20010870 Ver 1_Complete File_20010611

A? ?f d
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVIEN'T OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 6, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Mecklenburg County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 131 on
SR 2074 over McDowell Creek. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2074(1),
State Project No. 8.2673801, TIP No. B-2589.
Dear Sir: 0 1 0 8 7 0
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 131 on SR 2074 (Neck Road) over McDowell Creek (DWQ Index # 22-25-6) a
Division of Water Quality "Class WS-IV CA" Waters of the State. Bridge No. 131 will
be replaced with a new bridge approximately 50 feet north of the existing bridge. The
new structure will be approximately 135 feet in length and 28 feet wide. The total- project
length is approximately 871 feet. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
the construction period. Please find the enclosed site map, streambank reforestation
sheet, permit drawings, the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document (Appendix One), and
the protected species memo regarding the bald eagle (Appendix Two).
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Bridge No. 131 has four spans totaling 81 feet in length. The superstructure is composed
of a timber deck on I-beams and the supporting substructure has both timber and concrete
interior bents. There is potential for components of the existing bridge to be dropped
during demolition, resulting in approximately 46 yd3 of temporary fill. NCDOT will
adhere to the Best Management Practices for "Bridge Demolition & Removal" during the
removal of the existing structure, to prevent debris from falling into Waters of the United
States.
Jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the construction of the proposed project. Total
proposed wetland impacts will be 0.15 acre, including 0.12 acre of fill and 0.03 acre of
mechanized clearing. The proposed wetland impacts are depicted in the attached permit
drawings.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
MITIGATION
NCDOT proposes to compensate for the 0.15 acre of jurisdictional impacts, using
0.20 acre of on-site restoration. The NCDOT will grade down areas associated with the
original roadbed, not consumed by the new alignment, to meet the elevation of the
adjacent wetland. This area will then be replanted using tree species which occur
naturally within the adjacent floodplain area. The proposed on-site restoration is depicted
in the attached permit drawings. Tree species to be planted include tag alder (Alnus -
serrulata), silky dogwood (Cornus ammomum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), and willow oak (Quercus
phellos). See the attached "Streambank Reforestation Detail Sheet" for information
regarding specific planting mixes and densities.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 26 February 2001,
the Fish and Wildlife . Service (FWS) lists five federally protected species for
Mecklenburg County (Table 1). Since the CE (approved May 1998) was completed, the
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been added to this list. A site investigation
and species survey was conducted on 15 August 2000, for the bald eagle. Based on the
field survey results, abiological conclusion of "No Effect was rendered (see Appendix
Two for the Protected Species Survey memo dated 17 January 2001, which includes a
complete species description and the resulting biological conclusion). The biological
conclusions for the four other listed species remain valid.
Table 1. Federallv-Protected Species for Mecklenburg Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E No Effect
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii T E No Effect
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
All historic and archaeological issues have been addressed for this project. It has been
concluded that this project will have no effect on historic architectural resources nor will
it have an effect on eligible archaeological resources. Letters from the NC State Historic
Preservation Office as well as a Concurrence Form for Properties Not Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places are attached to the CE document.
SUMMARY
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (65
FR 12817, 12899; March 9, 2000). We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of this application to the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mrs. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Benton G. Payne, P.E., 10 Division Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Project Planning
Mr. Bryon Moore, P.E., Roadside and Environmental Unit
- N.C. N. B-2589
? TYPE 1 STRE.,"IBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 3 FT. TO. 5 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 4 M ON CENTER, APPROXMATELY 2724 PLANTS PER ACRE.
? TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 6 I°I'. TO 10 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 680 PLANTS PER ACRE.
? NOTE: TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 STRI:MIBANK REFORESTATION SI3ALL BE
PAID FOR AS "STREAMBANK REFORES'I'AT'ION"

STREAMBANK It.EFOMSTATION TYPICAL
TYPE II
f TYPE .I
8 Ff. I - -
STRFAM
STREAM tBANK REFORESTATION _
MA'TURE,TITE, SIZE,AND FURNISTI STULL CONFORM TO THE 1`011,0WING:
TYPE 1
50% ALNUS SERRULATA TAG r1LDER 12 in - 18 in BR
50% CORNUS AMMOMUM1I SILKY DOGWOOD 12 in - 18 in BR
TYPE 2
25% FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA GREEN ASH 12 in - 18 in BR
25% PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS SYCAMORE 12 in - 18 in BR
25% BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 12 in - 18 in BR
25% QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK 12 in - 18 in BR
? SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO B.
TED
PRo7IECT
5 !T15
VICINITY
MAID
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2673801 (B-2589)
SR 2074 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
6 7
75
I
) '/"

„-

O I\?<`.- _
I1 -770-1-? 718

?NX'?????
:- 7v-
7
/

J, -100
745 tAl ve II .?
AI IS)

PR?JEG'i` S t T 5
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

LOCATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
MAP PROJECT: 8.2673801 (B-2589)
(APPROX. SCALE 1" = 2000)
SR 2074 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SHEET 7- OF ?
k?
b
ca &N
W
a Ov j
W d
W M
w I
m ? ?I
W /
O p
=a /
V N
U I
M
NNN

I Of
?
P
u
F
wN ?d
?V m

O:
UYo
U
I
3
1
8N
3
4w
W
Z W
U
=a
_J VI " N
C
wz
Q
~
Z
W
z
?
f d X

0 M
~
<20M
OO,
Q J4Q
w m
0
S
N \
O LL
i \
Y

5 0
4
3
p
\ { R
]
yy
LL; V
1 \U

f? LL\ Q t F 1
OWa
uo

' ORR
m
H Jti m

WI G
F
I"?9
O
H
1"-"9 F
U
l
?J
R:
z
z U ? Ca
d z
F" cG A p
3 ?, ? HA
z z
x ?
y
* rt
k rt rt
k * rt
k
k k
H

W
F,

00
I
I
I
? ? ? ) I ? 00
a
o
'O
'o d a ?/
^ 1+1 ? ? w

?
3 r ty
t
H U ® ?I
0.9'92973 N .-`
A ?W?aa i
d+ O
S6'bb+I3 V1S -7- 30VNJ ON3 A A q W
U W

p
..
\
A '

1 o
N

? -
U
ao

h - +
e?? + p
?\\ C
0

p S
OS'b0+9/ V1S -7- 3N/110?2I1S ON
9
- \ 10
\ aq' ?
? U
-

05'69+b1 V1S -7- 3a1710Nb15 N1938 I
`
, o
0 U

b? ( r
n W l
Y
aw>
?_ x
N 1
Q ?.

1
4W> 1

66'Z99 73
00105+0/ V1S -7- 3042/9 N1038 ? o
0

p

? z
®

N 00 w

x fz c W
I
00 A ?

® ® z w v
- ?; ® a w

W

$ - Q \

'
? ?
o - O0
b99 ? O
l Q ' ?
? } ? o
H

g ? I x
?

