20100308 Ver 1_Application_20100421

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
April 15, 2010
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
1EMEM90
APR 2 12010
DENR. wATM OUAtny
ATTN: Ms. Sarah Hair WETtANDSANDSTOMATIANWCH
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 13, 23, 33 and Section
401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed replacement of Bridge
No. 127 over Pinch Gut Creek on SR 1880 (St. James Church Road) in
Catawba County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1880(1); Division 12; TIP
No. B-4062, $240.00 debit WBS 33426. 1.1
Dear Madam:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
127 over Pinch Gut Creek on SR 1880 (St. James Church Road) with a culvert. An offsite
detour will be used to control traffic during construction. There will be 54 linear feet of
permanent impact to Pinch Gut Creek due to i;;.aallation of a three barrel (12 ft. x 11 ft.)
box culvert and 89 linear feet of permanent :jnpact due to bank stabilization. An additional
0.01 acre of temporary impact will occur due to dewatering of Pinch Gut Creek during
installation of the box culvert.
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), NCEEP acceptance
letter, jurisdictional dete-mination form, stormwater management plan, permit drawings and
design plans for the above mentioned proThe Categorical Exclusion (CE) was
completed in March 2009. CL pieS were distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are
available upon request.
This project calls for a letting :late of January 18, 2011 and a review date of November 30,
2010; however, the lct date may a vance as additional funding becomes available.
e
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT GF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] ATLANTIC AVENUE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUITE 116
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER IA.`..•91TE: '4WV.NCDOT.0RG RALEIGH NC 276D4
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.ncdot.orgidolVpreconstrucVpe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Jason Dilday at [phone].
Sincerely
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E.., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Stivcture Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P:E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M.L. Holder, P.E. (Div. 12), Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon (Div. 12), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Phillip Ayscue, NCDOT External-Audit Branch
Ms. Christie Huff, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
O??F VIA
TFgOG
1 1 y y
I ), I i q
o c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 13, 23, 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
td. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWO 401
because written approval is not required? Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ® Yes ? No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge 127 over Pinch Gut Creek on SR 1880.
2b. County: Catawba
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Maiden
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-4062
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
not applicable
3d. Street address: 1598 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: (919)4 31-2002
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): not applicable
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.61450 Longitude: - 81.18924
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 1.2 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Pinch Gut Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Agriculture, forested communities and minor residential development.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing.streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
250 feet perennial (Pinch Gut Creek)
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridge (Sufficiency rating of 20 out of 100 in 2005).
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing a 36-foot long bridge with a 3-barrel (12' x 11') box culvert. Standard road building
equipment, such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past? ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
Comments: No JD was needed. Pinch Gut Creek is a
perennial stream.
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/ Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
i
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ®No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
I a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams -tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
Site 1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWO
Site 3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts X Permanent
X Temporary
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of Average Impact length
number - (PER) or jurisdiction stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 width
Temporary (T) (INT)? DWQ-non-404, (feet)
other)
Site 1 ® P ? T Box Culvert Pinch Gut Creek ® PER

? INT ® Corps

? DWQ 20'
54

Site 2 ® P ? T Bank
Stabilization at
Pinch Gut Creek ® PER
?INT ® Corps
?DWQ
20
89
Culvert
Site 3 ? P ® T Dewatering Pinch Gut Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 20 30
(0.01 acre)
Site 4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
-Site 5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ

3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 143 Perm
0 Temp
3i. Comments: Temporary impacts to Pinch Gut Creek due to installation of culvert equals 0.01 acres.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number - waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts X Permanent
X Temporary
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed , then complete the chart below.
5a 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Welland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond Excavat
Flooded Filled ad Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
51. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer
impacts below. If an impacts require mitig ation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse
?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for impact Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T required?
131 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
132 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ? PEI T ? Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
6
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Replacing a structurally deficient bridge with a structure that is safer for commuters. Placement of box culvert will reduce
cost of maintenance. Use of a low flow channel through a single culvert barrel to maintain channel continuity with
additional capacity added through floodplain culvert barrel sections. An off-site detour will be used during construction.
NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" will be adhered to during all phases of
construction.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Rip rap for bank stabilization will be kept at a minimum and will only be used to protect the culvert.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ® Yes ? No
If no, explain:
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ® Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

®Payment to in lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
31b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ® Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: 54 linear feet (due to culvert installation)
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ® warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): s square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments: Mitigation is for the placement of the box culvert replacing the current bridge.
5. Complete if Using a Permittes Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a perrnittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
7
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
i

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ®No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? NIA
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
See attached permit drawings.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? not applicable
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HOW
(check all that apply): ? ORW
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
9
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
r
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
® Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Welland Standards, ? Yes ®No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ®No
2c. If you answered yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ®No
3b. If you answered yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Due to the minimal transportation impact resulting from this bridge replacement, this project will neither influence nearby
land uses nor stimulate growth. Therefore, a detailed indirect or cumulative effects study will not be necessary.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
not applicable
10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes N No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes N No
impacts?

Raleigh
?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
I USFWS web page of TIE species for McDowell County and the NHP database of element occurrences.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes N No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
i
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes O No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NEPA Documentation
6. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
I.

1 8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? N Yes ? No
r8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: NCDOT Hydraulics coordination with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Maps

i 41
k q. 1S, /U
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D ` ,
-
' Dat
Applicant/Agent
s Printed Name A lican Agent's Signature e
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
j)
r?
March 23, 20 10
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter.
B4062, Replace Bridge Number 127 over Pinch Gut Creek on SR 1880, Catawba
County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide the
compensatory stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you on March 17,
2010, the impacts are located in CU 03050102 of the Catawba River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-
Region, and are as follows
Catawba Stream Wetlands Buffer (Sq. Ft.)
03050102
CP Cold Cool Warm Riparian Non- Coastal Zone 1 Zone 2
Riparian Marsh
Impacts 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0
feet/acres
Mitigation Units 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 0
(Credits-up to 2:1)
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream mitigation credits to offset the impacts
associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this project is permitted, in accordance with
Section X of the Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, filly executed on March 8, 2007. If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this
mitigation acceptance letter will no longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from
EEP.
1929.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at 919-715-
Sincerely,
j?. ?,(
Willi b. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Liz Harr, USACE - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/40! Unit
File: B4062
Restor&,?, .. Enka"... Pin" Our j-ta&
M:.-,_
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 1 www.neeep.net

