3:_- ~ POND
.,\,
tJ~" ~
• \.\ .
.` ,
.` ;
'~~ ',
',".
i ti
i
~- ~'.
;~ .• Bridge No. 195 1551 •~ ~.
oN _ ,2 `.,
"1 ~ •~ 1552' '• m
• n i i
C
•, ~ -
i
i
i .~ ;
~• R 1552 ~ Q~: ;
1553 ~ 1''74 • • ~ .
~~~ 1586 ~; P ,..,
••r, 1501 a "' ~ ~" '!^ 1548 ,
Hankins ~ 1588 '
1592 ~ • P'~ ~s ,
~' n 1550 ~ '' 1536 ---t ~_-
15Q1 ~' 1543 ~ ~- ~!~159~"`.'.
•,~ 1 - 540 1544 , 'fr~47 . -_
~ •.9 \ •- ~' ~ T ' ~ - '126 `
,~ Shiflet Field ''~ - _ • • -
w 1 *_ ' ., - - 1536 1583 ti •~ .5 •~ .~-''1585 • • 15
1 -" ~ ~ ..
_ _ •~
ea
' ~` • Nebo
~' ~
GARDEN CREEK ' ~ t,`-- - ~.3 _ ~---_ _~.____,
~ .~'. l'-- -1--
POP. 1 161 ', o ~ ' ~~
~ (UNINC.) -, ', v ~~, SOUT6I~RN _ . - ~'--- ~ Li
7 'i ~ . - -----~-' .,
~oF "~"'" ~~e NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~' ~ ~\ TRANSPORTATION
• ~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~9~'t~y' ~ ` 44! PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
`~.~F oe`P~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
~OF TAI~~/
MCDOWELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 195 ON SR 1552
OVER BEAR CREEK
B-3872
Figure I

- _ ~.. ~ -
~~. ~-
,~ ,
~ ,
.y,<< _
., _ _
Looking North from the Bridge
B-372 FIGURE 3A
Looking South from the Bridge

c,~
Oo
J
N
'=7
--.~
C~
W
C17
c~
0
Cd
-~
~.
CZ
U~

1
~I.~
J
N
.p
SEE X-SECTIONS
EXISTING
GROUND ` ~ _ - ~

A
~ EXISTING
~ GROUND' ~ _ -
n
O
`,
y
,-
_~_
8' 4' rr Jr 4' vaR. -
rwirH EXISTING EXISTING 7'wlfN SEE X-SECTIONS
G/R _ W/DTH - ~ WIDTH C/R
~CT21 v.w. W q vat.
~ ~ DP ~ DB
,~ t _-- - ------- -'
ad ~ \ -,y ----- ~-GRADE ---- - ai
/z' POINT 5/z' ~ T _
T I (~ / ~ El ~' EXISTwr,
Ei) `~~ T
` `--GRADE TO THIS LINE GROUND
\- _ -
TYPICAL SECTION No. 1 USE TYP1f,A(. SECTION No. l AT:
-L- FROM STAIS+50D0 TO ST0./S+GOOO.TRANS?ION FROu
EXISTING TOT.S.NO.I
-L- FROU STAIS+OOAO TO Si 0./6+94b/
-L- FROU 51"0.!9+4925 TO STAZO+OODO
-L- FROM STAZO+OODO TO STA20+SOGO.TRaN50-ION FRON.
TS.NO.ITO EXISTING
_L_
1P lr .r VnR.
9' a•
7' w?H
G/R
I 02 ~ D2
GRADE
s~z' POINT
GRADE TO THIS LINE-'
TYPICAL SECTION No. 2
`~ \\ 2\ / - ' ~ -EXISTING
\\\ OROUND
~_ -
USE TYPICAL SECTION No. 2 aT:
-L- FROU 570./6+9461 TO ST A. /7+50+/- !BEGIN BR10GE1
-L- FROU STa18+75D0+/-MEND BRICGElTO STa/9+4926
SKSTC.H SHOWING 914IDGB IN RELATION ISO PAYliMBM'
TYPE III TYPE III
ll' 30' - - 2' _ lI'
/I' ~~'
TYPE III TYPE III
~AFPROPCFI sLAB _

~'°~' `
~ ~~
~.:~•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Off ce
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
October 11, 2001
~~^T
1,
Division of Archives and History
Jeffre+~°o'~"'~i~ector
>~ ~: -;~,
ti.. ~ ti~
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Iv4anager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,
C:~: j
.~ ~ .i
~ r'.."
