19990904 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19990813

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 21, 1999
McDowell County
DWQ Project # 990904
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mallory Martin
NC WRC
Armstrong Fish Hatchery
334 Armstrong Creek Road
Marion NC 28752
Dear Mr. Martin:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 40 feet of waters for the
purpose of renovating the Armstrong Fish Hatchery Facility, as you described in your application dated June 18, 1999 with
the Certification received on August 3, 1999. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered
by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3106 and 3108. These Certifications allow you to use National Permit
Numbers 18 and 26 when the Corps of Engineers issues them. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. This
approval shall expire when the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Tretter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Scott Fletcher, Duke Engineering Services
990904.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc.html
' !lye< c7o?-
vP
S.? U
?Ay"
P? 'S ??
s?
J 7k
wh P Duke Engineering
& ServicessM
A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P. O. Box 1004

Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
June 18, 1999

Mr. John Dorney '
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road c j2 C
Raleigh NC 27607
r
[phone] Office
g
(704) ??382-9198 Fax
? Q I
RE: Armstrong Fish Hatchery Facility Upgrade -Nationwide Permits
Dear Mr. Dorney:
In association with the upgrade of the State's Armstrong Fish Hatchery, Duke Engineering &
Services, Inc. (DE&S) has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission to prepare the necessary project permits and reports, in addition to the design and
construction of several fish hatchery structures.
The proposed project, which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443),
northwest of the Town of Woodlawn, consists of a facility upgrade of an existing hatchery.
Projects associated with the upgraded facility include the new construction of three low-head
dams and water intakes (the original dams will be abandoned and left in place), replacement of
an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear feet), the addition of several solid removing
clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the construction of a hatchery building. Within the
discharge chute of the three new intake structures, a fish passage structure consisting of a set of
redwood stoplogs will be constructed. This will facilitate the movement of fish around the
dams. The only in-stream work will be associated with the construction of the low-head
dams/intakes and the removal rock, sediment and debris to facilitate dam foundation
preparation. No wetlands, State/Federal listed species, or known cultural resources will be
affected by the project. All other activities will be conducted in upland areas already used by
the existing hatchery. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and maintained in
effective operating condition during the construction phases.
The permit issues associated with the construction of the new dams, the requirement of fish
passage structures, and NEPA-EA requirement due the use of federal funds, were discussed by
Mr. Mallo Martin (NCWRC Fish Production Coordinator), the USFWS and US Army Corps
(A Cve i_e O ce) in late March. Based on these requirements, two Nationwide Permits
d 26 ve be en prepared for this project. NWP 26 is associated with two new
he- ead dams along Bee Rock Creek and the upper reaches of Armstrong Creek.
The NWP 18 is associated with a new dam just below the headwaters on Armstrong Creek.
A NEPA Environmental Assessment and associated alternative analysis for the hatchery
upgrade has also been prepared jointly by the Wildlife Resources Commission and DE&S.
Please find seven (7) copies of the Nationwide Permit and Environmental Assessment package
for your review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Scott T. Fletcher
Scientist
Enclosure
cc: Mallory Martin, NCWRC
Todd Heavner, DE&S
DE&S Records Center (00906.00.0001.00.00001)

PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NO. 18

' Armstrong State Fish Hatchery
Facilit
Up
rade - Water Dist
ib
ti
S
t
g
y
r
u
on
ys
em
' McDowell County, North Carolina

Prepared By:

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Marion, North Carolina
And
Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
' Charlotte, North Carolina

June 17,1999

' DWQ ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
' NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) 18
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
' FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
' 3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7)
' COPIES MUST BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY,
ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC
27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
' 1. OWNER'S NAME: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
F

J

2. MAILING ADDRESS: Armstrong Fish Hatchery
334 Armstrong Creek Road
CITY: Marion STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28752
SUBDIVISION NAME N/A
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
See No. 2
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: Mr. Mallory Martin (HOME) (WORD 828/659-3324 OR
Mr. Derek Boggs (HOME) (WORK) 828/756-4179
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Duke Engineering & Services
400 S. Tryon St., WC22K
P.O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
704/382-0808 (Work)
Contact: Scott T. Fletcher
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE): SEE ATTACHED MAP
COUNTY: McDowell - NEAREST TOWN: Woodlawn
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.) NC Highway 226
north from the Town of Woodlawn (1 mile), NC Highway 226A West to Armstrong
Creek Road (NC Highway 1443) (2.5 miles), west on Armstrong Creek Road (1.3
miles). The USGS Celo and Little Switzerland 7.5 minute quadrangles.

J

P
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Armstrong Creek
RIVER BASIN: Catawba River
7. (a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES X NO [] IF YES, EXPLAIN: Armstrong Creek and
tributaries of Bee Rock Creek, House Branch, Cow Creek, North Fork of Cow
Creek, and Pups Branch are all classified as WS-II Tr (i.e, Water Supply II Trout)
by the NC Division of Water Quality
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES ? NO X
(c) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION? No
(a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? YES ? NO X IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND
ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION): N/A
(b) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES ? NO X IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9. a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 45
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0 acres of jurisdictional wetlands; no wetland areas are located on the property
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0
FLOODING: 0
DRAINAGE : 0
EXCAVATION: 0
OTHER:0
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
' PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: 40 FT
' WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 0_5 FT AFTER: FT
' (b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: X CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING: X
OTHER:
One new dam will be constructed below the headwater area of Armstrong Creek.
At the Lower Armstrong Dam, 10 linear feet of stream channel will be permanently
' affected by the dam footprint. Another 30 feet of stream inundation will also occur
between the new and existing dams. The total volume of discharged material below
the ordinary high water mark is 24 cubic yards.
2

11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED _
DRAINING TO THE POND? WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
Not Applicable
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 8112 BY i I DRAWINGS ONLY)
' The Armstrong Fish Hatchery facility upgrade project consists of several distinctive
components. These regulated components associated with Nationwide Permit
include the following:

1

L
u

The Lower Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake - The existing dam and intake
structure will be abandoned. A new low-head dam and intake will be constructed
just downstream of the existing structure (40 feet L x 10 feet W). A new intake
consists of sloped profile wire screen intake panels to allow debris to skim across
l intake panel surface while water is moved below the intake box. On the discharge
side of the intake, redwood stoplogs will be used to control the level of water in the
intake box and allow for flushing of the system if needed. Within the discharge
chute, another set of redwood stoplogs provides a stepped pool of water to allow for
possible fish migration upstream through the intake. An aluminum slide plate will
be located in a slot adjacent to the intake structure. This 48 inch x 48 inch slide
plate will be placed and removed by use of a hand-operated hoist attached to the
intake structure. Limited dredging and bank enhancement at the proposed dam site
and the existing dam to remove excess rock and silt and to provide access for
periodic rock and silt removal in the future. Dredging includes 60 cubic yards for
foundation preparation at new dam. Less than 0.02 acres of stream channel will be
filled as a result of the new dam construction. The total volume of discharged
material below the ordinary high water mark is 24 cubic yards.
NOTE: The new dam construction at the Upper Armstrong Creek and Bee
Rock dam sites will be covered in a separate Nationwide Permit No.
26 since they are in a headwater area. Specific permit requirements
associated with the upgrade of the Armstrong Fish Hatchery were
discussed with Steve Chapin of the Corps' Asheville Field Office on
5/14/99.
Other project features that will occur with this upgrade but do not occur in water
of the United States include:
• Lower Armstrong Water Line Replacement - the work associated with this
task will include the removal and disposal of the existing 18-inch diameter
concrete water line between the Lower Armstrong intake and the hatchery
raceways. Replacement of a 24-inch diameter ductile iron supply pipe
(approximately 1,800 linear feet) including necessary water control valves,
air release valves, and branch lines to service two circular tanks and a truck
3

watering station will also occur. Five 20 foot circular concrete hatchery
' tanks and the associated water line connections will also be removed. -This
water line will be located in an upland setting.
• Lower Armstrong Raceway Removal and Repair - the work associated with
this task will include the additional of a continuous concrete headbox that
will be used for the introduction of water to the upstream end of the
' raceways. The headbox will include a connection with a new 24 inch
diameter ductile iron supply line form the Lower Armstrong intake. Other
additional features include an outlet pipe, sediment blow-off valves, and
' water control boards. A branch pipe to serve the remaining circular tanks, a
new truck watering station, a properly sized pump to recirculate a minimum
of 3,000 gpm of water from the raceway discharge to the headbox, and an
' emergency power system to provide power to the recirculation pump in the
event of a power loss will also be provided. The raceways are located an
upland setting
' • Effluent Management - several solid-removing clarifier tanks will be
installed at the upper Armstrong raceway and the lower Armstrong raceway.
' • Construction of a New Hatchery Building - this task will include the
construction of a new hatchery building (60 feet long by 40 feet wide). The
' new hatchery building is located in an upland setting.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The NC Wildlife Resources Commission has chosen to
' upgrade the Armstrong Fish Hatchery due to antiquated conditions, inherent design
flaws, and lack of efficiency at the existing 40 year old facility. The described
' actions are needed to extend the operational life of this facility that produces over
200,000 catchable and fingerling trout annually.
' 14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS).
No wetland areas will be affected by this project. The construction of the dam is a
water dependent activity. Construction of the dam and intake must take place in
Armstrong Creek in an effort to provide an adequate supply of water to the
hatchery facility. All means practicable have been incorporated into the design to
avoid and minimize impacts to the streams. As additional mitigation of aquatic
impacts, a fish passage structure will be installed at the Lower Armstrong dam
intakes. This will facilitate both upstream and downstream passage of aquatic life.
' 15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
' DATE CONTACTED: See Attachment 5

4

u

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
' Ms. Susan Giles
March 23, 1999
' U
i
d S
Fi
h
n
te
tates
s
and Wildlife Service (Asheville Field Office)
Mr. Mark Cantrell
' March 23,1999
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
' (SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED See
Attachment 5
n
1
I I

1

u
0

n
NC Department of Cultural Resources (Asheville Office)
Mr. David Moore
March 24,1999
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
April 29,1999
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OT THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND? YES X NO 0 (IF NO, GO TO 16)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT? YES X NO
A NEPA Environmental Assessment, as required by the USFWS, was prepared for
this project. The NEPA document supercedes the NC SEPA.
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES ? NO X
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
A copy of the NEPA EA will be submitted to the USFWS and the Department of
Administration concurrent with submittal of this permit.
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38).
ALL STREAM (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON

n

L

u
n

n
H

I I
0
n
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE I INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET
OF THEIR EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT.
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
The adjacent land use includes the existing hatchery facility to the north of
Armstrong Creek. State owned gamelands consisting of hardwood forest exists to
the south of Armstrong Creek and to the north of the hatchery facility. The facility
is located in a rural setting.
(fl IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
I. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
A PROGRAM, .,
OWNER'
DATE

(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY l/
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED). See Attachment 4 for Authorization Letter

u
0

n
H
C
r

L
C
The following information pertains to the specific conditions related to eligibility for a
Nationwide Permit and listed in 33 CFR 330.
General Conditions:
1. Navigation. This activity will not cause an adverse effect on navigation.
2. Proper maintenance. Any project structure or authorized fill will be properly
maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion and siltation controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used
and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil
and fills, will be stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic life movements. No project activity will substantially disrupt the movement of
those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which
normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound
water (Lower Armstrong Dams). Fish passage will be installed at the Lower Armstrong
Intake.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in-stream will be minimized to the maximum
extent practicable, and other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and case by case conditions. The activity will comply with any regional
conditions that may be added by the Division Engineer.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No National Wild or Scenic River or rivers under study will be
affected by this project.
8. Tribal Rights. This activity will not affect reserved tribal rights, including, but not
limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
9. Water quality certification. Nationwide Permit No. 18 has been issued a General Water
Quality Certification based on conformity to the specific conditions stated by the NC
Division of Water Quality
10. Coastal zone management. Because this project will not encroach upon state tidewaters
or lands within the jurisdiction of the state Coastal Management Agency, no coastal
management consistency must be obtained.
11. Endangered Species. The Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service have been contacted to determine the presence of any potential state
and federal listed species. Neither agency was aware of existing populations of protected
plant or animal species at or in the vicinity of the project.
12. Historic Properties. This activity will not affect any properties listed by the NC
Division of Archives and History. Three designated archaeological sites are within the
hatchery facility boundaries but will not be affected by the proposed construction
activities.
Section 404 Only Conditions:
Water supply intakes. The site has neither public surface nor subsurface water intakes
in the vicinity of the project.
r

L
? .
? a
? 9.
i
i
Shellfish production. The freshwater streams on the site are not in an area of shellfish
production.
Suitable material. DE&S will handle the excavation and fill operations. All fill will be
obtained from on-site sources and will be free of unsuitable materials and toxins. There
will be no fill in wetlands or additional fill in other waters of the U.S.
Mitigation. Discharges of fill into Armstrong Creek will be avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable. Fish passage structures will be installed at the new
intake.
Spawning areas. Adequate sediment and erosion control will minimize siltation in the
designated trout spawning waters.
Obstruction of high flows. The new dam will be constructed to minimize the relocation
and impoundment of water.
Adverse effects from impoundments. The adverse affects on the aquatic system caused
by the impoundment of water upstream of the new dam will be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. The permanent impacts due to water impoundment are
anticipated to be relatively minor (i.e., displacement of certain benthic organisms and
small changes in species assemblages). Fish passage at the dam will be facilitated
through the construction of a fish passage structure.
Waterfowl breeding area. Due to its wooded location and general lack of relatively
large bodies of water, this activity is not known to be in an area of important waterfowl
breeding.
Removal of temporary fills. No temporary fills are anticipated.
8

n

n

n

r

n

ATTACHMENTS

IITCFEL?T?1-
CEY .E,Oi•?f
C0C'?,??
? ?-- Nettle Patctr-
n
?z 4078 ??? A, . 8 110
\ ,= Rya ?\
el,
`;?? Armstrong Fish Hatchery
1????o) Project Area

Celo, NC
USGS 7.5' Quad.:!-' `
Little Switzerland, NC
? USGS 7.5' Quad.
Location of NCVVRC Armstrong Fish Hatchery
Project Area.

ATTACHMENT I
VICINITY MAP
10

J
l
J

E

ATTACHMENT 2
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
12

I

I
I
I
I

View of the existing Lower Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake Structure.
Looking west and upstream of Armstrong Creek in early April. The proposed dam
site for the Proposed Action Alternative is located in the riffle area in the center of the
photo. ]

13

u

I I

r

L

ATTACHMENT 3
SITE PLANS
14

EXISTING INTAKE

NOTES
1. AVERAGE WATER DEPTH 6.0 INCHES.
2. APPROXIMATELY 60 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGIN\
ASSOCIATED WITH FOUNDATION PREPRATION AT
NEW DAM.
3.24 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL DISCHARGE BELOW THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK.
4. ALL DREDGED MATERIAL WILL BE DEPOSITED AT AN
UPLAND SITE.
PLAN OF LOWER ARMSTRONG INTAKE
SCALE:1'=20'
)L
HW
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCDOWELL COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
Duke Engineering 400 SOUTH ,o,-STREET
1w4w& services. P o Bor 1,0,04
J ,Puke Inergy Company CHARLOTTE. N, C. 282111-1,004

-0HW
----OLW
se
a

r

?I

i
ATTACHMENT 4
AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION

r

L

L
16

1 1%,

? Nai th Caraa V,,'? 'L,,I.life ?;5aur. ces_ _'_' r-'
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raie4n, Nord; '44Arohna'17604-11$3, 919-733-3391 -
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

May 4, 1999
' To Whom It May Cuncem:
The attached ;i?,cu:rlents were pre
``_.. pared by Duke
' Engineering and Services, Inc. in corsultation with the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission. Duke Engineering an..d S4t?i;;es,1,•t4•. is the authorized agent of the NC;
Wildlife Resources Co.,.-11 m. ?.ii.,? tO r% vizi.A CL?:]Sfri!:t1oI2 Of State Fish HritcIsi t in or desi' -N -c ; r. ti f a renovation. project at the
' kevie and assessment of environmental
effects of the proposed project were condue.te.d jointly with Duke serving the lead role in
preparation of the review documents.

