20020723 Ver 1_Complete File_20020507

M?T?o
ti
euw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSP.ORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. Noms TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 24, 1998,
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1802, McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 3 over
South Muddy Creek, State Project 8.2871401,
F. A. Project MABRZ-1802(2), B-3207
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on April 22, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin
Ray Moore
Greg Blair
Scott Moore
Dale Suiter
Don Sellers
Jerry Snead
Lannette Cook
Art McMillan
Brenda Moore
John Williams
SHPO
Structure Design
Traffic Control
Traffic Engineering
Planning & Environmental
Right of Way
Hydraulics
Program Development
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning & Environmental
The following are scoping meeting comments:
Debbie Bevin of SHPO stated that an architectural survey was not required. An
archaeological survey will be required construction occurs outside of the existing
alignment.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission indicated that this is not a trout
stream. However, it is in a Stream Rehabilitation/Watershed Stabilization Project and
therefore High Quality Waters Erosion Control Measures are recommended.
Joe Buckner (Division 13 Construction Engineer) recommended maintaining
traffic onsite during construction. An onsite detour (or realignment if possible) would be
necessary due to the length of detour.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be replaced with
a three barrel culvert (probably 10 x 10). When the final hydraulic recommendation is
ready the results will be made available to roadway design.
Ank
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 3
[Built in 1953] [87 feet long] [23.2 foot wide deck] [22 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 15 feet] [Posted 28 tons for SV and 33 tons for
TTST's]
[Sufficiency Rating 27.2] [Estimated useful remaining life 5 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1802 is a Rural Minor Collector with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
NC 10 connects NC 226 and I-40 in Catawba County.
Land use is primarily agricultural and undeveloped.
Current ADT is 400 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 700 VPD
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1% TTST)
Accident Information: (5-01-94 through 4-31-97)
No accidents
Bus Information: Six trips a day. Would create a burden resulting from very long detour.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE
ALTERNATE 1) Bridge No. 3 will be replaced in place. Traffic will be maintained
with an onsite detour during construction.
ALTERNATE 2) Bridge No. 3 will be replaced in place. Traffic would be detoured
offsite during construction.
B-3207 is a Plan-Design Project with the following schedule:
Digital Terrain Mapping from Location Surveys Due 10-98,
Cost Estimates from Roadway Design Due 2-99,
Document from Planning & Environmental Due 3-00
.,,.
Right of Way: June 2000
Construction: June 2001
l e"??0
w?aM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 24, 199$
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 2804, Buncombe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 653 over
Broad River, State Project 8.2843501,
F. A. Project BRZ-2804(1), B-3119
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on April 7, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin
Albert Outlaw
Scott Moore
Dale Suiter
Betty C. Yancey
Jerry Snead
John Taylor
Lannette Cook
Kathy Lassiter
Virginia Mabry
Scott Pridgen
Joseph Ishak
John Williams
SHPO
Structure Design
Traffic Control
Planning & Environmental
Right of Way
Hydraulics
Location & Surveys
Program Development
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Traffic Control
Planning & Environmental
The following are scoping meeting comments:
Debbie Bevin of SHPO wrote in comments that Bridge No. 653 (a thru truss
bridge) is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. An architectural
survey will not be required for this project. An archaeological survey will be required of
any areas disturbed by construction.
Joe Buckner (Division 13 Construction Engineer) recommended removal of the
bridge without replacement. He will pursue the issue with The Division Engineer and the
Board Member.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacement with a new bridge
approximately 120 feet long to the east of the existing location. The new bridge would be
perpendicular to the two roads it is connecting unlike the existing bridge which is at a
skew.
frip
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATE
There are two options being pursued at this point in time. The first option is to
replace Bridge No. 653 on new location somewhere 50 to 100 feet east (to be determined
when surveys are available) of the existing structure. Traffic would be maintained on
Bridge No. 653 during construction. Upon completion of the new bridge, Bridge 653
would be removed.
The second option, currently being pursued by the Division Construction
Engineer, is to remove Bridge 653 without replacement. Traffic would be rerouted along
the route shown on the attached location map. The route does cross another smaller one
lane bridge (Bridge No. 654) which is eligible to be replaced. This option is also being
discussed with Jimmy Lee of Bridge Maintenance and Ray McIntyre of Program
Development.
Planning will continue with the replacement alternate until such time that a
removal without replacement option is determined to be viable.
Proposed Bridge: The new bridge should be 24 feet wide including 2- 10-foot
lanes and 2 foot offsets.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 653
[Built in 1961] [122 feet long] [12 foot wide deck ] [11.7 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of bridge to creek bed: 23 feet] [Posted 10 tons SV and 13 tons TTST]
[Sufficiency Rating 20.6] [Estimated useful remaining life 9 years]
Traffic Information
SR 2804 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Land use is primarily undeveloped with scattered residential and agricultural.
[Current ADT is 100 vpd.] [Projected 2025 ADT is 300 vpd.]
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1% TTST)
Accident Information: no accidents have been reported in the past three years
Bus Information: Six trips a day. Can easily detour if necessary. Requested that we provide an
area to turn around if we take out the bridge since the busses currently travel along a short
section of SR 2804 and use Bridge 653 to go back to SR 2791.
B-3119 is a Plan-Design Project with the following schedule:
Digital Terrain Mapping from Location Surveys Due 9-98,
Cost Estimates from Roadway Design Due 2-99,
Document from Planning & Environmental Due 4-00
Right of Way: July 2Q00
Construction: July 2001

IVNI-I
F NOA7H C • ,
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
?4 moo,
9
\ OFiRIA "'?Planning & Environmental Branch
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek
B-3207
Figure One
T '.
B-3207
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
State Project No. 8.2871401 Right of Way 6-00
-Federal Project No. MABRZ-1802(2) Construction Let 6-01
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802 over Muddy Creek in
McDowell County, B-3207.
Will there be Special Funding Participation by a Municipality, Developers, or Others?
YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 26.5 METERS; WIDTH 6.7 METERS
STRUCTURE 194: 87 FEET 22 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ......................................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... +
TIP TOTAL COST ....................................
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Collector
$ 310,000
$ 30,000
$ 340,000
11

