20080183 Ver 1_Application_20080125

a.,,a SLa7F q,
~m,~
ti
,~,.
.~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 22, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. David Baker
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and Nationwide
33 application for replacement of Bridge No. 56 on SR 1763 (Gilbert Byrd
Road) over North Muddy Creek, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1763(1 }, State
Project No. 8.2873101, McDowell County, Division 13, TIP No. B-3492_
WBS Element No. 33108.1.1.
Dear Sir:
Please see the enclosed pre-construction notification, permit drawings, design plans and
Rapanos jurisdictional determination form for the subject project. A Categorical
Exclusion was completed for this project in August 2006 and distributed shortly
thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request. The North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 40-foot, single span Bridge No. 56
with a three span replacement bridge of approximately 150-feet in length. The new
structure will be placed on a new alignment and will require the approach roadways to
shift approximately 250 feet to the south and 475 feet to the north of the structure. During
construction, traffic will be detoured offsite_ There will be a total of 0.08 acre of
temporary impact to North Muddy Creek due to the use of construction causeways and a
temporary 15-inch pipe.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: There are two jurisdictional streams on the project site: North
Muddy Creek and an unnamed tributary (UT) to North Muddy Creek. These water
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NG DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITOL BOULEVARD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSlTE. WWW.DON_DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

resources are located in the Catawba River Basin {subbasin 03-OS-30, Hydrological
Cataloguing Unit 03050101). The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
index number for the North Muddy Creek and its UT are 11-32-1. North Muddy Creek is
classified by the NCDWQ as a C water body_ There are no High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) nor waters
appearing on the 303(d) list occur in the project area or within 1.0 mile downstream of
waters in the project area. The average baseflow width of the North Muddy Creek is
approximately 30 feet and the average depth is approximately 2-3 feet. The average
baseflow of the UT to North Muddy Creek is approximately 1-2 feet, with an average
depth of 2-4 inches.
Permanent Impacts: There will be <0.01 acre of permanent fill in surface water due to
bridge piers for the new structure.
Temporary Impacts: The use of causeways for the removal of the existing bridge and
construction of the replacement bridge will result in 0.07 acre of temporary stream
impacts to North Muddy Creek. The placement of a temporary 15-inch pipe in the UT to
North Muddy Creek will result in an additional 0.01 acre of temporary stream impacts.
The temporary pipe is needed to maintain flow in the UT during use of Phase 1 of the
causeway {See attached permit drawings).
Bridge Demolition: The entire bridge is constructed of timber and steel. Therefore,
Bridge No. Sb will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the
United States.
Utility Impacts: There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, and there will be
no impacts to jurisdictional waters due to utilities.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of December 20, 2007
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list 5 species under federal
protection for McDowell County: bald eagle, bog turtle, Carolina northern flying squirrel,
mountain golden heather and small-whorled pogonia_ Surveys have determined that there
is no suitable habitat for the listed species. The NC Natural Heritage database of rare
species and unique habitats was reviewed in October 2007. There is no documentation of
rare species or unique habitats occurring within 1 mile of the project area.
Page 2 of 4

Table 1. Species Under Federal Protection in McDowell County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted No Not required
Bog turtle Clemrnys muhlenbuergii T (S/A) No Not required
Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus E No No Effect
s uirrel coloratus
Mountain golden heather Hudsonia montana T No No Effect
Small-whorled po onia Isotria medeoloides T No No Effect
MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable
and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to
provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
• Best Management Practices will be followed for this project as outlined in "NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
• There will be no deck drains directly discharging into North Muddy Creek.
• Traffic will be maintained on an offsite detour.
• Stormwater will be controlled from the bridge and adjacent road.
Compensatory Mitigation:
There will be <0.01 acre of permanent fill to surface waters due to bridge piers for the
new structure. Mitigation is not proposed for the minimal <0.01 acre of permit impact to
surface waters.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The project schedule calls for a July 15, 2008 Let date with a date of availability on
August 26, 2008. The review date for the project is May 27, 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: NCDOT requests that the construction of causeways be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering) for the temporary dewatering of the North Muddy Creek. NCDOT requests
that the placement of bridge piers for the new bridge be authorized under Section 404
Nationwide Permit No. 23. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion".
Page 3 of 4

Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification Nos. 3688 and 3701 will
apply to this project. All General Conditions of the General Certification will be adhered
to, therefore we are not requesting concurrence from the DWQ. We are submitting 2
copies of this permit application for their records.
This project is located in a trout county, therefore comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC} will be required prior to authorization by the
Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests
NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps
of Engineers and the NCDOT within 30 calendar days of receipt of this application.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please contact Jason Dilday at jldilday~7a,dot.state.nc.us or (919)
715-5535. The application will be posted at http:1/207.4.62.65/PDEA/PermApps/.
Sincere ,
~•
Gregory .Thorpe, Ph.D
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E. (Div. 13), Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan (Div. 13), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Aighandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Natalie Lockhart, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Page 4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Numbers} Requested: Nationwide 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP} is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number:_ [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: jldilday(a~dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant 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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

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 prof ect: Bridge No. 56 over North Muddy Creek
2. T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number {NCDOT Only): B-3492
3. Property Identification Number {Tax PIN}: N/A
4. Location
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Nebo
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): SR1763 LGilbert Byrd
Road)
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35'41'44' °N -81'52'27' °W
6. Property size {acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: North Muddy Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba Basin
(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.nc.us/admire/maps/.}
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Agricultural and residential communities
Fage 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 56 replaced with a three span bridge on a new alignment requiring improvements
to the approach roadways for a distance of approximately 250 feet to the south and 475 feet
to the north of the new structure using standard bride demolition and construction
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Improve the safety of travelers along SR 3452
by replacing a structurally absolete structure and improve road alignment.
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 fixture permit requests anticipated for this project? 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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identif able on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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 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.
Page 3 of 9

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 0.07 acres of temporary stream
impacts to North Muddy Creek due to the use of causeways for removal of the existing
bride and construction of the new structure. 0.01 acres of temporary stream impacts to UT
to North Muddy Creek due to placement of a 15-inch temporary pipe. <0.01 acres of
permanent stream impacts to North Muddy Creek due to bridg~iers.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. -For darns,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,

herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no} Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
No wetlands

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent? Stream Width Length Impact
indicate on rna Before Im act (linear feet) (acres)
-U STA 12+g5 to North Mudd Creek
y Tem or
P ~'Y
Perennial
30
93
0.06
13+62
-L- STA 13+36 to UT to North Muddy Temporary Perennial 1 9 0.01
13+46 Creek
-L-STA 13+28 to North Muddy Creek Temporary Perennial 30 101 0.03
14+11
-L-STA 13+28 to North Muddy permanent Perennial 30 19 01
0
13+62 Creek .

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 19 0.01
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.}. Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)
No Impacts

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.08 (temporary)
<0.O 1 erm anent}
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.08 (temporary)
0.01 ermanent}
Total Stream Impact {linear feet):
_ 144 (temporary}
19 (permanent)
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. 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 ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 9

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. Traffic will be maintained on
an offsite detour during construction. The only permanent impacts will occur from the
placement of bridge piers for the new structure.
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.
USAGE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, 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 USAGE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP 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/ncwetlands/strm~ide.html.
1. 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.
The only permanent impacts associated with this project is from the placement of bridge
piers with the new structure. No mitigation is proposed.
Page 6 of 9

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment far the mitigation must be attached to this farm. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested {linear feet}: 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ}
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state} land? Yes ® No ^
2. 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 ® No ^
3. 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 {required by DWQ)
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico}, 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
Page 7 of 9

2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", 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.
Zone * Impact Multiplier Required
{s uare feet) Mitigation
1 3 {2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI_ Stormwater (required by DWQ}
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious surfaces will increase only slightly
due to the new ali~timent of the road.
XII. Sewage Disposal {required by DWQ}
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
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
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 ^ No
XN. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Page 8 of 9

Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. 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/~gen~s Signature Date
{Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
~- Z I.4 8
Page 9 of 9

NORTH CAROLINA
1
i
s
k
_ ~ p y,
•
0
\`Z ~
~
p i i
Z ~ ~ xi
~;
327
.
~
:,
Q
r~
~ .,
~
~.
+a~r3,
. ~ r i
~, - k,jx a I l
L
~
~
p
r ~
M
~.
r•~ ~
~
l ~'~ .
`''`
~
..
I r!e