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers
r,rtt, vuIr G(eak
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the 1D Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: B4062 (Replacement of Bridge 127 over Pinch Gut Creek on SR 1880)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Statc:NC County/parish/borough: Catawba City: Maiden
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.61450" N, Long. 81.18924° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Pinch Gut Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TN W) into which the aquatic resource flows: South Fork Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03050102
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
E] Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different 1D form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are'n0 "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
? Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Q Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required)
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply):
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
® Relatively permanent waters' (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
Q Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
El Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
It. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. In the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 500 linear feet: 20 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres. -
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1Estgbl6jW * OH_ WM[4
Elevation of established OH W M (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally'
(e.g., typically 3 months).
'Supporting documentation is presented in Section II IT
SECTION 111: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TN Ws and wetlands adjacent to TN Ws. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.I and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section HLB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting dutcrmination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, If any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TN Ws where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g, typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource Is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource Is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILOA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available Information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and Its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of Its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands Is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.8.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists Is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TN Ws that flow directly or indirectly Into TN W
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick List
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(It) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
® Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through Ptcklt tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Pick L10 river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Paek?Liu river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Picklist aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known,
' Note that the instructional Guidebook contains additional information repaving swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow more can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that aoolv):
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick Lift.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
% ? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/%cover.
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/rifflelpool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year.. pick Girt
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Fl * tht. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM° (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ? the presence of litter and debris
? changes in the character of soil ? destruction of terrestrial vegetation
? shelving ? the presence of wrack line
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ? sediment sorting
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ? scour
? sediment deposition ? multiple observed or predicted flow events
? water staining ? abrupt change in plant community
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM ' Explain:
If factors other than the OH W M were used to detemt
[] High Tide Line indicated by:
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/chameteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
ne lateral extent ofCWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings; _
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(III) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OH WM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground or where
the OH W M has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OH WM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcmp or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for.
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly Into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:'
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: PI& List. Explain:
Surface flow is: PIN[ List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TN W
Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project watersare Pick Lhk aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List. -
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Flek List floodplain.
(II) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type(percent cover. Explain:.
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: 01151e1*
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N)' Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/NI Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus Include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water In the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It Is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TN W s, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting. spawning, or. rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TN W?
Note: the above list of considerations is not Inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non••RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNW9. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and Its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly Into
TN Ws. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TN Ws and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
8 TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or Indirectly into TN Ws.
® Tributaries of TN Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round-are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Pinch Gut Creek is a perennial stream and has a NCDWQ stream rating scores greater than 30.
0 Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
1•
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (chuck all that apply):
Tributary waters: 500 linear feet 20 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly Into TN Ws.
Q Waterbody that is not a TN W or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TN W, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW isjurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
0 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Q Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
0 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
0 Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 111.6 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly .
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or Indirectly Into TNWs.
0 Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TN W are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review airs: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly Into TNWs.
0 Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TN W arejurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters!
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
0 Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE[ WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):1o
0 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
G] from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
s: Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
"See Footnote # 3. -
° To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section Ill. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
Prior to asserting or declining CWA Jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corp%1EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapan
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
? Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
? If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplement:.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule' (MBR).
[] Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
? Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus' standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linearfeet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acme List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
? Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
El U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ? Other (Name & Date):
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter.
Applicable/supporting case law: _
Applicable/supporting scientific literaore:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project: 33426.1.1
TIP #: B-4062
County: Catawba
02/12/2010
Hydraulics Project Manager: Roger Weadon, P.E. (MA Engineering),
Marshal Clawson, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project B-4062 consists of constructing a 3@12'x 11' RCBC to replace the existing
bridge #127 in Catawba County on SR-1880 (St. James Church Road) over Pinch Gut
Creek. The total project length is 0.075 miles. The project creates impacts to Pinch Gut
Creek, which is located in the Catawba River Basin. The project drainage system consist
of roadside ditches.
Jurisdiction Stream: Pinch Gut Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The project is located within the Catawba River Basin in Catawba County. Impacts have
been minimized by and using 2:1 roadway fill slopes at the culvert crossing, burying the
culvert invert one foot, and use of a low flow channel through a single culvert barrel to
maintain channel continuity.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The primary goal of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is to prevent degradation of the
states surface waters by the location, construction and operation of the highway system.
The BMPs are activities, practices and procedures taken to prevent or reduce stormwater
pollution. The BMP measures used on this project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
• Use of a low flow channel through a single culvert barrel to maintain channel
continuity with additional capacity added though floodplain culvert barrel
sections.
• Burying culvert invert 1'
7

?. b / r -
r ?
._ i

r
i /
i a
? . i
itv
i
i i
lm

?. I

IV ar w.ar.an
j
.4. Jw
01135 1 6 -'
C p U N T Y
I p I
I / 1
P^--k D119 d?
d 0aw ?-y'
??
d NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
$
w
?.\ TRANSPORTATION

I DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT&
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

CATAWBA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 127 ON SR 1880
OVER PINCH GUT CREEK
B-4062

Figure 1
a?•-- i
i?.
rve

{ ! I ?. tom .? XtF / r f • ?:+'-- j 4V >,.tiT^' J
t t {? yro?t '.. J 4 Xt 4 '+-LrYT- ?' f j
Y r/
ii r r, U l
I f F ?t-
?,t !Y : ? r,. `^rc 'cyl ? \ ?elf? ttt i i`.?? t J ?? / ± t Jfi J'r h ? M" t•.
?lt J / 11A, 1 \ ?¢ 1's xt lar
r?.
_ c y
xOR
ftzl ? 9 &
} 1.
J { 1

r
W."' o
• ! -- .

Name: MAIDEN Location: 035' 38' 51.43' N 681. 11' 2259' W
Date: 112512010 Caption: B-4082
Scale:1 Inch equals 2000 feet f'0HNI P..
yb6N - 7- Of. F T

i .
Property Owners
Parcel Number Names Addresses
5 Douglas J. Delong 7138 Kidville Rd. Denver NC 28037
2924 Blackburn Bridge 28092-
6 Terra Designs. Inc Rd. Lincolnton. NC 7884
2684 St. James Church
7 Gordon W. Wilson Rd. Newton NC 28658
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CATAWBA COUNTY
Permit Qwmng WBS - 33426. 1.1 (B-4062)
Sheetof
SHEET 2/9/2010