\ /
LTye'N SfuF
N a?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
020723
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
May 6, 2002°- -?--d-
t
MAY - 7 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION
Dear Sir:
Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: MCDOWELL COUNTY, REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 3 ON SR 1802
OVER SOUTH MUDDY CREEK, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. MA-BRZ-
1802(2), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.287140 1, TIP PROJECT NO. B-3207.
Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 3 will be replaced at the existing location with a tripled-barreled box culvert.
Each barrel will measure 10 feet by 10 feet. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary onsite
detour during the construction period. The temporary onsite detour will be located
approximately 85 feet north (downstream) of the existing bridge and composed of three
corrugated steel pipes each 52.5 feet in length. Placement of the culvert will result in impacts to
surface waters of 0.042 acre. Placement of the corrugated steel pipes will result in temporary
impacts to surface waters of 0.025 acre. The impacts are depicted in the attached drawings
-,? Sheets 5 and 6). A project vicinity map and preconstruction notification form are also included
with this permit application.
Temporary Fill Information: Construction of the temporary bridge structure will require
temporary fill in the streambed. The temporary bridge structure will allow traffic maintenance
during the construction period.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a September 17, 2002 let date.
Disposal: After the bridge construction period is complete, the contractor will remove
corrugated pipes and fill material from the streambed. All containment materials will become
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.N000T.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for
removal and disposal of all materials off-site.
. Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 3 is located on SR 1802 over South Muddy Creek (DWQ
Index No.: 11-32-2, 4/1/99; Class Q. The deck is 87 feet long and 23 feet wide. The
superstructure is composed of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams and the substructure is
composed of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The timber structures and asphalt wearing
surface will be removed without dropping any components into waters of the U.S. during
construction. Some of the concrete material may be dropped into waters of the U.S. during
demolition. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete is approximately 14 cubic
yards. Should any material fall into the stream it will be removed as soon as possible as'part of
the bridge removal process.
Waters of the United States: No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
project. However, the proposed project will impact 88.6 linear feet of surface waters due to
culvert installation and will result in 0.025 acre of temporary fill in surface waters due to
corrugated steel pipe installation.
It is anticipated that the temporary onsite detour will be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore,
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the temporary
bridge. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with Federal Register of January 15, 2002, Part II, Volume 67, No. 10.
This project will take place in a mountain trout county. It is anticipated that comments
from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to
authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby
requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward comments to the Corps of
Engineers.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing
copies of the CE document and this application to the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Chris Rivenbark
at (919)-733-9513.
Sincerely,
,,/, C-,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Brian Cole, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. F. Daniel Martin, P.E., NCDOT Division 13 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD & EA

Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
020723
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
n Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
n Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
Nationwide 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: F-] I
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address: .
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced, to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802 over South Muddy Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3207
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
n/a
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Glenwood
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): n/a
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From US 221 traverse . east on
View Mountain Road (SR 1802) for approx. 3.5 miles to Bridge No. 3 crossing of South
Muddy Creek
5..,Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N 35° 34.739', W 81° 54.867'
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land- use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
rural highway
7. Property size (acres): n/a
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South Muddy Creek
9. River Basin: Catawba River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802 over
South Muddy Creek
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: heavy-duty trucks, crane,
bulldozer, backhoe
12.Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: forest, agriculture, light residential
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
n/a
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
n/a
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State \
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
Page 5 of 13
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
. Type of Wetland***
n/a

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: n/a
Total area of wetland impact proposed: n/a
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
Sheets 5 and 6 Culvert 88.6 South Muddy Creek 20 feet Perennial Stream
Sheet 5 Temporary Pipes 52.5 South Muddy Creek 20 feet Perennial Stream

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Page 6 of 13
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 141.1 ft.
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Sheets 5 and 6 Permanent fill 0.042 South Muddy Creek Stream
Sheets 5 and 6 Temporary fill 0.025 South Muddy Creek Stream

*List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation,
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Project involves bridge replacement in place with a triple-barrelled box culvert . There will be
no impacts to wetlands. Traffic will be maintained on an onsite temporary detour during the
construction period. Should any material fall into the stream it will be removed as soon as
possible as part of the bridge removal process.
? wetlands
installation of
Page 7 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation- mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions,. conservation easement, etc.), and a
description 'of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
n/a
Page 8 of 13
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes E] No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
n/a
Page 9 of 13
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes [-] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
I I- "_ V- Multiplier 4r-1 I
Zone*
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
n/a _
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
doNmstream from the property.
Impervious area will remain approximately the same as current conditions. The existing bridge is
to be replaced in approximately the same location and elevation. NCDOT BMP's for the
protection of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction.

XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
n/a
Page 10 of 13
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
n/a

-
Applicant/Agent's Signature Da e
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

Page 11 of 13

v:.: i
"Oe
w
is

G s:
02 0723
+YIA( ? r
7 xoh
r/
?.w
t?
NPDC
kr:.?" a'•d? " d,32?'06.3 1.. K?`.s.??A?a''?S?C
IN'ORTH CAROLINA

J3 1
/l =? _/ ? ? r
( r }

'!'?.
?
:; _k ? ? '? ? -
am ?. " ?
ef!
,
`
? `
--?., ? ?
y
? r 1

.
.
'
:' :
::':" ii : . ..
.
.. ..
:.. ..:.: ..
....
.
......... .. :. ... ...... ... .... ...... ........... .................................. . ..
u, ~
is ? i ???tl ?y Y INiA ?IC+'?lH tl

l
?? bJ
Church SITE
902
Rd. \
\ 84 1783
filaceda,
\ 9783
i '780r'-
? N 1
N CDOT
DIVISION OF IIIGI-IWAYS
rICDJWELL COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 8.2R 1401 (B-3207)
MAPS
SHIEET 3 OF 7 01-22-01
WETLAND LEGEND -1
-WLB --- WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
TLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
C7-, WE
DENOTES FILL IN r
WETLAND 4,;-•..?u??.;?? PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
WATER
SURFACE
DENOTES FILL IN
V-111A SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• _ DENOTES MECHANIZED
* *_ _ " * CLEARING
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
-- ROOTWAD
FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
TB
TB TOP OF BANK
WE - EDGE OF WATER 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
- OR PARCEL NUMBER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT IF AVAILABLE
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
--s- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
--TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED GRASS SWALE
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - V- - - - WATER SURFACE
X X z X X LIVE STAKES
X X X
BOULDER
-------- CORE FIBER ROLLS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871401 (B-3207)
ffz/?m DENOTES FILL IN
SHEET 4 OF 7