Sincerely,
"V?4411fll'l
Mallory G. Martin
Fish Production Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
F

r
r
L

u

r

L

ATTACHMENT 5
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
is
n
I

F
E

Duke Engineering
WO& Servicess.
A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P. O. Box 1004
Charlotte. NC 28201-1004
March 23, 1999
Ms. Susan Giles
Information Specialist
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Natural Heritage Program
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Ms. Giles:
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
Duke Engineering & Service (DE&S) is currently gathering the necessary information in
association with an Environmental Assessment for repair and rehabilitation of a State of North
Carolina fish hatchery (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). This existing trout
hatchery is along Armstrong Creek in McDowell County, North Carolina (see attached map).
DE&S has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to prepare the
necessary project permits, in addition to repairing several fish hatchery structures.
In association with the state required Environmental Assessment document (State
Clearinghouse), DE&S is requesting information from the Natural Heritage Program regarding
the presence of any known rare species, high quality natural communities, and Significant
Natural Heritage Areas that may be affected by the project.
The proposed project which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443),
northwest of the Town of Woodlawn, consists of a facility upgrade and repair. Projects
associated with the existing facility include concrete restoration and intake repair at three
existing low-head dams, limited dredging to remove excess silt and debris behind the three dams,
placement of ice and leaf booms, replacement of an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear
feet), the addition of several solid removing clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the
construction of a hatchery building. The only in-stream work will be associated with the
removal of silt and debris from the headponds to facilitate greater water capacity. No wetlands
will be affected by the project. All other activities will be conducted in upland areas already
used by the existing hatchery. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during the construction phases.

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone].
We appreciate your help on this matter.
Sincerely,
,?J
?'7- )?e7t
Scott T. Fletch r
Scientist
Enclosure
2

%2
Tnrep
-7 JI ,Armstron
g Fish Hatchery
Project Area
C lo, NC Little Switzerland, NC
USGS 7 - • :5' Quad. USGS 7.5' Quad.
Location of NCWRC Armstrong Fish Hatchery
Project Area.
4

A4
RUM

JAMES B. HUNTJR. -
GOVERNOR -
' WAYNEMCDEVITT.-
SECRETARY c d ''

DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY
DIRECTOR

r;

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
March 26, 1999
Mr. Scott T. Fletcher
Duke Engineering & Services
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P.O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas At the Proposed NC WRC
Fish Hatchery Improvement Project Site Along Armstrong
Creek, Woodlawn, McDowell County, NC
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
The NC Natural Heritage Program does not have records of rare species, high quality
natural communities, or Significant Natural Heritage Areas at or within a 1.0 mile
radius of the proposed NC WRC fish hatchery improvement project site on
Armstrong Creek in McDowell County. However, because McDowell County has not
been systematically inventoried, I cannot state definitively that no rare species exist in
the area of the project.
Enclosed is a list of rare species known to exist in McDowell County. If habitat for
any of these species exists at the site, the species may be present there. Consultant
consideration of the site characteristics should determine if a definitive survey would
be needed.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
8703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS STATUS RANK RANK
McDowell
Vertebrate Animals
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's 'awk SC - S3B,S3N G5
Clemmys Tuhlenbergii Bog Turt_=_ T T(S/?•; S2 G3
Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-bi-led Cuckoo SR S2B,SZN G5
Coragyps atratus Black Vu:ture SC S3 G5
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean ;garbler SR FSC S3B,SZN G4
' Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler SR - S1B,SZN G5
Invertebrate Animals
Hypochilus sheari a lampshade spider SR - S2S3 G2G3
Satyrium caryaevorum Hickory Hairstreak SR - S1S2 G4?
' Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary SR FSC S3 G3
Vascular Plants
Arisaema triphyllum ssp Bog Jack-in-the-pulpit SR = S1 G5T4
' stewardsonii
Asplenium bradleyi Bradley's Spleenwort C S1 G4
Asplenium ruta-muraria Wall-rue SR - S1 G5
Botrychium jenmanii Alabama Grape Fern SR - S1 G3G4
' Botrychium oneidense
i Blunt-lobed Grape Fern
Roan Sedge C
C -
FSC S1
S1 G4Q
G1
s
Carex roanens
Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert's Turtlehead SR - S3? G3?
Coreopsis latifolia Broadleaf Coreopsis SR - S3 G3
Hudsonia montana Mountain Golden-heather E LT S1 G1
' Lilium grayi Gray's Lily T-SC FSC S3 G3
Lonicera flava Yellow Honeysuckle SR S2 G5?
Malaxis bayardii Appalachian Adder's-mouth SR - SH G2?
Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap C FSC S3 G3
' Oenothera perennis Perennial Sundrops C S1 G5
Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved C/PT S1 G3G4
Grass-of-parnassus
Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Azalea SR - S3 G3
' Scutellaria saxatilis Rock Skullcap C S1 G3G4
Shortia galacifolia var brevistyla Northern Oconee Bells E-SC FSC Sl G2T1Q
Thermopsis mollis sensu stricto Appalachian Golden-banner SR - S2 G3G4

' Trillium simile
Woodsia appalachiana Sweet White Trillium
Appalachian Cliff Fern SR
SR -
- S1
S1 G3
G4
Zigadenus elegans ssp glaucus White Camas C Sl GST4?
' Nonvascular Plants
Rhabdoweisia crenulata
Himalayan Ribbed-weissia
C
-
S1
G3G4
Natural Communities
Acidic Cove Forest - - - S5 G5
' Basic Mesic Forest (Montane - - - S1 G?
Calcareous Subtype)
-
-
S3
G4
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest - - - S2 G2G3
Carolina Hemlock Bluff -
Chestnut Oak Forest - - S5 G5
G5
' Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest _ S5 G5
High Elevation Red Oak Forest S5 G2
High Elevation Rocky Summit - - - S2 G1
Hillside Seepage Bog _ = S1
S3 G4
Montane Acidic Cliff S1 G?
Montane Calcareous Cliff _ - S4 G5
Northern Har_dwood.Forest (Typic - -
Subtype) S4 G5
Pine--Oak/Heath G4

Rich Cove Forest - -
- -
-
S4
S2
T2
G2G3
Swamp Forest-Bog Complex (Typic - .
Subtype)
ll*
McDowe
' Vertebrate Animals
Contopus cooperi
Olive-sided Flycatcher
SC
FSC
SUB,S
ZN G5
Invertebrate Animals
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave Water SR FSC S1 G?
' Slater
NTr ..ram**aAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999
' STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS STATUS RANK RANK
Nesticus carolinensis Linville Caverns Snider SR - S1 G1?
' Trechus mlzchellensis a ground beetle SR - S1? G1?
vascular Plants
Baptisia albescens Thin-pod White Wild Indigo SR - S2 G4
Baptisia bracteata var bracteata Creamy Wild Indigo C - SH G4GST4?
' Eupatorium. godfreyanum Godfrey's Thoroughwort SR S1 G4
Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star SR - S1 G4G5
Muhlenbergia sobolifera Rock Muhly C - SH G5

' 'Platanthera grandiflora
Prenanthes roanensis Large Purple-fringed Orchid
Roan Rattlesnakeroot SR
SR -
- S2
S3 G5
G3
Robinia hispida var fertilis Fruitful Locust C S1 G5TUQ
Nonvascular Plants
' Brachythecium rotaeanum Rota's Feather Moss SR S1 G3G4

Bryoerythrophyllum inaequalifolium a moss
C -
S1
G4?
Bryoxiphium norvegicum Sword Moss SR - S1 G3G4
Cirriphyllum piliferum a moss SR - S1 G5
' Dichodontium pellucidum a moss SR - S2 G4G5
Encalypta procera Extinguisher Moss SR S1 G4G5
Entodon compressus Flattened Entodon C - S1 G4
Entodon eoneinnus Lime Entodon C - S1 G4G5
Entodon sullivantii Sullivant's Entodon SR - S2 G3G4
' Eucladium verticillatum Lime-seep Eucladium SR S1 G5
Homalia trichomanoides Lime Homalia C - S1 G5
Hygrohypnum closteri Closter's Brook-hypnum SR - S1 G3
Plagiochila virginica var a liverwort SR - S1 G3T3
virginica
_Platydictya confervoides Alga-like Matted-moss SR S1 G4G5
Rhachithecium perpusillum Budding Tortula C - S1S2 G3?
Scopelophila cataractae Agoyan Cataract Moss C - S1 G3
' Scopelophila ligulata Copper Moss SR S1 G5?
McDowell**
Vertebrate Animals
Cyprinella zanema pop 1 Santee Chub - Piedmont SR - S3 G3T3Q
Population
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian Woodrat SC FSC S2S3 G5T4Q
Vascular Plants
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur E-SC FSC S1 G3

I-
I
L
u

' NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999

r
I
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM COUNTY SPECIES LIST COVER SHEET
The county species list from the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements of natural diversity (rare species,
exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to occur-in a county. The information on this printout is
compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbaria, and personal communications. The
Heritage Program's Biological and Conservation Database (BCD) is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being
revised as new information is received. -The BCD was developed and is maintained using methodology developed by The Nature
Conservancy. The enclosed list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage elements, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys. When this information is used in any document, we request that the printout date be given
and that the NC Natural Heritage Program be credited.
This cover sheet explains the four columns of status codes that are given on the right-hand side of the county status list.
STATE STATUS
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
T Threatened
SC Special Concern
C Candidate
CODE STATUS
P Proposed (E, T, or C)
SR Significantly Rare
EX Extirpated
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage
Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). E, T, and SC species are protected by state law (Plant
Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina, March 16,
1992, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). SR and EX statuses
are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
' FEDERAL STATUS
This status is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are protected
' under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise noted,
definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
' CODE STATUS
LE Endangered
LT Threatened
' P Proposed
C Candidate
FSC
T(S/A)
n
n

DEFINITION
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range."
A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range."
A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
A taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing. This category was
formerly designated as a Candidate 1 (C 1) species.
Federal "Species of Concern" (also called "Species at Risk"). Formerly defined as a taxon under
consideration for which there is insufficient information to support listing; formerly designated as a
Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not recognize this as an
official designation.
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. The Endangered Species Act authorizes the treatment of a
species (subspecies or population segment) as threatened even though it is not otherwise listed as threatened
if: (a) The species so closely resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforcement personnel
would have substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of
this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to a threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted
species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act. The American
Alligator has this designation due to similarity of appearance to other rare crocodilians. The Bog Turtle
(southern population) has this designation due to similarity of appearance to Bog Turtles in the threatened
northern population.
u
Ift Duke Engineering
& Services SM
' - A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P. O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 23201-1004
April 29. 1999
' Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
NC Dept:-of Cultural Resources
Environmental Review Coordinator
' Division of Archives and History
State Historic Preservation Office
109 E. Jones Street
' Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
RE: Request for Archaeological Database Information
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
Duke Engineering & Service (DE&S) is currently gathering the necessary regarding the
' preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Section 404 permit in association with the
upgrade of a State of North Carolina fish hatchery (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
' Commission). This existing trout hatchery is along Armstrong Creek in McDowell County,
North Carolina (see attached map). DE&S has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission to prepare the necessary project permits, in addition to the design and
' construction of several fish hatchery structures.
In association with the NEPA required Environmental Assessment and the Corps permit, DE&S
is required to contact the Department of Cultural Resources regarding the presence of any
archaeological or historic sites within the project area. On March 24, 1999 DE&S visited the
Division of Archives and History - Asheville Western Office (Mr. David Moore) in an effort to
' map any known cultural resources within the project area (see attached map). Based on Division
of Archives and History maps, the following three sites are documented within the project area:
• Archaeological site 88 - House Branch of Armstrong Creek, Celo USGS 7.5' Quad.
• Archaeological site 89 - Bee Rock Creek, Celo USGS 7.5' Quad.
• Archaeological site GR-90-80 - House Branch, Celo USGS 7.5' Quad.
' DE&S is requesting any available follow-up information on the '
type and significance of these
three archaeological sites. This information will be included in the Environmental Assessment
' and the Permit associated with the project. Based on the final design plans, these sites will not
be affected by the proposed project.
' The proposed project which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443),
northwest of the Town of Woodlawn, consists of a facility upgrade and repair. Projects

associated with the existing facility include the construction of three new low-head dams (the
existing dams will be abandoned in place), limited dredging to remove excess silt and. debris
' behind the existing dams, replacement of an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear feet), the
addition of several solid removing clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the construction of a
hatchery building. The only in-stream work will be associated with the dam construction and
' removal of silt and debris from the headponds to facilitate greater water capacity. All other
activities will be conducted in upland areas already used by the existing hatchery (e.g., existing
raceways and building lots).
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone].
We appreciate your help on this matter.
Sincerely
' o le the 76t?
Scientist
' Enclosure
cc: Todd Heavner (Geotechnical Services 13339 Hagers Ferry Road)
DE&S Records Center (WID 00906.00.001.00.00001)
k

0

1
?y
1 -
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
1 James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1 MAILING ADDRESS LOCATION
4617 Mail Service Center 507 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 Raleigh, NC
State Courier 53-31-31
1 June 11, 1999,
Scott T. Fletcher
1 Duke Engineering and Services
P.O. Box 1004
Charlotte NC 28201-1004
1 Re: Request for archaeological data base information,
Armstrong Creek, McDowell County, ER 99-8842
1 Dear Mr. Fletcher:
Thank you for your letter of April 29, 1999, concerning the above project.
1 The three archaeological sites mentioned in your letter are recognized by the state site
numbers 31MC87, 31MC88, and 31MC123. None of these sites has been evaluated
for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. None of the remaining project
1 area has been surveyed for archaeological resources, and it is likely that additional
sites are present. Before recommending an archaeological survey for this project, we
would like to review the actual construction plans to assess the potential effect of the
project on archaeological resources. We will complete our review as quickly as
1 possible after receiving this planning information.
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
1 the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
1 -Sincerely,
1 David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
1

1
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??

Duke Engineering
,/ & ServicessM
A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P. O. Box 1004
Charlotte. NC 28201-1004
[phone] Office
[phone] Far
March 23, 1999
Mr. Mark Cantrell
U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Cantrell:
Duke Engineering & Service (DE&S) is currently gathering the necessary information in
association with an Environmental Assessment and Nationwide Permit application for repair and
rehabilitation of a State of North Carolina fish hatchery (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission). This existing trout hatchery is along Armstrong Creek in McDowell County,
North Carolina (see attached map). DE&S has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission to prepare the necessary project permits, in addition to repairing several
.fish hatchery structures.
' In association with both the state required Environmental Assessment (State Clearinghouse) and
the Nationwide Permit No. 3 (i.e., repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of previously authorized
str :ctunes), DE&S is required to contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding
' the presence of any federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or
associated critical habitat that may be affected by the project. A list of the species that have been
documented in McDowell County has been provided in this letter. This list is based on the
' Asheville Field Office's Updated County Species List (1997).