SUBJECT: .Archaeological Survey Report for Bridge 195, SR 1552 over Lake James Creek, B-3872,
McDowell County, ER 01-7908 and ER 02-7090
Thank you for your letter July 12, 2001, of transmitting- the archaeological survey report by Paul J. Mohler
et al for the above project.
During the course of the survey, one previously recorded archaeological site was relocated. The authors
have recommended that 31MC2 is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic of
Historic Places and that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: .John Wadsworth, FHwA
Thomas Padgett
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration X07 N. 131ount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 51 S N. 131ount St, Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Survey & Planning S I S N. Blount St. Raleigh. 1VC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

• •
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 14, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and. Environmental analysis Branch
From: David Brook ~~ _~ t
Deputy State Histori reservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director -
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 195 on SR 1552 over Lake James Creek,
TIP No. B-3872, McDowell County, ER 01-7908
On December 14, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
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 no. historic structures located within the area of
potential effect. Since a comprehensive historical architectural im~entorv of the project area has not been
completed in over a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware within the planning area.
We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There is one known archaeological site within the proposed project area, Woodland period site 31MC2,
which may be affected by the bridge replacement. We recommend that the site be relocated and, if it will
be affected, tested to determine its .eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
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 any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. [3lount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-863
Restoration S15 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mait Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4301
Survey & Planning 515 N. [fount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4301
O ,.~ SUTF o
w`A"~.
~•
.tea .+~,~
~` 1, ~- l fl ... s `, 1.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator

4
' '~
:~~'`~
~~,..
a
r
T
^d
~~
M~
~~M
'!1'N
~ pN
J ~~
~~
o ~a
ni >
~~
-~?gin
o~~
r,~~
See Sleet f-A For Index of Sleets
M
U

~~ I
•,
?~ ~~
` ,
l ~ ,,
~~
teat ~ ssi'~~
,
,
i
PROJE B-x,872
`
~ 1~
'
~ 1fi62
\
~'
~
{~"~, ~' ~
-=aka-~ ~.;.
,fi51 ~.~,; ~Jar~~s

VICINITY ~I~1~
STA. 10+00.00 -L- BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-3872
O~ .l 'l Y/ily~~~L `~i ~~l~' 1 \~~f~~ly, R.Tf ; R.]f IWOG)lVYL1O N> `~ ~ fw~t ~ A!,
m I +~
~~~~SI~N CIF ~~~~lE'E,[~~~,~ .~. 8-3872 1
Ra111104X0. 1,1./tlET0. ~~~.
33316.1.1 BRZ-15518 pE
33316.1,1 BRZ-15518 RhV llIIL
~~~oW~r~ coU~~
LOCATION: BRIDGE X0.195 ON SR 1552
OVER BEAR CREEK
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, -~ ~~
AND STRUCTURE NAD 83
~~
~~~ ,~
`~
j ~ ~;o STA,18+00,00 -L- END TIP PROJECT 8-3872
~.m\ i~a
~\~, ,,o
BRll~f X0.195 ~\ I' -~- stela+8650
s.
~" I N ! ®~~
1N t `~ V p
~~ ; ~ (?5
~ ~..
,-
TO HANIONS &
HWY 221 & 226
vxE JavES
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B~872 = 0.129 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-3872 = 0.023 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 8871 = 0.152 MILES
~, o
~ "a
~,
~4~
,F
~F~
\~0~~
\~\ ~
\ ~
~~
TO LONGTIME
Premr~ In the Orlla d4
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1Gd0 Bbc~i R!d/r Dr„ RaldrA NC, 11Q10
ma srermun srrrons
RIGEI OP WAY DATE: G. E. BREW. PE
NOVEMBER 29 1004 ~10~
L8TTING DATE: W, T, BEST
NOVEMBER 15 2005 "`0~ near
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NDT U16 POR CONSf0.UCRON
HYDRAULICS ENGAIEFR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN,!