/ l llco
II I
U r'? / 1 l I I I I I
Y
cr- l ?I I?
ti - Il I I ? I
?-? / I/ I I I I k-? I
LU / IJ II? I
Q- ?' _,? ? I I I
???m ? ?? l t I I I I
J 1l` f ?I I??
I
`? ? fc'??\ I I I?
?. l 1 I ? 1? I I ?
;` 1 ? I I I I O
?l r, 1 I ? I I ?
II
I f ?? .`? I I I I x
?'? ? 1 / ? I JI O
1 L --
Y
W
O W N
O
m U N
o LL- r N
(? M O p O
?
Q r
F- I F- ? N
zap z? 00
O o _
Z O U 1D
N
L,- co C)
a
0
r
O (\J
W (n
CL Z
Z
O ? 1)0
O W c'
LJ O
-' GY:
G

r N p F-
U U
L
J
p
0 4
A L
s o?
o 0
IL o

I V•1 v
U
Z ?
a W
W
V f-
LLJ
U J. 12?
cr, W M W
1 O C-) p U
cl- N LL 2: LL
?aLLJ C?: W D-
W co F- U)
J
Q W H FL-
F- o J o i
I Q J
p LL
v
Uo Q'I'a-t II \ I _ -
?\ I I
-j
- I f L
LLI
?? I 1 I •? t o I I ") 'I
I I '
co
?.o I 1 !I I ? ?
14,
\ ,_,, 1 I to I ?r ol
SNITIC ,?VS32J3H1 cn
-F F
0

NI O
0
M M M
C'o
LL-
O O Z
Z i LLJ Q
CD J
O r
W
l o o
F- O
i

IM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
U
m

_ U
rr
J
J E
Cn M
N'
NI X
E
co,
M .., D
11 I

O• J w
r N
?s O
O
CSI P°I ??? O
M /
C9 Cr?
?
O
t`
J
L.L ? M
II
o
N
J / O
z
Q z
~ ?
F-
Z
lil Q
:2
W
I
O
Z p z
F- a LL
O U I O Z
LLJ
O LLJ Q
(3 1
j
O o
n
W
O O
O
J
N I
CD E Li.
z+ ?n
O
v
+
N
O
N
+
N
O
O
N
O
co
+
O
c9
+
O
? I
LiJ
O W N
O
CC) ?
r- N
O LL r CV
N N O n i
M O O
~ ~ N
Z CO Z O
w
o0
(

~ O N ~
I LL. a O
J N N L)

a? L U
O
GTy
p p (If L -?
N C) ] Q

4 U Q O
:::> Lit Lil O
O O
O (o
p
(D Z.
? p [aa
? p tea
a Z rd
Ct)
r
G=a
ra
U
I)
H
0
N
?A
o-?'.
E
9
r?
e
N <00
co 00 I-
M M M

N
0
N
0
N
cr)
co
i
aa
° 3

pW o
N
??
:
0 p W ?
.

? ? o
Q x
a
U)

N
-
c
ca co C
C: W

U- c

LLI

0

ro

0
LL

c

v
z ?o

N a E
? N N
L)
a >Z
'
wU?
S:

a c4 t
o
°
E C ? p p
H
u!

°
or

c?-
i
i o 0
s ...
.
z ° o

G ?
'c o m o

C c ?
v
c

I2V ?
? Q °
1. N L

y
O C
N ? O

? n. c?

3 m ch U
?
M
O J
O `
O
q +

? J
(A z p
H
.10
McDowell County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1802(2)
State Project 8.2871401
TIP No. B-3207
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9-20-Dl_ qI, '?"'
DATE William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
020723

