19960445 Ver 1_Complete File_19960508

? T
E
? A
qt SUTEO
y` C ?; 11SS? ® RECEIVED
MAY U 8 1996
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRET- JR.
Gowp,NoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 19, 1996 ;
MAY 1996
E
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLANDS GROUP
Regulatory Field Office WATER QUALri-r 5> -11,1M
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 70 over North Fork
Catawba River on SR 1552, Federal Project No. BRZ-1552(5), State
Project No. 8.2870501, T.I.P. No. B-2587.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge No 70 will be replaced approximately 213 meters (700 feet)
downstream of the existing location with a two-lane structure 106.7 meters (350 feet)
long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure
during construction. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately 0.32
Nectar Gres) of jurisdictional wetland communities.
The proje t is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
ategorical Ex usion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
ticipate re sting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
e it i cordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate 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, Department of
Environmental Management, for their review.
9

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,
Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.F.., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit.
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Ms. Mary Alice Dickens, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator

McDowell County
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1552
Over North Fork Catawba River
Federal Project No. BRZ-1552(5)
State Project No. 8.2870501
TIP ID No. B-2587
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date _4;„ H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
3c-'27R"?C-L"
Date ?rNic la Gra P. E.
Division 'Administrator, FHWA

McDowell County
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1552
Over North Fork Catawba River
Federal Project No. BRZ-1552(5)
State Project No. 8.2870501
TIP ID No. B-2587
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March, 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Qb-&" UZA?? 3.11-9
Mary lic Dickens, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer

e A. Hunki s, P. E.
P 'ect Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0%%11un?,,,11
%%
y\ CAROZ
?? sSS/p;`tiG9
\
- Q =
SEAL S.
t 21649

