FHWA - M0-040483-F ruce ECEIVET OCT5 2004 040483 FI Environmental I Route 17 Texas County, Missouri South of Route O to South of Howell County Line Bridge Replacement, Job Number J9P0440 MENT MODO autot ministration souri Department of Transportation ! ! FHWA-MO-EIS-02-01-F Route 17, Texas County, Missouri South of Route O to South of Howell County Line Bridge Replacement with Approaches Job Number J9P0440 Final Environmental Impact Statement Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and 3 The Missouri Department of Transportation In Cooperation with United States Department of Interior National Park Service Ozark National Scenic Riverways 3 9/29104 Date of Approval Juan Buit CHIEF ENGINEER Title For MODOT qz9bg Date of Approval zo 2 2 Dr. Adimin For FHWA Title The following persons may be contacted for additional information about this document: Mr. Don Neumann Programs Engineer FHWA Division Office 209 Adams St. Jefferson City, MO 65101 (573) 636-7104 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MODOT P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-4622 Section 4 (1) The proposed action provides for the improvement of State Route 17 to correct roadway deficiencies on new location and to replace existing Bridge # J-665, over the Jacks Fork River, in Texas County. The Route 17 improvement is planned as a two-lane facility with 80 kmh (50 mph) design speed. Comments on this document should be directed to the individuals listed above by: NOV 15 2004 > The imp: alig secti that trat the Oza the leac Pro wwwm the mi The Riu Th spe Re an AL fa CC TI ad 4 tH A e f SUMMARY The purpose of this project is to replace the existing bridge over the Jacks Fork River and to improve the approaches to the bridge. The existing route has substandard vertical and horizontal alignment as well as a bridge, which is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The section of roadway, immediately north and south of the existing bridge has a total accident rate that is higher than the statewide average. The route also carries a substantial volume of truck traffic and it will be necessary to keep the existing bridge open to traffic, during construction of the new bridge. These factors necessitate relocation of the existing route through or around the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) area, north of Mountain View, MO. Relocation of the route and replacement of the bridge will improve safety and increase operating efficiencies leading to a reduction in traffic congestion and pollution. a Project J9P0440 is located in south-central Missouri in Texas County. The project begins 0.5 mi south of the Howell County Line, and extends north to a point approximately 1.5 miles north of the Howell County Line. The project, along the existing roadway, is approximately 3.22 km (2.0 mi) in length. The proposed action provides for the replacement of existing Bridge # J-665, over the Jacks Fork River, in Texas County, to improve the bridge approaches, and correct roadway deficiencies. The Route 17 improvement is planned as a two-lane facility with 80 km/hour (50 mph) design speed. Reasonable alternates considered include a "no-build" alternate, upgrading the existing facility, a and nine "build" alternates on new location (Plate 1). These nine alternates have been labeled: Alternates A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I (See Section B, page 6 in the document). Mass transit facilities, such as commuter bus, subway, and light rail service, currently do not exist within the corridor and are not considered to be viable alternates for consideration. Section 4 (1) The main areas of concern, associated with this project are: 1) Impacts and right of way acquisition from the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), 2) Total Cost, 3) Displacements, 4) Visual impacts of the new bridge, and 5) Impacts to the natural environment. As depicted on the following tables, all of the alternates contain potential impacts to some or all of the areas. Alternates A and I, totally avoid impact to ONSR, but, in terms of cost, are the two most expensive of all the alternates. Alternates A, B, C, D, and I are the farthest in distance from the existing facility and thus would divert travelers away from the currently placed recreational facilities. The four least expensive alternates would impose a high acreage impact on ONSR. Alternates A, B, C, D, and I involve residential and/or commercial displacements. The other four alternates (E, F, G, and H) will not displace any residential or commercial structure. All of the alternates will require a new bridge crossing the Jacks Fork River. The dimensions of the proposed new bridge, depending upon which alternate is selected, ranges from 160 ft to 30 ft in height and from 1,085 ft to 500 ft in length. The current facility is 30 ft above the average low water level and is 329 feet long. All of the alternates will impact the natural environment, in varying degrees. At this point there are no major controversies and no major unresolved issues. A Preferred Alternate (Alternate G) has been selected, but the final selection of an alternate will not be made until the Record of Decision. 1 * : SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS* ALTERNATES B C D E F G** H Section # 1-8 1-7 1-6 2-4 2-3-6 2-3-11-4 2-11-4 Length (mi) 4.15 3.33 2.38 0.99 1.66 1.14 1.18 Costs (x $1,000) 14,269 12,060 10,453 5,206 6,253 5,671 4,701 Farmland (acres) 79.6 91.8 63.8 14.3 27.7 10.0 14.0 Economic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Displacements Commercial 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 Residential 15 9 9 0 1 0 0 Air Quality No No No No No No No Noise No No No No No No No Wetlands (acres) 0.40 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 Stream Crossings 3 3 1 3 3 3 4 Water Quality No No No No No No No Floodplain (acres) No No No No No No No Permits Required Section 401 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Section 404 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodplain No No No No No No No Wild/Scenic Rivers No No No No No No No Sensitive Biological Resources Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Geologic Features Caves 1 3 0 0 2 2 7 Sinkholes 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 Mines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Lands/Parks 9.0 12.4 32.0 26.3 22.4 7.0 21.1 (ONSR-acres) Cultural Resources Architecture 5 4 4 1 0 0 0 Archaeology 8 7 5 3 4 3 3 Bridge 4(f) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Known 4(f) Prop. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous Waste No No No No No No No Visual Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Construction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bridge Height (ft) 160 140 60 60 30 45 30 Length (ft) 1,085 920 910 800 600 500 600 Acres 2.99 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.65 1.65 1.65 * These potential impacts are based on an alternate corridor width of 500 feet, while the actual right of way utilized will be 150 feet. This allows flexibility and maneuverability to avoid or minimize impacts. **Preferred Alternate--Based on 3R design and construction criteria. Yes SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AVOIDANCE ALTERNATES Alternate A* Alternate I Section # 9-10 9-10 Length (miles) 8.98 14.0 Costs (x $1,000) 21,770 21,300 Farmland (acres) 156.7 18.7 Economic Impacts Yes Yes Displacements Commercial 1 0 Residential 30 5 Air Quality No No Noise No No Wetlands (acres) 5.22 5.85 Stream Crossings 9 16 Water Quality No No Floodplain (acres) No No Permits Required Section 401 Yes Yes Section 404 Yes Floodplain No No Wild/Scenic Rivers No No Sensitive Biological Resources Yes Yes Geologic Features Caves 0 0 Sinkholes 3 0 Mines 0 0 Public Lands/Parks 0.00 0.00 ONSR (acres) Cultural Resources Architecture 12 38 Archaeology 17 7 Bridge 4(f) Yes Yes Known 4(f) Properties 0 0 Hazardous Waste No No Visual Yes Yes Construction Yes Yes Bridge Height (feet) 60 60 Length (feet) 600 1,000 Acres 1.65 5.0 *These potential impacts are based on an alternate corridor width of 500 feet, while the actual right of way utilized will be 150 feet. This allows flexibility and maneuverability to avoid or minimize impacts. Gemonas | TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Purpose and Need for Action.......... 1. Description of Existing Facility. 2. Average Daily Traffic.......... 3. Program Data......... 4. Accident Rates........ 5. Level of Service.... 6. System Linkage.... B. Alternates............ 1. No Build............. 2. Transportation System Management (TSM)............. 3. Improving the Existing... 4. Build Alternates... a. Alternate A..... b. Alternate B..... c. Alternate C..... d. Alternate D...... e. Alternate E..... f. Alternate F..... g. Alternate G........ h. Alternate H.......... i. Alternate I...... j. Cost Data and Summary. C. Natural Environment............ D. Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts......... 1. Socioeconomic Considerations......... a. Environmental Justice..... b. Public Involvement Efforts........ c. Public Service Considerations...... d. Economic Impacts............ e. Socioeconomic Impact Summary....... 2. Right of Way Acquisition and Displacements 1 1 3 3 .... 5 5 .6 7 .9 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 ..... 13 13 14 14 15 ..17 Section 4 (1) 17 19 19 ..20 ....20 a. No Build... b. Build Alternates.. c. Relocation Assistance.. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Concerns.. 4. Farmland Impacts..... 5. Land Use Impacts............. a. Residential Development Land... b. Commercial and Industrial Development Land.. c. Public/Institutional Land... d. Public Lands............ e. Open Agricultural and Forested Lands..... 20 21 21 22 24 25 ....25 26 ...... 26 27 28 28 28 U 6. Geologic Features.......... a. Caves and other Geologic Features. b. Sinkholes.............. c. Mines and Mineral Resources.. 7. Fish and Wildlife Impacts...... 8. Sensitive Biological Resources.. a. Federally Endangered Species.. b. Threatened, Endangered and Otherwise Sensitive Species. c. Natural Features............. 9. Wild and Scenic Rivers... 10. Air Quality........... 11. Hazardous Waste.... 12. Water Quality 13. Floodplains.. 14. Wetlands and other Waters of the U. S.... 15. Noise.............. 16. Cultural Resources. a. Archaeology.. b. Architecture.. c. Bridges........ d. Summary of Alternates......... 17. Parklands, Public Lands, and Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources. a. Barn Hollow Natural Area.......... b. Ozark Scenic National Riverways............ c. Angeline Conservation Area......... d. Mountain View City Parks........... e. Environmental Consequences.. 18. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 19. Permits............. 20. Visual Impacts....... 21. Energy Impacts..... 22. Construction Impacts....... E. Recommendations......... F. Comments and Coordination........ G. Final Section 4(f) Evaluation...... H. Memorandum of Agreement..... I. List of Preparers...... J. Mailing List.......... K. Index........ L. Appendices........ 1. Appendix A-Supporting Documentation 2. Appendix B - Comment letters and meeting minutes 3. Appendix C-DEIS Comments and Responses 4. Appendix D-Plates 1-13 5. Appendix E - Bridge Aesthetics ....... 29 ..30 33 34 34 .38 40 .42 46 .48 50 50 51 .52 .53 ... 55 ........57 .58 ... 58 59 ... 60 ... 62 ... 63 63 64 64 64 ..64 65 66 67 68 69 69 75 ... 107 ..110 114 ... 119 120 Section 4 (1) - 1 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. EXISTING PAVEMENT FACILITY DATA.. .......... 2 TABLE 2. EXISTING BRIDGE DATA........... ............ 2 TABLE 3. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)... ..............3 TABLE 4a. PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND DESIGN CRITERIA......... ......4 TABLE 4b. PROGRAM DATA (COST IN $1,000's)............. .......4 TABLE 4c. ROADWAY STANDARDS....... .4 TABLE 5. ACCIDENT RATE INFORMATION (1998-2002)... .........5 TABLE 6a. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CHARACTERISTICS. ..... 6 TABLE 6b. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)............. ( 6 TABLE 7. ALTERNATE COST SUMMARY......... .... 15 TABLE 8. SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS. ..... 18 TABLE 9. ALTERNATE DISPLACEMENTS AND ROW ACQUISITION.. 22 TABLE 10. EXISTING LAND USE.......... ........27 TABLE 11. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR OTHERWISE SENSITIVE SPECIES........... ........ .43 TABLE 12. BIOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.......... .....47 TABLE 13. POTENTIAL WETLAND IMPACTS........... ..........54 TABLE 14. POTENTIAL STREAM IMPACTS........... ........... 55 TABLE 15. NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA, ........55 TABLE 16. NOISE FACTORS.. ..... 56 TABLE 17. CULTURAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS........ ...... 61 TABLE 18. BRIDGE AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS..................67 C C TABLE 19. ONSR LAND HOLDINGS........ ........ 79 TABLE 20. ONSR ANNUAL VISITOR USE.......... ....80 TABLE 21. NPS SITE VISITS BY STATE, MISSOURI 1999...... ....80 TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...............95 TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.. .96 TABLE 24. LAND COVER TYPES WITHIN ONSR........... ........97 TABLE 25. ESTIMATED BRIDGE AND CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS................100 TABLE 26. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING AND PLANNED ONSR IMPROVEMENTS........... ..........102 CS | A. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1. Description of Existing Facility The portion of Route 17 under study is located within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in South Central Missouri (Figure 1). This segment of Route 17 has substandard vertical and horizontal alignments and a bridge (#J-665) over the Jacks Fork River, which is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The portion of roadway immediately north and south of the bridge has a higher than normal accident rate. Due to the recreational nature of the area, in the summer months the traffic becomes heavily congested. The purpose of this project is to eliminate the vertical and horizontal deficiencies, replace the existing bridge, reduce the accident rate, and alleviate traffic congestion. The study involves project J9P0440 which was originally programmed at a length of two miles with limits of 1.5 miles north to 0.5 miles south of the Texas/Howell County Line. The study area is based on a reasonable area where alternative 500-foot wide corridors can be developed. The project limits for J9P0440 will be adjusted to those of the preferred alternate as developed in this study. A Merged NEPA/404 Process is not being used on this project as there will be minimal wetland impacts and it is anticipated that a nationwide permit will be issued from the U.S. Corps of Engineers. a Route 17 serves as a major connector facility between the towns of Summersville, north of the Jacks Fork River, and Mountain View, which is south of the Jacks Fork River. The distance between these two towns is approximately 15.0 miles. The portion of Route 17, located in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, was built in 1931. The original roadway had a gravel surface. In 1947, a twenty-foot wide oil and aggregate treatment was added. From 1957 to 1990 there have been four twenty-foot wide bituminous material resurfacing projects on the route. Much of the vertical and horizontal alignment within the study area does not meet the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommendations for two-lane rural minor-arterial highways. The approaches to Jacks Fork have 7%-8% grades and curves with radii as low as 198 feet. Curves should have a minimum radius of 764 feet, grades a maximum of 5%, lane widths of twelve feet, and shoulders eight feet wide to provide for a safe, smooth flow of traffic. In the two-mile area near Jacks Fork River there are twelve curves with radii less than 764 feet and seven grades greater than 5 percent. Travel lanes are ten feet wide and shoulders are two feet wide. Technical data pertaining to the existing facility is presented in Table 1. The Index Rating in Table 1 consists of a composite analysis of Pavement condition, Congestion, and Safety, for the section of roadway listed. Condition, ranging from very poor to very good, rates the condition of the pavement. Congestion evaluation is based upon an average of the peak hour Level of Service (LOS) and the numerical amount of daily usage. The LOS is a qualitative measure of the operating conditions (speed, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience) for the section of road. LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The average daily usage is determined by dividing the average daily traffic by the number of lanes on the existing facility. The Congestion Index ranges on a scale from very poor to very good. The Accident Rate, ranging from very poor to very good, is determined through a comparison of the number of accidents on a section of road, to the statewide average of accidents on similar type Gladden 5 Licking 32) 3 2 Jadwin Bunker 5 RK Werk DENT Success 7 (137 17) 5 Akers F (38 3 Raymondmilie 5 Farrugw + Houston Goud Spring Pound Spring 63 Ozark 17) Hartshot Yucon ទី១ Soena Hverwals 5 Eunice Siramons Ek Crack aos Fork Hissch Ty2010 TEXAS 137) Dun Cabool 3 (106 Summersvile Owls Bd 2 Emmande 2 West Arrinence ήτοι NIS Study Area 181) 3 Serting 19 Forest 10 Winona CAR Willow Springs 1 17 2 12 Mount in View 5 Lanter MARK 2 8 (76) TWAIN 3 3 60 5 Fr 3 3 Huron Walicy 4 1 6 00 SHANNO 19 Burnhain NATL 181 17 tipico (99 MARK FOREST Dorone de Church Peaca vale 19 14 Piotr be Sicain Spraigs 63 Thomassile 5 Greer beness NATIONAL 8 SUSU 160 JI 6 West Plains Donele POVE! Brands 160 OREGON bic Hocomio South Fork 3 HOWELL Koshkorong 63 5 17 Dong 101 Moody 1 TI Lanion 142) 142 Bakersted 2 ARKANSAS augunung 223 (395 (87 1524 93 Figure 1. General location map for the proposed improvement to Route 17, Texas/Shannon/Howell Counties, Job No. J9P0440. € 1 During the inspection to determine the rating the condition of the deck, superstructure, and substructure are evaluated on a scale of 0 to 9, where 9 is new condition and 0 is critical. Potential exists for minor rehabilitation if the rating is 5 or above and marginal condition exists with a rating of 4. A 3 indicates immediate attention is needed. A bridge with a condition rating of 3 is a Priority 1. A priority 2 rating indicates the bridge is in poor condition. a 2. Average Daily Traffic The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes or total number of vehicles, and the percentage of those vehicles that are trucks, are depicted in Table 3. The amount of traffic is projected to increase by the construction year (2005) and nearly double by the design year (2025) for the project location. The majority of trips on this segment of Route 17 are for working and shopping in Summersville and Mountain View. However, during the summer months there is an increase in the number of tourism vehicles and an increased movement of agricultural and timber products. Traffic congestion with the associated delays and energy consumption is now prevalent, especially in the areas immediately south and north of the existing bridge. The narrow bridge width and the poor vertical and horizontal approach alignments contribute to the traffic congestion. However, the design year ADT is well below the level that would require additional travel lanes. Table 3. Location Log Mile 134.15-136.68 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Current Year Construction Year Design Year Percentage of (2000) (2005) (2025) Large Trucks 2,450 2,750 4,700 15% 3. Program Data а In 1992, MODOT identified the need to improve the portion of Route 17, which runs through the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The scope of the proposed project (J9P0440) was to replace the Jacks Fork River Bridge (J-665). In a letter received from the Department of the Interior on May 27, 1993, referring to both Route 17 and Route 19, "The National Park Service supports the concept of replacement of these four structures for safety purposes." Upgrading Bridge #J-665 is included in MODOT's current 5-year plan. This project will provide an upgraded link for residents of eastern Texas County and western Shannon County who desire to travel south to connect with U.S. Route 60. The new bridge facility will be wider and the approaches will have better vertical and horizontal alignment. This will improve safety measures and operating efficiencies while reducing traffic congestion and pollution. Both local and through traffic as well as existing and future commercial development will benefit from this improvement. Access controls are being considered along the corridor to help maintain safety standards. Any needed construction projects will involve grading and surfacing and may involve bridges for stream crossings. The tentative Fiscal Year 2000 cost estimates for the entire project are shown in Table 4b. Right of Way acquisition and construction funding is 3 | by currently not in the five-year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In Tables 4a and 4b, as well as throughout this document, the terms Construction Year and Design Year are used for traffic count purposes. While the District anticipates construction in 2005, actual construction is contingent on the availability of funding, which is uncertain at this point. A typical cross section of a new facility would normally be a two-lane highway with a design speed of 50 mph (80 km/h). This roadway would normally have a roadbed width of 40 feet, with two12 ft lanes and 8 ft shoulders. The right of way width will generally be 150 ft, but will vary with the topography and the amount of slope that will be required. а Table 4a. PROPOSED TRAFFIC & DESIGN CRITERIA Const.* Design* Function Design Design Number / Median Roadbed ROW ADT ADT Class Bracket Speed Width Lanes Width Width Control 2,750 4,700 Rural- >1700 80 km/h 2 x 3.6 m NIA 12.2 m 150ft Minor (50 mph) (2 x 12A) (40 ft) Width/ Arterial Normal *Construction Year - 2005 and Design Year - 2025 (Actual Construction Year is Unknown) Table 4b. PROGRAM DATA (Costs in $1000's) PE Right of Way Construction Year Cost Year Cost Year Cost 2002 904 2003 337 Future 10,051 Job Number J9P0440 Project Type Construction However, because the proposed new facility is located within a National Park (ONSR) it was determined that flexible roadway standards should be explored. The sensitive nature of the surrounding environment allowed for additional design work to be completed that would accommodate National Park Service (NPS) desires to minimize environmental impacts. In response to this, an alignment was developed that incorporated standards based upon resurfacing, rehabilitation, and restoration, or what is widely known as 3R standards (See Appendix E for 3R design concepts). A comparison of roadway standards for a typical facility, a 3R facility, and a NPS facility is depicted in Table 4c. Although AASHTO would allow for 3ft shoulders, the proposed oft shoulders will be used to blend in with the new roadway and to allow more room for pedestrians. Table 4c. ROADWAY STANDARDS AND COMPARISON New Typical 3R Standards* Park Service Alignment Standards Degree of Curve 7.5 10 7.5 Profile Grade 5% Match Existing 7% Lane Width 12 feet 12 feet 11 feet Shoulder Width 8 feet 6 feet 4 feet Sight Stopping Dist. 400-475 feet 325 feet 400 feet K-Value 90-110 Match Existing 110 feet Fill Slopes 6:1 for 10 feet Match Existing 4:1 for 10 feet Cut Slopes N/A This information is based on a 50 mph design speed; 4,700 ADT; 8% Max Super Elevation; and Rolling Terrain. *Criteria that will be used on the Preferred Alternate. 2:1 N/A 4 4. Accident Rates a The project area starts at Route O and terminates approximately 0.5 miles south of the Howell County Line. During the period from 1998-2002, there have been a total of 24 accidents, including 8 injury accidents, and 2 fatal accidents. The accident rate analysis for the project area was divided into four sections of the roadway, as depicted in Table 5. The two middle sections of the roadway have total accident, injury accident, and fatality accident rates that are higher than the statewide average for rural, numbered, two-lane facilities. The middle two sections cover a portion of the roadway that extends from 0.5 miles north of the Jacks Fork River, to a point 0.5 miles south of the Jacks Fork River. As depicted in Figure 12, the concentration of these accidents is in a location that includes the Jacks Fork River Bridge and numerous vertical and horizontal roadway deficiencies The traffic lanes, on the existing facility, are ten feet wide as opposed to the AASHTO standard of twelve feet. As a result, vehicles tend to crowd or cross the centerline, especially on curves and the bridge. The two foot wide earth shoulder on the roadway does not allow sufficient room to avoid an oncoming vehicle crossing the centerline and does not provide room to make emergency stops outside the travelway. When a vehicle leaves the road there is no recovery area or clear zone, therefore, errant vehicles are more likely to overturn or collide with a fixed object. Fatal Accidents Number Rate 0 0 1 48.25 Table 5. Accident Rate Information (1998-2002) Total Accidents Injury Accidents Route Section Number Rate Number Rate Route O to 0.5 mi N/O Jacks 7 178.16 2 50.90 Fork 0.5 mi N/O Jacks Fork to Jacks 9 434.26 4 193.01 Fork Jacks Fork S to Howell County 7 295.76 2 84.50 Howell County Line to South 1 48.25 0 0.00 0.5 mi. Project Totals 24 8 Statewide Average 269.52 77.15 42.25 1 0 0 2 0 2.26 A clear zone is a sloped area outside the shoulder where a vehicle can recover and return to the road. AASHTO publishes the "Roadside Design Guide" to assist highway engineers in designing the clear zone. For this section of Route 17, AASHTO recommends 16-18 feet width at a slope of six feet horizontal for each one foot of vertical descent. In areas where this is impractical guardrails should be installed. Although guardrails do pose a hazard, they will redirect a vehicle back into the travelway or absorb energy on impact to stop a vehicle. 5. Level of Service The Level of Service (LOS) is an operational level determined by traffic and normal geometric features. An LOS rating of A is the best and F is the worst. Levels A, B, and Care 5 - generally considered acceptable for a rural design. When the LOS for a roadway segment moves beyond level C, to levels D, E, or F, problems with function and efficiency can develop. General descriptions of operating conditions for each of the level of services are shown in Table 6a. Table 6a. Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics LOS Characteristics A Free flow; low volumes and high speeds; most drivers can select own speed. B Stable flow; speeds restricted somewhat by traffic; service volume used for the design of rural highways. С Stable flow; speed controlled by traffic; service volume used for the design of urban highways. D Approaching unstable flows; lower speeds. E Unstable flow; low, varied speeds; volumes at or near capacity. F Forced flow; low speeds to stoppages; volume exceeds capacity. The existing facility is a two-lane highway with substandard vertical and horizontal alignments. If no improvements are made to the highway, the Level of Service (LOS) will be a C in the construction year (2005) and a D in the design year (2025). As shown in Table 6b, completion of the proposed improvements will upgrade the LOS for the two-lane facility to an A in both the construction and design years. a a As a measure of travel flow, level of service qualitatively measures the operating conditions within a traffic system, and the perception of these conditions by drivers and passengers. It is . related to the physical characteristics of the road and the different operating characteristics that can occur when the highway carries different traffic volumes. Levels A, B and Care generally considered acceptable. The Department of Interior considers a LOS of B or even C to be appropriate for a rural highway within ONSR. However, there is a concern the LOS would denigrate to a D by the Design Year without the proposed improvements to the approaches. a TABLE 6b. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) LOS--Without LOS--With Improvements Improvements Construction Design Proposed 2-Lane Year (2005) Year (2025) Construction Design Location Log Mile Current LOS (2000) B 134.15 - 136.68 C D A A 6. System Linkage Route 17 is located in the extreme southeastern portion of Texas County and serves as the main connection between the towns of Summersville and Mountain View. Near Mountain View, Route 17 intersects with Route 60, which is a major east-west roadway in southern Missouri. West of Mountain View, Route 60 connects with Route 63, which is a major north- south facility in central Missouri. Route 60 was recently approved for an upgrading to four- lanes with a bypass on the northern side of Mountain View. It is not anticipated that those 6 || improvements will have a major impact on Route 17 traffic. Most of the Route 17 traffic is generated locally, including commuters between Summersville and Mountain View, along with local shoppers and commercial vehicles. The area has a large lumber and timber industry, which accounts for a large number of logging trucks on Route 17. During the summer months there is a large number of tourist vehicles headed to the Jacks Fork River for recreational activities, such as canoeing, fishing, floating, and swimming. Approximately one mile of existing Route 17 is within the boundaries of ONSR in the Buck Hollow area. Buck Hollow is a major canoe put-in on the upper Jacks Fork River with a gravel landing and turn-around, gravel parking area, and vault toilet. A park housing area known as Cardinal Acres is located in the southeast quadrant of the river crossing. The remainder of the study area is rugged, forested terrain with occasional small open fields. Planned improvements stated in the 1984 ONSR Development Concept Plan, including a housing area at Cardinal Acres and campground, have not been constructed because of a lack of funding. Correspondence from ONSR indicates that because of recent changes to the ranger district boundaries these developments may not be built. Route 17 currently does not serve as a short cut between Routes 60 and 63 and it is not anticipated that proposed improvements to a small segment of Route 17 would improve the overall facility to the point of expecting increased traffic. B. ALTERNATES The Alternate selection process actually began in August 1999, with a public pre-location meeting in the town of Eminence. Representatives of MODOT presented the project area, along with environmental, safety, and geometric concerns. The general public provided input about specific issues and concerns on the proposed corridor footprint. Following this meeting an interagency scoping meeting was held in Rolla, in September 1999. Attendees included; MODOT District 9 (D9) Design Division, MODOT Support Center Preliminary Studies, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), along with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). There was an extensive discussion of the purpose and need for the project, the current condition of the existing bridge facility, and the range of alternates that would be needed for the environmental document. All attendees were able to voice their concerns about the potential impacts of the project. It was determined that teams would be formed to evaluate specific portions of the project. One such team, the Engineering/Geometrics/Alternatives Development Team, would be responsible for the identification and descriptions of the full range of alternatives and their related components. Reasonable alternates considered include a "no-build" alternate, one “build" alternate on the existing alignment, and nine "build" alternates on new location (Plate 1). Mass transit facilities, such as commuter bus, subway, and light rail service, currently do not exist within the corridor and are not considered to be viable alternates for consideration. Reconstruction of the existing facility was discarded early in the evaluation process, because of the 7 socioeconomic impacts associated with closing the roadway for an extensive period of time. The proposed facility will be a two-lane highway designed to meet 50 mph standards. Design exceptions will be necessary to accommodate and implement the 3R design concepts that will be utilized. The number of intersecting county roads depends on the alternate chosen. Outer roads will not be provided, however, access to local residents and the ONSR will be maintained. The study corridor for each alternate is 500 feet, but the minimum right of way width for this improvement ranges from 100 to 150 feet. This allows flexibility to adjust for appropriate changes that may be necessary. At intersections and access points, additional right of way may be needed. Actual right of way width will vary in relation to the terrain and the height of cuts and fills. For general estimating purposes, a width of 150 feet was utilized for mainline improvements. On July 13, 2001 an additional meeting was held in Rolla to discussion the “build” alternates on new location and upgrading the existing facility. Agencies in attendance included; MODOT District 9 (D9) Design Division, MODOT General Headquarters Design, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), along with the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It was determined and agreed upon that upgrading the existing facility would not be prudent or feasible. Route 17 would have to be completely closed for six months up to nine months, which would create extensive economic hardships on ONSR, the commercial industries that are dependent upon Route 17, and general public use of this route to commute to and from work, shopping, and recreation. Public services, such as ambulance service, fire departments, and school buses would also be adversely affected if Route 17 were closed for an extensive amount of time. Part of the reason for the meeting was to see if a Preferred Alternate could be decided upon by all agencies. There was extensive discussion about the potential environmental impacts of each alternate. This evaluation was based on the Summary Table of Potential Environmental Impacts, located at the front of this document. Other issues presented were the amount of cut and fill that would be required for each alternate and each bridge. Alternate A is the one alternate that avoids impacts to Section 4(1) property (ONSR property), while Alternates B and C minimize the road length across ONSR property. Based upon a variety of factors it was determined and agreed upon by all agencies that these three alternates (A, B, and C) are not prudent and feasible “build” alternates. Following a thorough discussion, it was determined that the other five Alternates (D, E, F, G, and H) should be maintained and evaluated as feasible and viable "build” Alternates. > On March 18, 2002 another interagency meeting was held with MODOT personnel, FHWA, and representatives from ONSR in attendance. Since the majority of impacts will be on ONSR property, this meeting was an attempt to decide on a Preferred Alternate that would best address the needs and concerns of ONSR. A discussion was held to further evaluate the five remaining “build” Alternates (D, E, F, G, and H). ONSR personnel felt that any alternate that deviated from the existing roadway would have more detrimental impacts than > 8 one, which would follow the existing facility as closely as possible. For that reason, they desired an alternate that was short in length and also did not make extensive cuts through virtually untouched forested areas. MODOT agreed that a new bridge, located on either side of the existing structure would be less costly, not as intrusive, and still allow for roadway geometrics to be addressed. Paramount to these discussions was a reminder that the current alternate corridors are 500 ft. wide and the new roadway will only use 150 ft. of right of way. This would allow sufficient room to minimize or avoid impacts to the environment. For these reasons it was decided and agreed upon that Alternates D, E, and F would be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), but discarded from further evaluation. It was decided to carry forth Alternates G and H for an extensive evaluation between the DEIS and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). A Preferred Alternate was not identified at this time, however, a preferred alternate will be identified in the FEIS after analysis of public and agency comments, and a final alternate will be selected in the Record of Decision (ROD). > a The DEIS was signed on December 12, 2002 and a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register that same month. Public Hearings were subsequently held in both Summersville and Mountain View. Numerous comments were generated from both hearings, in addition to written comments from a wide variety of agencies, organizations, and public citizens. As a result, the comment period was extended to April 15, 2003. Based upon these comments, an extensive amount of work was completed to improve the document and to address the expressed concerns. Another interagency meeting was held with ONSR, MODOT, FHWA, and DNR on November 17, 2003. This meeting addressed the concerns of ONSR, National Park Service (NPS), and the Department of Interior (DOI) regarding the roadway and bridge design, potential impacts on ONSR property, and the need to include an additional alternate that would avoid impacts to ONSR property. The outcome of this meeting produced an agreement to include an additional avoidance alternate (Alternate I) in the document. Preliminary roadway and bridge design concepts were discussed that would lessen impacts to ONSR property and would adhere to context sensitive issues. It was agreed that these concepts would be incorporated in an alignment that falls within the Alternate G corridor (Appendix E). The result of these discussions was an overall agreement that Alternate G would be designated as the Preferred Alternate for this project. 1. No Build The no-build alternate would not improve the existing bridge structure, the geometric roadway deficiencies (vertical and horizontal alignment), nor reduce accident, injury, or fatality rates for this portion of Route 17. The existing structure is currently structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. This bridge structure cannot be rehabilitated because the existing steel trusses prevent any widening of the bridge. The service life of the current structure is near zero. If left in place, with just minimal maintenance, the bridge will eventually deteriorate to a point that it will have to be closed. The Level of Service (LOS) will deteriorate to an LOS D by the design year (2025). Fuel consumption, travel time, and accident rates can be expected to increase if the no build option is selected. The no-build option would not cause any damage to the environment through construction impacts. 9 2. Transportation System Management (TSM) The Transportation System Management (TSM) alternate would attempt to maximize the efficiency of the existing facility. TSM options typically include commuter parking for ride- sharing drivers, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on existing roadways, and traffic signal timing optimization. TSM alternatives would not be feasible with this project due to the low number of ride-sharing commuters using Route 17 and the absence of existing roadway for conversion to HOV lane. 3. Improving the Existing Facility This alternate involves removing the existing structure and replacing it with a new bridge on the existing alignment. According to present day standards, the new facility would need a 40-foot roadway, instead of the existing 20-foot roadway. To accommodate this alternate, Route 17 would have to be closed for at least 6 months and up to 9 months. Given the topography of the bridge location a temporary bypass could not be erected. Commercial, residential, and tourist traffic would be detoured around the Jacks Fork crossing. Local traffic could be detoured west, using Route W, a County Road, and Route Y. This would be an approximate 10-mile detour, but would not safely accommodate large commercial logging trucks or wide recreational vehicles. Large commercial trucks and wide recreational vehicles would have to be detoured either east or west of Route 17. From Summersville, the west detour would range from 40-53 miles, depending upon whether the traffic used lettered and/or numbered routes. Using numbered routes would extend the detour to the city of Willow Springs. The east detour would also be between 40-50 miles, depending upon whether traffic used numbered routes or lettered routes. Using numbered routes would extend the detour to Eminence and then south to Route 60, at Winona. Either detour would create an economic hardship to the cities of Summersville and Mountain View, commercial truck traffic, and the local tourist industry. Lettered routes are classified as minor arterial collectors and many have the same lane width as improved numbered routes. However, lettered routes have a narrower roadbed width (usually narrower shoulders), shorter sight distance, shorter slope areas, and older bridges that may have restricted weight limits. The use of lettered routes and county roads for a detour may create safety hazards. This alternate would not address the needed improvements to the roadway deficiencies, such as vertical and horizontal alignment. Approaching from the north, there are a series of curves and hills on Route 17 before the roadway makes a sharp right hand curve just before entering the bridge structure. Continuing south, upon exiting the bridge structure, while the immediate approach is relatively straight, there are a series of hills and curves on Route 17. It would not be prudent or responsible to replace the existing structure without correcting the associated roadway deficiencies. The cost of the new structure would be approximately $800,000, but this does not include the cost of roadway widening and realignment, removing the existing structure, or the socioeconomic costs associated with closing Route 17. This alternate would cause a minimal amount of damage to the environment, through construction impacts. This alternate was deemed not feasible due to the anticipated socioeconomic hardships that would occur, the cost involved, and the fact that this alternate would not adequately address the stated purpose and need of the project. 10 4. Build Alternates > The following nine build alternates: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I are being evaluated (Plate 1). All of the alternates will be constructed on new location. Each alternate is described from south to north, with cost estimates provided in Table 7. The descriptions are aided by the use of numbered points (Points 1-11) at designated starting and ending locations, along with appropriate in-common or juncture points. As depicted on Plate 1, there is a segment of the alternates that could be designated as Point 11-4. Point 11 is an in-common juncture point utilized by two different alternates. While these alternates could terminate at Point 11, it was determined that terminating any alternate at Point 11, would not adequately address the vertical and horizontal alignment deficiencies, as stated in the purpose and need. For that reason, potential alternates beginning at Point 2 and terminating at Point 11 were discarded from further consideration. a. Alternate A 信 ​Alternate A is designed to avoid any direct impact or land takings on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR). ONSR is protected by Section 4(f) legislation and it is necessary to consider an alternate that avoids impacting Section 4(f) protected properties, if possible. As such, this alternate is located 2-3 miles west of Route 17 and the Jacks Fork Bridge project area (Plate 2). Alternate A begins at Point 9, which is the intersection of Route 60 and Route Y, on the north edge of Mountain View. This alternate runs north approximately 2.5 miles before veering to the northwest and crossing the Texas County Line about 0.5 mi west of the Barn Hollow Natural Area. Alternate A makes a loop west of the ONSR property boundaries and veers back in a northeasterly direction, tying into Route W, and terminating at Point 10, which is the intersection of Route 17 and Route W, in Texas County. a This alternate would cost an estimated $21.7 million, would impact over 156 acres of farmland, displace 30 residences and 1 commercial establishment, impact an estimated 5 acres of wetlands, involve 9 stream crossings, and have a high probability of encountering a large number of cultural resources. As previously noted, this alternate would avoid impacts to the ONSR. Being on new location, this alternate would cut a new swath through previously undisturbed areas. b. Alternate B Alternate B starts at Point 1 (Plate 3), approximately 0.5 mi south of the Texas County Line and runs north, crossing the Texas County Line approximately 1,000 feet west of existing Route 17. The alternate then veers northwest to traverse a small opening of non-ONSR owned property. Alternate B then changes to a northeasterly course and connects with Route 17 at near Point 8, approximately 0.75 mi south of Route W. a This alternate would cost an estimated $14.2 million, impact over 79 acres of farmland, displace 15 homes and 3 businesses, have a moderate to high probability of encountering cultural resources, and would involve the use of 9 acres of ONSR land. The alternate would a “你 ​11 only impact 0.40 acres of wetlands and only involve 3 stream crossings. Being on new location, this alternate would cut a new swath through previously undisturbed areas. c. Alternate C a a Alternate C also starts at Point 1, approximately 0.5 mi south of the Texas County Line and runs in a north-northeasterly direction, crossing the Texas County Line approximately 0.5 mi east of existing Route 17 (Plate 4). The alternate continues in a northeasterly direction, exiting the ONSR property approximately 0.5 mi north of the Texas County Line. Alternate C then veers back to the north, crossing Route O and connecting with Route 17 at Point 7, approximately 0.5 mi north of the Route 17/Route O intersection. This alternate would cost approximately $12.0 million and would impact over 90 acres of farmland. There would be 9 residential homes displaced and 1 commercial business would need to be relocated. There would be a moderate to high probability of impacting cultural resources and approximately 12 acres of ONSR property would be impacted. Like the other build alternates, this one would also cut a wide swath through previously undisturbed land. The alternate would only impact 0.06 acres of wetlands and involve only 3 stream crossings. d. Alternate D ie Alternate D starts at Point 1 (Plate 5), approximately 0.5 mi south of the Texas County Line and runs in a north-northeasterly direction, crossing the Texas County Line approximately 1,000 feet east of existing Route 17. The alternate continues in a north-northeasterly direction, exiting the ONSR property approximately 0.75 mi north of the Texas County Line. From there, Alternate D connects with existing Route 17, near Point 6, which is located just south of the Route 17 and Route O intersection. This alternate would cost an estimated $10.4 million, and would also impact over 63 acres of farmland. Like Alternate C, 9 residential homes displaced and 1 commercial business would need to be relocated. There would be approximately 0.49 acres of wetland impacts, but only one stream crossing. There would be a moderate to high probability of encountering cultural resources and 32 acres of ONSR land would be impacted. Being on new location, this alternate would cut a new swath through previously undisturbed areas. e. Alternate E Alternate E starts at Point 2, just north of the Texas County Line, and runs in a northeasterly direction, reconnecting with Route 17, at Point, approximately 0.5 mi south of the Route 17 and Route O intersection (Plate 6). This alternate would cost approximately $5.2 million, and would impact only 14 acres of farmland. There would be no displacements or relocations and no wetland impacts. However, there would be three stream crossings and 26.3 acres of ONSR property would be impacted. There would be a low probability of encountering cultural resources. Being on new location, this alternate would cut a new swath through previously undisturbed areas. 12 f. Alternate F Alternate F also starts at Point 2, just north of the Texas County Line, and runs north to Point 3, just north of the Jacks Fork River (Plate 7). From Point 2 to Point 3, Alternate F runs parallel to existing Route 17, on the east side of the roadway. From Point 3, this alternate continues northward and exits the ONSR property, approximately 0.5 mi north of the Jacks Fork River Bridge. At this point, Alternate F veers northeasterly, and reconnects with Route 17, near Point 6, which is located just south of the Route 17 and Route O intersection. This alternate would cost an estimated $6.2 million, and would impact approximately 27 acres of farmland. There would be one residential displacement, no wetland impacts, 3 stream crossings and a low probability of encountering cultural resources. This alternate would impact over 22 acres of ONSR property. Being on new location, this alternate would cut a new swath through previously undisturbed areas. а g. Alternate G (Preferred Alternate) Alternate G also starts at Point 2, just north of the Texas County Line, and runs north to Point 3, just north of the Jacks Fork River (Plate 8). From Point 2 to Point 3, Alternate G runs parallel to existing Route 17, on the east side of the roadway. From Point 3, this alternate continues to parallel Route 17, on the east, and connects with Route 17 at Point 11. From Point 11, Alternate G crosses Route 17 and runs northeasterly, reconnecting with Route 17, at Point 4. > > This alternate would cost an estimated $5.6 million and would only impact 10 acres of farmland. There would be no displacements or wetland impacts associated with this alternate. There would be 3 stream crossings, a low probability of encountering cultural resources and it would only impact approximately 7.0 acres of ONSR property, based upon the 3R design criteria (Appendix E). This alternate would be only 20 feet east (downstream) of the existing facility and would utilize the existing roadway in various places, causing fewer impacts to previously undisturbed areas. h. Alternate H Alternate H, starts at Point 2, just north of the Texas County Line, and runs north, paralleling Route 17 on the west side of the roadway (Plate 9). Approximately 0.25 mi north of the Jacks Fork River Bridge, Alternate H crosses Route 17, paralleling the roadway on the east, before reconnecting with Route 17 at Point 11. From Point 11, Alternate H crosses Route 17 and runs northeasterly, reconnecting with Route 17, and terminating at Point 4. This alternate would cost approximately $4.7 million and impact 14 acres of farmland. There would be no displacements with this alternate, four stream crossings, and an estimated 0.72 acres of wetland impacts. This alternate would impact over 21 acres of ONSR property and would have a low probability of encountering cultural resources. Because this alternate is located west (upstream) and nearly adjacent to the current bridge, the Buck Hollow area 13 would be impacted by construction, as any highway approach to the bridge using the Alternate H corridor must physically cross Buck Hollow i. Alternate I Alternate I is designed to avoid any direct impact or land takings on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR). ONSR is protected by Section 4(f) legislation and it is necessary to consider an alternate that avoids impacting Section 4(f) protected properties, if possible. This alternate was originally presented by ONSR, NPS, and DOI in 1992. The project priorities shifted and this alternate was never really examined, as an option to avoid impacts to ONSR property. Comments generated by the DEIS indicated that this alternate should be included in the document, as a viable avoidance alternate. This alternate is located 2-3 miles west of Route 17 and the Jacks Fork Bridge project area (Plate 10). Alternate I begins at Point 9, which is the intersection of Route 60 and Route Y, on the north edge of Mountain View. This alternate follows existing Route Y in a north and northwest direction to a point just south of the Jacks Fork River, where Route Y intersects with the Jacks Fork County Road. From this point, Alternate I follows the existing County Road approximately 2.5 miles to the intersection of Jacks Fork County Road and Route W. Alternate I continues along existing Route W, terminating at Point 10, which is the intersection of Route W and existing Route 17. This alternate would cost an estimated $21.3 million and would utilize existing Route Y, Route W, and Jacks Fork County Road. These roadways are currently not adequate to handle the projected traffic and significant upgrades would be required. This includes additional pavement depth, road and shoulder widening, and geometric corrections to both vertical and horizontal deficiencies. The use of these roads minimizes some impacts, as there will only be 18 acres of farmland impacted and no impacts to ONSR property. There would be 5 residential displacements, 5.85 acres of wetland impacts, and approximately 16 stream crossings. There is a high probability of encountering cultural resources, especially in the Prongs area. 5. Cost Data and Summary The cost estimates for this project, (Table 7) for all alternates, except Alternate I, was based on 40 feet of roadbed width, with 150 feet of right-of-way. These are design standards for a minor arterial with 4,700 ADT at a 50 mph design speed. Pavement and grading/drainage costs were derived from calculations presented in the MoDOT project development manual. Adjustments were made to account for actual roadbed width and inflation. Terrain factors were applied for all conditions. Alternate I involves the rebuilding of existing state and county roadways. The costs for this alternate are based on widening the road by 10 feet on either side of the road, improving pavement depth, and lower vertical crests. There are some places on this alternate, where the road will be on relocation to smooth some horizontal curves. The entire facility will maintain a 24 foot roadbed with 8 foot shoulders. 14 a The bridge costs, assuming steel girders and a 40 ft roadbed width, were also derived according to the MODOT project development manual. Standard roadway grades and the natural terrain dictated the appropriate bridge heights and lengths. The aforementioned 3R design standards were used to estimate costs for Alternate G. All costs are estimates only and should only be used as a general comparison. A more detailed estimate could only be achieved by conducting a hydrologic analysis on all alternates, which was determined to be excessive. Estimates were retrieved from the District 9 right-of-way department, for acquisition costs and incidental costs per parcel. Terrain factors were applied to the actual right-of-way corridor (150 ft), thus the more cut/fill requirements, the larger right-of-way corridor necessary, which would result in increased acreage and cost. Administrative, condemnation, and relocation costs were calculated into the acquisition estimates. Some corridors may have an impact on many parcels, while others would only impact a few. This would increase the incidental costs, as there are minimal standard incidental costs associated with each parcel. = . Table 7. Alternate Cost Summary (Cost X $1,000) Alt. Section Length Grading/ Misc.* Bridge Const. Engineer ROW Total Number(miles) | Paving Total Total + Total Cost + A 9-10 8.98 11,812 2,362 1,920 | 16,095 3,059 2,616 21,770 B 1-8 4.15 5,462 1,092 3,472 10,026 1,905 2,338 14,269 с 1-7 3.33 4,644 928 3,337 8,909 1,693 | 1,458 12,060 D 1-6 2.38 3,953 790 2,912 7,655 1,455 1,343 10,453 E 2-4 0.99 1,503 300 2,560 4,364 829 13 5,206 F 2-3-6 1.66 2,676 536 1,920 5,132 976 145 6,253 G# 2-3-11- 1.14 1,802 362 2,720 4,884 775 12 5,671 4 H 2-11-4 1.18 1,682 338 1,920 3,940 748 13 4,701 G+ 2-3-11- 1.04 1,682 338 3,520 5,540 1,052 12 6,604 4 H+ 2-11-4 1.07 1,522 303 3,520 5,345 1,016 13 6,374 I 9-10 14.0 11,630 12,320 3,200 | 15,990 3,260 881 21,391 * Miscellaneous costs include utilities, erosion control, traffic control, signage, etc. + Cost Estimates for Alternates G and H, with a higher (60 ft) bridge. # Cost Estimates using 3R design and construction criteria. C. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The Ozark National Scenic Riverways contains more than 134 miles of clear spring-fed streams, hundreds of caves, and superb scenery. It is located in a geologically and hydrologically complex area, along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. The geology of the area is classified as karst terrain, characterized by dissolution-induced sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage. Bedrock consists mainly of dolomite and lesser amounts of sandstone and chert, interrupted locally by knobs of volcanic rhyolite that form scenery of picturesque 15 low mountains. The spring system in this area is world class and unparalleled in North America. The Ozark region contains three of the largest single-conduit springs in the United States, as well as numerous other major springs, which issue hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day. During peak flow, Big Spring alone produces over 800 million gallons of water per day. The area is truly one of America's natural resource treasures. Millions of visitors return annually to the forested Ozark hills, deep hollows and scenic rivers of Missouri, including the Jacks Fork River area within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork River typifies the rugged landscape of the “Ozarks” which comprises almost 40 percent of the southern regions of Missouri. The “Ozarks” are a large, unglaciated region of greater relief and elevation than the surrounding regions. The division has an ancient geological history, which includes several periods of slow uplift accompanied by deep erosion from its waterways. The Route 17 study area lies within an area of the Ozark Plateau Physiographical Province known as the Salem Plateau Subdivision (Vineyard and Feder 1974). The Salem Plateau is a highly dissected region underlain primarily by limestones and dolomites of upper Cambrian and Ordovician age, but with rock ranging through Mississippi age. Erosion of this fairly level plateau has created a landscape of deep, winding hollows and steep cliffs with few prominent peaks, exposing a variety of rocks-sandstone, limestone, dolomite, chert, granite and rhyolite. It is characterized by thin, often stony, residual soils with steep topography. Caves, springs, bluffs, and high-gradient, clear-flowing streams with entrenched meanders are characteristic features. The Jacks Fork River area within the Route 17 study area fits this description perfectly. The Route 17 study area also occurs within the Lower Ozark Section of the Ozark Natural Division (Thom and Wilson, 1980). The Lower Ozarks Section is richly forested and characterized by springs, caves, sinkholes, calcareous wet meadows, glades, clear, high- gradient streams and steep-sided hills with narrow, chert-covered ridges. Although uncommonly encountered, upland sinkhole ponds with floral characteristics of swamps of the Mississippi Lowlands Natural Division can be found in this Section. Streams flow generally southward and include the St. Francis, Black, Jacks Fork, Current and Eleven Point rivers. Highly soluble Gasconade, Eminence and Potosi Dolomites are the most common types of rock from which large springs issue, and make possible extensive cave systems in some areas. Plate 10 illustrates the occurrence of the relatively narrow band of exposed Gasconade Dolomite that extends up the Jacks Fork River into the Route 17 study area in southeastern Texas County. The Gasconade Dolomite is a cherty dolomite formation from 300 to 700 feet in thickness that does develop caves and springs, but it is more noted for forming the tall vertical bluffs along the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers. The Eminence formation, which underlays the Gasconade Dolomite, but is not exposed in the Jacks Fork River valley within the study area, is medium- to massively-bedded (200- to 350-feet thick) and develops the larger, more extensive caves and large springs found at lower elevations along the Current River within the ONSR. 16 following table (Table 8) summarizes the population dynamics of Texas, Howell and Shannon Counties. Table 8. Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics - 2000 Census Variable State of Texas Howell Missouri County County Population 2000 5,595,211 23,003 37,238 % White 84.9 96.5 96.4 Shannon County 8,324 95.1 Median age Average Household Size Average Household Income % Below Poverty % Unemployed % High School Education Median Home Value Median Rental Payment 36.1 2.48 $34,502 12.2 3.4 43.0 $89,900 $484 40.4 2.42 $22,773 20.7 6.8 37.3 $61,000 $308 38.2 2.47 $23,423 19.6 3.9 33.8 $67,700 $350 38.8 2.48 $34,502 25.4 5.3 32.3 $41,400 $283 When compared to statewide demographics, the population in the project area and surrounding county has a homogeneously white population, lower average income, lower housing costs, and higher unemployment. The rural south central portion of the state generally follows these data trends. Congestion and safety issues do not presently hinder commercial and social interaction, but the no-build option can be expected to constrain future growth throughout this area. No-Action Alternate Community cohesion will not be affected with the No-Action Alternate. Travel patterns, school districts and social groups generally will remain as they presently exist. Traffic capacity and safety are expected to deteriorate with this alternative, resulting in increased levels of congestion on area roadways and increased response times for emergency vehicles. Travel and access to schools and other public facilities also could be affected by increased congestion. Due to the narrow existing bridge, it is anticipated that access through this area will be impacted when the existing bridge needs to be closed for maintenance. Build Alternates The build alternates under consideration provide sections of highway on new location, outside of existing developed areas. These corridors will provide new traffic patterns to the public and contribute to decreased response times for emergency vehicles to more remote areas of the community. The build alternates provide a means for local traffic to continue travel on Route 17 during construction. If the bridge is built on existing alignment in its current location then traffic through this area would be detoured possibly creating hardship for the local residents. 18 a. Environmental Justice In accordance with Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, each federal agency is required to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” In response to the Executive Order, consideration was given to avoiding adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations during the development and evaluation of alternatives. Field investigations indicated that there are no concentrations of protected populations associated with the build alternatives. As part of the public involvement component of this project, guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Order 5680.1 released on April 15,1997 was considered. This guidance established policies to promote the principles required under Executive Order 12898. Both orders reaffirm the principles of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other Federal statutes and FHWA regulations. The Department of Transportation Order specifies that appropriate “steps shall be taken to provide the public, including members of minority populations and low-income populations, access to public information” concerning the effects of a proposed action. As part of this project, a public involvement program was incorporated into the study. Project information was provided through a variety of media including the printed word, radio, graphic displays, and face-to-face meeting with interested and affected citizens and resource agencies. Oral presentations were also made during public events. Comments throughout the study were encouraged and arrangements were made to receive them both verbally or in written form. Executive Order 12898 and DOT Order 5680.1 were both considered throughout the planning process. Based on the information described above and throughout this document, this project is unlikely to have any disproportionate impacts on low income or minority populations. b. Public Involvement Efforts As community residents have expressed concern of community highway bypass impacts associated with the project, public involvement efforts have been followed to ensure that all residents have had an opportunity to voice their opinions. Two public pre-location meetings were held in the towns of Summersville and Eminence. These meetings were held in conjunction with associated bridge replacement projects on Route 19, J9P0436. MODOT representatives presented the project area, along with environmental, safety, and geometric concerns. The general public provided additional input about specific issues and concerns on the proposed corridor footprint. Meetings were well attended by the general public and advertised through the local media outlets as well as word of mouth and letters of invitation to community leaders and business owners. As prescribed by environmental justice, special public involvement efforts were considered based on the likelihood that minority or low- income populations would be encountered in the project area. There were no readily identifiable protected populations and no media outlets catering specifically to minority or 19 low-income populations identified in the area. Local newspapers, TV and radio stations were the main source of information concerning the meetings. c. Public Service Considerations The local school system, emergency service providers and community service agencies were contacted regarding their views on the proposed improvements. All agency representatives are in favor of the proposed improvements and consider improvements to the route as paramount for safety and access reasons. The public service locations will not be negatively impacted by Alternates B-H. Alternates A and I could impact emergency response time to residences and businesses located along the existing Route 17. If the route is upgraded on existing alignment, response time and school bus travel time would be negatively impacted due to long detours. d. Economic Impacts With the completion of this project, economic benefits are expected accrue for local residents as well as for the general public that use the road. For all user groups, additional efficiencies will be gained through a higher level of service for Route 17. Considering tourism in the project area, an improved Route 17 can be expected to aid in the continuation of people traveling through the area on their way to travel destinations in the Ozarks and ones traveling to use the Ozark National Scenic Riverways area. Economic benefits to the area will become apparent as work begins on the project and construction dollars and employees associated with the project inhabit and spend in the area. These benefits will dissipate with the completion of the project. Longer-term benefits will be reflected through transportation efficiencies and in the development of tourism in the area. The proposed improvements are expected to play a role in the economic development and social stability of the area. There are relatively few displacements with most of the alternatives. The alternative that causes the greatest displacements was devised as to completely avoid the Scenic Riverway Area. The estimated household displacements for the alternates range from zero to thirty homes and the estimated commercial displacements range from zero to three businesses. With these limited displacements, a minimal impact to the local property tax is expected. In addition, any potential loss is expected to be recouped following the completion of the project when those displaced relocate in the area and possibly additional investments are drawn to the area. Economic considerations, such as business continuity after displacement, often depend on such factors as the life cycle, perceptions, and goals of business owners. For this project, up to three businesses could be displaced. With ample space for business relocation, there should be no limitations to continuation of these businesses. e. Socioeconomic Impact Summary Based on these existing development patterns in the area, there are no anticipated impacts such as the splitting of neighborhoods, disruption of community cohesion, encroachment on the local school systems, or negative impacts to the provision of emergency services. 