McDowell County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1802(2)
State Project 8.2871401
TIP No. B-3207
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2001
Date
Date
?-ZO -01
Date
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
John L: Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer I
William T. Goodwin Jr., P.E.
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit, Unit Head
/Ax ?-"
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
McDowell County
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1802(2)
State Project 8.2871401
TIP No. B-3207
Bridge No. 3 is located in McDowell County over South Muddy Creek. It is programmed
in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement
project due to deteriorating structural integrity and a deficient cross section. This project
is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
(HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial
environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new triple barrel box
culvert [each barrel 10x10 feet (30 meters)] at the existing location (see Figure 2). The
length of the approach work will include 492 feet (150 meters) to the east and 529 feet
(159 meters) to the west. The cross section along the length of the project will include
two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8 meter) shoulders.
Traffic will be shifted north onto a temporary detour alignment during construction. The
temporary alignment will include two 10-foot (3.0-meter) lanes and 4-foot (1.2-meter)
shoulders. Shoulders will be 6 feet (1.8 meters) where guardrail is required. The length
of the temporary detour alignment will be 1072 feet (327 meters).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 861,000 including $ 825,000 in construction costs
and $ 36,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown.in the 2002-2008 TIP is
$510,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1802 is classified as an rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located in southeast McDowell County. Currently the traffic
volume is 400 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 650 VPD for the year 2025.
There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge and is therefore 55 mph by
statute. There is a trailer park on the northeast quadrant of the bridge. Most everything
else in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is undeveloped.
The existing bridge was completed in 1953. It is composed of a three-span structure
including timber, steel, and concrete components. The deck is 87 feet (26.5 meters) long
and 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide. There is a vertical clearance of approximately 15 feet (4.6
meters) between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and streambed. The bridge carries
two lanes of traffic.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is
37.2 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 28
tons for single vehicles and 33 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Both vertical and horizontal alignment are good in the project vicinity. The pavement
width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 18 feet (5.5 meters). Shoulders on the
approaches of the bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide.
In an analysis of a recent three year period the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates no
accidents were reported.
There are 6 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the
Transportation Director for McDowell County closing the road would create a significant
burden on their transportation system.
There is an underground telephone line along the north side of the road which crosses the
creek aerially. There is an aerial power line along the south side of the road with two
crossings of the road to the west of the bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 3 on the existing location. Traffic would be detoured
offsite during construction. The design speed would be approximately 55 mph (90 kph).
Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 3 on the existing location. Traffic
would be shifted on a temporary alignment approximately 100 feet north of Bridge 3.
The design speed will be approximately 55 mph (90 kph).
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
A three barrel box culvert [each barrel 10 x 10 feet (3 x 3 meter)] has been proposed by
hydraulics as the structure of choice for reasons of sound design, economics, and
maintenance. As a general rule, the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
prefers spanning structures because of better wildlife passage. For reasons of economics..
NCDOT can not comply with this request at all locations. However, NCDOT does make
even, effort to comply when NCWRC identifies a protected resource. At this location,
NCNN,RC has stated that while this stream is in a trout county, South Muddy Creek does
not support trout (see attached letter).
The NCWRC also noted that South Muddy Creek has been identified as a Stream
Rehabilitation/Watershed Stabilization Project and for this reason requests High Quality
Waters Erosion Control Measures.
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
Box Culvert
Temporary Detour Alignment
Bride Removal
Roadway R. Approaches 130,000
N/A
20,000
159,000 130,000
209,000
20,000
159,000
Mobilization R Miscellaneous 126,000 200,000
Engineering R. Contingencies 65,000 107,000
Total Construction $ 500,000 $ 825,000
Right of Way $ 19,000 $ 36,000
Total Cost $ 519,000 $ 861,000
VI. DETOUR ANALYSIS
Two options for traffic maintenance are proposed for this project. An offsite detour
would involve routing traffic on NC 226, I-40, and US 221 for a total of 10.7 miles above
the normal distance traveled. Assuming $0.30/ vehicle-mile, 212 days road closure, and
given 400 vehicles per day, the cost to road users would be approximately $258,000.
Maintaining traffic onsite with a temporary alignment would cost $345,000 above the
base cost of replacing Bridge No. 3 on the existing location in Alternate 1 or 2.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new triple barrel box
culvert [each barrel l Ox 10 feet (30 meters)] at the existing location (see Figure 2). The
length of the approach work will include 492 feet (150 meters) to the east and 529 feet
(159 meters) to the west. The cross section along the length of the project will include
two 1 I -foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8 meter) shoulders.
Traffic will be shifted onto a temporary detour alignment during construction. The
temporary alignment will include two l 0-foot (3.0-meter) lanes and 4-foot (1.2-meter)
shoulders. Shoulders will be 6 feet (1.8 meters) where guardrail is required. The length
of the temporary detour alignment will be 1072 feet (327 meters).
Alternate 1 has the lower environmental impact and the lower cost of the two alternates.
It would require detouring 400 vehicles a day for 212 days over ten miles more than they
would normally travel with a cost to users of approximately $258,000. While this is less
than the cost of an onsite detour, there are other factors. In addition to the costs to road
users, there would be a significant burden placed on the school bus transportation system.
Furthermore, the NCDOT Division Office has strongly recommended maintaining traffic
onsite. In considering all factors, both economic and environmental, NCDOT
recommends replacing Bridge No. 3 as proposed in Alternate 2. The Division Office
concurs.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this
document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of this-project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
4
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adverseiv affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project
will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have
any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on
noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will have no impact on soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
On April 28, 1998, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject
project. Subsequently, the SHPO determined that this project is not likely to affect any
resources of architectural significance (see attachment). They did request and NCDOT
has performed an archaeological survey of the temporary alignment. The survey resulted
in finding no resources of significance. The SHPO concurs with this finding (see
attached leteter)
NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Physical Resources
Topography, soil, and water resources, which occur in th& project study area, are
discussed below. In addition, a general description,of the project vicinity and project
region is also described.
Topography
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The project
study area is characterized by gently rolling terrain with gradually sloping stream banks
along South Muddy Creek. Elevations within the project study area range from 1.240 to
1.280 feet (378 to 390 meters) above mean sea level (amsl) and the existing bridge has an
established benchmark of 1,253 feet (382 meters) amsl (Figure'] ).
Soils
Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of
flora and fauna in any biotic community. This section describes the soil characteristics of