_ o
(n N V -
F - z U
U
Q O
CL m
CO N
? N
W
LL
LL
:3
a)
O
Q I C U
O ^ L
N
a
C
N C O
p ca G
U
L
W U
w o z
°
C: -
~ N N
U H Q Z m
2
0

a

O ,
O
C7 U o

" m m LL O
FN w z E O c
- o m
Q
o
a
ii o t- Fn W U
CL
i

U w
-
D°
w C U o
? c U ? d r"
Q ! Z LL

N 0
O
Q C Z
K _a 0
_ w
w
D LL
2

3 ^
m °
N
c 3 m
-Z

} LL ...
2' a M
Q N c_ O

O
O
C
a
c 'C
11 0 O
L d
v U m
Cn 1N-

f- Q
a oa
-c o

Q - ? v
w
g
- N
w

3 ii C
p
E u

C c N
O N
' 0
L
3
?N
U N
` (,)
c
N LL
co
3
a
1D
0

o 0
+
c
C
J c ?
o?
LL o
N

® z
0
W

®
? x ? a
cn ? U c W
? W U? M a"

® v
® a m
A ? w ?

A
?
fs o H

® U , ca W
W
z ? ?
+ N + N Co 00

-C 00 N +'N ON p
V)

N
L
N
0-1 U
O
W
T
U
O
LL Qj
N
0.=
N
A
Q
?i 00 O OL. N

Z F-

W
Z

O
>-
F-
W LL w?
Q
?
C O
O
2
d

M- U Q

O
NO
N
N
O
L
'p ao
O
'0
+ 00

co
N
7 Z ?Z
0
Z CZ ?

r OL 0 ??
O
O ?U C C
U
W ]
2 ?
2

?-- ~ ? Z Z
F-
O 2?
O W ? W W
?
L/)
Q U? S Z
U 2 a, u LLJ
>- W
O

F- UN ? O
v w2 ?

Q ?

APPENDIX ONE

Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 131 on SR 2074
Over McDowell Creek
Federal Project BRZ-2074(1)
State Project 8.2673801
TIP # B-2589
010870
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date .(,;-Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
?M
i
Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 131 on SR 2074
Over McDowell Creek
Federal Project BRZ-2074(1)
State Project 8.2673801
TIP # B-2589
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
J ham ----
oject Planni Engineer
UvCc vac
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
5-29-98
,,?; 0/, A
. -, ?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 131 on SR 2074
Over McDowell Creek
Federal Project BRZ-2074(1)
State Project 8.2673801
TIP # B-2589
Bridge No. 131 is located in Mecklenburg County on SR 2074 crossing over
McDowell Creek. It is programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid
Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 131 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 41 meters (135 feet) in length and 8.5 meters (28 feet) in width on new
location approximately 15 meters (50 feet) north of the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.0 meter (3 foot)
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders. The shoulder will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is
required. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be approximately
60 km/h (35 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 853,000, including $ 800,000 in construction
costs and $ 53,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $ 532,000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's), along with
North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds," will be
included and properly maintained throughout project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exceptions may be required for design speed.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2074 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 900 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
projected to be 2200 VPD in the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit on this section
of SR 2074. Bridge No. 131 and the dead end road (SR 2074) provide the only access to
a waste water treatment plant, several homes, and a locally designated historic landmark.
Four school busses each cross the bridge four times daily.
The existing bridge was completed in 1961. It is 24.7 meters (81 feet) long.
There are approximately 6.4 meters (21 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge
deck and streambed. The two travel lanes provide 5.8 meters (19 feet) of bridge roadway
width.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 39.3 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is not posted with weight
restrictions.
The structure is located on a tangent section of roadway with curves on the east
and west approaches. The vertical alignment is good. The pavement on the approaches
to the bridge is approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet) wide. Shoulders are approximately
1.2 meters (4 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document. Each maintains traffic
on site since SR 2074 is a dead end road. Each alternative provides an alignment with a
design speed of 60 km/h (35 mph). They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace Bridge No. 131 on the existing location with a bridge
approximately 41 meters (135 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained during
construction using a temporary on site detour to the north. The temporary detour would
require a bridge approximately 25 meters (82 feet) in length.
Alternate 2 would replace Bridge No. 131 on new location to the north with a
bridge approximately 41 meters (135 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
2
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I ALTERNATE 2
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Temporary Detour
Engineering & Contingencies $ 245,700
11,300
370,500
272,500
150,000 $ 245,700
11,300
423,000
0
120,000