20 Concerning environmental justice impacts and impacts to other sensitive populations, field investigations have confirmed that there are no readily identifiable minority or low income populations likely to be impacted by any of the proposed alternates. There are no problematic relocations expected and MODOT personnel have and will work with the landowners in the area to ensure that property owners are not left with any unusable, uneconomical or inaccessible properties. Open forum public meetings with well-timed media notices have ensured that the local and regional populations are aware of the proposed improvements. MODOT personnel have also been in contact with local and regional leaders to ensure that the proposed improvements are synchronized with community standards and growth plans. While travel inconveniences can be expected during the construction phase of the project, in general the project impacts are expected to be positive. The estimated costs associated with the proposed project alternates are listed in the following section on displacements and ROW acquisitions. Total cost breakdowns are listed in the Table 9. 2. Right of Way Acquisition and Displacements Among the impacts of highway improvements, acquisition of property (including residences and businesses) fosters the most discussion among those directly affected. The Missouri Department of Transportation Right of Way Division will carry out the acquisition and relocation of residential and commercial properties in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, as amended (referred to as the Uniform Act). The Uniform Act establishes standardized and equitable acquisition policies for Federal and federally assisted programs. The Uniform Act also provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal or federally assisted programs. The Uniform Act, as well as Missouri State law, requires that just compensation be paid to the owner of private property taken for public use. The basis of determining just compensation to be offered to the owner for the property to be acquired is an appraisal of fair market value. An appraisal is defined in the Uniform Act as: “...a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information.” Specific information concerning the demographic characteristics of households and businesses will be acquired as the relocation process advances. MoDOT relocation agents interact with individual and impacted landowners to ensure that those impacted are aware of the relocation process and the compensation due them. 9 a. No Build Alternate It is anticipated that any programmed minor safety improvements or maintenance activities will have no impacts that would result in business or residential displacements and relocations. 21 b. Build Alternates An improved Route 17 designed and constructed to higher standards than the existing highway will require more right of way than presently exists. Acquisition of additional right of way, uneconomic remnants, and borrow areas will displace households and individuals. Other remaining property and residents may be affected by the proposed improvements but will not require relocation. Remaining properties will have access to either existing or new Route 17. No parcels will be denied access to a roadway, that currently have access, and access will be maintained to all parcels throughout the highway construction. If the acquisition of a portion of the property would leave the owner with an uneconomic remnant, MODOT will offer to acquire that remnant. An uneconomic remnant is a parcel of real property in which the owner is left with an interest after the partial acquisition of the owner's property that MODOT has determined has little or no value of utility to the owner. Table 9. Displacement and Right of Way Acquisition by Alternate (Costs x $1000) Alternate Number Single Number Number Total ROW Relocation Total (Section) of Family of Barns of Partial Costs Costs ROW Parcels Homes/ and Businesses Acquisitions Costs persons Sheds A (9-10) 25 30/72 22 1 31/13 1876 740 2616 B (1-8) 20 15/36 26 3 18/12 1843 495 2338 C (1-7) 19 9/22 22 1 18/10 1201 257 1458 D (1-6) 11 9/22 16 1 10/7 1086 257 1343 E (2-4) 3 0 0 0 3/3 13 O 13 F (2-3-6) 3 1/3 7 0 4/1 122 23 145 G (2-3-11-4) 1 0 0 0 0/1 12 0. 12 H (2-11-4) 3 0 0 0 0/3 13 0 13 I (9-10) 58 5/15 15 0 1/7 776 1151 881 Table 9 presents an estimate of the ROW acquisition impacts for the nine proposed alternatives. Minimum right of way width for this improvement is 150 feet. Actual right of way width will vary in relation to the terrain and the height of cuts and fills. Housing, mobile homes, and property values are based on value estimates supplied by MODOT District 9 personnel. 1. Alternate A The Alternate A area will require the relocation of 30 households and 22 outbuildings. One business, a sawmill employing 3 people would also require relocation. In all cases, either access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are estimated at $2,616,000. 22 2. Alternate B The Alternate B area will require the displacement of 15 homes as well as 26 barns/sheds. There will also be 3 business impacted (lumber yard, small engine repair and a milk barn) relocated. At a maximun there are 5 employees or owners associated with these displacements. In all cases, either access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are estimated at $2,338,000. 3. Alternate C The Alternate C area will require the displacement of 9 homes, 22 barns/sheds, and 1 business (1 employee). Total right of way costs are $1,248,000. 4. Alternate D The Alternate D area will require the displacement of 9 homes as well as 10 barns/sheds. In all cases, either access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are $1,343,000. 5. Alternate E There will be no displacements, relocations, or structure impacts associated with Alternate E. There will be 3 partial land acquisitions. If the acquisition of a portion of the property would leave the owner with an uneconomic remnant, MODOT will offer to acquire that remnant. Total right of way costs are $13,000. 6. Alternate F As with Alternate E, there will be 1 household-relocation required. There will be an impact to 7 barn/shed type structures and the potential for 3 partial acquisitions. In all cases, either access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are $145,000. 7. Alternate G On Alternate G there will be no displacements, relocations, or impacts to structures. There will be a partial acquisition or severance associated with this alternate. Access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are $12,000. 8. Alternate H On Alternate H there will be no displacements, relocations, or impacts to structures. There will be a partial acquisition or severance associated with this alternate. Access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are $13,000. 23 3 9. Alternate I Alternate I will require the displacement of 5 homes and the relocation of 15 barns, sheds, and other types of outbuildings. There will be no commercial displacements or relocations, but there is the potential for 7 partial acquisitions. In all cases, either access will be provided to or property purchased from property owners. Total right of way costs are $881,000. c. Relocation Assistance a MODOT offers a relocation assistance program to all individuals, families, business owners, farm operators and non-profit organizations that are partly or totally displaced by a state highway project. This program conforms to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC 4601) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Relocation assistance under this program will be made available to all relocated persons without discrimination. The Uniform Act, as well as Missouri state laws, requires that just compensation be paid to the owner of private property taken for public use. The appraisal of fair market value is the basis of determining just compensation to be offered the owner for the property to be acquired. An appraisal is defined in the Uniform Act as a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date supported by the presentation and the analysis. Any displaced owner-occupant or tenant of a dwelling who qualifies as a displaced person is entitled to payment of their actual moving and related expenses, as MODOT determines to be reasonable and necessary. A displaced owner-occupant who has occupied a displacement for at least 180 days is eligible to receive up to $22,500 for replacement housing payment which includes the amount by which the cost of a replacement dwelling exceeds the acquisition cost of the displacement dwelling, increased interest costs, and incidental costs. A displaced owner-occupant who has occupied a displacement dwelling for at least 90 days, is entitled to a payment not to exceed $5250 for either rental or down-payment assistance. Any displaced business, farm operation, or nonprofit organization which qualifies as a displaced person is entitled to payment of their actual moving and related expenses, as the MODOT determines to be reasonable and necessary. In addition, a business, farm, or non- profit organization may be eligible to receive a payment not to exceed $10,000, for expenses incurred in reestablishing their business, farm operation, or non-profit organization at a replacement site. A displaced business may be eligible to receive a fixed payment in lieu of the payments for a actual moving and related expenses, and actual reasonable reestablishment expenses. The payment amount for this entitlement alternative is based on the average net earnings of the business. This fixed payment amount cannot be less than $1,000 or more than $20,000. 24 The Uniform Act requires that comparable, decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing within a person's financial means be made available before that person may be displaced. Should this project include persons who cannot readily be moved using the regular relocation program benefits and/or procedures, i.e., when there is a unique housing need or when the cost of available comparable housing would result in payments in excess of statutory payment limits ($22,500 or $5,250), the MODOT's relocation policy commits to utilizing housing of last resort. Housing of last resort involves the use of payments in excess of statutory maximums or the use of other unusual methods of providing comparable housing. Based on the minimal number of household and business relocation required, replacement housing is available in the immediate area. Based on multi-list advertisements available locally, more than 15 similar properties are currently available. Additionally, ample open space remains in the area for the building of replacement housing and businesses if necessary. If special relocation services are required, MODOT right-of-way specialists will make themselves available on an as-needed basis. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Concerns There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities on the existing route. Field observations and contacts with local residents indicate that these transportation modes are not common on Route 17, in Texas and Howell Counties. No bicycle or pedestrian facilities are planned with the proposed alternates but MoDOT is open to discussions of these alternates should local representatives feel these facilities would be a good investment. Since the new facility will be wider than the existing roadway, pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to use the shoulders on the new facility. 4. Farmland Prime and unique farmland is uncommon throughout the project area. Agricultural enterprise in the project area is primarily devoted to pasture, and much of the area is devoted to Ozark National Scenic Riverways property. Eight proposed alternates (A through H) for this project were rated for farmland conversion impact using the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (SCS-CPA-106). Alternate A had a recorded Part V Relative Value of Farmland to be converted totaling 38 points out of a possible 100. Alternate B had 30, C had 35, D had 44, E had 42, F had 39, G had 30 and H had 31.The Part VI Site Assessment Criteria rating scored 50 points out of a possible 160 for Alternates A and B, 44 for Alternate C, 46 for D, 43 for E, 44 for F, and 42 for G and H. The total conversion impact rating for 88 points for Alternate A, 80 points for Alternate B, 79 points for C, 90 points for D, 85 for E, 83 for F, 72 for G and 73 points for Alternate H. This is well below the 160-point threshold established for consideration of farmland protection. > The proposed project is located north of the City of Mountain View, and crosses the scenic Jacks Fork River. The project is not known to be protected from conversion by any state, local government, or private nonprofit policy or program. Any project impacts to on-farm investments, such as water-diversion systems, will be minimized as design is further refined. After project completion, none of the remaining land of the affected farms will become 25 nonfarmable because of interference with land patterns. All farm support services are available to the area and will not be negatively impacted by the project. The project will be fully compatible with existing agriculture. 5. Land Use Information on existing land use, development controls, and future development plans were compiled during development of two Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) related to the improvements to Route 60 between Willow Springs and Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Much of this information may be considered broadly applicable to the Route 17 project area, because it represents the regional social and economic characteristics of southeast-central Missouri. Therefore, some of the information contained within the two FEISs for the proposed improvements to Route 60 is included in this section. Sources of data used to determine the existing land use characteristics of the study area include land use and zoning maps, future development plans, aerial photographs, and field observations. In addition to data provided in the two FEISs previously mentioned, existing land use was determined through the combined evaluations of digital orthophoto- quarterquads (DOQQ) and the Phase I Land Cover Classification scheme produced by the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership project. The DOQQ images of the study area, developed from 1995 and 1996 aerial photography, are spatially accurate images with planimetric features represented in their true geographic positions; they have a 1-meter ground resolution at a scale of 1:12,000. The DOQQs were used as a backdrop and land use coverage was digitized through interactive land cover assessment (See Plate 11). а 는 ​a. Residential Development Land The town of Mountain View (pop. 2,038) and the small community of Arroll (pop. <100) are the only areas within the study area where residents are concentrated. Approximately 819 acres of the incorporated limits of Mountain View occur within the study area boundary, making up 2.8 percent of the total land use within the study area (Table 10). All residential development is within the incorporated limits of Mountain View. Planning and zoning officials in Mountain View approved plans for more than 50 acres of residential subdivisions that began construction in 1994. However, these developments are primarily along the southern edge of the community, outside of the study area boundary. Outside of Mountain View and Arroll, residential properties are widely scattered throughout the study area. Less than 1.7 percent of the total land area outside of the incorporated limits of Mountain View is classified as rural residential. This low rural population density is due to the inherently rough topography and relative inaccessibility of the Jacks Fork River area together with the long-term agrarian nature of the cool season grasslands. 26 Table 10. Existing Land Use within the Study Area Land Use Category Area (acres) Percent of Study Area Incorporated Limits of Mountain View Residential 348 1.2 Commercial 136 0.5 Industrial 1181 0.4 Public/Institutional 25. 0.1 Parks/Recreational 54 0.2 Open/Agricultural 134 0.5 Forested 4 0.01 subtotal 2.8 Outside Incorporated Limits of Mountain View Rural Residential 492 1.7 Industrial 95 0.3 Open/Agricultural 10,617 36.1 Forested 17,391 59.1 subtotal 28,595 97.2 819 Total Study Area 29,414 100.0 ONSR*---Fee Ownership Other Ownership within ONSR Boundary Missouri Department of Conservation Other Ownership outside ONSR Boundary 1,967 578 298) 26,571 29,414 6.7 2.0 1.0 20.3 100.0 * ONSR=Ozark National Scenic Riverways b. Commercial and Industrial Development Land Businesses and industry in the study area consists of three types: wood product industry, manufacturing, and retail/commercial. Individual wood product producers are scattered along Route 60 and on Route 17 in Summersville to the north of the study area. Manufacturing centers are located in Mountain View and there are some area businesses that provide support services for tourism, including lodging, food service, and retail shopping. The wood product industry harvests timber from the surrounding region for hardwood flooring, poles, posts, ties, pallets, pallet lumber, and rough and finished hardwood lumber. Heavily loaded logging trucks carrying harvested timber depend upon Route 17 as a transportation corridor to the sawmills. One sawmill and one charcoal plant occurs just northeast of Mountain View near the intersection of Route 17 and Route 60. A variety of wood products are shipped across the nation. Many local/independent loggers originate from the project area. 27 Mountain View provides jobs for many people in the surrounding area. Manufactured products include clothing and uniforms, metal containers, vending machine parts, shoes, cotton wagons, and various plastic and metal caps. Products are shipped throughout the Midwest. Tourist destinations in the area include the Mark Twain National Forest and Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Facilities in Mountain View used by tourists include campgrounds, motels, and restaurants. One of the most popular access points for canoeists on the Jacks Fork River is the Buck Hollow access, which occurs adjacent to the existing Route 17 bridge. c. Public/Institutional Land Scattered throughout the study area are a variety of churches and five cemeteries have been identified within the study area boundaries. However, the only schools within the study area are in Mountain View. The St. Francis Hospital in Mountain View is the only medical facility in the study area. d. Public Lands There are three parkland areas, totaling 54 acres, within Mountain View. Within the study area, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways owns 1,967 acres through fee ownership, with another 578 acres controlled through scenic easements or other agreements. Also, within the study area is the Missouri Department of Conservation-owned Barn Hollow Natural Area (252 acres), and a 46 acre portion of the 205 acre tract known as the Angeline Conservation Area. These lands are discussed in greater detail in a later section of this document. No designated bicycle trails or pedestrian walkways other than sidewalks were identified within the various communities. e. Open/Agricultural and Forested Lands Forested land dominates the entire study area, accounting for more than 59 percent of the land use within the 29,414-acre study area. Those lands classified as open/agricultural are primarily cool season grasslands that occupy more than 36 percent of the study area. Dairy and beef cattle production, horses, and hay pasture are the most common uses of grasslands. Forests predominately occur within the areas of greatest relief, particularly the steep topography adjacent to the Jacks Fork River, while the cool season grasslands occur on the flatter ridgetops. In general, the middle third of the study area is predominately forested while the cool season grasslands occur to the north and south. Within the study area, the overall landscape pattern consists of small patches of forest interspersed throughout the grassland area, creating a mosaic of land use. The land cover analysis did not indicate any agricultural row cropland within the study area, although it is conceivable that some small patches of row crop farmland might have gone undetected because they were below the minimum mapping resolution of the satellite data. 28 6. Geologic Features The Ozark National Scenic Riverways contains more than 134 miles of clear spring-fed streams, hundreds of caves, and superb scenery. It is located in a geologically and hydrologically complex area, along the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. The geology of the area is classified as karst terrain, characterized by dissolution-induced sinkholes, caves, and , underground drainage. Bedrock consists mainly of dolomite and lesser amounts of sandstone and chert, interrupted locally by knobs of volcanic rhyolite that form scenery of picturesque low mountains. The spring system in this area is world class and unparalleled in North America. The Ozark region contains the three largest single-conduit springs in the United States, as well as numerous other major springs, which issue hundreds of millions of gallons of water per day. During peak flow, Big Springs alone produces over 800 million gallons of water per day. The area is truly one of America's natural resource treasures. Millions of visitors return annually to the forested Ozark hills, deep hollows and scenic rivers of Missouri, including the Jacks Fork River area within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork River typifies the rugged landscape of the “Ozarks” which comprises almost 40 percent of the southern regions of Missouri. The “Ozarks” are a large, unglaciated region of greater relief and elevation than the surrounding regions. The division has an ancient geological history, which includes several periods of slow uplift accompanied by deep erosion from its waterways. The Route 17 study area lies within an area of the Ozark Plateau Physiographical Province known as the Salem Plateau Subdivision (Vineyard and Feder (1974). The Salem Plateau is a highly dissected region underlain primarily by limestones and dolomites of upper Cambrian and Ordovician age, but with rock ranging through Mississippi age. Erosion of this fairly level plateau has created a landscape of deep, winding hollows and steep cliffs with few prominent peaks, exposing a variety of rocks-sandstone, limestone, dolomite, chert, granite and rhyolite. It is characterized by thin, often stony, residual soils with steep topography. Caves, springs, bluffs, and high-gradient, clear-flowing streams with entrenched meanders are characteristic features. The Jacks Fork River area within the Route 17 study area fits this description perfectly. The Route 17 study area also occurs within the Lower Ozark Section of the Ozark Natural Division (Thom and Wilson, 1980). The Lower Ozarks Section is richly forested and characterized by springs, caves, sinkholes, calcareous wet meadows, glades, clear, high- gradient streams and steep-sided hills with narrow, chert-covered ridges. Although uncommonly encountered, upland sinkhole ponds with floral characteristics of swamps of the Mississippi Lowlands Natural Division can be found in this Section. Streams flow generally southward and include the St. Francis, Black, Jacks Fork, Current and Eleven Point rivers. Highly soluble Gasconade, Eminence and Potosi Dolomites are the most common types of rock from which large springs issue, and make possible extensive cave systems in some areas. Plate 10 illustrates the occurrence of the relatively narrow band of exposed Gasconade Dolomite that extends up the Jacks Fork River into the Route 17 study area in southeastern Texas County. The Gasconade Dolomite is a cherty dolomite formation from 300 to 700 feet 29 in thickness that does develop caves and springs, but it is more noted for forming the tall vertical bluffs along the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers. The Eminence formation, which underlays the Gasconade Dolomite, but is not exposed in the Jacks Fork River valley within the study area, is medium- to massively-bedded (200- to 350-feet thick) and develops the larger, more extensive caves and large springs found at lower elevations along the Current River within the ONSR. The Gasconade Dolomite is overlain by the Roubidoux Sandstone formation, which consists of sandstone, dolomitic sandstone, and cherty dolomite, and is from 100 to 250 feet in thickness. The exposed elements of the Roubidoux formation flanks the Gasconade Dolomite on the north and south sides of the Jacks Fork River , forming a relatively narrow band in the vicinity of the existing Route 17 bridge. On the flat-topped ridges, the Roubidoux sandstones have formed residual soils, which have been leached of organic and clay materials and have generally formed compact claypan. On the slopes, the fine soil particles have been removed through erosion, leaving behind a blanket accumulation of chert fragments. Overlying the Roubidoux formation is the Smithville Formation, which contains primarily dolomitic rock, namely Jefferson City Dolomite, within the study area. a a. Caves and Other Geologic Features By definition, the term "cave" means any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other manmade excavation) and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or manmade. A cave is a karst feature, that can be either air-filled or water filled, and is large enough to be examined in some way by a person. However, a natural bridge or tunnel is a void beneath still standing bedrock, usually of short extent, and allowing human passage from one end to the other, at least part of the time. A natural bridge is somewhat shorter than a tunnel, and is more inclined to be air filled than partly water filled. The Missouri Speleological Survey (MSS) is a non-profit organization that has been discovering, mapping, photographing, studying, and conserving the over 5600 caves documented in the State of Missouri for nearly 40 years. A significant majority of these caves are found in Ordovician age dolomites and limestones (Unklesbay and Vineyard, 1992). Currently, there are over 300 recorded caves within the boundaries of the ONSR. Information concerning the location and description of caves and other notable geologic features within the route 17 study area were obtained from unpublished data (J. E. Gardner, pers. comm.), reports (Gardner and Taft 1983 and 1984), published literature (Bretz 1956; Beveridge 1980) and through coordination with the ONSR, Missouri Department of Conservation, and MSS. Within the Route 17 study area, there are 86 caves, 7 rock shelters, 2 tunnels, and 1 natural bridge. The passageways of the caves range in length from 600 ft. to less than 20 ft. However, the average length of passageway calculated for the 77 caves that contained information on their lengths was 106 ft; data provided for the lengths of six shelters and two 30 tunnels indicated that these geologic formations ranged in length from 50 ft. to 20 ft. (average length was 34 ft.). Although the build alternates may potentially impact some caves, there are no known shelters, natural bridges, or tunnels that occur within any of the study corridors. The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act was enacted in 1988 for two purposes: (1) to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on Federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people; and (2) to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities and those who utilize caves located on Federal lands for scientific, education, or recreational purposes. National Park Service policy states that all caves, located within National Park Service units, are significant under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act. Improve Existing Alternate One cave potentially impacted by the Improve Existing Alternate is Step Spring Cave. The entrance to this 40-ft. long cave lies at the base of man-made steps extending downward from the edge of the existing roadway. The reason for building these steps for access to the cave spring flow is unknown at the present time. A low, wet crawl through the 2-ft. high passageway extends for about 40 ft. over a great deal of broken glass and other human refuse washed into the cave from the roadside ditch. Efforts will be made to avoid impacts to this site through improvement designs. Alternate A There are no known caves that occur within the limits of Alternate A. Alternate B Only one known cave occurs within the limits of Alternate B; Hole in the Wall Cave occurs at the extreme eastern edge of the corridor. Apparently this small cave in the bluff could have two entrances that are connected by passageway. One entrance occurs at water level and is reported to extend for at least 30 ft., but there is no information related to the other entrance just downstream. It is likely that impacts to this small cave could be avoided. Alternate C There are two known caves that occur within the limits of Alternate C. In addition, there is one cave very near the extreme limits of the study corridor. Buzzard Egg Cave is a small cave that reported extends at least 50 ft. into the hillside from its bluff entrance 40 ft. above the Jacks Fork River. This cave is located just west of the alternate corridor. The two caves within the limits of Alternate C, Sluiceway Cave No. 1 and Sluiceway Cave No. 2 have passageways extending at least 60 ft. and 120 ft., respectively. Both of these caves have springs flowing from their entrances. Sluiceway Cave No. 2 is reported to have a pit a (vertical) entrance and is decorated with stalactites. According to ONSR personnel, there would be almost no way to reduce impacts to these remarkable features. 31 Alternate D There are no known caves that occur within the limits of Alternate D. Alternate E There are no known caves that occur within the limits of Alternate E. Alternate F Two caves occur within the limits of the study corridor for Alternate F; Step Spring Cave and Skylight Spring Cave. Step Spring Cave was described under the Improve Existing Alternate above. It does not appear feasible to completely avoid impacts to this since it is located near the center of this proposed improvement corridor. However, if this site is deemed worthy of protection it may be possible to avoid impacts by shifting the exact location of the improvements to the east. Skylight Spring Cave has three entrances associated with its 15-ft. length; one entrance has a dry dirt floor, a spring emerges from the second (lower) entrance, and a skylight entrance is found about one-half way between the other two entrances. Some dripstone formations are reported from this cave. It is likely that this cave would also be directly impacted by construction of Alternate F. Alternate G Two caves occur within the limits of the study corridor for Alternate G; Step Spring Cave and Skylight Spring Cave. These two cave sites were described under Alternate F above. It does not appear feasible to completely avoid impacts to these two caves since they are located near the center of this proposed improvement corridor. As with Alternate F, if the Step Spring Cave site is deemed worthy of protection it may be possible to avoid impacts by shifting the exact location of the improvements to the east. Skylight Spring Cave has three entrances associated with its 15-ft. length; one entrance has a dry dirt floor, a spring emerges from the second (lower) entrance, and a skylight entrance is found about one-half way between the other two entrances. Some dripstone formations are reported from this cave. It is likely that this cave would also be directly impacted by construction of Alternate G. Alternative H Alternative H may impact seven caves that occur within its boundaries. Quarry Cave, Quarry Spring Cave, Quarry Crawl Cave are three small caves that are found in the exposed face of the abandoned quarry southwest of the existing Route 17 bridge. Apparently the quarry is known locally as the Campbell Quarry. These caves in the upper Gasconade/lower Roubidoux dolomites and sandstone are 30 to 50 ft. long. There are no known notable geologic features or sensitive species reported from any of these caves. Since there are approximately 207 ft. of space between the existing Route 17 roadway and the western edge of the quarry, it may be possible to design the roadway improvements to fit within this space and avoid impacts to these caves. 1 32 5 Alternate H will impact both Buck Hollow Cave and Buck Hollow Slot Cave. These two caves are 45 ft. and 35 ft. in length and contain no notable features or sensitive species. Roadside Spring Cave is another small cave (10 ft. length) found in the bottom of the stream drainage in Buck Hollow. Apparently this “cave” pirates water from the surface drainage that quickly emerges from a small ledge of Gasconade dolomite. Another cave (unnamed) from which spring flow emerges was discovered further up Buck Hollow during the field reconnaissance trip of September 6, 2000. No information is available concerning the length of the low, partially water-filled passageway, but this cave lies entirely outside of the Alternate H corridor. Another cave that occurs within the Alternate H study corridor is Step Spring Cave. This site was described under the Improve Existing Alternate above. However, impacts to this site will likely be avoided if Alternate H is selected, since construction for this alternate should be confined to the west side of existing Route 17. Alternate I There are no known caves that occur within the limits of Alternate I. b. Sinkholes A sinkhole or sink is a collapsed portion of bedrock that usually results in a surface expression such as a depression on the landscape. Sinks may be a sheer vertical opening into a cave, or a shallow depression of many acres barely discernable to the untrained eye. The best source of data for sinkhole occurrence within the study area is the Pine Crest, Missouri, 7.5 minute series (topographic) quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey). A total of 60 sinkholes within the study area boundaries were digitized from the digital raster graphic of this quadrangle (Plate 13). An analysis of this coverage indicated that sinkholes cover a total of 142 ac of the study area. As anticipated, the vast majority of these sinkholes are found in the Smithville Formation at elevations greater than 1000 ft. mean sea level. Most of these sinkholes are relatively shallow surface expressions typical of the Ozarks karst landscape; most sinkholes contain at least some standing water during normal years and many are used for watering livestock. year. These Although rarely encountered, the basins formed by some sinkholes in upland landscapes in the Lower Ozark Section can contain surface water for extended periods of the usually small (1-4 ac) “wetlands” are considered an “endangered” natural community type in Missouri. The best examples of these natural sinkhole wetland communities in Shannon County include Sunkland Natural Area, Burr Oak Basin Natural Area, and Allen Pond. Although there are sinkholes within the study area that apparently contain water during at least some portion of the growing season, none of these sites contain threatened, endangered, or otherwise sensitive species. Neither do any sinkhole sites within the study area represent natural wetland communities of notable value. These findings are based on analyses of the Heritage Database Information from the Missouri Department of Conservation, analyses of 33 the National Wetlands Inventory data, and reviews of the Missouri Natural Features Inventory Reports for the study area in Texas, Howell, and Shannon Counties. a Several of the build alternates intersect sinkholes. Any swallow holes or sinkhole basins encountered within construction limits will be treated following the recommendations of the Division of Geology and Land Survey, Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR recommendations were developed to ensure structural integrity for the roadway while maintaining any groundwater recharge function that a sinkhole might have. Sinkholes will be excavated to exposed rock or to a depth of five feet below existing ground. If appropriate, the top of rock will be cleaned and examined to determine the lateral extend of solution activity and joint enlargement. If the orifice is relatively small, the openings can be filled; rock fill grading upward from coarse rock at the base to finer material on top is appropriate. If necessary, a 14-in. thick concrete cap can be constructed over the fill. If the orifice is larger (several inches or more across, DNR recommended pouring a reinforced concrete slab on top of the bedrock to completely bridge the opening. Normal fill materials could be used above this slab. During construction, surface drainage will be controlled to prevent the introduction of runoff into sinkholes. Contract special provisions to control drainage during construction will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as final plans for the project are available. These measures will ensure that public and private groundwater supplies are protected from adverse impacts that could be caused by subsurface features through sinkholes located within the proposed improvements. c. Mines and Mineral Resources Mining has been an historical as well as a contemporary activity within the region. The most commonly mined mineral was lead, generally extracted nearer the margins of the St. Francis Mountains. Less abundant minerals found in the same area include zinc, iron, copper, and silver. Granite quarries have also operated in the region. Mining within the immediate study area has generally been limited to private quarry operations to obtain construction materials such as limestone and sandstone. The long abandoned Campbell quarry (discussed under Alternate H above) is a good example of this type of surface mining activity. Also, sand and gravel removal (mining) from stream channels is also a common practice within this region. No underground mining operations are known to exist within the study area. 7. Fish and Wildlife Extensive stands of “virgin” shortleaf pine dominated much of the landscape within the study area prior to the mid-1800s. However, following the end of the Civil War the region had become much more populated and by 1880, exploitation of the timber resources was in full swing. By 1920, most of the Ozark Region had been completely stripped of timber and the big sawmills of Grandin (Carter County), West Eminence and Winona (Shannon County) ceased to operate. The end of the lumber boom left local work forces faced with finding alternative employment; many people turned to subsistence farming on marginal farmland. Livestock (i.e., swine) were allowed to free range throughout the area and the use of fire to A 34 promote grasses and keep the forests open was commonplace. The resultant soil erosion and general degradation of the land and water resources of the region adversely affected fish and wildlife populations, driving some species to the point of extirpation. By the 1960s, much of the earlier damage had been reversed and large blocks of land had been purchased by state and federal agencies. Many of the wildlife species rebounded through reforestation and protective management and the aquatic fauna once again flourished due to improvements in the overall water quality of the region. Although populations in this region experience a significant increase from 1970 to 1980, the region is still considered sparsely populated, a factor that has also contributed to rehabilitation of fish and wildlife habitats. Today, a variety of cover types and terrain are available within the study area as wildlife habitat. The relatively flat ridgetops give way to steep, rugged hills and deeply entrenched, spring-fed streams. This region of the Missouri Ozarks is one of the wildest and most remote parts of Missouri. Oak, oak-hickory and oak-pine forests cover much of the more rugged slopes where the bedrock is near the surface, accounting for 60% of the study area. Historically, less than 0.5% of the vegetation in the Lower Ozark Section was prairie. In contrast, approximately 38% of the study area has been cleared and converted to cool-season grasslands that are primarily used for livestock production. The remaining land cover within the study area is composed of urban development (1%; Mountain View, Missouri), barren or sparsely vegetated lands (0.06%), glades (0.3%), and open water (0.04%). Greatly reduced habitat diversity is characteristic of developed, urban areas (i.e., residential and commercial), typically limiting the occurrence and variety of wildlife relative to non- urban areas. However, the habitats available to wildlife in the small community of Mountain View could potentially support a greater diversity than might be typical, including cottontail rabbit, eastern chipmunk, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, whitetail deer, mourning dove, downy woodpecker, chimney swift, blue jay, American robin, European starling, northern cardinal, and the American goldfinch. The most predominant herpetofaunal species encountered would likely be the American toad and eastern garter snake. There are no lakes or streams within Mountain View that represent significant fisheries/aquatic resources. Wetland ecosystems within the study area occur infrequently and are widely scattered. The majority of wetlands that are found within the study area are man-made ponds, although sinkhole ponds are common. Sinkholes, many that are water-filled for at least some portion of the year, are scattered through the upland areas and a few naturally occurring wet meadows can still be found in isolated valleys. Most of the sinkhole ponds scattered throughout the study area have little or no aquatic habitat value due to their use as livestock watering sources. Most sinkhole ponds within the study area are relatively shallow, have generally low oxygen levels, and are usually fishless. As such, they undoubtedly provide some important breeding sites for salamanders and frogs. The larger, more permanently water-filled sinkhole ponds (i.e., wetlands) provide a limited amount of habitat for beaver, muskrat, raccoon, wood duck, mallard, great blue heron, and red-winged blackbird. Herpetofauna likely to be found in these wetlands include Blanchard's cricket frog, bullfrog, 35 green frog, common snapping turtle, western painted turtle, three-toed box turtle, green water snake, broad- banded water snake, and northern water snake. Although dolomite glades are prevalent across the study area, they are usually small sized, isolated landtypes. Glades are rocky and barren and are dominated by more herbaceous cover (e.g., grasses) and have only sparse woody vegetation. Most animals seen in glades are casual visitors from adjacent forested cover. However, the six-lined racerunner, eastern coachwhip snake, flathead snake, rough earth snake, western worm snake, Osage copperhead, and western pigmy rattlesnake are commonly encountered in glades. Cool-season grasslands cover approximately 38% of the total land area within the study boundaries. Such non-native grassland habitat, particularly those that are repeatedly overgrazed and frequently hayed, are of limited value to species of wildlife other than those species that have learned to adapt to man-made alterations of their more natural habitats. However, in a region where prairie was not typically found, pastures or other more "open" landcover types such as old fields provide an element of cover used by certain wildlife species. Species that frequently use grassland or “edge” habitat and are frequently found in these interspersion areas include the striped skunk, wood chuck, cottontail rabbit, Virginia opossum, eastern chipmunk, squirrel, whitetail deer, vole, white-footed mouse, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, eastern wild turkey, common bobwhite quail, and a variety of birds such as blue jay, thrasher, woodpeckers, vireos, warblers, and sparrows. а Forests cover types account for more than 60% of the study area. These forests have been categorized into the following five landtype associations: eastern redcedar and redcedar- deciduous forest and woodland, deciduous woodland, upland deciduous forest, shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland, and shortleaf pine forest and woodland. The Lower Ozark Region contains the largest, contiguous block of forest in Missouri, and one of the largest in the Midwest. As such, the Lower Ozark Region supports viable populations of neotropical bird species (i.e., warbler species, ovenbird, indigo bunting) and has been identified as an important, if not vital, resource in maintaining migrant bird populations. Some of the bird species likely to occur in the forested areas of the project area include eastern wild turkey, turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, screech owl, pileated woodpecker, summer tanager, ovenbird, American redstart, yellow-throated warbler, parula warbler, black-and-white warbler, red-eyed vireo, white-breasted nuthatch, tufted titmouse, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, and broad-winged hawk. Common mammal species inhabiting the extensive forested cover within the study area include black bear, bobcat, gray fox, whitetail deer, raccoon, opossum, eastern gray squirrel, eastern fox squirrel, southern flying squirrel, eastern chipmunk, silver-haired bat, red bat, hoary bat, evening bat, pine mouse, and white-footed mouse. In bottomland forests, beaver, muskrat, and swamp rabbit may also be present. The presence of large, continuously forested tracts of land within the study area is conducive to wildlife reproductive success, movement patterns, forage, and cover. Herpetofauna potentially occurring within the project area are characteristic of both upland and bottomland forested areas. These species include: green frog, American toad, spotted 36 salamander, box turtle, ground skink, broadheaded skink, northern fence lizard, Osage copperhead, hognose snake, timber rattlesnake, marbled salamander, mole salamander, Fowler's toad, Cope's gray treefrog, southern leopard frog, black rat snake, midland brown snake, western ribbon snake, and eastern garter snake. According to Pflieger's (1989) classification system for aquatic communities in Missouri, the Jacks Fork River and it tributaries fall within the Ozark Faunal Region. The fish fauna of this region is richer and more diverse than any other faunal region in Missouri. Many species are restricted to the Ozarks or have only a limited distribution elsewhere in Missouri. Caves, springs, and cliffs, along with bottomland deciduous forest and gravel washes are common along the clear-flowing streams. These landscape features provide habitat for a great diversity of plant and animal species, and characterize the aquatic resources of the Region. The headwater, creek, and small river fish community zones developed by Pflieger (1989) are used below to characterize the aquatic habitats within the study area. Headwater zones within the study area have steep gradients with a rapid succession of short pools and well-defined riffles. The substrate is generally coarse gravel and rubble, but bedrock is often exposed for long stretches. Flow is frequently restricted to below the gravel in headwater streambeds. Springs and spring seeps are numerous, but are generally small within the study area. In headwater samples taken by Pflieger (1989), the most abundant large fish was the green sunfish. The central stoneroller and southern redbelly dace was also abundant along with the orangethroat darter and fantail darter. The creek chub and stippled darter are particularly characteristic of headwaters while the Ozark sculpin is often abundant in headwaters receiving much spring flow. In the western portion of the study area, the Jacks Fork River would be considered a “creek zone,” according to Pfliegers (1989) classification. The reaches of the Jacks Fork river upstream from the confluence of the South Prong and the North Prong has a lower gradient а than its headwater tributaries and becomes much more deeply entrenched as it flows east. The longer, deeper pools have accumulations of detritus, sand and silt. Chert gravel is deep in the stream channel and extensive gravel bars are characteristic of this reach. The longear sunfish generally replaces the green sunfish as the most abundant species of large fish, while rock bass, smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass are quite common. The northern hog sucker, golden redhorse, and black redhorse are often common. The central stoneroller and southern redbelly dace are prevalent, but are less abundant than the bleeding shiner (or its close relatives) and the Ozark minnow. The hornyhead chub is more commonly encountered than the creek chub in the creek zone, while the rainbow darter, orangethroat darter, greenside darter, and slender madtom are also present. The Jacks Fork River becomes what Pflieger (1989) classified as a “small river zone” as it flows through the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) in the eastern portions of the study area. The stream valley is broader and much more deeply entrenched than its upstream reaches, and high limestone bluffs are common on each side of the river. The pools are longer, deeper and larger springs are present (e.g., Blue Spring). The Jacks Fork has permanent flow in this reach, even during the driest years. As one would expect, the fish fauna is richer and species diversity is greater in small rivers than in creeks. Although the 37 composition and relative abundance ranking of larger species is similar to creek zones, the green sunfish is much less common and the gizzard shad emerges as one of the ten most common fish species sampled in small river zones by Pflieger (1989). The bleeding shiner and the Ozark minnow are the most abundant minnows. The rainbow darter is more abundant than the orangethroat darter, while abundance of the banded darter and Missouri saddled darter increased. The entire study area is underlain by karst topography, evident on the surface by the many sinkholes and caves present within the study area. The extensive network of subterranean waterways is inhabited by a limited number of unique fauna. The southern cavefish is the a most abundant species found within the Ozark Region, but the banded sculpin can often be found in the deeper recesses of water-filled caves. Other aquatic animals that inhabit subterranean waterways include the grotto salamander, Salem cave crayfish, and several species of amphipods and isopods. Fish and wildlife habitats within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways have essentially escaped man-made alterations since the park was established in 1964. More than 96% of the lands within the portion of the ONSR that fall within the study area are forested, with upland deciduous forest dominating the landscape (75% of the 1,883 acres of forest cover is upland deciduous forest). Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland is the next most prominent habitat available (423 ac) and very little shortleaf pine dominate stands (22 acres) are found within the ONSR boundary in the study area. Approximately 69 acres of cool-season grassland occurs within the ONSR in the study area; these areas were formerly pastures which are currently only hayed at infrequent intervals. One such grassland was posted as a “wildlife management area” by the ONSR. Over 7 acres of glade (at least six disjunct areas) and almost 5 acres of open water were identified within the ONSR in the study area (Plate 11). The extensively forested landscape and the riparian environments created by the Jacks Fork River provide ample habitat for a diverse assemblage of native flora and fauna. In addition to the more common wildlife species already mentioned from the entire study area, the green back heron, Louisiana waterthrush, and pileated woodpecker is prominent within the ONSR. Six species of hawks and six species of owls are reported from the ONSR, as are about 50 species of songbirds that migrate through or into the riverways. Bobcat and mink are commonly seen along the edge of the Jacks Fork River and the air above the river is filled at dusk with a dozen species of bats. Retention of undisturbed forest cover within portions of the Jacks Fork watershed that occur within the ONSR will ensure that good water quality is maintained, thereby ensuring a high level of diversity of aquatic fauna. More than 125 of approximately 260 species of fish recorded from the entire Mississippi Valley occur in the Current River and Jacks Fork River watersheds. 8. Sensitive Biological Resources Requests for information related to sensitive environmental resources began internally in MODOT in December, 1992 with the submissions of a request for a scoping meeting to be arranged with the appropriate resource and regulatory agencies. On March 9, 1993 letters 38 and study area maps were sent to the appropriate state and federal agencies, including the Missouri Department of Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Ozark National Scenic Riverways (National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior), with a request for information and an invitation to comment. On March 16, 1993 MODOT's Design/Environmental Studies office received a telephone call from the National Park Service Midwest Region office (i.e., Mr. Terry Cederstrom). Mr. Cederstrom asked several questions related to the need for replacement of the Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. During the phone conversation he did not offer to provide any information related to the occurrence of threatened, endangered, or otherwise sensitive species and their habitats within the study area. However, on May 27, 1993 MODOT received a letter of comment from the Midwest Region office stating, "several rare and a endangered flora have been identified within and near the proposed project area. The area is within the range of endangered fauna and critical habitat could possibly be impacted by the project.” No specific information such as the locations of "rare and endangered flora" was ever provided. On September 18, 1997 two District 9 MODOT staff had an on-site meeting with Ozark National Scenic Riverway (ONSR, National Park Service) staff to discuss issues related to this project. Items brought to the attention of MoDOT staff included the occurrence of rare plant species east of the existing bridge. However, no exact locations of these records were subsequently provided. On July 15, 1999 MODOT sent the Superintendent of ONSR project maps and written materials indicating tentative locations for possible build locations and requested their review and comment. The Superintendent (ONSR) replied to this request on September 28, 1999 by submitting a letter stating their issues and concerns. Their concerns included potential impacts to cave ecology, to the gray bat, and to other threatened and endangered species. Other concerns that they mentioned included water quality, vegetation, loss of large trees, and the need to revegetate disturbed areas with select native species. On December 6, 1999 MODOT submitted a letter of request to ONSR asking them to provide spatially oriented data (i.e., ArcView themes) related to sensitive biological resources. However, the ONSR responded to this request on December 16, 1999 by recommending that MODOT contact MDC to get sensitive species information initially that ONSR could supplement at a later date. The Columbia Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) responded to MODOT's March 9 scoping request with their response letter of April 15, 1993. The FWS urged extreme caution to preserve the integrity of the environmentally diverse riverway, including limiting clearing of vegetation, avoiding disturbance to wetland, streams, and riparian zones, and revegetation of disturbed areas with native grasses, shrubs, and trees immediately following, or concurrent with, project implementation. Although they stated that, “no federally-listed endangered or threatened species occur in the project area,” they did mention that reed bent grass (Calamagrostis porteri ssp insperata) might occur there. This species was a category 2 (C2) candidate species under the former FWS listing classification system, but is currently not considered a species of concern by the FWS. 39 The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) responded to MODOT's request for information on March 25, 1993 stating, “sensitive species or communities are known to occur on the immediate site or surrounding area.” Attached to the letter were legal location descriptions and some information regarding the status of six plants and one animal and a location for a dolomite glade natural community. In addition to these records, MODOT searched the Heritage Database Information provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation, first in 1997 and again in 2001. A review of the most current database resulted in identifying occurrence records for an additional six plant and two animal species from within the study area. Two animal species, the gray bat (Myotis grisescens ) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), are federally endangered. The remaining plant and animal species have been ranked by MDC in the Missouri Species of Conservation concern Checklist according to their relative endangerements based primarily on the number of occurrences of the species within the state (Table 11). Other sources of information provided to MODOT by MDC that are related to sensitive species habitats and natural communities containing sensitive species populations are the Natural Features Inventory reports prepared by MDC. These reports served as a primary source of information for identifying biologically sensitive (i.e., natural) landscape features. A natural features inventory of Carter, Oregon, Ripley and Shannon Counties was completed by MDC in 1986 and 1987 (Nigh 1988). A similar inventory was conducted in Howell, Texas, and Wright Counties between 1990 and 1991 (Ryan and Smith 1991). The purpose of these inventories was to locate, classify, evaluate and rank high quality elements of natural heritage within these counties. Eighteen sites were identified and described in the two Natural Features Inventory reports available for the study area (Table 12). a. Federally Endangered Species The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) hibernates through the winter in caves and abandoned mines in the Missouri Ozarks, which meet their requirements for specific temperature and humidity levels. However, upon emerging in the spring the majority of females migrate northward and establish summer maternity colonies beneath the loose bark of trees along streams, rivers and other riparian areas in north Missouri. Indiana bats often forage over streams or in the treetops in riparian forests and floodplains, as well as in upland forests and in old fields and pastures. During summer, male Indiana bats form small bachelor groups that are highly mobile and often do not venture far from wintering areas. Males may choose many different roosts nightly, which are either on the surface (trees) or in caves or abandoned mines because their summer roost requirements are not nearly so stringent as their hibernation roost requirements. 11 Although it would not be unusual for Indiana bats to forage over suitable areas within the Jacks Fork River watershed, none have been captured at caves or over streams on the Jacks Fork. In addition, there are no known hibernacula for Indiana bats within the study area and no reproductively active females or summer maternity colonies have been discovered within the study area. Research to capture pregnant or lactating Indiana Bats has not been extensive in the project area because of the low likelihood to find these individuals. Despite the enormous effort over the last 20 years directed toward capturing bats in Missouri, including 40 the Ozark Region, reproductively active female Indiana bats have only rarely been captured in the Ozark Region. Pregnant or lactating individuals have been captured at one cave in Iron County, at one cave in Washington County, over one stream in Jefferson County, and at two stream sites in Pulaski County. These scant records, in comparison to the overwhelming evidence of maternity colonies in northern Missouri, led authorities to believe that the Ozark Region is not important summer maternity habitat for the Indiana bat. It is unlikely that reproductively active females remain within this region during summer to establish maternity colonies and produce offspring. The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is a species, which is dependent upon caves or cave-like microclimates (e.g., abandoned mines, abandoned storm drain systems) throughout its entire life cycle. Although the total population of gray bats is estimated at over 1.5 million, approximately 95% hibernate in only eight caves, three of which are in Missouri. Gray bats hibernate primarily in deep, vertical caves with large rooms that trap cold air and create a favorable hibernation microclimate. In summer, females establish maternity clusters in domed areas on the ceilings of large caves that contain streams; domed ceilings trap warm air, which is beneficial to survival of their young. Because of these specific habitat requirements, fewer than five percent of available caves are suitable for use by maternity colonies. Males and non-reproductively active females form summer bachelor colonies in caves or other suitable sites other than those sites used by females for maternity colonies. There are no caves that are used as hibernation sites or maternity sites that will be affected by the proposed action. Gray bats primarily feed over water along rivers or lakeshores. There are records of occurrence for gray bats near the Jacks Fork River within the study area. Gray bats were captured at one cave located downstream in 1983 and 1984 (Gardner and Taft 1984). This cave was initially (1983) considered only a transient site, but the capture of pregnant females in May 1984, lactating females in June 1984, and the subsequent identification of 200 juveniles on the cave ceiling indicates some use as a small maternity site. The other records of Gray Bats from the Jacks Fork River were of nine individuals captured in mist nets set in front of Blue Spring on July 12, 1978. These caves are within two miles of the preferred alternate. Winter surveys during 2002-2003, by the Cave Research Foundation, of the downstream cave and upstream caves, estimated approximately 1,800 Gray Bats in one upstream cave, 10-12 in the second upstream cave, and 7,000 to 8,000 hibernating Gray Bats in the downstream cave. These records demonstrate that gray bats definitely comprise a portion of the bat fauna that would be foraging over the Jacks Fork River during summer. In addition, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) recommends that excavation and fill activities below the ordinary high water elevation of the Jacks Fork River be prohibited from March 15 through June 15, because the Jacks Fork River has been designated as an outstanding national or state resource water because it supports significant biological resources that may be impacted by sand and gravel excavation during periods of spawning, incubation, or rearing. MODOT concurs with the recommendations posited by MDC and is committed to include these provisions in the contract scope of services. 