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Foundation investigations will be conducted on this project. The
investigations will include test borings in soil and/or rock for on-site
testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may
require test borings in streams.
Care will be taken to assure that the occasional flooding and
draining cycle of the floodplain at this site is not altered by
construction activities. Strict application of sedimentation control
policies and Best Management Practices will be followed to avoid serious
damage to the aquatic environment both at the project site and in the
receiving waters downstream.
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 (WRC) prior to the issuance
of the COE permit. A letter of comment regarding the subject project has
been obtained from the WRC (see Appendix, page A-4).
The subject project is expected to result in the fill of
approximately 0.32 hectare (0.78 acre) of wetlands. It is anticipated
that the proposed project will be authorized under a Section 404
Nationwide 33 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained from the N. C.
Division of Environmental Management prior to the issue of the Corps of
Engineers Section 404 permit.
The design speed for the subject project (65 km/hr (40 mph)) is in
character with the adjoining section of roadway; however, an exception
will be required during design since the design speed will be less than
the statutory speed limit of 90 km/hr (55 mph). Advisory speed signs will
be posted as required.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Summary of Project ........................................ 1
II. Existing Conditions ....................................... 1
III. Alternatives .............................................. 2
A. Alternative 1 ......................................... 3
B. Alternative 2.. ....... ........................... 3
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended) ........................... 3
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative .............................. 4
IV. Traffic Detour ............................................ 4
V. Cost Estimates ............................................ 4
VI. Recommended Improvements .................................. 5
VII. Environmental Effects ..................................... 5
A. General Environmental Effects ........................ 5
B. Archaeological Resources ............................. 6
C. Historic Architectural Resources ..................... 6
D. Natural Systems ...................................... 7
1. Physical Resources .............................. 7
a. Water Resources ............................ 7
i. Best Usage Classification ............. 8
ii. Water Quality.. .. ............... 8
iii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts........ 8
b. Soils and Topography ....................... 9
2. Biotic Resources ................................ 10
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 10
i. Man-Dominated Community ............... 10
ii. White Pine Forest.. ....... 11
iii. Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest .............................. 12
b. Aquatic Community .......................... 13
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............. 14
3. Special Topics .................................. 14
a. Waters of the United States ................ 14
i. Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters ...................... 15
ii. Permits ............................... 16
iii. Mitigation ............................ 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
PAGE
b. Rare or Protected Species ................... 16
i. Federally Protected Species............ 17
ii. Federal Candidate and State
Protected Species .................... 19
E. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ......................... 20
F. Farmland .............................................. 21
G. Social Impacts ........................................ 21
1. Relocatees.. ................................... 21
2. Section 4(f) Resources ........................... 21
VIII. Conclusion ................................................. 21
TABLES
Table 1 - Cost Estimates........................................ 4
Table 2 - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............. 14
Table 3 - Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands.... ............ . 15
Table 4 - Federally Protected Species - McDowell
County.... ......... ................................. 17
Table 5 - Federal Candidate Species and Their
State Status .......................................... 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph with Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 - Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 4 - 100-Year Floodplain Map
APPENDIX
McDowell County
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1552
Over North Fork Catawba River
Federal Project No. BRZ-1552(5)
State Project No. 8.2870501
TIP ID No. B-2587
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 70 on SR 1552 in McDowell County. The subject bridge
crosses over the North Fork Catawba River (see Figure 1). NCDOT includes
this bridge in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) classify this project as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. These
agencies expect no substantial environmental impacts to result from the
proposed project.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 70 on new location as shown in
Figure 2, Alternative 3. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge 213 meters
(700 feet) downstream of the existing structure with a new two-lane
structure 106.7 meters (350 feet) long with a clear roadway width of
7.2 meters (24 feet). This width includes 6 meters (20 feet) of travelway
plus 0.6 meter (2 feet) of lateral clearance on each side. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing structure during construction. The project
will require approximately 290 meters (950 feet) of new approach roadway.
The new roadway approaches will have a 6-meter (20-foot) wide travelway
plus 1.2-meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders. It is anticipated that the
project will provide a design speed of 65 km/h (40 mph).
The estimated cost is $957,500, which includes $32,500 for right of
way and $925,000 for construction. The funding allocated in the 1996-2002
TIP is $1,025,000, which includes $25,000 for right of way and $1,000,000
for construction. Therefore, the TIP funding exceeds the total estimated
cost by $167,500.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject bridge is located in central McDowell County, north of
Marion, near Lake James (see Figure 1). The project area is heavily
forested and very rural. A few homes comprise the only development in the
project area (see Figure 2).
The bridge is located inside the proclamation boundary of the Pisgah
National Forest; however, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) does not own any
land in the immediate project vicinity. Any property inside the
proclamation boundary is eligible for inclusion in the National Forest and
may be purchased by the USFS; however, since the land to be acquired as
right of way is not owned by the USFS, no further coordination with the
USFS is necessary.
2
In the vicinity of the subject bridge, SR 1552 is an unclassified
route according to the Statewide Functional Classification System.
South of Bridge No. 70, SR 1552 is a two-lane road with a 6-meter
(20-foot) wide pavement with 1.2-meter (4-foot) wide grassed shoulders.
North of Bridge No. 70, SR 1552 is unpaved and measures 8.5 meters (28
feet) wide. Vertical alignment in the area is good, but the horizontal
alignment is poor (see Figure 2). The south approach has a 50-meter
radius (35-degree) curve, and the north approach has a 37.5-meter radius
(47-degree) curve.
The only utility in the area is an underground telephone cable on the
east side of the bridge. At the bridge, it goes above ground to cross the
river by means of power poles located at each end of the bridge.
Records indicate that Bridge No. 70 was built in 1959, although it is
suspected that the bridge is much older (circa late 1920s). The subject
bridge (see Figure 3) is a steel through-truss bridge with a timber floor
on I-beams. The bridge is 73.1 meters (240 feet) long with a 5.5-meter
(18-foot) clear roadway width. It carries one lane of traffic, and the
posted load limits are 6.4 metric tons (7 tons) for single vehicles and
10.9 metric tons (12 tons) for truck-tractor/semi-trailers (TTSTs). The
deck of Bridge No. 70 is 7.6 meters (25 feet) above the river bed. Water
depth is approximately 2.4 meters (8 feet) in the project area.
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency
rating of Bridge No. 70 is 18.2 out of a possible 100.0 and has an
estimated remaining life of less than 5 years.
The current traffic volume is 300 vehicles per day (VPD) (1993
estimate), and 500 VPD are projected for 2013. Truck percentages are 1%
TTSTs and 2% dual-tired vehicles. The design hourly volume (DHV) is 10%.
The speed limit in the area is not posted.
Traffic Engineering records indicate one accident (non-fatal)
occurred in the vicinity of Bridge No. 70 between January 1, 1991 and
December 31, 1993.
The Transportation Director for McDowell County Schools indicated
that one school bus crosses the subject bridge twice daily. However, the
subject bus crosses the bridge to turn around only because there is
insufficient turn-around room south of the bridge. No school bus is
actually routed across the bridge, and no students are picked up on the
north side of the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Three build alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 70 were studied.
Descriptions of these alternatives follow, and their locations are shown