Total Construction $ 1,050,000 $ 800,000
Right of Way $ 38,000 $ 53,000
Total Cost $ 11088,000 $ 853,000
VII RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 131 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge
approximately 41 meters (135 feet) in length and 8.5 meters (28 feet) in width on new
location approximately 15 meters (50 feet) north of the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The new bridge will provide two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.0 meter (3 foot)
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter
(8 foot) shoulders. The shoulder will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is
required. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed for the permanent
alignment will be 60 km/h (35 mph).
Both alternates are nearly the same in overall potential impacts to biological
resources. Neither alternate affects a great amount of wetland, however, Alternate 2 will
impact slightly more. The division engineer concurs with the recommendation of
replacing the bridge on new alignment to the north and maintaining traffic on the existing
bridge during construction.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it is the most economical alternate, will
cause only minor biological and ecological impacts, and will not have any impact on the
historical area west of the bridge.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the
existing inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
Hazardous spill catch basins are not justified near this bridge since this section of
SR 2074 is a rural, dead end route with relatively low traffic volumes.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no
relocatees. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that will be adversely affected
by the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
An underground telephone line runs along the south side of the road and becomes
aerial over the stream. Utility impacts are expected to be low.
4
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The project is located in one of the last remaining rural areas in Mecklenburg
County, near a peninsula surrounded by Mountain Island Lake and the Catawba River.
The project is located east of and adjacent to the McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP). The project area is heavily wooded and undeveloped. There are no
urban land uses in the project area.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impacts of land acquisition and construction projects on
prime and important farmland soils. The proposed bridge replacement will not impact
prime farmland. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but
the area to be converted is wooded and void of agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) noted the location of Rural
Hill Plantation (MK 1479), a 260 acre plantation complex. Rural Hill Plantation, located
west of the existing bridge, is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion A for agriculture, Criterion B for association with Major John
Davidson, Criterion C for architecture, and Criterion D for archaeology. The property is
a locally designated historic landmark. In a meeting on June 5, 1997, representatives of
the NCDOT, SHPO, and Federal Highway Administration agreed that replacement on
new location to the north would have no effect on the historic property. If the bridge
were to be replaced at the existing location, further coordination with SHPO and the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission would be necessary.
Representatives of the Department of Cultural Resources "are aware of no other
properties over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect and
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project."
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) knows of no archaeological sites within
the proposed project area. Based on present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. Therefore, the SOA
recommends that no archaeological investigations be conducted.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Geology
The project area lies within the Charlotte Belt of intrusive rocks and consists of
gabbro of the Concord Plutonic Suite. A knoll on the east side of the project area is very
rocky, with large boulders scattered over the ground surface; this feature is very
characteristic of this rock formation in this region. Surface rock was apparent in parts of
the project area.
Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Mecklenburg County is located in the Piedmont
physiographic region in south-central North Carolina. The landscape consists of rolling
hills with more gently sloping or flat ridgetops; the ridges are irregularly and highly
dissected, and small knobs and knolls are prominent. Elevations range from 198-
244 meters (650-800 feet). Floodplains are poorly developed except along major
tributaries of the Catawba River such as McDowell Creek. McDowell Creek has a
sizeable floodplain both northeast and southwest of the project area, but narrow within
the project area. The largest floodplains associated with the Catawba River are under
reservoir waters.
The soils of the project vicinity are in the Iredell-Mecklenburg association. The
majority of these soils formed in residuum from rocks high in ferromagnesian minerals
and tend to basic pH. They are moderately to well-drained with clayey subsoils occurring
on nearly level to strongly sloping terrain. However, within the project area, only soils of
minor extent in this association occur. Monocan loam occurs in the floodplain, Cecil
sandy clay loam (8-15% eroded) occurs on the west slope, and Pacolet sandy loam (15-
25%) occurs on the east slope. The upland soils in the Charlotte Belt are highly
susceptible to erosion when disturbed.
The Monocan series is formed from fluvial sediments in nearly level terrain along
streams and drainageways. It is somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable, and
characterized by slow surface runoff and brief periods of flooding in late winter and early
spring. The seasonal high water table is only 0.15-0.60 meters (0.5-2.0 feet) in winter
and spring.
The Cecil series formed in residuum from acid metamorphic and igneous rock. It
is well-drained and moderately permeable with a clayey subsoil, occurring on gently
sloping to strongly sloping uplands. The subsoils are strongly acid, water tables are deep,
and surface runoff is medium.
The soils of the Pacolet series are similar in characteristics to the Cecil series.
They differ in that they occur on steeper slopes and surface runoff is rapid.
6
There have been no hydric soils mapped within the project area. However, the
Monocan series is indicated as having hydric inclusions of poorly drained soils in
depressions against the sideslopes. Such depressions containing hydric soils are found
within the project area.
Waters Impacted
The project region/vicinity lies in the sub-basin 03-08-33 of the lower Catawba
River Basin. The affected stream reach of McDowell Creek is water resource Index No.
11-115-(1.5).
Drainage from the project area is directly into McDowell Creek, a small tributary
flowing southwestward into the Catawba River. The Catawba River in this section is
dammed to form Mountain Island Lake. It appears that McDowell Creek in the project
area is influenced by the backwaters of the lake to an elevation of 197 meters (645 feet)
MSL, being considerably wider at this point than it is a short distance upstream.
The Catawba River Basin is thoroughly described in a basinwide management
plan. This basin is the most densely populated of any river basin in the state. The river
arises in the Blue Ridge Mountains, flows eastward and then southward to South
Carolina. The drainage area of the basin in North Carolina is 5598 square kilometers
(3279 square miles), the 8th largest in the state. The mainstem of the river is almost
entirely impounded by a series of seven hydropower reservoirs, known as the "Catawba
Chain Lakes." Mountain Island Lake is the sixth in the series downstream. In this part of
the state, the river deviates from its southward course by making two large bends in the
project region. The lower Catawba River Basin consists of 42% urban/built-up land.
The sub-basin 03-08-33 covers 376 square kilometers (220 square miles) in the
Catawba River Basin, including Mountain Island Lake and the Dutchman's Creek
watershed. The population was 47,301 in the 1990 census, giving a density of 218
persons per square mile. Mountain Island Lake covers 1,309 hectares (3,234 acres) in the
sub-basin. The reservoir is used for hydropower (two power stations), recreation and
water supply. Streams in the sub-basin are predominantly sandy, with silt and clay
substrates. Land use is predominantly agricultural, with recreational and residential
development near the lakes, thus making it less urban than other sub-basins in the lower
Catawba River Basin.
McDowell Creek will receive all of the runoff from the roadway and construction
activity. There are no small perennial or intermittent streams in the project area.
7
Stream Characteristics
McDowell Creek is a typical low-gradient Piedmont stream. McDowell Creek in
the project area is apparently influenced by the backwaters of Mountain Island Lake; it is
a wide and relatively deep stream here.
At the time the site was investigated, following a period of fairly high
precipitation, McDowell Creek was 23 meters (74 feet) in width at the bridge site. Water
depth varied from 7.6-15.2 centimeters (3.0-6.0 inches) in a large shallow area behind a
debris dam on the northeast side under the bridge to 0.9-1.2 meters (3.0-4.0 feet)
elsewhere around the bridge. Upstream of the WWTP effluent discharge, the water depth
was only between 15-30 centimeters (6-12 inches) and no pools were evident. Current
speed and turbidity were moderate. The substrate consists of very coarse sands, and there
are extensive sandy shores in the project area. A large sandbar occurs on the southeast
side. It appears that the large debris dam which covered half the width of the bridge on
the upstream northeast side has caused heavy sedimentation to form the large shallows
that exist there. Insert debris consisting of numerous small leaf packs is present in the
shallows.
The stream channel splits about 37 meters (120 feet) below the bridge and then
rejoins to form a small island about 69 meters (225 feet) long. The small floodplain
narrows at the bridge, but then widens considerably below the bridge where the
backwaters of the lake broaden the stream into McDowell Cove. Stream banks vary from
very gradual and gently sloping to short almost vertical rises up to 1.2 meters (4.0 feet) in
elevation.
There are some higher elevations within the floodplain, and there are several
depressional areas that contained standing water up to 0.3 meters (1.0 foot) deep at the
time of site study. These depressions are wetlands, while the surrounding floodplains are
not.
Best Usage Classification
McDowell Creek is classified as a Class "WS-IV" stream in the project area
(NCDEHNR 1993). Approximately 914 meters (3000 feet) downstream, the waters of
the creek are classified "WS-IV CA." Mountain Island Lake is classified "WS-IV and B
CA." All unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they
are tributary.
WS-IV waters are defined as follows: "waters protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of
treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules ... {of Subchapter 2B of the
Administrative Code); local programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater
discharges of pollution shall be required; suitable for all Class C uses".
Class "B" streams are "freshwaters protected for primary recreation which
includes swimming on a frequent and organized basis and all Class C uses".
Class "C" streams are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife." This is the lowest
freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum.
"CA" refers to a critical area, "the area adjacent to a water supply intake or
reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining portions
of the watershed. Mountain Island Lake is a water supply for the city of Charlotte.
Water Quality
Chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and
physical (AMS or ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic macroinvertebrate
(BMAN) samplings] are available for two stations on McDowell Creek and one station
on Mountain Island Lake. Samplings on McDowell Creek were done in 1990. A lower
station, approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) upstream of the project area adjacent to
SR 2128, was given a Good-Fair bioclassification and Support-Threatened (ST) overall
rating. A middle station, approximately 5.8 kilometers (3.6 miles) upstream of the
project area, was given a Fair bioclassification and a Partially Supporting (PS) overall
rating. The headwaters area was rated Fully Supporting (S). Sediment is the problem
parameter on McDowell Creek. An AMS station on Mountain Island Lake above Gar
Creek is rated Fully Supporting overall and for all uses, including fish consumption,
aquatic life and secondary recreation, and drinking water. The lake was considered to be
oligotrophic in 1992.
There are 545 permitted NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System) dischargers in the Catawba River Basin. In the Piedmont portion of the basin,
non-point runoff has lowered the water quality, but there are also problems from urban
stormwater runoff and point source dischargers. There are 33 dischargers (three major,
28 minor) in the sub-basin, with a total permitted flow of 7.78 MGD. The Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities Department WWTP located on McDowell Creek is a major
discharger, permitted at 3.00 MGD.
Mountain Island Lake is currently under study by the Division of Environmental
Management and the Mecklenburg Department of Environmental Protection. Recent data
show elevated nutrient levels entering the lake from McDowell Creek. During 1992, a
surface algal bloom developed in the McDowell Creek Cove, raising concerns about lake
water quality and impacts from increasing development in the watershed. The WWTP
effluent is the probable major source of nutrients. Studies were to be conducted in 1993
and 1994 to identify the potential pollution sources, and nutrient removal will be required
upon major modification or expansion of the WWTP.
9
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Water quality data indicate that there are water quality problems from a variety of
sources.. It is well-known that water quality can be impacted by highway construction
activity; substantial pollution discharges are possible, particularly when roads, culverts,
and bridges are constructed. Construction impacts can degrade waters, with pollutants
and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs
derived from highway construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage,
control runoff, and reduce or eliminate stream disturbances. These measures must
include an erosion and sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage,
storm water management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best
Management Practices must be employed consistently.
The following table summarizes potential water resource impacts. The McDowell
Creek bridge crossing is the only surface water resource that will be impacted. Some
wetlands also will be impacted. There could be potential indirect impacts to downstream
offsite wetlands.
Water resources potential impacts (approximate values) in study corridor.
Alt. I Alt. 2
McDowell Creek crossing 23 meters (74 feet) 23 meters (74 feet)
Stream surface area 0.07 hectares (0.18 acre) 0.06 hectares (0.14 acre)
Wetlands <0.01 hectares (0.02 acre) 0.02 hectares (0.04 acre)
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of McDowell Creek,
certainly not much more than it has already been modified through past construction of
the existing bridge. Streams can be crossed effectively, and with minimal impact, with
application of appropriate construction techniques and bridge and culvert designs.
Careful design should avoid the necessity of any stream relocation. Erosion control
measures will be necessary to protect the stream, and all instream activities should be
scheduled during low flow periods. When the old bridge is removed, similar precautions
will be necessary to reduce potential impacts..
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that
protects streams. Increased light levels will result in higher stream temperatures and
modified species composition in affected stream reaches. Removal of streamside forest
affects sediment flux, chemical and biological transformations, food availability, habitat
structure, and dissolved oxygen availability. Sediment deposition will adversely affect
aquatic organisms.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1 (water supplies in
10
natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped watersheds).
The project does not lie within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of such resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the Inner
Piedmont Ecoregion. No unusual or especially sensitive elements were located during
the field investigation, as noted below. The season of the year during which the field
investigation was conducted precluded the inclusion of certain birds and herbaceous
plants in community descriptions.
Plant Communities and Land Wines
Plant community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. In the project area, the original upland vegetation
appears to have generally consisted of mixtures of Basic Mesic Forest and Basic Oak-
Hickory Forest. Piedmont Alluvial Forest was undoubtedly well-developed along
McDowell Creek. The original vegetation has been modified through forest cutting and
land clearing. All forests are second-growth, with the largest trees averaging about 30-46
centimeters (12-18 inches) dbh, only a few larger. Some of the communities are early-
successional in nature or artificially maintained in a low state of succession.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, eight communities and land types
are recognized in the study corridor. These are divided into three groups: Natural
Communities, Maintained Communities, and Developed Land Types, but some of the
designations are fairly arbitrary. These communities and land types are described below,
and coverage estimates for each classification in the project area are given. The type with
the greatest coverage in the study corridor and that potentially will be most heavily
impacted in project construction is Upland Forest [about 0.16 hectares (0.38 acre)].
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each species
are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing importance and
abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant, common (frequent),
uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare species are sometimes
described as being present only. Each stratum in a vegetated community is usually
treated separately. Sometimes, only a general statement about relative importance is
given, e.g., important or not important.
Natural Communities
Upland Forest. The upland forests in this area have developed over a local area
of intrusive rocks with basic tendencies. Surface rocks of this type are evident in the
forests. Basic Mesic Forest occupies the lower slopes, and Basic Oak-Hickory Forest
occurs in somewhat higher slope positions. The forests are distinctly different from the
predominant forests in the region that have'developed in acidic soils. One feature that is
11
especially striking is the diversity of this forest. This diversity could be seen only with
the woody plants; it should be assumed that the herbaceous flora is equally diverse.
No one tree species is dominant. Common canopy trees are beech, tuliptree,
white oak, black oak, southern red oak, with white oak being the most common.
Somewhat less common are mockernut hickory, shagbark hickory, black walnut,
Shumard oak, and northern red oak. Infrequently occurring trees included sweetgum,
white ash, black cherry, southern sugar maple, black gum, water oak, shortleaf pine, and
Virginia pine. Post oak was a rare canopy tree. The subcanopy consisted of common
chalk maple, occasional to frequent ironwood and redbud, and infrequent American holly,
flowering dogwood, pawpaw, and red cedar. Sourwood was a rare subcanopy tree.
Small transgressives included common boxelder, uncommon hackberry, and rare willow
oak.
Silverberry was a common to abundant shrub. Spicebush was an occasional
shrub. Blackberry was rarely present. Several vines occurred infrequently, including
poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, crossvine, and grapes. Common greenbrier was
present.
There was evidence of only a few herbs, several of them weedy species invading
from the roadsides. White clover, near the roadsides, and Japanese grass were
uncommon. Other herbaceous species present were sedge, oat grass, chickweed, avens,
wild ginger, aster, Indian strawberry, and bedstraw.
Alluvial Forest. Green ash and boxelder were abundant trees in this forest.
Common trees were sycamore and river birch. Other species occurring occasionally
included swamp chestnut oak, willow oak, hackberry, American elm, winged elm, .
sweetgum, and bitternut hickory on the slope edge. Rarely occurring species were black
walnut, cottonwood, and black cherry. Transgressives of willow oak were present.
Infrequently present subcanopy trees were pawpaw, ironwood, American holly, and red
cedar.
Shrub and woody vine diversity was high in this community. Chinese privet was
the most abundant shrub, and spicebush was common. Silverberry was common in spots.
Uncommon shrubs included elderberry and swamp dogwood. Multiflora rose and
blackberry were present. Frequent woody vines were Virginia creeper, poison ivy,
Japanese honeysuckle, and grape. Infrequent vines included common greenbrier,
crossvine, and trumpet creeper.
Herb diversity was high, but not abundant, given the time of year. Sedges,
chickweed, and river oats were common. Occasionally occurring herbs included
pokeweed, henbit, goldenrods, common blue violet, cutleaf coneflower, honewort, avens,
aster, Indian strawberry, smartweeds, wild rye, wood reed, and Japanese grass. A few
herbs were rare, including buttercup, bittercress, black snakeroot, false nettle, bedstraw,
12
speedwell, crownbeard, wild garlic, three unidentified taxa (including one mint and one
composite), witchgrass, fescue, and bluegrass.
The wetland depressions, with standing water at the time of the investigation, had
an overall different floristic composition. The common canopy trees were green ash,
boxelder, river birch, and black willow. Transgressives of these species were common.