ROADWAY DESIGN sr~a nasmv avau~l
ENGIlVEER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAITON
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADM!lVISTRATI01
" bESIGN EXCEPTION REfiUIRED FOR DESIGN SPEED,

GRAPffiC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 15 0 50 100 ADT 1004 = 225
ADT 2025 = 400
PLANS DHV = 10 %
50 15 0 50 100
~~ D = 60 %
T = 3%`
O PROFILE {HORIZONTAL) •N = 10 MPH
10 5 0 10 10
Cffi=l`
L~ FUNC CLASS ~ .RURAL LOCAL
.,
POAFII F NFPTI/'A11 ~ TrsT 1% DUAL 2%

*sU.~ = s~ Udb~y .~ 51 ~~~~°~ ~~~' ~ ~~~~I ~C.~,~~~rl~i ~a~
C~~NVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
!' _
BOU11 DARII,SS .4AD PROPERTY
State Une ---------------------------------------
County Une --------•----•----------•-•----•-----•--
Township Une --•----------------•-•---------------
Gty Une ----•-------------------------
Reservation Une -•----._...-•------••----------•-••- - -
Property lina ---•-------•-•--------•------•-------•.
Exiling Iron Pin •----•-------•--------------------- o
Property Comer ---------•---------••------•------- ---k
Property Monument-------------------•------------
Parcel/Sequence Number ------------•-----------
Existing Fence Une --------------•-------------•-•-x -x-x-
Proposed Woven Wire Fence ••--•--------------• F
Proposed Chain Unk Fence ----•••------------- ~
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence •------------------
Existing Wetland Boundary -----•----------------- -ti----
Proposed. Wetland Boundary ••-•----•--•-----•-•- ns-
Existing High Quality Wetland Boundary ------- a M-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary w-
ixiating Endangered PIaM Boundary ----------- «~
BUILDINGS AND OT7HsR CULTURE.
Gaa Pump Vent or USG Tank Cap ••-----•------ o

ign •-------------------
' ------------------------•----
0
s
Well ----•----------••--------•-----------•----------- ~
Small Mine •-----•-----------•----•-•-------•------- 5t~
Foundation •---•-•-------------•---•-----------•--• ~
Area Outline •--•-------...-•------••-•-----•----•- 0
Cemetery ._..--•---------------------------------• ~r~
Building •--•------•-------------------------•-----••-
School ------------------------------•--------------
Church •---------•-----------•--•-•-• ...............
Dam •-----•-•---•-•---------•--•-•----•-----------••-
HYDROLOGY
Sheam or Body of Water ----------------------- --.-
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir -----------------•--__... r-----~
L----J
River Basin Buffer -------------------------------- -Aee-
Flow Arrow ------•-------------•-----•-----------•-e--
Disappearing Stream ---------••-----------------~----
Spring ---------------------------------------------p---•~-~,~
Swamp Manh ....-•------•----••--•-----•-------- ~
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Dffch ------------- $~
r •r
False Sump ....---•---•-•------------------------• m
RAILROADS,'
Standard Guage •--------•------------------------
ar rersroxrupr
RR Signal Milepost -------------------------------- o
u
Switch -----------,----------------------------------- ~
~~~
RR Abandoned ---------------------------------
RR Dismantled
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point ----------•-----------•--
Existing Right of Way Morker -•----------•----- Q
Existing Right of Way Une. ---.....-•-------- -
Pro
osed Ri
ht
f W
U
-----------•------ --
p
g
ay
o
ne ~-
Proposgd Right of Way Une with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrete or Granite Marker -----•--•-----• ' ~'-~'
Existing Control of Acceu '"'
Proposed Control of Access •--------•----------- ~_.
Existing Easement Line ----•---•------•---•-- -E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - E
Propose Temporary Drainage Easement ----- -mE-
Praposed Permanent Drainage Easement ----- -Poe-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement --------- -rue-
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.
Existing Edge of Pavement -------•-------•------ --
Existing Curb ---•------•-------------•-•--•------ --
Proposed Slope Siakea Cut •-----•--••----•-••• --- ~ ---
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill ---•----------•••---• --- F-
Proposed Wheel Choir Ramp -----•-------••--•-
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp °•••• rte
Existing. Metal Guardrail -•-•--•------..•...------ - L - -=-
Proposed Guardrail .•-----••-----.•.--•--------- ~ ~ T
Existing Cable Guiderail °-----•-••---•••---•-- -~- •a- ~-
Proposed Cable Guiderail••--------•-•--•-----•• ^
Equailify Symbol ...------• .....................