o
6 0
N
O
'a p
$
S
S U
oa a
o?
X N
O EF
a ?y
5 U
r
C? p
poo
w 3
0
z
?i
r
m

?tD
d

Q

S
y
y
i

E'c
m
?
c o

?
Z N
c !?
crjc
E
a ?
a a o
j
E ?
m?`m
m m n€?
t ? m v
UEa

E ? ? u o 0
m
N o 0
K E
Im-

s
f c
m
m
?'
o
o
0
H m
3
€ N E m o 0 0
m
f. a
U
c a

H

°
c
G
m
Z 3 o

? o m
3
i c a ?
$

m
a
a5 `mm
m

$
r"? °
c m
m a
c ? c
m
m u

$
.
m
IL c;
?
a

m U W
NN

r

0
o?
s
s
y LL m
...
J J
H
J
S
O
_
N Z p
z
(Zan?jg ? pp m
H
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4062
State Project No. 8.2792401
W.B.S. No. 33426.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1880(1)
A.
Proiect Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Catawba County Bridge No. 127 on
SR 1880 over Pinch Gut Creek. The existing bridge is 36-feet in length with a
clear roadway width of 19-feet, 4-inches. The replacement structure will consist
of a triple barrel, 12-foot wide by 11-foot high reinforced concrete box culvert.
The culvert size is based on preliminary design information and is set by
hydraulic requirements. This structure will be of sufficient length to provide two
11-foot lanes with 6-foot shoulders on each side; four feet of the shoulder width
will be paved. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing grade.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 150 feet from the southeast end
of the new bridge and 200 feet from the northwest end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two
11-foot lanes. Six-foot grass shoulders (4-foot paved, 2-foot grass) will be.
provided on each side (9-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The
roadway will be designed as a Rural Minor Collector using Sub-Regional Tier
Design guidelines with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 127 has a
sufficiency rating of 20 out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to superstructure condition
appraisal of 4 out of 9 and a substructure condition appraisal of 4 out of 9
according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore
eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program. The bridge also meets the criteria
for functionally obsolete due to structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 and a deck
geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9.
The superstructure and substructure of Bridge No. 127 have timber elements with
the exception of the steel I-beams that are forty-nine years old. Timber
components have a typical life expectancy between 40 and 50 years due to the
natural deterioration rate of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally
practical only when a few elements are damaged or prematurely deteriorated.
This structure can no longer be addressed by reasonable maintenance activities;
therefore, the bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge.No. 127 carries 3,300 vehicles per day with 4,800 vehicles per day
projected for the future. The posted weight limit on the bridge is down to 13 tons
for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The substandard
deck width is becoming increasingly unacceptable and replacement of the bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
The estimated costs; based on 2008 prices, are as follows;
Structure $ 179,000
Roadway Approaches $ 162,000
Structure Removal $ 14,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 101,000
Eng. & Contingencies $ 69,000
Total Construction Cost $ 525,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 37,000
Right-of-way Utility Costs $ 10,000
Total Project Cost $ 572,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 3300 vpd
Year 2025 - 4800 vpd
TTST - 2%
Dual - 4%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found four accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. None were
associated with the geometry of the bridge or its approach roadways.
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: This portion of SR 1880 is not a part
of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bicycle project. However, the NCDOT Division of Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation has determined this route as a suitable designated
bicycle route in Catawba County; therefore, SR 1880 has been identified as a
proposed bicycle route in accordance with the draft Catawba County Bike Route
Map. As a result, 4-foot offsets and a minimum bridge rail height of 54-inches
will be included in the design. Temporary bicycle or pedestrian accommodations
are not required for this project
Catawba County Schools: The Director of School Transportation stated that
although a bus turnaround point on each side of the bridge is not necessary,
Catawba County Schools will allow their buses to turn around at Ellick Drive and
Sunfields Drive on either side of the bridge. The school system shared their
concern that NCDOT continue to maintain these turnaround points for safety.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 127 is constructed entirely of timber and steel
and should be possible to remove with no resulting debris in the water based on
standard demolition practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1880.
Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1960 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour - Bridge No. 127 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
for Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR 1882 and SR 1883. The majority of traffic on the road is
through traffic. The detour for the average road user would result in
4 minutes additional travel time (2.5 miles additional travel). Up to a
9-month duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of
delay alone the detour is acceptable. Catawba County Emergency
Services along with Catawba County Schools Transportation have also
indicated that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 12 has indicated
the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections on the offsite detour
are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the
detour.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
Staged Construction - Staged construction was not considered because
the existing clear roadway width of 19-feet did not make staging of the
existing structure practical. Additionally, due to he poor condition of the
abutments, partial removal for staging is not recommended.
New Alignment - Given that the alignment for SR 1880 is acceptable, a
new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Structure Type: The current structure is a bridge built in 1960. The
reason for building a bridge was not because a culvert would not work but
because the design, materials and labor were not practical in the time
when this structure was built. A culvert has been determined adequate
from a hydraulics standpoint. There are no special resources such as trout
or mussels present. Because a culvert is less than half the cost, twice the
life expectancy, and virtually no maintenance in comparison to a bridge, a
culvert is the preferred structure type.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C.D.E.N.R Division of Water Quality in standardized letters provided a
request that they prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning structure.
Response: At smaller stream crossing it is more economical to replace bridges
with box culverts: Culverts cost less than bridges, require less maintenance
throughout their service life than bridges, and last longer than bridges. Therefore,
where appropriate NCDOT prefers to use box culverts to replace bridges. As
there are no protected resources at this site, the proposed culvert will be designed
according to current NCDOT design practices which include such measures as
buried box bottoms to facilitate fish passage, dry cell(s) to allow wildlife passage,
and placement to minimize channel widening and realignment.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources was aware of no
historic resources that would be affected by the project.
The Planning Department of Catawba County advised that Catawba County
participates in the Federal floodplain program; therefore, the project must meet
any applicable requirements.
Response: The Hydraulic Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) are
required for the project. If required, the Division will submit sealed as-built
construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion certifying the
project was built as shown on construction plans.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission and US Fish and Wildlife
Service had no special concerns for this project. Standard recommendations
should apply.
The Army Corps of Engineers nor US Environmental Protection Agency
offered comments on the proposed bridge project.
Public Involvement:
A newsletter has been sent to all those living along SR 1880 and side roads within
the project study area in March of 2008. No comments have been received to
date.
Based on responses to the newsletter, a Citizen's Informational Workshop was
determined unnecessary.

E. Threshold Criteria
The following avaluatioa of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2)' Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
F
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ?
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(3) -Rill the project require fill in waters of the United Statrs.'
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
F
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? . N/A
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
(13) Could the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
7
i
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC .AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
F
and/or land use of adjacent property?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
F
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ?
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
F
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
F
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: Habitat for the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is present in Pinch
Gut Creek. A systematic survey was conducted on April 14,
2005. No specimens of Dwarf-flowered heardeaf were
located, thus the presence of this species within the project
study area can be discounted. The biological conclusion is
"No Effect."
Response to Question 13: The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain
Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for
administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of
NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated
6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR).
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4062
State Project No. 8.2792401
W.B.S. No. 33426.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1880(1)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Catawba County Bridge No. 127 on
SR 1880 over Pinch Gut Creek. The existing bridge is 36-feet in length with a
clear roadway width of 19-feet, 4-inches. The replacement structure will consist
of a triple barrel, 12-foot wide by 11-foot high reinforced concrete box culvert.
The culvert size is based on preliminary design information and is set by
hydraulic requirements. This structure will be of sufficient length to provide two
11-foot lanes with 6-foot shoulders on each side; four feet of the shoulder width
will be paved. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing grade.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 150 feet from the southeast end
of the new bridge and 200 feet from the northwest end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two
11-foot lanes. Six-foot grass shoulders (4-foot paved, 2-foot grass) will be
provided on each side (9-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The
roadway will be designed as a Rural Minor Collector using Sub-Regional Tier
Design guidelines with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
3 zo
Date
Environmental Analysis Branch
IZI1Q O
Date roj ct Engineer
Pr ect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
3R a1
Date
Project Development & EnvironmehW Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects
[slaq
Date
FW John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
10
. Catawba County
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1880
Over Pinch Gut Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1880(1)
State Project No. 8.2792401
W.B.S. No. 33426.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4062
Division Twelve Construction, Resident Engineer's Office - Offsite Detour
hi order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Dr. Timothy Markley (or
acting Superintendent) for Catawba County Schools should be contacted at (828) 464-
8333 at least one month prior to road closure.
Mr. Bryan Blanton (or acting EMS manager) for Catawba County Emergency Services
needs to be contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to road closure to make
the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Hydraulic Unit - FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP),
the delegated state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program,
to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement with IMP (dated.6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Resident Engineer - As-built Construction Plans
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA - regulated
stream(s). Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain
were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Roadway Design - Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
Allowance will be made for bicycle-safe bridge railing height of 54 inches and 4-foot
wide paved shoulders in both directions for shoulder sections or 14-foot wide lanes in
curb and gutter sections continued for at least 100-feet on either side of the improvements
depending on the preferred cross section.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
March 2009

US \?o r

y;IB-4062

Dulan,

1882 i -- -
?
er ;
880

I
t %1 feel
1882
BUS
If i ?• J
,.. '-?_.
_
? 1880
g
f3 i
J .i•
i
i

teat
'
,
1078
J,[_

\
?-
? 1880
'?