Poison ivy and trumpet creeper were occasional woody vines. Lizard's tail and
smartweed were common herbs, while uncommon herbs included river oats, wood reed,
and sedge.
Kudzu/blackberry Thicket. This overgrown area along one roadside was
dominated mostly by kudzu but also by common blackberry, each dominant in different
portions of the thicket. A few other species grew within the thicket, including frequent
Chinese privet and occasional multiflora rose, pokeweed, goldenrod, ragweed, Johnson
grass, broomsedge, and sedge.
Hedgerow Thicket. An overgrown fenceline has developed into a dense and wide
thicket on the southeast side of the study corridor near an old pasture. Among tree
species, red cedar is common, and boxelder, hackberry, black cherry, and persimmon are
rare. A few transgressives of other species are present. Tall shrubs are most abundant
and important, including Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and common blackberry.
Silverberry is uncommon. Frequent woody vines, binding the shrubs and trees, are
Japanese honeysuckle and grape, while common greenbrier is rare. Herbs are rare within
the thicket.
Old Pasture. This pasture has been abandoned for several years. Small
transgressives of shortleaf and Virginia pine are present. Common blackberry is frequent,
and silverberry is present. Grasses were most important, including common meadow
fescue, broomsedge, Indian grass, and crownbeard. Occasional plants of sericea, frost
aster, and purple-top grass occurred. Giant goldenrod, other goldenrods, and beaked
panic grass were rare occurrences.
Stream. There is no vegetation in the stream.
Maintained Communities
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low state of
succession by regular mowing or bush-hogging. It includes the shoulders and adjacent
storm drainage ditches and fill slopes. The community is variously grass or forb
dominated or barren of vegetation in many spots. Woody plants are very rare; only
Japanese honeysuckle and hispid greenbrier were noted. Bluegrass is common to
abundant, depending on the location. Other grasses are infrequent Japanese grass,
crabgrass, fescue, and other unidentified grasses. Brome grass is present. Path rush is
rare. Chickweed is common to abundant, particularly in ruderal areas and recently
disturbed places. Henbit, wild garlic, and plantains are occasional. Other taxa that rarely
13
occur are goldenrods, a smartweed, bittercress, frost aster, Indian strawberry, dock,
ragweed, Queen Anne's lace, oxeye daisy, dog fennel, thistle, and one unidentified forb.
Developed Land Types
Roadway. Paved roadway is the only developed land type in the project area.
Each alternate includes about the same amount of roadway.
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating
the expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below.
There is moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area. Ecotonal areas are
not widespread. The habitat types of most extensive area are upland and alluvial forests.
Forests comprise about 75% of the project vicinity. McDowell Creek provides habitat
variation within the context of the forest communities. Forest units are large, contiguous,
and not fragmented, though only small parts fall within the project area. In the vicinity,
forest communities clearly provide the most important habitats. Thickets are small and
isolated. An abandoned pasture in early stages of succession is a relatively open habitat
type in the project area. Crop and hay fields occur in the vicinity; they provide the
primary open habitats for animals that might occasionally use the project area. There is
one small pond in the vicinity, and the backwaters of Mountain Island Lake are nearby.
The developed area associated with the WWTP is adjacent to the project area, but
provides no habitat of significance.
Overall, animal diversity is expected to be moderate. The landscape diversity in
the area is judged to be generally good for forest birds, particularly those requiring the
interiors of large unbroken forests. Avian fauna were found to be abundant, but the
diversity was not high or unusual, probably because of the season in which the study took
place. The distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent lentic environments
is expected to be important in the project area. The large stream system provides fair to
good habitat for a number of animals. The low human development of the vicinity
should allow the presence of many species that are intolerant of human intrusion and that
require large expanses of natural communities. The few small depressional wetland areas
provide some microhabitat variations.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups.
Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
14
ubiquitous in terrestrial habitats. The specific habitat groups are as follows: more open
areas, consisting of old pasture and maintained roadside areas; intermediate habitats,
consisting of thickets and most ecotones; forest; and aquatic or very wet habitats,
associated with the stream and depressional wetlands.
Lists of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available and
the human population density and development, are given below. Without direct
observation or documentation that certain animal species occur in an area, the safest
prediction that can be made is that the most common species for a particular region will
be those found in a project area if appropriate habitat is available. Hence, the following
lists may not be particularly informative, and the same suite of taxa might be constructed
for other regions with minor exceptions.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland
chorus frog, and spring peeper. The eastern newt, the slimy salamander, the three-lined
salamander, and the mud salamander are expected in the bottoms, mucky areas, and
moister forest habitats. Treefrogs should be common, particularly in the alluvial forest.
Ambystomid salamanders are expected because of the probable presence of suitable
breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, earth snakes, and copperhead.
The eastern hognose snake might be expected in some of the more open areas in sandy
and loamy soils. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include eastern fence lizard,
eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested
habitats are eastern box turtle, brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm
snake.
The avifauna of open areas are not expected to be diverse or abundant, and few
were observed. This suite of species includes American kestrel, turkey vulture, killdeer,
brown-headed cowbird, loggerhead shrike, mourning dove, field sparrow, common
grackle, American robin, common starling, eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow,
and eastern bluebird. Birds in intermediate areas include song sparrow, brown thrasher,
gray catbird, northern mockingbird, American goldfinch, indigo bunting, common
yellowthroat, eastern kingbird, white-throated sparrow, and northern bobwhite. Forest
species include various wood warblers, wood thrush, tufted titmouse, hairy woodpecker,
summer tanager, eastern phoebe, red-eyed vireo, American redstart, and blue-gray
gnatcatcher. Species ranging through many habitats were the most common. This group
includes red-tailed hawk, eastern screech owl, American crow, northern cardinal,
Carolina wren, yellow-billed cuckoo, blue jay, rufous-sided towhee, red-bellied
woodpecker, downy woodpecker, common flicker, and Carolina chickadee. Green heron
and belted kingfisher would utilize McDowell Creek. Wood duck should nest in the area.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew, least
shrew, long-tailed weasel, eastern harvest mouse, meadow vole, hispid cotton rat, and
15
groundhog. Those ranging into forests, as well as open and intermediate habitats, include
southern short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped skunk, gray fox, red fox, white-footed
mouse, and eastern cottontail. Several species usually shunning open areas, but in the
intermediate and forested areas, include opossum, eastern chipmunk, pine vole, golden
mouse, and southern flying squirrel. Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis,
eastern pipistrelle, and red bat might be expected foraging over the stream and alluvial
forests. Exclusively forest species include raccoon, gray squirrel, and evening bat.
Muskrat and mink should be common in the riparian areas. Evidence of white-tailed
deer, a typically mid-successional species, was observed in the area.
Aquatic Life
No fish were observed during the study. Fish that should be expected in a stream
such as McDowell Creek are creek chub, bluegill, redbreast sunfish, warmouth, and other
sunfishes. Some segments might support yellow bullhead and creek chubsucker. It is
likely that this particular section of McDowell Creek is influenced by the ichthyofauna of
Mountain Island Lake. Some use by carp, white bass, crappie, and largemouth bass
should be expected; these species are documented as important in Mountain Island Lake.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the stream could support two-lined
salamander, northern dusky salamander, bullfrog, green frog, and pickerel frog.
Good turtle habitat is not found in the area, but the snapping turtle and painted
turtle are probably present. Northern water snake and queen snake are the most likely
water snakes of the area.
Numerous chimneys of crayfish were noted in the wet soils of the floodplain.
Moderate numbers of Asiatic clams were found on the exposed sandy shores. This
introduced species is widespread in the U.S., often problematic in irrigation systems,
pumping facilities, and waterways.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction, calculated as surface area of
land and community types present in the study corridor, are given in the following table.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on 1:1,200 aerial
photographs onto which the study corridor was drawn, and land and community type
boundaries were mapped. With the exception of the roadside community, mostly only
the edges of other communities will be affected, thus reducing in small part the total
available habitat in the project area. Natural communities would be about equally
impacted, regardless of the alternate selected. Upland forest (potentially 0.17 hectares
16
(0.42 acre) would receive the greatest impact of any community or land type.
Approximately the same amount of stream surface area will be affected in each alternate.
There is only moderate diversity and interspersion of habitat types in the project
area. The forested habitats are the most extensive in their development, covering about
75% of the project area. Habitat losses should be minimal, with a reduction only in small
part of the total natural habitat in the project area. Some of the communities will re-
establish themselves following construction. The actual impacts to biotic communities
will be less than those indicated below because all of the study area likely will not be
utilized in construction. Each alternate covers about 0.5 hectares (1.3 acres).
Area estimates of community and land types located in study corridor.
Alt. I
hectares (acres)
Upland Forest 0.14 (0.35)
Alluvial Forest 0.06 (0.16)
Kudzu/blackberry Thicket 0.05 (0.12)
Hedgerow Thicket 0.02 (0.04)
Old Pasture <0.01 (0.02)
Stream 0.07 (0.18)