E

!J
The proposed project which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443),
northwest of the Town of Woodlawn, consists of a facility upgrade and repair. Projects
associated with the existing facility include concrete restoration and intake repair at. three
existing low-head dams, limited dredging to remove excess silt and debris behind the three dams,
placement of ice and leaf booms, replacement of an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear
feet), the addition of several solid removing clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the
construction of a hatchery building. The only in-stream work will be associated with the
removal of silt and debris from the headponds to facilitate greater water capacity. No wetlands
will be affected by the project. All other activities will be conducted in upland areas already
used by the 'existing hatchery. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during the construction phases.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone]. If
the November 4, 1997 Updated County Species List has been updated could you please send us
the revised list. We appreciate your help on this matter.
Sincerely,
- Scott . Fletcher
Scientist
Enclosure
2

Federally List Species of McDowell County
Vertebrates
BoQ turtle
Olive-sided flycatcher
Cerulean Warbler
S. Appalachian Woodrat
Invertebrates
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Contopus borealis FSC
Dendroica cerulea FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Bennett's Mill Cave Water Slater
Diana Fritillary Butterfly
Vascular Plants
Roan Sedge
Tall Larkspur
Mountain Golden Heather
Rocky Shoal Spider Lily
Butternut
Gray's Lily
Sweet Pinesap
Northern Oconee-Bells
Caecidotea carolinensis FSC
Speyeria diana FSC
Carex roanenis
Delphinium exaltatum
Hudsonia montana
Hymenocallis coronaria
Juglans cinerea
Lilium grayi
Monotropsis odorata
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla

FSC
FSC**
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC

a
Location of NCWRC Armstrong Fish Hatchery
Project Area.
I

I
I
I
I

r
r

r
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1
1 Armstrong State Fish Hatchery
Facility Upgrade =Water Distribution System
1

1 McDowell County_ North` Carolina

1
i
1
1
1
Prepared By:
1 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Marion, North Carolina
' And
Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.

1 Charlotte, North Carolina
1
June 17, 1999
1

i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Armstrong State Fish Hatchery
Facility Upgrade-Water Distribution System
McDowell County, North Carolina
Prepared By:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Marion, North Carolina
And
Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina
June,1999

' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
' ARMSTRONG STATE FISH HATCHERY
FACILITY UPGRADE
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................. 4
' 1.1 .....................
Introduction ........... ..................................................................................... 4
1.2 Purpose for Taking Action ........................................................................... 4
1.3 Need for Taking Action .............................................. 4
' 1.4 ..................................
Identify the Decision to be Made by the Responsible Official ..................... 5
1.5 Identify Issues Raised During Project Planning and Scoping ...................... 5
' SECTION 2 -ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .............. 6
2.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ............................................................. 6
2.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) ................................................... 7
' 2.3 Alternative C (Repair Alternative) .................................................................. 10
2.4 Alternative D (Combined Intake Alternative) ................................................ 12
' SECTION 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 14
3.1 Natur al Environment .................................................
.. 14
3
1
1 .
......................................
Cli
t

' .
.
3.1.2 ma
e ...................................................................................................
Local Topography ................................................................................. 14
14
3.1.3 Local Geology and Soils ...................................................................... 15
3.1.4 Water Resources ....................................................... 15
' 3.1.5 ............................
Aquatic Resources ................................................................................ 17
3.1.6 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................ 18
3.1.6.1 Vegetative Land Cover ......................... 18
..............................
3.1.6.2 Wetland Resources .............................................................. 18
3.1.6.3 Wildlife Resources .............................................................. 19
'
3.1.7 3.1.6.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species .....................
Human Environment 19

................. 1
9
3.1.7.1 Visual and Aesthetic Qualities .......................................... 20
' 3.1.7.2 Air Quality ...........................................................................
3.1.7.3 Native American Values ................................................... 20
20
3.1.7.4 Cultural and Historical Resources .................................... 20
' 3.1.7.5 Prime Farmland ..................................................................
3.1.7.6 Floodplains .......................................................................... 21
21
3.1.1.7 Public Parklands, Scenic and State Natural Areas......... 21
' SECTION 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................... 22
4.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ........................................................... 22
' 4.1.1
4.1.2 Physical Disturbance Consequences ...............................................
Biological Consequences ................................................................... 22
22
4.1.3 Socio-Economic Consequences ........................................................ 22

F1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative) ................................................. 23
4.2.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences ............................................... 23
4.2.2 Biological Consequences ................................................................... 24
4.2.3 Socio-Economic Consequences ........................................................ 24
4.3 Alternative C (Repair Alternative) .................................................................. 24
4.3.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences ............................................... 24
4.3.2 Biological Consequences ................................................................... 25
4.3.3 Socio-Economic Consequences ........................................................ 25
4.4 Alternative D (Combined Intake Alternative) ................................................ 26
4.4.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences ............................................... 26
4.4.2 Biological Consequences ................................................................... 26
4.4.3 Socio-Economic Consequences ........................................................ 27
4.5 Summary of Impacts By Alternative ............................................................... 27
SECTION 5 -COMPLIANCE, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............. 28
5.1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 28
5.2 List of Contacts .................................................................................................. 29
5.3 Pertinent Regulations. Laws, and Executive Orders ..................................... 30
SECTION 6 - REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 31
I

ATTACHMENT A -SITE LOCATION MAP .......................................................................... 33
ATTACHMENT B - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................ 35
ATTACHMENT C -PROJECT DRAWINGS ............................................................................ 42
ATTACHMENT D - EA SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST ......................................................... 49
ATTACHMENT E -AGENCY CONSULTATION ................................................................... 51

n

C
F1
Section 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction
This environmental assessment (EA) document focuses upon the environmental impacts
associated with the upgrade and renovation of the existing Armstrong Fish Hatchery near
Marion, North Carolina. Specifically, the proposed action concerns the construction of several
new facility structures, as well as the abandonment of several structures.
1.2 Purpose for Taking Action
Armstrong Hatchery -is owned and operated by the State of North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) for the purpose of producing trout for stocking in public waters of the
state. Over 200,000 catchable and fingerling size trout are produced annually at Armstrong and
distributed in 12 counties across western North Carolina. Approximately 35 percent of the trout
produced at Armstrong are distributed through agency programs implemented on Federal lands.
The described actions will be undertaken to extend the operational lifetime of the facility.
1.3 Need for Taking Action
Armstrong Hatchery is situated on Armstrong Creek, near Marion in McDowell County, North
Carolina (Attachment A). It was built in the late 1950's and consists of two raceway complexes
located within 300 acres of state-owned property. The main features of the hatchery include five
surface water intakes that provide stream water to linear raceways, circular fish tanks, and a fish
egg hatchery building. The typical water intake consists of a low-head dam transversing a
stream and a screened water inlet structure that allows water to be captured in a pipe. A low
head dam and water intake structure are found at three locations: Bee Rock Creek near the
confluence with Armstrong Creek; Upper Armstrong Creek; and Lower Armstrong Creek. A
system of pipelines distributes water to the appropriate fish-rearing structures.
Modification of two water intakes was conducted in the early 1970's to repair inherent design
flaws, improve operational efficiency, and complete routine maintenance. Otherwise, very little
maintenance or improvements have been conducted on the water supply system at Armstrong
during 45 or more years of continuous operation. As a result of infrequent maintenance, the
harsh environment that these systems operate (e.g., dam cracks), siltation at the existing dams,
and the literal age of the structures, complete operational failure of the water intake and
distribution system at Armstrong Hatchery is now highly probable. Failure to renovate the water
intakes will likely result in emergency action needed to keep the hatchery operational or require
abandonment and removal of the facility altogether.
The NCWRC proposes to upgrade the water distribution system at Armstrong Hatchery through
construction of new low-head dams and water intake structures, installation of new pipelines,
and reconfiguration of the raceway system. The NCWRC further proposes improvement to the
facility through installation of a fish waste/solids removal system, water flow alarm system, and
construction of a new hatchery building. The resulting improvements will enhance hatchery-
produced effluent to lower Armstrong Creek.
r

1.4 Identify the Decision to be Made by the Responsible Official
The responsible officials will select one of the action alternatives. We request issuance of the
necessary Findings of No Significant Impact as described in the preferred alternative.
1.5 Identify Issues Raised During Project Planning and Scoping:
During project planning and internal scoping sessions, a wide range of action alternatives and
their associated environmental impacts were identified. Portions of the project will not result in
any significant environmental impact and therefore will not be analyzed in detail. These areas
include: reconfiguration of the raceway system at Armstrong Creek, installation of an emergency
water recirculating system, and installation of an alarm system. Salient environmental issues
were identified in relation to actions regarding water intakes, water distribution systems,
operation of an effluent management system, and construction of a hatchery building. Other
issues discussed include fish passage and socio-economic ramifications of the various
alternatives. These issues and their impacts are described in the following alternatives section of
the EA. No agency or individual concerns were raised during the planning and scoping process.
t The federal agency with jurisdiction over this National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
EA is the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS has determined that
' the proposed hatchery additions and rehabilitation require an EA. Federal assistance to the
Wildlife Resources Commission at the Armstrong Fish Hatchery is being provided through
funding from the Sport Fish Restoration Act.

n
n

11
Section 2: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
In this section, the EA describes all the various courses of action and alternatives which could
satisfy the above-mentioned purpose and need. The alternatives considered in this document are
limited to the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action Alternative, the Repair Alternative,
and the Combined Intake Alternative. All the alternatives are associated with primary features of
the existing facility including several surface water intake structures that provide stream water to
the linear raceways. These intake structures are associated with low-head concrete dams along
Bee Rock Creek, Upper Armstrong Creek, Bad Fork Creek, and Lower Armstrong Creek. Other
existing facility structures include concrete circular fish tanks, a fish egg hatching building, and
the hatchery administration building. Attachment B provides photographs of the various existing
hatchery structures.
2.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative)
In accordance with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and provisions outlined specifically by the
USFWS, an evaluation of the No Action Alternative has been included in this document. The
No Action Alternative has been established as a benchmark against which the proposed action of
facility upgrade may be compared and evaluated from a current base line.
Alternative A is associated with the no action alternative. This alternative would essentially
keep the facility and the associated structures in the present condition. The main features of the
existing facility include the surface water intake structures and low-head dams along Bee Rock
Creek, Upper Armstrong Creek, Bad Fork Creek, and Lower Armstrong Creek.
The hatchery was built in the late 1950's and besides modification of two water intake structures
in 1970, no maintenance or improvements have been conducted on the water supply system
during more than 45 years of continuous operation. Due to the inadequate maintenance of the
facility, age of the structures and other environmental factors, complete operational failure of the
water intake and distribution system is likely in the near future. Failure to upgrade the facility
will likely result in emergency costs, continued degradation of the structures (e.g., dam leaks and
cracks), unreliable water supply, emergency action to keep the hatchery operational, and/or total
abandonment of the facility. Furthermore, the already reduced storage capacity, upstream of the
existing dams, will continue to diminish.
The loss of this important hatchery would have significant recreational fishery effects on twelve
western North Carolina counties, as well as, trout streams within the Pisgah National Forest,
Blue Ridge Parkway, state parks and gamelands, and private lands with public access. This
hatchery annually produces over 200,000 fingerling and catchable trout, with 35 percent of the
' fish being distributed to federal lands. The other regional state and federal hatcheries do not
have the capacity to replace the loss of fish if the Armstrong facility was to be decommissioned.
Basically, there would be an immediate loss of 100,000 catchable trout, a loss of any future
' stocking expansion potential, and substantial increases in distribution (i.e., stocking)
expenditures. A loss of 100,000 trout equates to a loss of 100,000 hours of fishing opportunity
(Martin, NCWRC, personal communication, 1999).
1
6

According to the U.S. Department of Interior (1996), an estimated 197,000 anglers participated
in trout angling in North Carolina. The average annual expense for trout anglers in North
Carolina was $379. Therefore, the total trip and equipment expenses for trout anglers in NC
were $74,663,000 in 1996. Approximately one-half of the trout angling opportunities in North
Carolina is experienced on wild trout waters and one-half is experienced on hatchery supported
waters that are dependent on stocking. Armstrong Hatchery provides about 30 percent of the
catchable and fingerling trout used in the hatchery supported waters, and consequently, supports
some $11,000,000 in trip related expenses for trout angling in North Carolina. If Armstrong
hatchery were not operational, direct trip related angling expenditures of $11 million annually
would be curtailed. Indirect economic activity dependent on these direct expenditures would be
affected at a greater magnitude. Thus, with the No Action Alternative, the effects on the quality
of the regions recreational and economic well being would be both adverse and controversial.
With this No Action Alternative, there would be no new major construction or fill discharge
(e.g., fill associated with dam construction) that would occur into waters of the U.S. Thus, no
new federal and state permits would be. required. The facility is currently in compliance with the
provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This permit is
effective through the year 2002. As far as existing environmental effects, continued operation or
abandonment of the existing facility would have no effect on the environment such as water
quality, wetlands, floodplains, endangered species, aquatic resources, and other sensitive
resources.
' 2.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)
Alternative B is associated with the proposed action alternative. This alternative includes the
upgrade and renovation the existing facility and the construction of several new structures. The
main features to be constructed are the surface water intake structures and dams that provide
stream water to the linear raceways. These intake structures are located at low-head concrete
' dams along Bee Rock Creek, Upper Armstrong Creek, and Lower Armstrong Creek. Drawings
of the Proposed Action Alternative are provided in Attachment C.