in Figure 2.
3
A. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would replace the bridge approximately 30 meters (100
feet) uastream of the existing location with a curved structure (see
Figure 2) on a proposed right of way width of 30 meters (100 feet). This
replacement would provide some improvements to the approach curves; it
would replace the existing 50-meter radius (35-degree) and 37.5-meter
radius (47-degree) approach curves with one 85-meter radius (20-degree)
curve. The subject structure would have a clear roadway width of 9.5
meters (31 feet) and a length of 80 meters (262.5 feet). The approach
roadway would have a 7.4-meter (24.5-foot) wide pavement with 1.2-meter
(4-foot) wide grassed shoulders. This alternative would require
approximately 290 meters (950 feet) of new approach roadway: approximately
138 meters (450 feet) on the south approach and.approximately 152 meters
(500 feet) on the north approach. Therefore, approximately 152 meters (500
feet) of the currently unpaved portion of SR 1552 north of the bridge
would be paved under this alternative. It is anticipated that the design
speed for this alternative would be 50 km/h (30 mph). Traffic would be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Alternative 1
is not recommended because it only moderately improves the horizontal
alignment while costing more than the other two alternatives.
B. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would replace the bridge approximately 53 meters
(175 feet) downstream of the existing structure (see Figure 2) on a
proposed right of way width of 30 meters (100 feet). The subject
structure would have a clear roadway width of 7.2 meters (24 feet) and a
length of 83.8 meters (275 feet). The approach roadway would have a
6-meter (20-foot) wide pavement with 1.2-meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders.
This alternative would require approximately 168 meters (550 feet) of new
approach roadway: approximately 76 meters (250 feet) on the south approach
and approximately 92 meters (300 feet) on the north approach. This
alternative would replace the existing 50-meter radius (35-degree) curve
on the south approach with a 46-meter radius (38-degree) curve and the
existing 37.5-meter radius (47-degree) curve on the north approach with a
tangent section. It is anticipated that the design speed for this
alternative would be 30 km/h (20 mph). Traffic would be maintained on the
existing structure during construction.
Although it is the least expensive, this alternative is not
recommended because it does not provide a desirable horizontal alignment.
While Alternative 2 significantly improves the northern approach
alignment, it would result in an alignment of the southern approach that
is even poorer than the existing alignment.
C. Alternative 3 (Recommended)
Alternative 3 (recommended) will replace the bridge approximately
213 meters (700 feet) downstream of the existing location (see Figure 2)
on a proposed right of way width of 30 meters (100 feet). The subject
structure will have a clear roadway width of 7.2 meters (24 feet) and a
length of 106.7 meters (350 feet). The new approach roadway will have a
6-meter (20-foot) wide pavement with 1.2-meter (4-foot) grassed shoulders.
This alternative will require approximately 290 meters (950 feet) of new
approach roadway: approximately 76 meters (250 feet) on the south approach
4
and approximately 214 meters (700 feet) on the north approach. Therefore,
approximately 214 meters (700 feet) of the currently unpaved portion of
SR 1552 north of the bridge will be paved as part of this project. This
alternative will improve both approach alignments significantly; it will
replace the existing 50-meter radius (35-degree) and 37.5-meter radius
(47-degree) approach curves with two 150-meter radius (12-degree) curves.
It is anticipated that the design speed for this alternative will be
65 km/h (40 mph). A pipe (to be sized during hydraulic design) will be
required to convey an unnamed tributary to North Fork Catawba River under
SR 1552. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction.
NCDOT recommends Alternative 3 because it provides the best
horizontal alignment without incurring unreasonable expense or causing
substantial adverse environmental impacts.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical. The bridge would
continue deteriorating until it becomes unusable. This would require the
closing of the road or continued intensive maintenance. Therefore, this
alternative is not recommended.
IV. TRAFFIC DETOUR
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction. Therefore, no traffic detour is required.
V. COST ESTIMATES
The estimated costs of replacing the subject bridge with each of the
studied alternatives are compared below in Table 1.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
(Recommended)
COMPONENT ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3
Bridges $ 569,500 $ 393,000 $ 500,500
Bridge Removal 29,000 29,000 29,000
Mobilization and
Miscellaneous 142,500 106,500 134,000
Roadway and
Approaches 116,000 110,500 140,500
Engineering and
Contingencies 143,000 111,000 121,000
Total Construction $1,000,000 $ 750,000 $ 925,000
Right of Way $ 32,500 $ 31,000 $ 32,500
Total Cost Estimate $1,032,500 $ 781,000 $ 957,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 70 downstream of its existing
location as shown in Figure 2, Alternative 3. Traffic will be maintained
on the existing structure during construction.
The proposed bridge is approximately 106.7 meters (350 feet) long.
The bridge will have a clear roadway width of 7.2 meters (24 feet),
consisting of two 3.0-meter (10-foot) wide lanes plus 0.6 meter (2 feet)
of lateral clearance on each side. The new structure will be located
approximately 213 meters (700 feet) downstream of the existing structure.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction,
avoiding a 25.3-kilometer (15.7-mile) off-site detour along existing
roads.
It is anticipated that the completed project will provide a design
speed of 65 km/h (40 mph). This design speed is in character with the
adjoining section of roadway; however, an exception will be required
during design since the design speed will be less than the statutory speed
limit of 90 km/hr (55 mph). Advisory speed signs will be posted as
required.
The project will require approximately 290 meters (950 feet) of new
approach roadway: approximately 76 meters (250 feet) on the south
approach and approximately 214 (700 feet) on the north approach. The
approach roadway will be a 6-meter (20-foot) wide travelway with 1.2-meter
(4-foot) wide grassed shoulders. This approach roadway cross-section
matches the existing cross-section of the paved portion of SR 1552 south
of the bridge. Beyond the improvements to the north approach
(approximately 214 meters (700 feet) beyond the bridge's north end), SR
1552 will remain unpaved, with a width of 8.5 meters (28 feet). No
improvements to the existing grade of the roadway approaches are proposed
as part of the subject bridge replacement.
NCDOT recommends Alternative 3 because it provides the best
horizontal alignment without incurring unreasonable expense or causing
significant environmental impacts. Although Alternative 2 is less
expensive (see Table 1), it would provide a poor alignment.
The Division 13 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of
Alternative 3.
Construction of Alternative 3 will not increase the 100-year flood
elevation by more than 30 centimeters (12 inches). Figure 4 shows the
100-year flood boundaries. Construction of Alternative 3 will not place
significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due
to its limited scope and non-significant environmental consequences.
6
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial negative effect on
the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current
NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from
construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited; approximately 0.87 hectare
(2.2 acres) of right of way will be required. No adverse effect on public
facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in
the vicinity of the project.
While the subject bridge is located in the vi ci my of the Pisgah
National Forest, no right of way from the U.S. Forest Service will be
required (see Section II).
B. Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that
if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement
project by an NCDOT staff archaeologist to locate and assess any
significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed by
the proposed construction. The results of the survey indicated that the
project is unlikely to encounter any archaeological sites that are
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurs that no further
archaeological investigation should be conducted in connection with this
project since the project will not involve significant archaeological
resources (see Appendix, page A-1). This completes compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
C. Historic Architectural Resources
The area of potential effect (APE) for historic architectural
resources was reviewed in the field by an NCDOT staff architectural
historian. Bridge No. 70, a Pratt through-truss bridge, is the only
property over fifty years of age located within the APE. The bridge was
evaluated in 1995 as part of a re-evaluation study of metal truss bridges
in North Carolina and determined not to be eligible for the National
7
Register. The re-evaluation study was undertaken by representatives of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the NCDOT, and the SHPO. In a
letter dated November 30, 1995, the SHPO concurred that the bridge is not
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (see
Appendix, page A-2).
Since there are no properties within the APE either listed on or