41 b. Threatened, Endangered and Otherwise Sensitive Species First discovered near the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in 1984, there are seven sites within the study area where the forked aster (Aster furcatus) has been reported to occur. This species was formerly a federal candidate for listing (under the old system) and is currently ranked S2 by the Missouri Department of Conservation. In 1985, about 335 plants were examined on a north facing bluff (Site 2) downstream from Blue Spring and a total of 1,227 plants were reported from three separate areas in the Belew Creek drainage (Site 3). Also in 1985, investigators found 515 plants in thin soil and moss on ledges and in pockets in vertical dolomite from 1-6 m from the Jacks Fork River bank (Site 6); this site was visited again in 1989, but a statement was only made that specimens were in flower. At Site 7 (1985), about 66 plants were observed growing in thin soil over dolomite. In 1990, three sites were identified: 1) at Site 4, a population of plants scattered throughout an area 30 ft wide by 600 ft long was reported; 2) at Site 5 several hundred plants were observed flowering; 3) several colonies with up to 12-15 plants were reported from Site 8. The forked aster was first discovered at Sites 4 and 8 in 1984. The forked-aster population at Site 5 will be impacted by Alternate B, and Site 8 will be impacted by Alternate C (Table 11). The big-leaved aster (Aster macrophyllus) was identified from three sites within the study area during 1990. This aster is currently ranked S2 by the Missouri Department of Conservation. Plants at all sites were found on north-facing slopes and many sterile plants were noted. This species was listed as state "endangered” up until 1998 when the new state ranking system was implemented. The population of big-leaved aster at Site 9 will be impacted by Alternate D. The American barberry (Berberis canadensis), another species currently ranked S2 by the Missouri Department of Conservation, is known from seven sites within the study area. This species was listed as “rare” in Missouri up until 1998 when the new state ranking system was implemented. In 1985, 116 plants were discovered on the edge of a glade and on rock outcrops just below the moist dolomite glade on the Belew Hollow Bluff (Site 12). Three sites at the extreme eastern edge of the study area (Sites 13, 16 and 17) were described as being associated with bluff ledges located on a north-facing hillside. About 121 plants combined were found at these sites in 1985. During 1990, more than 300 plants were reported from Sites 14, 15 and 18. However, this species was first reported at Sites 15 and 18 in 1984. Only one population of American barberry (Site 15) will be impacted by build alternates (Alternates E, F, G, and H). a 42 > reed bent grass Table 11. Threatened, Endangered, or otherwise Sensitive Species Site# Scientific Name Common Name Statel Fed. 2 Impacted by Rank (Status) (Site#--Alternate) (Status) 1 Ardea herodias great blue heron S5 No 2-8 Aster furcatus forked aster S2 Yes (5-B; 8-C) 9-11 Aster macrophyllus big-leaved aster S2 Yes (9-D) 12-18 Berberis canadensis American barberry S2 Yes (15-E, F, G, H) 19-30 Calamagrostis S3 Yes porteri ssp. (24-B; 27-D) 31 Carex alata broadwing sedge S2,S3 No 37 Cypripedium small white S1 No candidum lady-slipper 38-40 Cypripedium reginae showy lady-slipper S2,S3 No 42-43 Galium boreale spp. northern bedstraw S2 No septentrionale 45 Myotis grisescens S3 E No 46 Notropis ozarcanus Ozark shiner S2 Yes (all) 47 Rhytidium rugosum golden glade-moss S1 48-49 Trautvetteria false bugbane S2 caroliniensis 50-51 Waldsteinia barren strawberry S2 fragarioides spp. 52 Zigadenus elegans white camas S2 No Typhlotriton spelaeus Grotto Salamander S2, S3 No Typhlicthys Southern Cavefish S2, S3 No subterraneus Cambarus hubrichti Salem Cave Crayfish S3 No 1stcritically imperiled in the state; S2-imperiled in the state; S3=rare and uncommon in the state; S4=widespread, abundant, and apparently secure in state; S5=demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure in the state (source: Missouri Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Missouri species of conservation concern checklist. Missouri Department of Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri) RE=endangered species = gray bat 2 2 2 Reed bent grass (Calamagrostis porteri spp.) is ranked S3 by the Missouri Department of Conservation. Populations of this plant are scattered along the Jacks Fork River throughout the study area from the Prongs to east of the existing Route 17 bridge. Steyermark first reported this species from Site 25 in 1934. Although a visit to this historic site in 1986 did not yield any plants, plants were found in 1990 in a strip approximately 250 ft long by up to 5 ft wide halfway up a north-facing hillside. The other eleven sites containing reed bent grass (Sites 19-24 and 26-30) were all documented during 1990. This species was originally classified as "endangered” in Missouri (MDC 1977) under the pseudonym C. insperata, but 43 - by 1994 it had been downgraded to “rare” by MDC. Reed bent grass remained a state “rare” species up until 1998 when the new state ranking system was implemented. This species was also once a candidate for federal listing (category 2) as threatened or endangered, but as of 1996 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service no longer considers this species a candidate for listing. Site 24 will be impacted by Alternate B and Site 27 will be impacted by Alternate D. A single location is known within the study area (Site 31) for the broadwing sedge (Carex alata). Several sterile plants of this species, ranked S283 by the Missouri Department of Conservation, were found on the base of a buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) in an unnamed schrub-scrub wetland in a sinkhole south of Route W. This location will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. a The small white lady-slipper orchid (Cypripedium candidum), ranked S1 by the Missouri Department of Conservation, was first reported from Site 37 in Panther Hollow in 1991 and was subsequently examined in 1992 and 1993. This species, formerly a federal candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, was originally classified as “rare” by MDC (1977) and was later reported as possibly extirpated from the state (MDC 1984). By 1995 this species was considered to be more abundant or widespread by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (classified 3C) and was droped from consideration for federal listing. The small white lady- slipper orchid was listed as “endangered” in Missouri up until 1998 when the new state ranking system was implemented. The current ranking of S1 (typically five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals) indicates this species is extremely rare or it is especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. This location will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. The showy lady-slipper orchid (Cypripedium reginae) is known from three sites within the study area. Two sites for this species, which is ranked S2S3 by the Missouri Department of Conservation, occur in Barn Hollow (Sites 38 and 40), while Site 39 is found in Panther Hollow at the same location as C. candidum. These locations will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. The Missouri Department of Conservation has ranked northern bedstraw (Galium boreale spp. septentrionale) as S2. Approximately 40 plants were discovered in the dry portions of a mesic cliff at Site 42 in 1987. However, at least 1,000 plants were reported in 1987 from Site 43 on a north-facing hillside near the confluence of Belew Hollow with the Jacks Fork River. This species was state listed “rare” up until 1998 when the new state ranking system was implemented. In MDC's letter of March 25, 1993, they stated that records for this species were considered historically significant and that it was unlikely this species persists in the project area. These locations will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. Another species ranked S1 by the Missouri Department of Conservation is the golden glade- moss (Rhytidium rugosum). Sterile specimens of this non-vascular plant were collected from a steep bluff on the Jacks Fork River just north of Barn Hollow (Site 47) in 1969, 1970 and 1973. This species was originally classified as “endangered” by MDC (1977) and remained classified as “endangered” up until 1998 when the new state ranking system was 44 V implemented. The current ranking of Si (typically five or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals) indicates this species is extremely rare or it is especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. This location will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. False bugbane ( Trautvetteria caroliniensis) is found at two sites along the Jacks Fork River at the extreme eastern edge of the study area boundaries (Sites 48 and 49). This species, ranked S2 by the Missouri Department of Conservation, was very common (200-300 individuals) in 1984 on the lower 20 ft of a bluff above the Jacks Fork River (Site 48). A smaller, more scattered population of plants was reported from the seepy parts of an outcrop (Site 49) on the Jacks Fork River in 1985. These locations will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. > The barren strawberry (Waldsteinia fragarioides spp.) is ranked S2 by the Missouri Department of Conservation. In 1985, about 175-200 plants were found in thin soil over outcrops and on a forested, north-facing slope (Site 50). In 1986, it was reported that searches for this species were unsuccessful at Site 51 because the habitat may have been destroyed (no explanation given). However, plants were found covering a vertical slope 100 ft wide by 200 ft. long at this site in 1990. These locations will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. Another species ranked S2 by the Missouri Department of Conservation that occurs within the study area is the white camas (Zigadenus elegans). In 1985, investigators found 113 plants on tiny mossy ledges and more than 100 plants on dry dolomite within Site 52. This location will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. A great blue heron rookery (Ardea herodias) occurs approximately 771 m west of Alternate A in Barn Hollow. Seven individuals were using six nests when the rookery was first discovered in 1990. During 1995, eight individuals were observed using six nests. This rookery will not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. Nineteen Ozark shiners (Notropis ozarcanus) were collected from the Jacks Fork River near the existing Route 17 bridge by W. L. Pflieger in 1992. This species, ranked S2S3 by the Missouri Department of Conservation, is limited in its distribution to only a few streams in Ozark Uplands of southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. According to Pflieger (1997) the principal remaining stronghold for this species in Missouri is the Current River and its tributary, the Jacks Fork River, where populations seem relatively stable and secure. The potential for impacts to Ozark shiners that could result from water quality degradation is unavoidable since all build alternates pertain to replacement of the existing Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. However, strict implementation and enforcement of siltation and erosion control measures will avoid or minimize potential impacts to this species. In addition, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) recommends that excavation and fill activities below the ordinary high water elevation of the Jacks Fork River be prohibited from March 15 through June 15, because the Jacks Fork River has been designated as an outstanding national or state resource water because it supports significant biological resources that may be impacted by sand and gravel excavation during periods of spawning, 1 45 incubation, or rearing. MoDOT concurs with the recommendations posited by MDC and is committed to include these provisions in the contract scope of services. The Ozark Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Bishopi) is a candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. In the past, this species has reportedly been found in the Jacks Fork River. In August 2003, an MDC Herpetologist searched the area around the proposed Route 17 bridge replacement. The search encompassed an area from 200 ft. upstream of the existing bridge to a few hundred feet downstream, past the swimming area. There was some potential habitat below the bridge, however, the water was warmer than in other areas, where the species had recently been found. Even though good rock cover exists, MDC felt that the site was probably too far up in the watershed to support hellbenders. Irregardless, provisions will be made to allow additional searches prior to bridge construction. Hine's emerald dragonfly ( Somatochlora hineana) is known to occur in calcareous seeps and fens in counties adjacent to or near the project area. Recent conversations with the USFWS indicate that fens or seeps are the predominant habitat for this species. Fens are a special type of wetland habitat, and the closest known fen in the project area is located near Harlow's Ford, which is in close proximity to Alternate A. In addition, there are no wetland impacts anticipated with this project, especially within the corridor of Alternate G, which is the Preferred Alternate. Further investigation and survey for the Hine's emerald dragonfly is not warranted at this time. As noted in the species descriptions above, it does not appear that this project will have an adverse impact on any federally listed species or their critical habitat. Therefore, Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation is not necessary at this time. However, MODOT will continue to review any new information on these species throughout construction of this project and initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if necessary. c. Natural Features The Barn Hollow Natural Area, owned by MDC and NPS, is comprised of about 252 acres and lies approximately 2 miles west of existing Route 17. The area contains a steep walled, narrow hollow with dolomite cliffs and ledges and an Ozark headwaters stream. There are seven biologically sensitive sites associated with Barn Hollow, including a great blue heron rookery, a cave, and five locations for sensitive plant species. This area will not be affected by the proposed action. Table 12 provides information on eighteen areas within the study area, which were identified during the Missouri natural features inventory project; unlike Barn Hollow Natural Area, none of these areas have been designated as a Missouri natural area. Ranking of natural features as significant, exceptional, or notable provided a means whereby similar features can be compared on the basis of preservation value. Significant features have high preservation value and merit some level of protection if they contain a biological or geological element of such high quality, size, and/or rarity that it is of statewide importance. Exceptional features are high quality natural communities, unusual geologic features, or rare species sites of 46 regional importance. Notable sites are of local importance only and often do not merit urgent action towards preservation. A combination of natural quality, size, and rarity within the region of a given feature are considered important ranking criteria. Ranking of natural features must also be evaluated in context with which one of the seven categories that the natural feature is classified under; I) natural communities, II) state-listed species sites, III) relict species sites, IV) geologic features, V) natural study areas, VI) unique features, and VII) aquatic communities. An evaluation of the natural features within each of these seven categories is provided below. Table 12. Biologically Sensitive Areas Site# Site Name Feature Impacted by Alternate 1 Unnamed Site plant of conservation concern (American No barberry) 2 The Prongs Bluff plants of conservation concern (reed bent grass No & American barberry) 3 Unnamed Site plant of conservation concern (reed bent grass) No 4 Pine Tree Natural Arch sandstone arch No 5 Harlow Ford Fen (1) fen, dry-mesic chert forest, plants of conservation concern (reed bent grass, barren No strawberry) 6 Harlow Ford Fen (2) fen, dry-mesic chert forest, plant of Yes conservation concern (reed bent grass) (A) 7 Unnamed Site plants of conservation concern (golden glade- No moss & American barberry) 8 Unnamed Site plants of conservation concern (big-leaved No aster, reed bent grass) 9 Coon Hollow plant of conservation concern (reed bent grass) No 10 Panther Hollow mesic forest, plants of conservation concern No Ksmall white lady-slipper, showy lady-slipper 11 Highway 17 Bluff plants of conservation concern (reed bent Yes grass, forked aster, American barberry) (B&H) 12 Cardinal Acres Bluff plants of conservation concern (reed bent Yes grass, big-leaved aster, forked aster) (C&D) 13 McCubbin Hollow Glade dolomite glade natural community No 14 McCubbin Hollow Gasconade dolomite glade (grade B&C), No spring & branch 15 Belew Hollow moist dolomite cliff, plants of conservation concern (forked aster, American barberry, No white camas, barren strawberry, northern bedstraw) 16 Chimney Rock dolomite pinnacles, cave No 17 Unnamed Wetland pond shrub swamp, plant of conservation No concern (broadwing sedge) 18 Unnamed Site plant of conservation concern (reed bent grass) No 47 (I) Natural Communities Harlow Ford Fen (Site 5) was ranked notable as a very small example of a natural community (<0.25 ac) with moderate to low species diversity. Also, another site downstream from Harlow Ford (Site 6) received a notable ranking as a 40-ac Grade B/C dry-mesic chert forest with little disturbance. Another site, Panther Hollow (Site 10), was rejected under the natural community category; this site was a Grade C mesic forest about 80 ac in size. Two sites in McCubbin Hollow, a 2.5 ac Grade B dolomite glade natural community (Site 13) and another 3-4.0 ac Grade B and C dolomite glade (Site 14) were ranked as exceptional features. Although Site 13 was reported to have moderate diversity and moderate to heavy invasion of woody species, Site 14 was touted as “one of better glades near Jacks Fork River." Another natural community (Site 15), is a moist, north-facing dolomite cliff in Belew Hollow that was ranked notable on the basis of seeps being common and the cliff face being “well vegetated.” One other natural community, Site 17 (0.75 ac Grade C unnamed sinkhole pond), was considered notable with some moderate diversity, although some bulldozing had been done in the past to deepen the water. (II) State-listed Species Sites In the Missouri Natural Features Inventory reports of 1988 and 1991, 13 of the 18 sites within the study area were ranked as significant if they contained a state-listed endangered species, as exceptional if they contained a rare species, and notable if they contained a watch- listed or status undetermined species. However, these rankings were based on the outdated (prior to 1998) classification system of the Missouri Department of Conservation that classified species as “endangered, rare, or watch-listed.” Under the current cataloging system, plants and animals listed in the Missouri Species of Conservation Concern Checklist receive a numerical ranking S1 through S5 that reflects their relative endangerment. a Under this new system, none of the plants reported from Sites 1 through 18 are listed as state "endangered” in the Wildlife Code of Missouri under 3CSR10-4.111 (State Endangered Species Law 252.240). Site 7 (unnamed) is a steep north-facing slope that contains the only record for golden glade-moss (Rhytidium rugosum) in the study area; this species is ranked Si (critically imperiled in the state). One other location, Panther Hollow (Site 10), contains an S1 species; the small white lady-slipper occurs at this site. Nine of the 18 sites contain plants ranked S2 (imperiled in the state) and 13 sites contain plants ranked S3 (rare and uncommon in the state). (III) Relict Species Sites Belew Hollow (Site 15) was ranked as a significant natural feature under this category because it contains five plant species of conservation concern (i.e., relict species of statewide significance). Harlow Ford Fen (Site 6) was considered an exceptional natural feature due to the fact that it has two relict species of regional significance (i.e., barren strawberry and reed bent grass). Likewise, Panther Hollow (Site 10) was ranked exceptional as a site with two U 48 relict species of regional significance, the small white lady-slipper and the showy lady- slipper. IV) Geologic Features Under the geologic features category, the relatively small Pine Tree Natural Arch (sandstone) is ranked as a notable feature because it has only local importance. Beverage (1980) noted that the arch was rather small and deserves recognition by the floater, but might be a disappointing to those afoot on a hot summer day. Another feature under this category is Chimney Rock, a pinnacle composed of two spires of Gasconade Dolomite jutting nearly 100 ft. above the cliff face (Beverage (1980). This natural feature is ranked an outstanding geologic feature of statewide significance. V Natural Study Areas There are no natural features within the study area that qualify for this category. VI) Unique Features There are no natural features within the study area that qualify for this category. VII) Aquatic Communities Two sites within the study area were ranked under this category. McCubbin Hollow (Site 14) is considered a notable spring and branch natural feature with a small, relatively undisturbed spring. Likewise, Belew Hollow (Site 15) is considered an Ozark headwater stream of notable quality. The stream in Belew Hollow was described as an “intermittent stream with unusual dolomitic streambed, waterfalls, boulders, and overhangs.” As notable features, these two aquatic communities are important locally. 9. Wild and Scenic Rivers The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, established a national system of rivers to be preserved in free-flowing condition, with their immediate environments protected. Congress selected certain rivers that possess outstandingly remarkable outdoor values. They established an initial system of eight rivers, and set up methods and procedures for adding new rivers to the system. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a register of rivers that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Rivers are placed on the NRI, based upon the degree to which they are free flowing, the degree to which the rivers and their corridors are undeveloped, and the outstanding natural and cultural characteristics of the rivers and their immediate environments. There are three classifications of rivers in the system: wild, scenic, or recreational depending on the level of development near the stretch of river. In 1993, the entire section of the Jacks Fork River, located within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways was placed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The preliminary classification of 1 49 this segment of the Jacks Fork River included designation as a potential wild river as well as a scenic river. A wild river is one that is free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. A scenic river is free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped but accessible in places by roads. The recognition of the Jacks Fork River, through placement on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, highlights the outstandingly remarkable values of the river and reaffirms the national significance of the river. 10. Air Quality a In March 1988, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) agreed that a detailed air quality analysis for inclusion in an environmental document will be prepared on federally funded highway projects only when the present or predicted average daily traffic (ADT) volume on the project exceeds 54,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in the construction year or 72,700 vpd in the design year. This project will reduce congestion but will not include additional lanes. Present and predicted traffic volumes for the proposed improvement are 2,750 vpd in the construction year and 4,700 vpd in the design year. Because the project area is located in an attainment area and future traffic volumes are below the threshold, the project would not cause an exceedance of National ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain transportation control measures. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770, do not apply to this project. 11. Hazardous Waste A records review was conducted for the project area. The following sources were searched for potential hazardous and solid waste concerns: Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS); Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Confirmed Abandoned or Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in Missouri, Fiscal Year 2001; DNR Missouri Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities List; DNR Solid Waste Facilities List; and DNR Underground Storage Tank database. No listed sites will be impacted by the project. MODOT personnel have found no other potential hazardous waste sites in the project area. Any unknown sites that are found during project construction will be handled in accordance with Federal and State Laws and Regulations. In addition, ONSR officials will be notified if hazardous wastes or materials are found within the park boundary. If regulated solid or hazardous wastes are found unexpectedly during construction activities, the MODOT construction inspector will direct the contractor to cease work at the suspect site. The construction inspector will contact the appropriate environmental specialist to discuss 50 I options for remediation. The environmental specialist, the construction office, and the contractor will develop a plan for sampling, remediation if necessary, and continuing project construction. Independent consulting, analytical, and remediation services will be contracted if necessary. MoDOT has the capability to collect samples and analyze for volatile organics and heavy metals. If necessary, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources will be contacted for coordination and approval of required activities. In excavations where hazardous atmospheres could reasonably be expected to exist, such as in areas where hazardous substances are stored nearby, the contractor is responsible for appropriate worker safety precautions, as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 12. Water Quality A Water Quality Certification is required for any project that involves discharge into navigable waters of the U.S and is linked to the issuance of a Section 404 permit. The State of Missouri has the authority to issue Water Quality Certifications under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Since this project involves the discharge of fill into navigable waters, a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit application will be submitted to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the state Section 401 certifying agency, for their compliance review. Generally, a complete Section 404 permit application, as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provides MDNR the information they need to issue the Section 401 certification. Water quality conditions included in the certification become conditions of the Section 404 permit. Either MODOT coordinates with MDNR in a pre- permit application field meeting or as the MDNR notifies MODOT it has questions about the application details. It is anticipated that this project will receive a Section 401 certification with conditions to protect the waters of the U.S. Five public water supply wells are located within the study area. The City of Mountain View maintains four wells. A fifth well, maintained by the Bunker Hill Ranch, is located in the northeastern quadrant of the project area. The four public water wells serving the City of Mountain View draw from the Gasconade and Potosi Dolomite Formations, both of which are formations of the Ozark aquifer having moderate yields ranging from 111 to 200 gallons per minute. None of the alternates are expected to impact public water supply wells within the study area. No wellhead protection areas are known to exist within the study area, although the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has established preliminary source water areas for public water supply wells in the region. No surface water sources of public water supply are found within the study area. Several streams within the study area have beneficial uses as designated in the water quality standards established by the Missouri Clean Water Commission. The Jacks Fork River, an Outstanding National Resource Water and part of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, has several designated uses: Livestock and Wildlife Watering, Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life and Human Health- Fish Consumption, Cool Water Fishery, Whole Body Contact Recreation, and Boating and Canoeing. In addition, the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) recommends that excavation and fill activities below the ordinary high water elevation of the Jacks Fork River be prohibited from March 15 through June 15, 51 * | because the Jacks Fork River has been designated as an outstanding national or state resource water because it supports significant biological resources that may be impacted by sand and gravel excavation during periods of spawning, incubation, or rearing. While each alternate impacts the Jacks Fork, the avoidance alternate impacts three other streams having beneficial uses designated by the Missouri Clean Water Commission. Barn Hollow and Coon Hollow are designated as having Livestock and Wildlife Watering and Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life and Human Health- Fish Consumption uses. In addition, the avoidance alternate also impacts two unnamed tributaries of Panther Hollow, which has similar beneficial use designations in its lower reaches. For all alternates, water quality impacts to surface water systems will outweigh impacts to groundwater systems. In general, longer alternates will lead to more land disturbance and erosion potential than shorter ones. As a result, potential water quality impacts for each alternate can be represented as a function of both the number of streams crossed and the length of each proposed alternate. The number of crossings of Jacks Fork and its tributaries varies between 1 and 9 for each alternate, with all but two alternates involving three crossings of mapped streams. For all of the alternates, there may be unmapped streams that could qualify as waters of the U.S. and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Alternates A through D involve substantially more land disturbance than alternates E through F. It is possible that the water quality of the Jacks Fork River could improve because of the proposed project. The current state of disrepair of both the roadway and bridge allow water spray from tires and runoff from the pavement to go straight into the Jacks Fork River. A new facility and structure would prevent water from running off directly into the river by directing water to cache basins or away from the river to a point where it could slowly trickle down through the ground. To prevent contamination of streams, lakes, ponds, or other water impoundments adjacent to the project area, job specifications will require temporary or permanent pollution control measures as outlined in MODOT's Sediment and Erosion Control Program approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources on October 8, 1991. 13. Floodplains An evaluation of floodplain impacts is mandated by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and subsequent federal floodplain management guidelines. When available, flood hazard boundary maps (National Flood Insurance Program) and flood insurance studies for the project area are used to determine the limits of the base (100-year) floodplain and the extent of encroachment. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines 23 CFR 650 have identified the base (100-year) flood as the flood having a one-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The base floodplain is the area of 100-year flood hazard within a county or community. The regulatory floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100-year flood discharge can be conveyed without increasing the 52 base flood elevation more than a specified amount. FEMA has mandated that projects can cause no rise in the regulatory floodway, and a one-foot cumulative rise for all projects in the base (100-year) floodplain. For projects involving the state of Missouri, the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) issues floodplain development permits. In the case of projects proposed within regulatory floodways, a "no-rise" certificate, if applicable, should be obtained prior to issuance of a permit. Texas, Howell, and Shannon Counties do not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); however, the community of Mountain View is a participant. A Flood Insurance Study and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps are available for the city. Base (100-year) flood elevations have been established. Alternate A extends into the city limits of Mountain View but maps indicate that regulatory floodways and floodplain areas will not be impacted by Alternate A. Therefore, there will be no impacts to regulatory floodways and base (100-year) floodplain areas associated with this project. Replacing the bridge over the Jacks Fork River, and the placement of bridges or culverts over other streams will involve building in a floodplain, but construction is not likely to cause a rise in flood elevations. 14. Wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. Wetlands are defined as “... areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3 (b)). Wetlands are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, Executive Order 11990 requires all federal agencies to minimize impacts to wetlands when conducting specific activities. Waters of the United States means, “All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. This includes interstate wetlands, as well as all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa takes, or natural ponds. The use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters" (33 CFR 328.3 (b)). Waters of the U.S. are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, Executive Order 11990 requires all federal agencies to minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. when conducting specific activities. The study area in the vicinity of the Route 17 crossing of Jacks Fork was screened for potential stream and wetland impacts. Information was compiled from National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, soil survey information from Texas, Howell and Shannon Counties, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, and digital orthophoto quads for the study area. Soil survey data and communication with the Eminence Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) field office indicates that hydric soils are rare throughout the study area. 53 T Small, unmapped areas of hydric soils may be found in sinkholes and bottomland areas along the Jacks Fork River. Based upon the available soil survey data and NWI mapping, jurisdictional wetlands are likely to be uncommon throughout the study area. With the exception of both avoidance alternates (Alternate A and I), the only anticipated impacts to waters of the United States other than the Jacks Fork or its tributaries are to small, impounded or excavated open water bodies. Alternates B, C, D and H have “open water" impacts ranging from 0.06 ac to 0.72 ac (Table 13). Alternates E, G and H have no impacts to NWI mapped wetlands. NWI mapping indicates potential impacts to 4.32 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, 0.24 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, and 0.66 acres of open water bodies along Alternate A. NWI mapping for Alternate I indicates that approximately 0.17 acres of palustrine emergent wetland may be impacted by the alignment, as well as 4.68 acres of open body water. Table 13. Potential Wetland Impacts Palustrine Emergent* Palustrine Forested* Open Water Alternate Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres A 3 4.32 2 0.24 7 0.66 B 0 0 0 0 4 0.40 С 0 0 0 0 1 0.06 D 0 0 0 0 2 0.49 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 1 0.72 I 1 0.17 0 0 15 4.68 * Includes both temporarily flooded and seasonal flooded wetlands. With the exception of Alternate D, which will only impact the Jacks Fork River, each alternate will impact the Jacks Fork along with several smaller tributary streams (Table 14). However, the screening areas for the alternate corridors are 500 feet wide, while the actual facility right of way will only be 150 feet wide. This allows for a substantial amount of flexibility to potentially avoid stream crossings. The tributary drainages affected by the various alternates tend to flow parallel to the proposed alignments. As a result, partial relocations of potentially regulated intermittent tributaries are possible with each alternate. In addition, for all of the alternates, there may be unmapped streams that could qualify as waters of the U.S. and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) requires permits for stream crossings and the placement of fill into waters of the U.S. A Section 404 Nationwide permit will be required for construction activities that place fill material within wetlands, ponds (if the COE chooses to regulate as waters of the U.S.), and/or below ordinary high water lines of streams. If, the amount of wetland impacts exceeds 3 acres, an Individual Permit may be required. MODOT would mitigate all adverse impacts to waters of the United States as required by the COE and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 54 Table 14. Potential Stream Impacts* Perennial Streams Intermittent Streams Alternate Number Number А 8** 1 B 1 2** С 3** 0 D 1 0 E 1 2** F 2** 1** G 2** H 2** 2** I 1 15 * On site evaluations may identify additional streams considered jurisdictional by the Corps of Engineers. **Relocation may be required for some of these streams. 1 ** 15. Noise The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 established the requirements contained in 23 CFR Part 772 that traffic noise control be a part of the planning and design of all federally aided highway projects. The Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), as shown in Table 15, was established by Federal code. TABLE 15. NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Hourly A-weighted Sound Level--decibels (dBA) Leg(h) Description of Activity Category Activity Category A 57 (exterior) B 67 (exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of these qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A and B above. Undeveloped lands. Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. С 72 (exterior) D E 52 (interior) This criterion states that the average sound level, during each day's noisiest hour, should not exceed specified dBA (Leq) levels for specific activity categories. The MODOT has implemented an FHWA approved noise abatement policy (available upon request) stating that noise abatement measures will be considered as part of the highway construction project 55 if it is deemed reasonable and feasible and meets the requirements of the following noise abatement criteria. Feasibility addresses the engineering considerations of noise abatement, for example, topography, access, drainage, safety, maintenance, and if other noise sources are present. Feasibility is the ability to provide abatement in a given location with consideration to the physical and acoustical limitations of the site. Reasonableness implies use of good judgment and is more subjective than evaluation of feasibility (Table 16). The alternatives under consideration were modeled using the approved nomograph for traffic noise prediction on a two-lane highway. Construction year traffic is projected to be 2,750 ADT in 2005, while 4,700 ADT is the design year traffic of year 2025. The posted speed limit is 55 MPH while traffic has a 10 per-cent peak hour factor while 15% are peak hour trucks in which two-thirds are classified as heavy-duty trucks. Direction of travel was evenly split. Future twenty-year design traffic was modeled for the projected noise levels. Table 16. FACTORS TO DETERMINE REASONABLENESS Noise walls must provide noise reduction of at least 5 dBA for all primary receptors. Primary receptors are those, which are closest to the highway. Noise walls must provide attenuation for more than one receptor. Noise walls must be 18 ft (5.5m) or less in height above normal grade. Noise walls must not interfere with normal access to the property. Noise walls must not pose a traffic safety hazard. Noise walls must not exceed a cost of $30,000 per benefited receptor. A benefited receptor is defined as a receptor, which receives a noise reduction of 5 dBA or more. The majority of the affected residents (primary and benefited receptors) must concur that a noise wall is desired. a In order to locate the traffic noise contours, the nomograph models sound receivers, which are located perpendicular to the future roadway. The receivers are then measured from the center of the highway and located 5 feet above the elevation of the roadway. In accordance with the approved methodology used by the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, the nomograph reveals that at 100 feet from the centerline of the roadway the construction year (2005) noise level is predicted to be 57 dBA and the design year (2025) level is predicted to be 59 dBA. These levels are well below the NAC associated with the existing land use. Noise energy or sound diminishes in intensity as the square of the distance from the source. The sound level will decrease approximately 3 to 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from a highway depending if the site is considered hard (concrete, asphalt, water etc) or soft (grass, brush, trees etc.) A hard site will decrease approximately 3 dBA , therefore the sound energy over the water will decrease to 54 dBA at 200 feet and to 51 dBA at 400 feet. Subjective tests have determined that the smallest change in noise level perceptible to the ear is approximately 3 dBA. 56 Based on the noise analysis and the foregoing reasoning, noise abatement will not be considered in the construction of this project. However, upon final approval of one of the proposed alternatives, additional noise analysis may be required to ensure that all reasonable and feasible measures are incorporated into this project to minimize any noise impacts and enhance the surrounding environment to the greatest extent practicable. To reduce the impacts of construction noise, MODOT has special provisions in the construction contract which requires that all contractors comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations relating to noise levels permissible within and adjacent to the project construction site. 16. Cultural Resources In accordance with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, MODOT Cultural Resources Section conducted a background search to identify known and potential cultural resources within nine alternate corridors under consideration for replacement of Bridge J-665 on Route 17 over the Jacks Fork River. A reconnaissance of the nine alternate corridors (A-I) was also conducted to provide a preliminary assessment of potential effects the project might have on architectural resources. The background search included a literature review at the cultural resources library of the State Historic Preservation Office to determine the extent of previous cultural resources surveys in the vicinity of the Route 17 project area. A Site File search was also conducted at the Archaeological Survey of Missouri (ASM) to document locations of previously recorded sites. Dr. James Price the National Park Service archaeologist assigned to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways was also consulted to determine whether the park service had any additional information related to sites in the study area. MODOT conducted a systematic cultural resources survey of Alternates G and H in June 2002. That survey included the right-of-way acreage described in Table 17. One parcel located at the northern end of the Alternate G alignment east of existing Route 17 could not be included in the archaeological survey due to a lack of landowner permission. Should the project require any ROW not included in the June 2002 survey or should any significant archaeological sites be discovered within the area affected by the project, they will be addressed in accordance with the regulations (36 C.F.R. 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). Identified cultural resources will be evaluated according to the Department of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation," in consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer. Previous Investigations The preferred alternate (G) for improvements to Route 17 is located within the boundaries of the Pine Crest 7.5' USGS Quadrangles map. The Cultural Resources Library at SHPO has on file reports of three cultural resources studies (Cole 1978, Conner 1999, Sturdevant 1998) 57 C that have been conducted within the boundaries of the Pine Crest Quad; however, none of the previously reported cultural resources studies were conducted in or near the limits of the preferred alternate. a The ASM site files include one previously recorded archaeological site, 23TE51, located within the Alternate G corridor. Site 23TE51 is a disturbed lithic scatter located on the south side of the Jack's Fork in the ONSR's Buck Hollow Public Access Area. National Park Service archaeologist Dr. Mark Lynott recorded site 23TE51during an informal reconnaissance of the public use area conducted during a lunch break in May of 1979. In summary, no formal archaeological studies have been conducted in the Route 17 project area prior to MODOT's June 2002 survey for the Route 17 bridge replacement. One previously recorded site (23TE51) is present; however, information concerning that site had not been updated since 1979. a. Architecture There are no buildings located within the preferred alignment (Alternate G). MODOT's cultural resources survey of the Alternate G and H corridors did identify remains of several structures, including a retaining wall along the east side of Buck Hollow, a c 1920's concrete bridge abutment in the Buck Hollow Public Use area and a concrete fireplace associated with century sawmill (site MODOTTE2). an early 20th b. Archaeology Previous work in the region suggests that there is potential for a broad range of a archaeological sites with components dating from Paleoindian through the Historic period. Archaeological site types that might be present in the study area include prehistoric lithic scatters, campsites and rock art as well as a variety of domestic and industrial historic sites such as sawmills, gristmills, and quarries. The area also includes numerous caves and some of the larger caves are known to include evidence of prehistoric aboriginal use. ASM site files indicate that only one previously reported archaeological site, 23TE51, is located within the boundaries of the preferred alternate. Site 23TE5lis a disturbed lithic scatter located on the south bank of the Jacks Fork in the Buck Hollow Public Access Area. A few other historic and prehistoric sites have been recorded in the vicinity (23TE126, 23SH225, 23HL136, 23HL138, 23HL140). The Texas County History (1989:44) describes a prehistoric/historic Indian village and cemetery site located several miles west of the preferred alternate at the confluence of the North and South Prong of the Jack's Fork. That site is near the area where Alternate I crosses the Jacks Fork River. Site files at ASM do not include any record of this site. The county history suggests that this site includes a historic Native American component, which could be associated with Osage or immigrant Delaware, Shawnee, or Miami (Piankashaw and Wea) groups, who reportedly settled along the Jacks Fork for a brief period (c. 1815- a 1832) during the early nineteenth century (Chapman and Chapman 1980:120; Stevens 1991). a 58 - The Cherokee also have an affiliation with the ONSR park area. Sites associated with these immigrant Native American groups are not well documented in the Jacks Fork drainage, although one artifact, a rolled sheet iron projectile point attributed to the Shawnee has been archaeologically recovered (Price 1991:12). a In a web page devoted to the history of the upper Jacks Fork area, long time resident and local historian J. L. Stoops (1996) has reported a potentially significant historic road located near the Route 17 Bridge. Wheel ruts worn into the bedrock along the streambed reportedly mark the trace of the Buck Hollow road. The wagon road and ford at Buck Hollow are said to have remained in use through the early twentieth century. Teamsters who hauled freight between Summersville and Mountain View in horse drawn wagons continued to use the old Buck Hollow road, because it provided a gentler grade than the modern highway. Portions of the road described by Stoops in Buck Hollow are located west of the preferred alternate and will not be affected by the project. J. L. Stoops has also described several historic water powered mills that were once situated along the Jacks Fork in the vicinity of the study area. The preferred alternate would not affect any of the historic mill sites reported by Stoops. There are no public cemeteries indicated on the Pine Crest Quad map within the preferred alignment and none of the cemeteries mentioned in the Texas County history or on web pages dealing with Texas and Howell County cemeteries are known to be located within the preferred alternate. c. Bridges Bridge J-665 carries Route 17 over the Jacks Fork. This bridge was built in 1931 and consists of two 100-foot steel six-panel rigid-connected Warren pony trusses with three steel stringer approach spans and concrete abutments, wingwalls, and piers. This bridge measures 329 feet in total length with a 20-foot roadway. When inventoried by Clayton Frazer in 1992 bridge J-665 was described as unaltered and in good condition. Fraser's 1996 draft Missouri Historic Bridge Inventory evaluated this bridge and assigned a significance rating of 45 on a numeric scale of 0-110 considering it to be a "a typically configured example of a MSHD standard bridge design.” Fraser considered bridge J-665 as not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, Fraser did not take into account the skewed configuration of this bridge, which crosses the Jacks Fork at an oblique angle. When the skewed nature of the bridge is taken into consideration, the significance rating of the bridge increases to a value where the bridge is considered NRHP eligible under Criterion C in the area of engineering. The SHPO has been consulted concerning the NRHP eligibility of bridge J-665 and has concurred that this bridge is eligible for the National Register and that the planned removal of the bridge will be an adverse effect. 59 d. Summary of Alternates Construction of the proposed bridge replacement project on the preferred alternate (G) will have a negligible effect on cultural resources. As with all the corridors, this project will result in removal of the NHRP eligible bridge, but it will not affect any buildings and has the potential to affect only one NRHP non-eligible archaeological site. As the review below suggests, from a cultural resources perspective, Alternate G is preferable to all the other alternates because it has the lowest potential to affect historic properties. The Alternate A corridor is 8.9 miles in length and would potentially affect the largest number of architectural resources (12) as well as the largest number of predicted archaeological site locations (17). The Alternate B corridor is 4.15 miles in length and includes one historic building in Howell County and four historic buildings in Texas County. The Texas County buildings along Alternate B that may be eligible for the NRHP include the one-room Stallman Schoolhouse (AR-17) (Criteria A and C) and a hip roofed folk house (AR-18) (Criterion A and C). It is estimated that eight archaeological sites may be located within the Alternate B corridor. The Alternate C corridor is 3.33 miles in length and includes three architectural resources (AR-19, AR-20, and AR-26) none of which appear likely to be considered eligible for the NRHP. It is estimated that seven archaeological sites may be located within the proposed Alternate C corridor. The Alternate D corridor is 2.38 miles in length and includes four architectural resources (AR-23, AR-24, AR-25, AR-26) none of which are considered eligible for the NRHP. It is estimated that five archaeological sites may be located within Corridor D. The Alternate E corridor is about one mile in length and includes one architectural resource (AR-22, Cardinal Acres) that may be eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C. It is estimated that three archaeological sites may be located within Corridor E. The Alternate F corridor is 1.66 miles in length and does not include any architectural resources. It is estimated that four archaeological sites may be located within Corridor F. The Alternate G corridor is 1.14 miles in length and does not include any Architectural Resources. It was estimated that three archaeological sites might be located within Corridor G; however, the survey identified only one site (23TE51). The Alternate H corridor would not affect any Architectural Resources. Estimates suggested that three archaeological sites might be located within Corridor H; however, only one site (MODOTTE2) was identified during the survey. M The Alternate I corridor is 14 miles in length and could effect at least one NRHP eligible architectural resource. This alternate could also impact a reported prehistoric/historic Indian village and cemetery site at the confluence of the North and South Prong of the Jack's Fork. Six additional archaeological sites are possible within this alignment. 60 re Table 17 summarizes and compares the architectural resources and estimated archaeological and historical resources, that might be affected by the nine alternative routes proposed for replacement of the Jacks Fork bridge and related improvements to Texas Route 17. Table 17. Length (miles) Acres Architecture Archaeology* Cultural Resource Potential Impacts Alternates A B С D E F G H I 8.9 4.15 3.33 2.38 1.99 1.66 1.14 1.18 14 593 251.5 1201.80 144.23 59.99 100.6 69.08 71.51 18.7 12 5 4 4 1 10 10 10 38 17 8 7 5 13 4 1 2 17 The number of archaeological sites along alternates other than G and H is an estimate based on the length of the route, assuming a site density of .05 sites per acre for portions of each alternate within 2 mile of the Jacks Fork and a site density of .025 sites per acre for the remainder of each alignment. These site density values are projections based on data from intensive surveys at Ft. Leonard Wood (Adams 1997:i; Ahler, Kolb, and Edging 2000:151; Kreisa and Adams 1999:iii; Kreisa et al. 1996:i). Results of Archaeological Survey MODOT's Cultural Resources Section systematically surveyed alternate Corridors G and H for archaeological sites in June of 2002. The survey was conducted at approximately 15m intervals throughout the study area and included shovel testing on the ridge tops, benches, and the terrace along Jacks Fork. Steep slopes that comprise the majority of the project area were walked and inspected for sites but were not shovel tested. The reported location of previously recorded site 23TE51 falls at the eastern edge of the preferred alignment (Alternate G). Site 23TE51 was recorded by NPS archaeologist Mark Lynott in 1979 and was described as a lithic and bone scatter eroding out of a gully along the edge of a gravel parking lot in the Buck Hollow Public Use Area. Lynott collected 13 flakes, 27 pieces of non-diagnostic chert shatter, 4 bone fragments and 1 biface fragment. MODOT archaeologists excavated three shovel tests within the recorded site area, but no artifacts were recovered. Surface inspection along the terrace edge and in the gully where the initial artifact finds were reported was also negative for cultural materials. Based on the negative results of MoDOT's survey and the lack of discernable archaeological deposits, MODOT has recommended that the portion of site 23TE51 within the Alternate G alignment is ineligible for the NRHP and the SHPO has concurred with that recommendation. No other sites were identified within the preferred alternate Historic research indicates that Charles Whitbeck operated a store that was located on the south side of the Jack's Fork River about 100'east of the existing bridge. The store location is indicated on 1931 highway plans for the existing bridge. No archaeological evidence of the Whitbeck Store was found during MODOT's survey. The site may have been destroyed 61 by construction of the highway in 1931 or by later construction or modification of the access road that runs along the south side of the river east of the bridge. The preferred alternate (G) includes two shallow rock shelters and the entrances to two small caves. The rock shelters and cave entrances were examined during the cultural resources survey and no evidence for prehistoric use was identified. The interior portions of the caves were not investigated. Roy Mallinckrodt, director of the Shannon Speleological Research Institute met MODOT archaeologist Rusty Weisman in the project area on May 29, 2003 to discuss and investigate the archeological potential of a cave located near Alternate B. In discussing the caves located near the preferred alternate (G), Mallinckrodt reported that he had explored all of those caves and found them to be small, wet and rocky. Mallinckrodt did not report any evidence for ancient human activity or use within those caves. Once parcel at the northern end of the project area owned by Alfred Allard could not be surveyed due to lack of landowner permission. That parcel may or may not be needed for construction of the project. Once plans for the project have been developed if it is determined that ROW will be needed from the Allard property, it will be surveyed for cultural resources once the landowner grants permission or after the necessary ROW has been purchased. The Allard parcel is located in a sloping upland area and does not appear to include any areas of high archaeological site probability In summary, the preferred alternate (G) for the Route 17 project includes only one known NRHP eligible cultural resource, Bridge J-665. Removal of this bridge will be an adverse effect, which will be addressed through photographic and historical documentation as prescribed in a Memorandum of Agreement between the FHWA and the SHPO. An attempt will also be made to relocate the bridge for adaptive re-use. No NRHP eligible buildings or sites are located within the preferred alternate. A small part of the preferred alternate was not surveyed for cultural resources. Once the project is designed, any additional archaeological investigations that may be necessary will be undertaken in areas of the ROW not included in the initial survey. Should any other significant cultural resources be identified in the project area, they will be treated in accordance with regulations (36 C.F.R. 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470). 17. Public Lands and Potential 4(f) Resources Section 4(f) is part of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 that was designed to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. To be Section 4(f) eligible the property must be publicly owned, except for historic sites, which could be either public or privately owned. Section 6(f) is part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act, which was designed to provide restrictions for conversion of public recreation facilities funded with LWCF money. The LWCF Act provides funds for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation facilities that could include community, county, and state parks, trails, fairgrounds, conservation areas, boat ramps, shooting ranges, etc. Facilities that are LWCF 62 c. Angeline Conservation Area Angeline Conservation Area is owned by Missouri Department of Conservation and consists of several separate parcels totaling 36, 929 acres, located in Shannon County. A portion of one 205-acre tract is found within the study area, located about 1.7 miles east of Pine Crest, within the headwaters of the South Prong of Leatherwood Creek. Activities allowed within this largely forested area include hunting, hiking, trapping and primitive camping. Portions of the Angeline Conservation Area have been purchased using Pittman-Robertson funds. d. Mountain View City Parks There are three park /recreation areas, totaling 54 acres, within the city limits of Mountain View. All of these are located outside of the project and study area. The only alternate that encroaches on the city limits of Mountain View, is Alternate A. This alternate follows Route Y and terminates north of Route 60, which is north of any public recreation areas. A portion of the City of Mountain View (population 2,036) is located at the southern edge of the study area along Route 60 in Howell County. Community recreation opportunities include a swimming pool, tennis courts, athletic fields, the Dayne Glass Municipal Golf Course and a youth center/skating rink. Two Mountain View public parks are within the study area. However, neither park will be impacted by the project. Wayside Park and the Dayne Glass Municipal Golf Course have been expanded or improved with federal grants from the LWCF Act. Also, Veteran's Memorial Park received grant approval for LWCF renovation funds in 2001. e. Environmental Consequences Project impacts occurring within public lands are confined to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR). There are nine 'build’ alternates currently under consideration for this project. Alternates A and I, located west of Route 17, are the alternates that avoid impacts to the ONSR. The remaining seven alternates will impact land owned by the ONSR in varying degrees, as depicted in the Summary Table. None of the alternatives considered in the EIS impact any other public lands. Therefore, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) including the Section 4(f) Evaluation (Section G of this document) are largely focused on consideration of the proposed project's impact within the ONSR. A detailed discussion of impacts within the ONSR of the various alternatives considered in this document is found throughout the FEIS and in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. A Summary Table of impacts from the various alternates being considered to implement the proposed project is found at the beginning of the document. 18. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Predicting future secondary and cumulative social, economic, and land use impacts resulting from induced development in the project corridor is difficult and indefinite at best. Induced development could include enhanced access to recreational facilities, located on Ozark 64 National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) property as well as the possibility of increased development both north and south of the project termini. These may be located near intersections, or they may be some miles away from the highway but still indirectly result from the presence of the new facility. As travel in the area increases due to commuting activity, vacation travelers, and the movement of raw and finished products; congestion and safety issues concerning the facility have become very important to area and county residents as well as ONSR representatives. Improvements to the facility are now needed to address the existing roadway and bridge facility deficiencies and to foster the economic and social growth in the area and region. There would be both immediate and long-term potential economic impacts (discussed in greater detail in the section titled "Economic Impacts") to the area around the project corridor. Immediate, positive economic impacts would occur during the time required for property acquisition and design and construction of the roadway. These would be generated by the work and incomes provided as a result of the construction. In addition to the jobs supported by the direct infusion of construction dollars into the local economy, there would be the secondary effect of those dollars in the economy and the increase in tax monies received Overall, there will probably be minimal direct (secondary) impacts from this project, since it primarily is a bridge replacement project with some safety improvements along the approaches to the bridge. No additional lanes will be provided. Since there are no other projects in the vicinity, the project should not have a cumulative impact. 19. Permits Waters of the U.S. are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, Executive Order 11990 requires all federal agencies to minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. when conducting specific activities. Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has indicated that there are numerous locations in the proximity of the alternates that are under the jurisdiction of the COE. All nine of the alternates will cross the Jacks Fork River and eight of them will cross additional intermittent tributaries. These impacts could probably be addressed through the Nationwide Permit (NWP) program. Five of the alternates also appear to potentially impact wetland areas. Given the length of the project, the cumulative effect of wetland impacts could create a need for an individual Section 404 permit. Concomitant with a Section 404 permit is the need to secure a Section 401 water quality permit, from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Since there will not be any floodplain impacts, there will be no need to obtain a Floodplain Permit or No-Rise Certificate from the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA). a 65 C 20. Visual Impacts All of the build alternates would produce visual impacts during construction and after the highway is completed. If new highway construction is selected, MODOT will work to minimize the visual impacts. The primary visual impact will be due to the construction of the bridge and the approaches. There should not be much more litter, commercial signage, billboards, and removal of trees and homes than if the project was not built. Paramount to this project is the necessity to maintain a rustic and rural landscape, which the existing facility now enjoys. Route 17 bisects Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) property and travelers are treated to a wide array of scenic and forested views. Part of this viewscape is a blending of the existing bridge, which spans the Jacks Fork River, into the natural setting. This bridge is nearly 70 years old and its charm and design contribute to the ambiance and aesthetic value of the roadway. Since replacement of the existing bridge is necessary, care has been taken to incorporate a new bridge, which will blend into the scenic surroundings, rather than detract from the natural setting. MODOT has coordinated with ONSR and other interested parties in the design of a suitable structure. Photo renderings of the new bridge and roadway design have been developed in an effort to depict the minimal impacts to the environment and to protect the scenic beauty of the landscape (Appendix E). Gabeon rock retaining walls will be utilized to minimize impacts of rock cuts. Using 3R design criteria will allow for the construction of more gentle curves to protect the scenic beauty of the park, while still providing a safe and enjoyable roadway. Raising the grade of the roadway and new bridge and staying adjacent to the existing roadway will reduce rock cuts and minimize cave disturbances. The bridge aesthetics include the incorporation of arch steel girders and decorative columns that are consistent with the theme of the area. An open rail design on the bridge will enhance visibility of the Jacks Fork River The high number of horizontal and vertical curves on the existing Route 17 through the ONSR is indicative of the rugged topography that borders the Jacks Fork River. This roadway was built with minimum cuts and fills, resulting in a poor horizontal and vertical alignment compared to today's engineering standards. Any build alternate will be constructed with less curvature and grades that are less steep. To accomplish this, higher and deeper cuts and fill are anticipated as being necessary. In areas of cut, soil and rock will be removed to provide a more gradual vertical alignment in the road. The sides of the cut areas will be much higher than the cuts associated with the existing roadway. These higher cuts will likely restrict the view of the ONSR from the road. Generally, the depth or height and length of a projected cut or fill are governed by relative location within the landscape. The total length, of cut and fill, for the alternates, ranges from 1,200 feet (Alternate H) to 5,000 feet (Alternate D). It is estimated that Alternate G will require the deepest maximum cut (about 200 feet) and Alternate H, the shallowest maximum cut (about 18 feet). Alternate F is projected to have the highest maximum fill height (about 50 feet), with Alternate D having the lowest maximum fill height (about 10 feet). Table 18 presents a comparative analysis of the estimated Bridge and Roadway construction statistics. Visual impacts include development generated in the project area, commercial signage and billboards, and the removal of trees and homes. A likely secondary visual impact is litter 66 generated by highway users and tossed from vehicles. This not only diminishes the natural areas near the roadway but also presents problems for adjacent property owners and added expense for clean up crews. These impacts may be mitigated through quality construction, modern facilities, and "adopt-a-highway" programs for litter problems. Table 18. Estimated Bridge and Roadway Construction Statistics ALTERNATES* Bridge Factors B с D E F G H Existing Length (ft) 1085 920 910 800 600 500 600 329 Height (ft) 160 140 60 60 30 45 30 30 Cost ($ million) 3.255 3.128 2.730 2.4 1.8 2.7 1.8 NA Maximum depth 60 120 100 60 55 200 18 of cuts (ft) Maximum height 20 15 10 15 50 40 40 of fills(ft) Estimated Length 2,200 3,800 5,000 2,250 3,000 3,250 800 of cuts (ft) Estimated Length 500 500 100 100 100 200 400 of fills (ft) * Alternates A and I were not included as they are Section 4(f) avoidance alternates. Trees removed, as part of the construction project, will be replaced according to the MODOT tree replacement program. This program plants two trees for every tree of 15 centimeters (6 inches) in diameter or larger lost to construction. New trees will be planted as close as possible to the affected area. Tree species will be selected to restore or improve the appearance of the affected areas. These new trees and landscaped roadsides through residential areas will minimize visual impacts caused by construction. 21. Energy Impacts Energy impacts refer to the effect that each alternate has on energy use and consumption. There are two types of energy impacts measured. The first is energy spent on constructing the facility, and the second is the energy spent in long-term operation. Initially, the no-build alternate uses less energy than the build alternates because there would be no construction energy costs. However, the no-build option may use more energy than the build options in the long run due to slower speeds, stop-and-go-traffic, and other traffic delays that are typical of the existing facility. Since all of the 'build' alternates are on new location, they would require roughly similar energy in construction and operation. The amount of energy spent on construction is directly related to the length of the new facility. The longer the facility, the more energy it will take to build it. In that respect, Alternates A and I would be the most energy expensive, and Alternates E, F, G, and H would be the least expensive. It would be difficult to estimate which Alternate would eventually prove to be more energy efficient in long-term operation costs than the other. Since all of the Alternates are almost entirely on new location, the long-term operation for all would be less 67 than what is currently needed for the existing facility. Because it would be newer, the selected alternate will probably need a far less amount of care, maintenance, and improvements. 22. Construction Impacts If the Preferred Alternate (Alternate G) is selected, the total length of the project will be 1.14 miles. The project will involve construction through a portion of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR). The existing bridge will be dismantled instead of blown up, to avoid additional air, noise, and stream pollution. Construction impacts, usually air and noise pollution, would be similar for both alternates. The project area is rural in nature, so there will not be a concentrated area of impact upon commercial and residential areas. Trucks and large earthmovers produce the most construction noise. They are used frequently and will be used along the entire length of the selected alternate. Bulldozers, air compressors, drills, generators and other equipment increase the noise impacts to the surrounding areas. During construction, work will be confined to minimal limits to preserve all possible existing natural vegetation within the right of way. This action will minimize surface water runoff and soil erosion. Contract specifications limit the surface area of erodible cut material exposed by clearing and grubbing, excavation, and borrow and fill operations. Air pollution in the form of dust can be reduced by the application of water to construction areas. In order to minimize inconvenience to travelers on existing Route 17 and the various intersecting county roads and state highways, traffic will be handled on either the existing pavement, on newly constructed pavement, or on temporary detours or a combination of these, as necessary. Specific plans for handling traffic will be developed in cooperation with state and local authorities and strict supervision of the contractor's activities will be maintained. Through traffic on Route 17 should experience only occasional interruptions of brief duration. For any alternate, which relocates a portion of Route 17, the corresponding portion of existing Route 17 roadway would part of the negotiation of conveyance to the appropriate entity. To minimize construction impacts, pollution control measures of the Missouri Standard Specification for Highway Construction would be enforced to ensure as little impact as possible. These measures pertain to air, noise, and water pollution as well as traffic control and safety measures. This project, regardless of which alternate is selected, will impact the functional planning and efficiency of various local and regional utility concerns, in Texas County. This includes both above ground and in ground utilities such as telephone lines, electrical lines, water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, and cable television lines. It is imperative that local, regional, district, and state representatives convene to ensure an effective, efficient, safe, and coordinated plan to minimize the construction impacts upon the various utility entities. 68 E. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendation of this document is that Alternate G, along with the previously mentioned 3R design criteria, be carried forward as the Preferred Alternate. The ‘no build' alternate was discarded because it did not address the stated purpose and need for the project. While this alternate would not do any harm to the environment, it would also not correct the roadway and structure deficiencies. It was determined that improving the existing facility would not be feasible and prudent. The existing bridge is beyond the point of rehabilitation. There were two major concerns with tearing down the existing bridge and replacing it with a new one on the existing site. This would be a lengthy process and would involve closing Route 17 and redirecting traffic for a substantial amount of time. This would create an enormous economic hardship on commercial, residential, and recreational enterprises. In addition, replacing the bridge on the same site would not address the substandard approach alignment deficiencies that currently exist. a The Summary Table, located at the front of this document, provides a comparison of the potential impacts associated with each build' alternate. The main areas of concern, associated with this project are: 1) Impacts and right of way acquisition from the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), 2) Total Cost, 3) Displacements, 4) Visual impacts of the new bridge, and 5) Impacts to the natural environment. As depicted on the following table, all of the alternates contain potential impacts to some or all of the areas. Alternates A and I, totally avoid impacts to ONSR, but, in terms of cost, are the two most expensive of all the alternates. Alternates A, B, C, D, and I are the farthest in distance from the existing facility and thus would divert travelers away from the currently placed recreational facilities. The four least expensive alternates would impose a high acreage impact on ONSR. Alternates A, B, C, D, and I involve residential and/or commercial displacements. The other four alternates (E, F, G, and H) will not displace any residential or commercial structure. All of the alternates will require a new bridge crossing the Jacks Fork River. The dimensions of the proposed new bridge, depending upon which alternate is selected, ranges from 160 ft to 30 ft in height and from 1,085 ft to 600 ft in length. The current facility is 30 ft above the average low water level and is 329 feet long. All of the alternates will impact the natural environment, in varying degrees. At previous interagency meetings, it was determined and agreed upon that Alternates A, B, C, D, E, and F, were no longer feasible and prudent 'build' alternates. Alternates A and I are the Section 4(f) avoidance alternates and will be discussed as such in the Section 4(f) evaluation. Even though a Preferred Alternate has been selected, the final selection of an alternate will not be made until the Record of Decision. F. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION Discussions have taken place intermittently over the past few years, about the replacement of Bridge No. J-665, over the Jacks Fork River. In, December, 1992 MODOT personnel requested an advanced Cultural Resources screening of the project area. At that point it was determined that a Scoping meeting needed to be arranged with the appropriate agencies. In March, 1993, Scoping letters were sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 69 Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), and the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR). The project intent, at that time, was to improve traffic safety through replacement of the existing bridge structure and improvements to approaches and grading. Early responses indicated a concern about the validity of the project at the expense of the natural resource and recreational values. The NPS posited that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be completed for the Route 17 crossing over the Jacks Fork River, to include a Section 4(f) evaluation and an avoidance alternate. On September 18, 1997, MODOT personnel met with representatives from the NPS and ONSR to discuss some of the problems involved in the replacement of the Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. There was a general consensus of the need to enhance the safety of the Jacks Fork crossing, including both the bridge and approach roadways. Again, there was a reiteration from the NPS that they expected an Environmental Assessment for this project. It was noted that this project was still in the beginning stages and no alignment had yet been set. After a two-year hiatus, the alternative selection process was rekindled in August 1999, with two public pre-location meetings in the towns of Summersville and Eminence. These meetings were held in conjunction with associated bridge replacement projects on Route 19. Representatives of MoDOT presented the project area, along with environmental, safety, and geometric concerns. The general public provided additional input about specific issues and concerns on the proposed corridor footprint. Following these public meetings, an agency scoping meeting was held on September 23, 1999. In attendance were representatives from MODOT District 9 office, MODOT General Headquarters, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ONSR, USFWS, MDC, and DNR. District personnel presented the purpose and need for the project, including bridge safety and roadway approach deficiencies. Representatives from ONSR, requested more information on the purpose and need for the project, in order to better field questions from the public and their administration. In addition, updated traffic and accident data was requested. There was an extensive discussion of the range of alternates that would be considered. Those alternates would include; no action, traffic systems management, mass transportation, improving the existing facility, and a wide range of build alternates. It was also noted that the build alternates would include at least one alternate that totally avoids any impacts to ONSR property, which is Section 4(f) eligible property. Given the geographic location of the project, most of the concerns about the project, centered on the potential environmental impacts. These included impacts to the Jacks Fork River, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, karst features, scenic and landscape alterations, along with aquatic and wildlife impacts. In addition, ONSR held some concern about access to existing recreational facilities, the loss of large trees, native plants, and wildlife crossings. 70 posited. At the end of the meeting there were eight, generally agreed upon, 'build' alternates that everyone felt were feasible, prudent, and together offered viable options to the agencies and the public. These eight alternates would then be fine tuned for presentation in the EIS, along with the no build alternate and the improving existing alternate. Once these alternates were placed on a map, it was felt that other agency specialists and teams would be able to proceed with their evaluation of the project. On July 13, 2001 an interagency meeting was held to evaluate the various alternates, to determine if a preferred could be recommended or if any of the alternates could be discarded from further consideration. Those in attendance included representatives from MODOT District 9 office, MODOT General Headquarters, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ONSR, NPS, MDC, and DNR. > Representatives from ONSR, stated that ideally they would like to see the existing bridge removed and a new bridge placed in the same location. This alternate would not address the substandard geometric alignment both north and south of the bridge crossing area. In addition, this would also require that Route 17 be closed for a period of up to nine months, at a substantial economic cost to commercial, residential, and tourist users. ONSR did express a desire for the new roadway to follow the existing facility as closely as possible. This would help maintain the pristine environment and still allow access to established usage areas. A major concern voiced by the MDC representative was water quality and the damage and potential damage associated with the numerous stream crossings on each alternate. For that reason, Alternate D, which has the least number of documented stream crossings, was the preferred alternate by MDC. Part of the reason for the meeting was to see if a Preferred Alternate could be decided upon by all agencies, thus there was extensive discussion about the potential environmental impacts of each alternate. The basis for this evaluation was the Summary Table of Potential Environmental Impacts, located at the front of this document. Other issues presented were the amount of cut and fill that would be required for each alternate and each bridge. Alternate A is the one alternate that avoids impacts to Section 4(f) property (ONSR property), while Alternates B and C minimize impacts to ONSR property. These three alternates are the most costly, would impact the largest amount of farmland acreage, the highest number of cultural resources impacts, and would displace the highest number of homes and businesses. In addition, Alternate A had the largest number of stream crossings and the most wetland impacts. Alternates B and C would necessitate bridges between 140- 160 feet from the water level and a length ranging from 920 to 1,028 feet. Based upon these factors it was determined and agreed upon by all agencies that these three alternates are not prudent and feasible "build” alternates. Following a thorough discussion, it was determined that the other five Alternates (D, E, F, G, and H) should be maintained and evaluated as feasible and viable "build” Alternates. On March 18, 2002 another interagency meeting was held with MODOT personnel, FHWA, and representatives from ONSR in attendance. Since the majority of impacts will be on ONSR property, this meeting was an attempt to decide on a Preferred Alternate that would 72 G. FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION FINAL SECTION 4(1) EVALUATION Ozark National Scenic Riverways U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Route 17, Texas County, Missouri 0.2 mile South of Rte. O to South of Howell County Line Job No. J9P0440 Prepared Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and the Missouri Department of Transportation In Cooperation with United States Department of Interior National Park Service Ozark National Scenic Riverways 9/29/64 A Alta ea Dor Admn. Date of Approval For FHWA Title 75 A. PROPOSED ACTION The Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) is examining ways to address intolerable and undesirable conditions caused by deficiencies in transportation infrastructure associated with Missouri Route 17 in Texas and Howell Counties. Specifically, the study area is centered on the Route 17 crossing of the Jacks Fork River, located approximately 9.2 miles south of Summersville in Texas County and approximately 3.9 miles north of U.S. Route 60 at Mountain View in Howell County. (See the study area location map in the Appendices). Public safety, travel convenience, and local and regional economic well-being are being detrimentally affected by deficiencies in the Route 17 bridge and approach roadways. Various remedies are being studied to address these deficiencies. The range of alternatives being considered to address remediation of the present condition include taking no action, making efficiency improvements to the existing facility (Transportation System Management), constructing improvements to upgrade existing Route 17, and options that would relocate bridge and roadway facilities. Refer to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Section A, Purpose and Need For Action, for a detailed description of current conditions on Route 17 and the probable root causes for deficiencies. a = Existing Route 17, in the vicinity of the Jacks Fork, passes through a portion of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), a unit of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. The ONSR has been placed in the federal public domain to protect and preserve the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. B. SECTION 4(1) PROPERTIES Section 4(f) is part of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138) that was designed to help preserve the natural beauty of the countryside, public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. All U.S. DOT-funded transportation projects must avoid impacts to public parkland and cultural resources deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, unless it is successfully demonstrated that no feasible and prudent alternative exists that avoids “use” or impacts to the resource and that the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm from such use. FHWA regulation governing application of Section 4(f) is found at 23 CFR 771. A Section 4(f) evaluation is prepared to address these issues. 1. Bridges One of the principal goals of this project is replacement of Bridge J-665 over the Jack's Fork River. Built in 1931, Bridge J-665 is a steel, six-panel, rigid-connected Warren pony truss with four steel stringer approach spans and concrete abutments, wingwalls, and piers. It measures 329 feet in total length with a 20-foot roadway. When inventoried by Clayton Fraser in May of 1992, this bridge was described as unaltered and in good condition. Clayton Fraser's 1996 draft Missouri Historic Bridge Inventory evaluated it as National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) non-eligible, with a significance rating of 45 on a 76 a numerical rating system ranging from 1 to 110, considering it a "typically configured example of MSHD standard bridge design.” However, Fraser did not take into account that the bridge has a skewed design, which addresses the oblique angle at which it crosses Jacks Fork Creek. In a letter dated October 18, 1999, DNR-HPP expressed the opinion that this bridge may be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Based on the same evaluation criteria, this would increase the significance rating of the bridge making it eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. The replacement of this structure would require formal Section 106 clearance. The design of Bridge J-665 is a pony truss, meaning the bridge deck is supported by a system of overhead steel trusses or beams. From an engineering feasibility standpoint, this overhead support design severely limits the type of remedial actions that can be taken to maintain the existing bridge structure. The driving lanes on the existing bridge are too narrow to allow safe passage of opposing traffic on the bridge. The pony truss design physically precludes the bridge deck, and thereby the driving lanes, from being widened. Therefore, any remedial action taken on the existing bridge to extend the functional life of the structure cannot remedy the substandard lane widths. The existing structure has been modified to make the bridge less susceptible to earthquake damage. Steel plates were welded to stringers and angle stiffeners were placed in truss webs to provide added strength. Since improvement of the existing facility is not a viable and prudent option, all of the build alternates include a new bridge spanning the Jacks Fork River. Bridge J-665 could be left in place as a pedestrian and bicycle pathway, except ONSR indicates traffic of that nature is not prominent in that area of the park. In addition, ONSR, because of economic constraints, does not want to accept the cost of maintenance and upkeep that would be required if the bridge was turned over to them. In that respect, MODOT will formally request a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Statement from the FHWA for historic bridge J-665 over Jacks Fork Creek. MODOT believes that the structure and the situation meet all four criteria for the approval of a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Statement. 2. Architecture With the exception of the aforementioned bridge, there is no known Section 4(f) eligible structures located within the project area. 3. Archaeology There are no known Section 4(f) eligible archaeological sites located within the corridor limits of the various alternates. Extensive off-site research was conducted along with an evaluation of information supplied by ONSR. A comprehensive Phase I Cultural Resources investigation was completed for Alternate G, the Preferred Alternate. It was anticipated that three archaeological sites might be found, however, no new sites were discovered during the investigation. One previously recorded site was reinvestigated, but no cultural materials were found. 77 ) 7 4. Public Lands - Ozark National Scenic Riverways a. Background The Current River watershed has long been recognized for its natural abundance, exhibited by the many springs, caves, dense forests, clear running streams and other natural and physiographic attributes. As the early boom era of widespread logging activities in the Ozarks began to wind down, the economic potential that tourism and recreation the area appeared to possess began to be recognized. The construction of better roads and the accompanying increase in the ownership and use of automobiles allowed greater ease of access to the Ozarks for vacationers and others seeking enjoyment of the outdoors. а Several of the early publicly funded efforts to make the Current River and surrounding lands available for public recreational purposes came about with the establishment of the Missouri state parks system. Following a nationwide trend toward state park establishment, which peaked during the 1920s, Missouri's park program was established in 1919, and was to be administered by the State Game and Fish Commission (A Homeland and a Hinterland, Historic Resource Study, Donald L. Stevens, National Park Service, 1991). Alley Spring (on the Jacks Fork), Round Spring, and Big Spring (both on the Current River) became the first of eight original Missouri state parks. All three parks are now included within the OSNR boundary. A fourth park, Montauk, is also located on the upper reaches of the Current River, just north of the ONSR boundary. The headwaters of the Current River rise from Montauk Springs within Montauk State Park. Part of the impetus to protect the streams that are now the focal point of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), as well as the many caves, springs and other attributes associated with those streams, arose from concerns surrounding the proposed construction of dams on the Current or Jacks Fork during the 1940s. These actions fostered consideration of ways to maintain the rivers in a free-flowing state. Proposed methods to preserve the rivers included establishment of a national recreation area in 1959 and national monument status in 1961 (Roads and Trails Study and Environmental Assessment, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, National Park Service, 1991). The ONSR was established on August 24, 1964 by legislation enacted by the 88th U.S. Congress (Public Law 88-492). President Lyndon Johnson signed the measure into law. Provisions of the law allowed the National Park Service an initial appropriation of $7 million to acquire privately held lands not to exceed 65,000 acres adjacent to the Jack's Fork and Current Rivers located in Dent, Shannon, Texas and Carter Counties. The ONSR is currently composed of 61,369 acres under federal fee or less than fee control (NPS, Land Resource Division). Table 19 outlines the aggregate total acres within the ONSR boundary and the acres held by other public agencies and those that are privately held. 78 Table 19. ONSR Land Holdings* Acres Percent of total Federal fee ownership 52,096 64.5 Federal less than fee 9,273 11.5 (scenic easement) Federal subtotal 61,369 76.0 Other public ownership 14,063 17.4 (i.e., state lands) Private 5,354 6.6 Non-federal subtotal 19,417 24.0 Total 80,786 100 * Source: National Park Service, Land Resource Division The original boundary for ONSR was established with the 1964 enabling legislation. Within that boundary, the NPS could acquire privately held land "by such means as he (the Secretary of the Interior) may deem to be in the public interest” (P.L. 88-492, Section 2). Federal lands that fell within the boundary were transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the NPS. Three Missouri state parks, Big Springs, Alley Springs, Round Springs were also transferred to federal jurisdiction. The boundary was required by law to exclude the towns of Van Buren and Eminence, coming no closer than two miles to their respective municipal boundaries. The lands encompassing the ONSR lie adjacent to the 134 miles of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers. Recreational opportunities include canoeing, swimming, fishing, hunting, hiking, and camping. More than 466 miles of roads and traces, about 14 miles of equestrian trails and 48 miles of foot trails allow visitors to access the ONSR (Roads and Trails Study, 1991, NPS). Only about 25 miles of the total roads and traces mileage within the park are state-maintained hard-surfaced routes. The remaining mileage is composed of maintained gravel roads or the more informal backcountry roads (traces). The ONSR contains 80 primitive camping areas, a few of which do not have road access. The primitive areas are not developed and some are considered to be remotely located due to a lack of road access. Most developed foot trails are provided at the developed springs (Round Spring, Big Spring, Alley Spring, etc.), and these receive the highest levels of use by hikers. Portions of the Ozark Trail are included within the ONSR, along the Current River, and thus will not be impacted by this project. Most other foot trails are unplanned and have been established causally by continued use over a period of time. a b. Public Use Generally, most users of the ONSR (over 90 percent) are considered local or regional residents (Roads and Trails Study, 1991, NPS). Local residents live in the immediate area of the park, specifically in Texas, Carter, Shannon, and Dent Counties, and compose about 19 percent of users. Regional residents live within the three-hour drive of the ONSR and compose about 72 percent of users. National and international visitors compose about nine percent of total visitors. For informational purposes within this document, the NPS has provided visitor activity counts for the years 1973 through 1999. Visitor use statistics for the ONSR are not available 79 (c for years prior to 1970. The ONSR has kept use records for the following activities: lodging use, canoe use, tube use, motor boat use, camping, back country primitive camping, group camping, fishing, hunting and horseback riding. Table 20 shows annual public usage of the ONSR between 1973 and 1999. Year Table 20. ONSR AnnualVisitor Use, 1973-1999* Year Total Use Total Use 1973 1,505,000 1987 1,280,744 1974 1,428,363 1988 1,546,702 1975 1,451,197 1989 1,580,800 1976 1,713,218 1990 1,739,597 1977 1,785,334 1991 2,304,761 1978 1,892,578 1992 1,649,662 1979 1,907,675 1993 1,390,130 1980 1,794,840 1994 1,471,313 1981 1,807,279 1995 1,519,490 1982 1,907,700 1996 1,475,942 1983 1,814,215 1997 1,585,191 1984 1,895,675 1998 1,545,907 1985 1,953,155 1999 1,536,301 1986 1,886,574 Total 45,369,343 * Source: National Park Service, Land Resource Division There are six National Park Service sites in Missouri, including the ONSR. Recreation visits to the ONSR consistently rank second (behind the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (the “Gateway Arch” in St. Louis) of the six NPS sites. Table 21 shows the visitor use for the NPS Missouri sites for 1999. Table 21. NPS Site Visits by State, Missouri, 1999* Site Total Visits George Washington Carver National Monument 37,653 Harry S Truman National Historical Site 48,847 Jefferson National Expansion Memorial 3,481,042 Ozark National Scenic Riverways 1,536,301 Ulysses S. Grant National Historical Site 20,635 Wilson's Creek National Battlefield 177,721 Missouri Total 5,302,199 * Source: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Office 80 c. Location and Setting a The study area for the Route 17 project encompasses roughly 30,000 acres found in Texas, Shannon and Howell Counties. Within the study area, the Jacks Fork portion of the ONSR, taken in total, constitutes a most notable feature from a natural and political standpoint. The ONSR comprises about 2,545 acres within the study area. The Jacks Fork River enters the ONSR boundary about 4.2 miles downstream from the confluence of the North and South Prongs of the Jacks Fork, and about 2.0 miles downstream from Harlow Ford. All of the ONSR from the Prongs to the Blue Spring/Hughes Hollow reach of the Jacks Fork River is included within the study area, where the Jacks Fork flows a distance of roughly 6.6 miles to the eastern boundary of the study area. Existing Route 17 passes through a portion of the ONSR on the Jack's Fork River that is approximately one mile wide. a The Jack's Fork area is part of the Ozark natural division of Missouri, Lower Ozark section (The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri, Nelson, Revised addition, 1987). The area exhibits a rugged landscape with a system of forested ridges and hollows created by the erosional forces of streams and rivers (Stevens, 1991). Most of the rock outcrops along the Jack's Fork are the light brownish-gray dolomites of the Gasconade formation (Missouri Natural Features Inventory, Missouri Department of Conservation, Ryan and Smith, 1991). Several of these outcrops are found adjacent or near the existing Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork. The extensive forest cover in the area is composed of oak-hickory and oak-pine stands. Glades exist on exposed slopes where thin soil overlays bedrock (Ryan and Smith, 1991). The area possesses karst topography, with its characteristic caves, springs, losing streams and upland sinkholes. Most of the normal flow of the Jacks Fork is produced by groundwater emitted from springs. The waterway is steeply graded, and is often bordered by dolomite bluffs. Floodwaters may quickly rise and fall by as much as several feet per hour (in extreme cases), particularly during the rainy season from March through May. Wetlands are found within the floodplain of the Jacks Fork and at springs, seeps and low depressions within the rugged terrain (Roads and Trails Study, 1991, NPS). a Within the study area, the ONSR boundary encompasses approximately 2,545 acres. Within the ONSR boundary, the land is held by the NPS in several ways. The majority of the area is owned outright, (fee simple), by the National Park Service. Around 200 acres of land within the ONSR boundary here is held in a less than fee manner. That is, the National Park Service holds a scenic easement on private land that prohibits development activities. The Missouri Department of Conservation owns about 300 acres that composes the Barn Hollow Natural Area. The river channel of the Jacks Fork River itself is considered included within the public domain of the State of Missouri. d. Terrestrial and Natural Communities Land cover types within the study area portion of the ONSR are somewhat varied, but forested areas are predominant, covering nearly 96 percent of the land area. Of forested areas, stands of upland deciduous species compose about 72 percent of total land cover, with 81 shortleaf pine-oak forest covering about 22 percent. Glades, grasslands and open water compose the balance of cover types. See the land use/land cover section of the Final EIS for more information about vegetative cover types found within the ONSR and the study area. e. Existing Facilities The Buck Hollow access area of the ONSR has not been highly developed for recreational use. The area is located in a somewhat remote location, relative to the Current River portions of the ONSR. No on-site staff is present to oversee and monitor public use. Also, relative use of the access is likely to be affected by low water levels during the peak summer use period. Water levels on the Jacks Fork are most optimum for floating in the spring months. During the traditionally high use months of summer, the Jacks Fork, particularly upstream from Route 17, becomes too shallow in some reaches of the river to facilitate good canoe floating. Presently, recreational uses at the Buck Hollow access include hiking, fishing, swimming, floating, and primitive camping, facilitated by a primitive river access point and space available for random parking (ONSR Buck Hollow Development Concept Plan (DCP), 1984). Within the study area, there are six primitive camping areas: Bat Cave, Buck Hollow, Royal Hole, Bluff View, Blue Spring, and Baptizing Hole. f. Planned Development The following account of planned development at Buck Hollow access is paraphrased from the document entitled, General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 1984. The National Park Service approved the current Development Concept Plan (DCP) for the Buck Hollow area in 1984 (see Superintendent Clary letter of December 16, 1999 in Appendix A for Buck Hollow DCP map). The DCP originally indicated planned improvements that included the following: On the downstream side of Route 1: Buck Hollow Landing Road; all weather gravel access road (from Route 17) along south shore of Jack's Fork All weather gravel parking Boat launching area with ramp, to be located downstream from turnaround area Two walk-in primitive camping areas, 15 to 20 sites each, both located in the area south of the access road Within the area shown as a term estate, construction of a permanent ranger quarters and demolition of two existing summer cabins Vault toilet Water well On the upstream side of Route 17: A day use area Boat launching area 82 - Recent site visits reveal that the access road (Buck Hollow Landing Road) leading back to the turnaround area and a designated floater parking lot has a crushed gravel surface. These improvements appear to satisfy the expressed need to establish a controlled circulation pattern for vehicles entering the area. A rock façade vault toilet has been constructed to replace facilities destroyed by fire. The designated primitive camping areas have not yet been established, although the DCP indicates that primitive camping is allowed at Buck Hollow, except where signs indicate otherwise. A boat launch area has been established near the end of Buck Hollow Landing Road. The area immediately west of the Route 17 bridge is not currently accessible to vehicles. Other planned improvements located on either side of Route 17 have not been established at this time. While these planned developments remain as potentially viable assets, lack of funding has precluded their implementation. According to an ONSR letter of December 16, 1999, the park does not intend to construct a ranger station and quarters at Cardinal Acres. ONSR ranger district boundaries were modified subsequent to the 1984 DCP, which changed the plans for establishment of a ranger quarters at this location. The main structure and two summer cabins also were considered standing structures at the time of the report (1984). C. IMPACTS ON THE SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES Nine build alternates are being considered as a solution to meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. Due to the large areal extent of the ONSR and the location of Route 17 in relation to the ONSR, all of the alternatives being considered in this document will have varying degrees of impact on the ONSR, with the exception of Alternates A and I, which have been identified as avoidance alternates. In addition, all of the alternates, except the no- build option, encompass the replacement of the existing bridge. Potential impacts within the footprint of each build alternate corridor (build Alternates B through H, and improve existing) and the no-build is presented under the appropriate heading below, and in the discussion and tables under Section G, Discussion of the Alternates. Each build alternate corridor is 500 feet wide. D. NO BUILD The No Build Alternative would leave the existing Route 17 bridge, (Bridge J-665), over the Jacks Fork in place. E. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES The two park avoidance alternates are Alternate A and Alternate I. Alternate A progresses mostly on new roadway alignment from Route 60 in Mountain View (Point 9) and rejoins existing Route 17 at the intersection of Route W in Texas County at Point 10. Alternate A generally follows Route Y in a northerly direction from Mountain View, as it approaches the 83 Jacks Fork from the south. The alternate passes within less than 0.5 mile west of the Barn Hollow Natural Area. Thereafter, the alignment veers northwesterly, between the Prongs area and the ONSR boundary, in order to entirely avoid the ONSR. The alignment, which crosses the Jacks Fork just upstream of Harlow Ford, is located to also avoid two tight bends of the river. A crossing in that area could require more than one bridge or one long bridge. After crossing the Jacks Fork, the alignment basically turns to the northeast and follows the ridge between Bell Hollow and Coon Hollow. Alternate A parallels Route W for about 1.2 miles before rejoining Route 17 about 3.9 miles north of the Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork > Alternate I is similar to Alternate A, in that it begins at Point 9 in Mountain View and rejoins existing Route 17 at the intersection of Route W, in Texas County, at Point 10. However, Alternate I follows existing Route Y from Mountain View, to a point just south of the Prongs area, approximately 1 mile west of Alternate A. At this point, Alternate I veers northeasterly and connects with existing Jacks Fork County Road. This alternate follows the county road in a northerly and northwesterly direction to a point near the town of Arroll. Just south of Arroll, Alternate I veers northeasterly to avoid Arroll, connects with existing Route W and then follows Route W easterly to reconnect with existing Route 17 at Point 10. F. PREFERRED ALTERNATE Alternate G has been designated as the Preferred Alternate however the final selection of an alternate will not be made until the Record of Decision. G. BUILD ALTERNATES Numerous interagency meetings were held in the past two years in order to evaluate and if possible, eliminate any alternates from further evaluation. This process determined that Alternates A, B, C, D, E, and F were not viable and prudent solutions. Alternate I was added after the DEIS as another possible avoidance alternate. An intensive evaluation was conducted for Alternates G and H between the DEIS and the FEIS. See the Alternate Section and Comments and Coordination Section in the FEIS for a complete explanation of this process. 1. Improve Existing Facilities This alternate involves removing the existing structure and replacing it with a new bridge on the existing alignment. The design of the existing Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork is a pony truss, meaning the bridge deck is supported by a system of overhead steel trusses or beams. From an engineering feasibility standpoint, this overhead support design severely limits the type of remedial actions that can be taken to maintain the existing bridge structure. The driving lanes on the existing bridge are too narrow to allow safe passage of opposing traffic on the bridge. The pony truss design physically precludes the bridge deck, and thereby the driving lanes, from being widened. Therefore any remedial action taken on the existing bridge to extend the functional life of the structure cannot remedy the substandard lane widths. Additionally, an assessment of the structure has shown the bridge to be in such poor condition that funding to rehabilitate the existing structure is not justified. The existing 84 structure has been modified to make the bridge less susceptible to earthquake damage. Steel plates were welded to stringers and angle stiffeners were placed in truss webs to provide added strength. 2. Alternate B The alignment of Alternate B departs from the existing Route 17 alignment at Point 1 about 0.5 mile south of the Texas-Howell County line. Proceeding north/northwest, the alignment crosses the Jacks Fork between Ratcliff Ford and the existing bridge, about 3028 feet (0.57 mile) upstream from the existing Route 17 bridge. Here, the alignment crosses a narrow portion of the ONSR, being only about 2671 feet (0.51 mi.) wide. This area is held by the ONSR as a scenic easement only, with fee ownership resting with a private entity. After passing through the scenic easement tract and out of the ONSR, the alignment follows the ridgetop between Coon Hollow and Buck Hollow, turning northeasterly near the old Stallman School site. Alternate B rejoins Route 17 south of Route W, just north of Pine Crest at Point 8. Alternate B begins outside of and south of the ONSR boundary (Point 1), departing the existing Route 17 on the west, and crossing the upper reaches of an intermittent stream that parallels the existing roadway. Soon after crossing the ONSR boundary, the topography becomes very steep, with a drop in elevation of about 300 feet down to the Jacks Fork. Dolomite bluffs are present on the south or right descending slope of the river, at this location. The portion of Alternate B between Route 17 (Point 1) and the Jacks Fork exhibits a forested land cover type, as does most the entire study area. Alternate B crosses the Jacks Fork near the middle of a bend in the river. Sand bars in the river channel here exhibit a potential scrub-shrub wetland type. From Point 1 to the river, there are no ONSR recreational improvements. a On the north side of the Jacks Fork, the climb up from the Jacks Fork is more gradual, with a rise of about 220 feet in a distance of 1100 feet. The bridging structure needed to cross the Jacks Fork for Alternate B is estimated to be approximately 1085 feet in length and would be about 160 feet above the river channel. In comparison, the existing bridge is about 30 feet above the surface of Jacks Fork. The projected river crossing location requires the longest and highest bridge of all the build alternates. The Alternate B bridge is also the most costly to construct of the build alternates that cross the ONSR (est. $3.255 million). On the south approach to the Jacks Fork, a cut of approximately 60 feet in depth is foreseen as necessary to maintain vertical integrity of the roadway. A “notch”, approximately 700 feet long and 60 feet deep, cut in soil and rock would be needed construct the bridge on the south side. A similar notch is needed on the north side of the river as well, except the cut is not as deep but is longer (about 30 feet deep and 1500 feet long, tapering to existing ground contours at about the northern ONSR boundary). North of the Jacks Fork, Alternate B is more or less centered on the ridgetop between Coon Hollow and Buck Hollow. As stated earlier, Alternate B crosses the ONSR where the boundary lines are only about one-half mile apart. This alternative location was identified 85 for inclusion within the EIS because of the narrow ONSR boundary, thus the alternate would have less impact on the ONSR, from a length perspective. Assuming a 150-foot wide right of way within the Alternate B, about 9.0 acres of the ONSR would be impacted. No existing or planned recreational improvements are found within the Alternate B corridor. Regarding vegetative cover types within Alternate B, an area of grassland is found at the south end of the alternative, near Point 1. The edge of a shortleaf pine forest, located about 138 feet west of Route 17, and 850 feet north of Point 1, is included within the corridor. A glade complex is located about 260 feet west of Route 17 and 3242 feet (0.6 mile) north of Point 1. The remainder of the corridor to the Jacks Fork is upland deciduous forest and short leaf pine-oak forest. The area of Alternate B located north of the Jacks Fork to the ONSR boundary is upland deciduous forest and short leaf pine-oak forest. See the table, Cover types within ONSR, for more information. Alternate B crosses a portion of the ONSR boundary that is not owned outright by the NPS. The parcel, owned by the Mountain Club and Recreation Club (Parcel No. 29-118, ONSR Boundary Map, NPS, Division of Land Acquisition) is included within the ONSR by a scenic easement. 3. Alternate C Also starting outside the ONSR at Point 1, Alternate C diverges from the existing roadway south of the Jacks Fork bridge and extends in a northeasterly direction, entering the ONSR. Alternate C crosses the Jacks Fork at the Texas-Shannon County line, about 0.73 mile downstream from the existing Route 17 bridge. After exiting the ONSR, the alignment proceeds generally in a northern direction, turning northeasterly before crossing Route O, about 0.28 mile from its junction with Route 17. Alternate C rejoins existing Route 17 about 0.5 mile north of the Route O junction at Point 7. a Alternate C is the easternmost build alternative being considered within the EIS and Section 4(f) for Route 17. Alternate C departs the existing Route 17 alignment in a northeasterly direction, across a private farmstead, with a house and several outbuildings within the corridor. The corridor crosses a broad ridgetop, composed of farm fields and grasslands. Several farm ponds are found scattered in the area. At the Texas-Howell County line (ONSR boundary), Alternate C crosses the upper reaches of a small tributary to the Jacks Fork. The land within the ONSR is forested, with few exceptions. Approaching the Jacks Fork from the southwest, the topography within the Alternate C corridor drops about 260 feet in elevation in approximately 1083 feet, down to the Jacks Fork. Alternate C crosses the Jacks Fork about 1900 feet downstream from Cardinal Acres. A small tributary enters the river from the north side at the corridor's western edge. There are no potential wetlands indicated at the Alternate C crossing of the Jacks Fork. On the north side of the river, the topography is steep, rising about 280 feet in elevation within about 790 feet of distance. Near the top of this climb is the ONSR northern boundary. 86 Alternate C traverses grassland that is approximately 120 acres in size, associated with private farmland as the corridor veers to the northeast from Point 1 toward the southern ONSR boundary. As Alternate C approaches the ONSR boundary, the cover transitions to upland deciduous forest and shortleaf pine-oak forest. The cover type remains deciduous forest/shortleaf pine-oak forest across the ONSR, with two exceptions. A shortleaf pine forest area located about 427 feet north of the ONSR southern boundary. About half of the approximately 1.5 acre area is included within the corridor. The other area is about 3.5 acres in grassland, mostly located with the Alternate C corridor. The bridge required to carry Alternate C across the Jacks Fork would be about 140 feet above the river channel, and about 920 feet long. The Jacks Fork crossing for Alternate C is the second longest and second highest bridge of the build alternates being considered. The estimated bridge cost is $3.128 million. In order to construct a cost effective bridge at this location, large amounts of rock and earth will need to be removed on both sides of the Jacks Fork. On the southern approach to the river, a cut with a maximum depth of 80 feet is foreseen. The cut is estimated to be about 2000 feet long, with cuts varying in depth along that distance. On the north approach, a cut with a maximum depth of 120 feet is needed. The length of the cut is estimated at about 1800 feet. With only about 500 feet of the cut located on the north side of the Jacks Fork within the ONSR, most of this length of roadway cut would be outside of the ONSR limits. No existing or planned recreational improvements are located within the Alternate C corridor. However, Alternate C will impact about 12.4 acres of ONSR property (based on a 150-foot wide roadway right-of-way. Alternate C crosses an unmaintained primitive park road (No. 5-3180) that extends approximately one mile, paralleling the southern ONSR boundary to the Royal Hole Primitive Area. 4. Alternate D Alternate D is located closer to the existing Route 17 bridge than Alternate C. Beginning at Point 1, south of the bridge, Alternate D trends in a north-northeasterly direction, entering the ONSR (Texas-Howell County line) about 1000 feet east of Route 17. The alternate crosses the Jacks Fork just downstream from Cardinal Acres and about 0.47 mile downstream from the existing Route 17 bridge. Staying on a ridgetop on the north side of the Jacks Fork, Alternate D passes out of the ONSR, and continues north, intersecting existing Route 17 just south of the junction of Route 17 and Route O, near Point 6. Like Alternates B and C, Alternate D also begins at Point 1, which is outside of the ONSR. The alternate centers on existing Route 17 for about 2000 feet north of Point 1, where the corridor turns in a northeasterly direction. The farmstead found in the Alternate C corridor is also contained within this corridor. The alternate traverses a broad ridgetop exhibiting farm fields (grasslands), then crosses into the ONSR about 900 feet east of Route 17. Several farm ponds are found in this section of the corridor. Just inside the ONSR, Alternate D crosses an area of grassland consisting of about eight acres. As the corridor approaches the Jacks Fork, the terrain becomes steeper and forest covered. The Jacks Fork crossing for Alternate D lies 87 a f . с C r t downstream from Cardinal Acres. The terrain on the south side of the river drops about 220 feet in elevation within a distance of about 555 feet. On the north side of Jacks Fork, an intermittent tributary of the river parallels the main channel on a low terrace and enters the river just at the eastern edge of the Alternate D study corridor. The terrain rises 280 feet in elevation within a distance of about 860 feet, before a reaching the ridgetop that lies between two tributaries of the Jacks Fork. Here, the alternate exits the ONSR. The Jacks Fork bridge crossing for Alternate D is estimated to be about 60 feet above the water surface of the river. The bridge itself would be about 910 feet in length. The estimated bridge cost is $2.73 million. a Bridge construction at the Jacks Fork for Alternate D will necessitate cuts on both roadway approaches. On the south approach, an approximate 2000-foot linear cut with a maximum depth of 60 feet is projected. On the north approach, the area of cut within the ONSR is estimated to be about 1000 feet long, with a maximum depth of 100 feet. This cut is actually much longer, and extends some 2000 feet further north of the ONSR boundary, for an overall length of about 3000 feet. Alternate D also crosses the grassland that lies just south of the ONSR boundary and east of Route 17. Within the ONSR, Alternate D crosses mainly upland deciduous forest/shortleaf pine-oak forest, except for the approximately 120-acre grassland area described under Alternate C. Alternate D will impact about 32.0 acres of ONSR land (based on the assumption of a 150- foot wide right-of-way), resulting in the largest acreage impact of the build alternates. There are no existing or planned recreational improvements within the corridor. However, the corridor does cross an unmaintained primitive park road (No. 5-3180) that extends from outside the southern boundary of the ONSR to the Royal Hole Primitive Area, a distance of about one mile. 5. Alternate E Beginning at Point 2, located on Route 17 just north of the Texas-Howell County line, Alternate E runs northeasterly, away from the existing roadway. The alignment crosses the Cardinal Acres site and the Jacks Fork about 1227 feet (0.23 mile) downstream from the existing bridge. On the north side of the river, the alignment crosses the steep-sided hollow of an unnamed tributary to the Jacks Fork. As the alternative approaches the ONSR boundary and existing Route 17, it turns more directly north to intersect Route 17 at Point 4, about 0.74 mile north of the existing bridge over the Jacks Fork. The Alternate E corridor is centered on Route 17 for about 0.25 mile north of Point 2. Here, the corridor pulls away from the existing roadway, trending in a northeasterly direction. The terrain in the area is sloping downward on the side of a broad ridgetop, toward the Jacks Fork and the Cardinal Acres area. On the north side of the river, the corridor crosses the 88 southeastern leg of a triangular-shaped “knob” which is bounded on three sides by streams. The south face of the knob area exhibits rock outcroppings. After crossing an intermittent stream, the corridor essentially runs along a small hollow, reaching a ridgetop before rejoining the existing Route 17 just south of Point 4. As the corridor leaves the existing roadway from Point 2 and trends in a northeasterly direction towards the Jacks Fork, the cover type is predominately upland deciduous forest and deciduous woodland. On the immediate north side of the Jacks Fork, Alternate E crosses glade complex and adjacent grassland. This area is found at the south-facing slope of a steep ridge located there and is about 1.2 acres in size. About half of the grassland area (about 2.2 acres) is located within the Alternate E corridor. The corridor also passes through the edge of an area of grassland just before exiting the ONSR on the northern boundary. The bridge requirements for Alternate E over the Jacks Fork call for a structure approximately 800 feet long. The bridge would be positioned about 60 feet above the water surface of the Jacks Fork. The structure is estimated to cost about $2.4 million. The crossing of the Jacks Fork for Alternate E will require very little fill for roadway purposes, but will require several areas where soil and rock will need to be removed in order to maintain vertical curves that are acceptable from an engineering standpoint. On the south side of Jacks Fork the existing terrain is such that only a small area of cut (ten feet deep at the deepest point) is needed as the alternate approaches the river. On the north side of the river, most of Alternate E will be located in cut extending to where the alternate exits the ONSR. Most of the cut areas are anticipated to be no deeper than 15 to 20 feet. One cut that is estimated to be 60 feet in depth is needed on the dolomite rock exposures that face the river on the north side. Alternate E impacts the southeastern one-third of a proposed walk-in primitive camping area, to be located about 164 feet east of Route 17 and south of the Jacks Fork near Cardinal Acres. Closer to the Jacks Fork, the location of another proposed walk-in primitive camping area would be impacted. The upstream end of the Cardinal Acres summer homes site would be included within the corridor. At the Jacks Fork, a vehicular turnaround for Buck Hollow Landing Road (No. 5-225) and a canoe launching area is within the Alternate E corridor. Buck Hollow Landing Road is a termed a Class III road by the NPS, as it provides circulation within public use areas such as campgrounds and picnic areas ( Roads and Trails Study, NPS, 1990). 6. Alternate F Alternate F also begins at Point 2 and proceeds adjacent to existing Route 17. The centerline of the 500-foot wide study alignment crosses the Jacks Fork about 187 feet downstream from the existing bridge. The alignment is adjacent to the east side of Route17, as the existing roadway parallels Buck Hollow. About 1522 feet (0.29 mile) north of the Jacks Fork bridge, the alignment shifts to the west side of Route 17. After crossing to the west side of the existing roadway, the alignment turns to the northeast, rejoining existing Route 17 at Point 6, located near the junction of Routes 17 and 0. 89 Al mi ра ou ris Al ab th th Fa be fro TH fo ba ot A w ab nd is ab TI su le © In bo pi R B ro O2OBS W th A H CI Alternate F more or less centers on existing Route 17 south of the Jacks Fork. At about 0.25 mile south of the bridge, the corridor slightly shifts to the downstream side of the highway, passing near the existing bridge. North of the Jacks Fork, the corridor includes rock outcroppings located on steep south facing slopes along the river. This area is quite steep, rising nearly 200 feet to the top of the triangular-shaped “knob" mentioned earlier under Alternate E. The Alternate F corridor crosses the southwestern leg of the knob and includes about a 0.25-mile section of existing Route 17 located north of the river. The corridor skirts the edge of Buck Hollow, where it empties into the Jacks Fork. Buck Hollow is located on the upstream side of the existing Route 17 bridge and on the north side of the Jacks Fork. Farther north, Buck Hollow winds in and out of the western reaches of the corridor. Just before exiting the ONSR, Alternative F heads in a more northeasterly direction and away from Buck Hollow. a The cover type exhibited in this corridor is mostly upland deciduous forest/shortleaf pine-oak forest. On the north side of the Jacks Fork, along both sides of existing Route 17, a narrow band of glade complex is found. Also, about 919 feet north of the Jacks Fork a small stand of deciduous forest is found. a a Alternate F is projected to require about three areas within the ONSR where rock and soil will be removed for a cut section of roadway. On the south side of the Jacks Fork, a cut about 1250 feet in length and a maximum depth of about 55 feet has been identified. On the north side of the river, a smaller cut, about 750 feet long and about 15 feet in maximum depth is needed. Just past where the alternate turns northeasterly away from Buck Hollow, a cut of about 1000 feet in length (within the ONSR), with a maximum depth of 85 feet is projected. The Alternate F bridge crossing for the Jacks Fork is positioned about 30 feet above the surface of the river. The estimated cost of the bridge, estimated to be about 600 feet in length, is projected to be $1.8 million. Included within the Alternate F study corridor is a planned walk-in primitive camping area to be located just south of the floater parking area on Buck Hollow Landing Road. The existing privy, parking area and informational kiosk are also found within the corridor. The existing Route 17 bridge is located just inside the upstream or western edge of the corridor. 