?
- 1810 I
X ' ,
1
80
% ,
- i Detour Route

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANPORTATION
jD.!oNoFHiGHwAys
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &.
ENVJRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
CATAWBA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 127 ON SR 1880
OVER PINCH GUT CREEK
B-4062
FIGURE 1
N
o .,
?Ln
Q Z~
W
-x
Ile
UJ 00
.. I ??
oC ?
a
zy I? I
LU j$ I
North Carolina Department of
` Transportation
p Division of Highways
?`!? ,?? Planning & Environmental Branch
\`..-
Catawba County
Replace Bridge No. 127 on SR 1880
Over Pinch Gut Creek
B4062
FIGURE 3
North approach of Bridge No. 127
South approach of Bridge No. 127
Looking downstream in
Pinch Gut Creek
West face of Bridge No. 127
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pew B. Ssndbedk Ad. kn neawt
brichael F. Easley, Governor -
Iisbeth C Evans, Seaetary
jef&cy j. Crow, Deputy Sc=tary
July 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Christy M. Wright
NCDOT PDEA - Bridge , Project Development Unit.
FROM: Peter SandbeI / r/"/,
?"?4l?MP+ti
Office of Archiva and History
Division of Historical Raoutca
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge 127 on SR 1880 over Pinch Gut Creek, B-4062, Catawba County,
ER 07-1273
Thank you for your letter of May 24, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Biount Suvet. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Servia Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Soeet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Servicc Centes, Rdeo NC 276994617
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Ceter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 127
SR 1880 (St. James Church Road) over Pinch Gut Creek
Catawba County, North Carolina
(B-4062)
(State Project No. 8.2792401)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1880[1])
Prepared For:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
September 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... ...........................1
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................... ...........................1
1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................... ...........................1
1.3 Methods ......................................................................................... ...........................1
1.4 Qualifications .:............................................................................... ...........................3
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology ..................................................... ...................:.......4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ..........................:.............................................. ...........................4
2.1 Physiography and Soils .................................................................. ...........................4
2.2 Water Resources ........................................................................... ...........................5
2.3 Summary of Potential Impacts to Water Sources ........................... ...........................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCEF ....................................................................:......... ............................8
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................ ............................8
3.2 Aquatic Communities .................................................................... ..........................11
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... ..........................12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ..................................................................... ..........................12
4.1 Waters of the United States .......................................................... .........................12
4.2 Permit Issues ................................................................................ ..........................14
4.2.1 Permits .................................................................................... ..........................14
4.2.2 Mitigation ................................................................................. ..........................15
4.3 Protected Species ......................................................................... .........................15
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX Completed USACE Data Forms
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Terrestrial Communities within the Project Study Area ...............................................12
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Catawba County ..................................17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location ..........................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Plant Community and Land Use ....................................................................:.............9
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Areas ...................................................................................................14
Project 06-296.03 ii B-4062, Catawba County
Replacement of Bridge No. 127
SR 1880 (St. James Church Road) over Pinch Gut Creek
Catawba County, North Carolina
(B-4062)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) project B-4062 proposes to replace. Bridge No. 127, located on North Carolina
Secondary Road 1880 (SR 1880, St. James Church Road), over Pinch Gut Creek in Catawba
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Bridge No. 127 on SR 1880 spans Pinch Gut Creek and its
adjacent banks. The bridge is approximately 35.5 feet long and 20 feet wide.
The project study area is located approximately 1 mile south of Newton, North Carolina. SR
1880 is oriented along a north-south axis through the study area, while Pinch Gut Creek flows
from east to west. The project study area has been determined to be approximately 300 feet in
width (centered on the existing roadway) and approximately 1750 feet in length, encompassing
approximately 12 acres.
One alternative has been proposed for the replacement of Bridge No. 127. The recommended
replacement plan, Alternate 1, calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 127 in its current location.
During construction, an offsite detour utilizing SR 1883 and NC 1882 will be used to maintain
traffic.
Bridge No. 127 was built in 1960 with a superstructure comprised of a timber deck on I-beams.
The substructure consists of end bents with timber caps and timber piles on timber bulkheads.
The existing bridge is to be removed without dropping components into Pinch Gut Creek;
therefore, no potential fill in waters of the United States is anticipated. NCDOT will coordinate
with resource agencies to alleviate concerns associated with bridge demolition.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the project study
area. Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of biological features
within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species,
jurisdictional wetlands, and water quality; 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas and
subsequent mapping of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble XRS Differential Global
Positioning System [GPS] technology); 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their extent
within the project study area; and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Maiden, NC 7.5-
Project 06-296.03 1 B-4062, Catawba County
B GE NO. 127
U
99
a
N.T.S.
2710 n
pe
is
'
4 2]19
. t.K y I 1
r q = eteseillj
pry ? a, _ '-
0 •,•.Si c. 0 ! J
T? B A
•?> tnF?,i ; t F --- e•:. allaslill.
NORTH CAROLNTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMEW A
E14MONNOMAL ANALYSE BRANCH
CATAWABA COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 127 ON SR 1880 OVER
PINCH GUT CREEK
TIP NO. B-4062
J
U CATION MAP
FIGURE 1
minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI).mapping (Maiden, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle), Soils Conservation Service soils mapping
(SCS 1975), and aerial photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utifized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated
nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter
approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineation guidelines
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (NCDEM) Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996).
Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined. by
supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Potter et
al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, and Webster et al. 1985). Water quality information for area
streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (NCDWQ 2002, 2004a-c).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Catawba County (January 29, 2007 USFWS list) is considered in this report. In addition,
NCNHP records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted
before commencing field investigations (April 13, 2005).
The project study area was walked and visually mapped for significant features. Potential
impacts of construction will be limited to cut-fill boundaries for each alternate. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water
quality protection of Pinch Gut Creek
1.4 Qualifications
The field work for this investigation was conducted on July 7, 2004 by EcoScience Corporation
biologists Matthew Thomas and Scott Davis and on April 14, 2005 by David O'Loughlin.
Mr. Thomas is a Project Scientist with two years of experience in the environmental field. Mr.
Thomas holds a bachelor's degree in environmental science with a concentration in ecology
from North Carolina State University., Professional expertise includes jurisdictional area
delineation, plant and wildlife identification, stream assessment, community mapping, and
environmental document preparation.
Mr. Davis is a Project Scientist with two years of experience in the environmental field. Mr.
Davis holds a bachelor's degree in environmental science with a concentration in ecology from
North Carolina State University. He is proficient in the identification of eastern woody tree and
shrub species and in the identification of southeastern wetland flora. Professional expertise
includes jurisdictional area delineation, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, community
mapping, and environmental document preparation.
Project 06-296.03 3 84062, Catawba County
r
Mr. O'Loughlin is a Project Scientist with two years of experience in the environmental
field working toward a master of science degree in forestry from North Carolina State
University, with minors in botany and statistics. He has taken pertinent courses including
dendrology, botany, ecology, and wetland soils. His professional expertise includes natural
resources .assessment, stream and wetland delineations, and environmental document
preparation.
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology
Definitions for descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits, and has been determined to be approximately
300 feet in width (centered on the existing roadway) and approximately 1750 feet in length;
encompassing approximately 12 acres; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile
on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map with the project occupying the central
position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina.
This ecoregion is characterized as rolling to hilly, with higher elevations, more rugged
topography, and more monadnocks and mountains. than other areas of the Piedmont (Griffith et
al. 2002). The project study area is situated within a moderately sloping floodplain valley.
Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately 860 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum `(NGVD [Maiden, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle)), in the southern portions
of the project study area, to a low of approximately 840 feet NGVD (Maiden, NC 7.5-minute
quadrangle ) within the channel of Pinch Gut Creek. Land uses within and adjacent to the
project study area consist of pastures, agriculture lands, woodlands, and roadside shoulders.
Based on soil mapping for Catawba County (SCS 1975), the project study area is underlain by
four soil series: including Chewacla loam (Aquic Fulventic Dystrochrepts), Hiwassee clay loam
(Typic Rhodudults), Cecil clay loam (Typic Hapludults), and Hiwasse loam (Typic Rhodudults),
in order of prominence. Within the project study area, Chewacla loam occurs in the floodplains
adjacent to the stream, while Hiwassee clay loam, Cecil clay loam, and Hiwassee loam are
found on slopes. None of the above soil series are considered hydric by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (Gregory 2002); although depressions within the Chewacla series may
contain inclusions of Wehadkee fine sandy loam (Fluventic Haplaquepts), a predominantly
hydric soil.
Chewacla loam.is a somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable, nearly level soil found on
floodplains. The seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 1 foot. . Chewacla loam is
subject to frequent flooding. Within the project study area, the Chewalca series occurs within
Project 06-296.03 4 B-4062, Catawba County