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, no
further compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 is necessary.
D. Natural Systems
Preliminary resource information was gathered and reviewed prior to
the site visit. Information sources included: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (McDowell East), Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
soils map of this area of McDowell County, NCDOT aerial photograph of the
project area (scale 1:1200), North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) water quality classifications for the Catawba River
Basin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species,
and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of uncommon and
protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignments on October
10, 1994 and November 11, 1994. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching, visual observing (binocular),
and recording the identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracts, and
burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic communities were conducted by
observation.
1. Physical Resources
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are
discussed below. The availability of water and soils directly
influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any
biotic community.
a. Water Resources
North Fork Catawba River is a tributary to the Catawba
River at river mile 137.8 in the Catawba River Basin. This
stream flows northwest to southeast at the project site and
enters Lake James (an important impoundment of Catawba River at
river mile 129) approximately 1.9 km (1 mile) south-southeast of
Bridge No. 70. A small unnamed stream, shown on the topographic
map as intermittent, will also be crossed by Alternative 3.
This small stream has cut a channel 1.0 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6
feet) deep through the deep soil of the floodplain and aids in
reducing wetness in the floodplain northeast of the river.
Another small unnamed stream on the southwest side of the river
will be crossed by Alternatives 1 and 2.
8
i. Best Usaae Classification
North Fork Catawba River from Armstrong Creek to Lake
James has been assigned a best usage classification of
Class C by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), 1993. Class C
designates waters suitable for aquatic life, propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. The section of Lake James receiving waters
from North Fork Catawba River is classified as WS-V and
Class B to a point 1.6 km (1.0 mile) upstream of the
Burke-McDowell County line. WS-V indicates waters protected
as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining
to Class WS-IV waters. No categorical restrictions on
watershed discharges are required; however, the Commission
or its designee may apply appropriate management
requirements as deemed necessary for the protection of
downstream receiving waters (15 A NCAC 2B. 0203) suitable
for all Class C uses. Class B indicates waters designated
for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the
"C" classification.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II occur
within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area. No impacts to
sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a
result of the proposed project construction.
ii. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macro-invertebrate organisms. The species richness and
overall biomass are reflections of water quality. Although
139 samplings have been recorded for the Catawba River
Basin, there are no records of a benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling from North Fork Catawba River.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) lists two permitted discharges into North Fork
Catawba River: Baxter Health Care and Coats American Thread
Co. are permitted to discharge treated wastewater into this
river approximately 12.8 km (8 miles) upstream of the
project site.
iii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources in the project
area will result from substrate disturbance, sedimentation,
and increased turbidity, as well as discharge of toxic
substances from construction machinery. Wet concrete
contacting the river water can also cause degradation of
water quality. These impacts may result in a decrease of
dissolved oxygen in the stream, an increase of water
9
temperature, a decline in organisms that serve as the basis
for aquatic food chains, and the smothering of eggs of
spawning game fish.
Alterations of water level due to interruptions to
surface water flow are also likely. All three alternatives
at this site will impact new areas of the stream and
involve varying amounts of new fill. Care should be taken
to assure that the occasional flooding and draining cycle
of the floodplain at this site is not altered by
construction activities. Strict application of sedimenta-
tion control policies and Best Management Practices must be
followed to avoid serious damage to the aquatic environment
both at the project site and receiving waters downstream.
b. Soils and Toooaranh
Most of McDowell County is in the east-central portion of
the Mountain Physiographic Province. The southeastern part of
the county is in the foothill area of the Piedmont-Physiographic
Province. The topography of the county is predominantly
strongly sloping to very steep uplands, except for generally
narrow floodplains along streams. The topography at the project
site ranges from nearly level, narrow floodplains with gently
sloping stream terraces to a very steep upland.
Elevations in the county range from 299 meters (980 feet)
to 1727 meters (5,665 feet). The project site elevations range
from 371 meters (1218 feet) to 415 meters (1360 feet).
The soil series found in the project area are Evard-Cowee
Complex on the uplands and Bi 1 tmore loamy fine sand on the
floodplains. Evard-Cowee Complex soils occur on 25 to 60
percent slopes. This complex consists of very deep,
well-drained, steep Evard soils and moderately deep,
well-drained, steep Cowee soils on mountain side slopes. Evard
soils compose about 70 percent and Cowee soils about 15 percent
of this soil complex. Both Evard and Cowee soils have moderate
permeability, and surface runoff is rapid if areas are left bare
or unprotected. The depth to bedrock in Cowee series is 66 to
152 cm (26 to 60 inches), while the depth to bedrock in Evard
soils is 51 to 102 cm (20 to 40 inches). This is not a hydric
or prime farmland soil.
The Biltmore loamy fine sand consists of very deep,
well-drained and moderately well-drained soil that formed in
recent stream sediments on floodplains adjacent to the larger
streams in the county. The slope is 0 to 3 percent. This soil
is subject to occasional flooding for brief periods. Biltmore
soils have rapid permeability, and surface runoff is slow.
Depth to bedrock is over 1.8 meters (6 feet). The seasonal high
water table is 1.1 meters (3.5 feet) to 1.8 meters (6 feet).
Biltmore
10
loamy fine sand soil is not a hydric soil or a prime farmland
soil; however, included in this mapping unit are small areas of
Iotla soil. The somewhat poorly drained Iotla sandy loam occurs
in depressions and along drainageways. Slopes are 0-2 percent
and occasionally flooded. This is a hydric soil.
2. Biotic Resources
This section describes the communities of flora and fauna.
These descriptions include the dominant plants and animals in each
community and their relationships with one another. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the
species described. Subsequent references to the same species use the
common name only. Animal species which were observed directly or
indirectly during the field survey are denoted with an asterisk (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three 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 wide variety of habitats and
may be found throughout the area.
i. Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes maintained
roadsides, areas used for off-road parking, and a powerline
corridor. Many of these plants are "weedy" species adapted
to disturbed or maintained areas. The low-growing roadside
is dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.). Other scattered
herbaceous species here inc de red clover (Trifolium
pratense), lyre-leaf sage (Salvia lyrata), elephant's foot
(Elephantopus tomentosus), knotweed (Polygonum spp.),
golden ragwort (Senecio aureus), and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). The unmowed roa_cTbanks contain taller species ec s
including stiff gentian (Gentians guinguefolia), hairy
lobelia (Lobelia ubberu?la), bearsfoot (Polymnia uvedalia),
wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), man-root (Ipomoea
pandurata), mult.iflora rose (Rosa multiflora), asters
(Aster spp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), and blackberry
(Rubus sp.). Vines present include bittersweet (Celastrus
scandens), hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata), grape (Vitis
spp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), nd kudzu (Pueraria
lobata), which dominates one area on the southwest side of
the existing bridge.
Residential animal species would be few in these
disturbed areas. However, many opportunistic species which
may reside in nearby communities utilize these areas for
feeding zones. Seeds, berries, fruits, and insects, as
well as living or dead animal matter, attract a wide
variety of foraging animals, including white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
11
short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda kirtlandi),
woodchuck (Marmota m. monax), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), gray fox (Urocyoun c. cinereoargenteus), and
striped skunk (Mephitis m. elongata). Birds likely to
visit the area are Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinal is -,American crow*