Pavement Removal
I~EGETATION
Single Troe ------------------•----..-...-....-•.-• ~
Single Shrub ..................•----.............--- o
Hedge --------••-----•• .............................m-r,.--.,-.~•.....~.
~,.
Woods Line ....................................... .
~O/!rchardJ ....................••----•-••-------.....-• ~ 4 D t?
~Ineyaffl -...._•---• .................................~ nnaYVa ~
----~
EXISTING STRUC171RES.~
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert ------------------ 0
Bridge Wing, Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - ~ ~o~ ~~
MINOR:
Head and End Wall ---------------------------- ~o~ „.
Pipe Culvert --------------------•-------•--------
-----
Footbridge -•-------••------•----•-------•-------- ?-------C
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI ar JB --------- IJCe
Paved Ditch Gutter---------------•-------------- -----
Storm Sewer Manhole ------------------------- G
Storm Sewer
U17LITIES.~
POWER:
Existing. Power Pole ••----•----------------•-•---- ~
Proposed Rower Pole ---•------------------------ b
Existing Joint Use Pole-------------------------- +
Proposed Joint Use Pole ------------°----------
Power Manhole ---------------------•----------•- J
Power Line Tower --------•----------------------- ;~
Power Transformer -------------------------------
WG Power Coble Hand Hole---•--------------
H-Frome Pole -------------------•-----
Recorded USG Power Line ------------
Designated LING Power line (S.U.E.')
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole °------•-•----------•-- +
Proposed Telephone Pole ••-----••------------- -0-
Telephone Manhole•-----•---------------••------ p
Telephone Booth -•--------•--.•----------------• p
Telephone Pedestal ..•---------------------------
Telephone CeIlTower ------•-•-----•------•-••-- ,i.
U~ Telephone Cable Hand Hcle ----•----•--
Recorded UK Telephone Cable --------------
Designated 14t; Telephone Cable (S.U,E.`) -- -- --~----
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit -••-•----- «-
Designated U~G Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'j-
Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable ----------••-
Designoted UKi Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.'~-
WATER:
Water Manhole -----------------------•-----...--- ~
Water Meter --••-•-•-•--------•------------------- o
Water Valve -----•-•---•-----------------•-----•--
Water Hydront •------------------------------•---- ~
Recorded L1G Water Une ----------------------

g ( ry------•--- -
Deal noted WG Water Line S.U.E. ---
---•-
Above Ground Water Gne ---•.•...-...•------- „~ ~°,•~
N.
N Satellite Dish ----------------•----------•-----
N Pedestal ------•---------------•-------------•-
N Tower------------•--------------------------•- ~
U-G N Cable Hand Hole --------------------
Recorded WG N Coble ••-------------•--•---- ~~-
Designated USG N Cable (S.U.E.')°--------•- - ---~~----
Recorded U-G Fiber Optic Cable ---------°•-- -~~~^-
Designated USG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.')° - ---~~~°---
GAS:
Gas Valve --------------------------------------- p
Gaa Meter -•--------------•---------
Racorded USG Gas line ------•--------•---•---- ^
g ( )------------
Deal noted WG Gas Line S.U.E.` ----^----
Above Ground Gas Line °•-------------------- "` `°'
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole -----•••--------------- 0
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout --•----••---•-_-------_ Q
U~G Sanitary Sewer Line ••-•-••-•-----•-------• ss
Above GfoUnd San'tlary Sealer •-------•-•---- sic sanearr sear
Recorded SS Forced Main Une ---------------- ,u-
Designated SS Forced Main Une (S.U.E.') •• ----,ss----
MISCELLANEOUS:
UHliiy Pole •-•------•--------••----••-------------- •
Utility Pole with Base -•---.•-------------------- p
Utility Located Object --•--•--------------------- p
UNliiy Traffic Signal Box ••-•-•-------•-----------
Utility Unknown USG Une ••---..-----••----••- -M~-
U~G Tank; Water, Gas, OII •----••---•-•••------
A~G Tank; Water, Gos, Oil --••••-•--------•-••-
USG Tad Hole S.U.E.' -------.--.-
( ) --•---•------
m
Abandoned According to Utility Records ----- AATUR
End of Infonnation ------------------------------- E.0.1.