the project study area.
Soil Classifications
Based on information contained in the soil survey for McDowell County, the soils within
the project study area are composed of Colvard and Havesville series soils. Colvard loam
soils (CoA). 0 to 2 percent slopes, occur along the streambanks of South Muddy Creek
and consist of well-drained nearly level soils that occur along floodplains. Havesville
clay loam (HcC2), 6 to 15 percent slopes, occur on well-drained, sloping uplands in the
project stud)- area. Depth to seasonal high water table is generally 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to
6 feet) for both soil types and soils are moderately to moderately rapidly permeable.
Most of the acreage in these soils is used for woodland or cropland. Soil borings taken
during field reconnaissance confirmed these series in the project study area.
Hydric Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) defines a hydric soil as one that is
saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil. Such soils usually support hydrophytic
vegetation. The soil survey for McDowell County shows no mapped hydric soils within
the project study area. No hydric 'soils were found in the project study area during field
reconnaissance.
2. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources' relationship to
major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of
the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study area lies within the Catawba drainage basin which encompasses 3,274
square miles (8,479 square kilometers) in North Carolina. Alternate 2 of the proposed
project will involve two crossings of South Muddy Creek of sub-basin 03-08-30 (NC
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality
(DWQ)index No.,11-32-2-(0..5)), one for the permanent structure and one for the
temporary detour. 'Alternate I. will involve one crossing of South Muddy Creek. This
6
stream flows north to south in the vicinity of the project study area and is the only stream
to be impacted by the project.
South Muddy Creek is the only water resource within the project study area. This stream
is approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide and 8 inches (20 centimeters) deep in the area
of the proposed project. Substrate consists of sand, silt and small gravel and varies
throughout the riffle/pool system in the project vicinity. This stream has been impacted
by human development, including road runoff and mining activity.
Alternate 2 would provide for the replacement of Bridge Number 3 with a three barrel (10
x 10 foot (3 meter x 3 meter)) box culvert and a temporary crossing 100 feet (31 meters)
to the north of SR 1802. Alternate 1 would provide for the replacement of Bridge
Number 3 with a three barrel (10 x 10 foot (3 meter x 3 meter) each) box culvert and
traffic would be rerouted offsite.
Best Usage Classifications
South Muddy Creek has been classified by DWQ as a Class C stream. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. No water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW's), Water
Supply Watersheds (WS-I or WS II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW's) are
located within the project vicinity.
Water Quality
Based on information obtained from the Catawba Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan (DWQ 1997), sub-basin 03-08-30 is considered to be in need of focused restoration
due to sediment loading and partially supporting of its classification and identified uses.
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins in the state. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water
quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assessed
water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates at fixed monitoring stations
throughout the state. BMAN data taken from a monitoring station on South Muddy
Creek approximately 5 miles north of the proposed project study area on SR 1764
indicated a Good-Fair rating in August of 1997.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a NPDES permit. No Point Source Dischargers were identified in
the project vicinity. The potential for non-point source discharges in the project study
area is moderate and includes runoff from existing roads and driveways as well as runoff
from a recreational mining area.
1
Trout Waters
According to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) ' McDowell County is a
"trout water county" and as such any nationwide or general 404 permits must be reviewed
by WRC. South Muddy Creek, however, is not known to support trout.
7
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
South Muddy Creek is the only stream that will be impacted by the proposed project.
Within the permanent right-of-way, 80 linear feet (24 meters) of stream will be impacted.
The temporary right-of-way, if utilized, will affect an additional 80 linear feet (24 meters)
of South Muddy Creek. Table 2 shows the impacts for the proposed project within the 80
foot (24 meter) right-of-way and within the 60 foot (18 meter) wide corridor for the
temporary onsite detour.
Table 2
Approximate Impacts of Proposed Project to Water Resources
Alternate 2 Alternate I
Type of Impact Permanent
Right-of-way Temporary
Detour Permanent
Right-of-way
Meters Feet Meters Feet Meters Feet
South Muddy
Creek 24 80 24 80 24 80
*All impacts are approximate based on uniform corridor width and project sketches
provided by NCDOT.
Both the permanent structure and the temporary detour, if utilized, will impact water
resources. Alternate 2, utilizing the full 80 foot (24 meter) right-of-way for both the
permanent and temporary structure will yield the impacts as shown in Table 2 above.
Alternate 1 will only involve permanent impacts as no temporary crossing will be
constructed. Usually project construction does not require the entire right-of-way,
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Short-term impacts include erosion
and sedimentation of the stream bed, which may occur during construction activities.
The greatest impacts to water resources in the project study area will be at stream
crossings, which will require vegetation clearing and fill placement in and/or around
riverbeds and floodplains. The replacement of a bridge with' a box culvert will result in
permanent alteration of the streambed and could diminish the movement of aquatic
species through avoidance of the structure or by removing possible habitat for benthic
organisms. These impacts may diminish over time if substrate begins to accumulate in
the culverts. Short-term impacts include erosion and sedimentation of the streambed,,
which may occur during construction activities. Other adverse effects may include
degradation of water quality, disturbance of the stream bottom, and increased turbidity
during construction. Highly turbid waters can result in oxygen depletion, coating of gills
on fish, siltation of filter feeding structures, reduced solar radiation, and interference with
spawning activities. The installation of a box culvert can significantly diminish fish and
other aquatic animal movements. Impacts are especially detrimental to the less mobile
benthic organisms. Many fish will exhibit an avoidance response and leave the
immediate area.
8
Impacts to water quality will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" (June 1991). In addition, a detailed sediment
and erosion control plan consisting of best management practices will be developed for
the proposed project. Sedimentation and erosion can be reduced through sediment
controls such as retention/detention basins, limits on the extent' of disturbed areas,
turbidity curtains, and discharging stormwater over vegetated buffers. Cut and fill areas
should be appropriately graded and vegetated promptly. Best management practices to
control non-point source pollution would aid in delaying the entry of hazardous material
spills into the waterway.
3. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section describes those
communities encountered in the project study area, as well as the relationships between
flora and fauna within those communities. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project study area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses. Description of the terrestrial communities are
present in the context of plant community classifications. Representative animal species
that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also
cited.
Scientific and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to common name
only.
Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area through aerial
interpretation and field reconnaissance conducted on April 11, 2000. The communities
identified included an alluvial forest community and maintained/disturbed areas.
Alluvial Forest Communities
Within the project study area, forested communities occur along the banks of South
Muddy Creek and to the north of SR 1802. These somewhat disturbed forests are
dominated by river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and scrub
pine (Pinus virginiana). Understory composition includes saplings of the overstory as
well as red maple (Ater rubrum), and flowering dogwood (Corpus florida). The
herbaceous layer consisted mainly of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora).