7. Alternate G (Preferred Alternate) Beginning at Point 2, Alternate G basically mirrors the location of Alternate F until just north of the existing bridge. Where Alternative F diverges to the west and away from the existing roadway, Alternate G continues to parallel the east side of Route 17 to near the northern ONSR boundary. About 1,109 feet south of the ONSR boundary, Alternate G crosses to the west side of the road, traversing the upper reaches of an intermittent stream before rejoining the existing road at Point 4. Alternate G is found in the same basic location as Alternate F, south of the Jacks Fork. However, just north of the river, Alternate G turns in a more northeasterly direction, and 90 mo BU FO CO со AI - 32LE2 2885 3.5 1 more closely follows existing Route 17. This has the effect of staying farther away from the Buck Hollow drainage. After crossing the triangular “knob” located just north of the Jacks Fork, the corridor follows the existing roadway, where an intermittent stream flows along side the road. The corridor stays within the hollow where the stream is located until exiting the ONSR Cover types within Alternate G are very similar to those found within the Alternate E corridor. Alternate G also crosses the northernmost end of glade complex described under Alternate E, located just north of the Jacks Fork. The bridge crossing for the Jacks Fork is positioned about 30 feet above the surface of the river. The estimated cost of the Alternate G bridge, (about 600 feet in length) is projected to be $1.8 million. This alternate also has an option for a bridge crossing positioned 60 feet above the surface of the river. The estimated cost for this higher bridge (approximately 1,100 feet in length) is projected to be $3.5 million. With 3R design and construction criteria, it is estimated the new bridge will be 15 feet higher than the existing facility and the cost is projected to be $2.7 million. Alternate G was projected to require some of the deepest and longest cut sections, of any of the build alternates. On the south roadway approach to Jacks Fork, a cut section of about 1,250 feet, with a maximum depth of about 60 feet was projected. On the north side of the river, a cut section of approximately 2,000 feet in length, with a maximum depth of 180 to 200 feet was foreseen. Just north of this cut section, an extensive fill section, some 2000 feet in length and a maximum depth of about 40 feet, extends to Point 4. About 500 feet of the southern end of this fill section is within the ONSR. However, with the use of 3R design criteria, the planned use of the existing facility where possible, and the use of gabion walls and terracing cuts, the impacts to ONSR are expected to be substantially lessened (see Appendix E). Existing and planned improvements to the Buck Hollow access are found within this corridor. Since Alternates F and G are identical at this point, the parking area, privy, and informational kiosk are located within the area for Alternate G, as well. > 8. Alternate H Alternate H begins at Point 2, south of the Jacks Fork bridge. Paralleling existing Route 17 along the west side, the centerline of the 500-foot wide study corridor crosses the Jacks Fork about 92 feet upstream from the existing bridge. About 1,066 feet (0.20 mile) north of Jacks Fork, the centerline of the study alignment shifts to the east side of the existing road. As Alternate H approaches ONSR northern boundary, the alignment crosses to the west of the existing road, and basically mirrors the location of Alternate G to Point 4. Beginning just south of the Jacks Fork at Point 2, Alternate H is centered just upstream from the existing bridge. The corridor parallels the right descending bank of the Jacks Fork until crossing the river. The terrain south of the river descends quickly to a fairly broad floodplain area of the river, just upstream from the bridge. On the north side of the Jacks Fork, the 91 corridor is centered on Buck Hollow, from its mouth on the river to about 0.17 mile north of the bridge. Here the corridor moves away from Buck Hollow, to follow the existing roadway until exiting the ONSR at the northern boundary. As described previously under Alternate G, an intermittent stream that parallels the existing road is located with the Alternate H corridor. Cover types exhibited with this alternate are very similar to those found within the study corridors for Alternates G and E. This corridor also includes the potential wetland/open water area located south of the Jacks Fork and west of Route 17. The area resembles an abandoned quarry face, and has been confirmed as such by ONSR staff. As with Alternate G, the bridge crossing for the Jacks Fork is positioned about 30 feet above the surface of the river. The estimated cost of the Alternate H bridge, which will be about 600 feet in length, is projected to be approximately $1.8 million. This alternate also has an option for a bridge crossing positioned 60 feet above the surface of the river. The estimated cost for this higher bridge (approximately 1,100 feet in length) is projected to be $3.5 million. a The probable construction effort to build Alternate H would require the least amount of cuts of any of the build alternates. A small cut about 300 feet in length and a maximum depth of about 18 feet would be needed just north of Point 2. Another cut, located just north of Point 3 on the north side of the Jacks Fork, is projected to be about 500 feet long with a maximum depth of about 50 feet. The remainder of the alternate would be placed on fill, with a maximum depth of about 40 feet. The Alternate H corridor contains an area upstream of the existing Route 17 bridge that is planned as a future day use area. The area has been used in the past on a casual basis for long-term parking for anglers and floaters. The upstream side of Route 17 is no longer accessible to vehicles. The existing Jacks Fork bridge is also located inside the downstream side of the corridor. H. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES 1. No Build > The existing narrow, substandard bridge and approach roadways would remain in place and in use by the traveling public until such a time as the bridge had to be closed due to disrepair or the structure is found to be so unsafe that continued use could not be permitted. The no build alternate, cannot accommodate any solutions for improving the existing bridge structure or the geometric roadway deficiencies. No substantive actions could be taken to reduce accident, injury, or fatality rates for this portion of Route 17. The existing structure is currently structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Any practicable engineering solution that would improve safety through rehabilitation is not feasible, due to the existing steel trusses that prevent any widening of the bridge. The Level of Service (LOS) will deteriorate to an LOS D by the design year (2025). Fuel consumption, travel time, and accident rates can be expected to increase if the no build option is selected. The service life of the current structure is rated at near zero. Further, it is unknown at what point in the future 1 92 1 1 1 1 1 1 the structure would require closure, despite efforts to continue routine maintenance. The no build option would not cause any damage to the environment through construction impacts. 2. Improve Existing > In order to improve the existing Route 17 roadway and bridge within the ONSR, the new facility needs be wider to more safely accommodate traffic. Replacing the existing bridge in place would require closure of Route 17, for a minimum of six months and possibly up to nine months. The steep topography of the Jacks Fork renders unfeasible the consideration of a temporary bridge near the existing bridge. Commercial, residential, and tourist traffic would need to be detoured around the Jacks Fork crossing while the replacement bridge is being constructed. It may be possible to detour local traffic on existing county roads. However, this approximate 10-mile detour over gravel roads would likely not accommodate large commercial logging trucks or wide recreational vehicles. Those vehicles would have to be detoured either east or west of Route 17, resulting in 40 to 50-mile long detours. Either detour would create an economic hardship to local businesses, communities and the tourist industry. It would not be prudent to replace the existing structure without also correcting vertical and horizontal alignment roadway deficiencies leading up to the existing bridge location. There are a series of hills and curves on Route 17 as the roadway winds through the ONSR on both sides of the Jacks Fork. The cost of the new structure would be approximately $800,000 but this would not include the additional cost of roadway widening and realignment, the cost of removing the existing structure, or the socioeconomic costs associated with the Route 17 road closure. Although this alternate may cause minimal environmental damage through limiting the extent of construction impacts within the ONSR, the alternate is not feasible due to the anticipated socioeconomic costs involved, including travel hardships that would occur. Also, this alternate does not fulfill the purpose and need of the project, because it does not address the correction of approach roadway alignment deficiencies and functional obsolescence of the existing bridge. 3. Build Alternates A discussion of impacts related to the various build alternates is found in the FEIS. The scope of that discussion is the entire study area. Tables 4 and 4a, which also appear in the FEIS, summarizes impacts of all the build alternates, including the avoidance alternates. 4. Alternate A (Avoidance Alternate) At nearly nine miles in length, Alternate A is over twice as long as the longest of the build alternates that crosses the ONSR, which is Alternate B, at about four miles in length. The estimated monetary cost to construct the avoidance alternate is $21.7 million, which is 60 percent higher than the next most expensive build alternate (Alternate B) that crosses the ONSR. Nearly twice as much farmland is impacted by Alternate A (nearly 160 acres) when 93 compared to the alternative impacting the next highest amount of farmland (Alternate B at about 80 acres). The avoidance alternate is projected to impact over five times as many potential wetland areas compared to the build alternates that cross the ONSR. Alternate A would require nine stream crossings compared to Alternate H, which is estimated to require four stream crossings, the most crossings of the other build alternates. Alternate A could also potentially impact up to 17 structures, some of which are residences. The alternative with the next highest potential impact to structures is Alternate B, with 8 structures. The avoidance alternate does appear to avoid impacts upon known caves and sinkholes. The alternate projected to have the highest impact to caves and sinkholes is Alternate H. 5. Alternate I (Avoidance Alternate) At fourteen miles in length, Alternate A is over three times as long as the longest of the build alternates that crosses the ONSR, which is Alternate B, at about four miles in length. The estimated monetary cost to construct this avoidance alternate is $21.7 million, which is 60 percent higher than the next most expensive build alternate (Alternate B) that crosses the ONSR. Alternate I is projected to impact over five times as many potential wetland areas compared to the build alternates that cross the ONSR. Alternate I would require sixteen stream crossings, compared to nine stream crossings on the other avoidance alternate (Alternate A) and compared to Alternate H, which is estimated to require four stream crossings, the most crossings of the other build alternates. Alternate I could also potentially impact up to five residences. The alternative with the next highest potential impact to structures is Alternate B, with 8 structures. The avoidance alternate does appear to avoid impacts upon known caves and sinkholes. The alternate projected to have the highest impact to caves and sinkholes is Alternate H. The following tables and discussion focus on the proposed projects impact upon the ONSR in particular. All of the build alternates directly impact lands held within the boundary of the ONSR with the exception of Alternate A and Alternate I. The location of Alternates A and I were specifically identified so to avoid any physical impact to the ONSR. 94 Ta S S 1 ( 의의 ​[ II 7 Yes Table 22. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS* ALTERNATES B C D E F G** H Section # 1-8 1-7 1-6 2-4 2-3-6 2-3-11-4 2-11-4 Length (mi) 4.15 3.33 2.38 0.99 1.66 1.14 1.18 Costs (x $1,000) 14,269 12,060 10,453 5,206 6,253 5,671 4,701 Farmland (acres) 79.6 91.8 63.8 14.3 27.7 10.0 14.0 Economic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Displacements Commercial 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 Residential 15 9 9 0 1 0 0 Air Quality No No No No No No No Noise No No No No No No No Wetlands (acres) 0.40 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 Stream Crossings 3 3 1 3 3 3 4 Water Quality No No No No No No No Floodplain (acres) No No No No No No No Permits Required Section 401 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Section 404 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Floodplain No No No No No No No Wild/Scenic Rivers No No No No No No No Sensitive Biological Resources Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Geologic Features Caves 1 3 0 0 2 2 7 Sinkholes 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 Mines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Lands/Parks 9.0 12.4 32.0 26.3 22.4 7.0 21.1 (ONSR-acres) Cultural Resources Architecture 5 4 4 1 0 0 Archaeology 8 7. 5 3 4 3 3 Bridge 4(f) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Known 4(f) Prop. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hazardous Waste No No No No No No No Visual Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Construction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bridge Height (ft) 160 140 60 60 30 45 30 Length (ft) 1,085 920 910 800 600 500 600 Acres 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.65 1.65 1.65 * These potential impacts are based on an alternate corridor width of 500 feet, while the actual right of way utilized will be 150 feet. This allows flexibility and maneuverability to avoid or minimize impacts. **Preferred Alternate--Based on 3R design and construction criteria 2.99 లుం Wo Tabl Secti Leng Cost: Farm Econ Disp Coi Res Air ( Nois Wet) Stre Wati Floo Pern Sec Sec Flo Wils Sens Geo Ca Sir Mi Pub ON Cult Ar Ar Br KI Haz Vis Cor Bric He Le AC *Th righ min Table 23. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AVOIDANCE ALTERNATES Alternate A* Alternate I Section # 9-10 9-10 Length (miles) 8.98 14.0 Costs (x $1,000) 21,770 21,300 Farmland (acres) 156.7 18.7 Economic Impacts Yes Yes Displacements Commercial 1 0 Residential 30 5 Air Quality No No Noise No No Wetlands (acres) 5.22 5.85 Stream Crossings 9 16 Water Quality No No Floodplain (acres) No No Permits Required Section 401 Yes Yes Section 404 Yes Yes Floodplain No No Wild/Scenic Rivers No No Sensitive Biological Resources Yes Yes Geologic Features Caves 0 0 Sinkholes 3 0 Mines 0 0 Public Lands/Parks 0.00 0.00 ONSR (acres) Cultural Resources Architecture 12 38 Archaeology 17 7 Bridge 4(1) Yes Yes Known 4(f) Properties 0 0 Hazardous Waste No No Visual Yes Yes Construction Yes Yes Bridge Height (feet) 60 60 Length (feet) 600 1,000 Acres 1.65 5.0 *These potential impacts are based on an alternate corridor width of 500 feet, while the actual right of way utilized will be 150 feet. This allows flexibility and maneuverability to avoid or minimize impacts. > 96 6 Tab (E 1 6. Land Cover Table 24 summarizes land cover types within the build alternates crossing the ONSR. Table 24. Alternate Land Cover Types within ONSR (values shown in acres) B с E F G H ONSR Total* D Cool-season 2.9 8.7 3.1 85.0 Grassland Glade Complex 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 12.2 Deciduous 1.3 0.4 1.1 20.2 Woodland Upland 24.5 21.8 33.1 49.6 44.748.9 54.0 1758.7 Deciduous Forest Shortleaf Pine- 6.2 20.7 12.7 14.5 15.1 | 15.1 10.5 560.0 Oak Forest Shortleaf Pine 0.9 0.2 38.3 Forest *ONSR total – total of each cover type within the ONSR boundary that is within the Route 17 study area. > All of the build alternates impact forested land within the ONSR. The land within the ONSR is predominantly upland forest, making it the most impacted of cover types within the ONSR. Alternates E, F, G, and H would use the highest amounts of upland forest, with Alternates B, C, and D impacting the least. Glade complex cover types are the least plentiful relative to the over cover types shown in the above table. Alternates E, F, G, and H have the most impact on glades compared to the other build alternates. 7. Noise Considerations This project will continue to be a two-lane rural roadway and will not facilitate increased traffic handling capability on Route 17 by adding additional lanes. Traffic-generated sound will not increase specifically as a result of the project. Also, traffic sound levels that exceed mitigation thresholds would lie entirely within the roadway easement for the build alternates. MODOT's approved noise policy statement gives consideration to providing noise abatement for noise sensitive receptors identified by analysis to have a predicted dBA noise level that approaches or exceeds the FHWA established Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). For this project the NAC value has been established at the 67 dBA noise level. Since the NAC contour line would be contained within right-of-way for the proposed project regardless of which build alternative is selected, no sensitive receptors would be impacted by excessive traffic noise. The alternatives considered were modeled using the approved nomograph for traffic noise prediction on a two-lane highway. Construction year (2005) traffic is projected to be 2,750 97 con pre use hing + TO 如​www acc U use par ADT and 4,700 ADT is projected to be the design year (2025) traffic. The posted speed limit is 55 MPH while traffic has a 10 per-cent peak hour factor while 15% are peak hour trucks in which two-thirds are classified as heavy-duty trucks. Direction of travel was evenly split. Future twenty-year design traffic was modeled for the projected noise levels. In order to locate the traffic noise contours, the nomograph models sound receivers, which are located perpendicular to the future roadway. The receivers are then measured from the center of the highway and located 5 feet above the elevation of the roadway. In accordance with the approved methodology used by the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, the nomograph reveals that at 100 feet from the centerline of the roadway the construction year (2005) noise level is predicted to be 57 dBA and the design year (2025) level is predicted to be 59 dBA. These levels are well below the NAC associated with the existing land use. Noise energy or sound diminishes in intensity as the square of the distance from the source. The sound level will decrease approximately 3 to 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from a highway depending if the site is considered hard (concrete, asphalt, water etc) or soft (grass, brush, trees etc.) A hard site will decrease approximately 3 dBA, therefore the sound energy over the water will decrease to 54 dBA at 200 feet and to 51 dBA at 400 feet. Subjective tests have determined that the smallest change in noise level perceptible to the ear is approximately 3 dBA. Based on the noise analysis and the foregoing reasoning, noise abatement will not be considered in the construction of this project. However, upon final approval of one of the proposed alternatives, additional noise analysis may be required to ensure that all reasonable and feasible measures are incorporated into this project to minimize any noise impacts and enhance the surrounding environment to the greatest extent practicable. To reduce the impacts of construction noise, MODOT has special provisions in the construction contract which requires that all contractors comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations relating to noise levels permissible within and adjacent to the project construction site. 8. Visual Considerations All of the build alternates would produce visual impacts during construction and after the highway is completed. Any new man-made influence, such as a state highway and bridge crossing, will have an effect on the aesthetic environment found with the ONSR. As stated in the FEIS, context sensitive bridge and roadway designs will be implemented to minimize the visual impacts to the natural area (Appendix E). As stated in the FEIS, the necessity to maintain the available scenic resources within the ONSR is of paramount importance. The scenic landscape within the ONSR provides a new panorama with every turn in the road or bend in the river. The view from Route 17 is a highly utilized vantage point for viewing the ONSR and is certainly the vantage point that accommodates travelers who utilize Route 17. Secondly, the vantage point of most ONSR users is from the Jacks Fork. Views of the existing bridge are available for recreational users partaking in canoeing, fishing or other water related activity in on the Jacks Fork. 98 U 5 % ŠE 1 1 9. Views from the Road and Bridge The high number of horizontal and vertical curves on the existing Route 17 through the ONSR is indicative of the rugged topography that borders the Jacks Fork. The rugged topography and extensive forested areas bordering both sides of the road affect line of sight distances from roadway vantage points. Due to the winding nature of the roadway, coupled with steep hills and a narrow bridge over the Jacks Fork, Route 17 does not lend itself to observing the landscape for any length of time. The existing roadway configuration and alignment does not afford opportunities for motorists to safely pull to the side of the road for any reason, including enjoyment of the scenic beauty of the area. Views of the Jacks Fork River are available to motorists as they cross the bridge on Route 17, before climbing up and away from the river and out of the ONSR. This is anticipated to be the case with any of the project alternatives discussed in this document. The most notable changes in the viewscape from the existing roadway and bridge compared to a new approach roadway and bridge is anticipated to include the following: The approach roadway leading to a bridge on any of the build alternates will not be as crooked or circuitous, resulting in a possible broader viewscape than is afforded on the existing Route 17 through the ONSR. The existing roadway within the ONSR was constructed with minimal cuts and fills, resulting in a poor horizontal and vertical alignment compared to today's engineering standards. Any build alterative will be constructed with less curvature and grades that are less steep. To accomplish this, higher and deeper cuts and fills are anticipated as being necessary. In areas of cut, soil and rock will be removed to provide a more gradual vertical alignment in the road. The sides of the cut areas will be much higher than the cuts associated with the existing road. These higher cuts will likely restrict the view of the ONSR from the roadway. 10. Views of the Road and Bridge As noted earlier, most recreational users of the ONSR will view the replacement bridge and connecting roadway from the Jacks Fork River. Notable changes in the viewscape of the existing roadway and bridge from the river compared to a new approach roadway and bridge are anticipated to include the following: The existing bridge is supported by an overhead truss system, and is a prominent visual feature of the bridge. A replacement bridge on any of the build alternates presented will likely not be an overhead truss bridge. The replacement bridge, which will not require overhead structural support, will not figure as prominently in the viewscape, as it will not be as large vertically as the existing bridge. From a bridge design standpoint, a modern bridge design will present a more diminutive object within the viewscape from the river, compared to the existing bridge. 99 } 一 ​1 gWW阳 ​8.8 吧​歌​.m.ww The existing bridge is about 30 feet from the water surface of the Jacks Fork. The bridges on three of the build alternatives (Alternates F, G and H) are also projected to be about the same height. However, the bridges on the other build alternatives (Alternates B, C, D, and E) would be situated much higher over the Jacks Fork. Alternates G and H also have options that include higher bridges. These alternatives would be expected to be more visible to recreational users simply due to the additional height of the bridges above the Jacks Fork. Actual line of sight viewing distances of the build alternate crossings of the Jack Fork would be expected to vary with respect to location relative to features such as rock outcroppings, riparian and in-channel (riverine) vegetation and bends in the river. The following table (Table 25. Estimated Bridge and Roadway Construction Statistics) includes figures that attempt to quantify line of sight distances relative to the vantage point of the Jacks Fork River (the viewscape from a canoeists vantage), both upstream and downstream from each of the build alternates that cross the ONSR. 60 Table 25. Estimated Bridge and Roadway Construction Statistics ALTERNATES B с D E F G* H* Existing Bridge length (ft) 1085 920 910 800 600 500 600 329 Bridge height (ft) 160 140 60 60 30 45 30 30 Bridge cost ($ 3.255 3.128 2.730 2.4 1.8 2.7 1.8 NA million) Max. depth of 60 120 100 55 200 18 excavation (cuts) within ONSR (ft) Max. height of 20 15 10 15 50 40 40 embankment (fills) within ONSR (ft) Line of sight viewing distance from Jacks Fork: Upstream (ft) 860 3022 1568 794 1247 1247 2051 853 Downstream (ft) 965 988 2375 2238 810 810 1207 1148 * These Alternates include an option for a longer (1,100 ft) and higher (60 ft) bridge at an estimated cost of $3.52 million. > 1 Several assumptions made regarding the estimated distances include the assumption that riverine vegetation, i.e. sandbar willows, would not be a major obstruction to views. Secondly, no allowance was made for height of a particular crossing. However, it can be assumed that higher bridges would likely be seen from a greater distance, all else being equal. Measurements were made from center of river channel to middle of bridge crossing for each alternate, based on USGS topographic maps using geographic information system computer software. Alternates B, F and G have been identified through the above-described method as 100 exhi altei 叫叫​叫叫​叫 ​1 exhibiting similar line of sight viewing distances as the existing bridge. The other build alternates would likely be seen at greater distances. The existing bridge is part of the viewscape of the Buck Hollow area. This bridge is nearly 70 years old and its charm and design contribute to the ambiance and aesthetic value of the roadway. If the replacement of this bridge is found to be necessary, care will be taken to lessen the impact of a new bridge upon the area's surroundings. MoDOT has coordinated with ONSR and other interested parties in the design features of a suitable structure (see Comments and Coordination Section in FEIS and Appendix F). 11. Impacts upon Terrain Permanent physical impacts upon terrain resulting from construction (earth moving, cut and fills) can be expected with the proposed project. The terrain in the ONSR is very rugged, especially adjacent to the Jacks Fork and its tributaries. In order to construct a replacement bridge with improved roadway approaches to the bridge, cuts and fills will be needed. All of the build alternatives will require cuts and fills. Generally, the depth or height of a projected cut or fill for an alternative is governed by relative location within the landscape. The preceding table, Estimated Bridge and Roadway Construction Statistics, shows an estimate of the maximum extent of cuts and fills on the build alternates that cross the ONSR. It is estimated that Alternate G will require the deepest maximum cut (about 200 feet) and Alternate H, the shallowest maximum cut (about 18 feet). Alternate F is projected to have the highest maximum fill height (about 50 feet), with Alternate D having the lowest maximum fill height (about 10 feet). The higher bridge options, associated with Alternates G and H, will also entail longer bridge lengths (approximately 1,100 feet). It is anticipated that neither of these options would entail substantially less cut and fill requirements. The MODOT's Pollution Prevention Plan, approved by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), will be employed to limit erosion and siltation, due to land disturbance activities. The control of water pollution will be accomplished through the use of berms, slope drains, ditch checks, sediment basins, silt fences, rapid seeding and mulching, as well as other erosion control devices or methods. Temporary measures to be used during construction will be coordinated with planned permanent erosion control to provide effective and continuous protection. Additional emphasis will be placed on strict adherence with the above provisions, due to project proximity to the Jacks Fork. 12. ONSR Impacted Acreage All the build alternates that cross the ONSR would require enough acreage to construct a two- lane roadway with shoulders. The estimated impacts of the new bridge and approach roadways are based on an estimated 150-foot right-of-way width. Based upon these parameters, Alternate D, with about 32.0 acres, is estimated to require the largest amount of land that lies within the ONSR boundary. Alternate B, which passes through the ONSR at one of its narrowest points on the Jacks Fork, is estimated to require about 9.0 acres, which is the lowest amount of the build alternates, if construction is based upon standard roadway design criteria. With the use of 3R 101 mmm 1 g 8 ㎞ Ou매비 ​1 design criteria, as discussed in the FEIS text, Alternate G, the Preferred Alternate will use an estimated 7.0 acres of ONSR property. 13. Post-Project Access to the ONSR All of the build alternates will have an effect on access to the Buck Hollow area. Generally, the alternatives located closer to the existing bridge will require less of the existing roadway to remain in place to function as a local access road to Buck Hollow. Some alternates may not require any of the existing Route 17 to remain in place for access purposes once new approach roadways and a replacement bridge is in place. The build alternates that lie closest to the existing Route 17 Jacks Fork bridge and roadway are Alternates F, G and H. The remaining build alternates would likely require sections of the existing Route 17 to remain in place for access to Buck Hollow. 14. Impacts on Existing and Planned Recreational Improvements Table 26 summarizes possible impacts to actual and planned facilities improvements at Buck Hollow. Since both planned and existing improvements are concentrated near the existing Route 17 bridge location, Alternates B, C and D are not expected to impact these improvements. Conversely, Alternates E, F, G and H are located closer to the existing bridge. Therefore, ONSR improvements are potentially more affected by these alternates. The proposed project, when completed, should not eliminate or diminish opportunities for the public to recreate within portions of the ONSR in the vicinity of Buck Hollow. X X Table 26. Potential Impacts to Existing and Planned ONSR Improvements ALTERNATES B с D E F G H Existing Facilities Primitive Camping* X X X X Primitive Access X Floater Parking х X Vault Toilets х X Access Road X Info. Kiosk X х Planned Facilities Boat Ramp Walk-in Camping: Area 1 х X X Area 2 X Day Use Area** х Boat Launch Area X *Primitive camping is allowed at Buck Hollow. Currently, however, there are no areas specifically designated for that activity, so it occurs in a dispersed fashion. Therefore, Alternates E, F, G and H have the potential to displace camping activities. The planned day use area and boat launch area would be located just upstream from the existing Route 17 bridge. X 102 1 85 Ž Z Ž I ÖÖLE & Sos • 'I EĎ EŠ 1 15. Potential Impacts upon Cultural Resources Concerning possible impacts upon prehistoric archaeological sites, Alternates E, G and H were originally predicted to contain three sites each. Alternates F and D, four and five sites, respectively. Alternates C and B were expected to contain seven and eight sites, respectively. Alternate A, the avoidance alternate was predicted to contain 17 possible prehistoric sites. A Phase I cultural resources survey on Alternate G found no prehistoric archaeological sites. Regarding architecture, of the alternates adjacent or close to the existing Route 17 bridge (Alternates E, F, G and H) only Alternate E impacts potential historic structures within the ONSR. The Cardinal Acres site, located just down stream from the existing bridge, may be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Alternate B corridor contains five structures. Of these, the Stallman Schoolhouse and a hip roofed folk house may be potentially eligible to the NRHP. Three architectural resources are found in the Alternate C corridor, none of which are likely to be considered potentially NRHP eligible. Alternate A, the avoidance alternate, contains 12 architectural resources. Section 15 of the FEIS has more information on cultural resources. Other identified impacts not discussed in the narrative of this Section 4(f) evaluation are addressed in the FEIS. 16. Summary The avoidance alternates identified for the proposed action do not appear to be feasible and prudent, based upon anticipated environmental, social, and monetary costs. ONSR lands located along the Jacks Fork stretch continuously for nearly three miles upstream and 28 miles downstream from the existing Route 17 bridge. Based singularly upon this fact alone, the identification of a feasible and prudent alternative that avoids the ONSR and fulfills the purpose and need for the proposed project does not appear to be possible. Public comment received resulting from circulation of the Draft EIS and Draft Section 4(1), in addition to on-going coordination with ONSR officials and other resources agencies, has guided further consideration of the project alternatives presented in these documents. I. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM The National Park Service (NPS) and ONSR will require tree replacement and not monetary compensation for trees removed, as part of the construction project. Two native trees for every tree of 15 centimeters (6 inches) in diameter or larger lost to construction will be planted. New native trees will be planted as close as possible to the affected area. Native tree species will be selected to restore or improve the appearance of the affected areas. Cuts and fills needed to construct any of the build alternates will be minimized to the extent practicable. Cuts through rock will be benched to reduce areal extent and to reduce the number of steep slopes that are susceptible to erosion. Further, retaining walls will be utilized to reduce the amount and aereal extent of earthwork and minimize disturbance to caves in the area. During construction, all disturbed areas will be treated with appropriate erosion control methods as soon as possible. The elevation of the new bridge is planned to be about 15 feet higher than the existing bridge, in order to avoid future flooding impacts. 103 impacts upon the ONSR will not include consideration of fair market value of the lands, resulting in the payment of monetary compensation. Therefore, other forms of just compensation will need to be explored between the ONSR and MODOT. Efforts to identify appropriate mitigation for impacts upon Section 4(f) resources are on going with ONSR officials. Potential options to be considered include, but are not limited to the following: Replacement land for acreage impacted in acceptable location and ratio of impact acres to replacement acres. MODOT will require 7 acres from ONSR, as permanent easement and in return will turn over an estimated 5.4 acres of existing right of way property that will no longer be needed. Exchange of existing roadway easements for new roadway easements. D) 106 JAN 4 1 S more 110 Food 900 ACK 900 Section 4(f) Evaluation Route 17, Texas & Howell Counties WARE Planned River Access Planned Boat Lauch Planned Day Use Area Planned Camping Area 1 Planned Camping Area 2 Buck Hollow Landing Road Ozark National Scenic Riverways Existing Floater Parking 1100 Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C Alternate D Alternate E Alternate F Alternate G Alternate H 300 0 300 600 Feet 9/6/2000 12:45pm Existing Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. Direction: South 976/2000 1:28pm Route 17, north of the Jacks Fork, near the ONSR boundary. Direction: SW 9/6/2000 1:30pm Route 1 north of Jacks Fork. Note narrow shoulder widths and curves. Direction: South 9/6/2000 1:30pm Route 17 north of Jacks Fork. Note fill depth at left and cut on right. Direction: N-NW 9/6/2000 1:31pm Embankment cut on Route 17 north of the Jacks Fork. Direction: South 'SW 16/2000 2:43pm Route 17 south of Jack Fork. Buck Hollow Landing Road at right. Direction: North with N-NW NAV 12000 2:29 L'pstream of Route 17 bridge on the Jacks Fork. Direction: Northeast 7 Jacks Fork downstream from Route 17 bridge. Direction: West 14 9/7/2000 1:36pm Parking area at Buck Hollow Access. Direction: Southeast Buck Hollow Landing Road, leading to Jacks Fork boat launch area. Direction: East 1 9/7/20001.37pm Buck Hollou Landing Road. Direction: East Northeast A Floater Parks 5762000 12:22 Picnic area at Buck Hollow Access. Direction: South : Summer cabin at Cardinal Acres. Direction: west A/2000, POL Bol Out building at Cardinal Acres. Direction: East 971/2000 9°Zare 9p Remains of hearth and foundation Cardinal Acres. Direction: Southeast NVE 9/6/2000 2:27pm Opening of Buck Hollow on Jacks Fork. Direction: North Streambed of Buck Hollow. Direction: North 1 Concrete cultural feature located in Buck Hollow. Direction: north Buck Hollow. Direction: South . : 1 H. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE JACKS FORK BRIDGE NO. J-665 CARRYING ROUTE 17 OVER JACKS FORK ROUTE 17, TEXAS COUNTY, MISSOURI MODOT PROJECT NO. J9P0440 WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the replacement of the Jacks Fork Bridge (J-665) will have an adverse effect upon the Jacks Fork Bridge, which has been determined eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and has consulted with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and WHEREAS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has been invited to participate in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and WHEREAS, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the SHPO agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on the historic Jacks Fork Bridge (J-665). STIPULATIONS FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out: 1. Documentation. The MODOT will develop documentation to the following specifications: a. 8X10 inch black and white photographs printed on archival paper (and negatives) sufficient to fully document overall views and details of the Jacks Fork Bridge. b. A historic narrative and technical description for the Jacks Fork Bridge. c. A copy of the original 1931 construction plans (if available) for the Jacks Fork Bridge. Copies of the final documentation (including negatives of the photographs) shall be provided to the SHPO, and copies without negatives shall be provided to the Texas County Historical Society. 107 2 7 I 3 4 2. Advertisement. The MODOT will place advertisements in the following periodicals to advertise for a responsible party who will agree to take possession of the bridge for adaptive reuse at a new location: a. The National Trust for Historic Preservation "Properties at Risk" web site on the World Wide Web. b. The MoDOT "Historic Bridges Available" section of the Missouri Transportation Bulletin. c. Four locally published newspapers (at Houston, Licking, Cabool and Eminence). The availability of the bridge will be advertised at least six months prior to the proposed removal or demolition of the bridge. If ownership is transferred to another party, the transfer deed will include preservation covenants that require the new owner to re-erect and maintain the bridge in accordance with the Secretary of the interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Bridges. All proposals for acquisition, reuse, and preservation of the bridge will be submitted to MODOT and reviewed by FHWA, MODOT, and the SHPO. If by the end of the advertising period, no responsible party is found to take possession of the bridge (or parts thereof), the bridge may be removed. a 3. Within 90 days after carrying out the mitigation measures, the FHWA shall provide a written report regarding the actions taken to fulfill the terms of the agreement to all signatories. 4. If any signatory proposes that this agreement be amended, the FHWA shall consult with the other parties of this agreement. Said amendment shall be in writing, governed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6, and executed by all parties to the MOA. 5. If any signatory determines that the terms of the MOA cannot be carried out, the signatories shall consult to seek amendment. If the MOA is not amended any signatory may terminate it. If the MOA is terminated, the FHWA shall execute a new MOA or request the comments of the ACHP. 6. This agreement shall commence upon having been signed by the FHWA and SHPO and shall be null and void if its terms are not carried out within five (5) years from the date of its execution, unless the FHWA and SHPO agree in writing to an extension for carrying out its terms. 7. Three (3) copies of this MOA will be provided, one to each signatory. One (1) copy will be transmitted to the ACHP for inclusion in their files. 8. Failure to carry out the terms of this MOA requires that the FHWA again request the comments of the ACHP in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. If FHWA cannot carry out the 108 I. LIS' Don N B.S. C Peggy FHWA B.S. Ci Kathry with M B.S. Ci Mark ) M.A.S B.A. In John B U experie M.S. Bi B.A. Bi Bob Re MODO? Ph.D. A M.A. A B.S. Bic Jim Sm experier B.S. Cis Jeffrey with Mc B.S. Civ I. LIST OF PREPARERS Don Neumann: FHWA (Division Office), Programs Engineer, 33 years experience with FHWA. B.S. Civil Engineering: St. Louis University, 1968. Peggy Casey: FHWA (Division Office), Environmental Coordinator, 29 years experience with FHWA. B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Wisconsin, Platteville, 1975. Kathryn Harvey: MODOT (Headquarters), Technical Support Engineer, 13 years experience with MoDOT. B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Rolla, 1979. Mark Kross: MODOT (Headquarters), 21 years experience with MoDOT. > M.A. Social Sciences: University of Chicago, 1979. B.A. Interdisciplinary Archaeology: Yale, 1977. John Howland: MODOT (Headquarters), Environmental Studies Coordinator, 9 years experience with MODOT. . M.S. Biology: Colorado State University, 1973. B.A. Biology: Kansas State University, 1971. Bob Reeder: MODOT (Headquarters), Cultural Resources Coordinator, 11 years experience with MODOT. Ph.D. Anthropology: University of Missouri, Columbia, 1988. M.A. Anthropology: University of Missouri, Columbia, 1978. B.S. Biology: Pennsylvania State University, 1973. Jim Smith: MODOT (Headquarters), Project Development Liaison Engineer, 17 years experience with MODOT. B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Columbia, 1981. Jeffrey Johnson: MODOT (District 9), Project Development Engineer, 12 years experience with MoDOT. B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Rolla, 1988. 110 1 B. B. B. JE W B ex B B. Z M B D M B K W ܣ 2 Joseph G. Jones: MODOT (District 9), Transportation Project Manager, 9 years experience with 9 MODOT. B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Rolla, 1992. Mike Wake: MODOT (District 9), Transportation Project Designer, 11 years experience with MODOT. B.S. Civil Engineering: University of Missouri, Rolla, 1984. Mickeal Carda: MODOT (District 9), Senior Highway Designer, 5 years experience with MODOT. B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri, Rolla, 1997. Janice L. Redburn: MODOT (District 9), Intermediate Design Technician, 10 years experience with MoDOT. Bill Graham: MODOT (Headquarters), Environmental Compliance Coordinator, 26 years experience with MoDOT. B.S. Environmental Science: Northeast Missouri State University, 1978. Matt Burcham: MODOT (Headquarters), Senior Environmental Specialist, 11 years experience with MODOT. B.S. Agriculture: Kansas State University, 1984. Kelly Cox: MODOT (Headquarters), Senior Environmental Specialist, 9 years experience with MODOT. M.A. Anthropology: Ball State University, Muncie, 1982. B.S. Economics: Ball State University, Muncie, 1977. Dan Tschirgi: MODOT (Headquarters), Hazardous Waste Specialist, 9 years experience with 9 MoDOT. B.S. Civil Engineering: Iowa State University, 1980. Kevin Mchugh: MODOT (Headquarters), Agricultural/Land Use Specialist, 9 years experience with MoDOT. M.A. Architectural History: University of Virginia, 1988 B.G.S. Art History: University of Kansas, 1983. 111 Vi ex M B. TO M B. G M M B. M 3 M В. R W M B L M B B R M B T B. Victoria Zezula: MODOT (Headquarters), Intermediate Environmental Specialist, 5 years experience with MoDOT. M.S. Natural Resources, Ohio State University, 1996. B.S. Biology, California University of Pennsylvania, 1992 Todd Miller: MODOT (Headquarters), Wetland Specialist, 6 years experience with MODOT. M.S. Water Resources Management: University of Wisconsin, Madison 1993. B.S. Geography: University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, 1989. Gene Gardner: MODOT (Headquarters), Biological Specialist, 8 years experience with 8 MODOT. M.S. Biology: Arkansas State University, 1978. B.S. Wildlife Management: Arkansas State University, 1976. Macey Jett: MoDOT (Headquarters), Air Quality Specialist, 20 years experience with MODOT. M.B.A. Management: Lincoln University, 1977. B.S. Business and Economics: Lincoln University, 1971. -) Randall Dawdy: MODOT (Headquarters), Historic Bridge Coordinator, 20 years experience with MoDOT. M.A. History; Lincoln University (MO), 1997 B.A. Anthropology; Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1975 Larry Ayres: MODOT (Support Center), Archaeologist, 12 years experience with MODOT. M.A. Anthropology: University of Arkansas, 1988. B.S. Education: University of Arkansas, 1987. B.A. Antiquities: Southwest Missouri State University, 1980 Rusty Weisman: MODOT (Headquarters), Archaeologist, 3 years experience with MODOT. M.A. Anthropology: State University of New York, Binghamton, 1991. B.A. Anthropology: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, 1979. Terri Wren: MODOT (Headquarters), Senior Cartographer, 5 years experience with MODOT. 5 B.S. Soil and Atmospheric Science: University of Missouri, Columbia, 1996. 2 112 5 V T U 27 и 1 CI C D LI A AL 1) W Al M EX Ad J. MAILING LIST Federal Elected Officials The Honorable Jim Talent United States Senate 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson U.S. House of Representatives 326 Cannon House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Christopher S. Bond United States Senate 274 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20510 Federal Government Agencies Colonel P.S. Morris Commanding Officer Department of the Army Little Rock District, Corps of Engineers ATTN: CESWL-CO-P P.O. Box 867 Little Rock, AR 72203-0867 Mr. Joe Cothern NEPA Program Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EIS Filing Section (Mail Code 2252-A) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20044 Attn: Pearl Young Office of Federal Activities Mr. Willie R. Taylor, Director Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Department of the Interior Main Interior Building, MS 2340 1849 C Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20240 Mr. Don L. Klima Executive Director Advisory Council Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Environmental 114 Ö=3 OB Een är C3 D co z zne ZES 1 1 1 3 1 1 on Historic Preservation Old Post Office Bldg., Suite 809 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Health Special Programs Group (F-29) 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30341-3724 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Economic Analysis (RRP-32) 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Mr. Earl Bean, Area Manager Department of Energy Kansas City Support Office 911 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 Mr. John A. Miller Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency 2323 Grand Blvd., Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64108-2670 Mr. Charles M. Scott, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia Field Office 608 East Cherry, Room 207 Columbia, MO 65201 Mr. Lance Long, Environmental Officer U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Kansas/ Missouri State Office Room 200, Gateway Tower II 400 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101-2406 Mr. Roger Hanson State Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture/NRCS Parkade Plaza, Suite 250 601 Business Loop 70 West Columbia, MO 65203 Mr. Roger Wiebusch Bridge Administrator U.S. Coast Guard, Bridge Branch Second Coast Guard District 1222 Spruce Street St. Louis, MO 63103-2832 Mr. Fred Schuster Regional Director Department of Health and Human Services 601 East 12th St., Room 210 Kansas City, MO 64106 Mr. William Schenk, U.S. Department of the Interior Regional Director National Park Service Midwest Field Area 1709 Jackson Street Omaha, NE 68102-2571 Mr. Noel R. Poe Superintendent Ozark National Scenic Riverways 404 Watercress Drive P.O. Box 490 Van Buren, MO 63965 115 1 SOO 1 ( ) 1 I J 1 1 1 State Government Elected Officials The Honorable Robert Holden Governor of Missouri Office of the Governor State Capitol Building, Room 216 Jefferson City, MO 65101 The Honorable John Russell State Senator State Capitol Building Room 416 Jefferson City, MO 65101 The Honorable Mark Hampton State Representative 201 W. Capitol Avenue Room 109B Jefferson City, MO 65101 The Honorable Chuck Pergason State Representative 210 W. Capitol Avenue Room 200A Jefferson City, MO 65101 The Honorable J.C. Kuessner State Representative 201 W. Capitol Avenue Room 101K Jefferson City, MO 65101 State Government Agencies Mr. Ewell Lawson, Coordinator Missouri Federal Assistance Clearinghouse Office of Administration Room 760, Truman Building P.O. Box 809 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Mr. Steve Mahfood Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Attn: Mr. Tom Lange Mr. John D. Hoskins, Director Missouri Dept. of Conservation P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 Mr. Scott Samuels SEMA P.O. Box 116 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Other Interested Agencies and Individuals Mr. Scott Dye Sierra Club 1007 N. College, #3 Columbia, MO 65201 Scenic Rivers Stream Team P.O. Box 1262 Mountain View, MO 65548 116 V M 61 S. 1 M 3 K M 7. S R A Ms. Angel Kruzen Sierra Club-Water Sentinel-MO 213 E. 3rd St. Mountain View, MO 65548 Mr. Tom Kruzen Ozark Riverkeepers Network HC 67 Box 70C Mountain View, MO 65548 > Mr. Bob Parker 19438 Golden Drive Raymondville, MO 65555 Mr. and Mrs. James Carr 1546 Steelhouse Road Willow Springs, MO 65789 Mr. Alfred Allard P.O. Box 83 Mountain View, MO 65548 Ms. Alice Layman 8440 C.R. 3310 Mountain View, MO 65548 Mr. Edward Alley P.O. Box 474 Van Buren, MO 63965 Mr. Calvin Smith HC 67 Box 59 Mountain View, MO 65548 Mr. Ted Heisel 6267 Delmar Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63130 Korey Hart P.O. Box 497 Salem, MO 65560 Mr. and Mrs. Hock 3128 South 6th Terrace Kansas City, MO 66103 Mr. Marc Perez P.O. Box 476 Pacific, MO 63069 Mr. Joe Light 766 A Jamieson St. Louis, MO 63109 Mr. Edward J. Heisel Senior Law & Policy Coordinator Missouri Coalition for the Environment 6267 Delmar Boulevard Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 R. Scott House Ozark Operations Manager Cave Research Foundation 1606 Luce Street Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 Mr. Rick Haley Ritenour High School 9100 St. Charles Rock Road St. Louis, MO 63114 Michael Sutton and Susan Hagan East Ozarks Audubon Society Conservation Committee Route 1, Box 110A Annapolis, MO 63620 Kathryn S. Andersen 11328 SW 9th Manor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328 117 1 M Us 71 S 1 M i 1 Missouri Speleological Survey, Inc. C/O Mr. Matt Forir, President 7525 Chandler St. Louis, MO 63136 Springfield News Leader 651 Boonville Ave. Springfield, MO 65806 Attn: Jennifer Portman Ray Mallinckrodt 119 W. High St. Willow Springs, Mo 65793 > >) 118 4 4 / 1 / B B BU D K. INDEX Energy Impacts, 67 Environmental Impacts, 17 Environmental Justice, 19 Existing Facility, 1, 10 O A Accident Rates, 5 Aesthetics, Appendix E Air Quality, 50 Alternates, 7 Cost Table, 14 Alternate A, 11 Alternate B, 11 Alternate C, 12 Alternate D, 12 Alternate E, 12 Alternate F, 13 Alternate G, 13 Alternate H, 13 Alternate I, 14 Aquatic Communities, 49 Archaeology, 58 Architecture, 58 Average Daily Traffic, 3 F Farmland Impacts, 25 Fatal Accidents, 5 Federally Endangered Species, 40 Fish Impacts, 34 Floodplains, 52 P Parks, 62 Pedestrian Concerns, 25 Permits, 65 Program Data, 3 Purpose and Need, 1 Public Involvement, 19 Public Lands, 27, 62 Public Service, 20 > G Geologic Features, 29, 49 Q H Hazardous Waste, 50 Historic Bridges, 59 R Recommendations, 69 Relict Species, 48 Relocation Assistance, 24 Right of Way Acquisitions, 21 I Index Ratings, 1 B Bicycle Concerns, 25 Bridges, 2 Historic, 59 Aesthetics, Appendix E Build Alternates, 11, 22 J K L Land Use Impacts, 26 Level of Service (LOS), 5 С Caves, 30 Comments and Public Coordination, 69 Construction Impacts, 68 Cost Data, 14 Cost Summary, 15 Cultural Resources, 57 Cumulative Impacts, 64 S Safety Index, 1 Secondary Impacts, 64 Section 4(f), 62 Evaluation, 75 Section 6(f), 62 Sensitive Biological Resources, 38 Sinkholes, 29 Socioeconomic, 13 Summary, 20 State Listed Species, 48 Stream Crossings, 54 Sufficiency Rating, 2 System Linkage, 6 M Memorandum of Agreement, 107 Minerals, 34 Mines, 34 D Demographics, 18 Displacements, 21 N Natural Communities, 48 Natural Environment, 15 Natural Features, 46 No-Build Alternate, 9, 21 Noise, 55 T Threatened and Endangered Species, 42 R Standards, 4 P E Economic Impacts, 20 119 Act, 21, 24 Traffic and Design Criteria, 4 Transportation System Management (TSM), 10 V Visual Impacts, 66 Aesthetics, Appendix E W Water Quality, 51 Wetlands, 53 Wild and Scenic Rivers, 48 Wildlife Impacts, 34 X Y U Uniform Relocation Z L. APPENDICES 1. Appendix A - Supporting Documentation 2. Appendix B - Comment letters and meeting minutes 3. Appendix C-DEIS Comments and Responses 4. Appendix D-Plates 1-13 5. Appendix E – Bridge Aesthetics - ) 120 Appendix A Annendix R U U 1 1 1 APPENDIX A ܢ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION G OUR MIS Gene Missouri Highway and Transportation Department Wayne Muri Chief Engineer Capitol Ave. At Jefferson St., P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, MO 65102 (314) 751-2551 Fax (314) 751-6555 March 9, 1993 an: V U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chief, EIS Section Region VII 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 Dear Sir: . Subject: Design, Route 17, Texas County, 0.2 Mile s/o Route o to Howell County (Jacks Fork River Bridge No. J-665), Job No. J9P0440, Scoping coordination The Missouri Highway and Transportation Department (MHTD) proposes work on Route 17, Texas County at the above- referenced location. This project is intended to improve traffic safety through replacement of the existing bridge structure and improvements in approaches and grading. This project occurs within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways property boundaries. MHTD is aware that environmental, cultural, and recreational resources occur within the proposed project site. Therefore, it is the purpose of this request to solicit comments from your agency during this initial scoping stage prior the identification of any particular alternatives. Please identify any concerns you may have regarding this proposed project area. If necessary, we may meet with you and other agencies to address alternatives later in the project development process. Please address your responses to: Mr. Bob Sfreddo Division Engineer, Design Missouri Highway and Transportation Department P.0. Box 270 Jefferson city, MO 65102 Attention: Mark Kross "Our mission is to provide a QualiTy TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT Responds to Missouriws' demands and ENHANCES THE STATE'S GROWTH and prosperity." 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 2 March 9, 1993 Thank you for your attention to this matter. sincerely, Bob Sfreddo Bob Sfreddo Division Engineer, Design gg/pr Enclosures Copies: Mr. Royce Fugate-9 Mr. Dick Heisinger-de "OUR MISSI Tene 2 Wayne Muri Chief Engineer Missouri Highway arici Transportation Deparirneni Capitol Ave. AT JEFFERSON ST., P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, MO 65102 (314) 751-2551 Fax (314) 751-6555 March 16, 1993 Mr. Art Sullivan Superintendent Ozark National Scenic Riverways P.o. Box 490 Van Buren, MO 63965 Dear Mr. Sullivan: Subject: Design, Route 17, Texas County, 0.2 mi. s/o Route o to Howell County (Jacks Fork River Bridge No. J-665), Job No. J9P0440, Scoping Coordination The Missouri Highway and Transportation Department (MHTD) proposes work on Route 17, Texas County at the above- referenced location. This project is intended to improve traffic safety through replacement of the existing bridge structure and improvements in approaches and grading. This project occurs within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways property boundaries. MHTD is aware that environmental, cultural, and recreational resources occur within the proposed project site. Therefore, it is the purpose of this request to solicit comments from your agency during this initial scoping stage prior the identification of any particular alternatives. Please identify any concerns you may have regarding this proposed project area. If necessary, we may meet with you and other agencies to address alternatives later in the project development process. Please address your responses to: Mr. Bob Sfreddo Division Engineer, Design Missouri Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Attention: Mark Kross "Our mission is to provide a Quality TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT REsponds to MISSOURIANS' demands and ENHANCES THE STATE'S GROWTH AND PROSPERITY" !! 2 Ozark National Scenic Riverways Page 2 March 16, 1993 , Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bob Sfreddo Bob Sfreddo Division Engineer, Design gg Enclosures copies: Royce Fugate-9 Dick Heisinger-de ) JI ناسا ن N MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180 STREET LOCATION 2901 West Truman Boulevard Jefferson City, Missouri I' Telephone: 314/751-4115 Missouri Relay Center 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) JERRY J. PRESLEY, Director March 25, 1993 Manu ... x . ODORO MAK dUU!! OC Old Eng. Oto Mr. Bob Streddo Division Engineer, Design Missouri Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO. 65102 រ Attn: Mark Kross Re: Route 17, Texas & Howeł Counties. Dear Mr. Sfreddo: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1993 regarding threatened and endangered species within the proposed project area. Department staff examined map and computer files for federal and state rare, threatened and endangered species and determined that sensitive species or communities are known to occur on the immediate site or surrounding area. The report prepared by the Heritage Data project is enclosed. The absence of further occurrences of sensitive species and natural communities does not mean that they do not occur within the impacted area, merely that no additional information is known at this time. This report should not be regarded as a final statement on the presence or absence of rare or endangered species or high quality natural communities; only an on-site inspection can verify the absence or existence of such species or communities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Dam to celkemist DAN F. DICKNEITE PLANNING DIVISION CHIEF Enclosure RECEDED MC. MSR 31: 52? biGVAY LIANSPORTA IN COMMISSION JERRY P. COMBS ANDY DALTON JAY HENGES JOHN POWELL 1- an Missouri Highway and Transportation Department Cardinal Acres, MO - Texas County Great blue heron rookery (Ardea herodias) occurs 1.85 miles from the project site at T28N ROZW Sec 34 NE4NE4 SW4. The record is from 1990. Small white lady-slipper (Cypripedium candidum) occurs 1.0 miles from the project site at T27N ROZW Sec 2 SW4NE4. This species is a federal candidate for listing and is state listed Endangered. The record is from 1992. The following species are known to occur on Barn Hollow Natural Area, Ozark National scenic Rivervays (0.8. National Park Service). Forked aster (Aster furcatus) occurs 0.95 miles from the project site at T28N ROZW Sec 35 N2 SW4. This species is a federal candidate for listing and is state listed Watch List. The record is from 1984. . Reed bent grass (Calamagrostis porteri ssp insperata) occurs 0.8 miles from the project site at T28N TO7W Sec 35 NE4 SW4. This species is a federal candidate for listing and is state listed Rare. The record is from 1990. Big-leaved aster (Aster macrophyllus) occurs 1.0 mile from the project site at T28N ROZW Sec 34 N2SE4 and Sec 35 N2SW4. This species is state listed Endangered. The record is from 1990. The following species occur on Ozark National scenic Riverways. Dolomite glade natural community occurs 0.9 miles from project site at T27N RO6W Sec 6 NW4NW4 and Sec 1. The record is from 1987. American barberry (Berberis canadensis) occurs 0.35 miles from the project site at T28N ROZW Sec 36 SW4 SW4. This species is state listed Rare. The record is from 1990. . Forked aster (Aster furcatus) occurs 0.6 miles downstream from the project site at T28N RO7W Sec 36 SE4. This species is a federal candidate for listing and is state listed Watch List. The record is from 1984. Big-leaved aster (Aster macrophyllus) occurs 0.55 miles from the project site at T28N ROZW Sec 36 NE4SE4. This species is state listed Endangered. The record is from 1990. 2 Reed bent grass (Calamagrostis porteri ssp insperata) occurs 0.55 miles from the project site at T28N ROZW Sec 36 NE4SE4 and 1.15 miles from the site at T28N ROZW Sec 26 NW4 SE4 SW4 and 0.6 miles from the site at T28N ROZW Sec 35 SE4 SE4 and T27N RO7W Sec 2 NE4NE4. This species is a federal candidate for listing and is state listed Rare. The records are from 1990. The following species is historically known from the project area. Northern bedstraw (Galium boreale ssp septentrionale) is state listed Rare. d! Peruv It is unlikely this historically occuring species persists in the project area. : a E US F t E R t W C i 2 THE TAKE IN TERIOR United States Department of the Interior AMERICA MAACH 1819 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Columbia Field Office 608 East Cherry Street Columbia, Missouri 65201 IN REPLY RF.FER TO: APR 1 5 1993 FWS/ AES-CMFO RE: Route 17, Texas County, Bridge No. 3665 , Job. No. 7910440 いにし ​Anandi R Mr. Bob Sfreddo Division Engineer, Design Missouri Highway and Transportation Department P.0. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Attention: Mark Kross O Env. Studies Coor. O Agrand Use Haz. Warto O ir Noise Biological O Parkland O En. Contract Coord. o Socio-Econ Emv. Document Rov. Q Wetland Coor. Q Env. Mitigation Coor. Wotland Souc. En. Tech. Writer ОСме. Dear Mr. Sfreddo: This responds to your March 9, 1993, letter requesting comments of the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the proposed replacement of existing bridge structures and improvements in approaches and grading over the Jacks Fork River in Texas County, Missouri. These comments are provided as technical assistance and predevelopment consultation and do not constitute a Service report under authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Coordination Act) (16 U.S.c. 661 et seq. ) on any required Federal environmental review or permit or license application. The Service has responsibility under a number of authorities for conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources. Chief among the Federal statutes with which our office deals are the coordination Act, Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The coordination Act requires that fish and wildlife resources be given equal consideration in the planning, implementation, and operation of Federal and federally funded, permitted, or licensed water resource developments. Section 7 of the Endangered species Act outlines procedures for interagency consultations on the effects of Federal actions on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Because the proposed project(8) occur within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways property boundaries, extreme caution must be exercised to preserve the integrity of this environmentally diverse riverway. We have reviewed plans for the proposed project and offer the following comments and recommendations designed to minimize potential detrimental impacts within the project area: 1. The proposed project does not appear to impact Federal fish and wildlife management facilities. The proposed project will occur in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways so we suggest you contact the Environmental 8 2 ! Mr. Bob Sfreddo 2 Protection Section of the National Park Service (1709 Jackson St., Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2571) for information concerning the scenic riverways. We suggest you contact either the Missouri Department of Conservation (P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102) or the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (P.0. Box 176, Jefferson city, Missouri 65102) for information on state-managed areas. 2. Construction and operational activities should avoid wetlands, streams, and riparian zones to the maximum extent possible. If impact to these areas is unavoidable, a permit may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Federal permit is required, the Service would review the application and provide recommendations. If a a *: 3. clearing of vegetation, including both standing and downed timber, should be limited to that which is absolutely necessary for construction of the project. All riparian and wetland areas disturbed by the project should be revegetated with native grasses, shrubs, and trees immediately following, or concurrent with, project implementation, and any trees impacted by the project should be replaced. Trees should be planted at a rate of a minimum of two trees replaced for each tree between four and twelve inches diameter-at-breast height removed, and three trees for each tree greater than twelve inches lost to the project. Replacement trees should be a minimum of three feet in height, discounting the root system. 5. Sediment runoff and soil erosion should be minimized in streams and ditches in order to reduce suspended solids, turbidity and downstream sedimentation which may degrade water quality and negatively impact aquatic life. 6. Petroleum products, other chemicals and construction debris should be prevented from entering waterways or otherwise contaminating the riparian or stream environment. 1 • From our review of available information, no federally-listed endangered or threatened species occur in the project area. However, on Federal candidate species may occur there. The Reed bent grass (Calamagrostis porteri ssp insperata) is listed as category 2 (C2) candidate species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking additional information in order to determine its biological status. Candidate species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are included in this letter for planning purposes only. 8. Please contact the Missouri Department of Conservation concerning state- listed rare and endangered species. Į 2 ! Mr. Bob Sfreddo 3 We appreciate the opportunity to review this project and look forward to receiving your response. Should you have questions concerning these comments, or if we can be of any further assistance, please contact Ms. Janet Haslerig at the address above, or by telephone at (314) 876-1911. sincerely, Rucks. Hansen for Jerry J. Brabander Field Supervisor cc: MDC; Jefferson City, MO (Attn: Dan Dickneite) MDC; Jefferson City, MO (Attn: Dennis Figg) MDNR; Jefferson City, MO (Attn: Nick Di Pasquale) EPA; Kansas City, KS (Attn: Kathy Mulder) COE; Kansas City, MO (Attn: Mel Jewett) NPS; Omaha, NE (Attn: Terry Cederstrom) NPS; Van Buren, MO (Attn: Art Sullivan) JMH: jh:1210/XCMHTDXA IN MI 2. File JESIGN-FILE COPY IM TAME PREDEN AMERICA ONLARLOS United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MIDWEST REGION 1709 JACKSON STREET OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102-2571 IN REPLY REFER TO: L7619 (MWR-PO) MAY 27 1993 heroin amet :: IL & Orion Engr. per 113.3 cingr. 