floodplains adjacent to Pinch Gut Creek. The Chewalca series occurs in all four quadrants,
which underlies approximately 3.2 acres (26 percent) of the project study area.
Hiwassee clay loam, 6 to•10 percent slopes, eroded, is a well drained, moderately permeable
soil found on upland slopes. Depth to the seasonal high water table is ,greater than 5 feet. This
soil presents a severe erosion hazard in bare, unprotected areas. Hiwassee clay loam
underlies an area of 4.5 acres (38 percent) on the slopes in the southeastern quadrant of the
project study area.
Cecil clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded, is a well drained, moderately permeable soil
occurring on slopes. Depth to the seasonal high water table depth is greater than 10 feet. This
soil presents a severe erosion hazard in bare, unprotected areas. Within the project study area,
Cecil clay, loam underlies approximately 3.3 acres (28.percent) on the slopes in the northwest
and northeast quadrants. `
Hiwassee loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, eroded, is a well drained, moderately permeable soil
occurring on the lower parts of steep slopes. Depth to the seasonal high water table depth is
greater than 5 feet. This soil presents a severe erosion hazard in.bare, unprotected areas.
Hiwassee loam underlies approximately 1.0 acre (8 percent) on the slopes near the
southwestern quadrant of the project study area.
2.2 Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-08-35 of the Catawba Basin (NCDWQ
2004c). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050102 of the South. Atlantic/Gulf Region.
The structure targeted for replacement spans Pinch Gut Creek and the adjacent floodplain. The
portion of Pinch Gut Creek traversing the project study area has been assigned Stream Index
Number 11-129-5-7 by NCDWQ (2004b).
Pinch Gut originates upstream of the project study area near the intersection of NC Highway 16
and Providence Mill Road, approximately 4200 feet upstream of the existing bridge. Within the
project study area, Pinch Gut Creek is. a well-defined, 20-foot wide, second-order, perennial
stream. Pinch Gut Creek flows in a southwesterly direction, averaging 15 feet wide within the
project study area. Pinch Gut Creek has a sand, gravel, and cobble substrate. The banks are 4
feet high and heavily vegetated. Trees form a canopy over the stream channel, while shrubs
and vines dominate the understory around the stream bank. During field investigations, the
water level appeared normal, ranging from 2 inches deep over riffles to 3 feet deep in pools.
Flow was low, and water clarity was fair. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was
observed within the stream. Pinch Gut Creek scored a 49 on the Army Corps of Engineer's
Stream. Quality Assessment Worksheet. Opportunities for habitat within Pinch Gut Creek
include overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the, State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best
Usage Classification of C has been assigned to the entire length of Pinch Gut Creek. Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary
Project 06-296.03 5 B-4062, Catawba County

recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating; and other uses not involving human
body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. One designated High Quality
Waters (HQ", Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS4), Water Supply II
(WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile .of the project study area
(NCDWQ 2004c). Maiden Creek, a tributary that joins with Pinch Gut Creek 2.9 miles
downstream from the project study area, is designated as a WS41 and HQW.
NCDWQ has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the
Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2004c). Pinch Gut is currently listed by
NCDWQ as Not Rated as its designated use. No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations
occur in the Pinch Gut Creek watershed or within 1.0 mile of the project area (NCDWQ 1999).
With respect to temperature regimes, Pinch Gut Creek is designated as a warmwater stream
(USACE et al. 2003).
NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2006 Final Section 303(d)
list. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired
waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards; including, designated uses,
numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40.CFR 131. The
standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution; or an
unknown cause of impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources,
and/or atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North
Carolina's methodology is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in
the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only
Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2006 Final
Section 303(d) list Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2004
Final Section 303(d) list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required
for the stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North
Carolina has developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative
value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. Pinch Gut Creek is not listed on any
section of the N.C. 2006 Final Section 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2006).
Sub-basin 03-08-35 of the Catawba River Basin supports 23 permitted, point source discharges
with a total discharge exceeding 27,331,300 million gallons per day. Six of the permitted
dischargers are classified. as major dischargers, discharging over 26.5 million gallons per day
combined. The 17 remaining permitted dischargers are minor (NCDWQ 2004a). The closest
NPDES discharger is along Carpenter Creek, a downstream tributary of Clark Creek, which
Pinch Gut Creek flows into 1.4 miles downstream of the project study area. National Fruit
Product Company, Incorporated holds a minor discharge permit (N00023761) for Carpenter
Creek (NCDWQ 2004a). Major non-point sources of pollution within the Catawba River Basin
include agriculture, urban runoff, construction activities, timber harvesting, mining, failing septic
systems, runoff from solid waste facilities. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major
problems associated with non-point source discharges (NCDWQ 2004c).
Project 06-296.03 6 B-4062, Catawba County