Maintained Roadside 0.10 (0.25)
Roadway 0.07 (0.18)
TOTAL 0.52(l.29)
Alt. 2
hectares (acres)
0.17 (0.42)
0.06 (0.14)
0.08 (0.21)
0.02 (0.04)
0.06 (0.14)
0.09 (0.23)
0.06 (0.14)
0.54(l.32)
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on how much
of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction and less on the alternate that is
selected. There will no net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and
scavengers that utilize open areas such as roadsides. There will be a reduction in the
available habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats.
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase.
The riparian zone of the creek is probably an important corridor for animal movement.
The existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so bridge replacement
will not introduce a significantly new factor, except during the construction phases of the
project.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and
injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and
skinning of trees by•machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be
avoided.
17
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It appears
that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing roadway boundary.
Aquatic Systems
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
The general effects of removal of streamside vegetation are (1) increase of stream
temperature and irradiance, thus lowering available dissolved oxygen and increasing the
oxygen demand, (2) reduction of allochthonous food sources, altering the food chain
dynamics of the stream, (3) increase in the amount of sediment reaching the stream in the
surface runoff by reducing the filtering function, and (4) changing the habitat structure in
the stream by reducing the amount of insert debris and number of debris dams. These
effects negatively alter the stream characteristics for many aquatic organisms. Increase in
sediment is probably the most important effect in this project.
Sediment deposition and stream substrate alteration have negative effects on
sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. Sediment adversely affects organismal
physiology, behavior, and reproduction. Sediment deposition adversely affects
periphyton communities and thus affects stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate upon which grazing benthic invertebrates depend.
Sediment runoff is the greatest potential threat to off-site aquatic systems. Any
impacts to aquatic systems off-site and in the project vicinity should be minimal or non-
existent, if construction is done carefully to reduce sediment runoff.
Impacts on fishes should be minimal, if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alteration and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking and by
alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are
important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species;
maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal;
sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater
hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in
18
some cases. Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these
functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determinations of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgement
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of McDowell Creek and nearby ephemeral wetlands in floodplain
depressions are the jurisdictional waters present in the study corridors to which
construction will be limited. Each alternate includes approximately 0.06 hectares (0.16
acre) of stream surface; Alternate 1 includes <0.01 hectares (0.02 acre) of wetland and
Alternate 2 includes 0.02 hectares (0.04 acre) of wetland. The locations of wetlands in
the project area are mapped for reference. Larger areas of jurisdictional waters are
present downstream of the bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from road
construction.
The riverine waters would be classified R2UB2H (Riverine, Lower Perennial,
Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand, Permanently Flooded) in the NWI system. The swampy
ephemeral wetlands would be classified PF01A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved
Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded). It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to
jurisdictional waters, except for potential takings in a study corridor, until the particular
design requirements are known, but it appears that it will be impossible to completely
avoid impacts in project design and construction.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. A Section 404
Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)] should authorize this project. This
permit authorizes approved Categorical Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded
from environmental documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment." This project is designated as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) and will likely
be covered by Nationwide Permit #23. Individual or General Permits are required for
situations where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met. Final decision regarding
the type of permit rests with the COE.
A 401 General Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity in surface waters where a
federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to issuance of the 404
permit.
19
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and
wetlands. There appear to be no other feasible alternatives for crossing McDowell Creek
at this point. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. Until recently,
compensatory mitigation has generally not been required where Nationwide Permits or
General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. However, a 1997 revision of permit
conditions for Nationwide Permit No. 23 by the COE specifies that mitigation for impacts
to surface waters may be required. Depending on impact acreage [over 0.4 hectares
(1.0 acre)], jurisdictional wetlands of the U.S. also may need to be delineated prior to
permit application submission. The jurisdictional waters involved in this project are
below this acreage value. Final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S.
lies with the COE and the Division of Water Quality. If an Individual Permit should be
required for the stream crossing, all sites (impact areas of surface waters and wetlands)
may have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority in
these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of
drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion
control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into
streams and wetlands, and soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as
possible during and after construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and
other areas where the soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures
should not be placed in wetlands. Likewise, borrow locations should not be placed in
wetlands. When the old bridge is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect
the waters from pollution discharges.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 14, 1998, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these classifications for
Mecklenburg County.
Federally protected species in Mecklenburg County
COMMON NAME
Carolina heelsplitter
Smooth coneflower
Schweinitz's sunflower
Michaux's sumac
SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT.
Lasmigona decorata E
Echinacea laevigata E*
Helianthus schweinitzii E
Rhus michauxii E*
20
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state); T = Threatened, likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future; * = historic record, last observation in
the county more than 50 years ago.
The Carolina heelsplitter is a molluscan bivalve in the Unionidae. Bivalves, in
general, require unpolluted habitats and are usually most abundant in larger streams
(deeper waters and good current). Stable sand and/or gravel substrates are usually best
suited for them. Most would not be found in waters with pH below 7.0. McDowell
Creek drains a region of mixed geology and soils, some acidic and some with basic
tendencies. The stream is large enough for bivalves, but the substrate appears to be too
unstable to support significant populations. In-stream surveys for mussel fauna were
conducted at the project site on March 31, 1998 by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge.
Methodology involved wading and using a view bucket. No freshwater mussels were
found during the survey. Given the survey results, it is apparent that the Carolina
heelsplitter does not occur in McDowell Creek.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The smooth coneflower is a composite that typically is found on basic or
circumneutral soils derived from mafic rocks in glades, woodlands, and open areas. This
perennial from 0.5-1.0 meters (1.6-3.3 feet) tall has distinctive heads that are easily
recognizable. It flowers from late May to July. There are records from six counties
scattered about the Piedmont of North Carolina. The taxon has not been documented in
Mecklenburg County within the last 10 years. Marginal habitat exists in the project area,
but no plants were observed.
Biological conclusion: No effect.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a tall perennial composite with a restricted regional
distribution centered in the south-central Piedmont of North Carolina, having been found
in nine counties altogether. Extant populations have been documented within the last 10
years in Mecklenburg County, and in adjacent counties to the east. The plant favors open
woods and roadsides, apparently because it was once a component of formerly open
prairie-like communities on basic soils that were historically common in this region.
There are no known occurrences in the project vicinity reported in the Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database. The plant flowers in September-October, but it is recognizable
vegetatively at other times of the year. No populations were discovered while carefully
searching the study corridor. Suitable habitat, consisting of maintained roadsides and
open successional pastures, probably over mafic substrates, does exist in the project area.
No other species of Helianthus were observed in the study corridor.
Biological conclusion: No effect.
Michaux's sumac is a small, dioecious, rhizomatous shrub up to 0.6 meters
(2.0 feet) tall in the Anacardiaceae. It is easily distinguished from winged sumac by
being densely pubescent throughout and having serrate leaflets. The plant flowers from
21
June to August and fruits in August to October. It has a limited distribution in the inner
Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont. The habitat is sandhills, sandy or rocky open
woodlands, and woodland edges. There may be an affinity for basic soils. Populations
have not been recorded for Mecklenburg County by the NHP. Habitat for this species is
marginal in the project area. No plants were observed.
Biological conclusion: No effect.
22
1 L
vJ
D
cn `
f O NEWTON
?6 1
1i
J -
35 2.5.
- \a pp
s
e
0 0 FAS
MATCH
?l?tntir
.r
Guff'r
/ \ T r\
?.• North Carolina
Ye. Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 131 ON SR 2074
OVER MCDOWELL CREEK
B-2589
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
I