2. Sois moins de . A Gov. Kanagar mak . ir. O]1.!! CAN 3.5. i sind .و دند. YVINIWNOXIANS DIH Mr. Bob Sfreddo Division Engineer, Design Missouri Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 1830 NOITY!! CASNYA. om €661-E Nor ՈՐ MO. NOISIAIO NOUŞIQ 0371332 Dear Mr. Sfreddo: This is in response to your March 9 requests for early coordination review of the proposed replaceaent of four bridges within the authorized boundaries of Ozark National Scenic Riverways (the riverways), a unit of the National Park System. As you know, we have carried out considerable internal and field review of these proposed projects--one on Route 17 and three on Route 19--and have the following comments. General Comments Each of these four rustic old bridges forms an integral part of the local natural, cultural, and aesthetic landscape of the riverways. They adapt gently to the land, and carry the visitor unobtrusively through the picturesque rolling Ozark countryside. The National Park Service supports the concept of replacement of these four structures for safety purposes. They are old and narrow, and numerous accidents have occurred at these sites. However, two environmental assessments should be prepared; one for for the Route 17 crossing, and one for the three Route 19 crossings. These should explore alternatives of location and design that will mininize adverse impacts on all natural and cultural (including aesthetic) resources within the riverways, including the bridge structures themselves. Because all alternatives, except the "no action" alternative, will impact the riverways park, at the very least by constructive use, a draft section 4(f) statenent for each preferred alternative should be attached to, and circulated with, each of the two environmental assessments. The environmental assessments should include data evidencing initiation of compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 pertaining to the protection of floodplain and wetlands, and should indicate the results the results of prelininary coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential issuance of Corps of Engineers permits. The assessments should evaluate design alternatives,which avoid installing piers or other bridge structural components in floodplain and wetlands to the greatest degree possible. e 2 Specific Comments 1. Bridge Replacement at Missouri Highway 17 and Jacks Fork River, Texas County (BRIDGE NO. J-665). The existing Missouri Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River is very narrow with steep and winding approaches. Numerous accidents have occurred primarily because of the dangerous alignment of the approaches. The proposed realignment with approaches is located downstream approximately one-eighth of a mile from the existing bridge. The proposed project will consist of approximately three- fourths of a mile of new road construction which traverses the Jacks Fork River and at least one major draw within the boundaries of the riverways. រ The realignment will potentially impact the Buck Hollow Canoe Access Area which consists of a gravel landing and turn-around, gravel parking area, and vault toilet. Buck Hollow is a major canoe put-in on the upper Jacks Fork River. The project could also impact the park housing area at Cardinal Acres, which has the potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and archeological site number 23TE51. Additional unrecorded archeological sites are likely to be encountered throughout the project area. Several rare and endangered flora have been identified within and near the proposed project area. The area is within the range of endangered fauna and critical habitat could possibly be impacted by the project. Numerous spring and cave complexes are known to exist within and near the project site. Any excavation may encounter and negatively impact these cave and/or spring systems. In addition, there are many aspects' to these complexes which are unknown. A State of Missouri designated "Natural Area" is within a mile of the project site. The topography of the project area is extremely steep and rugged, and would likely require a great deal of excavation to provide a desired grade for the approaches. The quantity of excavation could be mitigated somewhat by designing the bridge to be more compatible with the surrounding topographical constraints. Excessive excavation could threaten the scenic integrity of this section of the Jacks Fork River. Extreme care and sensitivity to designing an aesthetically compatible structure will be required in order to avoid compromising the scenic integrity of this section of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Tor One alternative which should be explored in the environmental assessment is re- routing Highway 17 outside park boundaries by linking Highway W, Texas County : of the Jacks Torx River neet. The existing bridge could then be removed and the woi nou. existing roadways to the river could be used by local traffic. , waniter iour of 3 2. Bridge Replacenent at Missouri Highway 19 and Spring Valley (BRIDGE NO. J- 240) and Bridge Replacement at Missouri Highway_19 and Current River, Shannon County (BRIDGE NO. G-804A). Missouri Highway 19 is designated as a "Rustic and Scenic Byway" by the State of Missouri, and should receive special design considerations for maintaining its scenic qualities. These two bridges are located within the "Round Spring Developed Area" on Missouri Highway 19, and are located within several hundred feet of each other. The Spring Valley bridge is narrow with arched concrete supports which may have historical significance. The approach on the south side is good although subject to a moderately steep grade; however, a very sharp curve is present on the north side. The Current River bridge is also very narrow and may have similar historical significance to the Spring Valley bridge. The approaches to this bridge on both the north and the south have sharp curves even though relatively level. A pedestrian bridge which carries major utilities is located immediately downstream. The "Round Spring Developed Area" is one of the major recreation developments within the riverways. It consists of numerous developed camp sites, amphitheater, district ranger station, district maintenance shop, organized interpretive cave tours, flush toilets, showers, concession operation, Round Spring, Round Spring Cavern canoe access, group campground, picnicking facilities, group shelter, and wastewater treatment facilities. Round Spring is also a major canoe put-in and take-out point for park concessionaires. ! Round Spring and Round Spring Cavern, both outstanding natural features of Ozark Riverways, are located within the project area. Any major realignment of the bridges within the Round Spring area would likely adversely impact both features. . Numerous significant archeological sites are located within the project area. Existing known archeological sites within the Round Spring area are as follows: 23 SH19, 23 SH70, 235H71, 235H72, 235H73, 23 SH82, 23 SH96, and 23 SH160. Any excavation within the Round Spring area would significantly adversely impact known archeological sites, and could also impact other sites which have been undiscovered thus far. Any major excavation would require intense extensive archeological mitigation before construction could commence. Any major realignment of the Current River bridge would significantly impact the operation of Carr's Store which is located near the north approach. The structure itself has been evaluated for historical significance and has been declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Numerous known caves are located near the project area in addition to the Round Spring Cavern. Any major excavation would likely impact the cave systems. Various rare and endangered flora have been identified within and near the proposed project area, and the area is also within the range of endangered fauna. These species and their critical habitat night be impacted by the proposed project. 8 S S Re 4 3. Bridge Replacement at Missouri Highway 19 and Sinking Creeke Shannon County (BRIDGE NO. 1-79). As noted above, Missouri Highway 19 is designated as a "Rustic and Scenic Byway" which will receive special design considerations for maintaining its scenic qualities. The Sinking Creek bridge is very narrow and the north approach descends down a steep hill with sharp curves. The south approach is level with sharp preceding curves. Numerous accidents have occurred because of the narrowness of the bridge. Few recreation facilities will be impacted within the project site. A primitive camp area is serviced by a dirt road crossing under the existing bridge. Archeological sites exist within the project area. Sites 23 SH97 and 23SH190 could possibly be impacted by a major alteration of the existing bridge and approach. Numerous known caves are located near the project area and any major excavation would likely impact the cave systems. The Sinking Creek bridge is located within a quarter of a mile of the project area. Rare and endangered flora have been identified within and near the proposed project area and the area is also within the range of endangered fauna. These species and their critical habitat could possibly be impacted by the project. It should be noted that the current and Jacks Fork Rivers have been designated Outstanding National Resource Waters under the Clean Water Act and special safeguards may have to be implemented during any construction to prevent degradation of these resources. We look forward to reviewing the environmental assessments with draft section 4(f) statements for these proposed projects. If you wish to discuss these comments informally, please call Mr. Art Sullivan, Superintendent, Ozark National Scenic Riverways at 314-323-4236. To discuss the overall the overall environmental compliance process, please contact Mr. Terry Cederstrom of my staff at 402-221- 3484. These comments are provided as informal technical assistance and are not intended to reflect our probable response to any document which may be prepared in this matter to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, or any other other applicable environmental protection mandate. Sincerely, curry Don H. Castleberry Regional Director 5 CC: Mr. Art Sullivan Superintendent Attention: Mr. Thomas W. Griffiths Ozark National Scenic Riverways P.0. Box 490 Van Buren, Missouri 63965 Mr. Jerry J. Brabander Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ES) 608 East Cherry Street Columbia, Missouri 65201 . Mr. Gene Gunn Chief, Environmental Review and Coordination Section Region VII U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Mr. Ron Kucera State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 I I S P W br by St br va Th tha aco app alig Ple loca con Sind Geno Biolo gg/s Copie File MODOT Missouri Department of Transportation 105 West Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-2551 Fax (573) 751-6555 www.modot.state.mo.us Henry Hungerbeeler, Director July 15, 1999 Mr. Ben Clary, Superintendent Ozark National Scenic Riverways P.O. Box 490 Van Buren, MO 63965 Dear Mr. Clary: Subject: Preliminary Studies, Route 19, Shannon County, and Route 17, Texas County, Ozark National Scenic Riverways Bridges, Location and Environmental Study, Job No. J9P0436 Please find enclosed several maps which illustrate the tentative location of possible build alternates which would replace the existing Route 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River, Texas County, and the three bridges near Round Spring, Shannon County, Missouri. The locations of these alternates were developed by MODOT's District 9 office, Willow Springs, Missouri, through coordination with the Preliminary Studies Division. At this time, these preliminary alternates appear to meet the objectives of the proposed bridge replacements and appear to avoid or minimize impacts, including ONSR property and the resource values it represents. In other words, they represent a starting point for discussions. These alternates are 1000 ft (303 m) in width. However, the actual facility will most likely require less than one-fourth of that width for actual construction. The actual width of impacted area will vary according to the excavations and fills that will be required to maintain safe roadway grades and bridge approaches. Identifying sensitive resources within a broad corridor will allow adjustment in the actual alignment of the most prudent and feasible alternate. Please review the enclosed maps and reply with comments or concerns that you might have related to the location of these four preliminary alternate locations on or before July 28, 1999. Thanks for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Gere Gardner Gene Gardner Biological Specialist gg/sw . Copies: Tom Stehn-9 Charles Pursley-PS Peggy Casey-FHWA "Our mission is to preserve, enhance and support Missouri's transportation systems.“ Morinted on recycled paper TEEE 은 ​RECEIVED PRELINHA?! S700E STATE OF MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CE TRAVEL SATOR Het Carmh:in. Governor 491 1999 . Sleephen .11. Mahlowal. When OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 pomerne Aene August 11, 1999 a file Ms. Peggy Casey Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 1 Re: Bridge Replacements, Highways 19 & 17 in Ozark National Scenic Riverways, National Park Service (ONSR/NPS), Shannon and Texas Counties Dear Ms. Casey On April 20, 1999, MODOT staff sent an electronic transmittal to Jane Beetem and Cheryl Reams to let DNR know that within the next six months MODOT would be initiating an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the above referenced project. In this message, they stated that "typically we would handle a simple bridge replacement on existing location as a categorical exclusion (CE), but since these bridges involve the ONSR and the NPS, we will be doing one EA for the group of four". The message also indicated that discussions had occurred with NPS and FHWA, and that these entities were in agreement with this decision. We appreciate the advance notice that environmental documents are being prepared on this project. Recently Cheryl and Jane were able to meet with ONSR/NPS staff on-site and tour the project area in order to view the natural and cultural resources in question. The ONSR/NPS staff were very helpful in providing background information on the project from initial discussions in 1994 to date. During the course of their discussions, it was clear that ONSR/NPS desires that all alternatives be given full and complete consideration. The National Park Service has its own obligations to meet under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and any environmental review documents should fulfill the NEPA requirements for all federal agencies in order to avoid duplication. There was concern expressed by ONSR/NPS staff that the environmental issues related to this project are many and complicated, and an EA alone may not be sufficient to fulfill NEPA requirements, as an EA would likely indicate the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 5 Given the sensitive nature of these federally designated scenic riverways, the number of cultural resources already listed on the National Register of Historic Places or determined eligible for Ring, the state designation of Highway 19 as a Scenic Road, and the abundance of Anterconnected rivers, caves, springs, sink holes, and losing streams in the area, it is difficult to believe full and complete consideration can be accomplished in an EA. We share the concerns of ONSR/NPS and strongly recommend that an EIS be prepared for this project. Since an EA & O u a Oo T N C Page 2 would likely indicate the need for a subsequent EIS, preparation of an EIS would seem to be the prudent and expedient approach. Another concern of the department is the combination of three bridges on Highway 19 with a fourth bridge on Highway 17 for purposes of environmental review. These bridges are approximately forty (40) miles apart, in different counties, and on different rivers. Replacement of these bridges will impact different environments, as well as users. For these reasons, we recommend that a separate EIS be prepared for the Highway 17 Jack's Fork River Bridge. The department looks forward to working with you on this project, to see that all alternatives are carefully considered in evaluating the impacts to the natural and cultural resources in the project area. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Gm Jan sam Tom Lange NEPA Coordinator Tujrb c: Fred Martin, Missouri Department of Transportation John Howland, Missouri Department of Transportation Charles Putnam, Ozark National Scenic Riverways - OP M United States Department of the Interior NILITOD mer NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Ozark National Scenic Riverways P.O. Box 490 Van Buren, Missouri 63965-0490 1849.1999 L7619 (x D30) August 13, 1999 Peggy J. Case, P.E. U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA, Missouri Division 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Re: Response to Invitation to serve as Cooperating Agency Location and Environmental Study Job No. J9P0436 Ozark National and Scenic Riverways Bridges Route 19, Shannon County - Route 17, Texas County Dear Ms. Case: This letter is in response to your letter of June 4, 1999 notifying Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) of the Missouri Department of Transportation's (MODOT). intent to nitiate an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed bridge upgrades/ replacements on State Highways 17 and 19. We accept your invitation to participate as a cooperating agency. Efforts are already underway as Gene Gardener of MODOT has consulted with park natural resources staff to coordinate the GIS analysis. Park staff are currently preparing a request for clarification of the "purpose and need" and "alternative proposals" presented in the Location Study Report which accompanied your June 4, 1999 letter of invitation. It is important to note that our agency, in referencing Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, accepts the possibility that an EA may demonstrate that an EIS is necessary. As a cooperating agency with jurisdiction by law, based on CEQ regulations, we reserve the right to determine whether the EA (or EIS) is adequate to meet our legal responsibilities. We submit it may be prudent to develop contingency plans in the event the current analysis leads to an EIS. Fra! NA , AS!! AUG 19 D АДА PE ЕС / SETY AC!, P२R OE BA? ROU ONICS FS Cik OFCSPT It is our understanding that the actual writing and analysis required in preparation of documents will not fall to our park staff. Technical review which falls outside the expertise of park staff may require input from National Park Service (NPS) support staff in the regional and/or central offices. We request that C 1 you contact Dr. Mark Lynott, Director, at the NPS's Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC). His staff has considerable knowledge and experience with the archeological sites at both Round Spring and Cardinal Acres. Dr. Lynott can be reached at 402/437-5392 to discuss MWAC's role and level of involvement during the development of the EA. Since 404 permits may be required, in order to facilitate this process and to ensure that the park's NEPA responsibilities are met, ONSR requests that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Kansas City) be invited to participate as a cooperating agency. The resources of the ONSR are protected under Section 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation Act. We recommend that a Section 4(f) Evaluation be completed in association with the EA. We will assist in this endeavor as part of our role as a cooperating agency, with the understanding that the Department of the Interior has retained final authority for concurring with Section 4 (f) determinations. Our role in the Section 4 (f) Evaluation should be viewed as "early coordination." We look forward to beginning this process. If you have any further questions please contact Martha Ruhe, Landscape Architect, at 573/323-4236, ext. 224. Sincerely, О. rud par Ben Clary Superintendent CC: Dennis Grams, Regional Administrator Attn: Joe Cothern, Acting NEPA Program Manager EPA Region 7 901 N. Fifth Street Kansas City, KS 66101 Missouri Department of Natural Resources Attn: Tom Lange PO Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 b) 2 United States Department of the Interior PERALIMENTE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Ozark National Scenic Riverways P.O. Box 490 Van Buren, Missouri 63965-0490 1849.1939 D30 August 11, 1999 Gene Gardner Missouri Department of Transportation 105 West Capital Avenue P.o. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Re: Preliminary Studies, Route 19, Shannon County, and Route 17, Texas County, Ozark National Scenic Riverways Bridges, Location and Environmental Study, Job No. J9P0436 Dear Mr. Gardner: 2 We have received the maps you sent showing the tentative location of alignment alternatives for the replacement of the bridge on Route 17 over the Jacks Fork River, and the three bridges on Route 19 near Round Spring. We understand that these preliminary alternatives are to provide us with a starting point for discussion. At this point in the process, we regret that we do not have sufficient information to adequately reply to your request for comments and concerns regarding the preliminary alternative locations for the bridge alignments. The National Park Service has agreed to become a cooperating agency--with our letter of acceptance on its way to the Federal Highway Administration. A follow-up letter requesting further clarification of the "purpose and need" and "alternative proposals" presented in the Location Study Report is to be forthcoming. Once our questions are answered, MODOT will receive a detailed outline of issues/concerns from the park. Sincerely, ܬܠܬܐ Ben Clary Superintendent UIMUS כככ در .15 שע סע זJועס!*ר air 404 Sels P.01 We tegn INTE United States Department of the Interior MARGH DISTRICT D NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. Ozark Nacional Scenic River ways P.O. Box 190 Van Burun, Missouri 63963-0-190 IN REPLYRESER TO OCT 0 4 1999 L7619 MO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION September 28, 1999 Peggy J. Case, P.E. U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA, Missouri Division 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Subject: Request for clarification on the "Purpose and Need" and "Alternative Proposals" statements: Route 19 and Route 17 Bridges Location and Environmental Study, Job No. J9P0436 Dear Ms. Case: National Park Service (NPS) responsibilities as a cooperating agency include ensuring that the NEPA documentation meets NPS NEPA guidelines which emphasize clarity and conciseness. In order to identify which issues are most important to emphasize in the documentation, we must clearly understand the Purpose and Need for the project. To this end we are requesting further clarification. The items below directly relate to the Purpose and Need statement and the Alternative Proposals for the upgrade of bridges on Routes 17 and 19 (crossing the Jacks Fork River, Current River, sinking Creek and Spring Valley Creek) as outlined in your June 4, 1999 letter. 1. In reference to the "Overview of Purpose and Need" in the location Study Report, "the purpose and need for the Route 17 improvement is to replace a bridge that is: structurally deficient and functionally obsolete and to upgrade the horizontal and vertical alignment of the approaches to the bridge to improve safety and increase level of service." In order to satisfy NPS NEPA requirements--that segment of the NEPA which defines the "purpose and need" must provide a definitive outline of the problems that need to be addressed along with a definitive set of attributes that clarify the final UVI-U-1999 15:04 MODOT D9 DE 417 469 5215 P.93 requirements for quantitative data, the "purpose and need" statement must clearly define the problem and substantiate the "need". 5. In the Location Study Report in the table under Proposed Design Criteria, the proposed design speed over the bridges on Route 19 and 17 will be 50 MPH. What is the current design speed for each of these four bridges? Could you help us comprehend how increasing the speed will contribute to safety? We also request your assistance in helping us to understand how vehicles entering and exiting the numerous river and campground access roads in the vicinity of these bridges will benefit from an increased design speed. 6. Could you help us understand the relation between the high rate of serious accidents on Route 19 in regard to the three bridge crossings in question? The data provided appears to reference the entire 265 miles of Route 19. We feel it might help to clarify a need (NPS NEPA "purpose and need") by specifically quantifying the problem that these particular bridges are causing. 7. Clarification of "Alternative Proposals": In reference to the four alternatives that have been presented--could you help us in understanding the difference between Alternative 2 "improve" and Alternatives "upgrade"? Does the word "improve" mean that the existing bridge (s) can be "upgraded"? In Alternative 4 "upgrade" refers to several "build" alternatives, i.e., complete replacement of the existing bridge (s). Can existing bridges be "upgraded" while maintaining the current alignments? We appreciated the opportunity to attend the agency scoping meeting that MODOT coordinated on September 23. We hope the above explanation satisfactorily describes our NEPA requirements. In addition, we are including a preliminary list of "issues” relating to the proposed bridge upgrades/ replacements. Sincerely, Ben Plany Ben Clary Superintendent 2 Ul. 1-6.-1999 15:0.5 MODOT D9 DE 417 469 5215 P.05 II OZARK NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAYS ISSUES & CONCERNS As of September 17, 1999 Archeological Impacts artifacts, curation surveys of construction zone, Round Spring Cave Formation - potential damage due to construction/blasting/pile-driving/jack-hammering, etc. Cave Ecology issues gray bat Threatened & Endangered Species Annendix B Water Quality: River and Round Spring protection during demolition/construction/post-construction due to changes in hydrology what mitigation measures? - Vegetation loss of large trees, need to revegetate with select native species Cultural Landscape preservation (?) documentation, evaluation, what mitigation measures? ) Historic Structures Carr's Store, old bridges, scenic by- way (alteration of alignment) -- what mitigation measures? Vehicular Circulation access to campground, housing, store, and concessioner's facilities Pedestrian Circulation need to accommodate bicycles and foot traffic separate from vehicular traffic Approaches how much impact? Increased noise levels - bridges are in close proximity to campgrounds and park housing greater Potential problems caused by increased speeds danger at intersections, driveways Possible parking area on one side of bridge (s) to offer scenic overlook (s)? Provision for existing utilities attached to bridges 2 OCT-05-1999 15:06 MODOT D9 DE UI 417 469 5215 P.06 Scenic impacts size, configuration, color, materials, need to reference "historic" character in the event the existing bridges must be replaced, and not simply improved/upgraded Views from roadside, from river, from bridge (see-through railing design) Provide for traffic safety control during construction Provisions for removal of original bridges and roadways if alignment other than the existing selected Need to fully evaluate alternatives for using existing bridges incorporating needed improvements due to "scenic highway designation", resource impacts, and park values cost cannot be the sole driving factor in preferred alternatives Annendix B ) 1 تار M Po 9 P. W RE De WE Jad Ro lieu of asse Mar WOU the If th the e perfc If yo LSS:1: Cc : STATE OF MISSOURI JyPo936 J9 P0440 Jerry B. Uhlmann Direclor Wel Camahan Guie, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OV TISSOLINE LATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL THEN P.O. Box 116, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Phone: 573526-9100 Fax: 573/634-7966 E-mail: mosema@mail.state.mo.us KANACEMBER DISTRICT 9 October 14, 1999 OCT 1 8 1999 Mr. Jeff Johnson, Missouri Department of Transportation Project Manager, South Central District 910 Springfield Road P.O. Box 220 Willow Springs, MO 65793 ::: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Re: Open-House Public Hearing of Proposed Bridge Replacements on Route 17 in Texas County, and Route 19 in Shannon County, Missouri Dear Mr. Johnson: We very much appreciate your notice of the public hearing on the proposed bridge replacement on Route 17 over Jacks Fork River in Texas County, Missouri and the three proposed bridge replacements on Route 19 in the Round Springs Area in Shannon County, Missouri. Please accept this letter as comment on the proposed plan in lieu of attendance at the public hearing to be held on Thursday, September 23, 1999, at the Missouri Department of Transportation Project Office located at 303 North Oak Street in Rolla, Missouri. HTC State of Missouri is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Any development associated with this project located within a special flood hazard area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must meet the requirements of the State of Missouri Executive Order 97-09. This would require obtaining a floodplain development permit for the project. This permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of the construction development activity. The permit would be obtained from this agency. If the proposed development is located within a regulatory floodway, a “no-rise" certificate and statement as to the effects of possible flooding is required before the development can be permitted. This analysis must be performed by a licensed engineer and to FEMA standards. If you have any questions concerning Executive Order 97-09 requirements, please contact me a (573) 526-9119. Sincerely, & Scon Samula Da L. Scott Samuels, P.E. Floodplain Management Engineer LSS:lss CC: Roger Benson, Mitigation Specialist MODOT File Texas County Community File Shannon County Community File 1 ! STATE OF MISSOURI Nel Camahan. Governor • Stephen 11. Mahfexxl, Director DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 Copiel: 10/25/99 19 October 18, 1999 Culte al (Menkath & Bowly Dan Chan, Waste.) Mr. Gene Gardner, Project Coordinator Missouri Department of Transportation Environmental Section 515 East High Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 رو برد شیرازی و به به و بنایا اور نہ ہم نے Todd Re: Route 17, Texas County and Route 19, Shannon County, Job # J9P0436 Dear Mr. Gardner: The department would like to express our appreciation of the decision by MODOT at the September 23" meeting to prepare not one but two separate environmental impact statements (EIS) for the above referenced project. In our letter to the Federal Highway Administration on August 11", we requested that two EISs be prepared rather than one environmental assessment. Since the project area is in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), anticipated impacts to the natural and cultural resources involved should be addressed as fully as possible. Development of two EISs should allow for thorough analysis and discussion of the anticipated impacts to the resources, which will be critically important in this project. As a follow-up to the September 23 meeting on the above referenced project, the Department of Natural Resources submits the following comments. These comments from our program staff are based on the information available prior to the meeting. As more comprehensive information becomes available, more detailed comments from the department are expected. Cultural Resources: Highway 19, and the three (3) concrete spandrel arch bridges slated for replacement, comprise a state designated scenic highway. The Current River Bridge, the Sinking Creek Bridge and the Round Spring (Spring Valley) Bridge are individually eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, based on the statewide survey conducted by Fraserdesign. The bridges also would be contributing elements to a cultural landscape created by the Missouri State Highway Commission in the early 1920s, with efforts to modernize the roadway, to accommodate and encourage the burgeoning tourist trade developing in the area. A core component of the attraction for tourists was the natural and scenic qualities of the region, which the design of the bridges was intended to complement. Replacement of the bridges would be an adverse effect on National Register properties; realignment of the highway in addition to the bridge replacement would be an adverse effect on a cultural landscape. The Route 17 Bridge (Jacks Fork Bridge), is described as a steel, 6-panel, rigid-connected Warren pony truss. The report by Fraserdesign does not indicate that the bridge is skewed. However, in the 9/23/99 meeting, MODOT staff indicated that the bridge is indeed skewed. Based on the eligibility criteria used in evaluating the statewide survey, as a skewed bridge the Route 17 Bridge would be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. OF APP Page 2 Route 17, Texas Co. and Route 19, Shannon Co., Job # J9P0436 Mr. Gene Gardner Round Springs Archaeological District, a National Register listed property, is located in close proximity to Route 19. Given the reliable water sources of the numerous springs, and of the availability of chert and other rock and mineral resources, the potential for the occurrence of additional prehistoric sites is quite high. ONSR staff have identified at least five other archaeological sites in this vicinity. Carr's Store was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the the Secretary of the Interior on June 16, 1992. This building would likely be adversely effected by bridge replacement. Cardinal Acres, a former resort over 50 years old, near the Highway 17 (Jacks Fork) Bridge should be evaluated for National Register eligibility. Given the early development of the tourist industry in this part of the Missouri Ozarks, tourism and recreational related architectural properties are quite likely to exist near and within the project corridors, and may be subject to direct and indirect impacts. Within the Ozark Scenic National Riverways and the Mark Twain National Forest, historic archaeological sites have been identified that date to before the Civil War. We have every expectation that historic architectural properties and historic archaeological sites of a similar age exist near or within the project areas of both Route 19 and Route 17. Geological Resources: Bedrock Geology - The bedrock for the area of the Highway 19 bridges is Cambrian Eminence-Potosi. These formations are well known for having numerous vugs (voids) in the dolomite, as well as for often being highly fractured. Not only will this make construction more difficult, but also will increase the chances of affecting surface waters and groundwater during construction. The large numbers of void spaces, combined with the possible fracturing, increases chances of surface contamination that is created during construction reaching groundwater. There is also the problem of nearby Round Spring Cave. If done correctly, blasting would not affect the cave; however, any problem with blasting could cause severe damage, and affect the resident bat population. 1 The bedrock for the Highway 17 bridge area is Ordovician Gasconade Dolomite. This formation, while not as vuggy (filled with voids) or fractured as the Eminence and Potosi formations, is a dolomite, and is therefore susceptible to development of solution features. This will need to be taken into account during construction. Karst - This has been addressed under Bedrock Geology. The presence and potential for karst features will need to been considered in any construction plan. Structure and Earthquake Hazard - Construction plans will have to consider faults. Much of this area has been recently mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey; previously unknown structures may have been located. Potential for earthquake damage will need to be considered during bridge design. Minerals and Mining - MODOT will require a nearby source of aggregate during construction. It will need to be confirmed that any aggregate removal will not affect water quality. Water Resources: The karst geology of the Round Spring area is a primary environmental concern. Instead of blasting and other construction techniques used in typical bridge replacements, in this setting of springs, caves, and related natural resources a more innovative approach is necessary. Efforts to minimize removal of rock, drilling, and blasting in this area will be needed to minimize impacts on groundwater hydrology. The use of "standard" construction plans and techniques will not likely address these needs. A qualified blasting expert should be employed so as not to impact spring conduits, or destroy stalactites in the nearby cave. Page 3 Route 17, Texas Co. and Route 19, Shannon Co., Job # J9P0436 Mr. Gene Gardner 1 Water quality monitoring above and below the bridges should be conducted to establish a baseline condition, in order to better evaluate any impacts during and/or after construction. This should include both chemical and biological assessments. Due to the hilly terrain, level space near the bridges is largely limited to riverside park facilities. Care should therefore be taken in placement of support facilities for any construction activities (staging, loading, trailers, supplies, etc.) so they are located to minimize the overall impact to the watershed. The proposed location and anticipated impacts of the support facilities should be addressed in the EIS. Hazardous Wastes: Reports on known underground storage tank activity in the project area are enclosed. No recorded superfund, federal facilities, or other hazardous waste sites were noted in the files of the Hazardous Waste Program. Please see the comments enclosed from the Hazardous Waste Program for additional file repositories which should be checked. LWCF Parks: There are a number of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant projects located in Texas and Shannon counties. There do not appear to be any federally funded projects located in the Highway 19 project area or at Highway 17, Jacks Fork Bridge. There are no State Parks that are directly affected by the proposed routes. For future reference, in case project boundaries should change, the following list of LWCF parks is provided: Texas City of Cabool (Elliot Park, Lemuel C. Roberts Park, Roger St. Park) City of Summerville (Lions Club Park) City of Houston (Houston City Park, West Side Park) City of Licking (Deer Lick Park, Licking City Park) Dept of Conservation (Mineral Springs Access) Shannon City of Eminence (Eminence Park, Emminence Golf Course) City of Winona (Winona Lions Park) Additional Concerns: Bicycle/Pedestrian Issues Drivers are not the only users expected on these bridges. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic currently share the driving lanes with cars, RV's and logging trucks, except where the ONSR has constructed a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge. This is clearly not a safe practice, and a separated lane or path should be provided for bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian access. In such a high use area, with a combination of bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian users likely, a minimum 12' wide lane on each bridge should.be provided. Guard rails should be designed to protect such users, while allowing a visual connection with the river. Bike paths should, at a minimum, conform to the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, while being sensitive to the scenic qualities of the area. ONSR Users The project's location in the ONSR, over the Current and Jack's Fork Rivers, complicates any construction efforts. Not only must traffic needs on the roadways be considered during construction, but also the impacts on users of the rivers. Serious consideration should be given to the timing of construction, as peak construction season is likely to coincide with peak use of the ONSR. This will impact not only recreational users, but also those who make a living from related activities, such as canoe and float trip operators, bait and fishing supply shops, area restaurants and hotels, snack shops and gas stations. Scenic Issues Whether the bridges are ultimately replaced or rehabilitated, the resulting design should blend rather than compete with the view from and of the scenic highway. The Route 19 bridges are part of a cultural landscape, originally designed to enhance the view, both from the highway and from the river. Any new construction should be designed to enhance the view for all users of the ONSR. The department would appreciate the opportunity to participate in any design process for new construction. | Page 4 Route 17, Texas Co. and Route 19, Shannon Co., Job # J9P0436 Mr. Gene Gardner Any new guard rails on the bridges or along the roadway should be designed so that drivers can see the river, rather than obscure their view. DNR Team Members: There seems to be no need for DNR to participate in the 4F / Public Lands team - we will defer to ONSR on these issues. The department does plan to participate in all the other team meetings, with Jim Van Dyke and myself on the Caves / Karst / Aquatic Resources / Biological / Threatened & Endangered Species team. I plan to participate in the other two teams (Alternatives / Geometrics and Cultural), as well as yet unspecified staff members from the appropriate programs within DNR. As soon as team meetings are scheduled, please let me know, either via e-mail or phone at 522- 2401. In the meantime, as soon as I have the names of the program staff for the Cultural / Archeological / Scenic team and the surface water staff person for the Aquatic Resources team, I will let you know. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. We look forward to working with you as information on this project develops. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jane Rodes Butler Jane Rodes Beetem Transportation Coordinator JRB Enclosures: as stated c: Peggy Casey, Federal Highway Administration 2 2 HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM COMMENTS FOR THE ROUTE 17 AND ROUTE 19 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT - JOB #J9P0436 The Hazardous Waste Program (HWP) has reviewed the maps identifying proposed locations for bridge replacement. In order to provide a response from the HWP, this request was forwarded to the Budget & Planning, Enforcement, Federal Facilities, Permits, Superfund, Tanks and Voluntary Cleanup Sections. The Tanks Section maintains a database of active underground storage tanks and release sites. The Tanks Section requires notification of release, abatement and corrective action at release sites. The Tanks Section conducted a database search for all registered tank sites in the subject areas. Facility printouts from the database for all registered tank sites identified are being sent by interagency mail. The planners will need to determine whether these Tank sites are located within the areas of concern. It is the recommendation of the HWP that additional investigation of any sites or facilities identified within the area of concern be undertaken. The Superfund, Voluntary Cleanup, Enforcement, Permits and Federal Facilities Sections' personnel checked active site lists and databases. These Sections did not identify any other hazardous waste facilities or sites located in the area specified. However, we cannot guarantee that there are no facilities or sites in the area that may be subject to interest under an Environmental Impact Statement. Unreported facilities or contaminated sites, of which the HWP is either not aware or with which the HWP is not actively involved, may exist in this vicinity. Further research may be pursued through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) tracking record, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), which lists all sites suspected of having had a release of a hazardous substance. To request information regarding the EPA's CERCLIS record, please contact Ms. Rowena Michaels, of the U.S. EPA Region VII, at (913) 551-7003. In addition, the Department of Natural Resources' Jefferson City Regional Office may have pertinent records. If the planners wish to investigate a site beyond the scope of the information provided, our files are available for review. Additional information regarding complaints, spills and closed investigations may be contained in county general files. If interested in reviewing files, please make an appointment through our file manager at least seventy- two hours in advance. Our file manager may be reached at (573) 751-3176. be This concludes comments from the HWP. For additional information regarding Tanks sites, please contact Mr. Kenneth Purvis, of the Tanks Section. Mr. Purvis may reached at (573) 751-3176. If you have questions regarding this project or comments from the HWP, please contact Ms. Hannah Martin, of the Superfund Section, at (573) 751-8629. V UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK UNIT FACILITY INFORMATION REPORT CONTACT TITLE: REGISTRATION FEE CYCLE I 1 PROPERTY OWNER 0 0 0 0 Fees Paid 0 MEET 98: NO NO 0 ILITY ID: BR ID: 2 REC 010398 NAME AND ADDRESS CONTACT AND PHONE: TOM MONTGOMERY (573) 226-3418 TOM'S PACKAGE STORE HWY 19 s EMINENCE, MO 65466 SHANNON COUNTY 15764 08/1986 LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: REGION: SE SIGNER: TOM MONTGOMERY TITLE: PROPERTY OWNER ONR NK DD: TANK TYPE: BELOW STATUS: CLOSED IN PLACE CLOSED IN PLACE CAPACITY: SUBSTANCE: 1,000 GASOLINE 1,000 GASOLINE TANK MATERIAL: STEEL DATE DATE INSTALLED: CLOSED: 01/01/1980 01/01/1975 01/01/1980 01/01/1975 BELOW STEEL /1999 ust:facility un!Vo V . UNDERGROUND STU. AGE TANK UNIT FACILITY INFORMATION REPORT MEET 98: DATE DATE INSTALLED: CLOSED: 01/01/1954 09/10/1998 01/01/1954 09/10/1998 I' Fees Paid 0 0 0 NO NO NO L U5538 CILITY D: ER ID: REC.: 010399 CONTACT AND PHONE: CONTACT TITLE: 0021 NAME AND ADDRESS DIX'S SERVICE STATION HWY 19 N EMINENCE, MO 65466 SHANNON COUNTY BRYAN DIX (573) 226-3276 LEASEE REGISTRATION FEE CYCLE 10/01/1999 09/30/2004 08/1986 REGION: SE LATITUDE: 37 9 LONGITUDE : 91 21 22 31 SIGNER: GLEN BROWN, JR. TITLE: LEASEE ENR K ID: TANK TYPE BELOW BELOW BELOW STATUS: REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED TANK MATERIAL: STEEL CAPACITY: SUBSTANCE: 1,000 GASOLINE 1,000 GASOLINE 1,000 GASOLINE STEEL STEEL 10/1999 ust:facility LUST INFORMATION REPORT LUST ID: LU05538 FAC ID:ST0010399 REGION: SE Dj NAME: DIX'S SERVICE STATION ADDRESS: HWY 19 N EMINENCE, MO 65466 FAC CONTACT: BRYAN DIX CONTACT PHONE: (573) 226-3276 COUNTY: SHANNON OWN NAME : BROWN OIL CO ADDRESS:RT 1 BOX 1655 WINONA, MO 65588 RANKING: 32 SITE CODE: CONTACT PHONE: (573) 226-3397 GRANT CODE: SPILL #:960226-1032-LDW EER RESPONSE START DATE: SITE ACTIVE: YES RELEASE TYPE: UNDERGROUND END DATE: SITE TYPE: HOUSE BILL INVEST. START DATE: 02/26/1996 RP CLEANUP START DATE: END DATE: 12/06/1996 END DATE: DISCOVERY DATE: 02/26/1996 FUND CLEANUP START DATE: 03/03/1997 CONTRACT TYPE: AWARDED END DATE: REMEDIATION TECH: OTHER, SVE, FREE PRODUCT RECOVER, NATURAL ATTENUATION MAN.: VALERIE GARRETT RACTOR: SMITH & COMPANY AFFECTED MEDIA: GR. WATER, SOIL FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY: REFERED TO ENFORCEMENT : NO SITE ON ESP LIST: NO START DATE: DATE SENT: // 1 / START DATE : END DATE: REFERED TO ENFORCEMENT: NO END DATE: / / LAST REPORT: CUMALTIVE PROD. TOTAL: DATE SENT: REFERED TO DGLS: 0.0 NO DATE SENT: RETURNED : COST RECOVERY BEGAN: COST RECOVERY ENDED: NEXT UPDATE: 09/25/1999 COMMENTS: 3-26-99 vg rev. cls. rpt, 3 usts removed on dix prop. soil samples clean, req continued operation of SVE system. 7-15-99 vg rev PSR, air emission data & MW-8 showing continuing improvement, MW-6 up slightly & MW-9 up a lot, reg cont. remediation & monitoring. 1/20/1999 1 lustlust Page 1 LUST INFORMATION REPORT LUST ID: LU044 69 C ID:ST0011881 REGION: SE NAME : EMINENCE FOREST DISTRICT ADDRESS: PO BOX G, HWY 19 N EMINENCE, MO 65466 FAC CONTACT: CHARLES SANTHUFF CONTACT PHONE: (573) 226-3616 COUNTY: SHANNON OWN NAME : MO DEPT OF CONSERVATION ADDRESS: 2901 W TRUMAN BLVD JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65101 RANKING: O SITE CODE: CONTACT PHONE: (573) 751-4115 GRANT CODE: SPILL #: EER RESPONSE START DATE: SITE ACTIVE: NO RELEASE TYPE : UNDERGROUND END DATE: SITE TYPE: RP LEAD RP CLEANUP START DATE: 12/14/1993 INVEST. START DATE : 12/14/1993 END DATE: 05/25/1994 END DATE: 05/25/1994 FUND CLEANUP START DATE: DISCOVERY DATE: 12/14/1993 CONTRACT TYPE: NOT REPORTED END DATE: REMEDIATION TECH: OTHER MAN. : TRACTOR: AFFECTED MEDIA: NOT REPORTED FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY : REFERED TO ENFORCEMENT: NO SITE ON ESP LIST: NO DATE SENT: START DATE: / / START DATE: END DATE: / / END DATE: REFERED TO ENFORCEMENT: NO / / LAST REPORT: CUMALTIVE PROD. TOTAL: REFERED TO DGLS: DATE SENT : NO 0.0 COST RECOVERY BEGAN: COST RECOVERY ENDED: COMMENTS: 05-25-94 - DT - SITE CLOSED. 19/20/1999 DATE SENT : RETURNED: NEXT UPDATE: lustlust Page រ UNDERGROUND STOWAGE TANK UNIT FACILITY INFORMATION REPORT CONTACT TITLE: REGISTRATION FEE CYCLE 10/01/1995 09/30/2000 O O DATE INSTALLED: CLOSED: 03/01/1993 I 03/01/1993 , 03/01/1993 / / Fees Paid 0 MEET 98: NO / 0 0 NO NO CONTACT AND PHONE: HOWARD E. DIXON (573) 226-5333 OWNER CILITY ID: NER DD: TE REC.: NAME AND ADDRESS 2019171 THE DIXON LINE HWY 19 S, PO BOX 189 9168 EMINENCE, MO 654 66 01/1996 SHANNON COUNTY SIGNER: HOWARD E. DIXON DNR IK ID: TANK TYPE: STATUS: ABOVE CURRENTLY IN USE ABOVE CURRENTLY IN USE ABOVE CURRENTLY IN USE REGION: SE LATITUDE: 0 0 LONGITUDE: 0 0 TITLE: OWNER TANK MATERIAL: STEEL CAPACITY: SUBSTANCE: 10,000 GASOLINE 4,500 GASOLINE 2,500 GASOLINE DATE STEEL STEEL /1999 ustfacility U UNDERGROUND STOK.GE TANK UNIT FACILITY INFORMATION REPORT CILITY D: ER D: REC.. NAME AND ADDRESS 012457 PINE CREST STORE HWY 17 N 6 MILES -0247 MOUNTAIN VIEW, MO 30/1986 TEXAS COUNTY REGISTRATION FEE CYCLE 1 / CONTACT AND PHONE: CONTACT TITLE: WILL MCVICKERS OWNER (573) 934-4740 LATITUDE: o 0 REGION: SE LONGITUDE: о о 65548 oio SIGER: ROY RENEGAR TITLE: OWNER Fees Paid 0 MEET 98: NO 0 0 NO NO NR K ID: TANK TYE BELOW STATUS: REMOVED REMOVED REMOVED TANK MATERIAL: STEEL STEEL CAPACITY: SUBSTANCE: 2,000 GASOLINE 560 DIESEL 560 GASOLINE BELOW BELOW DATE DATE INSTALLED: CLOSED: I / I / STEEL 20/1999 ust:facility C 5 UNDERGROUND STOI WAGE TANK UNIT FACILITY INFORMATION REPORT REGISTRATION FEE CYCLE / 0 0 CONTACT AND PHONE: CONTACT TITLE: ACILITY ID: HNER DD: ATE REC.: T0012264 SUPERVISOR RONALD J. SMITH (417) 932-4912 NAME AND ADDRESS SUMMERSVILLE MAINT. LOT RT 17 S SOMMERSVILLE, MO 65571 TEXAS COUNTY W10226 LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 0 0 0 0 REGION: SE 4/01/1986 TITLE: SUPERVISOR SIGNER: JOE DAVIS DNR ANK D: TANK MATERIAL: STEEL STEEL DATE DATE INSTALLED: CLOSED: I 10/25/1990 / I 10/25/1990 MEET 98: NO Fees Paid 0 0 CAPACITY: SUBSTANCE 1,000 GASOLINE 1,000 DIESEL STATUS: REMOVED REMOVED TANK TYPE BELOW BELOW NO 1 LU 1791 ust:facility /1999 YINITANAH FI O LUST INFORMATION REPORT 5. ID: LU01791 ID : ST0012264 REGION: SE FAC NAME:SUMMERSVILLE MAINT, LOT ADDRESS:RT 17 S SUMMERSVILLE, MO 65571 FAC CONTACT : RONALD J. SMITH CONTACT PHONE: (417) 932-4912 COUNTY: TEXAS CONTACT PHONE: (573) 526-4531 OWN NAME:MO DEPT OF HIGHWAY & ADDRESS: PO BOX 270 JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102 RANKING: O SITE CODE: GRANT CODE: SPILL #: SITE ACTIVE: NO RELEASE TYPE: UNDERGROUND EER RESPONSE START DATE: HDCIUIA D END DATE: SITE TYPE: RP LEAD RP CLEANUP START DATE: 05/10/1990 INVEST. START DATE: 05/10/1990 END DATE: 07/01/1990 EUND CLEANUP START DATE: END DATE: 06/01/1990 END DATE: DISCOVERY DATE: 05/10/1990 CONTRACT TYPE: NOT REPORTED REMEDIATION TECH: EXCAVATION 1 MAN. : CONTRACTOR: AFFECTED MEDIA: NOT REPORTED REFERED TO ENFORCEMENT: NO FREE PRODUCT RECOVERY: SITE ON ESP LIST: NO START DATE: DATE SENT : / END DATE: REFERED TO DGLS: NO START DATE: END DATE: / REFERED TO ENFORCEMENT: NO I DATE SENT: LAST REPORT: CUMALTIVE PROD. TOTAL: 0:0 DATE SENT: RETURNED : COST RECOVERY BEGAN: COST RECOVERY ENDED: NEXT UPDATE: COMMENTS: Pagr. lustlust 09/20/1999 (c 1 Inter-Office Correspondence MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE: October 25, 1999 TO: Memorandum to File FROM: Gene Gardner, Bill Graham, and Kelly Cox Preliminary Studies Division SUBJECT: Agency Scoping Meeting Rt. 17, Texas County Job No. J9P0440 Route 19, Shannon County Job No. J9P0436 Meeting Minutes The agency scoping meeting was held on September 23, 1999, from 10:00am - 2:00pm at MODOT's Resident Engineer's office in Rolla, Missouri. In attendance were District 9 (D9) Design Division, Support Center Preliminary Studies, and Federal Highway Administration. Agencies other than MoDOT in attendance included Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A complete list of attendees is attached. Following self-introductions of attendees, Jeff Johnson presented a project overview and led the discussion of the purpose and need of the proposed bridge replacements. Tabular information, maps, and photographs of the existing structures were provided (Janice Redburn had prepared presentation materials) along with verbal descriptions of the structural ratings of each bridge and D9's bridge replacement priority ranking. Dave Ahlvers provided an explanation of MoDOTS bridge inspection and rating system and D9's ranking priority process. Dave compared the bridge ratings of the four bridges and addressed the comments and questions from DNR and ONSR regarding the rating process. MODOT's goal for completing the environmental studies portions of this project is to reach a Record of Decision (ROD) by December 30, 2002. Subsequently, D9's goal is to acquire right of way in calendar year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. a Jeff Johnson opened the meeting. He acknowledged that ONSR has concerns about design aspects of the new bridge. Jeff asserted that for MODOT, safety is the main concern with regard to the need for making improvements to the bridges on both Routes 19 and 17. Route 17 has curves on roadway approach to bridge. Problems related to the extremely poor conditions of the bridges, the substandard geometrics of the bridge approaches, and accident data for the past five years were further discussed in detail by the group. Jay Waggoner presented additional data supporting the purpose and need for the bridge replacements, including socioeconomic statistics related to the dependency on Route 17 Our mission is to provide preliminary engineering support for Missouri's transportation system while conserving the state's environmental and cultural resources. D) Page 2 Memorandum to File October 25, 1999 and Route 19 as travel corridors for the resident population of the area. The group agreed that these routes are also very important corridors to local and regional tourism and industry (e.g., timber products). The ONSR agreed to provide D9 with visitor use information to include in the environmental document. O a Accident data - There have been accidents on all bridges both at bridges and approach curves. Route 19 - A lot of drivers are not familiar with the area and a lot of accidents occur. The rate is almost double the statewide accident rate. Route 17 - Most of the traffic is local and people are familiar with the road. Its the main route between Summersville and Mountain View. There were 18 accidents between 1994 and 1998. 10 of those were injury accidents. Since people are familiar with the route, there are fewer accidents, but due to high speeds involved, a high percentage of accidents that do happen involve injuries. Physical condition of bridges - The Sinking Creek bridge will only accommodate one RV or 1 log truck at a time. Opposing traffic must yield and wait for these vehicles to clear the bridge before proceeding. (Are these narrow bridges posted one way?) Bridges were built in mid-1920s. The physical condition of the Route 17 bridge is the worst, compared to the Route 19 bridges, although canoeists on the Current River have complained of falling concrete from the Route 19 bridge. Economics - Jay Waggoner presented some facts and figures regarding the local economy. The are two major east-west corridors in the southern Mo. area: 1-44 and Route 60, which extends from California to Norfolk, VA. There are 3 major north-south corridors in the area: Route 17 (Ft. Leonard Wood to Mountain View), Route 63, and Route 19 (Cuba to Winona). Two of the 3 major north south corridors are being affected by these projects and the deficient bridges. The timber harvest industry and tourism are the 2 major employers. Both are highly dependent on Route 19, especially. Percentage of the population that has employment in the forestry industry are as follows for counties in south central Missouri: Howell County - 15% of labor force Oregon County - 25% of labor force Shannon County - 40% of labor force (or, nearly 3000 people living in Shannon Co.) O Tourism - Eminence has a population of 583 people. Yet, the population swells to over 5000 when monthly trail rides are held (and so does the fecal coliform counts in Jacks Fork!). With no discount store or new car dealership, baseline sales are about $2.0 million a month in Eminence. Three months of the year, are in the $3-$5 million range. The canoe concession at Akers Ferry reports that on Saturdays during the float season, it sends 10 buses a day across the Current River bridge on Route 19. The ONSR staff commented that they will provide visitor usage to MODOT for use in the environmental. documents. It was asked: what are the most recent traffic counts? D9 responded there is no recent tube counts for the two project areas. Past traffic data shows that ADTs are relatively low. Its the heavy percentage of RVs and trucks that are the problem. Chris Ward of ONSR commented that they need more information on purpose and need for the project in order to better field questions Memorandum to File Page 3 October 25, 1999 from the public and from their administration. He requested accident and traffic data that goes back several years. Bridge deficiency - bridges are functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. Bridges are on the district-wide priority listing to be replaced. The bridges on both Routes 17 and 19 rank high on the list of bridges to be replaced. On Route 19, narrow bridge widths are the main concern right now. Sufficiency ratings on Route 19 bridges are in the 20-50 range, with 0 being worst and 100 being best. The Route 17 bridge is rated a 6. Due to overall low ADTs, there's a need to examine periods of peak traffic, such as when the trail rides are held at Eminence or summer weekends during the peak of the canoeing season. Traffic doesn't justify adding capacity to the roadways by adding lanes. Twenty years out, the ADT is projected at 2700. That's about half of the traffic needed to justify four lanes. Peggy Casey commented that a bridge ratings section should be included in the EIS. range of Maps illustrating some potential alternates were presented to the group as a basis for beginning discussions of alternatives development. ONSR asked for clarification of the alternatives that would be considered. MODOT responded that the following alternatives are usually included as part of a NEPA document: 1) no action; 2) traffic systems management and traffic demand management; 3) mass transportation; 4) improve existing facility, and 5) a range of build alternatives. (Note: Obviously alternatives such as mass transit are not prudent or feasible in this situation and would be quickly excluded from further consideration in the draft environmental document). This discussion led to the need for a clearer understanding of exactly where MODOT's existing rights of way are within the project areas; Jay Waggoner made reference to a 1930 document from the State Game and Fish Commission which gave the State Highway Commission authority to construct and maintain a portion of Route 19 through the Round Spring State Park. Chris Ward wanted to know what the existing situation is with regard to the size and shape of the existing ROW at the Current River. Jeff Johnson commented that he thought Route 19 had a 60 ft. minimum ROW width, which varies with cuts and fills. Chris also inquired about RS 2477(?). Jay will research the existing right of way boundaries and work with ONSR staff to develop illustrations of the existing right of way and the adjacent property owners. O Project alternatives - project alternatives will include an avoidance alternate which completely avoids the Section 4(1) property for each route. On Route 19, there are two pieces to the park, on both sides of Current River. Gene Gardner suggested that visual issues, threatened and endangered species and karst features will be issues to address at Round Spring area. A discussion of the environmental issues of concern was opened by Gene Gardner. A summary of the environmental resources ranking exercise that MODOT and FHWA performed prior to the agency scoping meeting was provided to the group; MODOT acknowledged that the proposed transportation improvements occur within areas which are environmentally sensitive. An brief explanation of Section 4(1) of the Transportation Act of 1966 was provided by Bill Graham. After conversion among the participants about how to pay for items beyond mitigation that may be warranted, such as turnouts for scenic views, Kelly Srigley Werner asked if it were possible to apply for ISTEA Enhancement funding to do some of that type of work. D Memorandum to File Page 4 October 25, 1999 Status of the bridges related to their historical determination was provided by Mike Meinkoth. On archaeological impacts, the ONSR has quite a bit of data. Mike Meinkoth asked if the ONSR's data was available electronically. ONSR should be able to make the data available so that MODOT can import. Ben Clary, Chris Ward, and Victoria Grant (ONSR) provided ONSR perspectives and examples of the 4(1) process and acknowledged that their Regional Office would have purview over any final decision regarding 4(f) issues. Victoria Grant spoke to the issue of what level of NEPA documentation was appropriate for these projects. Victoria advocated doing separate EAs on each route. From the EAs, it would then be determined if EISs were needed, due to any significant impacts identified in the EAs. Much discussion ensued over the issue of a tiered process. I believe consensus was reached to prepare 2 separate EISS - one for each route. That 2 way, the projects can proceed independently of each other and we won't have to backtrack if an EA reveals significant impacts. Mark Kross requested a written copy of the ONSR's NEPA guidelines; Victoria Grant said she would provide Mark and Kelly Cox copies of the guidelines. Discussions of various other environmental issues continued until the group broke for lunch. - а a Following lunch, the ONSR provided the group with a written list of "ONSR issues and concerns to date (9/17/99)." The list was read aloud and the groups was encouraged to make brief comments on each issue. Each of the other agencies in attendance were given the opportunity to provide comments and offer additions to the list of environmental issues. Kelly Srigley Werner (FWS) concurred with the items on the ONSR list. Gary Christoff and Dave Mayers (MDC) also concurred with the ONSR list. Dave Mayers also expressed some specific concerns for avoiding and minimizing short term and long term impacts to fisheries and other aquatic resources within the Jacks Fork River and Current River. The discussion that followed included suggestions for in-stream mitigation measures to enhance fish habitats and roadway design features that would prevent environmental contaminants from entering the waterways in the event of a catastrophic spill (i.e., traffic accidents). Jane Beetem (DNR) concurred with the ONSR list and reiterated her agency's concerns for avoiding or minimizing impacts to cultural resources (i.e., archaeology, historic structures) and surface water and groundwater quality. Some of the concerns and comments were as follows: Geology - Comments were made regarding the fragility of the karst features around Round Spring. The strata is composed of sandstone, not limestone, thereby the concern regarding the more delicate nature of cave features. Concern was also expressed about addressing impacts to cave ecology and irreversible impacts to fragile cave speleothems (i.e., stalagtites and stalagmites). . Water quality - demolition and construction impacts to Current River and Round Spring hydrology. Vegetation - concerns include loss of large trees, native plants and wildlife crossings. Vehicular (park user) circulation within the park C Memorandum to File Page 5 October 25, 1999 Approaches to bridges - engineering considerations Noise levels - to be addressed by Section 4(f) team, too Vehicular speeds through area Parking areas - scenic overlooks Utilities Scenic impacts of bridge - color, size and setting Views from bridge and from the rivers Safety, traffic control and staging (including river traffic control) Removal of existing bridges and roadways Fish and Wildlife concerns - MDC fisheries resources - long and short term impacts no further constriction of floodplain in the long term timing of instream work to lessen impacts to spawning seasons runoff containment minimize short term impacts mitigation for impacts to instream habitat - MDC wants to see; it would help to offset stream pools filling up with gravel; habitat being lost loss of deep hole habitat opportunity for bank stabilization and placing large boulders in stream On new alignments, ROW should be designed to contain runoff and spills Concern was expressed that a new bridge would relieve perceived bottleneck and would foster increased truck traffic, thereby increasing the chances of a major spill into Current or Jacks Fork. Mention was made about incident on Route 142 over Eleven Point River when fertilizer truck overturned. No fragmentation of habitat desired DNR issues - cultural resources and impacts to the viewscape, water resources, and river, caves and springs. The question was asked is there any baseline water quality data at Round Spring. DNR thought it would be good to compare water quality up and downstream from bridge after construction to preconstruction data, if it is available. The ONSR staff is aware of 20 years of data below the bridge at Round Spring. C Memorandum to File Page 6 October 25, 1999 Mark Kross mentioned the Stillwater MN bridge and DOI's non-issuance of a permit to build a new bridge over the St. Croix River (designated as Wild and Scenic). Any land mines in the ONSR enabling legislation that staff is aware of? Ben Clary said no. Mark also inquired about any LWCF money invested in the ONSR. Ben Clary was not aware of any. Jane Beetem said DNR State Parks Div. was also checking their records. Since Round Spring State Park was transferred to ONSR in the 60s, its doubtful that any LWCF funds were expended in the State Park before transference to ONSR. River access issues - the issue of access to Sinking Creek from Route 19 was mentioned. The ONSR recently gave official access designation to an area where people had been gaining casual access via Sinking Creek for years. Concern was expressed that river access be maintained at the Route 17 bridge crossing at Jacks Fork, If roads are relocated, what would be the disposition of portions of the old road left in place. District staff commented that the Highway and Transportation Commission doesn't like to add mileage to the state system. So, usually what happens is a local entity takes over the old road if possible. After consideration of environmental resource issues, the group discussion focused on what level of environmental documentation the four bridge replacements might require. After much constructive discussion, the group reached a consensus that two separate environmental impact statements (EIS) should be developed; one EIS for the Route 17, Texas County bridge replacement and one EIS for replacement of the three bridges on Route 19, Shannon County. However, it was also agreed that public meetings regarding the two projects could be held simultaneously as could any necessary coordination meetings. Although some redundancy of text preparation and review will be unavoidable with two documents, there were many compelling reasons for separating the environmental documentation process related to the two proposed project locations. MODOT asked each agencies who the primary contact would be for their agencies; who should general correspondence related to project development or review be addressed to? 