Temporary construction. impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and. Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures
include the use of dikes, berms,. silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff;
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
2.3 Summary of Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. ' Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in
the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to. silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in Pinch
Gut Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from
construction are expected to. be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the life of the project. NCDOT will coordinate with resource agencies to
alleviate concerns associated with bridge demolition.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area:
disturbed/maintained land, mesic-mixed forest, agriculture land, and Piedmont alluvial forest.
Project 06-296.03 7 B-4062, Catawba County

Plant communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each `
(Figure 2). These communities are described below in order of their dominance within the
project study area.
Disturbed/Maintained Land - Disturbed/maintained land constitutes approximately 4.15 acres
(55 percent) of the project study area. This community includes residential lots, roadside
shoulders, and fragmented forest, all of which are maintained by some form of mowing or
trimming. Residential lots occur in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the project study
area, while roadside shoulders occur in all four quadrants.
Grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation in this community. Representative species include
fescue (Festuca sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pretense), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa
multillora), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus sp:), and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans). Trees and shrubs are present to a lesser extent in the disturbed/maintained
community. Both have a scattered distribution, occurring in small groups or as individuals. In
general, trees are confined to residential lots and field borders. Observed tree species include
red oak (Quercus rubra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sycamore. (Platanus occidentalis).
Shrubs and saplings occur throughout the disturbed/maintained community, but are most
abundant in areas that receive longer disturbance regime intervals. Observed shrub species
include red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (L/riodendron tulipfera), black cherry, red oak, and
sycamore.
Although this community is primarily made up of maintained fields, it can be expected that there
will be some mammalian and avian diversity, as there is low residential density and vehicular
traffic. No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit. However, there are several
species that are well adapted to using the ecotone of the pasture and wooded communities.
Opportunistic omnivores consume a wide variety of food such as wild fruit, fish, small mammals,
reptiles, and birds. Omnivorous species with such adaptations that would ulitize the project
study area include raccoon (Procyon /otoo, red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Raccoons may be found closer to the
streams or near residences. Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) is an herbivore that also
prefers brushy clearings adjacent to woodlands. Insectivore species expected to occur within
the open portion of the project study area include eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), red bat
(Lasiurus borealis), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). The bobcat (Lynx rufus) is,a
carnivorous species that uses disturbed/maintained land for predation. Birds observed utilizing
habitat within the project study area include common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) [an open
area hunter of small animals and insects], red-tailed (Buteo jamaicensis) and red-shouldered
hawks (B. lineatus), which are open-ground predators. Other species expected to utilize project
study area habitats include other open-ground predators such as great-horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), and other species that forage on invertebrates in the summer and fruits, nuts, and
seeds in the winter. Such species include common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), American
robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), red-winged blackbird (Agelius
phoeniceus), and eastern meadowlark (Stumella magna) (Hamel 1992).
Project 06-296.03 8 B-4062, Catawba County
study area habitats include other open-ground predators such as great-horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), and other species that forage on invertebrates in the summer and fruits, nuts, and
seeds in the winter. Such. species include common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), American
robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), red-winged blackbird (Agelius
phoeniceus), and eastern meadowlark (Stumella magna) (Hamel 1992).
Mesic-Mixed Forest - The mesic-mixed forest community occupies a total of 1.47 acres (20
percent) in the southeast quadrant of the project study area. This community consists of mid-
successional, mature forest with well developed forest strata. This stand of upland forest is
adjacent to disturbed/maintained. areas.
Canopy species include. Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), loblolly pine (P. taeda), tulip poplar,
white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Q. velutina), willow oak (Q. phellos), red maple, and box
elder (Ater negundo). The shrub and sapling layer consists of sassafras (Sassafras albidum),
American holly (Ilex opaca), and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The herbaceous layer is
sparse through much.of this community. Observed herbs include southern lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides), Christmas fern . (Polystichum acrostichoides), pokeweed, muscadine (Vitis
rotundfolia), common greenbrier, and poison ivy.
The Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) was observed during site visit. This community
provides food for wildlife,. while its stratification creates numerous shelter opportunities for
species such. as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon, Virginia opossum, meadow
vole, red bat, eastern mole, and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). Wildlife species which
may take advantage of food sources such as herbaceous vegetation, hardwood mast, or seeds
from red maple and tulip poplar include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys volans), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), brown
thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Some wildlife species that may
take advantage of cover such as the forest floor, loose bark, and arboreal areas, or prey upon
species utilizing these habitats include gray fox (Urocyon cineareoargenteus), southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), eastern pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), eastern screech owl (Otus
asio), norther flicker (Co/aptes auratus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), wood thrush
(Hy/ocichla mustelina), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus
virens), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), timber
rattlesnake (Crota/us horr,dus), American toad (Bufo americanus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and white-spotted slimy salamander
(Plethodon cylindriceus).
Agricultural Land - Agricultural land encompasses approximately 1.39 acres (20 percent) of
the project study area. This community is comprised of two open pastures located in the
floodplain of the northwest and southwest quadrants of the project study area. The two fields

Project 06-296.03 10 B-4062, Catawba County
appear to have formerly served as grazing areas for livestock. A fallow field occurs in the
northeast quadrant of the project study area.
Vegetation in the agricultural land community primarily consists of pasture and hayfield grasses,
such as fescue. The otherwise grass monoculture is, however, diversified by opportunistic
herbs such as white clover, buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), blackberry, microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum), and thistle (Carduus sp.).
This community is similar, to disturbed/maintained land in that it provides an easily-traveled
corridor between forested communities as well as foraging habitat for granivores, insectivores,
and carnivores, but little cover from predation. Wildlife species expected to be found within
disturbed/maintained land would also be expected to occur within this community.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest - The Piedmont alluvial forest community constitutes approximately
0.27 acre (3 percent) of the project study area. This community occurs in the floodplain of the
southwestern quadrant adjacent to.Pinch Gut Creek. It consists of a mature, secondary growth
forest with well developed vertical strata.
Canopy species observed in this community include box elder, sycamore, red maple, tulip
popular, river birch (Betula nigra) and American elm (U/mus americana). Sapling and shrub
layers include canopy species as well as flowering dogwood and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
The herbaceous layer is dense, creating .a carpet layer that extends throughout the alluvial
forest. The herbaceous layer consists of Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinqefolia),
microstegium, pokeweed, Christmas fem, soft rush (Juncus effusus), jewelweed (Impatiens
pallida), and arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum).
Blue jay, Carolina chickadee, and tufted titmouse were observed flying within the forest, while
an American bullfrog was observed adjacent to Pinch Gut Creek. No mammals or reptiles were
observed during the site visit, but observed evidence of mammal activity includes raccoon
tracks and white-tailed deer scat. Much like mesic-mixed forest, this community provides food
for wildlife, while its stratification creates numerous shelter opportunities for a diversity of
species. Wildlife species expected to utilize mesic-mixed forest are also expected to utilize
Piedmont alluvial forest. Additional wildlife species that may utilize the riparian corridor for
foraging, nesting, and/or hunting include prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), eastern
phoebe (Sayonoris phoebe), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus
satrapa), barred owl (Strix varia), southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), and spring peeper (Pseudacris
crucifer).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
No sampling was undertaken in Pinch Gut Creek to determine fishery potential, and no fish
species were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in this reach
of Pinch Gut Creek include smaller species such as margined madtom (Noturus insignis),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), yellowfin shiner
Project 06-296.03 11 B-4062, Catawba County