FINAL PAVEirIENT SCHEDULE

C1 Prop. Approx. 114" Aephelt Conarste Burfaoe Couru, Type BFB.9A, et an
AveraOe Ratr of 110 lbs. per 9G. YD.

CZ Prop, Approx. 213° Mphelt DencreU Surface Course, Type SF9.6A, et en
AveraOe Aete of 110 Lbe. per 90. YD. in eseh of two lmyere
Prep. Ver. Depth Aephali Conorete 9urtaee Course, Type 8F9.bA, et en
~ per 1" depth to be placed in
C3
e
t
1
p
leyere
not
to exeeed
213°
in depth
Ei Prop. Approx. 613" Aephelt Concrete Baee Course, Type 826.08, at an
Average Aete of U4 1be, per 80. YD. in each of two leyere

Prop. Ver, Depth Aephait Concrete Beee Course, Type B26.DB, at an
E2 AvereOe Rate of 114 lbs, per SD. YD, per 1" depth to be placed
Ln leyere not Greater thin 613" or lees thorn 3 Ln depth
9" AODREBATE BA9E COUA9E
R Bhoultler Berm Gutter
T Earth Material
ExietinD Pavement
sff Variable Depth Asphalt Pavement (see WedQinO Detail this eheetl
+~ suRVEY
J
~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~
~'I' ~" u . ``~`
3 MIN. 9 MIN.
Detail Showing Method of Wedging

aat<r er~urKe ra, sner Nc.
a-J872 z
IOACWAY OfeION rAYlWlM ntlIGN
e~GINlA aae+Ha
~ ---- --L 3"MIN._ _~
- w
C3 E2
Wedging Detail For Resurfacing
USE WITH TYPICAL SECTIONS N0.1 & 2
SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION
fSc""£ STANDARD 86201 FOR GUARDRAIL PLAC£,N£MJ
-lr
a
0
n
f~
n
~a
a
~~
,,,
~~
,'
VAR.
SEE x-SECTIONS
EXISTING
GROUND ` ~ - -
2/
4d
4'
~~
7'WITH
G/R
DB
I!' Il'
EXISTING EXISTING
w1orH wroTy
VAR. u W ~ VAR.
~ 02 ~ A2 \
~ * CROWN GRADE ~,
5%z' POINT POINT 5%2'~
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION No, l
4~ VAR.
~'~/RH SEE X-SECTIONS
Ae
EXISTING
GROUND
- _
USE TYPCCA(, SECTION No. 1 AT;
-L- FROM STa10+00.00 TO STa/0+50.OO,TRANSmoN FROM
EX1STlNG TO T.S.N0.1
-c- FROM sralo+5o.0o ro sralz+oooo
-C- FROM Sra15+50.00 TO STa/6+25.A0
-L- FROM STa16+25.00 TO STa18+00.00,TRANSIT10N FROM.
T.S.NO.1T0 EXISTING
v
DETAIL SHGWiNG 5tl0ULDER BERN GUTTER

P _ ___..
,~

?~ _.
FINAL PAVEMENT SCHEDULE.
C1 .1k" Typ• OFP.OA
CZ 414" TYPE eFO.eA
C3 vr. Depth Typ• ere.eA
Ei a^ ryp• e4e.oe
E2 vr. D•ptn ryp• a4e.oe
a e" AOC
ehould•r e•re Outt•r
E•rth N•Uriel
a Ex1•tln0 P•vtnt
a vrlsthl• Depth A•phs<lt Pw•unt
VAR' -~
EXISTING
GROUND' ~ - - L,qR ~~
k~
SF~,T
E.O.T.
2.67' VAR.
2
C2 U R
A2 ~ ~ nz
~~
_ - 3
~ RETAINING WALL MUST
T ~ 8F ABOVE EL1210'
---
EXISTING
INSET 'A' GROUND
E.O.T.
n
r
T
N
m~
M
~fl~
m/f
"T
~~'Q4
`? o<
~s
_~
., o,
.;a,
~~
INSET 'P'

~ ~ ~o. sneer No.