D
1 3 '~,~ !/
~~~
~
~ `_ _ ~/
i
.!
o'
o..
4
~/?OO l' U
' e,

1
/ 135~X ~ ~

~ 1 '
q
' /~
11
uiddy Cr }~
` .1
~
o~_ _,
•
\ ~ 0.
r

T
i

Gl:€I`IALPIN€, NC l.15C,5 QUAD Imo" ';
MAR~(3N EAST, NC U~GS QUAD ~ ~
~~~~~
'~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M~DOWELL COUNTY
WBS NOs 33108.1.1 (B-392)
BRIDGE N0.56 ON SR 1763
OVER NORTH MUDDY CREES
Permit prev~rins ~ ;,
Sheet ~._ of
SHEET OF 09/ 10/

Parcel
No. Property Owner
Name Property Owner
Address
~ James Freddie Powell & Brenda G. Powell 613 Gilbert Boyd Road, Nebo, NC 28761
2 J. David Connelly & Betty Jean Connelly 257 Camelot Drive, Morganton, NC 28655
3 Annis Higgins 1073 Gilbert Boyd Road, Nebo, NC 28761
4 James Vernon Powell & Christine Powell 68 Powell Loop, Nebo, NC 28761
rj Vernon Andrew Powell 68 Powell Loop, Nebo, NC 28761
List of Property Owners
Permit Drawir-~
Sheet ~- of / ~

Nom- ~ ~~ °~`~Y C k d'
LCT
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by fallowing the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND 1NFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
S. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: B-3492 (Replacement of Bridge No. 55 on SR 1763)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish borough: McDowell City: Nebo
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35'41'44"° ~, Long. 81'S2'2T°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: North Muddy Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Catawba River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC}: 03050101
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "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.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act {CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328} in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1
TNWs, including territorial seas
i~' Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs} that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 500 linear feet: 2-30 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: ~ ..
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
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.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
s Supporting documentation is presented in Section II1.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IILA.1 and Section IILD.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILA.1 and 2
and Section IILD.1.; otherwise, see Section IILB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
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 TNWs 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 #hat directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section IILD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section IILD.4.
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 waterbody4 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 IILB.1 for
the tributary, Section IH.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section IILB.3 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-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Ares Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area:
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
® Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through ' ' ' '' ~ tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ' river miles from RPW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are - :aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
a Note that the Instnictional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
s Flow route 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 apply):
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: `` #~ ,.
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/riffle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: ,_ ~ , '~~
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: ~ `'.
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: ~'
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ' °' Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
^ changes in the character of soil
^ shelving
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
^ sediment deposition
^ water staining
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to detenn
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
^ the presence of litter and debris
^ destruction of terrestrial vegetation
^ the presence of wrack line
^ sediment sorting
^ scour
^ multiple observed or predicted flow events
^ abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA 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:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OH WM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
7Ibid.