(Notropis lutipinnis), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus) (Menhinick 1991).
3.3 Summary of Terrestrial Communities f
Plant communities within the project study area were delineated to determine the approximate
area and location of each (Figure 1). A summary of plant community areas within the project
study area is presented in Table 1. An additional 0.2 acre is occupied by the surface area of
Pinch Gut Creek.
Table 1. Terrestrial Communities within the Project Study Area
Plant Community Acres
Maintained/Disturbed Land 7.4
Mesic-Mixed Forest 2.3
Agriculture Land 2.0
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.2
Total 11.9
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since the majority
of the impact is restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and associated
disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns.
Turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement will be minimized through
stringent erosion control measures.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3).
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) system for classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats was used to determine the type of wetland present (Cowardin et al. 1979). Section 404
jurisdictional areas are depicted by Figure 3.
Pinch Gut Creek exhibits the characteristics of a well-defined, second-order, perennial stream
with low flow over sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. Pinch Gut Creek can be classified as
riverine system, upper perennial, with an unconsolidated bottom composed of cobble, gravel,
and sand (R3UB1). Pinch Gut Creek extends through the project study area for a distance of
341 linear feet, and occupies approximately 0.15 acre.
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
Project 06-296.03 12 84062, Catawba County
\
A

\ co

BRIDGE
NO. 127

?m
e
0900
°ii
x
,
\ PINCH

meo9 a is
oe m
\
?
C06
m r.1Y..1
?
ma 1.
?
O$
meol ?.?
\. 1m
.Sos ? ?Eoa
I
I
LEGEND
- - - PROJECT STUDY
JURISDICTIONAL
STREAM BOUNDARIES
Ma _WL JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
BRIDGE
Cfenn

SR 1883 \
N
71
cp
CD
O
.°mrz
I
I Id .113
\ .amrs
1
1
I
I
100 0 100
I??
SCALE IN, FEET
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
NO. 127 (B-4062)
SR 1880 (ST. JAMES CHURCH ROAD)
OVER PINCH OUT CREEK
Catawba County, North Carolina
a, oa e>
GWN ES FIGURE
MAR 2007
3
04-193

percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The project study area
contains one vegetated wetland area within the Piedmont alluvial forest. Within the project
study area, the wetland occupies approximately 0.11 acre. A medium-quality, hardwood canopy
dominated wetland, occurs within the project study area (Figure 2). The medium quality
designation is based on '..North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM)
ratings guidelines [rating. of 50 out of 100 (NCDEM 1995)]. Seepage from adjacent slopes
seems to. be the primary Aource of hydrology. This wetland can be classified as a palustrine,
semipermanently to. seasonally saturated wetland supporting broad-leaved, deciduous
vegetation (PF01Y). Soils exhibit hydric characteristics, and wetland hydrology is indicated by
inundation, saturation within 12 inches of the surface, and water-stained leaves. This system
would be considered a "riverine" wetland by NCDWQ, based upon its location within the Pinch
Gut Creek floodplain. Since the existing bridge is proposed to be replaced by a bridge, and
bridge demolition is not expected to result in impacts to open waters, the proposed project is not
expected to impact Pinch Gut Creek.
Amanda Jones of the USACE was contacted on November 28, 2005 to verify the jurisdictional
area delineations. No special restrictions apply beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added to the document on
Bridge Demolition. This project is subject to BMP-BDRs and the NCWRC's final classification..
4.2 Permit Issues
4.2.1 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional areas are not anticipated from the proposed project. This project may
be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 (67 FR 2020, 2082;
January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S. expected with bridge
construction. NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP
23 (GC 3632). If temporary structures are necessary for constriction activities, access fills, or
dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15, 2002) and the
associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3634) will be required. If the NWPs 23
and 33 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach
improvements may qualify under General.Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington
USACE District. NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP
031 (GC 3627). Notification to the USACE Wilmington District office is required if this general
permit is utilized.
4.2.2 Mitigation
The USACE has . adopted through the Council on Envionmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEO to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
Project 06-296.03 14 B-4062, Catawba County

these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially. .
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United.States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset. unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope. and degree. of those impacts and practicablein
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in tight of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes.the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications. and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-
way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts
to surface waters.
Compensatory .mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of. the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands' functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092 (January 15; 2002), the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function
and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability
of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States.
Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to
floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed
areas with native riparian species and removal of temporary fill material upon project
completion. A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and NCDWQ.
4.3 Protected Species
NCNHP records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted
on April 13, 2005. Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for•such listing are protected under the'Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,°'and
the term "Threatened . Species' is, defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Project 06-296.03 15 B-4062, Catawba County

i
One federally protected species is listed for Catawba County (as of the September 6, 2007,
USFWS list): dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastyluis naniflora), which has a federal status of
Threatened.
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
.Status: Threatened
Family: Birthwort
Date Listed: April 4, 1989
This species of heartleaf occurs in acidic sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes,
hillsides and ravines, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams (Karl 1983). Soil type
is the most important habitat requirement (Pacolet, Madison, or Musella types). They need
sunlight in early spring for, maximum flowering and seed production. A distinguishing
=characteristic of dwarf-flowered heartleaf is that this species has the. smallest flowers of any
North American Hexastylis. Most:flowers are less that 0.4 inch long, with narrow sepal tubes
(never more than 0.28 inch wide). The jug:shaped flowers range from beige to dark brown,
sometimes greenish or purplish. Leathery evergreen leaves are dark green and heart-shaped
(Karl 1983). In North Carolina, dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known from a few southwestern
Piedmont counties (Franklin and Finnegan 2006).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The NCNHP has no documentation for dwarf-flowered heartleaf within 1.0 mile of the project
study area, and no dwarf-flowered heartleaf specimens were observed during the field visit.
Suitable habitat includes acidic sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes, hillsides and
ravines, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams. A systematic survey for dwarf-
flowered heartleaf was conducted within wooded areas and along the banks of Pinch Gut Creek
within the project study area on April 14, 2005 by EcoScience staff member, Mr. O'Loughlin. No
specimens of dwarf-flowered heartleaf were located, thus the presence of this species within the
project study area can be discounted.
Federal Species of Concem - The September 6, 2007 USFWS list also includes a category of
species designated as."Federal species of concern" (FSC). FSC are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, FSC listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species
are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. NCNHP files list no documentation for
FSC species within 2.0 miles of the project study area (Franklin and Finnegan 2006, LeGrand
and Hall, 2006). Three FSC species are listed for Catawba County (as of September 6, 2007)
and are listed in Table 2.
Habitat for the woodrat consists of forests, mainly in moist areas. Scattered woodlots along
watercourses in and near the project study area may contain habitat for the Southern
Appalachian eastern woodrat. Catawba crayfish ostracods are symbiotic to crayfish on Lyle
Project 06-296.03 16 B-4062, Catawba County
a
Creek in the Catawba drainage. The reach of. Pinch: Gut Creek within the project study area
does not provide suitable habitat for Catawba: crayfish because it is. in. a separate sub-basin.
Sweet piriesap is found in pine dominated forests and on bluffs. Suitable habitat for sweet
pinesap exists within the project study area. No FSC species were observed during field
investigations, and the NCNHP lists no occurrences of FSC species within 2.0 miles of the
project study area.
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern (FS C) Listed for Catawba County