The following is an overview of the proposed upgrade of the existing hatchery facility.
• The Lower Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake - The existing dam and intake structure will be
abandoned and left in place. A new, concrete low-head dam and intake will be constructed
just downstream of the existing structure (40-feet long (L) by 10-feet wide (W). The new
intake consists of sloped profile, wire screen intake panels to allow debris to skim across the
intake surface while water is moved below the intake box. On the discharge side of the
intake, redwood stop-logs will be used to control the level of water in the intake box and
allow for flushing of the system if needed. Within the discharge chute, another set of
redwood stop-logs provides a stepped pool of water to allow for possible fish migration
upstream through the intake. An aluminum slide plate will be located in a slot adjacent to the
intake structure. This 48-inch by 48-inch slide plate will be placed and removed by use of a
hand-operated hoist attached to the intake structure. Limited dredging and bank modification
is planned at the proposed dam site and the existing dam to remove excess rock and silt and

to provide access for periodic rock and silt removal in the future. Dredging includes
approximately 60 cubic yards for foundation preparation at the new dam.
• The Bad Fork Dam and Intake - In-place abandonment of the Bad Fork Dam, removal of the
walkway and aboveground pipe between the intake is planned at this portion of the project.
The abandonment of the screen box and the water supply pipeline between the screen box
and the circular tanks is also planned.
• Upper Armstrong Creek and Bee Rock Creek Dams and Intakes - The dam and intake
structure, at each of the sites, will be abandoned and left in place. A new dam and intake will
be constructed just downstream of the existing structures (35-feet L by 10-feet W). The new
intake will consist of a sloped profile wire screen intake to allow debris to skim across the
intake surface while water is moved below into the intake box. A 36-inch wide by 24-inch
tall aluminum slide gate with a handwheel operator will control flow into the intake structure
on the upstream side. On the discharge side of the intake, redwood stop-logs will be used to
control the level of water in the intake box and allow for flushing of the system if needed.
Within the discharge chute, another set of redwood stop-logs provides a stepped pool of
water to allow for possible fish migration upstream through the intake structure. An
aluminum slide plate will be located in a slot adjacent to the intake structure. This 48-inch
by 48-inch slide plate will be placed and removed by use of a hand-operated hoist attached to
the intake structure. Limited dredging and bank enhancement is planned at the proposed dam
sites to remove excess rock and silt. Dredging includes 60 cubic yards for foundation
preparation at each new dam. New 12 inch diameter polyethylene piping from the new
Upper Armstrong Dam will connect to the existing line at the junction of both Bee Rock
Creek and Upper Armstrong Creek lines. The existing line will be abandoned in place.
• Lower Armstrong Water Lines - Abandonment, and if needed removal, of small sections of
the existing 18-inch-diameter asbestos concrete water line between the Lower Armstrong
intake and the raceways is planned. The new pipe from the new Lower Armstrong intake to
the Lower Armstrong Raceway will be polyethylene. The 24-inch diameter pipe size will
provide the required 4,100 gallons per minute (gpm) to the Lower Armstrong Raceway area.
Abandonment of the five, 25-foot-diameter circular concrete tanks and associated water line
connections is also planned. All the associated activities are located in an upland setting.
• Lower Armstrong Creek RacemMs - A continuous, concrete headbox will be provided for
the existing Lower Armstrong raceways. The raceways will extend from the lower set of
raceways to the larger upper set of raceways. The headbox will provide for laminar now
from the box to each raceway. Approximate dimensions for the headbox are 3 feet wide by 3
feet high by 160 feet long. Flashboards will be used to isolate flow from any particular
raceway. A valve will be located on the lower end that allows the system to be flushed clear
of debris / sediment buildup. All associated activities are located in an upland setting.
The emergency recirculation system design provides for a maximum capacity of 3,000 gpm.
Two diesel engine powered pumps, each rated at 1,500 gpm capacity, will also be used. Two
pumps also allow for the availability of recirculation flow in case of a single pump failure.
The stationary diesel pumps will be installed on a concrete pad. The diesel-powered pumps
8
u
' will contain an approximately 65-gallon fuel tank and could operate at full load for an
estimated 24 hours. The discharge lines from the raceways will drain into a vault. The vault
will normally discharge to the creek. The pump suction line will be located inside the vault,
' lifting water to the pump during operation. Pump discharge piping will be buried below
ground and will connect to the new headbox. Abandonment of the upstream narrow raceways
' (adjacent to the circular tanks) of the Lower Armstrong raceways is also planned. All
associated work activities are located in an upland setting.
' • Effluent Management - Solids will be removed from the quiescent zone at the end of each
raceway with a 2,000-gallon (80 to 100 gpm) trailer mounted vacuum tank with a 500 gpm
discharge flow rate. On the influent end of the tank, a two-inch diameter flexible hose will be
' used during the vacuum process. On the effluent side of the vacuum tank a three-inch hose
will be added to allow for a 500 gpm flow to be pumped from the vacuum tank into an above
ground storage tank. The above ground storage tank shall have a capacity of approximately
' 6,000 gallons and a conical shaped bottom with two effluent feed lines draining through the
bottom. Solids pumped into the tank will be allowed to settle for 24 hours. After the solids
have settled, the clear supernatant will be removed through either an adjustable standpipe or
' a floating adjustable hose. Once all of the clear supernatant is removed the remaining sludge
containing approximately one to two percent solids will be pumped to the Draimad treatment
system to de-water and containerize the sludge inside of disposable bags. Once the solids are
' removed, they will be composted and distributed for land applications by the NCWRC. The
Drainmad will be housed in an equipment shed. All these effluent management systems will
be located in an upland setting.
' • Hatchery Building - The new hatchery building will be approximately 60-feet long by 40-
feet wide at the foundation level. A pre-engineered building will be used for the structure.
' The building will be located adjacent to the current hatchery building. All associated work
activities are located in an upland setting.
The upgrade of the Armstrong Hatchery would satisfy the current problems associated with
inherent design flaws and would improve operational efficiency. The improvements stated
above would alleviate any concern associated with emergency action or operational failure.
With these improvements, the hatchery facility would be fully operational and not require the
likely future abandonment. The hatchery would continue to produce over 200,000 trout and
would also be able to accommodate any long-term stocking expansion plans.
With the Proposed Action, approximately 75 cubic yards of concrete, fill discharge will be
placed in Waters of the United States (below the ordinary high water mark). This discharge is
' associated with the construction of the three new dams. A total of 75 linear feet of new stream
inundation will also be located upstream of the new dams. The stream inundation upstream of
the existing dams will be eliminated through removal of the stop logs. Flows in these areas will
' return to run of river conditions. Long term impacts to aquatic life found at the dam sites will be
associated with the small loss of stream habitat. Short term impacts to the existing aquatic
resources will be associated with the construction activities and stream disturbance. No
dewatered stream areas are anticipated with this dam design. Thus, a Corps of Army Engineer
Section 404 permit (i.e., Nationwide Permit 18 and 26) will be required for the in-stream
' activities. All other proposed activities will take place in an upland setting.

n
n
u

0

u

n

1
The new facility will be in compliance with the provisions of the existing NPDES permit. As far
as other environmental effects, the upgrade will have no impact on water quality, wetlands, or
endangered species. A small portion of the 100-year floodplain (Zone A) will be affected by the
Lower Armstrong Creek dam and intake structure. A Floodplain Involvement Permit (Executive
Order No. 123) will be required for work in this area.
2.3 Alternative C (Repair Alternative)
Alternative C is associated with repair and restoration of the existing fish hatchery structures.
The primary facility features that would be repaired include the water intake structures and dams
at Lower Armstrong Creek, Upper Armstrong Creek, and Bee Rock Creek. The following
summary highlights the activities associated with the Repair Alternative.
• Lower Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake - Activities at the existing concrete dam and water
intake would include concrete restoration of the significant structural cracks, and demolition
and replacement of the intake wingwall and overflow water return. Modifications to or
replacement of the intake screens to improve the water collection capability is also needed.
A hoist system for the water control boards and possible replacement of the boards with a
metal gate is required. Limited dredging and bank modification to remove excess rock, silt
and debris is required to increase storage capacity capability and facilitate future debris
removal.
• The Bad Fork Dam and Intake - In-place abandonment of the Bad Fork Dam, removal of the
walkway and aboveground pipe between the intake is planned at this portion of the project.
The abandonment of the screen box and the water supply pipeline between the screen box
and the circular tanks is also planned.
• Upper Armstrong Creek and Bee Rock Dams and Intakes.- Activities at the two existing
concrete dams and water intakes would include concrete restoration of the significant
structural cracks, and demolition and replacement of the intake wingwall and overflow water
return. Heavy duty slide gate valves for sediment blow-off are required at the intakes. A
hoist system for the water control boards and possible replacement of the boards with a metal
gate is needed. Dredging and bank modification to remove excess rock, silt and debris are
required to increase water holding capability and facilitate future debris removal,
respectively. Ice and leaf booms are also required for this alternative. The replacement of
approximately 330 feet of ductile iron supply pipeline from the Upper Armstrong intake to
the main water supply junction at Bee Rock is necessary for this alternative.
• *= Lower Armstrong Water Lines - Abandonment, and if needed, removal of small sections of
the existing 18-inch-diameter asbestos concrete water line between the Lower Armstrong
intake and the raceways is planned. The new pipe from the new Lower Armstrong intake to
the Lower Armstrong Raceway will be polyethylene. The 24-inch diameter pipe size will
provide the required 4,100 gallons per minute (gpm) to the Lower Armstrong Raceway area.
Abandonment of the five, 25-foot-diameter circular concrete tanks and associated water line
connections is also planned. All the associated activities are located in an upland setting.
10

F

J

F
?I
?I

• Lower Armstrong Creek Raceways - A continuous, concrete headbox will be provided for
the existing Lower Armstrong raceways. The raceways will extend from the lower set of
raceways to the larger upper set of raceways. The headbox will provide for laminar flow
from the box to each raceway. Approximate dimensions for the headbox are 3 feet wide by
3-feet high by 160-feet long. Flashboards will be used to isolate flow from any particular
raceway. A valve will be located on the lower end that allows the system to be flushed clear
of debris / sediment buildup. All associated activities are located in an upland setting.
The emergency recirculation system design provides for a maximum capacity of 3,000 gpm,
supplied by two diesel engine powered pumps, each rated at 1,500 gpm capacity. Two pumps
also allow for the availability of recirculation flow in case of a single pump failure. The
stationary diesel pumps will be installed on a concrete pad. The diesel-powered pumps
would contain approximately a 65-gallon fuel tank and could operate at full load for an
estimated 24 hours. The discharge lines from the raceways will drain into a vault that will
normally discharge to the creek. Pump discharge piping will be buried below ground and
will connect to the new headbox. Abandonment of the upstream narrow raceways (adjacent
to the circular tanks) of the Lower Armstrong raceways is also planned. All associated work
activities are located in an upland setting.
• Effluent Management - Solids will be removed from the quiescent zone at the end of each
raceway with a 2,000 gallon (80 to 100 gpm) trailer mounted vacuum tank with a 500 gpm
discharge flow rate. On the influent end of the tank, a two-inch diameter flexible hose will be
used during the vacuum process. On the effluent side of the vacuum tank a three inch hose
will be added to allow for a 500 gpm flow to be pumped from the vacuum tank into an above
ground storage tank. The above ground storage tank shall have a capacity of approximately
6,000 gallons and a conical shaped bottom with two effluent feed lines draining through the
bottom. Solids pumped into the tank will be allowed to settle for 24 hours. After the solids
have settled, the clear supernatant will be removed through either an adjustable standpipe or
a floating adjustable hose. Once all of the clear supernatant is removed the remaining sludge
containing approximately one to two percent solids will be pumped to the Draimad treatment
system to de-water and containerize the sludge inside of disposable bags. Once the solids are
removed, they will be composted and distributed for land applications by the NCWRC. The
Drainmad system will be housed in an equipment shed. All the effluent management
systems will be located in an upland setting.
• Hatchery Building - The new hatchery building is designed to be approximately 60-feet long
by 40-feet wide at the foundation level. A pre-engineered building will be used and will be
located adjacent to the existing hatchery building. All associated work activities are located
in an upland setting.
The repair of the Armstrong Hatchery would not satisfy the current problems associated with
inherent design flaws. Operational efficiency would not be improved due to the fact that
maintenance on the structures would still be required. The repairs stated above would alleviate
any concern associated with any emergency action or operational failure, at least in the short
term. However, it is anticipated that emergency action would be required in subsequent years,
thus jeopardizing hatchery productivity. With these improvements, the hatchery facility would
11
d
' be fully operational and would continue to produce over 200,000 trout. Long-term stocking
expansion goals would not likely be met with this alternative.
' With the Repair Alternative, a Corps of Army Engineer Nationwide Permit (i.e., maintenance of
existing structures) would be required for the minimal stream impacts. No long term impacts to
aquatic life are anticipated with this project. Short term impacts to the existing aquatic resources
' will be associated with the construction activities and stream disturbance. These short-term
impacts include in-stream disturbance during construction, demolition of the wing-walls, and
siltation due to substrate disruption. All other proposed activities will take place in an upland
setting.
' The renovated facility would be in compliance with the provisions of the existing NPDES
permit. As far as other environmental effects, the upgrade will have no impact on water quality,
floodplams, wetlands, or endangered species.
2.4 Alternative D (Combined Intake Alternative)
' Alternative D is also associated with the upgrade and renovation the existing facility and the
construction of several new structures. The main features that are to be constructed include the
' surface water intake structures and dams that provide stream water to the linear raceways.
However, with this alternative the Upper Armstrong intake and dam, and the Bee Rock dam and
intake are to be combined. The other facility features that would be repaired are similar to
t Alternative C. The following summary highlights the activities associated with the Combined
Intake Alternative.
' • Lower Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake - The existing dam and intake structure will be
aban doned and left in place. A new, concrete low-head dam and intake will be constructed
just downstream of the existing structure (40-feet long (L) by 10-feet wide (W). The new
' intake consists of sloped profile, wire screen intake panels to allow debris to skim across the
intake surface while water is moved below the intake box. On the discharge side of the
intake, redwood stop-logs will be used to control the level of water in the intake box and
' allow for flushing of the system if needed. Within the discharge chute, another set of
redwood stop-logs provides a stepped pool of water to allow for possible fish migration
upstream through the intake. An aluminum slide plate will be located in a slot adjacent to the
' intake structure. This 48 inch by 48 inch slide plate will be placed and removed by use of a
hand-operated hoist attached to the intake structure. Limited dredging and bank modification
is planned at the proposed dam site to remove excess rock and silt. Dredging includes
' approximately 60 cubic yards for foundation preparation at the new dam. The activities
associated. with the Bee Rock and Upper Armstrong intake combination will not have any
downstream affect on the Lower Armstrong unit.
• The Bad Fork Dam and Intake - In-place abandonment of the Bad Fork Dam, removal of the
walkway and aboveground pipe between the intake is planned at this portion of the project.
' The abandonment of the screen box and the water supply pipeline between the screen box
and the circular tanks is also planned.
' 12

' • Upper Armstrong Creek and Bee Rock Dams and Intakes - Activities at the two existing
concrete dams and water intakes would include the combination of the two structures, just
south of the Bee Rock Creek and Armstrong Creek confluence. A new dam and intake with
' the dimensions of 35-feet L by 10-feet W would be constructed at the confluence location.
The two existing dams and intake structures will be abandoned at each of the sites and left in
place. The other attributes of the new dam would be similar to that described in the Proposed
' Action Alternative.
' • Other Structures - The remaining features and activities, such as the Lower Armstrong water
lines and raceways, effluent management, and the hatchery building, that are associated with
this alternative are similar to that described in the previously mentioned alternatives.
1
The Combination Intake Alternative is not a technically feasible alternative due to the lack of
' hydraulic head encountered in this reach of Armstrong Creek. The necessary quantities of water
needed to supply the facility would not be available with this alternative. With these
improvements, the hatchery facility would not be fully operational and would not be able to
' produce the required trout for stocking. Long-term stocking expansion goals would not be met
with this alternative.
' With the Combination Intake Alternative, a Corps of Army Engineer Nationwide Permit (i.e.,
headwater discharges) would be required for the minimal stream impacts. Long term impacts to
aquatic life are not anticipated at the combined intake site due to the small loss of aquatic habitat.
' Short term impacts to the existing aquatic resources would be associated with the construction
activities and stream disturbance. All other proposed activities will take place in an upland
setting.
' The operation of this alternative would be in compliance with the provisions of the existing
NPDES permit. As far as other environmental effects, this alternative would have no impact on
' water quality, floodplains, wetlands, or endangered species.