(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: ' .Explain:
Surface flow is.
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:: ~ ~ Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency 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 TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the y ,,, ; , 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 an )
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis , , ,
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN} Size fin acres} Directly abuts? (Y/N) 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
TNWs, 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 TNW?
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 TNWs. Explain
Endings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. 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 IILD:
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 IILD: .
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width {ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: North Muddy Creek and its UT have NCDWQ stream rating scores greater than 30.
.'' 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 IILB. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 500 linear feet 2 - 30 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWsg that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an I2PW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
~ ' 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.
Wetlands directly abut 12PW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an IZP W 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 12PW: .
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section IILB and rationale in Section IILD.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 onto TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an 1tPW, 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 TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
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 TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section IILC.
',,,'
~~~
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
_ 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):10
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
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.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
BSee Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD_6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 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 Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Provide estimates for jurisdictional 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 Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate {or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "S`WANCC," 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): linear feet, width (ft)_
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. 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 applicandconsultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicantlconsultant.
^ 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.
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 Sz Date}:
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify): .
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

McDowell County
Bridge No. 56 on 5R 1763 (Gilbert Byrd Rd)
over North Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1763(1)
W.B.S. No. 33108.1.1
State Project No. 8.2873101
T.LP. No. B-3492
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~~ ~ ~~ 1
AT ~~( Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD,
~ " ~' Environmental Management Director, PDEA
1.5 ~~_ -
D E John F. Sulliva ,III, Division trator
~~" Federal Highway Administration

McDowell County
Bridge No. 56 on SR 1763 (Gilbert Byrd Rd)
over North Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1763(1)
W.B.S. No. 33108.1.1
State Project No. 8.2873101
T.LP. No. B-3492
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
DATE Natali ockhart
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit
_, ~
~...
DATE J L. Williams, PE
roj ect Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
McDowell County
Bridge No. 56 on SR 1763
O~-er North Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ--1763{1)
State Project No. 8.2873101
W,B.S. No, 33108.1.1
T.LP. No. 8-3492
Division 13 Construction,Resident Engineer's Offce- Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, McDowell County Resident Engineer
will notify McDowell County School Transportation Office prior to road closure.
McDowell County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at least one month prior to road
closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Natural Environment Unit -Bridge Demolition
The entire bridge is constructed of timber and steel. Therefore, Bridge No.'S6 will be removed
without dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 ofi 1
Green Sheet
August 2006

McDowell County
Bridge No. 56 on SR 1763 (Gilbert Byrd Rd)
over North Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1763 { 1)
W.B.S. No. 33108.1.1
State Project No. 8.2873101
T.I.P. No. B-3492
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 56 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation {NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible
for the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 56 has a sufficiency rating of
48.5 out of a possible 100 for `a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
due to deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's Bridge Replacement Program.
In addition Bridge No. 56 carries 650 vehicles per day with 1,200 vehicles per day projected
far the future. The substandard deck width is becoming increasingly unacceptable and
replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
Although Bridge No. 56 is not considered as structurally deficient, it has aforty-four year old
timber substructure with a typical life expectancy between 40 to 50 years due to the natural
deterioration rate of wood. Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only when
a few members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain degree of
deterioration, timber structures become impractical to maintain and upon eligibility are
programmed for replacement. Bridge No. 56 is approaching the end of its useful life.
IL EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on SR 1763 (Gilbert Byrd Road). (see Figure 1). Development in the
area is agricultural and residential in nature.
SR 1763 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle route
and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1763 has an 18-foot pavement width with 3-foot grass
shoulders (see Figures 3A and 3B). The roadway grade is in a sag vertical curve through the
project area. The existing bridge is on a curve. The roadway is situated approximately 16.0
feet above the creek bed.

Bridge No. 56 is a one-span structure that consists of a wooden deck with anasphalt-wearing
surface. The existing bridge (see Figure 3A and 3B) was constructed in 1962. -The overall
length of the structure is 40 feet. The clear roadway width is 14 feet. The posted weight limit
on this bridge is 24 tons for single vehicles and 29 tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the superstructure, but there is a conduit attached to the
abutment on the SE corner of the bridge (see Figure 3C). Three phase aerial power and phone
cross the stream approximately 150 feet east of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
high.
The current traffic volume of 650 vehicles per day {VPD) is expected to increase to 1,200
VPD by the year 2030. The projected volume includes five percent truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and five percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit in the project
area. Six school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
There were no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 56 during a recent three-year
period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge. The bridge length is based on preliminary
design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The bridge will be of sufficient
width to provide for two 10-foot lanes with 3-foot offsets on each side. The roadway grade of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 20-foot pavement width to provide two 10-foot
lanes. Five-foot shoulders will be provided on each side; none of which will be paved in
accordance with the current NCDOT Design Policy. This roadway will be designed as a rural
local route.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two alternatives far replacing Bridge No. 56 that were studied in detail are described below.
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 1803 and SR 1762. The majority of traffic on the road is through traffic. The detour for
the average road user would result in 3.5 minutes additional travel time {2.3 miles additional
travel). Up to a 6-month duration of construction is expected on this project.

Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of delay along the detour
is acceptable. McDowell County Emergency Services along with McDowell County Schools
Transportation have also indicated that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 13 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.
Alternate 1
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the structure with 190 foot bridge. Improvements will be
on the horizontal alignment to the east. Alternate 1 was not preferred from a hydraulic point of
view because the bridge would have been built on a severe thirty degree skew. There was a
design speed exception associated with Alternate 1 _ Traffic would be detoured offsite during
the construction period (see Figure 2A).
Alternate 2 (Preferred)
Alternate 2 involves replacement of the structure along new alignment. The replacement
structure will be a minimum of 150 feet in length. Improvements to the approach roadways
will be required for a distance of approximately 250 feet to the south and 475 feet to the north
of the new structure. A design exception will be needed for the design speed. Traffic will be
detoured offsite during the construction period (see Figure 2B).
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1763.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Staged Construction is not feasible for this bridge because the 26-foot deck width and timber
configuration will not support removal of a portion and maintenance of traffic on the
remaining portion.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 56 will be replaced at a new location as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2B.
Alternate 2 can be built using spill through abutments. The length of the proposed bridge
would be a minimum of 150 feet and would require three interior bents compared to Alternate
1, which is 150 feet long with only two interior bents.