(Corvus brachyrhychos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
lu ovicianus), and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
albicollis). Snakes such as the black racer (Columber
constrictor) and eastern. garter snakes (Thamnophis
sirtalis) may also frequent the area to feed on insects and
small mammals in this habitat.
ii. White Pine Forest
This upland community is primarily located southwest
of the present bridge. Alternative 1 crosses through this
community. The dominant canopy tree is white pine (Pinus
strobus) with mixed oaks (uercus montana, Q. rubra, Q.
alba, Q. coccinia), hickories (Carya sp.), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and Fraser magnolia (Magnolia
fraseri). The steep north-facing side of this ridge
adjacent to the river contains more mesic species including
cherry birch (Betula lenta), Carolina silverbell (Halesia
carolina), sweetgums (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), American beech (Fagus americana),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and red maple (Acer
rubrum). The shrub layer is very sparse on the south slope
and contains widely scattered American strawberry bush
(Euonymus americana), horsesugar (Symplocos tinctoria),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), American ollex
opaca), and spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata). As
the aspect becomes more northern, there is a closed canopy
of rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) mixed with
some mountain laurel. Herbs are very limited in the dense
shade of the evergreen trees and shrubs. Crane-fly orchid
(Tipularia discolor), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrosticoides), and a scattering of galax (Galax aphylla)
comprise the sparse herb layer.
Mammals frequenting this community may include
white-tailed deer*, Virginia opossum, mice (Peromyscus
sp.), and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Faunal
diversity in this community is expected to be low near the
roadway. No birds were seen, but the following species may
utilize the area for feeding and/or nesting: white
breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), and
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea).
12
iii. Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This is the most abundant forested community type
occurring within the project alternatives' rights of way,
especially for Alternatives 2 and 3. The dominant species
in the closed canopy are river birch (Betula ni ra), sweet
gum, sycamore, and yellow popular. Other canopy species
present include red oak, Carolina silverbell, Fraser
magnolia, black walnut (Juglans ni ra), ash (Fraxinus
americana), American beech, white oak, hickory, and, along
the river bank, black willow (Salix ni ra).
Understory trees include paw-paw (Asimina triloba),
witch-hazel (Hammelis virginiana), flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), hop hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana),
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), American holy (Ilex
opaca), and, near the river, tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
The sparse shrub layer includes spice bush (Lindera
benzoin), hazel nut (Corylus americana), swamp dogwood
(Cornus. amomum), dog hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana), and
wineberry (Rubus phoenicolasius).
Vines included here are crossvine (Anisostichus
capreolata), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinque-
folia), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), trumpet vine (Bignonia
capreolata), bittersweet, poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and grape (Vitis sp.).
The diverse herb layer varies widely. The floodplain
has terraces on three different levels in most of the area.
The terrace nearest the river is subject to disturbance by
occasional flooding and tends to maintain a higher moisture
level. This level's herbs include river cane (Arundinaria
i antes), jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum), green cone
flower (Rudbeckia laciniata), jewelweed (Impatiens
ca ensis), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), yellow
corydalis (Cor_ydalis flavula), horse tails (Equisetum
h ey male, E. arvense), aneilema (Aneilema keibak), water
smartweed (Polygonum cespitosum vi-r-.-T- and a few
duck potato plants (Sa ittaria latifolia). Some areas on
the upper terraces are completely covered by Japanese grass
(Microstegium vimineum). Other herbaceous species on the
upper terraces include: geum (Geum canadense), horse balm
(Collinsonia canadensis), golden ragwort Senecio aureus),
false nettle (Boeria cylindrica), wild oats (Uniola
latifolia), New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis),
broad beech fern Thelypteris he?xagono tera , maidenhair
fern (Adiantum edatum), spreading bladder fern
(Cystopteris protrusa), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrosticho des), common grapefern (Botrychium dissectum),
Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), agrimony,
bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), arrowleaf ginger
(Hexast_ylis arifolia), silvery spleenwort (Athyrium
thelypterioides), and white snakeroot (Eupatorium ru osum).
13
Faunal species in this moist forested area may include
salamanders, such as marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacu_m),
northern dusky salamanders (Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), and slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus); frogs, such as gray tree frogs
(Hyla chrysosceli), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), green frog (Rana clamitans); and snakes, such
as worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), and queen snake (Regina septem-
vittata).
Other vertebrate species that may frequent this area
include pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), eastern
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), eastern kingfisher
(Megaceryle alycon), raccoon (Procyon 1_ lotor), muskrat
(Ondatra z. zibethicus), and mink (Mustela vison).
Raccoons, mink, and muskrat all utilize aquatic foods.
b. Aquatic Communit
The vegetation along this stream should provide a good
supply of terrestrial dedritus to provide food chain energy.
The dedritus is decomposed by bacteria or consumed by
macroinvertebrates, such as aquatic insects. Aquatic inverte-
brates are a major component of stream ecosystems, both as
primary and secondary consumers and as prey species for
organisms higher in the food chain. Aquatic invertebrates,
including crayfish (Cambaridae sp.) and insects, are present in
North Fork Catawba River.
Amphibian and reptile species likely to reside in this
river include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), and bullfrog (Rana clamitans).
According to Bob Brown, fisheries biologist, this river has
a varied population of fish that is enhanced by its proximity to
Lake James. These species include: large mouth bass (Microp-
terus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis niig omacultus) white
crappie (Pomoxis annularis), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum),
white bass (Morone c romps), small mouth ass (Micropterus
dolomieu), carp (Cyprinus carpio), red horse sucker (Moxostoma
pappillosum), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), quill back
sucker (Carpiodes c rinus), grizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum), Roanoke hog sucker (H_ypentelium roanokense), and
Bigmouth jumprock (Moxostoma ariommum).
Many of the species listed in the alluvial forest also
utilize aquatic species as foods and depend on the river for
their survival.
14
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project
construction are being addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. However, it is important to
remember that construction impacts may not be restricted to the
community in which the construction activity occurs. All
measures possible will be taken to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site.
Most of the project area consists of relatively undisturbed
natural communities. Considerable new fill would be required
for any of the alternatives proposed for this site, especially
Alternatives 2 and 3. These alternatives require more right of
way and would cause further fragmentation and loss of habitat.
Alternative 1 will require some fill and also grading down a
high ridge, both of which could increase the risk of soil
erosion. The right of way width will increase from 18 meters
(60 feet) to 30 meters (100 feet) for all three alternatives.
Construction will result in the loss and displacement of
plant and animal life, regardless of which alternative is
chosen. Areas anticipated to be impacted in each of the
terrestrial communities are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
(hectares/acres)
Alternative Community Type Total
MD* WPF* P/LMAF*
#1 0.74/1.84 0.23/0.57 0.09/0.23 1.06/2.64
#2 0.37/0.92 -0- 0.37/0.92 0.60/1.48
#3 0.19/0.46 -0- 1.29/3.21 1.49/3.67
* MD: Man-Dominated; WPF: White Pine Forest; P LMAF: Piedmont Low
Mountian Alluvial Forest
3. Special Topics
a. 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). "Waters of the United States" are
regulated by'the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (C.O.E.).
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 a designated
"wetland" the following three specifications must be met: (1)
presence of hydric soils, (2) presence of hydrophytic
15
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.
i. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
This project will impact surface waters of North Fork
Catawba River and two unnamed streams which flow into this
area of the river. Jurisdictional wetland impacts are
anticipated in the areas to be crossed by Alternatives 1,
2, and 3. The subject wetland is classified as a
Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Wetland (PF01)
by Cowardin, et. al. (1979). Table 3 lists the approximate
wetland area to be impacted by each proposed alternative.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
(hectares/acres)*
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Alternative #3
SOUTH SIDE RIVER NORTH SIDE RIVER TOTALS
0.02/0.04 0.02/0.05 0.04/0.09
0.02/0.05
0.03/0.06
0.05/0.11
0.04/0.09
0.28/0.69
0.32/0.78
* Based on 100 feet of right of way
These criteria are used to identify jursidictional
wetlands: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. An area having
more than 50 percent of the dominant species classified as
obligate wetland, facultative wetland, and/or facultative
species is considered a wetland. The dominant vegetation on
the lower terraces adjacent to the river contain more than
50 percent facultative or wetter species. The canopy and
sub-canopy species present include river birch, sycamore,
sweet gum, green ash, yellow poplar, black willow, Fraser
magnolia, tag alder, ironwood, spice bush, silky dogwood,
and paw paw. Herb species found in the wetter areas
include river cane, jumpseed, green cone flower, jewelweed,
sensitive fern, horsetails, aneilema, water smartweed, and
a few duck potato plants.
Soil deposits in the subject wetland are entisols
which do not possess typical hydric soil field indicators.
The soil in this floodplaim is mapped as Biltmore soil, but
included in this mapping unit are small areas of Iotla
hydric soil. These inclusions of hydric soil occur in
depressions and along drainageways. The mosaic nature of
these soils enables the delineation of exact wetland
boundaries.
16
Evidence of scouring, matted vegetation, and
high-water marks on tree trunks indicate periodic or
seasonal flooding of the low-lying portions of the
floodplain in the project area. In addition to periodic
flooding, portions of the larger level floodplain north of
the river, which is crossed by Alternative 3, also receive
drainage from the adjacent upland. These facts, plus
evidence of water-borne sediments, are field hydrological
indicators of a jurisdictional wetland. In summary, the
subject areas support the three wetland criteria and should
be classified as jurisdictional wetlands.
ii. 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 (WRC) prior to the issuance of the COE permit.
A letter of comment regarding the subject project has been
obtained from the WRC (see Appendix, page A-4). Also,
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the
state, prior to the issuance of COE permits, issue the
required water quality certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States.
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission states that
trout do not occur at the project site; however, this
stream does reach support spawning runs of white bass,
various species of suckers, and possibly walleye out of
Lake James.
iii. Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a
Nationwide permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters
is not expected to be required by the COE. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with
the COE.
b. Rare or Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action which has the
potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well-being of any species classified as federally protected is
subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. Endangered species receive additional protection under
separate state statutes. In North Carolina protection of plant
species falls under N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to
106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S.
113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
17
i. 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 USFWS lists three (3) federally
protected species for McDowell County as of March 28, 1995.
These species are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species - McDowell County
COMMON NAME
(Scientific Name)
STATUS
Carolina northern flying squirrel E
(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus)
Roan Mountain bluet E
(Hedyotis purpurea var. montana)
Mountain golden heather
(Hudsonia montana)
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).
CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL
(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) 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 1524 meters ,(5000 feet) 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 for 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.
18
ROAN MOUNTAIN BLUET
(Hedyotis purpurea var. montana) E
Plant Family: Rubiaceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1990
Flowers Present: June through August or September
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, McDowell,
Mitchell, Watauga, Yancey
Roan Mountain bluet is a low perennial herb, 4 to 21 cm (2
to 8 inches) 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 purpurea var.
montana has corollas 0.8 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 feet) long, stems
glabrous or nearly so, internodes 0.5 to 4 cm (0.2 to 2 inches)
long, cauline leaves 3 cm (1 inch) long and 1.3 cm (0.5 inch)
wide. Basal oval to spatulate leaves form a rosette in winter,
usually withered at flowering time. The deep purple flowers are
funnel-shaped, 0.8 to 1.2 cm (0.3 to 0.5 inches) long with 4
lobes shorter than tube. Mature capsules are roundish, 0.2 to
0.4 cm (0.1 to 0.2 inch) long and 0.2 to 0.4 cm (0.1 to 0.2
inch) wide with many seeds. This plant occurs on mountain-tops,
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.
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.
MOUNTAIN GOLDEN HEATHER
(Hudsonia montana) 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 10 to 20
cm (4 to 8 inches) across and 20 cm (8 inches) high; it
sometimes occurs in clumps that are 30 cm (12 inches) or more
across. The leaves from the previous year are retained and
appear scale-like on the older branches. Leaves are from 0.3 to
0.7 cm (0.1 to 0.3 inch) long and appear awl-shaped and
thread-like. It forms solitary, terminal, lanceolate flowers
that are nearly 3 cm (1 inch) 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 1.3 cm (0.5 inch) stalks.
19
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 sand
myrtle (Leiophyllum 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 area does not support suitable habitat for this
species. No impact to mountain golden heather will occur from
proposed construction.
ii. 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 is 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; they
may become protected in the future. Table 5 lists these
federal candidate species.
The North Carolina status of these 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) 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.
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.
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.
20
W5 (Watch Category 5 - rare because of severe decline)
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).
Table 5. Federal Candidate Species and Their State Status
McDowell County
COMMON NAME
(Scientific Name) STATUS HABITAT
Federal State
Eastern small-footed bat C2 SC No
(Myoti's subulatus leibii)
Eastern woodrat C2 SC No
(Neotoma floridana magister)
Cerulean warbler C2 SR Yes
(Dendroica cerulea)
Bog turtle C2 T No
(Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Diana fritillar butterfly C2 SR No
(Speyeria diana)
Butternut C2 W5 Yes
(Ju_ lcl ans cinerea)
Gray 'slily C2 T-SC No
(Lilium grayi)
Oconee-bells C2 E-SC No
(Shortia galacifolia)
Short-styled oconee-bells. C2 E-SC No
(Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla)
Surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits, nor were any of these species observed.
E. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located in McDowell County, which has been determined
to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located
in an attainment area. This project is an air quality "neutral" project,
and a project level CO analysis is not required. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
Three alternatives were studied for the replacement of the existing
bridge over the North Fork Catawba River. The three alternatives are
contained in a corridor extending from 30 meters (100 feet) upstream of
the existing bridge to approximately 304.9 meters (1000 feet) downstream
21
of the existing location. No receptors
alternatives or in the vicinity of the
existing and future traffic volumes and
area, the project's impact on noise and
are located in the vicinity of the
existing bridge.
the lack of any
air quality will
Due to the low
receptors in the
be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and
NEPA), and no additional reports are required.
F. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. These soils are designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
based on a number of factors, including crop yield and expenditure of
energy and other resources. Land which has been converted to
non-agricultural uses is exempt from the requirements of the Act.
The proposed bridge replacement project is located on land which is
not used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, no further consideration
of potential farmland impacts is required.
G. Social Impacts
1. Relocatees
The subject project is not expected to relocate any families or
business.
2. Section 4(f) Resources
The subject project will not impact any resources eligible for
protection under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the
project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore,
it is determined that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable to this
project.
MAD/tp
z?
226
S1 PISC
n NATIONAL FOREST
I SSS \ 9
O
BRIDGE NO. 70
R ??<! BAID MTN.
1353•
,ssz
- 1388 ,
S
1`.`r? -,` ? IAvtE