Alluvial forests provide food, shelter, and nesting resources for a relatively diverse
population of wildlife. These areas may be particularly suited to wildlife diversity when
located adjacent to successional and maintained/disturbed areas as they provide corridors
for movement of wildlife as well as a variety of food and other resources. Canopy
species common in such areas, hickory and oak forests in particular, provide valuable
9
materials for browser forage as well as materials for nesting, shelter, and cover. A
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) and a gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), were
observed in the project study area during field reconnaissance.
Mammalian fauna likely to inhabit forested areas include the gray squirrel, raccoon
(Procyon lotor), eastern chipmunk,(Tan ias striatus). and Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginz.ana). The transitional areas are likely to be inhabited by the eastern cottontail
(Svlvilagus jloridanus). woodchuck (Marmota monax), and many varieties of small
rodents such as field mice and voles.
Common reptiles and amphibians found in forested communities include the eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), wood frog (Rana
sYlvatica), and redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus). In addition to these species, the
black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern garter snake (Thanmophis sirtalis), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) are likely to be found in the transition areas.
Avian species likely to be found in these forested communities include the blue jay
(0-anocitta cristata), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). The common crow (Corvus
brachvrhvnchos), American robin (Turdis migratorizis), and American kestrel (Falco
sparverius) are most likely to be found in the transitional areas.
Maintained/Disturbed Areas
Disturbed areas are present in the project study area along the maintained right-of-way for
SR 1802 and along the utility corridor to the south. Additional areas have been cleared
and are being maintained for recreational mining to the north. Dominant vegetation
includes fescue (Festuca sp.), crab grass (Digitaria sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), and asters (Aster spp.).
The maintained/disturbed habitat within the project study area is surrounded by alluvial
forests and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the
project vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be
largely those species inhabiting the alluvial forest.
Aquatic Communities
This category typically includes streams and waterbodies within a project study area and
may or may not include a vegetative component. South Muddy Creek is the only stream
within the project study area.
No fish or aquatic organism surveys were performed on the stream. According to WRC,
typical fish species that are likely to inhabit such areas include the creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), common sucker (Catostomas commersoni), longnose dace (Rhinichthys
cataractae), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atramlus), and rock bass (Ambloplites
rupestris).
10
Common benthic invertebrates found in such communities would include stoneflies
(Plecoptera), caddisflies (Tricoptera), and crayfish (Camharus spp.).:In addition to these
invertebrate species, the pickerel frog (Rana palustris), bullfrog (Rana cateshiana),
mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus), and northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon) are likely to occur within the stream as well.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have a potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the
natural resources in terms of area impacted and community affected. Alternate 2 involves
both temporary and permanent impacts while Alternate l will only involve the permanent
crossing.
Within the proposed 80 foot (24 meter) right-of-way limits for the permanent alignment
and 80 foot (24 meter) right-of-way for the temporary detour, impacts to plant
communities associated with the construction or widening of a roadway through natural
ecosystems would consist largely of community modification resulting from clearing,
filling, paving, and creation of borrow areas. As shown in Table 3, the permanent right-
of-way alone (Alternate 1) will result in approximately 1.1 acres (0.5 hectares) of
permanent impact to alluvial forested communities and 0.4 acres (0.2 hectares) of impact
to maintained/disturbed land. The temporary onsite detour (Alternate 2) will impact an
additional 0.9 acres (0.4 hectares) of forested communities and 0.2 acres (0.1 hectares) or
maintained/disturbed land.
Table 3
Approximate Impacts of Proposed Project to Terrestrial Communities
Alternate 2 Alternate 1
Type of Impact Permanent
Right-of-way Temporary
Detour Permanent
Right-of-way
Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres
Alluvial Forest 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.5 1.1
Maintained/Disturb
ed 0.2 0.4 0.1 072 0.2 0.4
*All impacts are approximate based on uniform corridor width and project sketches
provided by NCDOT.
The terrestrial communities found within the project study area will be altered as a result
of project construction. These communities serve as nesting, foraging and shelter habitat
for fauna. Alluvial forested areas account for most of the impacts to terrestrial
communities for the proposed project while a small portion of the project study area is
disturbed by the existing road and mining areas. Impacts to forested areas can contribute
to habitat fragmentation and eliminate nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for wildlife.
11
This may force animals into a smaller area, which can cause degradation of remaining
habitat and increased mortality due to.predation, disease and starvation. Some mortality
to smaller animals is likely to occur directly from construction activities. These impacts
can be minimized by clearing and grading only the areas necessary for construction and
leaving natural vegetation along the remaining right-of-way. Due to the size and scope of
this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minim4l.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. The
placement of a box culvert in the channel will result in a loss of available substrate for
benthic organisms and may reduce the amount of movement of aquatic species through
avoidance. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from
construction related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although
direct impacts may be temporary for the detour, environmental impacts from these
construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased scouring and
channelization of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and
may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce
siltation which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile
filter feeders and deposit feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can
also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover
or repopulate a stream.
JURISDICTIONAL Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis related to two
jurisdictional topics: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of
the United States" under 33 CFR 328.3 (a). Waters of the United States include most
interstate or intrastate surface waters tributaries and wetlands. Any action that proposes
the placement of dredge or fill materials into Waters of the U.S. falls under the
jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (33 CFR 328.3) as:
"areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology (USACE Wetlands
Delineation Manual, 1987). Besides providing valuable habitat for a diverse number of
plant and animal species, wetlands also control floodwaters and erosion, replenish
12
groundwater, filter contaminants and excess nutrients from runoff, and protect municipal
water supplies.
An evaluation.of wetlands within the project study area was conducted on April 11, 2000.
The location, extent, and quality of potential wetlands within the proposed right-of-way
were determined by:
Interpretation of 1:120 scale black-and-white aerial photography.
Review of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and NWI wetland maps (Glenwood,
NC quadrangle).
Revie\,\• of the NRCS soil and hydric soil data for McDowell County.
Field reconnaissance of the proiect study area.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
South Muddy Creek is the only jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of C WA
that will be impacted by the proposed project. The biological, physical, and water quality
aspects of this jurisdictional system is described in previous sections of the report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated impacts to
surface waters were determined using the entire right-of-way width of each Alternate.
Impacts are summarized in Table 2. The amount of surface water impacts may be
modified by any changes in functional design and may lead to increased stream impacts
or wetland impacts. The permanent alignment impacts 24 meters (80 feet) of South
Muddy Creek and the temporary detour will impact an additional 24 meters (80 feet) of