Although there will be design exceptions for Alternate 2, it is the preferred alternative because
of lower cost and acceptable hydraulic design. NCDOT Division 13 concurs with the selection
of Alternative 2.

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Preferred
Structure $ 559,000 $ 438,000
Roadwa A roaches $ 23,000 $ 266,000
Structure Removal $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Misc. 8z Mob. $ 195,000 $ 13 8,000
Eng. &. Contingencies $ 208,000 $ 125,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,450,000 $ 975,000
Right-of--way Costs $ 14,000 $ 45,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 1,464,000 $ 1,020,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Physical Characteristics
Water Resources
Water resources within the study area are under the federal system for cataloging
drainage basins. The drainage basin containing the project area is designated as USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03050101 (the Upper Catawba drainage basin). Under the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) system for cataloging drainage basins, the
drainage basin containing the project area is designated as Subbasin 03-08-30.
Streams and rivers have been assigned a "best usage classification" by the North
Carolina DWQ. The assigned best usage classification reflects water quality conditions
and potential resource usage. The classification of North Muddy Creek [Index no. 11-
32-1 ] is Class C. Waters designated Class C are protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish an aquatic life propagation and surface, agriculture, and other
uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes those activities performed in
an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. North Muddy Creek is not listed as a
303(d) stream or a National Scenic River.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi of the
project study area.

Biotic Resources
Four terrestrial plant communities were identified in the project study area: Mixed
Mesic Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland,
Successional Scrub/Shrub Community, and Cropland/Pastureland in addition to land
deemed Maintained/Disturbed. Table 1 shows the impacts of the project on these
communities.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Impacts(acres)
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest (Piedmont U land Variant) 5.9
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 2.9
Successional Scrub/Shrub Community 2.7
Cro land/Pastureland 8.9
Maintained/Disturbed Land 18.2
Total 38.5
Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
The North Muddy Creek is considered jurisdictional surface water under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The field investigation revealed no wetlands within
the project study area.
Permits
Based on past experience with similar actions, if non-tidal wetland impacts at each
bridge crossing are less than O.5 acre and none of the activities jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened ar endangered species or a species proposed for
such designation, the action would be considered a Class II Action as defined under
FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.115(b). As a Class II Action, bridge rehabilitation,
reconstruction, or replacement would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion as defined
under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.117.
If minor impacts occur to North Muddy Creek, a Section 404 permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and Section 401 certification will be required
from- the state prior to construction. It is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit (N WP)
No.23 [33 CFR 330.5(x)(23)] will be required. Nationwide Permit No.33 may be
required if temporary construction including cofferdams, access, and dewatering are
required for this project. The USAGE will determine final permit requirements.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of April 27, 2006, the USFWS lists four federally protected species for
McDowell County (Table 2). Brief descriptions of the characteristics and habitat
requirements for these species are provided below. A review of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP} database of rare species and unique habitats indicates

no occurrencees of federally protected species in the project area. No individual
organisms, populations, or suitable habitat for any of the species listed in Table 2 were
observed within the project area at the time of site investigation. Biological
Conclusions remain valid for 2 years from the date of the latest survey.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for McDowell County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucoce halus Bald Eagle Threatened ~ No Effect
Clemmys muhlenber ii Bo Turtle Threatened (S/A) No Effect
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather Threatened No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled ogoina Threatened No Effect
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus Carolina northern flying
squirrel Endangered No Effect
"Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a signifcant
portion of its range.
"Threatened (S/A)" denotes a species that is treated due to its similarity of appearance to another endangered or
threatened species that is listed for protection. Threatened (S/A) species are not biologically endangered or
threatened and are not subject to section 7 consultation.
Bald Eagle {Haliaeetus ZeucocephaZus) Threatened
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats was reviewed in December of 2003. No population of the species have been
recorded in the project vicinity. 'The project area was investigated on January 6, 2004.
No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Threatened (S/A)
Investigation:
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as a Threatened (S/A) due tv
similarity of appearance with the northern population of the bog turtle (which is
federally listed as threatened but which does not occur in North Carolina). Species
identified as "Threatened (S/A)" are not subject to Section 7 Consultation.
Biological Conclusion: No Survey Required
Mountain Golden Heather(Hudsonia montana) Threatened
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats was reviewed in December of 2003. No population of the species have been
recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was investigated on January 6, 2004.

Mountain golden heather is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 2,800 to 4,000
feet. The maximum elevation of 1,200 feet within the project area is considered too
low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organism, populations, or suitable
habitat were observed within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small Whorled Pogonia(Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique
habitats was reviewed in December of 2003. No populations of the species have been
recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was investigated on January 6, 2004.
No individual organisms or populations were observed within the project area;
consequently, the biological conclusion for Isotria medeoloides is "Unresolved"
pending further investigation. USFWS later stated that if no plants were found that a
biological conclusion of "No Effect" could be determined.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) Endangered
Investigation:
As of March 8, 2006 the US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has listed Carolina
northern flying squirrel as an endangered species. Suitable habitat for the Carolina
northern flying squirrel does not occur in the project area. A search of the NHP files on
May 22, 2006 indicated no occurrences of known Carolina northern flying squirrel
records within three miles of the project site.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.

Historic Architecture
The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed the subject project and determined
that the area of potential effect for historical architectural will not be affected by this
project. On May 31, 2005 NCDOT Historic Architecture staff meet with (HPO) and
agreed that there are no historic properties affected by this project and no further
compliance for Section 106 for historic architecture is required (see attached
concurrence form).
Archaeology
The Historic Preservation Office {HPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological
investigation needed to be conducted (see letter dated August 12, 2004).
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. right-of--way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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 the construction of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in
the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
farmland acreage within these classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately higki and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise ~ Air Quality
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. if vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic

noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR}, Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports
are required.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
McDowell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no
practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an
impact area of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase
the level or extent of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION 8i AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project development:
U.S. Fish 8L Wildlife Service, N.C Wildlife Resource Commission, North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office.
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish 8z Wildlife Service in standardized
letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning structure.
Response: Replacement structure will be a bridge.
The N.C. Division of Water duality had no special concerns for this project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A letter was sent by the Location ~ Surveys Unit to all property owners affected directly by
this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments have been received to
date.

There is not substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project.
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to
be a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
10

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
~aIF ~Yr~
a~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'~ ,~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT cY[
~
of ~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
MCDOWELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 56 ON SR 1763
OVER NORTH MUDDY CREEK
• B-3492

Figure 1

l