fie
Shille
%
T
GARDEN CREEK \
POP. 1,161
(UNINC.) >
O SOUTHERN
1301 `?- 2 71

?G? ;
?G ?'
" ..:•
?
?G(y
'
4 .
,ti
' EAST MARION
t •
.? 9': POP. 1,851
`
(UNINC)
•'a ??•

RION `
.
POP. 3,684 FAP .?

Grant
A FAS.
WEST MARION ?e
POP. 1,596 er /
3
1
,
40
0
0
NA DEPARTMENT OF
[ON
GHWAYS
ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNTY
ON SR 1552
CATA WBA RIVER
-2587
0 1 2MILES FIG. 1
,?#= ,
? ??-:
u r,,?
BRIDGE NO. 70
MCDOWELL COUNTY
B-2587
LOOKING WEST
LOOKING SOUTH
(SOUTH APPROACH)
LOOKING NORTH
PHOTOGRAPHS OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS
FIG. 3
j..
ZONE X /
MCDOWELL COUNTY
1.i
1
BRIDGE NO. 70
NORTH FORK
C,
91
ZONE A
_ONE X

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
f
9\
0
N
co
r? -
?ti
II JN
rr
11
I I
ZONE X
II
f?
?I
?f J
ij
- /i
/i
B-2587
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP _
FIG. 4 I
A*ft. _ . .. - - . _ .... Oft,
.v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resnilrces
James B. Jaunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 10, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological Survey, replace Bridge No. 70 on
SR 1552 over North Fork of Catawba River,
McDowell County, Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1552(5),
State No. 8.2870501, TIP B-2587, ER 94-7441,
ER 94-8809
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division A.
William S
. El v
G
s
MAY 1 2 1994
eQ?16?b?F ?.•••
Till
Thank you for your letter of April 261994, transmitting. the archaeological survey
report by Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Mr.
Glover has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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
0oncerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earle},
,..,,jmvironmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Since ly,
?Da ' Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slZF. wcc: Vick
T. Padgett
A-1
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
5rArZ
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.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-2
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
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,
? r
?
a"v D iid ?Br ot
k
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
"B. Church
A-3
?n
Q4?
E. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 15, 1996 Ih
SUBJECT: Review of replacement of Bridge #70 on SR 1552 over North Fork Catawba
River, McDowell County, TIP #B-2587.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the alternative recommended by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission previously commented on
the scoping sheets for this project in a memorandum to you dated 16 September 1993. The
NCDOT is preparing a Categorical Exclusion for this project.
The recommended alternative, Alternative 3, will replace the subject bridge on new
location approximately 213 meters (700 feet) downstream (east) of the existing bridge. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The bridge crosses a part of the North Fork Catawba River that is a backwater of Lake
James. The river does not support trout in the project area; therefore, we have no objection to
the project as described and no additional recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
cc: Ms. Missy Dickens, NCDOT

:SEE 1 ? 1a4b

A4
v ... ,-
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1'lol q-a
TO* REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
l / v`?/ ?1 Y _ ?li?^L tJ I
FRIT ` REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
pIic ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
4
F SEP 1 31993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WATER Ldi I BECK
DEPARTMENT OF T) ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 3, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 70 on SR 1552 Over the Catawba River, McDowell
County, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1552(5), State Project
No. 8.2870501, TIP No. B-2587
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 9:30 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.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Missy Dickens, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MD/plr
Attachment
cry f '-A

G
7?
?3
I _
J
,
e7 --
.%
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9-3-33
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
F.A. PROJECT
B-2587
8.2870501
BRZ-1552(
DIVISION 13
COUNTY McDowell
ROUTE SR 1552
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridge No. 70 over the Catawba River,
McDowell County
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 X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 1 (a)
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 100) VPD; DESIGN YEAR X00 VPD
TTST o DT o
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUC'T'URE: LENGTH 73.15 METERS; WIDTH 4.57 METERS
240 FEET 15 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE :
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
OR
CULVERT °-
METERS
FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH
OR
PIPE - SIZE
METERS; WIDTH METERS
FEET FEET
MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF `,r1AY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST .......................................
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST.......... .................... $1,000,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 25,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $1,025,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $ 100,000
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................$1,125,000
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Missy Dickens, Project Planning Engineer
DATE: September 3, 1993