? M
-

r
= ? r
- -

= r
r

F°a

?

r
? y?yy
C7

y b
z
z
y
y

t?

n
r?

r
y

0 0

.fir
ti O a
I

o ~ ?
?d?7 7
vo ° m

? NOrrJ?
?sz7J Q'?; o
o °
c v

® w
?
tJ r.]
t??i ?
UQ
C N
O O
Oi y
? .A n
N ?
t
1

EAST APPROACH LOOKING IWEST
WTST APPROACH LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
, 41

. ? v

NORTH FACE OF EXISTING BRIDGE
FIGS' 4
Federal Aid r ?RI-• 4-°-t4(') TIP ;r 6 ZS$°? County New-E??scF
t
there are no e.;ec:s on the National Register-eligible proper. ties lccate-? within the
project's area of potential e3ect arid listed on the reverse.
Brief Project Description
R-?t't-?.rrc B??DGE ?lo• 13l •a SCR. x'14 0??2 1?1oDawEw CIZEEfL
On Jude ti i`t°t-1 representatives of the
_i
_ North Carolina Department of Transportation (INCDOT),
? Federal Highway Administration (Fr:WA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation OFnce (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project.and agreed
there are no e sec:s on the National Register-listed property within t^'- project's
area of potential e erect and listed on the reverse.

there is an e5ec: on the ' ational Register-listed propery/prope:-Zies wi:hin the
projec:'s area of potential a feet. The prop erty-prope pies and the e.;ec:(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an e5ect on the vationai Register-eligible prope:,y/prope:aes within the
project's area of potential e erect. The property/properties and e.:ec:(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
Repres
r
?i
o/ S
(,/5-
_ CONCURRENCE FORM
CONCURRENCE
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
OT, Historic Architectural Resources section
for the Divisi6n Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
I
Representativ , SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer Da`•e
(over)

FederalAid'rr t?2z• 2•'t4('?1 TIP TM ZS?°1 County n0.Ec?c??n1r3y2G
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined elisiole (DE).
?-U2Al- FkILL FL.A r4TAri o r4 ra? ear r-oE rJEuj L cA- to?J AL-TuATiJE
lF P>RtD4E- vc7 Wi AciEq w vrc ,m4& i,*C/A rnosj- -F6EA-Fi1- Gooi27?tJ{?T1oN WITtid SNPV 4?4D
G1?ArwoTf?' WIEt.{4.?JaulLC f}?SToQIL IAa?MA?au4 Go wtwl6s9Y-rJ lS 9E4-E,',4A9j , p/tePE,¢Ty
lei A (,olA"I j Pr--4' rA,km0 1??Sro Rc[, Vh?J D ?A?.k
Proper`ies within area of potential effect for which there is an a ect. Indicate prope. Ly status (NR
or DE) and describe e?•ect.
Reascn(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
l
Initialed: NCDOT G FHtiVA ? ? SHPO
Z) U
-?,,.. SL\Tfo
r-? A
y Z?S:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Rav McCain, Secretary
October 28, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 131 on SR 2074 over McDowell Creek,
Mecklenburg County, B-2589, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-2074(1), State Project 8.2673801,
ER 97-8333
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrev J. Crow, Director
In response to a telephone inquiry from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) Planning and Environmental Unit staff archaeologist
Deborah Joy, we would like to clarify our comments of May 14, 1997.
In a "meeting of the minds" between staff of NCDOT and the State Historic
Preservation Office held on April 8, 1997, we recommended that no archaeological
survey be conducted in connection with this project as it was unlikely to affect
significant archaeological resources, including Rural Hill Plantation, a property
considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Alternatives
considered were: (1) replacement at the existing location with a temporary detour
on the north side, and (2) replacement on new location to the north while
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge.
Rural Hill Plantation (MK1479), a 260-acre plantation complex, is considered
eligible under Criterion A for agriculture, Criterion B for its association with Major
John Davidson, Criterion C for architecture, and Criterion D for archaeology. The
current plans propose replacement along the existing location or to the north
outside the boundaries for the Rural Hill Plantation. Given this situation, we do not
consider it likely there will be any adverse affect upon the archaeological elements
of the property. However, should plans change, additional review by us will be
necessary.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2S07 g?3