~~~~r~ ~
~~
~~
~~~~
y ~° ark r ~ s ~
~~t~ 'sloe re~e~13~ ace ,~.,~
l:'eter 33. Sa~dbeck; Adsninist€aiot _
iciaae8 F. Eas~~y; €svuemr ogee cst.~rchrve ~stcary
Lisheti'r ~. Euas, Seeretazy ]raivisioxa ~>f istsirical Resotzrc~s
.ieffrey J. ~resav, 3.7e~aaty Secrot~ry I3avid Brook, Dia~ctor
~a~gst ~ ~ ~C~fl~-
~`~: C.~re~o~y ~'~aiorpe, ~1~.~., Dir~°ctor
I'~o~~ct Deveiophaent axxd ~x~vir~ane'r~tal .na~~sis ~ran~h
~~~~?'~" ~ivisiC~1'2 of h~v~ys
~'~?~I: ~'~~~~ ~. ~a.ndi~eck f
~~.J~3~E~°"e '~~~~$.4g~llfid~~l~~81~[ro~cAts, Qr~caa~g' /{ -_'~~f-~°~~,2~~-?4.4(~2~, ~-~4¢{~l~,YTS-44Q-~~$~,~$'$-]r4-~~4~,/$
-`,,-~~$gY~Ylk1$~..~Fy `~~"t~`q~y~:fy ~"~-`fi,.y~~~4Q7, _`~.~q~C`'r,g~p~ -`$'~.g3C1 ~4J6yl. A3`~,q~~r..l~^~'''yy ~$g_"~.A"$~'7Jpy.~_`$~`Q$~`$py...L$7 p-`$~'p~~`~,y&
~_°,'RD'.~~IC:P= S3-`y~e'..3 f~~~q, 'rL~~_`~g$~"/C'(~~, 7~~_`~gtJ'C7~^{5~ -~y °`~~j'{J`~9~QJ, -g~~^`F'.3 ~[.~7~~I ~ ":~L]~'°{Yl~A! (€~3, ~°`~"A4'~Cp3y..°i~.9 °`-/3~'f~C~~9-,
~~1 -`~f~~]J, -g'°"F'{S t/.~9`~~g'~5.~-'$[~y +~g?~9, g3_"+F$~[$®f, SS-°~$~~gb(2$L7y 3gy7-A~C~-Ca/~~y$.?_"$i)`t J$, g~~-`/t p!,~j/ly15-`~g@`i1 ^JJ ~,
$ppD-~yy lgB//g~.y J3-~~BL"ff', ~-~[C}3f$~.+~q,'$~-!~.75,~,7Ep~~p1y''g~_'.~"p~13~q, 3:D-°$.J .JG, ~-~g ~+''p.A3y. i.~_°~"g~V"rk~L), y~~-`~y$~fry~
t 17-..X 16.~:f, -~~~Vy ~_'~C71/Gy 8.9-.v)C3V,.9, $?"~O~Y) -~~~~y ~"`$~L-t, -`"$~.L~y .~.9°`I'~G~'
inn ~~y ~8, ~~~4, Sarah c~ride, our preservatio~s spec~.a.st fc~r transportation. projec~-s, ns.et s~crith .e I~.Torth
~~rciiin~. I~epae~t of "~`raaisportatior>l (~~~~'I") staff for a eetin~ of ~e r~ir~d.s eoncernng tie abave
projects. e reported on o av;~ilable ix~£ora~.tion on Ixistoric architectural ar~d archa~~logi..cal surveys and
resol_arces alor~;s~ gvi~h our recoi-nt-a~end~.fi~ns. N~~3C~`I" Provided project desc~ition.s, area phato~-r~.phs, and
aerie.] photoapll~s at the .eezg.
used on our review of the photographs and tkie infc~rrr~.ation discussed. at tae ~a~eeting, ~e wave. in:cludec3 cur
corrsta~ents fQr eacki bridge pto3ect do ~ spreadsl~e~:t attached to this letter. These ct~rnrnents ~e provided fc~r
each project as proposed.
If a7n archaec~Iogica:l survey is requested on the spreadsheet, a separate ~ne~tnorandum from the Qffice ~f -State
~.rch~~ology, e~p ~ ~; vrhet~,e>r a ge~era~ svey is required or if the survey is prcclicated upon an ofd sits
detox~r or aae locari.o~a; as att~:cls~d.
~-Iav:s~ j~rovid~d this inf~s~rsaton, we look forward to receipt s~f e~.t~iex ~ ~~.teg®~ical ~xel.si®gs sir
n~rr~n~.erataJ. l~ssessexzt ~v~iich indicates I~o~v N~~C~~' addressed our co ants.
"Y'he ak~ove conehts are nn~..ade pursua~st to 5ectti.on 1(3~ of tkge 1`~ation istore Pres~r~ration ~~~ ci tkne
t~:civisory council. on ~Iistoric I'reservatiorl's F~e~zl.ations fir ~onz}~liar~ce with Section 1~JC~ ~odificd at 3t~ CF'R
mart ~~~.
location I~ailisn~ ~sielress 'I'eleplao~aax
:43[~INIS'['IB~.TI®Td 547 N. 331csaant Street, Raieig33 htC 4617 Mail Service Cea~te~, Ra3eagla PdC 27699-4G 17 {9I9}733-47631733-$G~3
i&I;S'Y'~i'~'It9I~ 5lS 7~1. 131~ua~t Streef, Raleig3a l*1C 4637 Nflail Service Center, Raleigh 1~IC 27699-46]7 (9]9)733-G547I715-4FQI
SIJI~i~>iJ4' ~.APd11~dC Sl§ ~T~ E3ics~€nt 58reet, 1~:aleigh, P~iC 4637 fivlai3 Service.,Center, 3~a3eigh NC 27699-4G17 [phone]l735~$tJl