8-3872 2-a
eWDWAY DfllDn /AYNAtM DCAGN
BVGINlQ erewa"
-L-
8' 4' !!' 11' 4'
We 7'WlTN
jh G/R
C2 C2 ~i
<A8 ' A2 D2 ~vWj 1J8
~:~ \ -~
GRADE
T 5y2~ POINT
VAR.
4,•/
El El ~ ~ - l -
~'~ - ~ cXIST1NG
GRADE TO THIS LINE GROUND
,_,-
TYPICAL SECTION No. 2 USE TYPICAL SECTION No. 2 AT:
-L- FROM STA.12+00.00 TO STAB+6650 IBEGlN BRIpGE1
-L- FROM STAl4+gg,50 TEND BRIL~E)TO ST,415+50A0
USE INSET 'A' -L- FROM STAB+OO,()O TO STA/3+54.50
4
-~-
3' «'
A4
TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE
ll'
Aq
~RAO
POINT
5'
-L- FROM STA,13+66.50 +/- TO STAlq+8650 +/-
USE INSET 'B' -L- FROM STA.13+5q,50 TD STA.13+6650

_~
_f
TEMP. PAVE~IENr
Tp1,M
Nam
DETAIL A
SPECUI CUT DITCH w/ xNGE POINT
I NOt to SodN
e0 T(MT
voa
~ D
HINGE IOM I NIn. 0 = 1 Fi.
'9E1 Ge01lCHNICAL RECOAM4BIDATIONS
SA.11+73 TO STA tl+76 k LT.
wove e>amNC eAmw2AeNr1
TO B!'MTION 1101
~ AMROIC 7300 CU.YO OP EXGYA1fON
+97.01 PE TO EAST. N->~~
177.00'
O PR"Sfo, l2+97p7 /
ERECVd CUT DITQi YYIIIN / Cl 1 pt1UP
NAIPIO/9 AEAIRr CORPORATION SEF GItuLA
oa s9E Pa 5ES PCSYo. IJf73,40
Oa E9 P661 ~_. ._1 I ., .r
-_...__u2zs'
503'43'~3'Ir "~ ~.~ ~~ Aar ~ EP
~np1'
IAf3fAEL u.a .~~ R.LUCAs EDEN ° a•E
oa scs T+G.2m2so ''2~„ ,no '~ i
,~ ~j~~~
~~ a%/~'

I f_ ~- a1LE EtERGT CORPORATION
60EE/AILT ENOIRI AS F'OIrfR COJ
/~ 0.6.20E PG D10
~s tt~
Da 68 PG 111
`J+,'
i~ 1
X65 p0 '~• /
®~
-~ ey
. 1 h
I
I
I
DATU,~A D_FSCR1PT10>0
iNE IpAr1Eli DD79DbE7E SSrfk DEYfIO°ED fOw 1x15 Pl1DIE(1
f5 819ED a rAE SrrrE ~ Qa91(MaES ES1+DlI9E0 Br
MXT1r ra 9pwArflr '8T97E~ I'
wTrx 5b I;gvgS AArE %ME afD D'~70rAPES ~
SIRTHlSCA AEwfl EASr1A51 f 119/112~9Yw
rf~ NEAq; alar~D arrD FIGTa U>'fA a rxrs mtE'Cr
raWro ro ara rst ago
ilk IGf,W(~Ar DRTD AEN7lMi AMI
wcAUrEa AarZD+rx aDAlw DrsrArcE fR7v
8392•f • rD {• A/tla pKOOD f5
1636:A7 rfET a A DEN+lIG ~' 3 S' 1rSkU• E
kl CpE+W DlfEl6faS wE arAlZED ag91201r/L DISTAICE'$
vEprlGL Deaf USED IS IND dB
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
7 BN ~?
:-BL- STA 18*10.12
~ 40.66'LEF7
~I~
I
111,1
C
k'\R
O
CFIAIPIpI REALITY CORPORATION
0.6 59E PG SES
Da d9 PC.&
DETAIL C
StANDaAO 'r 01tCx
rrbt ro Scda
~ ~
r~our~c v U ..~ wo
~ kn0 - 1 Ft.