'Each agency responded as follows: ONSR - Ben Clary, Superintendent MDC - Gary Christoff and Dave Mayers FWS - Mark Wilson (Attention: Kelly Srigley Werner) DNR - Jane Beetem However, each agency did agree that specific people could be contacted directly, particularly members who are serving on EIS development teams. Near the close of the meeting the group determined that a team approach was most appropriate to conduct the necessary investigations (e.g., data development, background information research, field surveys, resource studies, mitigation recommendations etc.) and develop written text and other information for inclusion in the two EISs. Descriptions of the five EIS development teams and the representative(s) who "volunteered" to serve are as follows: Memorandum to File Page 7 October 25, 1999 Project Coordination/Project Management Team Objectives: responsible for tracking development of the project, identifying target dates for completion of tasks, and oversight/coordination of overall development of the environmental document. Members: Jeff Johnson (team leader) - MODOT JOHNSJS Ben Clary - ONSR Peggy Casey - FHWA Mark Kross - MODOT Charles Pursley - MODOT Kelly Cox - MODOT Matt Burcham - MODOT Cultural Resources Assessment Team Objectives: responsible for identifying and evaluating all cultural resource features (e.g., NRHP sites, archaeological sites, historic bridge determinations, architectural significance, cultural landscape assessment etc.) to the extent practicable. Members: Mike Meinkoth (team leader) - MODOT Judith Deel -DNR Brad Wolf - MODOT Randy Dawdy - MODOT 7 Jane Beetem - DNR Angela Smith (and others) - ONSR DNR - Jane Beetem will notify 11-4-49 Section 4(f) Team Objectives: work with other project teams and ONSR to gather background data, identify all pertinent project impact issues within ONSR and explore potential methods to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts. These activities should lead to preparation of the Section 4(f) documents and the public lands section of the environmental documents. Members: Bill Graham (team leader) - MODOT Jane Beetem - DNR Chris Ward - ONSR Peggy Casey - FHWA DNR - Jane Beetem will notify Cheryl Reams -DNR - Engineering/Geometrics/Alternatives Development Team Objectives: responsible for the identification and descriptions of the full range of alternatives and their related components (e.g., conceptualized designs, access, traffic control, construction methods, speed limits, etc.)....is there anything more anyone wants to add? Members: Jeff Johnson (team leader) - MODOT Bill Graham - MODOT Todd Miller - MODOT Ben Clary - ONSR Gary Christoff - MDC Mike Staggs - FHWA Where do these data on Table 4, of the preliminary Draft 4(f) come from? A casual reader would assume that all the known impacts are on the table, but we know that not to be the case. Look at the cultural resource impacts - where do these data come from? There aren't any known archeological sites out there, but somewhere between 0 and 12 sites will be impacted by the alternatives. Under section 14 below, you predict that there will be 17 prehistoric sites. What method was used to make that prediction? It could be a reasonable prediction if you were using comparable data, but you are using US 60 inventory data. The EIS does not discuss the predictive quality of that information. The only place we saw discussion of the impacts on recreation at Buck Hollow is on pages 25-26 of the 4(f) statement. What is the source of these data and where can this information be found in the EIS? The summary concludes that the avoidance alternative (A) is not reasonable or prudent based on cost and environmental impacts. But if you inspect Table 4, you see that the only hard information on impacts are costs, farmland, displacements, crossings, public lands impacts, and acreage of lands impacted by the bridge. Since detailed investigations have not taken place in any of the corridors, you have tried to extrapolate data from other areas to each alternative (i.e., cultural resources, etc.). The quality of the data and the ability to stretch thin data to each corridor is questionable. Overall, there doesn't appear to be a great difference in environmental 7 ir с с 8 impacts other than in footprints (alignment length and bridge size). Given the 500 ft. planning corridor used to reduce impacts, the real differences between the alternatives (based on what you chose to compare) is probably even less. 8 United States Department of the Interior OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BEPARTMENT NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Ozark National Scenic Riverways 404 Watercress Drive P.O. Box 490 Van Buren. Missouri 63965 the tortor March 3. 1949 IN REPLY REFER TO: L7621 (xA5431) OCT 1 8 2002 Kelly Cox Environmental Specialist Missouri Department of Transportation 105 West Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Dear Mr. Cox: We felt it was a good point to follow up with this letter on the telephone conversation you had with Keith Butler and Charles Putnam of our staff on September 9, 2002, regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. Due to the fact that we meet infrequently and make contact by telephone on a limited basis we feel that we should administratively make note of what we think was said and what we hope was understood to be Missouri Department of Transportation's (MODOT) position on the EIS. Our main point we hope we made on the status of the draft EIS is that we had hoped that the comments we submitted would have been reflected in the draft of the EIS. We must not have been understood or our being a cooperator on this project has some other meaning as to when our comments get incorporated into the draft document. We believed your position was that our comments would not be incorporated in the document even though MoDoT and the Federal Highway Administration wish to release the document without incorporating our comments. We hope that as a cooperator you will address our comments on the document in the appropriate place before the public commenting period, because we do not consider ourselves as part of the public in this process. In the absence of addressing our comments, we request that prior to public release: our comment letter dated June 25, 2002, be ) included within the consultation section of the EIS; specific locations of sensitive sites are removed; and the reasons for not addressing our comments are incorporated into the document. Also discussed during the telephone conversation was that a high bridge was no longer being considered. We do not see substantially raising the height of the bridge as a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) alternative that had been previously discarded. A higher bridge was a component of an alternate that was previously discarded, but a higher bridge has always been a design alternative within the alternate corridors still under consideration. In respect to the comment regarding our waiver on bridge height, during the meeting that Keith Butler and I attended in Rolla, Missouri, my personal recall of the subject of design was brought up, but was not discussed in detail, due to the lack of drawings or an artist's conceptual drawing of the bridge to be addressed or commented on. The reason that we had requested that MODOT produce a set of graphic drawings or computer generated bridge concepts was to give a base line to make comments on, and we have not seen anything to date other than the preferred corridor maps. Hopefully we continue to stay in contact with each other on this project because we believe that we all have the best interest of the public in mind to both protect the river and provide a newer and safer bridge at the site. If you have any further questions please contact Resource Management Specialist Charles Putnam at 573-323-4236 ext. 253. Sincerely, bolo Nul Chris Ward Deputy Superintendent CC: Nick Chevance Regional Environmental Coordinator Midwest Region, NPS 1709 Jackson Street Omaha, NE 68102 Peggy Casey, P.E. U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA, Missouri Division 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 1 1 EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT MEETING MINUTES GROUP NAME: 00000 DATE OF MEETING: 11-17-2003 TEAM LEADER: 00000 LOCATION OF MEETING: Rolla Project Office ATTENDEES: Peggy Casey Noel Poe Bill Graham Todd Miller Jane Beetem Keith U. Butler Tom Stehn Kelly Cox Chris Ward Jim Smith Jeff Johnson PHONE NUMBER: 00000 Mike Wake Mike Carda Tammy Childress 00000 00001 00000 SUMMARY OF ITEMS COVERED THIS MEETING: 00000000 201 000"00 0000000 Page 1 of 7 In accordance with 23 USC 138 and the Organic Act, the NPS will object to any proposal to route a state or local road through national park lands, or to increase the size of a right-of-way for an existing road, unless the NPS first determines (or concurs with at DOT determination) that: 1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative; 2) All possible planning has taken place to minimize and mitigate harm to the park; 3) It will not be contrary to the public interest, or inconsistent with the purposes for which the park was established; 4) It will not cause health and safety risks to visitors or park staff; and 5) It will conform to NPS standards and practices for road design, engineering and construction. The DEIS does not demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative. In fact, there are a number of alternatives. MODOT and FHWA appear to be under a misimpression about the strength language in section 4(f). policy guideline that may or may not be followed depending upon the subjective desires of the agencies. This is a legally binding statutory provision that precludes building a highway on parkland in most circumstances. The end of the 4(f) document indicates that there are potential mitigation measures that could be explored. However, no firm mitigation measures are delineated. This type of delineation is needed before the 4(f) compliance is complete. Section 6 (f) Additional protection is provided for outdoor recreation lands under the Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964. 16 0.9.c. § 4602-8(f) (3). Where LWCF funds were used for the planning, acquisition, or development of the property, such property may not be converted to a transportation use unless the land is replaced with property which is reasonably equivalent in usefulness and is of at least the same fair market value. The DEIS acknowledges that the ONSR received LWCF money in the 1960s and 70s. It was not clear in the DEIS whether other state or local parks that used LWCF money would be impacted by the project. Are there other properties in the area that were acquired or developed with LWCF money that section 6 (f) would apply to? 404 Permit The DEIS indicates that a nationwide permit will be sought for the impact to jurisdictional waters. The nationwide permit process is not appropriate for this situation because the project involves more than "minimal impacts" to L. Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 314-727-0600 (phone) 314-727-1665 (fax) www.moenviron.org 8 - C.htm J SOURI COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Missou 6267 Delmar Blvd. 2.E. St. Louis MO 63130 - 314-717-0600 Fax: 314-727-1665. moenviron@moenviron.org www.moenviron.org April 14, 2003 RECEIVED APR 1 6 2003 MISSOURI DEPT. OF TRANS. DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MoDOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Don Neumann Programs Engineer Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Messrs. Keith and Neumann: The Missouri Coalition for the Environment ("MCE") submits these supplemental comments on the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") for the above referenced highway project. MCE submitted an initial comment letter on March 3, 2003, prior to learning that the comment period had been extended. We continue to have the concerns expressed in our earlier letter, but will only offer new or expanded comments herein. Alternatives Both the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act require an investigation of alternatives. Moreover, Section 4(f) prohibits using federal parkland for a highway if there is a prudent and feasible alternative. MCE believes there are prudent and feasible alternatives to those set forth in the DEIS and encourages MODOT and FHWA to pursue one of two courses of action to protect the ONSR: 1) Replace the bridge in its current location without modifying the highway within the ONSR; or 2) choose an alternate route outside the ONSR. Rebuilding in Current Location 2 The DEIS ruled out the alternative of replacing the bridge in its current location due to purported impacts to the local community from closing the road while the new bridge was constructed. However, the DEIS did not provide any quantification of these 1 Effective Citizen Action Since 1969 impacts, nor investigate options for mitigating or eliminating the impact. One method of mitigating the impact of closing the bridge during construction would be to carry out the project during a period of lower travel on the highway. Alternatively, a temporary bridge could be constructed to allow the continuous flow of traffic. MCE staff have performed preliminary research on temporary bridges and have found numerous references to relatively inexpensive designs. (See enclosed articles). MODOT and FHWA need to further investigate the option of rebuilding the bridge in its current location, with or without a temporary span. Rerouting Outside the ONSR a a In its March 20, 2003, comment letter, the Department of the Interior recommended an alternate route utilizing state routes W and Y and a Texas County road. The National Park Service had actually first suggested this alternative in a 1993 letter. This alternate route would avoid many of the impacts of the routes suggested in the DEIS. MCE supports the DOI comments and requests that MODOT and FHWA undertake further evaluation of this and other alternatives that would avoid the ONSR. Design Regardless of the alternative chosen, MODOT needs to take seriously the natural landscape values protected by the ONSR. MCE staff have recently driven several roads in the Ozark region and noted the design of MoDOT projects. These projects indicate that MODOT does not always take into consideration the sensitivity of the rural environment when constructing new roads and bridges. For example, the Highway 19 bridge over the Meramec River near Steelville is grossly overbuilt and required significant modification of the landscape. We get the impression from the DEIS that a project of similar scope is planned for Highway 17. A project even remotely similar to the Highway 19 bridge should never be constructed through the ONSR as it would destroy forever the aesthetic qualities of the park. Truck Traffic MCE questions statements in the DEIS concerning the current uses of Highway 17. In our earlier comment, we indicated that many people have observed that Highway 17 serves as a truck bypass for both Highway 60 and Highway 63, even though the DEIS indicates that the highway does not serve as a short cut between these routes (p.6). The Department of the Interior's comments on the project also note that Highway 17 receives heavy truck traffic, and that MODOT's projections for traffic in the area have been incorrect in the past. The heavy use of the highway by large trucks is inconsistent with the uses for which the ONSR was created. Large trucks cause a great deal of noise, especially as they climb or descend hills, and also pollute the air and water with diesel exhaust and other toxins. The Highway 17 project will only make this situation worse because it will facilitate use of the highway by large trucks. 2 The air quality analysis in the DEIS is completely inadequate because it does not mention the possible impacts to local air quality from large trucks and other traffic. Diesel exhaust is a mixture of toxins containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles coated with organic substances. The exhaust from trucks in the area may affect the experience of river users and will be deposited on the local landscape, eventually washing into the river itself. Toxins in the exhaust could negatively impact sensitive aquatic life. NPS policy is to provide for the protection of air quality in national parks. According to an NPS publication, the agency "will seek to perpetuate the best possible air quality in parks because of its critical importance to visitor enjoyment, human health, scenic vistas, and the preservation of natural systems and cultural resources ... and will assume an aggressive role in promoting and pursuing measures to safeguard these values from the adverse impacts of air pollution."2 Large trucks can also have other impacts on the surrounding environment. For example, the use of brakes can release heavy metals onto the road surface, which are then washed into local waterways. 3 MODOT and FHWA failed to adequately address these impacts in the DEIS. Imperiled Species As noted in MCE's earlier comments, the DEIS appears to have omitted consideration of the Ozark hellbender, a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. We could not find any reference to this species in the DEIS, even though the Jacks Fork River is one of the few streams where it is found. The hellbender is very susceptible to disturbances in its aquatic environment. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has placed this species on its list of candidates for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. According to a Fish & Wildlife Service report, the species "is believed to be declining throughout its range, and no populations appear to be stable." The report indicates that habitat degradation and loss is likely the primary cause of declining populations, including sedimentation and direct disturbance of habitat. The report finds that "even minor alterations to stream habitat are likely detrimental to hellbender populations." The Ozark hellbender's highly permeable skin causes them to be negatively affected by sedimentation and pollution. Various 1 2 - 'Mauderly, J.L. Diesel Exhaust, in Lippman, M. (ed.) Environmental Toxicants: human exposures and their health effects (1992). Air Quality in the National Parks - Second Edition, p. 2 (NPS 2002), available at http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/pubs/agnps One,pdf. Restoring Polluted Waterways of the San Francisco Bay Area: Mitigating the Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure, p.6 (Bay Area Open Space Council, 2001), available at http://www.openspacecouncil.org/Documents/TFCW/TFCW Summary 01.04.20.pdf. 3 chemical pollutants bind to silt and become suspended in the water column when flushed into a stream. The hellbender's permeable skin provides little barrier to these chemicals. MoDOT and the FHWA should undertake consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies to ensure that hellbender populations are not negatively impacted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, Theel Hurl Edward J. Heisel Senior Law & Policy Coordinator Noel Poe, NPS William Schenk, NPS Rick Hansen, USFWS Tom Lange, MDNR Gary Christoff, MDC cc: Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form (USFWS 2002), available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/candforms pdf/r4/cryallbis.pdf. 4 Kathryn A Harvey 04/16/2003 11:42 AM To: Cc: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @MODOT, Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT@MODOT Subject: Hwy 17 Comments Forwarded by Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT on 04/16/2003 11:45 AM David B Nichols 04/16/2003 11:33 AM To: Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: Hwy 17 Comments Kathy, Some very substantive comments. I would like to discuss sometime the direction we are going on this study. Dave Forwarded by David B Nichols/SC/MODOT on 04/16/2003 10:32 AM Kevin L Keith 04/16/2003 08:22 AM To: Cc: David B Nichols/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Subject: Hwy 17 Comments Forwarded by Kevin L Keith/SC/MODOT on 04/16/2003 08:35 AM "Edward Heisel" on 04/15/2003 04:51:21 PM To: skeithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us> seheisel@moenviron.org> CC: Subject: Hwy 17 Comments Mr. Keith - I put this in yesterday's U.S. mail as well. this email if you receive the hardcopy by the deadline. You can disregard Thanks, Ted Heisel April 14, 2003 Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MODOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Don Neumann Programs Engineer Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Messrs. Keith and Neumann: The Missouri Coalition for the Environment ("MCE") submits these supplemental comments on the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") for the above referenced highway project. MCE submitted an initial comment letter on March 3, 2003, prior to learning that the comment period had been extended. We continue to have the concerns expressed in our earlier letter, but will only offer new or expanded comments herein. Alternatives Both the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act require an investigation of alternatives. Moreover, Section 4(f) prohibits using federal parkland for a highway if there is a prudent and feasible alternative. MCE believes there are prudent and feasible alternatives to those set forth in the DEIS and encourages MODOT and FHWA to pursue one of two courses of action to protect the ONSR: 1) Replace the bridge in its current location without modifying the highway within the ONSR; or 2) choose an alternate route outside the ONSR. Rebuilding in Current Location The DEIS ruled out the alternative of replacing the bridge in its current location due to purported impacts to the local community from closing the road while the new bridge was constructed. However, the DEIS did not provide any quantification of these impacts, nor investigate options for mitigating or eliminating the impact. One method of mitigating the impact of closing the bridge during construction would be to carry out the project during a period of lower travel on the highway. Alternatively, a temporary bridge could be constructed to allow the continuous flow of traffic. MCE staff have performed preliminary research on temporary bridges and have found numerous references to relatively inexpensive designs. (See enclosed articles). MODOT and FHWA need to further investigate the option of rebuilding the bridge in its current location, with or without a temporary span. Rerouting outside the ONSR In its March 20, 2003, comment letter, the Department of the Interior recommended an alternate route utilizing state routes W and Y and a Texas County road. The National Park Service had actually first suggested this alternative in a 1993 letter. This alternate route would avoid many of the impacts of the routes suggested in the DEIS. MCE supports the DOI comments and requests that MODOT and FHWA undertake further evaluation of this and other alternatives that would avoid the ONSR. Design Regardless of the alternative chosen, MODOT needs to take seriously the natural landscape values protected by the ONSR. MCE staff have recently driven several roads in the Ozark region and noted the design of MODOT projects. These projects indicate that MODOT does not always take into consideration the sensitivity of the rural environment when constructing new roads and bridges. For example, the Highway 19 bridge over the Meramec River near Steelville is grossly overbuilt and required significant modification of the landscape. We get the impression from the DEIS that a project of similar scope is planned for Highway 17. A project even remotely similar to the Highway 19 bridge should never be constructed through the ONSR as it would destroy forever the aesthetic qualities of the park. Truck Traffic MCE questions statements in the DEIS concerning the current uses of Highway 17. In our earlier comment, we indicated that many people have observed that Highway 17 serves as a truck bypass for both Highway 60 and Highway 63, even though the DEIS indicates that the highway does not serve as a short cut between these routes (p.6). The Department of the Interior's comments on the project also note that Highway 17 receives heavy truck traffic, and that MODOT's projections for traffic in the area have been incorrect in the past. A The heavý use of the highway by large trucks is inconsistent with the uses for which the ONSR was created. Large trucks cause a great deal of noise, especially as they climb or descend hills, and also pollute the air and water with diesel exhaust and other toxins. The Highway 17 project will only make this situation worse because it will facilitate use of the highway by large trucks. The air quality analysis in the DEIS is completely inadequate because it does not mention the possible impacts to local air quality from large trucks and other traffic. Diesel exhaust is a mixture of toxins containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles coated with organic substances.[1] The exhaust from trucks in the area may affect the experience of river users and will be deposited on the local landscape, eventually washing into the river itself. Toxins in the exhaust could negatively impact sensitive aquatic life. NPS policy is to provide for the protection of air quality in national parks. According to an NPS publication, the agency "will seek to perpetuate the best possible air quality in parks because of its critical importance to visitor enjoyment, human health, scenic vistas, and the preservation of natural systems and cultural resources . and will assume an aggressive role in promoting and pursuing measures to safeguard these values from the adverse impacts of air pollution." [2] Large trucks can also have other impacts on the surrounding environment. For example, the use of brakes can release heavy metals onto the road surface, which are then washed into local waterways. [3] MODOT and FHWA failed to adequately address these impacts in the DEIS. Imperiled Species As noted in MCE's earlier comments, the DEIS appears to have omitted consideration of the Ozark hellbender, a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. We could not find any reference to this species in the DEIS, even though the Jacks Fork River is one of the few streams where it is found. The hellbender is very susceptible to disturbances in its aquatic environment. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has placed this species on its list of candidates for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. According to a Fish & Wildlife Service report, the species "is believed to be declining throughout its range, and no populations appear to be stable." The report indicates that habitat degradation and loss is likely the primary cause of declining populations, including sedimentation and direct disturbance of habitat. The report finds that "even minor alterations to stream habitat are likely detrimental to hellbender populations." The Ozark hellbender's highly permeable skin causes them to be negatively affected by sedimentation and pollution. Various chemical pollutants bind to silt and become suspended in the water column when flushed into a stream. The hellbender's permeable skin provides little barrier to these chemicals. (4) MODOT and the FHWA should undertake consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies to ensure that hellbender populations are not negatively impacted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, Edward J. Heisel Senior Law & Policy Coordinator CC: Noel Poe, NPS William Schenk, NPS Rick Hansen, USFWS Tom Lange, MDNR Gary Christoff, MDC Edward J. Heisel Senior Law & Policy Coordinator Missouri Coalition for the Environment 6267 Delmar Boulevard Suite 2-E St. Louis, MO 63130 314-727-0600 (phone) 314-727-1665 (fax) www.moenviron.org [1] Mauderly, J.L. Diesel Exhaust, in Lippman, M. (ed.) Environmental , Toxicants: human exposures and their health effects (1992). [2] Air Quality in the National Parks Second Edition, p. 2 (NPS 2002), available at http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/pubs/aqnps_One.pdf . [3] Restoring Polluted Waterways of the San Francisco Bay Area: Mitigating the Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure, p.6 (Bay Area Open Space Council, 2001),, available at http://www.openspacecouncil.org/Documents/TFCW/TFCW_Summary_01.04.20.pdf . [4] Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form (USFWS 2002), available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/candforms_pdf/r4/cryallbis.pdf. -C.htm STATE COOKIESOUR) Bob Holden, Governor • Stephen M. Mahfood, Director DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SELIND FALL www.dor.scare.mo.us E merupLT ST PREMA ISO ADCCCXX RECEIVED DEC 3 0 2003 December 24, 2003 Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler, Director Missouri Department of Transportation P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 NESSOUR DEPT. OF TRANS. DRECTOR'S OFFICE Dear Mt. fungerbedler: Recently Abecame aytare of efforts by Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) staff to use context sensitive design solutions in resolving impacts anticipated during a bridge replacement project on Route 17 in Texas County. As this bridge replacement will occur within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, this project is one in which the Department of Natural Resources bas taken great interest. Accommodations such as lessening rather than eliminating curves and hills, minimizing lane and shoulder width and sensitive bridge design have been proposed by MODOT as ways to lessen project impacts in this nationally significant natural resource area. MODOT's engineering staff have worked hard to incorporate these techniques and to present them in a way that may be easily understood. Their efforts are to be applauded and hopefully will provide a model for protecting the integrity of the natural environment in future projects throughout Missouri. At the latest project meeting my staff was assured that we would have an opportunity to review and comment on the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement, and we look forward to reviewing this document. We are anxious to see these innovative features incorporated into this project's environmental documentation and to work with you and your staff in protecting the sensitive natural resources that are found in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Thank you. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Deut DirectorEAL Stephe Man food , SURVEY Distales Integrity and excellence in everything we do Recycled Paper RECEIVED ŠAudubon MISSOURI MAR 6 2003 2620 Forum Blvd. MIS!, ; ODES ;;15. Suite C-1 Columbia, MO 65203 Tel: 573-447-2249 Fax: 573-447-2428 3 March 2003 www.audubon.org Mr. Don Newmann Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Mr. Kevin Keith Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65101 Dear Sirs: a We have just become aware of a draft environmental impact statement concerning replacement of the Highway 17 bridge over the Jack's Fork River in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways for which the comment period is now expiring. As a citizen organization with strong interest and involvement in the region and concern about the integrity of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, we respectfully request a copy of the DEIS and an extension of the time period for public comment. Audubon Missouri is the state office of the National Audubon Society, an organization with more than 8,000 members in Missouri. Many of our members were deeply involved in the effort to establish the Ozark National Scenic Riverways in the 1960s and frequently visit the area. Audubon Missouri has recently acquired 173 acres of forest land in the Jack's Fork watershed that we intend to manage to protect watershed values. We are also beginning the process of identifying Important Bird Areas in Missouri and we believe it is highly likely that the Jack's Fork watershed will be included because of the remarkable ecological diversity in that area and the exceptional quality of the river itself. Hence we are extremely concerned that replacement of the Highway 17 bridge across the Jack's Fork be done with utmost care to minimize earth moving and degradation of watershed, riparian, and aquatic values in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Roger stelt Roger Still Executive Director Kathryn A Harvey 03/03/2003 07:38 AM To: cc: Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT @ MODOT, Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Subject: Highway 17 bridge DEIS Forwarded by Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT on 03/03/2003 07:39 AM David B Nichols 03/02/2003 09:54 PM To: Cc: Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT@MODOT Subject: Highway 17 bridge DEIS Kathy, Will you handle the request for extending the comment period on the Rte 17, DEIS. Thanks, Dave Forwarded by David B Nichols/SC/ MODOT on 03/02/2003 08:51 PM Kevin L Keith 03/01/2003 09:15 AM David B Nichols/SC/MODOT MODOT To: CC: Subject: Highway 17 bridge DEIS Dave I sent them a quick respone just to let them know we would consider thier comments. Forwarded by Kevin L Keith/SC/ MODOT on 03/01/2003 09:37 AM "Sue Hagan and Mick Sutton" To: skeithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us> cc: Subject: Highway 17 bridge DEIS Dr. Mr. Keith, We are sending our comments on the Highway 17 bridge (Texas County) DEIS by email in order to get it to your office before the comment deadline. A hard copy will also be mailed to you. Michael Sutton and Susan Hagan, East Ozarks Audubon Society East Ozarks Audubon Society Conservation Committee, Route 1, Box 110A, Annapolis, MO 63620 Mr. Kevin Keith Missouri Department of Transportation Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Mr. Don Neumann Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 February 28, 2003 Dear Mr. Keith and Mr. Neumann: The East Ozarks Audubon Society (EOAS) would like to respond to the Draft EIS for the proposed replacement bridge across the Jacks Fork River on State Highway 17 in Texas County. We have only recently learned of this document, and have had very little time to study it. We believe that public notification on this issue was inadequate, and we request an extension of the comment period to allow a more thorough analysis. The EOAS represents several hundred citizens in the east-central Ozarks area, and many of our members spend time visiting the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR). It is the potential impact of the project on the integrity of the ONSR that concerns us most. The proposed designs appear to adhere to guidelines for grades, curves, rights of way, etc. as applied to roads in general settings. It is our understanding that these guidelines are supposed to be greatly modified in the case of roads within National Park Service units. Yet, there is absolutely no discussion of such alternatives in the DEIS, as far as we have been able to tell. The concept is a simple one: National Parks are special places which are set aside for quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the landscape. A high-speed bridge with wide approaches and the landscape torn up for the sake of straightening curves is inimical to the whole point of a National Park. We urge that the design be reconsidered with the understanding that tighter curves, a narrower right of way, and a lower speed limit are entirely appropriate within a National Park unit and are a small price to pay for doing much less damage to the landscape, which as you know is highly scenic at the Jacks Fork crossing. The proposals call for a replacement road meeting "LOS A" standards, i.e. "low volumes and high speeds." It would be far more appropriate to design for "LOS B", "used for the design of rural highways." While we are not opposed to replacing the deteriorating bridge, we urge that the replacement be built at the same site as the old bridge, and with as little cutting and filling as possible. This would also have the advantage of being a good deal cheaper than the alternatives considered in the EIS. Alternatively, the road should be routed to the west, outside the ONSR boundaries entirely. We are also particularly concerned, as cave researchers ourselves, with the loss of and damage to the karst landscape of dolomite bluffs and caves which will result from the alternatives being considered. As the DEIS points out, a large number of caves exist within the proposed construction zone; there has been no adequate assessment of the geological or biological significance of these caves. We will also take this opportunity to protest in the strongest terms your inclusion of detailed locations of the caves in a public document. The locations are the property of the Missouri Speleological Survey, Inc., and are strictly confidential, for the good reason that drawing public attention to the existence of a cave is very likely to result in irreversible damage by vandalism. Moreover, all cave locations within National Parks are protected by a confidentiality clause within the National Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. In summary, we ask you to seriously reconsider what is at present an unnecessarily large-scale and damaging project, bearing in mind that this construction will be taking place within a National Park. Sincerely, Michael Sutton, Susan Hagan. sue&mick@mail.tigernet.gen.mo.us -C.htm D JG EI Vi 1 1 И S V И [ D Ci JE ST LE L-A-D FOUNDATION OZARK NATURAL RESOURCES FOUNDATION 721 OLIVE, ROOM 1016, ST. LOUIS, MO 63101 (NOTE: This letter is being faxed to 417.469.4555 with copies mailed to the addressees via first class mail) DIRECTORS March 3, 2003 LEO DREY CHAIRMAN Mr. Kevin Keith Missouri Department of Transportation Box 270 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 RECAO7 이 ​MAR 6 2003 JOHN KAREL PRESIDENT MO ELEANOR DREY VICE PRESIDENT Mr. Don Neumann Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 LAURA DREY VICE PRESIDENT Dear Mr. Keith and Mr. Neumann: Louis DREY VICE PRESIDENT Our comments here are directed toward your proposed replacement of the Highway 17 bridge in Texas County. SUSAN FLADER VICE PRESIDENT The L-A-D Foundation has been active in Missouri and especially in the Ozarks since 1962. Our interests are in the natural and cultural resources of the region. We own one of the state's historic sites at Dillard Mill as well as several of Missouri's Natural Areas, two of which are located in Texas County. We also own lands directly adjacent to both the Current and Jacks Fork rivers. As a result, we have keen interest in the placement and design for this and other bridges being proposed for the area. KAY DREY SECRETARY WAYNE GOODE TREASURER LEON CAMBRE First of all, we agree with the need for replacing the existing bridge structure. However, we are especially concerned with the immediate and long-term impacts such a project will have on the single- most important piece of public land anywhere in the state, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The resources of this federally protected park must have greater bearing on this and future considerations of highway and bridge re-construction within park boundaries. DOROTHY ELLIS CLAUDIA SPENER JERRY VINEYARD We understand there is a great deal of precedence backed by federal guidelines for preserving the national park character where road construction projects are concerned. Both the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the National Highway Designation Act of 1995 “allow for the preservation of such historic and scenic value.” There must be an alternative for our Missouri situation that does not damage or change the character of the riverways parkland once replacement of the Highway 17 bridge is completed. For these reasons, we feel the DEIS document is incomplete. Both the public and the Missouri Department of Transportation will require an extension of time to more carefully consider these aspects of this project. STAFF SUPPORT GREG FFRIG Please keep us aware of your continuing analysis on this bridge project. We expect to remain involved and appreciate this opportunity to be participating in this initial public review. Sincerely John A. Karel John A. Karel President Cc: Mr. Noel Poe Commission Members, Missouri Department of Transportation Man • Rese • Edu • Rec Cor Grc Lan Owner: Leo A Senior Clinto Terry Greg 1 Technic Danny Mike Tim C RECEIVED Pioneer FOREST MAR 6 2003 MISSOUFI DEF OF RANS. DIRECTOR'S OFICE February 27, 2003 Management Mr. Kevin Keith Missouri Department of Transportation Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 . Research Mr. Don Neumann Federal Highway Adminstration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Education Dear Mr. Keith and Mr. Neumann: Recreation We appreciate this opportunity to comment on your proposal to replace the existing Highway 17 bridge across the Jacks Fork River in Texas County. We hope these comments are helpful and request that we remain on your mailing list as your review and consideration of this pro ject continues. Consulting Group for Landowners Pioneer Forest is privately owned by Leo and Kay Drey with properties near the project area in Texas and Shannon counties. Our nearest ownership to the existing bridge is 4 miles to the northeast. Owner: Leo A. Drey We have operated as a working forest in the Ozarks for more than 50 years and feel fortunate to be able to work in and to enjoy this region. The industry we work with is one of continually adding value to the products removed from the forest. We do this in a conservative manner to the long-range benefit of our owner, staff, direct contractors, and all of our affiliated busi- nesses, Senior Staff: Clinton Trammel Terry Cunningham Greg Iffrig Through our work we have developed a deep appreciation for our Ozark rivers, especially the Jacks Fork and the Current. These two rivers lend a rugged and unique character to this part of Missouri. Their cool waters and affiliated large springs, deep caves, interesting tributary valleys, and cultural features provide important recreational opportunity as well as being sci- entifically important resources. As private landowners we have always tried to exercise op- tions of managing our land towards protecting the visual integrity and water quality within these watersheds. Technicians: Danny Skaggs Mike Adams Tim Dyer We have used the existing Highway 17 bridge on the Jacks Fork River on numerous occas- sions. We agree that the existing bridge should be replaced. We understand from our review of the document that your alternatives which use the existing route are the least disruptive to other private landowners as well as least expensive in public dollars. We support that. P.O. Box 497 Salem, Missouri 65560 Phone 573.729.4641 Fax 573.729.6706 Website: pioneerforest.com Letter to Mr. Kevin Keith and Mr. Don Neumann February 24, 2003 Page Two Where we differ is in the consideration of the Jacks Fork, its valleys, and of course the national park through which this route passes. Your alternatives do not consider this context for the bridge design, ap- proach routing, traffic speed, or even the disposition of the present Buck Hollow access which gives visi- tors direct access to the river. All of this leads us to believe that the primary concern has been to move traffic in the most efficient manner and at the highest and safest speed. We suggest that your consideration allow for the transportation needs here and safety concerns while also giving equal ranking for the many other values of this particular area. This is a rural highway and the set- ting for the existing bridge is a federally-owned national park. We, and we believe all users, would expect traffic at slower speeds, thereby reducing the need for an extended right-of-way, route straightening, road cuts and filling of valleys. It seems to us that using federal funds would require MODOT to claim exemp- tion from otherwise standard federal design, respecting this federal park property. With the current out- look for state as well as federal deficits, exercising more conservative options would reduce costs and makes common sense. We are disappointed that you have not given this consideration to your DRAFT-EIS document. We ask that none of the present alternatives be chosen, instead that you re-consider the entire context of this par- ticular bridge replacement, not just typical bridge standards and highway design. We know that you and your staff are aware of the outstanding character of this area, you simply have not given that appropriate consideration. We hope we can look forward to your analysis of this project with that in mind. For the record we had requested to be on your mailing list for further project information. We made two separate phone calls over the past year or two to 417.469.6231. After hearing no word and realizing your DEIS has already been issued we only recently contacted your Jefferson City office to again have our name be placed on your mailing list. You mailed the DEIS document to us on February 6 with a comment deadline of March 2. We have been left with little more than two weeks to read through the document and prepare our thoughts for you. We mention this issue since despite expressing an ongoing interest in this project we still found ourselves making an extra effort to continue to be involved in this public review. There may be others who would also wish to comment but who have mistakenly been left out of the process. Sincerely, PIONEER FOREST chemat E co Clint Trammel Greg F. Iftrig cc: Mr. Leo Drey Superintendent Noel Poe, Ozark National Scenic Riverways "BH Elliott To jsikorski@sbcglobal.net cc 11/20/2003 08:51 AM bcc Subject Re: Fate of caves near HW 17 Hi Joe, Thanks for your email. Actually, I got it before but just didn't respond owing to trips about then. I will forward your thoughts to Alan Leary, the biologist at MODOT, who went in Concolor or Panther Hollow Cave with me, some cavers and the owner. I don't know if they would require a dye trace or not, but it could be considered. Thanks for your input, Bill >>> Joe Sikorski 11/17/03 7:42:27 PM >>> Bill Elliott wrote:>>> Joe Sikorski 11/05/03 8:49 PM >>> Bill Elliott, I have been involved in several mapping trips in Panther Hollow cave. was happy to hear that you got to see the biology of the cave. I liked the report you presented to MO DOT (I read Ray Mallinkrodts). I have concerns about the highway 17 development site. Your report could be the persuasion that we need to get their proposed site away from the cave. There are parts of the cave though, that we can't get to. Those parts are the groundwater in-feeders that might extend many miles more. Without a good dye-tracing study, the area that encompasses the drainage of the cave may not be fully realized. I have a few questions for you. Do you think that MO DOT would mandate a groundwater dye tracing study like they do for archeology? Has the deadline passed for letting the public speak their minds about the proposal? Is the proposal effort too far along for there to be any time left to do any additional study? Ray and Joel have found some possible dye injection points. There are several other springs around the area that could be the outlets. I feel that the highway construction could significantly alter the karst area. It would be the best of all of our interest if this area is looked into more. I fear that MO DOT might have the belief that all they have to be concerned with is just what their biologist has seen and what the topo overlay of the cave survey shows. This is just a portion of the overall system. Please let me know how you feel about this and let me know if there is anything that we can do to make this cave and the creatures within safe from the construction. Thank you, Joe Sikorski William R. Elliott, Ph.D. Cave Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation Resource Science Division P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 phone 573/751-4115 ext. 3194 Bill. Elliott@mdc.mo.gov http://www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology 1 Mr. Kevin Keith (Chief Engineer), I wish to express some of my thoughts and feelings toward the current construction proposals of highway 17 and the bridge over the Jacks Fork river. I hope you will take the time to read this letter because I believe there could be a lot at stake if the current construction proposals take place. I'm not a tree hugging hippie, but I do believe that this current plan should be looked into further so all possible environmental impacts to the Jacks Fork watershed will be addressed before the construction actually takes place. I feel that the Ozark National Scenic Riverways should be kept as pristine as possible so other future generations can enjoy it just as well. I saw an inspiring television program about the early forestry practices of the Ozarks recently. The program talked about how abusive the clear cutting practices were to the watersheds. On top of the poorly thought out forestry practices, farm animals were allowed to move through the open range of watersheds. Both of these practices contributed to severe erosion and water pollution problems. The rivers and scenery at that time looked quite different. The water hardly had any clarity to it. The sudden change in habitat caused fish to die. The once pretty bedrock bottom rivers were now loaded with gravel that came in from the clearcutted hillsides. Eventually enough of the right people saw this devastation and started to change the practices so that they would support a more recoverable way of handling the lands resources. In conclusion to my point, what you see now and I'm sure are already aware of, is the way the landscape and watersheds can turn around if the proper measures are taken. The inspiration that I got from this show was with how mother nature and time can make the earth heal. The areas may never be exactly the way they were before but they are trying to come back. When it comes to adding a more improved highway or bridge, I feel that a little more compassion toward the well being of this beautiful land would go far. Please take all thoughts and considerations on the lessons learned throughout history when man has changed the lands and waterways. I hope that time constraints don't rush this project into too fast of gear. This could compound problems within this fragile area. Many considerations should be taken when building on karst. Are there any caves underneath? Will any endangered species that live within caves be harmed by soil erosion or future roadway spills? What about salt and cinder runoff into caves during winter? Can this project and what has already been made by nature exist in harmony? How beneficial is this highway and new bridge? Was there ever a big problem with traffic? Could better signage make people more aware of the dangerous curves that lie ahead? With great straight stretches, some people are more inclined to speed which could add a new danger. If this project has to come underway, I hope the use of the already existing road route area can be possible. I hope that the depth into the earth and great width could be reduced somehow. Your decision means a great deal to a lot of people. This land has way of bringing in quite a few people who like to absorb the beauty. Whether it's fishing, hiking, or canoeing, there is also some kind of economical gain that comes with this recreation. Good luck with your endeavors and thank you for your time a Yours Truly, Joe Sikorski 1 1 Joe Light on 02/28/2003 10:54:30 AM Please respond to joe@joelight.com To: CC: COXK@mail.modot.state.mo.us Subject: Re: Copy of DEIS for Route 17 Joe Light 7166 A Jamieson St. Louis, MO 63109 COXK@mail.modot.state.mo.us wrote: > Joe, > > I have received your request for a copy of the Draft > EIS (DEIS) for the > proposed Route 17 project. I need a mailing address > for you, and I will > then proceed to get a copy in the mail to you by > early next week. You can > reach me at the above e-mail or via phone at (573) > 526-6682. Thanks. > > Kelly Cox > Mark S Kross 02/28/2003 07:50 AM To: Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT @ MODOT, Billy E Graham/SC/MODOT @MODOT, Matthew L Burcham/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: EIS for highway 17 (Jacks Fork River bridge) A request and also cave concerns... Forwarded by Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT on 02/28/2003 07:50 AM FIT Mary K Plassmeyer 02/28/2003 07:26 AM To: CC: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT@MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT Subject: EIS for highway 17 (Jacks Fork River bridge) Can you help Mr. Perez? Thank you!! Forwarded by Mary K Plassmeyer/SC/MODOT on 02/28/2003 07:36 AM MSPAR15@aol.com on 02/27/2003 05:40:58 PM To: keithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us CC: Subject: EIS for highway 17 (Jacks Fork River bridge) I am interested in getting a copy of the EIS for highway 17 (Jacks Fork River bridge). I am particularly interested in the color plates. email response please. If no cost please send to: Marc Perez P.O. Box 476 Pacific, MO. 63069 - C.htm Forwarded by Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT on 02/28/2003 07:50 AM IT Mary K Plassmeyer 02/28/2003 07:27 AM ز APR 1 2003 442 Linum Lane St. Louis, MO 63119 March 29, 2003 Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MODOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: I would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. I have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their natural beauty, aquatic diversity and spectacular surroundings. The ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. I encourage your agency to investigate other I options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Vom Videen Tom Videen LYNDA L. RICHARDS 15676 CR 7170 Rolla, MO 65401 RECEIVED APR 2 2003 March 31, 2003 MISSOURI DE FUF FANS. DIRECTORS OFICE Mr. Kevin Keith, Chief Engineer MODOT PO Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Dear Mr. Keith: I understand that MODOT plans to replace the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. This is probably necessary, as your experts have evidently determined that the bridge is dangerous in its present state. However, I object to the rest of the plan, to widen and straighten the two miles of roadway approaching the bridge. The Ozark National Scenic Riverways is famed not only for its natural beauty, but also for its historical values. The present roadway is entirely appropriate for traversing part of the National Park System, and adequate for the small volume of local traffic. I believe it is unnecessary to completely disrupt the Jacks Fork valley with unsightly new road-cuts and the attendant erosion problems. Please consider replacing the bridge with a minimum impact upon this beautiful area. Sincerely, Lynda L. Richards Lynda L. Richards Kathryn A Harvey 04/07/2003 10:08 AM To: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT, Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Forwarded by Kathryn A Harvey/SC/ MODOT on 04/07/2003 10:10 AM David B Nichols 04/07/2003 09:02 AM To: CC: Diane M Heckemeyer/SC/MODOT@MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT, James E Smith/SC/MODOT @MODOT Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) More comments on the Rte 17 DEIS. As you can see from Kevin's note, we want to put some extra emphasis on our commitment to environmental stewardship in this area. Thanks, Dave Forwarded by David B Nichols/SC/ MODOT on 04/07/2003 09:00 AM Kevin L Keith 04/04/2003 12:20 PM To: David B Nichols/SC/MODOT @ MODOT CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) 000000 Dave these seem to make a valid point. Forwarded by Kevin L Keith/SC/ MODOT on 04/04/2003 12:31 PM "Tyler S. Harris" on 04/04/2003 11:48:48 AM Please respond to To: CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) 4 April 2003 Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MODOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: I would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. I have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their natural beauty, aquatic diversity and spectacular surroundings. The ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. I encourage your agency to investigate other options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Mark S Kross 04/07/2003 08:53 AM To: Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge Here are more... Forwarded by Mark S Kross/SC/ MODOT on 04/07/2003 08:53 AM Mary K Plassmeyer 04/07/2003 08:26 AM To: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge FYI. Forwarded by Mary K Plassmeyer/SC/MODOT on 04/07/2003 08:26 AM "Carol Sullivan" on 04/05/2003 10:41:03 AM keithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us To: CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge . C.htm Forwarded by Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT on 04/07/2003 08:53 AM Mary K Plassmeyer 04/07/2003 08:27 AM To: cc: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) FYI. Forwarded by Mary K Plassmeyer/SC/MODOT on 04/07/2003 08:27 AM "Rose Schulte" on 04/06/2003 09:58:14 AM To: cc: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: We would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. We have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their natural beauty, aquatic diversity and spectacular surroundings. The ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. We encourage your agency to investigate other options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Rose and Mike Schulte 2842 Chadwick Dr. Bel Nor, MO 63121 5 April 2003 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: I would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. I have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their natural beauty, aquatic diversity and spectacular surroundings. The ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. I encourage your agency to investigate other options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Carol Sullivan 3730 Arsenal Street St.Louis, MO 63116 --- MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. RE? APR 9 2003 MISO: DRI:C1 April 5, 2003 815 Maupin RD Columbia, MO 65203 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MODOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Dear Mr. Keith: Over the years we have seen too much damage to the Jacks Fork and Current Rivers because of environmental degradation. It needs to stop. One way that can be achieved is to NOT widen the two miles of Highway 17 through the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and to NOT construct a larger bridge over the Jacks Fork River. You can simply replace the bridge and while it might slow things down a bit, is that such a bad thing? Sincerely, 1 Gary Grigsby 1.d.goby Mary quisie Mary Grigsby RECEIVED April 6, 2003 APR 11 2003 MISSOUR! DEF; OF TRANS. DIRECTOG'S OF Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MODOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: I would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. I have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their clear water, biological diversity and spectacular surroundings. The ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. I encourage your agency to investigate other options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to use a route outside the ONSR, or to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, je Then Dan 7104 St. Louis, no Lehocky North mour Dn 63105 1 RECEIVED APR 11 2003 April 6, 2003 MiSSOURI FP; . OF TRANS. CIPECIORS SFFICE Kevin Keith Chief Engineer MoDOT P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Re: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: I would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. I have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their clear water, biological diversity and spectacular surroundings. The ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. I encourage your agency to investigate other options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to use a route outside the ONSR, or to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Sondra V. Como 433, S. Clay St. Louis #u Mo. 63122 statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to simply replace the Highway 17 brid at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Richard Egan 564 Woodlyn Crossing Manchester MO 63021 Kathryn A Harvey 04/16/2003 11:43 AM Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT, Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT @ MODOT To: cc: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) -------- Forwarded by Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT on 04/16/2003 11:46 AM . David B Nichols 04/16/2003 11:29 AM Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT To: CC: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) FYI Forwarded by David B Nichols/SC/MODOT on 04/16/2003 10:29 AM Kevin L Keith 04/16/2003 08:24 AM David B Nichols/SC/MODOT @ MODOT To: cc: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Forwarded by Kevin L Keith/SC/MODOT on 04/16/2003 08:36 AM "Scott Merritt" on 04/15/2003 08:38:03 PM To: cc: Subject: Route 17 Bridge DEIS (Job No. J9P0440) Dear Mr. Keith: I would like to comment on your agency's proposal to replace and upgrade the Highway 17 bridge over the Jacks Fork River. I have a number of concerns about this proposal because of its potential impact on the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. The Jacks Fork and Current Rivers, which flow through the ONSR, have long been recognized as two of Missouri's premier streams because of their natural beauty, aquatic diversity and spectacular surroundings. ONSR should be afforded the highest level of protection because of its importance for recreation and the protection of natural resources. I encourage your agency to investigate other options that would have fewer impacts on the ONSR than those proposed in the environmental impact statement. It is not necessary to dramatically straighten and widen the two miles of Highway 17 that bisect the park, nor to construct a much larger bridge. Instead, I encourage you to simply replace the Highway 17 bridge at its current location. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Scott Merritt D - C.htm 1 RECE Laws, Joel From: Laws, Joel Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:11 AM To: 'Keithk @mail.modot.state.mo.us' Subject: Environmental Impact Statement, Highway 17 Bridge Replacement MAR 20, t MISSOUFp DIRECTO? Missouri Speleological Survey, Inc. Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City MO 65102 27 February 2003 Re: Environmental Impact Statement, Highway 17 Bridge Replacement Dear Mr. Keith: Just west and south of the Highway 17 bridge crossing the Jacks Fork river and within the bridge replacement study area is an on-going unpublished study of the most significant cave in the area. This cave is undergoing a cartographic survey which has so far revealed just under a mile of passages and large domed rooms. The streams are teaming with biological life. Most notably blind crayfish, blind cavefish and grotto salamanders have been frequently sited. See attached photos. The crayfish are presumed to be of the species Cambarus hubrichti (Salem cave crayfish) but it is possible that the species could be one of the other known species of Cambarus or an undocumented species (!!). Hubrichti is a G2 species which means "imperiled globally because of rarity.... It is also ranked as an S3 species "rare and uncommon in the state." The reference to this is Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern, January 2003, Mo. Dept. of Conservation. The blind cavefish is probably Typhlichthys. But it cannot be told easily. It may be the Ozark Cavefish which is Amblyopsis rosae. Rosae is a federally threatened species, state endangered. S2="Imperiled in the state”, G2-G3 ranges from “Imperiled globally" to "very rare". The grotto salamander (Typhlotriton spelaeus) is now listed as a G4 Widespread...may be quite rare in parts of its range", and S2-S3 which is the state ranking ranging from "imperiled in the state" to "rare and uncommon" in the state. The food source for these three species had not been determined indicated additional unknown biological life exist. All three species make further study by qualified biologists important to the area. The Missouri Conservation Department's cave biologist, Bill Elliott has shown interest in this study. Two of the large rooms, 125'x75' with a ceiling height of 100', and 50 in diameter with a ceiling height of 25', would possibly collapse during construction of a highway above. This would have a catastrophic effect on the rare and endangered cave life. . Due to the quantity of caves in the area and the increased destruction of the beautiful and natural lands both within private and federal lands, the best route for improvement of this highway is along it current corridor. Joel Laws Vice President - Missouri Speleological Survey JOEL LAWS 4612 DIECKMANN LA. FLORISSANT, MO. 63034 1 1 Alan Leary 04/21/2003 12:22 PM To: cc: joel_laws@umsl.edu Subject: Environmental Impact Statement, Highway 17 Bridge Replacement Dear Mr. Laws, My name is Alan Leary and I am a Biological Specialist with the Missouri Department of Transportation. We received your comments regarding the above referenced project. MODOT is concerned about all of the Natural Resources in the area of any of its projects. However, we are unable to determine the impacts of our projects if we are unaware of the resources. We checked with the usual sources to determine the location of all known caves in the area of this project before writing the Draft EIS and the cave you mention was not documented. Since receiving your message I have spoken extensively with Mr. Bill Elliott, the Missouri Department of Conservations cave biologist, and he is completely unaware of this cave as well. He is very interested in seeing it and will go with me to explore the cave when I find out its location. Anyway, I would like to ask you to provide me with the precise location of this cave so I can go explore it. I need to know the location and need to look at the cave myself before we can consider this projects impacts to it. This is particularly important in this situation because we have gotten several letters from cavers regarding this cave and the letters are very inconsistent in what they report is in the cave, how big they say the cave is, etc. In fact, a letter from the President of the Missouri Speleological Survey did not even mention this cave. I will be out of the office until Thursday, April 24 (I will be spending the next two days caving with Mr. Elliott and others from MDC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, etc.) so if you could email me your daytime telephone number I will give you a call on Thursday or sometime next week and we can discuss this issue. Thank you, I look forward to talking with you about this cave and this project, Alan Leary Alan Leary Biological Specialist Missouri Department of Transportation 573-526-6678 Missouri Speleological Survey, Inc. Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City MO 65102 27 February 2003 Re: Environmental Impact Statement, Highway 17 Bridge Replacement Dear Mr. Keith: In reviewing this document there are several concerns that we wish to bring to your attention. 1) Cave descriptions were taken from reports submitted by cooperators of the Missouri Speleological Survey (MSS). Yet, no reference or credits were given for these descriptions. Some of these descriptions have been previously published in the journal of the MSS, Missouri Speleology. Sources for this information or credit should be given to the authors of this data. 2) Apparently surveys have not been conducted to determine if there are any rare or endemic species inhabiting caves and springs in the study area. This should be done. Paleontological remains may also be located in these caves and may be of considerable value to understanding past life in the area. If caves are destroyed then every effort should be made to fund recovery studies. 3) Any caves or springs that are destroyed during construction of the bridge should be replaced by equivalent features. This may mean purchasing sites not presently owned by Ozark Riverways. This is only fair to replace lost sites with other, protected public sites. 4) Destruction of known caves and/or springs could be avoided by reworking the design of the project. Using the present road right-of-way would avoid most impacts. 5) It is probable that there are additional caves and springs within the project area. Further field work could determine this. 6) The Impact Statement gives a good description of the work of the MSS. However, it mentions that the descriptions noted above were obtained 1 partially through "coordination” with the MSS. We wish this were so but cannot find any correspondence indicating such coordination ever took place. 8) One of the plates in the Impact Statement gives exact locations of caves in the area. This represents an unauthorized and unreasonable use of the cave data in a public document. There are many reasons for not disclosing this data. If coordination with the MSS had taken place, then this data would not have been released in this format. It would have been easy enough not to distribute this data to the public but only refer to it as unpublished data. We also believe that disclosure of this data violates the intent of the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act. If future cave location data is to be made available to Missouri Department of Transportation then we must have assurances that this information will not be disclosed to the public. If there is a final Impact Statement this plate should not be included in the distribution. 9) Lastly, during new construction, it is possible, and even probable, that previously unknown caves will be opened by blasting or other types of excavation. It is imperative that these caves immediately be investigated by bona fide cave researchers in order to determine if there are significant resources within these caves. A cave without previously known entrances is a rare occurrence and must be investigated by qualified personnel. The discovery of Riverbluff Cave in Christian County is an example of how important such a find may be. The MSS is ready to help should we be needed. Sincerely, Matt Forir President Missouri Speleological Survey, Inc. S MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CONSERVATION DEPARTME Headquarters 2901 West Truman Boulevard, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0180 Telephone: 573/751-4115 A Missouri Relay Center: 1-800-735-2966 (TDD) MISSOURI JOHN D. HOSKINS, Director June 3, 2003 Alan Leary MODOT Environmental Section P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Dear Mr. Leary: I was glad to go with you, Britt Duncan, Joel Laws and Ray Mallinckrodt to Concolor Cave, Howell County, on May 29. I think it is good that we all were able to see the cave, its wildlife and other resources, and to discuss how best to protect the cave from road building and other threats. I am glad to know that the alternate alignment that possibly would have impinged on the cave may be dropped anyway, and we only have to worry about the usual threats against an extensive stream cave like this. Attached you will find a report from our Missouri Biospeleological Database on the species we observed in the cave. I collected small invertebrates for taxonomic identification, and Mike Slay here assisted me in that. The blind isopod, Caecidotea sp., was a female and could not be assigned to a species since one needs a male for that. The female crayfish that I captured, measured and released also could not be assigned to a species for sure, but almost certainly is Cambarus hubrichti, the Salem cave crayfish, which is known from that area. Likewise, the cavefish we saw must be southern cavefish, Typhlichthys subterraneus, which is known from that area. We did not see a Typhlotriton spelaeus, grotto salamander, but Ray Mallinckrodt may have seen a larva far into the cave previously. We will need to confirm that and take a voucher specimen of each species. We have biological records on about 900 caves and springs. With four stygobites (aquatic troglobites, cave obligates) in the cave that we know of, it already rates as biodiverse. With only a preliminary biological survey the cave ranks about 113th in Missouri in "site endemism” and about 81st in overall biodiversity. Site endemism is a measure of the rarity of all the troglobites in a cave. My biodiversity score is derived by multiplying the cave's species richness (11 species), number of troglobites (4) and site endemism (0.1169), to obtain an overall score that can be ranked and compared. Other measures could be used, and the cave's rating will go up when a thorough survey is done. As you know, none of the species in Concolor Cave are threatened or endangered, but three of them are on MDC's Species of Conservation Concern Checklist (2003). I think COMMISSION STEPHEN C. BRADFORD Cape Girardeau ANITA B. GORMAN Kansas City CYNTHIA METCALFE St. Louis HOWARD L. WOOD Bonne Terre that Concolor Cave deserves special protection and recognition because it is now the third site in Missouri that contains three important species of concern: southern cavefish, Salem cave crayfish and grotto salamander. Before Concolor, only Dead Man Cave, Oregon County, and Maramec Spring, Phelps County, could claim all three. In fact, there are only four caves in Missouri that have a grotto salamander and any species of cavefish and cave crayfish. So, Concolor Cave is quite special, in my opinion. As MDC's cave biologist I serve as an advisor and assistant to agencies and landowners in Missouri when it comes to cave resources. I have a cave gating program, and if it becomes necessary to protect this cave with a properly designed and engineered cave gate, I may be able to assist in the design and funding. Attached is my “Cave Gating Criteria” document, which we give to MDC biologists and landowners who need to know more about the subject. Sincerely, William R. Elbett William R. Elliott, Ph.D. Cave biologist, Resource Science Division copies: Britt Duncan, Joel Laws, Ray Mallinckrodt attachments Missouri Biospeleological Database A Cooperative Project of the Missouri Department of Conservation, William R. Elliott, Data Manager 6/3/03 Report on Concolor Cave, Howell County Phylum Arthropoda Class Arachnida Order Araneae Family Undetermined Undetermined sp. William R. Elliott generic spider 5/29/03 1 collected. Place: entrance room 10 m from entrance Large spider with globular abdomen, trogloxene. Order Opiliones Suborder Palpatores Family Sclerosomatidae Leiobunum sp. William R. Elliott TX daddy longlegs harvestman 5/29/03 2 observed. 1 collected. Place: entrance room 5 m from entrance Class Crustacea Order Decapoda Family Cambaridae Cambarus hubrichti Hobbs 1951 William R. Elliott. TB Tentative ID 1 observed. Salem cave crayfish 5/29/03 Place: main passage 150 m from entrance 54.4°F 1 female in side pool of stream channel. Carapace 28 mm, R claw 20, L claw 18, abdomen 30. Returned to pool. Joel Laws 5/29/03 1 observed. Place: side crawl 50 m from entrance 1 Family Amblyopsidae Typhlichthys subterraneus Girard 1859 William R. Elliott Tentative ID TB Southern cavefish 5/29/03 4 observed. Place: stream, pools 200 m from entrance Up to 22 have been seen previously by Ray Mallinckrodt. We were in the cave 5 hours. Class Amphibia Order Caudata Family Plethodontidae Eurycea lucifuga Rafinesque William R. Elliott. ТР Cave salamander 5/29/03 3 observed. 5 m from entrance Tentative ID TB Typhlotriton spelaeus Stejneger 1892 Ray Mallinckrodt Grotto salamander 5/29/03 Place: above waterfall? 300 m from entrance Larva previously seen in back of cave by Ray Mallinckrodt. Need to confirm. Class Mammalia Order Chiroptera Family Vespertilionidae TX Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus (Cuvier) William R. Elliott. 5/29/03 13 observed. Place: belly crawl to big room 54°F 11 tallied through main passage until the Ear Dunk, then we saw a 2 more. 3 1 Alan Leary/SC/MODOT 06/06/2003 12:44 PM CC To Mike L Wake/D9/MODOT@MODOT Billy E Graham/SC/ MODOT@MODOT, Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT@MODOT bcc Subject Texas, Howell Counties - Route 17 Mike, I just wanted to send you an update on our cave issue. On May 29 I visited the mystery cave. Myself, Rusty Weisman (MoDOT Cultural Resources), Bill Elliott (MDC Cave Biologist), Joel Laws (one of the cavers), Ray Mallinkrodt (caver), and Britt Duncan (landowners son), all toured the cave. We met the landowner and the cavers and sat at the landowners trailer for awhile discussing the project and the cave, looking at maps, etc. It was very cordial. I did not detect any animosity. Everyone seemed willing to cooperate and do whatever necessary to protect the cave. We then hiked down and went into the cave. We spent about five and a half hours in the cave. It is a very pristine cave. It has a lot of biological diversity in it and contains several rare species. Mr. Elliott sent us a report indicationg that it ranks in the top 100 in the state in terms of biological diversity and is one of only three caves in the entire state that has grotto salamanders, cave crayfish, and southern cavefish in it. It also has a nice stream flowing through it and some beautiful formations. This cave is definitely a resource that we need to try to protect. Anyway, the landowners son was very friendly and very concerned about this project. He and his father own 137 acres in that area and do not want a highway bisecting it. They do not live on the property but use it as a sort of weekend getaway/hunting lodge. He was also concerned about protecting the cave. The cavers provided me with a map of where the cave passage goes under ground and it appears as though alternative B is the only one that would have a major direct impact on his property or the cave. Other alternatives may indirectly impact the cave because of the karst topography down there. The best way for us to determine that would be to conduct dye tracing studies in the area. This is something we will have to discuss with you. L From an environmental standpoint, I think our next step needs to be to plan some field work down there and explore some of the other caves that would be directly impacted by alternatives G and H (the two that seem to be the preferred at this time). We need to kind of compare caves from a sensitivity standpoint. Even though the Park Service considers all caves significant, I think some are more significant than others. We need to look at the others so we can compare them. It appears as though this project is going to have an impact on some caves no matter which alternative we choose, so we need to choose the one that will impact the least significant caves. I think this cave that we jsut looked at (the cavers are calling it concolor cave) will be the most significant one in the area. Anyway, that is just a brief update on our tour. Give me a call (573-526-6678) if you have questions or would like to talk more about it, ΑΙ To: cc: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Subject: Highway 17 Bridge Proposal FYI. Forwarded by Mary K Plassmeyer/SC/MODOT on 02/28/2003 07:37 AM Nss38457@aol.com on 02/27/2003 06:48:01 PM To: keithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us CC: Subject: Highway 17 Bridge Proposal Mr. Kevin Keith, Please consider the impact of publishing cave locations in your reports. There are some very sensitive caves in the area. As a caver I have witnessed the damage that can be caused by traffic and vandalism in caves. Again, please do not publish locations of our very sensitive natural resources "caves". Thank You, Korey Hart Vice President Mississippi Valley Ozark Regional National Speleological Society . C.htm Forwarded by Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT on 02/28/2003 07:50 AM TTT Mary K Plassmeyer K 02/28/2003 07:28 AM To: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOTO MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT cc: Subject: Highway 17 comments FYI. Forwarded by Mary K Plassmeyer/SC/MODOT on 02/28/2003 07:38 AM "Matthew Forir" on 02/27/2003 10:08:10 PM To: keithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us CC: Subject: Highway 17 comments C.htm 17 comments.doc Kathryn A Harvey 03/04/2003 07:37 AM To: cc: Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT@MODOT, Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT@MODOT Subject: Hiway 17 Bridge --------- Forwarded by Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT on 03/04/2003 07:38 AM David B Nichols 03/03/2003 04:46 PM To: cc: Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT Subject: Hiway 17 Bridge Kathy, More feed back on Rte 17, DEIS. Dave Forwarded by David B Nichols/SC/ MODOT on 03/03/2003 03:45 PM IT Kevin L Keith 03/03/2003 01:16 PM David B Nichols/SC/MODOT @ MODOT To: CC: Subject: Hiway 17 Bridge 20OOOO Forwarded by Kevin L Keith/SC/ MODOT on 03/03/2003 01:39 PM "Andersen, Sue" on 02/27/2003 06:28:49 PM skeithk@mail.modot.state.mo.us> To: CC: Subject: Hiway 17 Bridge Mr. Kevin Keith, Chief Engineer: According to information just received thru the MOCAVES Bulletin Board: "A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is out for the replacement of the Highway 17 Jacks Fork River bridge and road approaches in Texas County. The document is quite lengthy and CRF and the MSS are commenting on it. Without going into a lot of other issues, I will mention that one definite 1 outstanding problem (in addition to the possible destruction of federal significant caves) is the publication (in the EIS) of cave locations in the area. One color plate shows the exact locations of at least 78 caves in Texas and Shannon County. The National Park Service has already protested this inclusion in a (presumably) public document." While I have not lived in the area for the last 11 1/2 years, Missouri is my home and is where my heart lives. Since 1968 I have been active in the caving community starting during my college years in the MSM Spelunkers Club, thru my time in KCMO in the Kansas City Area Grotto, and from 1975 thru 1971 in the St. Louis area in both the MMV and MVG grottoes, and I feel very strongly that you must not publish certain sensitive information. ! I, too, must add my protests to the disclosure of any and all such cave locations in a public document. It has long been the policy of the Missouri Speleology Society to protect such information and make it available only to persons whose reputations and characters are known to the scientific community. To include this information in documents that are freely disseminated would do unnecessary harm in that John Q. Public and his "good ole boys" could then romp thru sensitive ecological cave systems. This information is considered private by many land owners and I seriously doubt if you have procured each land owner's permission to publish the location of caves located on his property. This could have serious legal repercussions. Please reconsider your position on this matter. Sincerely, Kathryn S. Andersen 11328 SW 9th Manor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33328 ksemerson@hotmail.com RECE; ID APR 14 2003 VS. MISSOUR: DIRET SHANNON SPELEOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTIIVIE 119 W. HIGH St. Willow Springs, Missouri 65793 (417) 469-5724 ilo Ruy Muffinckrodis - Direcior April 7, 2003 Mr. Kevin Keith Chief Engineer Missouri Department of Transportation P. O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 Subject: Design of Route 17, Howell, Shannon, Texas Counties, Job No. J9P0440 (Replacement of Bridge J-665) Dear Mr. keith, I would like to make my opinion clear on the Hwy. 17 bridge replacement project Job No. J9P0440. My organization and its associates are the founders of a very significant cave that is within the current study area for this project. It contains several threatened species i.e. Salem Cave Crayfish (Cambarus hubrichti), Southern Cavefish (Typhlichtys subterraneus), and Grotto (Ozark Blind) Salamander (Typhlotriton spelaeus). This cave is currently being mapped and presently exceeds 1 mile of surveyed passage. Likewise, there is also another smaller cave located further upstream in this hollow, which we have completed surveying. These 2 caves were previously unrecorded. On 03-21-03 I did a short cursory survey of the Buck Hollow Access / Cardinal Acres area. I at this time found 2 more, yet unrecorded spring effluent caves. All these caves will be seriously impacted by this project. As well as the lithic archaeological remains near these newly discovered resources. There are also a few seeps and a spring located nearby a In the course of mapping the 2 afore mentioned caves, it was discovered that there are a series of parallel joints or fissures. These fissures trend East to West. In another side passage of the larger cave, and yet another set of parallel fissures were encountered. These trend to the Northwest. Thus making a “box work-like’ set of lines in the underlying ridges. On the North side of the bridge, a cave known as Skylight Spring is also aligned on one of these Northwest trending joints. This proves that these fissures run through the immediate vicinity of the study area for this project. These fissures are also visible (on the surface) in the hollow where the new caves at Cardinal Acres were discovered. These fissures are also encountered on the surface as far west as the Barn Hollow Natural Area. These fissures will definitely be punctured if any road cuts are made and will also pose a threat to exposing caves that are formed within them. In the large cave some of these fissures are as much as 20 feet high. At present this cave is only 70 feet from the surface. The amount of fill would also be more than previously foreseen due these fissures. So the fact is that the impacts to the surrounding environment will be greater than you might realize. And all of the alternate routes would impact caves and other resources. If these fissures and any sinkholes become exposed or altered, along with the potential of spills, it would also jeopardize the groundwater and impact springs and local water wells that could extend for many miles underground. Or the recharge areas for the spring within the vicinity of this proposed project. Hills are indicative of Ozark topography and they also provide the scenic beauty that draws visitors to the Ozark National Scenic Riverway (ONSR). So I fail to understand how it becomes possible to think that roads can be built and not reflect the terrain. The present roadway as it approaches the Jacks Fork River is characteristic of the topography and affords the scenic views and ambiance of the region that visitors expect to encounter. It appears that the proposed lane and shoulder widths are not subject to the entire stretch of Hwy. 17 between Mountain View and Houston (where these wide lanes may be possible to achieve), but are only intended to be built of all places, where the road becomes the most restrictive. To me this does not appear to be prudent logic. Furthermore, even with the 500-foot corridor allowed for any of the build alternates', when all the cultural and natural resources are built around, the new road would no doubt exhibit a 'snake-like' appearance. Thus many turns and blind corners seem to me to be unavoidable. This just doesn't seem to have changed the accident potential or hazards we are told are to be corrected by the initiation of this project. I also feel that the cultural resources that are present, even though they are not yet eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at the present time, should not be destroyed. They will in time then still remain and will later be eligible, and at that time a part of our history will then be preserved and not destroyed by something as simple as a road. If we are to believe what we are being told in your Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) this project will not facilitate increased traffic. I find this rather hard to believe, or be the case. And if it does not increase traffic volumes through the area what is the real purpose for building this roadway? Currently the volume of large truck traffic is quite surprising, and these are not local carriers. Trucks are consistently using this road (especially late at night) and the only logical explanation is that they are using this as a short cut to avoid the weight scales on Hwy. 63 at Willow Springs. And the DEIS also makes statements that the recreational opportunities at the Buck Hollow Access will not be eliminated nor diminished. Again, I do not believe this to be the truth. Certainly floaters, backpackers, hikers, and the like will be taken into consideration and their opportunities may be unaffected. But my question to you is what about my opportunities to recreate as a caver? The cave(s) that will be destroyed no longer provide my associates and other cave related organizations such as the Missouri Speleological Survey (MSS), and Cave Research Foundation (CRF), to continue our specified discipline in the fields of research and future study of these features. So in light of these facts I am completely opposed to any and all of the "build alternatives” that are proposed. And let it be known that there only seems to be one clear option that is feasible and that is a "BUILD IN PLACE” option. Specifically rebuild a new bridge at the present site. This bridge could be built wider than the existing bridge and thus making the project Job No.J9P0440 a success. Because the bridge is no longer obsolete, the deficiency is now corrected. Again in the DEIS we are told this is not an option. Why? If one reads the cover of the DEIS and not open one page it clearly states BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. Nowhere does it state Road Development until one begins to read the document and then bridge replacement becomes an afterthought. This is then once more disregarded by all the proposed routes to avoid this ‘build in place option” which is clearly the most effective and less detrimental to the environment and not to mention the (ONSR) lands which have been set aside for protection from such issues just as this proposed project. A suitable detour route would be to use Hwy. Y, going north, then the Jacks Fork Rd, then use Hwy. W going east, which takes you back to Hwy. 17 anyway. The portion of Jacks Fork Rd could be paved and would save the taxpayers considerable amounts of money. Or this same route could easily be another (ONSR) avoidance route, that should be considered / or should have been in the first place. So if this route is used as a detour or as an alternate the existing bridge will be removed and that cost will be spent regardless. I will again state for the record that I would personally like to see the remaining roadway be used and a new bridge be built in place, if any work on this project is to be administered at all. Or leave well enough alone. I thank you for your time in considering my opinion and hope that this letter will be evaluated and addressed and made part of the transcripts for final evaluation on this project. Sincerely, Ray Mallinckrodt ننننننننننن تجمع شيمكنتنينننسمعطیسیملشنيحعنلن بانتان من نننننننننننننننننننلنمه Ko DATE CONVERSATION RECORD 12:30pm. 1914/25/03 TYPE ROUTING VISIT NAME/SYMBOL INT CONFERENCE TELEPHONE INCOMING OUTGOING ORGANIZATION (Office, de pt., bureau, TELEPHONE NO. (SIN WITH YOU Location of Visit/Conference: I was at my desk. etc. Shannon Speleological Ray Mallinckrodt Research Institute 1417-469-5724 Route 17 Bridge Replacement SUMMARY نملنمتنعتا:متن الماليينننمنننينتين من ينفينتان نمیکنند found. He did not من مختلسسلننهعنلنننعنلندة 'I called Mr. Mallinckrodt to find out the location of this new cave the the area cavers have found want to tell me the location. He said he would have to put some numbers together + call me back. He kept emphasizing that the cave was on private land and therefore MBC and the Park Service were not interested in it. He then said that the landowners were very protective + he would have to go along, if I went to look at it. He said he has the key to the gate. He finally agreed that we could meet down there and he could show us the cave. In another effort to keep me from going down there he said that he + Scott House were going & tó de a Biological Inventory of the cave + they could send me pictures of the critters. I told him I needed to see the cave myself. Bill Elliott, Mike Slay myself need to find a date to go down there + then I need to set it up w/ Mr. Mallinckrodt. 4/25/03 I called Mike Slayt asked him to pick a date that would work for him & Bill Elliott. Biological Specialist 4/25/03 indismáli halisi ACTION REQUIRED, NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE DATE Alan Leary Alan W. Leary ACTION TAKEN, а SIGNATURE TITLE DATE نوعان Alan W. heary 50271-101 U.S. SINERNME.:OT PRINT! -C 2.VI. :"28.2.1.0.1 CONVERSATION RECORD OPTIONAL FORM 271 (12-76) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RECEIVED Cave Research Foundation FEB 2 8 2003 MISSOURI! PIC TRANS. DIRECTOS'S OFFICE Mr. Kevin Keith MODOT Box 270 Jefferson City MO 65102 Mr. Don Neumann Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City MO 65101 February 26, 2003 Dear readers: This constitutes the Cave Research Foundation response to the Highway 17 Bridge EIS, covering an area within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, a unit of the National Park system. For the record it should be noted that Cave Research Foundation does not normally comment on highway projects; it is only the nature of the area being considered that moves us to do so. Cave Research Foundation has conducted cave investigations in the Jacks Fork area for many years and has cooperated with the National Park Service and the Missouri Speleological Survey in their efforts to understand the karst resources of the lower Ozarks region. First, we believe that insufficient time has been allowed to obtain a copy of the EIS, circulate it among interested parties, and compose comments. We would ask for an extension so that a more complete analysis can be done. Position statement of Cave Research Foundation: In general, we understand that the present bridge is not wide enough for modern traffic. Also the structure, although historic, is deteriorating. We support its removal or in situ replacement We do not support either of the alternatives G or H )which have been noted as being likely alternatives). Both will forever change the nature of the area at Buck Hollow. Neither do we support any of the other offered alternatives. Instead, we support either: -Rerouting of Highway 17 utilizing present road corridors (Y and 137 or Y and W) to the west of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways; or -Rebuilding the bridge in situ on its present footprint. This would be done in conjunction with modest improvements to the present roadway in order to partially eliminate two curves, improve line of sight distance, and provide for wider road lanes. We are not in favor of the project as presently designed. The standards are created by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), of which MODOT is presumably a member. Therefore, MoDOT is adhering to standards, which it helped create. Federal highway funds will be used on this project. Legal authorization exists for MODOT to exempt this project from those standards. This authorization is contained within the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the National Highway System Designation (NHS) Act of 1995. These legislated provisions permit different standards that allow for the preservation of such historic or scenic value” and allow for the “natural environment of the area" and “environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity.” > The area considered is within a national park unit. Why has MoDOT not sought exemption from these standards for this project? There is no discussion why such exemptions have not been considered. • Section 1016(a) of ISTEA states: “If a proposed project... is located in an area of ... Scenic value (approval is given) to standards that allow for the preservation of such... scenic value and such project is designed with mitigation measures to allow preservation of such value... Again, why have these exemptions not been considered? Instead of deep cuts and fills, the project could use the existing roadbed (with width and straightening modifications to improve safety), install guardrails, utilize tighter curve radii, and steeper grades than AASHTO's current standards. Much is made in the EIS of these standards; the “Roadside Design Guide” is mentioned to justify wide clear zones but the “Flexibility in Highway Design” document is not mentioned even though it shows how such standards can be mitigated and exempted. The design of the actual bridge structure seems to be somewhat left to the imagination. In one part of the EIS it is said that the final design will be done in conjunction with the National Park Service. Elsewhere the EIS notes that the sides of the bridge will be solid concrete. If there is already such a design then the EIS needs to indicate such and provide photographs or drawings of how such a concrete structure will fit in to the Park's aesthetic environment. Further, if the design already exists, then the cooperative design discussion needs to be replaced with a simple statement that the design will be left up to MODOT. The rights of way requested seem unreasonably large for a unit of the National Park Service system. a Process: Much is made in the EIS of interagency “teams” that were supposedly created to work on the project. Did any of these “teams” ever actually meet? Can MODOT provide the dates, attendees, and minutes of these "team” meetings? If they did not meet and were not active in the creation of this EIS and the alternates, then the EIS needs to say so. A preferred alternative is not given. Further, there are no designs. It is very difficult to comment on the proposed action when the proposed action is not identified. The alternative for "Improving the Existing Facility” did not include the possibility of building a temporary bridge at the mouth of Buck Hollow. Further, the detour mileages given are total miles, not additional miles to be driven. A large truck bypass utilizing highways 137 and Y would be about 20 miles longer than the present route (not 40 or 50); smaller vehicles could use W and Y for much of their traffic needs during reconstruction – a route that is only 5 or 6 miles longer. The short section of county road that connects W and Y could be blacktopped (for detour convenience) for a cost much lower than the millions spent on cutting and filling for a new highway. MoDOT has shown in the past that it is capable of removing and reconstructing a bridge in short order; this project would give them yet another chance to do so and save money at the same time. > Comments on Karst and Cave Resources: Any of the given alternatives, as presently designed, will cause the loss of karst and cave resources. If an in-park route is selected, then mitigation of lost resources must take place. This could be in the form of additional purchases of caves and springs or in providing funds that would allow the protection of other such resources within the park. Little is known about the biotic life of the caves in the study area. Although most of the caves have been mapped, they have not had such biological censuses as are necessary to insure the nature of threatened or lost habitats. Some forms of life are endemic to only one area or even one cave stream. Without a systematic inventory of these caves and springs, it is not known what life forms exist. Descriptions of caves are given in the various alternatives discussions. Most of these descriptions are generated from the work of the Missouri Speleological Survey and Cave Research Foundation. This work appears without credit. On page 13 it is stated that the "spring system in this area is world class...” Partially true, the numerous spring systems are indeed features of world significance; but they are mostly separate features, not one system as indicated. Reference is made to the Smithville formation incorporating the Jefferson City and other previously named formations. Is this correct? If so, it is certainly different than recent publications of the Department of Natural Resources. A differentiation is made between caves, natural tunnels, and natural bridges. It needs to be noted that these are all variations on a theme; a natural tunnel is a cave, formed by the same processes. Cave researchers may name these differently, but they are, in fact, essentially the same. The discussion on a difference between a natural bridge and a natural tunnel is similarly incorrect as well as confusing and should be left out. On page 27 a paragraph describes that “information concerning the location and description of caves and other notable geologic features...were obtained from unpublished data... and coordination with... MSS.” No known coordination with the MSS took place. The “unpublished reports” have mostly been published in Missouri Speleology and are in fact, the work of certain researchers. To use their material without permission or credit given is, at best, impolite, and at worst, potentially a violation of copyright laws. To rectify this, MODOT should request the use of the material from the Missouri Speleological Survey and credit the researchers and cartographers who contributed the material. Although Skylight Spring Cave is listed as a “cave” one could argue that it is a natural tunnel, since one can enter one entrance and leave via another. The use of the riparian area by foraging bats should be studied further to ascertain whether or not maternal females are utilizing the area during the summer. The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 provides for the protection of cave information, specifically locational data. Please reference the following: Sec. 5. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION CONCERNING NATURE AND LOCATION OF SIGNIFICANT CAVES. (a) IN GENERAL.-Information concerning the specific location of any significant cave may not be made available to the public under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless the Secretary determines that disclosure of such information would further the purposes of this Act and would not create a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction of such cave. By policy, all NPS caves are significant. Plate 10 shows the locations of significant caves within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. This should not have been published in a public document and any coordination with the Missouri Speleological Survey, National Park Service, or Cave Research Foundation would have indicated such. Many of these caves may have values that can be irreparably harmed by excess visitation or vandalism. We would request, in the strongest terms possible, that this material not be published in the final EIS. Effect on the Park: In general, people do not visit national parks in order to experience rapid transportation. They come for different values and expect to see them. The proposed alternatives G and H would radically change the viewshed and ambiance of the Buck Hollow area. Hills and curves are expected by visitors to the region and are not foreign to residents as well. Features such as Buck Hollow and the triangular knob across the road from it are exemplary features of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Visitors do, in fact, occasionally climb to the top of the knob for the scenic views. These alternatives would change the nature of this area forever. It is better. In our opinion, to replace the present bridge and make modifications to the roadbed than to create a new, larger roadbed that will either destroy Buck Hollow or the beautiful triangular knob. Exemptions to the highway standards can be made, the bridge can be replaced, and the roadway can be improved without ruining the values of the national park. If MoDOT is unwilling to make these compromises, then the project should be moved outside of the park. Since there have been no visual representations of the proposed project we are reduced to examining other, similar, MODOT projects for comparison. We have looked at the highway 19 bridge over the Meramec River, and the highway 106 and 60 bridges over the Current River. The bridges over the Current have been inspected from the park user aspect, which is to say, from the river. Both are exceedingly obtrusive with concrete rip- rapped abutments, lack of trees, etc. The Meramec bridge has an exceptionally wide right-of-way and more closely resembles an interstate highway than a two-lane state road. Since MODOT staff have indicated that the highway 17 bridge will not resemble any of those projects, in what way, exactly, will they not? Since the probability is that the 17 bridge, as planned, will resemble one or more of the above projects one can conclude that there will be considerable losses in terms of the outdoor experience in the Buck Hollow recreational area. Lastly, how will one access the Buck Hollow access point if alternatives G or H are built? Will there be an additional road built beginning higher on the hill? Will a turnout curve around and under the bridge? Surely there will not be an intersection at the present location, given the limited sight distance. Or will the area have to be abandoned due to lack of safe access? If this is the case then there will be an impact on the local economy as outfitters may find it impossible to launch canoes in that easily accessible area. If a connector road is planned then why is it not discussed? Other Comment: Table 8 gives the average household income of Shannon County to be exactly the same as the state of Missouri and more than $10K greater than adjoining counties. Is this correct? Section 4(1) Evaluation: The NPS Management Policies 2001, Section 9.2.1.2.2 Construction and Expansion Proposals includes the following language: In accordance with 23 USC 138 and the Organic Act, the NPS will object to any proposal to route a state or local road through national park lands, or to increase the size of a right-of-way for an existing road, unless the NPS first determines (or concurs with at DOT determination) that: - There is no feasible and prudent alternative; -All possible planning has taken place to minimize and mitigate harm to the park. - It will not be contrary to the public interest, or inconsistent with the purposes for which the park was established; -It will not cause health and safety risks to visitors or park staff, and - It will conform to NPS standards and practices for road design, engineering and construction. It has not been demonstrated that the there is no feasible alternative. Secondly, since planning teams apparently never met, how could all possible planning have taken place? An obtrusive roadway is, in fact, inconsistent with the purposes of the park. Next, where is a discussion of the Buck Hollow access area and how it will be accessed after reconstruction? Lastly, where is it demonstrated that the proposed road will conform to NPS standards and practices? a We understand that Alternates G and H have options for higher bridges. But there is little, if any, data on the specifications of these options or their effects. For example, optional G is 30ft higher and yet there are no figures given on the depth of road cuts or amount of fill necessary. It is impossible to evaluate these options without more information. The cut for Alternate H, while short, would probably be lengthy by most visitors' perceptions. Optional H should be less by a considerable amount yet those figures are not given. > a Not being bridge engineers we are having difficulty with the specifications given. If bridge G or H were built they are to be 30ft above the river, same as the present structure. But they would be twice as long. How is this? It sounds like a lot of removal of material. The few structures at Buck Hollow (toilet, etc.) are protected, to a certain degree, by the present bridge abutment. If this is removed for a longer bridge, would not the force of current during flood events (not rare) possibly affect these structures? The end of the 4(f) document indicates that there are potential mitigation measures that could explored. However, no firm mitigation measures are delineated. This type of delineation is needed before the 4(1) compliance is complete. Summary: As previously stated we cannot support any of the given alternatives. Alternate G and H options have possibilities but lack data on their effects. We repeat that our preferences are for the structure to be rebuilt on its own footprint or that highway 17 be routed outside the park. If a redesign is planned or if the technical committees actually meet, then we stand ready to help R. Scott House Ozarks Operation Manager Cave Research Foundation 1606 Luce Street Cape Girardeau MO 63701 scott house@semo.net Kathryn A Harvey_02/27/2003 11:08 AM To: Kelly R Cox/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: 17 Bridge EIS Forwarded by Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT on 02/27/2003 11:10 AM Mary K Plassmeyer 02/27/2003 10:52 AM To: Mark S Kross/SC/MODOT @ MODOT Kathryn A Harvey/SC/MODOT @MODOT CC: Subject: 17 Bridge EIS FYI. Forwarded by Mary K Plassmeyer/SC/MODOT on 02/27/2003 11:02 AM "Scott House" on 02/27/2003 08:45:56 AM To: CC: Subject: 17 Bridge EIS Dear Mr. Keith: Please find attached the EIS re ponse of Cave Research Foundation. A hard copy will follow. Thank you, Scott House Ozarks Operation Manager Cave Research Foundation -C.htm CRF17.doc Cave Research Foundation Mr. Kevin Keith MODOT Box 270 Jefferson City MO 65102 Mr. Don Neumann Federal Highway Administration 209 Adams Street Jefferson City MO 65101 February 26, 2003 Dear readers: This constitutes the Cave Research Foundation response to the Highway 17 Bridge EIS, covering an area within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, a unit of the National Park system. For the record it should be noted that Cave Research Foundation does not normally comment on highway projects; it is only the nature of the area being considered that moves us to do so. Cave Research Foundation has conducted cave investigations in the Jacks Fork area for many years and has cooperated with the National Park Service and the Missouri Speleological Survey in their efforts to understand the karst resources of the lower Ozarks region. First, we believe that insufficient time has been allowed to obtain a copy of the EIS, circulate it among interested parties, and compose comments. We would ask for an extension so that a more complete analysis can be done. Position statement of Cave Research Foundation: In general, we understand that the present bridge is not wide enough for modern traffic. Also the structure, although historic, is deteriorating. We support its removal or in situ replacement. We do not support either of the alternatives G or H (which have been noted as being likely alternatives). Both will forever change the nature of the area at Buck Hollow. Neither do we support any of the other offered alternatives. Instead, we support either: -Rerouting of Highway 17 utilizing present road corridors (Y and 137 or Y and W) to the west of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways; or -Rebuilding the bridge in situ on its present footprint. This would be done in conjunction with modest improvements to the present roadway in order to partially eliminate two curves, improve line of sight distance, and provide for wider road lanes. 1 We are not in favor of the project as presently designed. Need: We do not think that enough information has been gathered concerning the need for this project. Specifically, we believe that Route 17 does, in fact, serve as a truck bypass (not a shortcut) for both highway 60 and highway 63. There is one weigh station serving this entire area. It is on highways 60-63 at Willow Springs. Truck traffic moving north/south on 63 or east/west on 60 must pass this weigh and inspection station. However, this station can be bypassed (from either axis) by utilizing highway 17. The types of trucks that may attempt to bypass the weigh station are not only fuel tax evaders; they probably included overloaded trucks and hazardous materials carriers lacking proper permits. These types of trucks constitute the worst sort of traffic - overloaded trucks that may be carrying hazardous materials. If there is data that shows that this possibility is not correct, then the EIS should demonstrate it. Otherwise the data is incomplete. Overloaded trucks may have contributed to the rapid decay of the bridge deck; hazardous materials carriers constitute a hazard to the Jacks Fork River and the national park around it. a Safety and Level of Service: From Table 5, it would appear that the least safe section of the road is from the river south to the Howell County line. This is interesting as it appears to be a much straighter section than the curvy section just north of the river. Could it be that the cause of most accidents in the area is something other than the nature of the road? Possibly the lower rate of accidents on the north section is due to the slower speeds that drivers use when going through that area. It is also possible that most accidents south of the river occur in the vicinity of the Buck Hollow access road. How will this access road be changed in the proposed action? There will still be a road there and it will presumably still be close to the bridge, resulting in limited sight distance. Any other design would call for additional land to be utilized for a new access road. This issue of access to Buck Hollow has not been touched upon in any detail. It seems unnecessary for a Level of Service (LOS) of A to be achieved. The characteristics for LOS A indicate “low volumes and high speeds.” Surely this is not the desired effect on this section of road. Why not aim for LOS B, which is used for the design of rural highways?” Design and Right of Way: An excessively wide right of way is being requested for this project. Even if some widening of the present roadway is necessary there is no need for a straightening project of 2 miles or more in length. The creation of deep road cuts and the filling of valleys (hollows) is not necessary for the bridge to be replaced. a The entire question of the deep road cuts and/or fills is related to highway standards. Certainly normal highway standards call for a certain amount of cut and fill to meet standards relating to radii of curves, clear zones, grades, etc. However, MODOT can utilize exemptions to these “standards”. 2 The standards are created by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), of which MODOT is presumably a member. Therefore, MODOT is adhering to standards, which it helped create. Federal highway funds will be used on this project. Legal authorization exists for MODOT to exempt this project from those standards. This authorization is contained within the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the National Highway System Designation (NHS) Act of 1995. These legislated provisions permit different standards that “allow for the preservation of such historic or scenic value” and allow for the “natural environment of the area” and “environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts of the activity.” The area considered is within a national park unit. Why has MODOT not sought exemption from these standards for this project? There is no discussion why such exemptions have not been considered. Section 1016(a) of ISTEA states: “If a proposed project... is located in an area of ...scenic value (approval is given] to standards that allow for the preservation of such...scenic value and such project is designed with mitigation measures to allow preservation of such value..." Again, why have these exemptions not been considered? Instead of deep cuts and fills, the project could use the existing roadbed (with width and straightening modifications to improve safety), install guardrails, utilize tighter curve radii, and steeper grades than AASHTO's current standards. Much is made in the EIS of these standards; the “Roadside Design Guide” is mentioned to justify wide clear zones but the “Flexibility in Highway Design” document is not mentioned even though it shows how such standards can be mitigated and exempted. The design of the actual bridge structure seems to be somewhat left to the imagination. In one part of the EIS it is said that the final design will be done in conjunction with the National Park Service. Elsewhere the EIS notes that the sides of the bridge will be solid (presumably of concrete). If there is already such a design then the EIS needs to indicate such and provide photographs or drawings of how such a concrete structure will fit in to the Park's aesthetic environment. Further, if the design already exists, then the cooperative design discussion needs to be replaced with a simple statement that the design will be left up to MODOT. . a The rights of way requested seem unreasonably large for a unit of the National Park Service system. Process: Much is made in the EIS of interagency “teams” that were supposedly created to work on the project. Did any of these “teams" ever actually meet? Can MoDOT provide the dates, attendees, and minutes of these “team” meetings? If they did not meet and were not active 3 in the creation of this EIS and the alternates, then the EIS needs to say so. A preferred alternative is not given. Further, there are no designs. It is very difficult to comment on the proposed action when the proposed action is not identified. The alternative for "Improving the Existing Facility” did not include the possibility of building a temporary bridge at the mouth of Buck Hollow. Further, the detour mileages given are total miles, not additional miles to be driven. A large truck bypass utilizing highways 137 and Y would be about 20 miles longer than the present route (not 40 or 50); smaller vehicles could use W and Y for much of their traffic needs during reconstruction a route that is only 5 or 6 miles longer. The short section of county road that connects W and Y could be blacktopped (for detour convenience) for a cost much lower than the millions spent on cutting and filling for a new highway. MoDOT has shown in the past that it is capable of removing and reconstructing a bridge in short order; this project would give them yet another chance to do so and save money at the same time. Comments on Karst and Cave Resources: Any of the given alternatives, as presently designed, will cause the loss of karst and cave resources. If an in-park route is selected, then mitigation of lost resources must take place. This could be in the form of additional purchases of caves and springs or in providing funds that would allow the protection of other such resources within the park. Little is known about the biotic life of the caves in the study area. Although most of the caves have been mapped, they have not had such biological censuses as are necessary to insure the nature of threatened or lost habitats. Some forms of life are endemic to only one area or even one cave stream. Without a systematic inventory of these caves and springs, it is not known what life forms exist. Descriptions of caves are given in the various alternatives discussions. Most of these descriptions are generated from the work of the Missouri Speleological Survey and Cave Research Foundation. This work appears without credit. On page 13 it is stated that the “spring system in this area is world class...” Partially true, the numerous spring systems are indeed features of world significance; but they are mostly separate features, not one system as indicated. Reference is made to the Smithville formation incorporating the Jefferson City and other previously named formations. Is this correct? If so, it is certainly different than recent publications of the Department of Natural Resources. A differentiation is made between caves, natural tunnels, and natural bridges. It needs to be noted that these are all variations on a theme; a natural tunnel is a cave, formed by the same processes. Cave researchers may name these differently, but they are, in fact, essentially the same. The discussion on a difference between a natural bridge and a natural tunnel is similarly incorrect as well as confusing and should be left out. 4 On page 27 a paragraph describes that “information concerning the location and description of caves and other notable geologic features...were obtained from unpublished data...and coordination with... MSS.” No known coordination with the MSS took place. The “unpublished reports” have mostly been published in Missouri Speleology and are in fact, the work of certain researchers. To use their material without permission or credit given is, at best, impolite, and at worst, potentially a violation of copyright laws. To rectify this, MODOT should request the use of the material from the Missouri Speleological Survey and credit the researchers and cartographers who contributed the material. Although Skylight Spring Cave is listed as a “cave” one could argue that it is a natural tunnel, since one can enter one entrance and leave via another. The use of the riparian area by foraging bats should be studied further to ascertain whether or not maternal females are utilizing the area during the summer. The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 provides for the protection of cave information, specifically locational data. Please reference the following: Sec. 5. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION CONCERNING NATURE AND LOCATION OF SIGNIFICANT CAVES. (a) IN GENERAL.-Information concerning the specific location of any significant cave may not be made available to the public under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, unless the Secretary determines that disclosure of such information would further the purposes of this Act and would not create a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction of such cave. By policy, all NPS caves are significant. Plate 10 shows the locations of significant caves within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. This should not have been published in a public document and any coordination with the Missouri Speleological Survey, National Park Service, or Cave Research Foundation would have indicated such. Many of these caves may have values that can be irreparably harmed by excess visitation or vandalism. We would request, in the strongest terms possible, that this material not be published in the final EIS. Effect on the Park: In general, people do not visit national parks in order to experience rapid transportation. They come for different values and expect to see them. The proposed alternatives G and H would radically change the viewshed and ambiance of the Buck Hollow area. Hills and curves are expected by visitors to the region and are not foreign to residents as well. Features such as Buck Hollow and the triangular knob across the road from it are exemplary features of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Visitors do, in fact, occasionally climb to the top of the knob for the scenic views. These alternatives would change the nature of this area forever. It is better. In our opinion, to replace the present bridge and make modifications to the roadbed than to create a new, larger roadbed that will either destroy Buck Hollow or the beautiful triangular knob. 5 Exemptions to the highway standards can be made, the bridge can be replaced, and the roadway can be improved without ruining the values of the national park. If MoDOT is unwilling to make these compromises, then the project should be moved outside of the park. Since there have been no visual representations of the proposed project we are reduced to examining other, similar, MoDOT projects for comparison. We have looked at the highway 19 bridge over the Meramec River, and the highway 106 and 60 bridges over the Current River. The bridges over the Current have been inspected from the park user aspect, which is to say, from the river. Both are exceedingly obtrusive with concrete rip- rapped abutments, lack of trees, etc. The Meramec bridge has an exceptionally wide right- of-way and more closely resembles an interstate highway than a two-lane state road. Since MODOT staff have indicated that the highway 17 bridge will not resemble any of those projects, in what way, exactly, will they not? Since the probability is that the 17 bridge, as planned, will resemble one or more of the above projects one can conclude that there will be considerable losses in terms of the outdoor experience in the Buck Hollow recreational area. Lastly, how will one access the Buck Hollow access point if alternatives G or H are built? Will there be an additional road built beginning higher on the hill? Will a turnout curve around and under the bridge? Surely there will not be an intersection at the present location, given the limited sight distance. Or will the area have to be abandoned due to lack of safe access? If this is the case then there will be an impact on the local economy as outfitters may find it impossible to launch canoes in that easily accessible area. If a connector road is planned then why is it not discussed? Other Comment: Table 8 gives the average household income of Shannon County to be exactly the same as the state of Missouri and more than $10K greater than adjoining counties. Is this correct? Section 4(1) Evaluation: The NPS Management Policies 2001, Section 9.2.1.2.2 Construction and Expansion Proposals includes the following language: In accordance with 23 USC 138 and the Organic Act, the NPS will object to any proposal to route a state or local road through national park lands, or to increase the size of a right-of-way for an existing road, unless the NPS first determines (or concurs with at DOT determination) that: -There is no feasible and prudent alternative; -All possible planning has taken place to minimize and mitigate harm to the park. - It will not be contrary to the public interest, or inconsistent with the purposes for which the park was established; -It will not cause health and safety risks to visitors or park staff; and -It will conform to NPS standards and practices for road design, engineering and construction. 6 1 Pine Crest Liso He prior ny 760 1200 : 98 7 100 200 starman 00 70 N Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and Alternate C Plate 4 Alternate C NExisting Route 17 Termini Points Mountain View City Limits Ozark National Scenic Riverways NWI Data Emergent Forested Open Water Scrub-Shrub N Jack's Fork River Streams Cemeteries County Boundary 1 o Springs Stream Crossings 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet 100 pavy 160 200 HT her Stallman 1700 1.67 miten 11685 199. انا 42 no N Plate 8 NWI Data Emergent Forested Open Water Scrub-Shrub Alternate G NExisting Route 17 21 Termini Points Mountain View City Limits Ozark National Scenic Riverways Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and Alternate G N Jack's Fork River V Streams 1 Cemeteries County Boundary 2000 Feet o Springs Stream Crossings 1000 1000 0 1 100 You 4 160 1200 stalkman 7!6.3 100 N Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and Alternate H Plate 9 1 N Jack's Fork River v Streams Cemeteries County Boundary Alternate H NExisting Route 17 1 Termini Points Mountain View City Limits Ozark National Scenic Riverways POD NWI Data Emergent Forested Open Water Scrub-Shrub o Springs Stream Crossings 1000 0 1000 2000 Fee RIW senteron Pakalue Sortecont HOWHLE AONYES! Mountain View City Parks 9 suntain Vieta Husb tot N N Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Alternate Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and Plate 10 Alternate NExisting Route 17 21 Termini Points Mountain View City Limits Ozark National Scenic Riverways NWI Data N Jack's Fork River Emergent Forested Streams Open Water f Cemeteries Scrub-Shrub County Boundary o Springs 2000 0 2000 Stream Crossings 4000 Feet 01 RUW 84 Upland Deciduous Forest Deciduous Woodland 9 Eastern Redcedar and Redcedar-Deciduous Forest Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Mountain View Shortleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Open Water Urban Impervious Urban Vegetated N County Boundary Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and Overview Land Cover Plate 11 NExisting Route 17 Termini Points Zo Mountain View City Limits Ozark National Scenic Riverways 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet { 1 1168 100 26 25 TOQ OO NON ş oor 100 1/00 Termini Points N Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and 1998-2002 Accident Data Plate 12 Accidents 1998-2002 Fatal Injury Property Damage Only NExisting Route 17 Ozark National Scenic Riverways N Jack's Fork River Streams County Boundary ^ NWI Data Emergent Forested Open Water Scrub-Shrub 300 0 300 600 900 Feet Arroll Oakride T! pitng Cere REW 10 ott 8 161 HOMELIA CO 9 Lamtain yie Mountain View . Sinkholes Ozark National Scenic Riverways N Mountain View City Limits Job No. J9P0440 Route 17 Shannon Counties Howell, Texas and Sinkholes Plate 13 NExisting Route 17 Termini Points County Boundary 11 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet 3 . Appendix E i Context Sensitive Design Beautifying Safety MODOT 賽 ​Route 17 Jacks Fork River - / Universal ECONOMY VISW BINDERS 2 ROUND