Common Name
Scientific Name ` Potential
Habitat State
Status'
Southern Appalachian eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia Yes T
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dactyloctyhere isabelae No SR
Sweet pinesap . Monotropsis odonita Yes SR-T' "
'State Status: T = Endangered; SC = Species of concern; SR =Significantly Rare; and SR-T Significantly Rare throughout -
species' range (Franklin at al. 2006, LeGrand at al. 2006).
Project 06.296.03 17 B-4062, Catawba County
5.0 REFERENCES
Cow.ardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
169 PP•
Franklin, M.A. and J. T. Finnegan. 2006: Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation; N.C. Department. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Gregory, J. D. 2002. Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation Data for North
Carolina. Department of Forestry, NC State University, Raleigh, NC. 33 pp.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omemik,.J.A. Comstock,.M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelboume. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive. text, summary table, and
photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Hamel, P.B. 1992, Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized.Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
LeGrand, H.E., S.E. McRae, S.P.:Hall; and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List
of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer; J.R. Bailey; and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP.
Menhinick, E.F.. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife.
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp. . .
Project 06-296.03 18 B-4062, Catawba County
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1995. Guidance for Rating
the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1996. A Field Guide to North
Carolina Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004a. List of Active Permits (online).
Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS 041204.xls [July 16,
20041. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004b. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed
by Subbasin (online). Available: http://h2o.dnr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwater
bodies/03-08-35.pdf [July 16, 2004]. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004c. Catawba River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
N.C..Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.usttmdVGeneral 303d.htm. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. [October 2006].
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 1999. List of Significant Natural Heritage
Areas. North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Office of Conservation and Community Affairs (NCOCCA). 2004. On-line
Database Search (online). Available: http://www.hcsparks.netlnhp/search.html [July 26,
20041. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Palmer, W:M. and A.L: Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Project 06296.03 19 B-4062, Catawba County

1
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the. Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (NRCS). .1975. Soil Survey of Catawba.County, North Carolina,
USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Catawba County Endangered
Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available:
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/catawba.html [April 13, 20051. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
(online): Available: http://www.nwi.fws.oov [July 16, .2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp..
Project 06-296.03 20 B-4062, Catawba County

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
i
Project/Site: B-4062 Date: 9/5/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Catawba
Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: Bottomland Hardwood
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transact ID: SB03
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: Wet
V1Pr2FTATIf1N
Dominant Plant Species
1. Acer rubrum Stratum
C Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Liriodendrontulipijera C FAC 10.
3. Magnolia macrophylla i t .
4. Arundinariagigantea S FACW 12.
5. Impatiens pallida H FACW 13.
6. Microstegium vimineum H FAC+ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
_ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
x No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 1 (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.)
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators.
Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: I2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
I Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla loam,
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquen'ic Dystrudepts -
Drainage Class: SWPD
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-8 A 7.5YR 5/6 l OYR 5/4 Few, faint Fine, clay loam
8-12+ B IOYR 4/1 7.5YR 5/6 Many, common Fine, clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ii ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4062 Date: 9/5/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Catawba
Investigator: M. Thomas - EcoScience State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances Exist on the Site? Yes No Community ID: Bottomland Hardwood
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical)? Yes No Transect ID: SB03
Is the area a.. potential problem area? Yes No Plot ID: Up -
VFGFTATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Acer rubrum Stratum
C Indicator
FAC Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
9.
2. Carya tomentosa C UPL 10.
3. Smilax rotundifolia S FAC 11.
4. Carex (sp) H 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are DEL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) 33%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
_ Other
x No Recorded Data Available
'.Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: _ (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: Z (in.)
Primary Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
I Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla loam,
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Drainage Class: SWPD -
Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description: `
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0 - 12+ A 10YR 5/6 Fine, sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Yes No
Remarks:
USACE AID# DWQ # Site #_ (indicate on attached map)
i tad STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 09/05/04
5. Name of stream: Pinch Gut Creek
7. Approximate drainage area 2.180 ac
9. Length of reach evaluated: 325 ft ,
11. Site coordinates (if known): 35.6145°N. 81.1894°W
2. Evaluator's name: Matthew D. Thomas.
4. Time of evaluation: 2 pm
6. River basin: Catawba
8. Stream order. 3rd
10. County: Catawba
12. Subdivision name (if any):
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Located on SR 1880 south of intersection of SR 1880 and SR 1883
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Bridge replacement
15. Recent weather conditions: 85°F party cloudy
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Avg temps avg opt
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed _(I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area. 3. 1 ac ponds
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 100/6 Residential
40% Forested
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
Commercial Industrial 400/a Agricultural
10% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22
Bankfull width: 15' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 4'
.
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>I 0%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to
each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot
be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may
be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned
to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET.. .
tsh.dgn
I [CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: 1
o ?

2RR
+ a o a n ? n

?
?? ?°
o
N
?
R
R2
a
S

m

a

N
Ia n
? o
o
?i
v ?
m ¦

N big
D
Fx

B
i3
d
F
-O U) 0
vz ?z
/
m
o m04
nm
N tn
? c
.a
yJ ', w / 4
d

ran 4
i eyss

pop
'cc
qtl
\Gqq

F
,yyP m
§ eat Fr

. y9P 9?
a
f
6F? e
gB? P
9{ ?
n? R
5

O

loo
iIR la
0
If L a
u1l?
8 a
a
r

p$$
aaC

Soo P
dr.
it °PII
\Gp
?

9i

o

n
a
p

CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: R

0 0

' y
o
L o o
N
°
0
0
53 S3
+ o 0 o- n a n
;oj
t
9
is
I?
P
N
0

n
O
W
i
I?p?
8
O c'!
K
I to
. y
¢b?
NO
Z
Z
m
0
v
v
0

ayq
V
n
ys
Y?
YO

p I.. T,
9 / /
i
c p / ? c
tt
41"
a
9 88868
/ aaaaa? i
h sa?r? o
as
°a
O
I 19I ;al
p
\ a» i of Z
??511j??10 /? ? t i
$ 1 O Q
\ o °g Ana ? O

Zia. S9P a
??pR ?? abr? y ? ?? s ?? m
3b_ ? ??S nl ?q ??
}4C
`ae ?? a R I $ `I I 8 ? ? rn
I' a I I TIT

N
m
Z
z
N
I

N
m
Z
Z
0
J
-A -
5

C ~ N m+ N
g s=
.. z?;V I? 3s m
p ? $ ? :OEi ? i3$E g
p ?
?
?~ %
0~ dj
???~ (iSp
((]]S!'' y
Appppy O