TIIP 1 ~~t~ I~III t~IL?'
~ t 1~~3492 ~1~1~136 M~t~®1/VELL 1 ~ 1'1~~a2
~ 1~3 ~~1~28~ ANSI : 14 11~~1
8@449 1~3CB3® ~-NSC~t~ 1 ~ 1 ~~2
-.'1 ~ ~~I T ICJ 1 1 X31
i~ ~ 1 ~~~~ IL1P~lt? 1 195
8 1 E~{~C~4 ~° ' 1 ~ 1
~: 8 ~ ~ 1 ~' FLEE 1 1
Bm451 ~ 3011 CB - GS°~'®I~ 1 ~ 192
13~ _ I~-~~ Fii1~E ~ 1 3
~
~ ~ Ba4 a73 .
8-431 ~4L~~
3®~~~ LIE'~~L
R1J~HE~~0~1~ 1~
1 1~~
197CJ
8 ~ ~~~~87 BEAtaFC~f~~ ~ 1~~5
~ 24 C~fiF.i BE~IaFE'3f~°3° ~ 196
~ 1 ~Oi>43 "E1~E'T' 2 1'~~3
8-42® 360(332 C~A°Y°ES 1 1 ~5
_
a,~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ 1°t~L(F 4 1 ~~
~ ® 1 {3142 Fit-~~I
° ~ 1 ~6~
~ 460®2 I'iET~°t
FC~~D 1 1961
8-449 ~~? ~ F-i~F~°TF~RI~ 1 16
b 8~6~~ 63i~~~9' LEI ~ 1971
~ ~~ 6~0C3®3 ~"i'I~ 1 1974
i~ 646 660031 ~ °1-YF~R~LL. 1 197
1337` 92~®2~ WAREI~ ~ 1957
~d ~ ~ 13~66~ 92003 ~lI~E 1965
-~~~~ ~~~~~~ E1~C~E~C38~ ~ 1 ~~
x;31 8=466(3 ~C31~102 .J~PH(*JBTN 195
-~9 1~-~13~ ~1~~' I~I#°i ~ 1~~1
8-461 ~ 7~C~445 I~~BE®1`S 1965
13 ~°~ S'I''~I~ILY 1 C3 1961