13

' Section 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The purpose of Section 3 is to provide information on the existing conditions and resources
' within the Armstrong Fish Hatchery project area. The physical environment, habitats and
associated wildlife and vegetation, and other environmentally sensitive resources are all
described based on available resources and field survey. This section provides a basis for
' understanding the consequences of the Proposed Action Alternative. Environmental
consequences (i.e., impacts) of the action are addressed in Section 4.
' 3.1 Natural Environment
' 3.1.1 Climate

n
L
L

L

The project area, and McDowell County in general, has a temperate, humid climate modified by
the relatively high elevation. During the summer, the days are typically warm and the nights are
cool. Winters are fairly cold but are broken up by several warm spells. The average annual
maximum temperature is 86° F, and the average annual minimum temperature is 29° F. The
average annual temperature is approximately 70° F. A few cold frontal waves, with temperatures
about zero, occur but generally last only a few days. The average number of days without a
killing frost is 185 (USDA 1995).
In Marion, the average annual rainfall is 56 inches. The rainfall is well distributed throughout
the year but is somewhat greater during the summer months. Severe droughts are rare, though
periods of deficient rainfall such as occurred in the fall of 1998 can occur periodically. A
considerable part of the summer rainfall results from thunderstorms. More than 46 days with
thunderstorms can be expected in a year. Marion also has an annual average snowfall of 13
inches. Most of the snow melts within two days, but may stay on for a week or more in the
higher elevations such as Woods Mountain (just south of the hatchery).
The prevailing winds are from the southwest. Winds, especially at the higher elevations, can be
strong. Tornadoes are very rare due to the mountainous terrain.
3.1.2 Local Topography
The fish hatchery is located within the Blue Ridge physiographic province of the Appalachian
Highlands. This province comprises a belt of mountains lying west of the Piedmont Province.
The area is characterized by deep stream dissection that has resulted in steep and mountainous
relief. The mountainous relief is mainly in the form of irregular ridges with intervening V-
shaped valleys.
The hatchery is located at the confluence of several headwater streams that reach Armstrong
Creek in an indefinite dendritic pattern. These streams descend rather rapidly in an east to
southeast direction. The five streams that flow into Armstrong Creek, at the hatchery site,
include the following:
14

F

J

I

r
LJI?'
L

• Armstrong Creek, the largest of the drainages, traverses the project area in an eastern
direction;
• Bee Rock Creek, the next largest stream, flows into the project from a northwestern
direction;
• Cow Creek, flows into the project area from a northwestern direction;
• Pups Branch, also flows into the project are from a northwestern direction;
• Bad Fork Creek, enters the southern part of the project area from a southwestern direction.
Elevations in the vicinity of the project area range from approximately 1,900 feet MSL at the fish
hatchery to approximately 2,800 feet MSL on the surrounding ridges such as Bridle Ridge. The
fish hatchery itself is located on a non-floodplain terrace adjacent to Armstrong Creek at
approximately an elevation of 2,000 feet MSL.
3.1.3 Local Geology and Soils
The underlying geology of the study area is primarily crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks
including gneiss, quartzite, phyllite, and schist. There are three soil map units within the fish
hatchery project area: Maymead-Greenlee-Potomac complex (3-25 percent slopes); Tate loam
(15-25 percent slopes); and Edneyville-Chestnut complex (25-80 percent slope-stony) (USDA
1995). None of these soils are classified as prime farmland soils (USDA 1995). Soils in this
classification are of a major importance in meeting the Nation's short and long-range needs for
food and fiber. None of these soils are classified as hydric or wetland soils.
The Maymead complex consists of very deep, well-drained soils within mountain coves and
stream valleys. Permeability is moderately rapid and surface runoff is moderate. The soils are
typically fine sandy loam with a depth of bedrock at 40 to 70 feet. The seasonal high water table
is below six feet. Within the project area, this soil complex is associated with the Armstrong
Creek corridor.
Tate loam consists of very deep, well-drained and moderately sloped soils on mountain foot
slopes, benches, and colluvial fans. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is rapid. The
depth to bedrock is more than six feet, with a seasonal high water table of below six feet. Tate
loam is associated with the Bee Rock Creek area.
The Edneyville-Chestnut complex consists of very deep, well-drained soils on ridgetops and
mountain side slopes. This sandy loam has a moderately rapid permeability and rapid surface
runoff. The depth to bedrock is from 20 to 40 inches, with a seasonal high water table of below a
depth of six feet. This soil complex is found upslope of the Maymead soils. Most of the
hatchery facility structures are located within this complex.
3.1.4 Water Resources
Armstrong Creek and its tributaries are located within the Catawba River Basin. Specifically
these streams form the headwaters for the North Fork of the Catawba River. The five streams
15

that are within the project area and feed into Armstrong Creek cross the project area in an east to
southeast direction. Characteristics of the streams within the project area are as follows:

L'

STREAM STATUS AVERAGE
ANNUAL
FLOW (cfs) SUBSTRATE WIDTH
(ft) WATER QUALITY
CLASSIFICATION**
Armstrong
Creek Permanent 4.5* Cobble, boulder,
bedrock 30-55 WS-II Tr
Bee Rock Creek Permanent 1.5 Cobble, gravel 30-35 WS-II Tr
Cow Creek Permanent 1.0 Cobble, gravel 15 WS-II Tr
Pups Branch Permanent 1.0 Cobble, gravel 10-15 WS-II Tr
Bad Fork Permanent 1.5 Cobble, gravel 10-20 WS-II Tr
Notes:
* The average annual flow for Armstrong Creek varies from 3.5 cfs at the Upper Armstrong intake to 5.5
cfs at the Lower Armstrong intake.
** Water quality classification is based on information from the NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 1999. All surface waters in the state are assigned a
primary classification by the Division of Water Quality. "WS-II" denotes waters used as sources of
water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users desiring maximum
protection for their water supply where the more stringent classification are not feasible. This
classification is generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. "Tr" denotes a supplemental
classification intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked
trout. Affects wastewater discharges but there are no watershed development restrictions except
stream buffer zone requirements of the NC Division of Land Resources.
Currently, the streams within the project area are not part of the National Wild and Scenic River
System (National Park Service 1999).
A formal water quality monitoring program for surface waters occurs within the hatchery project
area. This monitoring program is in association with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. The NPDES permit (renewal) for effluent discharge into
Armstrong Creek was issued to the NCWRC in August, 1997 (General Permit NCG530000).
This permit is effective through July, 2002. During the period beginning in 1997 and lasting
through the expiration date, the NCWRC is authorized to discharge from the designated outfalls
(Attachment E). These discharges are limited and will be monitored by the NCWRC as specified
below:
EFFLUENT LIMITS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CHARACTERISTICS Monthly
Average Weekly
Average Daily
Maximum Measurement
Frequency Sample
Type Sample
Location
Flow - Annually Estimate Effluent
Total Suspended Solids 30.0 mg/L - 60.0 mg/L Annually Grab Effluent
Settleable Solids 5.0 mg/L - 10.0 mg/L Annually Grab Effluent
Dissolved Oxygen 1 - 1 Annually Grad Effluent
NOTES:
' 1: The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentration shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L. The pH shall
not be less than 6.0 standard units or greater than 9.0 standard units for fresh water. There shall be no
discharge of fish parts, floating solids or visible foam other than trace amounts.

16
d
' During the most recent annual sampling event (i.e., September 1998), no violations of the
NPDES permit limits were encountered. Effluent samples were well below the required limits.
' The presence of heavy metals, solvents, pesticides and herbicides within the project area is not a
concern as far as water or soil contamination (Martin, NCWRC, personal communication, 1999).
Only very localized use of pesticides and herbicides within the project boundaries.
' Drilled and bored groundwater wells are the most common well types in this part of McDowell
County. These wells yield an average of 9.4 gallons per minute at an average depth of
' approximately 222 feet.
3.1.5 Aquatic Resources
Baseline information obtained for this section is from personal contacts with the state agencies
' and review of available maps and literature. A habitat survey of Armstrong Creek and Bee Rock
Creek was conducted by the NCWRC in the spring of 1999. This survey was conducted in
association with this Environmental Assessment and other required permits.
' As described in the Water Resources section, five stream corridors are located within the fish
hatchery property. Due to the high water quality rating, all five of these streams are considered
' native trout waters and have a diverse assemblage of benthic macroinvertebrates. No other
waterbodies, such as ponds or lakes, are found within the hatchery project area. The habitat
characteristic for Armstrong and Bee Rock Creeks are as described in the following table. The
' characteristics of Cow Creek, Pups Branch, and Bad Fork can be considered similar to that of
Bee Rock Creek. Other stream characteristics (e.g., substrate, and width) can be found in
Section 3.1.5.

STREAM SURVEY HABITAT CANOPY SPECIES PRESENT*
LOCATION TYPE
Lower Armstrong 225 feet below riffle/run Moderately Rainbow trout (adult,
Creek existing water closed, 18 feet yearling, and young of
intake to intake above the stream year), brook trout
dam (yearling of hatchery
origin), rosyside dace,
blacknose dace, creek
chub, fantail darter,
stoneroller
Upper Armstrong From the plunge Closed, 9 feet Rainbow trout (adult,
Creek confluence with pool, riffle above the stream yearling, and young of
Bee Rock Creek to year), fantail darter
the upper
Armstrong dam
Bee Rock Creek Confluence with riffle Moderately Rainbow trout (yearling
Armstrong Creek closed, 30 feet and young of year),
to existing Bee above the stream fantail darter
Rock dam
NOTES:
* All locations support a diverse community of macroinvertebrates including mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies,
' and aquatic gastropods (snails).
17
I
' A past study (Bonner 1983) also described a diverse aquatic community within the hatchery
property. At that time, Bonner estimated the standing crop of native trout (i.e., rainbow trout) at
' 172 trout per acre and non-trout species (i.e., minnows and darters) at 36 individuals per acre.
He also found a rich benthic community of mayflies, caddisflies, beetles, crayfish, and snails.
No endangered or threatened fish, mussel, or macroinvertebrate species are known to exist in the
' project area.
Although recreational sport fishing is permitted both upstream and downstream of the hatchery
' facility, no fishing is allowed within the facility boundaries.
' 3.1.6 Terrestrial Resources
This section summarizes the major terrestrial ecological features of the Armstrong Fish
' Hatchery. The summary includes information concerning vegetative land cover, wildlife
typically associated with the cover types, and existing knowledge of endangered species.
Terrestrial resource information is based on available data, expert opinion, and limited surveys.
3.1.6.1 Vegetative Land Cover
7

I
I
I

CIS
The vegetative land cover or habitats were identified through limited field surveys conducted on
the project area. The classifications reported are based on the Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990), USGS land cover and
classification system (Anderson et. al. 1976), USGS topographic maps, and expert opinion. The
major cover types include montane oak-hickory forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and
elements associated with the commercial facility.
The montane oak-hickory forest surrounding the hatchery facility consists of a relatively
undisturbed, canopy dominated by a mixture or oaks and other hardwood species. These
hardwood species include white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut
oak (Quercus montana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). The
common understory species include sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), flowering dogwood
(Corpus florida) and great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). Great rhododendron is
found in dense thickets along the steep, riparian edge of Armstrong Creek.
The herb layer is generally sparse but includes Christmas fern (Polystichium acrostichoides),
New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), wake robin (Trillium erectum), wintergreen
(Gaultheria procumbens), bird's foot violet (Viola pedata), and galax (Galax urceolata).
The vegetated areas, associated with the hatchery, consists mostly of a mowed fescue lawn.
3.1.6.2 Wetlands Resources
Wetland resources were investigated through the use of the USFWS National Wetland maps for
the Celo and Little Switzerland USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles and the McDowell County Soil
Survey. The project area was also ground-truthed, by a wetland scientist, in April of 1999.
18
0
u

I I

U

r

Based on criteria from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987), no jurisdictional wetland areas were identified within the project area
boundaries. Thus, no project impacts to wetlands are expected.
3.1.6.3 Wildlife Resources
Land use strongly influences the wildlife of the area. The mountainous hardwood forests within
and surrounding the Armstrong Fish Hatchery provides suitable habitat for quite a few species of
wildlife. The hardwood forests of the area offer habitat for gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis),
white-tailed deer (Odecoilius virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), ruffed grouse
(Bonasa umbellus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Other representative species found
in the forested areas include mammals such as the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus),
southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and
opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Bird species found in the area include the broad-winged hawk
(Buteo platypteris), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), great-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), eastern wood pewee
(Contopus vixens), black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus),
black-throated green warbler (Dendroica vixens), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea). The
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), American toad (Bufo americanus), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus fuscus), northern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix
mokasen), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta
obsoleta) are reptile and amphibian species that have been seen or are expected in the area.
The facility lawn, due to the paucity of food and cover, is less suitable for wildlife with
' representative species including the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis).

3.1.6.4 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the USFWS were contacted to determine the
presence of any listed species or habitat of special significance (Attachment D). The NCNHP
does not have any known records of rare species, high quality natural communities, or
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at or within a 1.0-mile radius of the project area. The
USFWS also shows no records of rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area of the
Armstrong Fish Hatchery. A survey for protected species located no protected species or their
habitats. There are no ecologically critical areas documented in or surrounding the project area.
Thus, no listed species, critical habitats, or unique communities will be affected by the project.
3.1.7 Human Environment
This section describes the human environment at the Armstrong Fish Hatchery in terms of the
aesthetic resources, cultural resources, prime farmland, floodplains, and parklands.
19
n
3.1.7.1 Visual and Aesthetic Qualities
This section is based on observations made during an April 1999 field effort. Much of the
Armstrong Fish Hatchery is surrounded by mountainous hardwood forestland. Much of this
' mountainous forest can be viewed as the observer drives west along Armstrong Creek Road.
From the hatchery grounds (e.g., lower raceways), the observer is offered views of Timber Ridge
to the south, and Pups and Bridle Ridge to the north. Along certain areas of the hatchery road,
' the observer can also see the Blue Ridge divide at an elevation of 3,600 feet MSL to 4,000 feet
MSL. The Blue Ridge Parkway is located along the ridge of the divide.
' Armstrong Creek also offers aesthetically pleasing views of a typical rhododendron-lined stream
that is bounded by steep slopes. Several small waterfalls, small plunge pools, and cascading
riffles are also found along the stream. The hatchery facility itself offers the opportunity to view
t several thousand brook, rainbow, and brown trout. The holding ponds and raceways offer views
of trout anywhere in size from fingerlings to trophy fish. The public is welcome to the facility
anytime during usual business hours.
3.1.7.2 Air Quality
The region surrounding the hatchery is currently in attainment for all the criteria pollutants. Due
to its rural character, McDowell County is currently projected to be in attainment for all the
' criteria pollutants, including ozone, well through 1999.
' 3.1.7.3 Native American Values
There is no documented evidence of Armstrong Fish Hatchery having any religious,
' mythological, social, or other special importance to any Native American group (Attachment E).
3.1.7.4 Cultural and Historical Resources
The NC Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) was contacted in an effort to determine the
presence of any known archaeological or historic sites within the project area. Historical sites
can include those currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places or those eligible for
listing. In March of 1999, NCDCR (Asheville Field Office) was visited in an effort to map any
' known cultural resources within the project area (Attachment E). No cultural surveys were
conducted in association with this project. Based on the existing maps, the following three sites
were identified within the fish hatchery boundaries:
' • Archaeological site 88 - House B
ranch of Armstrong Creek;
' • Archaeological site 89 - Bee Rock Creek; and
• Archaeological site GR-90-80- House Branch of Armstrong Creek.
Based on current design plans, none of these sites will affected by project construction.
20