South Muddy Creek. Therefore, Alternate 2 will involve two crossings of South Muddy
Creek while Alternate 1 will only involve the permanent crossing. Typically, project
construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual surface water
impacts may be considerably less. No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed right-
of-way for either the permanent alignment or temporary detour.
Permits
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), permits will be required
from the USACE for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional wetlands or "Waters
of the U.S.." In addition, Section 401 of the CWA requires each state to certify that state
water quality standards will not be violated for activities which 1) involve issuance of a
federal permit or license; or 2) require discharges into "Waters of the U.S.." The Corps of
Engineers cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality certification is approved by
the N.C. Department of the Environment and Natural Resources -- Division of Water
Quality.
It is anticipated that a Nationwide Section 404 Permit Number. 23 will be required from
the USACE for waterbody crossings along the permanent alignments and temporary
detour. These permits authorize activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded, or financed in whole or part by another federally funded agency or department to
13
fill Waters of the U.S. for those activities categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because they are determined by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) to be within the category of actions which are deemed to neither individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the natural environment. A permit will be
required for either alternative for this project for the temporary fill that may result from
bridge demolition as well as for the impacts of construction.
Although McDowell County is a designated trout county by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Muddy Creek does not support trout. Therefore, it is unlikely that any
special conditions will also be imposed on the permit requirements by the WRC but
concurrence with this agency will be required.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted. through the 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
U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts to wetlands, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
the three general aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must
be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the U.S.. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 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 practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the U.S.. Implementation of these steps could be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms
to minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S. crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious use of pesticides and herbicides;
minimization of "in-stream activity"; and litter/debris control.
Bridge demolition must minimize the impacts to water courses. This project should
follow Case 3 guidelines as established in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
14
Bridge Demolition and Remoiyal. The superstructure of Bridge No. 3 is composed of a
reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles. Only the deck over the stream would potentially contribute
to temporary fill amounting to approximately 14 cubic yards. Due to the size of the
stream and the gravel substrate, a turbidity curtain is not recommended. Impacts to
Waters of the U.S. will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT"s BMP's for Bridge
Demolition durin?? this stage of the project.
Compensator, Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until the anticipated impacts to
Waters of the U.S. 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. 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, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the U.S.. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Although the 1989
MOA between the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not
require compensatory mitigation with Nationwide Permit 23, the DWQ has stated in 15A
NCAC 211 .0506(h), that compensatory mitigation may be necessary with Nationwide
Permit No. 23 if more than 150 feet (46 meters) of stream is filled or altered.
Rare and Protected Species
Any action which has the potential to result in a negative impact to federally protected
plants or animals is subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. North Carolina
laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals that are endemic to North
Carolina or whose populations are in severe decline.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal status of Listed Endangered (LE), Listed Threatened
(LT), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federal actions (permits) or federally-
funded actions with potential adverse impacts to protected species require prior
consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. Even in the absence of federal
funds or permits, the provisions of Section 9 of the ESA authorize the USFWS to
exercise jurisdiction on behalf of the protected species.
A review of USFWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
databases (as of August 2001) identified the following federally protected species that
may occur in McDowell County as listed in Table 4 and described in the following
paragraphs.
15
Table 4
Federally Protected Species for McDowell County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status* State
Status*
Haliaeetus leticocephalus (pop. 1) Bald Eagle LT-PDL E
Clemm?,s nuthlenbergii (pop. 2) Bog Turtle T(S/A) T
Hudsonia montana Mountain Golden-Heather LT E
*LE and E= endangered; LT and T= threatened; PDL= proposed de-listed: S/A=
similarity of appearance; SC= state concern
Federally endangered species (LE) are species that are threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Federally threatened species (LT) are
species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
Haliaeetus leticocephalus (bald eagle) Federally Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
The bald eagle, a federally threatened and state endangered species which is proposed to
be de-listed by the USFWS, is found throughout the United States. The bald eagle is
primarily a riparian animal found nesting along large bodies of water including coastal
waters, lakes, and large rivers. Suitable habitat must provide a proximity to water (one-
half mile), a clear path to the water source, and an open view of the surrounding areas.
Nesting and perching sites are generally in the largest living tree in a given area (USFWS
1996). No large water bodies are found within the project study area therefore no nesting
or foraging habitat is present. Based on the information above and field reconnaissance,
no impacts to this species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Federally Threatened (Similarity of Appearance)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: 01 May 1997 `
The bog turtle is protected in North Carolina under the federally threatened (similarity of
appearance) designation by the USFWS. This designation is meant to confer protection
on the northern populations of the turtle which are indistinguishable from other bog turtle
populations and as such are not subject to Section 7 consultation in the project study area.
North Carolina's smallest turtle, the bog turtle, measures 7 to 10 cm in length and has a
dark brown carapace and black plastron. Habitat for the bog turtle consists of wetland
seeps and bogs with a mosaic of dry pockets and pockets that are periodically flooded
(USFWS 1997). No habitat is present for this species within the project study area.
16
Based on the information above and field reconnaissance, no impacts to this species are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) Federally Threatened
Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: 20 October 1980
Flowers Present early to mid June
Mountain golden heather, a low, needle-leaved shrub, is found only in McDowell and
Burke Counties in North Carolina at elevations above 2,800 feet. Exposed quartzite
ledges in coniferous forests constitute appropriate habitat for this species. No suitable
habitat was identified within the project study area. Based on the information above and
field reconnaissance, no impacts to this species are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA. and are not
included in the Section 7 process. These species are those that merit further study to
determine their status or which may be listed in the of Concern for McDowell County. In
addition, those species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
by the NCNHP database are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered
Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists
those species that are designated as Federal Species of Concern or are state listed for
McDowell County and also lists the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the
project study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of
these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species for McDowell County