1440
226
1451 0 ?) ! 155 1.2`
Q G4¢?? 5 , ('?? r 1552
1.0:
ti
ry •c• 1552 ?;?..?.:4..,?i:.
1555 j .:i '. `) 1 (tl
BRIDGE #70
1.4` .0 BALD MTN. \ r r r _ .: !) T?
WIT,
I i
1433 1553
D J?
FA$ M ?, lI -/.' 1588 NJES
ke \ 1434 .3 1577 _ J A
.:: :... 158 :.
ahoma
221 Hankins
1434
F-
Shiflet Fiel S
` ,o? ?In'i?mndl? Nebo
80 co rGARDEN CREEK
POP. 1,161 _? STS
(UNINC.)
S? SOUTHERN
1501 N
4.2 70
': ? ? ? FMS
ON
Pleasant q ! E POP. 1,85 1
Gardens p (UNINC)
?• ? PAI
fed,
1.
RAIkWAY
1214~.?, s NORTH CAROL
RI ON
1191 POP. a,6aa F TRANSPORTAT
AP ' DIVISION OF H
?e xk? 'p PLANNING AN
1252 Gte 7.0 BRANCH
1 194 Grant
m FAS SR 155
WEST MARION = 0a BRIDGE N
1191 ?'
249 ?. 3 Z 81 v; POP. 1,596 eP OVER THE CATA
1188 1164 (UNINC) 21 40 B-258
MCDOWELL

INA DEPARTMENT OF
ION
IGH WAYS
D ENVIRONMENTAL
2
0.70
WBA RIVER
7
COUNTY
0 1 2 MILES
FIG.
. i %
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
11 -23-R3
TO:
CA'i G Gt??»? REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
d M -rJ ?N12
FROM •
` REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

cq e
F
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL .
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
y?' ?,aSGiFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Missy Dickens, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 70 on SR 1552 over the Catawba River, McDowell
County, Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1552(5), State
Project No. 8.2870501, TIP Project No. B-2587
A meeting was held on October 14, 1993 at 9:30 A.M. in the Planning and
Environmental Conference Room (room 470) to determine the scope of work for
the subject project. The following persons were in attendance:
David Foster
Ray Moore
Danny Rogers
Mark Cole
Abdul Rahmani
Jerry Snead
Kathy Lassiter
Roland Robinson
Kitty Houston
Wilson Stroud
Charles Cox
Missy Dickens
DEHNR-Highway Environmental Evaluation
Structure Design
Program Development
Traffic Control
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
I opened the meeting by describing the existing conditions in the
project vicinity. Average daily traffic is estimated at 300 for the year
1993 and 500 for the year 2013. Although no school buses need to cross the
bridge to pick up students, one does cross the bridge twice each day in order
to turn around because of the poor condition of the existing turn-around on
the west end of the bridge.
Bill Smart, Division 13 Engineer, had communicated by memo that SR 1552
should not be closed to traffic due to the length of the shortest offsite
detour (15.7 miles). He recommends that the structure be replaced with a new
structure either upstream or downstream, maintaining traffic on the existing
structure.

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
November 23, 1993
Page 2
Eric Galamb with the N. C. Division of Environmental Management was
unable to attend but had called in his comments. He stated that the Catawba
River in the project vicinity is classified as "C" Waters, and therefore
standard erosion control measures should be sufficient. He recommends
replacing the existing structure with a new structure at the existing
location, closing the road, and providing an off-site detour.
It was suggested that a new structure be placed just upstream of the
existing structure in order to somewhat straighten the approach alignments.
This realignment may require a curved structure. Although traffic could be
maintained on the existing structure under this scenario, it appears that
closing the road and providing an off-site detour may be reasonable based
upon low traffic volumes. It is suspected that most traffic using the
unpaved portion of SR 1552 (east of the bridge) is recreational (for hunting
or for the use of Lake James). I am to speak with Bill Smart regarding the
feasibility of road closure.
The Structure Inventory Report records that the subject bridge was built
in 1959. However, there is reason to believe that the bridge is older than
that, dating possibly back to the 1920s or 1930s. Kitty Houston is
continuing to research a more precise date for the bridge.
Robin Stancil with the State Historic Preservation Office was unable to
attend but had called in her comments. The subject bridge is potentially
eligible since it is a metal truss bridge, and it is the last through pratt
truss in McDowell County. No other properties listed on the National
Register are recorded in the project area. An archaeological survey should
be conducted.
There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned.
MAD/rfm
Attachment
1440 1.5 S'
226
1451 O ?I 1551
Q Gtey? .5, l`?-/• 1552
0 10
15 5 2
1555 (
BRIDGE 70
BALD MTN.
1433 1553
fA5 N ? ?i?.'' ? 1i 1588
k¢ - \ ?-+4 i:.3 1577 158 'Its
".u t
ahoma
221 Hankins
1434
N??Shifle Fiel `\ ?? 5
••? q 'I ? 'l FA
PPS :A
a /!On„nlldl//'?
Nebo
80 s GARDEN CREEK S
p3 POP. 1,161 -? tr
?, ? ?' ? (UNINC.j ?
SOUTHERN
'? :: • 70 %"erg 1501 70
t r 4.2
C,, g
\ '2?GU?(G`•,`.•1 <' EAST MARION
Pleasant ?{i •? POP. 1,851
. Gardens \ q (UNINC)
?•' . ` FAt
1•
RALLWAY 1.0
.121,4 NORTH CAROL
RION
TRANSPORTAT
1191 / OP. 3,684 Ar ,
DIVISION OF H
PLANNING AN
1252 Gt?_ Grant T•0 BRANCH
m FAS SR 15
10 WEST MARION = I0 BRIDGE N
249 c. 191 3 Z 81 POP. 1,596 t? OVER THE CATA
IIBe 1161 (UNINC) 21 40 B-258
momli McDOWELL
0
INA DEPARTMENT OF
ION
IGHWAYS
D ENVIRONMENTAL
52
0.70
WBA RIVER
7
COUNTY
0 1 2 MILES
FIG.