3.1.7.5 Prime Farmland
Based on soil information from McDowell County Soil and Water Conservation Agency, the
project area does not contain any prime and important farmland. Soils within the project area are
not suitable for crop production. The hatchery boundaries do not contain any land used for the
purposes of agriculture or crop production.
3.1.7.6 Floodplains
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(Map Number 3711100020 B), produced in July 1988, Armstrong Creek within the hatchery
boundaries is classified as Zone A. Zone A describes 100-year flood hazard areas where no base
flow elevations have been determined. The map also shows no structures within the floodplain.
' A permit (i.e., Executive Order No. 123) will be required for floodplain involvement such as
construction of the new dams. Existing structures within the hatchery property are not prone to
surface water flooding. The existing and proposed dams are too small to be regulated by the NC
' Division of Land Quality.
3.1.7.7 Public Parklands, Scenic, Recreational and State Natural Areas
The property associated with the Armstrong Fish Hatchery is owned and operated by the
' NCWRC for the purposes of fish propagation. The hatchery itself and the other surrounding
lands are incorporated into the NCWRC's Pisgah Gamelands. The Pisgah National Forest,
owned and operated by the U.S. Forest Service, surrounds the hatchery property. However, this
' project will not encroach on any national forest lands. There are no other state or federal lands
within the hatchery boundaries. Several private properties are located along the southern
hatchery boundary. These properties will not be affected by any of the alternatives listed in this
' environmental assessment. None of the project streams are classified as National Wild and
Scenic
Rivers.

n
n
H
L
21

Section 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section provides the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that the various alternatives will
have on the resources characterized in Section 3. In association with these impacts, the severity
of both the expected construction and operational impacts, if any, are described. Where adverse
impacts are described, the proposed mitigation measures are also provided. An EA Significance
checklist, as outlined by the USFWS NEPA guidelines, is provided in Attachment D
4.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative)
Section 4.1 describes the impacts expected from not implementing any of the action alternatives.
This section provides the baseline to which all of effects of implementing the action alternatives
will be compared.
' 4.1.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences
With the No Action Alternative, no new surface construction or fill discharge will occur into
' waters of the U.S. Thus, no new state or federal permits would be required. This alternative
would essentially keep the facility and the associated structures in their present condition. No
significant disturbance impacts are anticipated.
1

L

4.1.2 Biological Consequences
With this alternative, there would be no short-term or long-term loss of aquatic habitat due to
dam and intake construction. Existing biological conditions (e.g., available benthic habitat) and
flows would not change with the selection of this alternative. Eventually, emergency action (e.g.,
dam replacement) would be required to keep the hatchery operational, and/or require total
abandonment of the facility. Eventual emergency action will have environmental consequences
such as stream disturbance. With total abandonment, the site would be decommissioned and
eventually would revert to the adjacent natural communities. No significant biological impacts
are anticipated with this alternative.
4.1.3 Socio-Economic Consequences
Implementation of this alternative would have serious negative implications on local and
regional recreational and economic conditions. Due to the inadequate maintenance of the facility
over the last forty years, age of the structures and other environmental factors, complete
operational failure of the water intake and distribution system is likely in the near future. Failure
to upgrade the facility will likely result in emergency costs, continued degradation of the
structures, emergency action to keep the hatchery operational, and eventually require total
abandonment of the facility. The condition of the dams and continued sedimentation of the
forebays has resulted in a loss of storage capacity associated with hatchery supply water.
22.

1

I
I
I
I

Without improvements, the hatchery cannot continue to provide the level of stocking that the
fishermen have expected from the NCWRC.
The loss of this important hatchery would have significant recreational fishery effects on twelve
North Carolina counties, as well as, trout streams within the various federal lands, state lands,
and private lands with public access. This hatchery annually produces over 200,000 fingerling
and catchable trout, with 35 percent of the fish being distributed to federal lands. Basically,
there would be an immediate loss of 100,000 catchable trout, a loss of any future stocking
expansion potential, and substantial increases in distribution (i.e., stocking) expenditures. A loss
of 100,000 trout equates to a loss of 100,000 hours of fishing opportunity for local and regional
anglers.
According to the U.S. Department of Interior (1996), Armstrong Hatchery provides about 30
percent of the catchable and fingerling trout used in the hatchery supported waters, and
consequently, creates some $11,000,000 in trip related expenses for trout angling in North
Carolina. If Armstrong hatchery were not operational, direct trip related angling expenditures of
$11 million annually would be curtailed. Indirect economic activity dependent on these direct
expenditures would be affected at a greater magnitude. Thus, with the No Action Alternative,
the effects on the quality of the regions' recreational and economic well-being would be both
adverse and controversial.
4.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action Alternative)
4.2.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences
With the Proposed Action Alternative, there would be new construction and fill discharge into
the stream channel of Armstrong Creek. Approximately 75 cubic yards of concrete would be
placed below the ordinary high water mark at the three new dam sites. A total of 75 linear feet
of new stream inundation would also take place upstream of the three dams. Inundation upstream
of the existing dams will be returned to normal run of river flows through removal of the existing
stoplogs. A total of 480 square feet of stream bottom will be affected by placement of the new
dams and limited dredging. This in-stream construction would have short-term, negative impacts
to water quality due to substrate disturbance (i.e., release of fines). However, appropriate
erosion and siltation controls would be used and maintained in an effort to minimize these short-
term impacts. These controls would be equal or exceed those measures outlined in the "North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual." The dredged material
will be spoiled at an upland site within the facility boundaries. Federal permits, such as the
Section 404 Nationwide Permit and Floodplain Findings, would be required for the activities
conducted in Armstrong Creek.
The project activities such as construction of the new hatchery building, and the construction of
the Lower Armstrong water lines and raceways would effect upland areas within the current
facility. Since this construction is within the current working facility area, surface and
subsurface construction will have minimal impacts to the environment. There is less than one
acre of upland land disturbance associated with this alternative. Thus, a land disturbance permit
(i.e., NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act) for the NC Division of Land Resources is not
23

' required. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize any siltation impacts
to the adjoining waters.
4.2.2 Biological Consequences
' With this alternative, there would be both short-term and long-term loss of aquatic habitat due to
dam and intake construction. Short-term impacts are associated with unavoidable siltation
' within Armstrong Creek and Bee Rock Creek. This siltation, though minimal, is in association
with disturbance of the stream substrate at the new dam sites.
' Long-term project impacts would be due to the loss of a small area of stream habitat. This loss
of habitat would include the placement of the three new dams (0.03 acres of fill) and
approximately 75 linear feet of new inundation. Benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., mayflies and
' caddisflies) and the endemic fish species (i.e., darters, minnows and trout) will lose a small
portion of their foraging and breeding habitat. There also may be a slight shift in species
assemblages due to the new dam inundation (i.e., change of riffle inhabitants to pool inhabitants).
However, these impacts are expected to be minor due to the small area of impact and available
habitat both upstream and downstream of the activities. To facilitate movement of aquatic life
during high flows and to reduce the minor cumulative impacts associated with the new dams, a
' fish passage structure would be installed at all three intakes. Measures would also be taken to
prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact with the project waters. Also, with the
design of the new effluent management system, the permitted discharge into lower Armstrong
Creek would be considerably improved. Thus, there would be no significant biological impacts
due to this alternative.
I No biological impacts are expected from the other project activities such as construction of the
hatchery building and raceway.
1 4.2.3 Socio-Economic Consequences
' Implementation of this alternative would have positive implications on local and regional
recreational and economic conditions. The upgrade of the facility would satisfy the current
design problems and improve operational efficiency. With the improvements, the hatchery will
be fully operational and not require future abandonment. The hatchery will continue to provide
the required fish for both state and federal waters and would also be able to accommodate any
reasonable stocking expansion plans. Thus, with the Proposed Action Alternative, the effects on
' the quality of the regions' recreational and economic well-being would be beneficial.
' 43 Alternative C (Repair Alternative)
43.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences
' With the Repair Alternative there would be new surface construction and fill discharge into
' waters of the U.S. These minor impacts would be associated with repair and restoration of the
three existing dams and intakes. Minor short-term disturbance would take place in the stream
' 24

' channel. However, appropriate erosion and siltation controls would be used and maintained in
an effort to minimize these short-term impacts. These controls would be equal or exceed those
measures outlined in the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual." Several state and federal permits, such as the Section 404 Nationwide Permit, would
be required for the activities conducted in Armstrong Creek. No long-term, significant impacts
' are anticipated.
The other project activities such as construction of the new hatchery building, and the
construction of the Lower Armstrong water lines and raceways would effect upland areas within
the current facility. Since this construction is within the working facility area, surface and
subsurface construction will have minimal impacts to the environment. There is less than one
' acre of upland land disturbance associated with this alternative. Thus, a land disturbance permit
(i.e., NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act) for the NC Division of Land Resources is not
required. Appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize any siltation impacts
' to the adjoining waters.
' 4.3.2 Biological Consequences
With this alternative, there would be minor short-term impacts to aquatic habitat due to
' unavoidable in-stream disturbance within Armstrong Creek and Bee Rock Creek. This siltation,
though minimal, is in association with disturbance of the stream substrate at the dam sites.
Siltation would be minimized through use of the appropriate erosion and siltation control
' measures. Existing biological conditions (e.g., available benthic habitat) and flows would not
change with the selection of this alternative. Similar to the existing dams and intakes, there will
be no upstream fish passage at the repaired facilities.
No significant biological impacts are expected from the other project activities such as
construction of the hatchery building and raceway.
4.3.3 Socio-Economic Consequences
' Implementation of this alternative would have negative implications on local and regional
recreational and economic conditions, in the long-term. The facility's operational efficiency
would not be improved due to the fact that costly maintenance would still be required. Repairs
would alleviate any immediate emergency action concerns or operational failure in the short-
term. However, there is a high likelihood of emergency action and excessive costs in the future
' due to the original design flaws in the dams and intakes. With this alternative, the hatchery
facility would be operational and would continue to produce the required number of trout, at
least in the short-term. Long-term stocking expansion goals would not be met with this
' alternative.
Thus, with the Repair Alternative, the effects on the quality of the regions' recreational and
' economic well-being would be both adverse and controversial over the long-term.

25
C

L

4.4 Alternative D (Combined Intake Alternative)
4.4.1 Physical Disturbance Consequences
With the Combined Intake Alternative, new construction and fill discharge are required into the
stream channel of the lower and upper reaches of Armstrong Creek. Approximately 50 cubic
yards of concrete would be placed below the ordinary high water mark at the two new dam sites.
A total of 45 linear feet of new stream inundation would also take place upstream of the two
dams. This in-stream construction would have short-term, negative impacts to water quality due
to substrate disturbance (i.e., release of fines). However, appropriate erosion and siltation
controls would be used and maintained in an effort to minimize these short-term impacts. These
controls would be equal or exceed those measures outlined in the "North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual." Several state and federal permits would be
required for the activities conducted in Armstrong Creek.
The project activities such as construction of the new hatchery building, and the construction of
the Lower Armstrong water lines and raceways would effect upland areas within the current
facility. Since this construction is within the working facility area, surface and subsurface
construction would have minimal impacts to the environment. There is less than one acre of
upland land disturbance associated with this alternative. Thus, a land disturbance permit (i.e.,
NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act) for the NC Division of Land Resources is not required.
Appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize any siltation impacts to the
adjoining waters.
4.4.2 Biological Consequences
With this alternative, short-term and long-term loss of aquatic habitat due to dam and intake
construction will occur. Short-term impacts are associated with unavoidable siltation within
Armstrong Creek. This siltation, though minimal, is in association with disturbance of the
stream substrate at the new dam sites.
Long-term project impacts will be due to the loss of a small area of stream habitat. This loss of
habitat will include the placement of the two new dams (0.02 acres of fill) and approximately 45
linear feet of new inundation. Benthic macroinvertebrates and the endemic fish species will lose
a small portion of their foraging and breeding habitat. A slight shift in species assemblages due
to the new dam inundation (i.e., change of riffle inhabitants to pool inhabitants) is anticipated.
However, these impacts are expected to be minor due to the small area of impact and available
habitat both upstream and downstream of the activities. To facilitate movement of aquatic life, a
fish passage structure will be installed at the two intakes. Measures will be taken to prevent live
or fresh concrete from coming into contact with the project waters. Also, with the design of the
new effluent management system, the permitted discharge into lower Armstrong Creek will be
considerably improved. Thus, no significant biological impacts are expected.
No biological impacts are expected from the other project activities such as construction of the
hatchery building and raceway.
26

4.4.3 Socio-Economic Consequences
' Implementation of this alternative was deemed to be not technically feasible due to the lack of
hydraulic head encountered in this upper reach of Armstrong Creek. Thus, this alternative would
not satisfy the current and future production demands of the facility. With this alternative there
' would be negative implications on local and regional recreational and economic conditions.

I

J

4.5 Summary of Impacts By Alternative
The following table provides a summary of environmental effects associated with each of the
four Armstrong fish hatchery alternatives. This summary is based on information from both
Section 3 and Section 4.
Impact Topics Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
No Action Proposed Action Repair Combined Intake
Physical No impacts to water, Short-term negative Short-term negative Short-term negative
Resources soil, or air resources. impacts to water impacts to water impacts to water
quality due to quality due to quality due to
siltation; Minimal siltation; Minimal siltation; Minimal
long-term impacts upland disturbance long-term impacts to
to stream channel impacts. stream channel and
and floodplain; floodplain; Minimal
Minimal upland upland disturbance.
disturbance impacts
Biological No impacts to aquatic Minor short-term Minor short-term Minor short-tern
Resources resources, wildlife, and long-term negative impacts to and long-term
endangered species, negative impacts to aquatic habitat; No negative impacts to
vegetation, or aquatic habitat; No long-term aquatic aquatic habitat; No
wetlands. wildlife, endangered impacts; No wildlife, endangered
species, or wetland wildlife, endangered species, or wetland
impacts. species, or wetland impacts.
impacts.
Cultural No impact to known No impact to known No impact to known No impact to known
Resources archaeological or archaeological or archaeological or archaeological or
historic resources. historic resources. historic resources. historic resources.
Recreation Significant negative Significant positive Negative impact to Significant negative
impact to local and impact to local and local and regional impact to local and
regional recreational regional recreational recreational angling. regional recreational
angling. angling. angling.
Socio- Significant negative Significant positive Significant negative Significant negative
Economic impact to local and impact to local and impact to local and impact to local and
regional economy. regional economy. regional economy. regional economy.
Visual No significant negative No significant No significant No significant
Qualities impact. negative impact. negative impact. negative impact.
27

' Section 5: COMPLIANCE, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS
5.1 List of Preparers
The persons responsible for preparation of this Environmental Assessment include
' representatives from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and Duke Engineering & Services
and are as follows:
' NAME EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Mallory Martin M.S. Fisheries; B.S. Biology; Project Coordinator,
15 years as fisheries biologist Technical Advisor;
' for the NCWRC (coldwater fish NCWRC
hatchery administration)

Mr. Todd Heavner, P.E.
Mr. Scott Fletcher, CWB,
PWS
B.S. Civil Engineering
13 years as civil engineer,
geotechnical specialist,
and project manager
Project Manager,
Project Engineer;
Coordination and
review; DE&S