S1A13+]5 TO JTAIS+50 a. LT.ODE-30 CY
t~, .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

uecr IEFEIENCE H0. I SMEe! N0.
:6W R4EEr N0.
OWAY OtlIGN NYOSAWCS
@IOINHI 6NGRR6t
~'
.~
~ ~ PT57o.18'}69b3
r jaF~ +l 4
~ ~9 +ao.oE ~ ~ i t -L- 19+11.4 0 I d ' l .
as $I P0T51a 79+751X1
boo ~ 1
r ,11
~,
,,
~~~~ ~x ~l
3~
i`l
~. ~ ORAIL y _ _ "s'~ ~ +ao.aE I +se.ae .\`~~\~d
~`
~' \ ~ taro Lic°o Ac~ss ~
~.. ~ ~ STAl8+50a
,. 3 ~oxsrR~~,
~~~
Poz ~ \`~,RESCENT L O Tt6ER CO.
~ Da 206PaETo
UAE IWES `J
1 ..
ouEE a~ RM PGC.°pSRP.°pRi`n°" yy ~•"i
-L- 4ii+OL 7 POC 19.71' RT. DETAIL B
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
PLAN vEw
M~ NMIbr0lane 1trN1
Plpe or Olicn ern ~e Im mturddrouia
Outlet
e /~ a
T
9
m
2
0
~ DEAfE ENERGT fARPORAT10N
196 PG10E•gT
-t -
~, ~ PI 510 /2+3728 PI S)a W~5976 Pr Sra /6+2)64 P1 Sta A+7695
T~ D= 3525'401rfLT) O= 8549'297'(RT1
'
'
' ~= 506'25!(RT)
'
' ~= 7'35'50.3'ILT)
'
0 • 28
38
524 0 • 3244
25B 0 •4
05
332 D - 405
33,2'
a C • 123bT L • 26274' L • 12479' L - 1$564'
e T -6388' T •16269' T• 6293' T- 9296'
R •200.0.7 R • 775.OD' R • C400A0' R • 1400.00"
;An.
<~
IAb AaD >n
exam boron ena.n
r ~;
7 A-e
~ n.. •n
ASAN
OPaill a NdT~Yd
-CrdwM
~~yyppr ~.at~A AaA I-«,~I Y tNdN
y7,7nia din Anrw rmrN:
STA 17+]0 L Ir.
~l
r` ~
`~~`\\~
W9
r
DETAIL D
flIP AAP AT EN6ANEIAENT
1 Not fo Sedal
oun
2'TNEA' i \_
ILL1510E51 N,9
8 ~'
0 1' FL?ER FawtlC ~
w Y 2 noted
E 0_y 17s AEr•in
ryR. d un« - CtASI 'm zw zAr
STA U+EO 10 fTA 11+67 +F k LT.
FdT. 90 TONE Cl 1 dP I.M
17! is YG. 7Rif1 FAEIIC
\'
,~
n~
w
,,eV

\ \ E ~
\\ \\
\~
~~ ,
~1
`.a
~?

S
t
~ '
1 /
h
~, B-382 ~' r
~ `~
.~ ,
~ '
•. #I'
s
~J~ yl
~~
~~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~~~~.
1577
~7~ .~
o ~ ~Hatrlc~~s ~ t5o~.a ~'
15®7
_ 1',55Q
i 5~ {~,~

S
t .
~r
rop. iya~
ltl~IrvC.1 J
ti't ~t
t~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
i
~ ~ -
p s
t
ffrf~ r
J
1581 ~,~ ~.. ~ BURKE
~~, ~,~ COUNTY
:~ \ ' '~
„~ .__
~~
~ P~'`" ~ ~
~.
4 .~ F 986 T~
e~ 1336 ~ "~' -
~ ~5 1 .l~ta95
'~ r~
~ ,yOtjrNLRN f r '~!
7~
.,~,'~.
~~ +
1 ` ~ ~`r ,
+T~Y.^ '4
POP.1,6'ai '
~-.
~ A~~1
F NORry/ C
~~ ~' 4yo
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~
`T
` TRANSPORTATION
~ DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
~
' -~°/ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
~/
~`~ OF7FtANS,/ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
MCDOWELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.195 ON SR 1552
OVER BEAR CREEK
B-3872
Figure 1