~ltft~~t~e~~ ~h~~~i
1< ~'~~ ~Q
k ~ Nc~
N~ Asa
k Yes
1~ Alta
I~€~
I~~
k ~
k P+i~ i+l

~ ~
Its ~o
~ i~®

ti~
8-4 69037 ll~llC~t~ 1~ 1962 ~~h~s~~
~.~ 8-4661 693261 ~:I~l~i~i 1~ 1967 Jc~hrtss~~
~~ -~ 91m345 WI~fE 6 196 J~he~so
d: , 8671 ~~~ WAYE 1961 Joh~es~ra
~.
~ @3624 13~P1€~ ~A~I3lELL 11 191 ~i 'IEin
. 93~1J 1301 CALL3tELL 11 1962 Pi icin
-39°[ 1 ~60fl3~ ~UFt1~Y 11 1 ~~~ ~i Icin
~
f ~~
8-4562
-~6'i 3 ~®®1 032
4x$01®t3
~~~41 ~ ~ ~~CE
IRE~~LL
fWL'~C3LF'I-3 ?
1~
~ 1 X613
1963
1 ~5~ ~i kin
Pi kin
Pi kin
# 8-4646 350132 81~RY 11 1962 Pi kia~
~d ~5 950(334 Iio~CES 11 1960 Fri kin
'~~ 13~-3169 31015 I~tJFtl-I~nli ~ 1960 Williams
f'~r~ 83606 040t37~ AS1~E 11 19fi3 Williams
8-36032 04022) A s1-1~ 11 1~6Q i~§/illiat~r~s
~ 8-38(33 04£334 A81~E 11 1 Jfi6 Williams
~~ 8-3~t3a4 040296 ACHE 11 '1964 ll~/illiams
~~i: 8-4523 3a~Cl164 C~RANilILLE ~ 1955 Williaa~as
a3 B-4~~ 313CB193 ~~drIILLE ~ 1~5~a illias
~~' 8-4525 380°133 GRANVILLE 5 9960 Williams
8-4526 38C~~0~ GF~AN~/iLLE 5 197 ~filiias
Yes
~'~
Yep
I~!€a
des
Isla
Yes
Yes
I~Ita
~~
IVo
IVa
~ I
~.~..
~~
Yes
Yes
Yes
~P~

'I'~a~~e_are ~® ~iistc~ric prc~~ea-tYes affected ~y t~ais ~sr~ject. ~14ttczch rarzy n~t~s ~~- de~e~~a~r~t.~ €zs ~xeeded)
sg~ted:
Representative, NCDC~T ate .