M.S. Ecology; B.S. Wildlife
Biology; 12 years as wildlife
and wetland scientist
Project Scientist;
Data collection,
report preparation;
DE&S
Copies of the Environmental Assessment associated with the Armstrong Fish Hatchery can be
reviewed at the following locations:
• Armstrong Fish Hatchery
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
334 Armstrong Creek Road
Marion, NC 28752
828/756-4179
' • Mountain Regional Office
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Route 6, Box 685
' Marion, NC 28752
828/659-3324
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
' 512 N. Salisbury St.,
Room 442
' Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733/3633

• McDowell County Public Library
100 W. Court St.
Marion, NC 28752
828/652-3858

28
i

5.2 List of Contacts
The following is a list of state and federal agencies contacted during the planning process.
Attachment D provides the correspondence with these agencies.
NAME PERSON. CONTACTED PURPOSE
State
NCWRC
(Armstrong Fish Hatchery)
NCWRC
NC WRC
NCWRC
NCWRC
NC Dept. of Environment
and Natural Resources,
Div. of Parks and Recreation
Natural Heritage Program
NC Dept. of Environment
and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality
NC Dept. of Environment
and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality
NC Dept. of Environment
and Natural Resources,
Div. of Public Affairs
NC Dept. of Cultural
Resources, Division of
Archives & History
NC Dept. of Cultural
Resources, Division of
Archives & History
Mr. Derek Boggs, Site information
Hatchery Superintendent
Mr. Mallory Martin, Site information,
Fish Production Fisheries data,
Coordinator Angler use data
Mr. Doug Besler Permit review
District 8 Biologist
Mr. Mark Davis Permit review
Mr. Chris Goudreau Permit review
Ms. Susan Giles, Endangered species
Information Specialist
------------------------ Stream classifications
and water quality data
Ms. Liz Dixon Section 401 water
quality certification,
NPDES permit
Ms. Melba McGee, State SEPA review
SEPA Coord.
Mr. David Moore, Archaeological and
Environ. Review Coord. historic information
Ms. Renee Gledhill- Archaeological and
Early, historic information
Environ. Review Coord.
29

' Federal
United States Dept. -------------------- USFWS NEPA
of Interior, USFWS requirements and mitigation
Mr. Mark Cantrell Endangered species
United States Dept. -------------------- National Wild and Scenic
of Interior, National Rivers
' Park Service
United States Dept. Mr. Robert Johnson Permitting
' of Defense, Army Corps
of Engineers
' United States Dept. Mr. Steve Chapin Permitting
of Defense, Army Corps
of Engineers
' United States Dept. ------------------ Soils and prime
of Agriculture, farmland data
Natural Resources
' Conservation Service
5.3 Pertinent Regulations, Laws, and Executive Orders
The following environmental regulations have been investigated and are being complied with in
' association with construction and renovation of the Armstrong fish hatchery.
• Army Corps of Engineers - Section 404 permit application submitted;
' • NCDENR, Div. of Water Quality - Section 401 water quality certification application
submitted;
• NCDENR, Div. of Water Quality - NPDES permit renewal (NCG530097);
• NCDENR, Div. of Land Management - Land disturbance permit: permit not needed,
however, erosion control plan will be submitted;
' • FEMA, National Flood Insurance Program - Floodplain involvement permit (Executive
Order No. 123) submitted.

L

30
C
' Section 6: REFERENCES
Anderson J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover
' Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. Ecological Survey Professional
Paper 964. USGS.
' Bonner, William, R. 1983. Survey and Classification of State Managed Trout Streams- District
Eight. Mountain Fisheries Investigations Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F24-S.
NCWRC, Div. of Inland Fisheries. Raleigh, NC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps ofEn ineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
' Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Giles, S. 1999. Personal Communication, Susan Giles, NC Natural Heritage Program, March
1999.
Gledhill-Earley, R. 1999. Personal Communication, Renee Gledhill-Earley, NC Dept. of
Cultural Resources, May 1999.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 1995. Threatened and
Endangered Species Potentially Affected by Forest Alteration. Special Report No. 95-03.
New York, New York.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Division of Water Quality).
1999. Surface Freshwater Classifications Used In North Carolina. DENR WebSite.
' Schafale, Michael, P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NS
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1995. Soil Survey of
McDowell County, North Carolina. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
' U.S. Department of Interior (National Park Service). 1999. An Annotated List of Rivers Within
the National Wild And Scenic Rivers System. NPS Website.
' U.S. Department of Interior (USFWS). 1997. Updated County List.Federally Endangered,
Threatened, and Special Concern Species. Asheville Field Office
U.S. Department of the Interior (USFWS), and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. 1996. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated
' Recreation. FHW 196-NC.
r

31

1
J

F

d

ATTACHMENTS

E

1

I I

ATTACHMENT A
SITE LOCATION MAP
34

6.?j
IITCIELLe6
vCEY CC tiI
\\ /??- f Nettle Patctr-
C ?Tt4re Kn\Cts
i
rmstr
ong Fish Hatcher;
„Project Area

2 OV.-
Celo, NC
f ? Little Switzerland, NC-
USGS 7.5' Quad.. USGS 7.5' Quad.
Location of NCWRC Armstrong Fish Hatchery
Project Area.

C

ATTACHMENT B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
35

I

' View of the Existing Bee Rock Dam and Intake Structure.
[ looking northwest and upstream of Bee Rock Creek in early April. The
proposed dam site for the Proposed Action Alternative is located in the
riffle area in the center of the photo. ]

36
1

0

View of the Existing Upper Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake Structure.
[ Looking west and upstream of Armstrong Creek in early April. The
proposed dam site for the Proposed Action Alternative is located in the
riffle area in the lower portion of the photo.]
37

v
I

n

u
' View of the Existing Lower Armstrong Creek Dam and Intake Structure.
( Looking west and upstream of Armstrong Creek in early April. The
' proposed dam site for the Proposed Action Alternative is located in the
riffle area in the center of the photo. ]

38

W
.
1Y '
,Ae
View of the Proposed Hatchery Building Site.
( Looking east across building site from the existing hatchery building
gravel lot.]
39
I

LI

I

View of the existing lower raceways.
[ Looking west across the hatchery facility. ]
40
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

M6??
".7liQ
-,?? ?a" easy. -
View of the proposed location of Lower Armstrong Creek waterline.
[ Looking south across upland grass area. The center of the photo depicts
the location of the waterline. Armstrong Creek is located within the
wooded area depicted in the photo background.]
41

ATTACHMENT C
PROJECT DRAWINGS
42
., QRryS T R?
-, CREEK
lz::/ \ \ - J
NEW INTAKE
AND DAM
\s,=
\ Srs. \
IL BRG 17
19.5
5o
EXISTING INTAKE

V
NEW 24' DIA-
WATER SUPPLY LINE
\F ftft.*
s
?
ARMST
S
sl
519
52e
12'
N11 -
17

`AHW
NOTES
1. AVERAGE WATER DEPTH 6.0 INCHES.
2. APPROXIMATELY 60 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGING
ASSOCIATED WITH FOUNDATION PREPRATION AT
NEW DAM.
3.24 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL DISCHARGE BELOW THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK.
4. ALL DREDGED MATERIAL WILL BE DEPOSITED AT AN
UPLAND SITE.

PLAN OF LOWER ARMST
SCALE:I*=20'
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCDOWELL COUNTY. NORTH CAROLINA
Duke Engineering 4,89 SOUTH TWIV STREET
1w4w& Services, P. O. BOX 104
A Duke Energy Company CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28201-1004
------ OLW
CREEK `_ 1

EXISTING DAM
1-101,
..LTG
NEW DAM
AND INTAKE
NOTES
I. AVERAGE WATER DEPTH OF 5.0 INCHES.
2. APPROXIMATELY 60 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGING
ASSOCIATED WITH THE DAM FOUNDATION PREPRATION,
3. ALL DREDGED MATERIAL WILL BE DEPOSITED IN
AN UPLAND SITE.
SCALE=I'=30'
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1w4w Duke Engineering 4,6,6 SOUTH TRYON STREET
& Servicesa., P.O. BOX 1,604
t Dune Bneryy Company CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28181-1904
UPPER
R .= =.
SUPPLY LINE TO BE REPLACED
FROM NEW INTAKE TO BEE ROCK
JUNCTIOIN.
1. AVERAGE WATER DEPTH
4.0 INCHES.
2. APPROXIMATLEY 60 YARDS
C OF DREDGING ASSOCIATED
WITH DAM FOUNDATION
PREPRATION.
a L,?„ 3. ALL DREDGED MATERIAL WILL
EXISTING DAM BE DEPOSITED AT AN UPLAND
- SITE.
i
r tts x s
1 n«: m
NEW DAM
IS.
AND INTAKE 9.« rov
I
IT
a
m
BEE ROCK INTAKE W
RAW WATER SUPPLY I la / /
LINE
I I //
/
„?•, / / / / BEE. ROCK
JUNCTION
TALK
ELR13.2- Imo'' Palm on "no VALV9
crw. n..a1
BEE RCIC'K TNTAKF
SCALE: 1'=30'
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Duke Engineering 400 SOUTH mvw STREET
I?& Services. /1'. 0. BOW 1004
Drat Bntryy Company CHARLOTTE N. C. 28281-1004

_ ''?? ? 4wa ws ?
?•Zw T^
- HATpERY RAY MATER
' Y FROM PUP'S
BRANCH
-?•• s., 1
NOTE
'b -1w EXISTING M AL
IS COMPLETE
PRO wy-?
-?"' RELOCATED IY/ vpTEAR TO
POTA13LE
OVF\? EXISTING MATER LINE/ BUILDING HATCHERY BUILDING
ppM - - T" DRAIN LINE.ROUTE TO
\ Fa -? T i tf EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH
a
[ i _ rw
f MA AB FINED
HEAp
ov pw?p- y; PROPOSED • cm?ee?ucc
-`,fy[ R7 W. NOUffc
?? N E y BUB.OING l9 a I2
P ME t. E ? IR - :`?. ?
Ov FN p s EX
XI I O y ??
GAS
a° I ... OROP ""TER F
TGAS NA CNE7 c -?,.
BUB.D
3
d
l I
la ZC-v,??, ?
?C T
• . 12'
T
HATCHERY BUILDING SITE PLAN
SCK"*"r
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Duke Engineering 40e SOUTH TRYON STREET
P4wft& services. P.O. BOX 1,994
A ,Puke Bnew Company CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28201-1004

SM SET ON RR SPIKE IN POLE
ASSUMED ELEVATION : 500.00' -----------
NEW
()IA PAW ATER`SSUPPLYY LANE 11' ORAVEL ??

1 r' I,
tw . MF Y
Iw .. .w
/ rOVERFLOW << 3« ONO
\ ALVE PIT
PLAN OF LOWER RACEWAYS
SrxEFlh,v'
CL CREEK EL. 470A
l' I
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCOOWELL COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
Duke Engineering 400 SOUTH TRYON STREET
P4w& Services. P.O. BOX 1994
A Duke Energy Company CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28201-1904
- - - o F?AaER ?
1
INV. EL. 48U nk An
M
l?L? W
F
2.TIMF
?i/

?? ,gym
=omit Im
- M ? l?IIC(
Tye
A
°a[ io?°n noMO1
lCTgl t10M6 ?1
SECTION 2
ftwe, ft+rf
O w
-?•M ?wta ?[fMT?,r -w
arwrTw ? ? ?? anaT.-?
M ?tawtt
frs
law .?_ ? OYST
ro U-1-Irt
.SECTION
Saar. x+,??
O cum
ARMSTRONG CREEK FISH HATCHERY
MCOOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Duke Engineering 400 SOUTH TRY,, STREET
& Services, P. 0. BO0Y im
A Puke Energy Company ChMLOTTE, N. C. 28201-1009

ATTACHMENT D

J

EA SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST
49

r
u
n

I
1
L

u
This checklist is intended to help determine whether a given alternative would affect
environmental features of special legal or policy significance that should be discussed in an
analysis document.
WOULD IMPLEMENTTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE BE EXPECTED TO AFFECT:
1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats? No
2. Properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places? No
3. Result in either surface or subsurface disturbance? Yes, both upland and stream
channel disturbance
4. Loss or alteration of natural wetlands that would adversely affect biological productivity,
habitat diversity, flood storage capacity, or aquifer recharge capacity? No
5. Areas within the 100-year floodplain, in terms of increasing the flood hazard potential?
Small area affected in floodplain (Lower Armstrong Creek) but no significant
impact
6. Natural resources within officially designated boundary of the State coastal zone? No
7. Discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the U.S. or adjacent wetlands? Yes.
Associated with three new intake structures and dams
8. Structures or facilities within, under or above a navigable waterway? No
9. River segments designated for inclusion within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System? No
10. Any area included within the National Wilderness Preservation System? No
11. Use toxic or environmentally hazardous substances, such as pesticides, herbicides,
rodenticides ? No
12. Significant degradation of water quality? No
13. Significant degradation of air quality? No
14. Society as a whole? No
15. National interests? No
16. State or regional interests? Yes
17. Long term irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources? No
18. Public health or safety hazards? No
19. Widespread controversy? Yes, loss of regional angling resources
20. Highly uncertain effects with unique or unknown risks? No
21. Establishment of a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or a decision in
principle about a future consideration? No
22. Other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts? No
23. Potential violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the
protection of the environment? No

u

C
ATTACHMENT E
AGENCY CONSULTATION

1 1%,

LI
NOi ffi Carolina Wiihf?? Resources
Sian
512 N. Salisbury Street, RA i?h, Norci-, ~4;olira 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fuliwood, Executive Director
May 24, 1999
n
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached ?nvironrne:,fut I3 .S ?c:it {1t?CU:2'ie1 is were prepared by Duke
' Engineering and Services Inc, iii ct:rsulrarit3r
_ with the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission. Duke Engineering and S?ttilti:s, Inc. is the authorized agent of the NC:
Wildlife Resources Commis;.-,., for design- azid constnuction of a renovation project at the
Armstrong State Fish Hatchezy in .Marion, NC. Review and assessment of environmental
effects of the proposed project were conducted jointly with Duke serving the lead role in
preparation of the review documents.