Federal State Habitat
Habitat
Scientific Name Common Name Status* Status Present
*
Delphinium exaltatum** Tall Larkspur FSC E-SC Grassy balds
and woodlands yes
Bogs, seeps,
Lilium grayi Gray's Lily FSC T-SC high elevation No
forests
Large-leaved Grass-of- T Fens and seeps N

Parnassiagrandifolia
Parnassus o
17
Shortia galacifolia var. Northern Oconee Bells FSC E-SC Moist woods Yes
brevistvla along streams

oridana
a fl Rocky places in
haemat
oreia
aemat** Eastern Woodrat FSC SC deciduous or Yes
mined forests
Contopus c•ooperi ** Olive-sided Flvcatcher FSC SC Montane No
conifer forests
Mature
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler FSC SR hardwood Yes
forests
Loxia curvirostra (pnp.1) Southern Appalachian Red FSC SR Coniferous No
Crossbill forests
Caecidotea Bennett's Mill Cave Water Caves

carolinenesis **
Slater FSC SR No
Speyeria diana Diana frittilar FSC SR Rich woods and Yes
y adjacent edges
Carex roanensis Roan Sedge FSC C Forests Yes
Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap FSC C Dry forests and Yes
bluffs
*FSC = Federal Species of Concern, SR = Significantly Rare, SC= State Concern, C =
State Candidate (those species whose status is under consideration)
* *Obscure or historic records (date uncertain or > 20 years)
State endangered species (E) are species whose continued existence as a viable
component of the state's flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. A state
threatened species (T) is one which is likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A Federal Species
of Concern (FSC) is a species which may or may not be listed in the future. Significantly
rare species (SR) are those which exist in the state in small numbers and have been
determined to need further monitoring. Candidate species (C) are very rare in North
Carolina and reflect fewer than•20 populations in the state. Species of special concern
(SC) are those species which require further monitoring in the state.
Based on information from the NCNHP, it is possible that the tall larkspur, northern
oconee bells, eastern woodrat, cerulean warbler, Diana fritillary, roan sedge and sweet
pinesap could occur in the project vicinity. Surveys for these species were not conducted
during field reconnaissance.
18
G \
Gxkw
EST , MAPJON
G
t / \ FOP. 1,596 J JUNINC.)
71-
Cam,. _
Glenwood N o f,? \ r
7 J??
. - i - -T -
% :777
• )YSOTtv11119 /
UNF
4777
1145
Bridge .31
Vein Mtn. I 1790 SSY 01
MT N. 11 n I ( .
net ?• -•---_•_•-.- .-.-\
•'
of 722j"
? n I
n,
OF N RO TN
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
lo, '2F V Planning & Environmental Branch
?OFTRp'
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 3 .on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek.
B-3207
Figure One
GtANT
wE57 ; MAR10N --
a
1,596
jUNINC.) .) \
•? ?." \? ^?
Tz?
a_ t - - _ r
Glenwood
_ Q
_ /
Dysarh•ille ?-
7 - ' - -E _ - - - YvOCY .. - -•i
- - - - -?MTCn - - LIN
17.- 777
7E3 /
1632 y - -
wI i/ ~ <
1 145
Bridge - 3
I. '.` , ?g7 I
? • I I \ Vein Mtn.
vP, SSl m /
MTN. - - - 1781 - Cf NONTM
tvo' North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
F? Planning & Environmental Branch
?OFTpP?'
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 3 ,on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek.
B-3207
Figure One

Z

? rF
/ /.tom
u
s G

- i OG

=^

J L u ^ VI
T ?. :i C v L --

hJV ` ?
? ?h N

Looking East Across
Bridge No. 3
Looking '"'est Across
Bridge No. 3
/0 "°RT"?;North Carolina Department of
yP z Transportation
9
Division of Highways
Project Development &
~r`OC rn?N`2 P Environmental Analvsis Branch
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek
B-3207
I Figure Three I
I' .

South Face of
Bridgc No. 3
Trailer Park Northeast
of Bridge
/oF T; ? North Carolina Department of
i4F' O ,
Transportation
o _ Division of Highways
'N, Project Development &
OF TFt Ik '.O
Q- Environmental Analvsis Branch
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 3 on US SR 1802
Over South Muddy Creek
B-3207
Figure Four I
Yi
J2/-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray cCN ,2Sffretf 98 Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration G E
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 3 on SR 1802 over South Muddy Creek, -z PR
3 0 7-
McDowell County, B-3207, Federal Aid Project +- ,998
MABRZ-1802(2), State Project 8.2871401, ER ` DIVISION OF
98-8638 ;:'rid"JA'; S
Dear Mr. Graf: t?lRpn??
On April 22, 1998, Debbie Sevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
An archaeological survey will be needed only if the replacement will be on a new
alignment.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?3
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 1-14. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
s o. STATt v
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
April 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. C;ilmorc, P.E., ,'Manager
Project Development and l?.nvironmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook LOA& YU IL5--
Depury State Hi .t(n Prescn•ation Officer
Re: Bridge #3 on SR 1802, B-3207, N1cDowell County, ER 98-8638
Division of'Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for vour letter of Januan, 17, 2001, transmitting the archaeological surney report by
Deborah Jov and Nick Bon-Harper concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no archaeological sites were located within the surveyed area. As
noted in your letter and in the report, access was denied to a portion of the project area. The
authors recommend that the archaeological investigation be completed when access to the propem
is available. We concur with this recommendation, and look forward to receiving the final report.
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.
DB:kgc
cc: Tom Padgett, NCDOT
John Wadsworth, FHwA
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax .
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] 9733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
l?
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Joe H. Mickey. Jr. Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1802 over South
Muddy Creek, McDowell County, TIP B-3207
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the above referenced project..
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
scoping sheets for the subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this
project. Although McDowell County is designated a trout county by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Muddy Creek does not support trout. Our comments on the 404 permit process
will reflect this fact. A formal scoping response outlining our informational needs for
preparation of the environmental document will be provided upon request through the State
Clearinghouse.
Please note that due to changes in county responsibilities within the WRC Habitat
Conservation Program, Mr. Mark Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator, Old Fish Hatchery,
20830 Great Smoky Mountain Parkway, Waynesville, NC 28786 (828-452-2546) will be
handling projects in McDowell County. Correspondence related to this and future projects for
McDowell County should be sent to Mr. Davis. For your future reference I have enclosed a
listing of our regional coordinators and the counties for which they are responsible.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/366-
2982.
cc: Mark Davis, WRC