,+ SrArF o
Vd ?-
a3
•5 Sr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 14, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 131 on SR 2074 over McDowell Creek,
Mecklenburg County, B-2589, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-2074(1), State Project 8.2673801,
ER 97-8333
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1°93
y?
On April 8, 1997, Debbie t3evin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, Rural Hill Plantation (MK 1479) is
located within the project's area of potential effect. Rural Hill was placed on the
state study list on January 10, 1996, because it appears worthy of further
investigation to definitively- determine its eligibility for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. For purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, and barring a finding to the contrary, we consider this property
eligible for the National Register and protection under federal law. This 260-acre
plantation complex is eligible under Criterion A for agriculture, Criterion B for its
association with Major John Davidson, Criterion C for architecture, and Criterion D
for archaeology. We are enclosing a map showing the boundaries for the property.
Rural Hill is also a locally designated historic landmark, and you should consult with
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission to determine whether a
certificate of appropriateness will be required for the project. The contact person
for the commission is Dan Morrill, 2100 Randolph Road, Charlotte, N.C. 28207,
telephone [phone]
We are aware of no other properties over fifty years of age within the project's area
of potential effect and recommend that no historic architectural survey be
conducted for this project.
?y
109 Fast Jones Street - Ral i,zh, Norih Camli,ta 2700'•^?A)7 !'
Nicholas L. Graf
5/14/97, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance, with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sineerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: 4H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
WOODS
CROP FIELD
n
vCROP FIELD
t'

T y,
WOODS
m RURAL HILL PLANTATION
® ooD Mo John Davidson Flomeplacc
'Al
µEMAP KEY
PASTURE 1 1788 house ruins
2 old kitchen
3 smokehouse
LAKE 4/5 ash house/well house
m 6 log crib
7 barn
8 cemetery
HOME 9 tenant house
SITED 10 slave cabin site
11 schoolhouse
/STURE/
/HAY FIELD HAY FIELD
1
I
1
1
1
1
PASTURE
1
1
T 1
1
1
1
O
r
0
1 500'

WOODS PASTURE

McDOWELL CREEK
WOODS
'AIN
LAKE

State of North Carolina 17 1
Department of Environment, L7
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality A&4
Ja mes a Hunt, G ove rnor ID FE N F=1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE, Director
March 27, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Planning &Environmental Branch
n
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality L
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated January 21, 1997, in which you requested scoping comments for
four bridge replacement projects (B-3110, B-3111, B-2967, B-2589and B-3129). As I will be unable to
attend the scoping meeting for these projects on April 8, 1997, I am forwarding these comments to you
and the appropriate project engineers in writing. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following generic environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge
replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen: Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ if impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Attiinna w Action Ermloy- My. recyoledlloy. poet cop m=Or Paper
Mr. H. Franklin Vick Memo
March 27, 1997
Page 2
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
H. If foundation test borings will be required, this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/14ationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
I. If this project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wetland impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A
NCAC 211.0506 (h)(2) 1.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map references are not to be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qualified biologists.
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions re2ardin?_ the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Melba McGee
Bill Goodwin
John Williams
B3110.DOC
rl_
10,
N
co
N
cc
a
Q
Z
W
0

C
C _
m 0 N
9
m A N ? _
m m 9

3?'
3?
n
X
y$ m
3?a
.tl1. oC oS
? m° 35
O om
C
C
E C C !
O 3
m N
CD
y Y m
O m
E O U
t m U
L CD L
N> E ?1
O. p y 0

V N
s N y
M CL
a
c CL CL
c m y E
c m•C

ca
=
zm E
3 3 zm'
3 3
Z Z Z

40
0 U

m
m Y
O

Z
U 4

?
O
> m U ¢
¢ U. H
Ee 3 a
`
n + ~ Cl) U
>
(A ~ _ > U
O m m m
3 m
3
c? 3

?z C? T
V1 m o n N N
u n
3 n u u
o -
m
a -
N
a ID
¢ N
V O m U
w ?
m m d m d
E m m m m
Z U U ? ?? U

CD CD

m ¢ m
3. N
b E 0° C1

to
?j
a U
g O
=
c
m m m m m

'a 'a CL
aL y
is ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢
0 0 U co
N
u
O ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢. ¢

J m (n (n (n
, (n
m
z Q
m
O
Z tnO m N
Q; T (7 N N ('l
- co m m m m
H
a
1y
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Department of Environmental Protection ?,..
February 11, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
State of North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways, Planning and Environmental Branch
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 131 on Neck Road (SR 2074)
Over McDowell Creek, Mecklenburg County
"3 - As8,?
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
(MCDEP) reviewed the subject proposal and makes the following
observations and recommendations:
? Bridge No. 131 on Neck Road (SR 2074). over McDowell Creek
lies within the Mountain Island Lake Watershed Critical
Area overlay CA3. This creek is especially sensitive to
increases in sedimentary loading since it flows into
Mecklenburg County's main drinking water reservoir,
Mountain Island Lake.
? Any disturbances of the creek and its banks should be
done with great care, minimizing sedimentation.
? Erosion controls should be in place at all times during
construction. After construction, the di st_,^r}-ad areas
should be returned to original conditions as close as
possible.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 704-
336-5500.
Sincerely,
David Rim r
Environmental Hygienist
CC: John Barry, Rusty Rozzelle, Don Willard; MCDEP
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS
700 N. Tryon Street 0 Suite 205 0 Charlotte, NC 28202-2236 0 [phone] • FAX[phone]
APPENDIX TWO

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNEaNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 17, 2001
DAVIDMCCOY
SECRETARY
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
JW
From: Logan Williams, Environmental Specialist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: Protected Species Survey for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) for the proposed replacement of Bridge No.
131 over McDowell Creek on SR 2074; Mecklenburg
County. State Project No. 8.26 73801, TIP No. B-2589.
Attention: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
Reference: Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) prepared by
Catawba College Consulting Biologist, Michael J. Baranski
dated 14 January 1998 and the Categorical Conclusion
(CE) document prepared by NCDOT, approved May 1998.
Since the completion of the referenced NRTR and CE document, the US Fish and
Wildlife Service has added the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) to the list of
protected species for Mecklenburg County. This memorandum serves to document the
field survey for this species. A complete species description and biological conclusion is
provided below.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major
nesting population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur
elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. Immature eagles lack the
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WINW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
white head plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color with
blotchy white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar. Adults range in length from 69-94 cm and have a
wingspan ranging from 178-229 cm.
There are several factors that affect an eagle's selection of a nest site. Eagle nests
are found in proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in
the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests
are approximately 3 in across.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A site investigation and species survey was conducted on August 15, 2000 by
NCDOT biologists Sue Brady and Logan Williams. Potential bald eagle habitat does
occur within the study area. The nearest open water body (Mountain Island Lake),
providing sufficient foraging opportunities, is less than 0.3 mile (0.5 km) south and east of
the proposed project. Suitable nesting habitat in the form of large trees with a clear flight
path to Mountain Island Lake and an open view of the surrounding land were not present.
Bald eagles were not observed during the site investigation . Additionally, a review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 17 January, 2001
indicated that there are no known occurrences of bald eagle within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the project study area. Therefore, it can be concluded that project construction will not
affect bald eagle.
cc: Hal Bain, Unit Head
File: B-2589