Sincerely,
Mallory G. Martin
Fish Production Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
r
uI

Duke Engineerin
& Services. g
' - = A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K [phone] Office
P. O. Box 1004 [phone] Fax
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
' April 29. 1999
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
NC Dept.- of Cultural Resources
Environmental Review Coordinator
' Division of Archives and History
State Historic Preservation Office
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601-2807
RE: Request for Archaeological Database Information
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
' Duke Engineering & Service (DE&S) is currently gathering the necessary regarding the
.preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Section 404 permit in association with the
upgrade of a State of North Carolina fish hatchery (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission). This existing trout hatchery is along Armstrong Creek in McDowell County,
North Carolina (see attached map). DE&S has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission to prepare the necessary project permits, in addition to the design and
' construction of several fish hatchery structures.
In association with the NEPA required Environmental Assessment and the Corps permit, DE&S
' is required to contact the Department of Cultural Resources regarding the presence of any
archaeological or historic sites within the project area. On March 24, 1999 DE&S visited the
Division of Archives and History - Asheville Western Office (Mr. David Moore) in an effort to
' map any known cultural resources within the project area (see attached map). Based on Division
of Archives and History maps, the following three sites are documented within the project area:
' • - Archaeological site 88 - House Branch of Armstrong Creek, Celo USGS 7.5' Quad.
• Archaeological site 89 - Bee Rock Creek, Celo USGS 7.5' Quad.
• Archaeological site GR-90-80 - House Branch, Celo USGS 7.5' Quad.
1 DE&S is requesting any available follow-up information on the type and significance of these
' three archaeological sites. This information will be included in the Environmental Assessment
and the Permit associated with the project. Based on the final design plans, these sites will not
be affected by the proposed project.
' The proposed project which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443
northwest of the Town of Woodlawn, consists of a facility upgrade and repair. Projects

1

P

associated with the existing facility include the construction of three new low-head dams (the
existing dams will be abandoned in place), limited dredging to remove excess silt and. debris
behind the existing dams, replacement of an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear feet), the
addition of several solid removing clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the construction of a
hatchery building. The only in-stream work will be associated with the dam construction and
removal of silt and debris from the headponds to facilitate greater water capacity. All other
activities will be conducted in upland areas already used by the existing hatchery (e.g., existing
raceways and building lots).
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone].
We appreciate your help on this matter.
Sinc rely
o le the
Scientist
Enclosure
' cc: Todd Heavner Geotechnical Services 133
( 39 Hagers Ferry Road)
DE&S Records Center (WID 00906.00.001.00.00001)

1

E

?Z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAILING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
June 11, 1999
Scott T. Fletcher
Duke Engineering and Services
P.O. Box 1004
Charlotte NC 28201-1004
Re: Request for archaeological data base information,
Armstrong Creek, McDowell County, ER 99-8842
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
LOCATION
507 North Blount Street
Raleigh NC
State Courier 53-31-31
' Thank you for your letter of April 29, 1999, concerning the above project.
The three archaeological sites mentioned in your letter are recognized by the state site
numbers 31MC87, 31MC88, and 31MC123. None of these sites has been evaluated
for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. None of the remaining project
area has been surveyed for archaeological resources, and it is likely that additional
sites are present. Before recommending an archaeological survey for this project, we
' would like to review the actual construction plans to assess the potential effect of the
project on archaeological resources. We will complete our review as quickly as
possible after receiving this planning information.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation. Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' -Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
' DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

1

I Duke Engineering
W/& Services..
A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P. O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
March 23, 1999
Ms. Susan Giles
Information Specialist
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
Natural Heritage Program
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Ms. Giles:
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
Duke Engineering & Service (DE&S) is currently gathering the necessary information in
association with an Environmental Assessment for repair and rehabilitation of a State of North
Carolina fish hatchery (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). This existing trout
hatchery is along Armstrong Creek in McDowell County, North Carolina (see attached map).
DE&S has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to prepare the
necessary project permits, in addition to repairing several fish hatchery structures.
In- association with the state required Environmental Assessment document (State
Clearinghouse), DE&S is requesting information from the Natural Heritage Program regarding
the presence of any known rare species, high quality natural communities, and Significant
Natural Heritage Areas that may be affected by the project.
The proposed project which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443),
northwest of the Town of WOOdlawn, consists of a facility upgrade and repair. Projects
associated with the existing facility include concrete restoration and intake repair at three
existing low-head dams, limited dredging to remove excess silt and debris behind the three dams,
placement of ice and leaf booms, replacement of an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear
feet), the addition of several solid removing clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the
construction of a hatchery building. The only in-stream work will be associated with the
removal of silt and debris from the headponds to facilitate greater water capacity. No wetlands
will be affected by the project. All other activities will be conducted in upland areas already
used by the existing hatchery. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during the construction phases.
1-
i

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone].
We appreciate your help on this matter. -
Sincerely,
Scott T. Fletch r
L-7?7t
Scientist
Enclosure
2

4
Location of NC WRC Armstrong Fish Hatchery
Project Area.

Agcm

WDENR
U
JAMES B. HUNTJR:
GOVERNOR
}

' WAYN! MCDEYITT'. -'"
BECRtTARY

DR. PHILIP IG?MCK M

awseyX
A"12 i
NOCAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
March 26, 1999
Mr. Scott T. Fletcher
Duke Engineering & Services
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P.O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas At the Proposed NC WRC
Fish Hatchery Improvement Project Site Along Armstrong
Creek, Woodlawn, McDowell County, NC
Dear Mr. Fletcher:
The NC Natural Heritage Program does not have records of rare species, high quality
natural communities, or Significant Natural Heritage Areas at or within a 1.0 mile
radius of the proposed NC WRC fish hatchery improvement project site on
Armstrong Creek in McDowell County. However, because McDowell County has not
been systematically inventoried, I cannot state definitively that no rare species exist in
the area of the project.
Enclosed is a list of rare species known to exist in McDowell County. If habitat for
any of these species exists at the site, the species may be present there. Consultant
consideration of the site characteristics should determine if a definitive survey would
be needed.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
8703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
SusanReece Giles
Information Specialist'
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1-7687 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLKWI O (, POST-CONSUMER PAPER
'
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME STATE
STATUS FED. STATE
STATUS RANK GLOBAL.
RANK
' McDowell
Vertebrate Animals
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk SC - S3B,S3N G5
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T T(S/A) S2 G3
' Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo SR S2B,SZN G5
Coragyps atratus Black Vulture SC S3 G5
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SR FSC S3B,SZN G4

' Dendroica magnolia
A
i
l
t
v
b Magnolia Warbler SR - S1B,SZN G5
s
n
ma
ra
e
erte
In
Hypochilus sheari
a lampshade spider
SR
-
S2S3
G2G3
Satyrium caryaevorum Hickory Hairstreak SR - S1S2 G4?
' Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary SR FSC S3 G3
Vascular Plants
Arisaema triphyllum ssp Bog Jack-in-the-pulpit SR - S1 G5T4
stewardsonii
' Asplenium bradleyi Bradley's Spleenwort C - S1 G4
Asplenium ruta-muraria Wall-rue SR - S1 G5
Botrychium jenmanii Alabama Grape Fern SR - S1 G3G4
Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed Grape Fern C S1 G4Q
Carex roanensis Roan.Sedge C FSC S1 G1
Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert's Turtlehead SR S3? G3?
Coreopsis latifolia Broadleaf Coreopsis SR - S3 G3
Hudsonia montana Mountain Golden-heather E LT S1 Gl
Lilium grayi Gray's Lily T-SC FSC S3 G3
Lonicera flava Yellow Honeysuckle SR S2 G5?
Malaxis bayardii Appalachian Adder's-mouth SR - SH G2?
Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap C FSC S3 G3
' Oenothera perennis Perennial Sundrops C S1 G5
Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved C/PT S1 G_3G4
Grass-of-parnassus

' Rhododendron vaseyi
Scutellaria saxatilis Pink-shell Azalea
Rock Skullcap SR
C -
- S3
S1 G3
G3G4
Shortia galacifolia var brevistyl a Northern Oconee Bells E-SC FSC S1 G2T1Q
Thermopsis mollis sensu stricto Appalachian Golden-banner SR - S2 G3G4
Trillium simile Sweet White Trillium SR - S1 G3
' Woodsia appalachiana
l Appalachian Cliff Fern
Camas
Whit SR
C - S1
S1 G4
G5T4?
aucus
Zigadenus elegans ssp g e
Nonvascular Plants
' Rhabdoweisia crenulata Himalayan Ribbed-weissia C - S1 G3G4
Natural Communities
Acidic Cove Forest - - - S5 G5
Basic Mesic Forest (Montane - S1 G?
Calcareous Subtype)
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest S3 G4
Carolina Hemlock Bluff - - - S2 G2G3
Chestnut Oak Forest - - - S5
S5 G5
G5
' Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest
High Elevation Red Oak Forest S5 G5
High Elevation Rocky Summit - - - S2 G2
Hillside Seepage Bog _ = S1
S3 G1
G4
' Montane Acidic Cliff = S1 G?
Montane Calcareous Cliff - - S4 G5
Northern Har_dwood.Forest (Typic -

' Subtype)
Pine--Oak/Heath
-
_
-
S4
4
G5
G4
Rich Cove Forest - - S
S2 G2G3T2
Swamp Forest-Bog Complex (Typic -
Subtype)
ll*
Do
M
we
c
Vertebrate Animals
Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher SC FSC SUB,S ZN G5
Invertebrate Animals
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave Water SR FSC S1 G?
' Slater
*tr V1,TURAL ??ERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999

J

L

SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME STATE FED.
STATUS STATUS STATE
RANK GLOBAL
RANK
Nesticus carolinens_s Linville Caverns iaer SR - S1 G1?
Trechus mitchellens:s a ground beetle SR - Si? G1?
Vascular Plants
Baptisia albescens Thin-pod White Wild =ndigo SR - S2 G4
Baptisia bracteata var bracteata Creamy Wild Indigo C - SH G4G5T4?
Eupatorium godfreyanum Godfrey's Thoroughwort SR - S1 G4
Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star SR - S1 G4G5
Muhlenbergia sobolifera Rock Muhly C - SH G5
Platanthera grandiflora Large Purple-fringed Orchid SR - S2 G5
Prenanthes roanensis Roan Rattlesnakeroot SR - S3 G3
Robinia hispida var fertilis Fruitful Locust C - S1 G5TUQ
Nonvascular Plants
Brachythecium rotaeanum Rota's Feather Moss SR - S1 G3G4
Bryoerythrophyllum inaequalifolium a moss C - S1 G4?
Bryoxiphium norvegicum Sword Moss SR - S1 G3G4
Cirriphyllum piliferum a moss SR - S1 G5
Dichodontium pellucidum a moss SR - S2 G4G5
Encalypta procera Extinguisher Moss SR - S1 G4G5
Entodon compressus Flattened Entodon C - S1 G4
Entodon concinnus Lime Entodon C - S1 G4G5
Entodon sullivantii Sullivant's Entodon SR - S2 G3G4
Eucladium verticillatum Lime-seep Eucladium SR - S1 G5
Homalia trichomanoides Lime Homalia C - S1 G5
Hygrohypnum closteri Closter's Brook-hvcnl:m SR - S1 G3
Plagiochila virginica var a liverwort SR - S1 G3T3
virginica
Platydictya confervoides Alga-like Matted-moss SR - S1 G4G5
Rhachithecium perpusillum Budding Tortula C - S1S2 G3?
Scopelophila cataractae Agoyan Cataract Moss C - S1 G3
Scopelophila ligulata Copper Moss SR - S1 G5?
McDowell**
Vertebrate Animals
Cyprinella zanema pop 1
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Vascular Plants
Delphinium exaltatum
Santee Chub - Piedmont
Population
Southern Appalachian Woodrat
Tall Larkspur
SR - S3
SC FSC S2S3
E-SC FSC S1
G3T3Q
G5T4Q

G3
1 NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DENR January 1999
1 NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM[ COUNTY SPECIES LIST COVER SHEET
The county species list from the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements of natural diversity (rare species,
exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to occur in a county. The information on this printout is
'compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herb ia, and. personal communications. The
Heritage Program's Biological and Conservation Database (BCD) is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being
revised as new information is received. The BCD was developed and is maintained using methodology developed by The Nature
Conservancy. The enclosed list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage elements, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys. When this information is used in any document, we request that the printout date be given
and that the NC Natural Heritage Program be credited.
'This cover sheet explains the four columns of status codes that are given on the right-hand side of the county status list.
'STATE STATUS
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
IT Threatened
SC Special Concern
C Candidate
CODE STATUS
P Proposed (E, T, or C)
SR Significantly Rare
EX Extirpated
Lant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage
Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). E, T, and SC species are protected by state law (Plant
'Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and
conservation action.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina, March 16,
' 1992, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). SR and EX statuses
are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
' FEDERAL STATUS
This status is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are protected
under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise noted,
definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE STATUS DEFINITION
'LE Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range."
LT Threatened A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range."
' P_ Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
C Candidate A taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support listing. This category was
formerly designated as a Candidate 1 (C1) species.
'FSC Federal "Species of Concern" (also called "Species at Risk"). Formerly defined as a taxon under
consideration for which there is insufficient information to support listing; formerly designated as a
Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not recognize this as an
official designation.
IT(S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. The Endangered Species Act authorizes the treatment of a
species (subspecies or population segment) as threatened even. though it is not otherwise listed as threatened

I if. (a) The species so closely resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforcement personnel
would have substantial difficulty in differentiatin
t
b
h
g
ween t
e
e listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of
this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to a threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted
species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act. The American
Alli
h
I gator
as this designation due to similarity of appearance to other rare crocodilians. The Bog Turtle
(southern population) has this designation due to similarity of appearance to Bog Turtles in the threatened
northern population.

I Duke Engineering
! & Servicess.
A Duke Energy Company
400 South Tryon Street
WC22K
P. O. Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
March 23, 1999
Mr. Mark Cantrell
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Dear Mr. Cantrell:

Duke Engineering & Service (DE&S) is currently gathering the necessary information in
association with an Environmental Assessment and Nationwide Permit application for repair and
rehabilitation of a State of North Carolina fish hatchery (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission). This existing trout hatchery is along Armstrong Creek in McDowell County,
North Carolina (see attached map). DE&S has been contracted by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission to prepare the necessary project permits, in addition to repairing several
fish hatchery structures. _
' In association with both the state required Environmental Assessment (State Clearinghouse) and
the Nationwide Permit No. 3 (i.e., repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of previously authorized
st.?%ctures), DE&S is required to contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding
' the presence of any federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or
associated critical habitat that may be affected by the project. A list of the species that have been
documented in McDowell County has been provided in this letter. This list is based on the
' Asheville Field Office's Updated County Species List (1997).
The proposed project which is located along Armstrong Creek Road (NC Highway 1443),
' northwest of the Town of Woodlawn, consists of a facility upgrade and repair. Projects
associated with the existing facility include concrete restoration and intake repair at. three
existing low-head dams, limited dredging to remove excess silt and debris behind the three dams,
' placement of ice and leaf booms, replacement of an existing 24-inch water pipe (1,800 linear
feet), the addition of several solid removing clarifiers at two hatchery raceways, and the
construction of a hatchery building. The only in-stream work will be associated with the
' removal of silt and debris from the headponds to facilitate greater water capacity. No wetlands
will be affected by the project. All other activities will be conducted in upland areas already
used by the -existing hatchery. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls will be used and
' maintained in effective operating condition during the construction phases.

i
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at [phone]. If
the November 4, 1997 _Updated County Species List has been updated could you please send us
the revised list. We appreciate your help on this matter.
Sincerely,
4cT. cer
Scientist
Enclosure
2-

Federally List Species of McDowell County
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Olive-sided flycatcher
Cerulean Warbler
S. Appalachian Woodrat
Invertebrates
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Contopus borealis FSC
Dendroica cerulea FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Bennett's Mill Cave Water Slater
Diana Fritillary Butterfly
Vascular Plants
Roan Sedge
Tall Larkspur
Mountain Golden Heather
Rocky Shoal Spider Lily
Butternut
Gray's Lily
Sweet Pinesap
Northern Oconee-Bells
Caecidotea carolinensis FSC
Speyeria diana FSC
Carex roanenis FSC
Delphinium exaltatum FSC**
Hudsonia montana Threatened
Hymenocallis coronaria FSC
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lilium grayi FSC
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla FSC
3
I

J

J

n

U
u