19960855 Ver 1_Complete File_19990311

fyL ?
ye M 5CATF
r t
960855 ?R
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 26, 1996
RECEIVED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
;stir' u" 3 1996
.rte' •'Y
401 ISSUED
SUBJECT: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 147 over Bradley Creek on
SR 1123 and Bridge No. 50 over Crooked Creek. TIP No. B-2846, State
Project No. 8.2870601, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1123(6).
Attached for your information are copies of the categorical exclusion action classification
form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A hese
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 45 (Categori 1
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy f the CE d ument to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natura ources, Division
of Water Quality, for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county,
a copy of this document is also being provided to the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission for their review.
f,
0

f_
? i
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mrs. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Ms. Aileen S. Mayhew, P.E., Planning & Environmental

4 °Y
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2846
State Project No. 8.2870601
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-11230
A. Project Description:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
replace Bridge No. 50 over Crooked Creek and Bridge No. 147 over
Bradley Creek on SR 1123 in McDowell County. Bridge No. 50 is located
244 meters (800 feet) north of Bridge No. 147. The general location of the
two bridges is shown in Figure 1. Bridge No. 50 will be replaced with a
bridge and Bridge No. 147 will be replaced with a culvert. The proposed
roadway improvements include approximately 122 in (400 ft) of approach
roadway work north of Bridge No. 50, approximately 244 in (800 ft) of
roadway work between the two structures, and approximately 122 in
(400 ft) of approach roadway work south of Bridge No. 147. Both bridges
will be replaced at their existing locations. SR 1123 will be closed during
construction. However, construction will be phased so that only one
bridge is closed at a time, so as to maintain access to SR 1133, located
between the bridges. Traffic will be maintained on existing area roads
(see Figure 1 for detour route).
B. Purpose and Need:
The existing Bridge No. 50 was constructed in 1955. Bridge Maintenance
Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 35.9 out of a
possible 100.0. The deck is only 6 in (20 ft) wide and is considered to be
functionally obsolete. The existing Bridge No. 50 has posted load limits of
15 metric tons (16 tons) for single vehicles and 17 metric tons (19 tons) for
truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The existing Bridge No. 147 was constructed in 1951. Bridge
Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
36.1 out of a possible 100.0. The deck is only 6.1 in (20.1 ft) wide and is
considered to be functionally obsolete. The existing Bridge No. 147 has
no posted load limits.
` For the reasons stated above, Bridge No. 50 and Bridge No. 147 need
to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:

Tyne II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, resurfacing, rehabilitating, and reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including
the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separations to replace existing at-grade railroad
crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs

b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant
adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located
on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus
and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected
bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is
no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a
y limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for
a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of
alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project

development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process
has been completed.
D. Special Proiect Information:
Environmental Commitments:
1. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project to
minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. Provisions
to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during
the construction period will also be strictly enforced.
2. Construction is likely to be authorized by provision of General
Nationwide 404 Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. A Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will also be required for the project.
3. Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The
investigation will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-situ
testing, as well as the obtaining of samples for laboratory testing.
This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
4. Crooked Creek and Bradley Creek are not designated trout waters
and do not support trout; however, since McDowell County is a
designated "trout county," the project has been coordinated with
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). The
WRC has stated that they are unaware of any other special
concerns for this area (see attached WRC memos, pages A-1
and A-2).
Design Information:
Bridge No. 50 is to be replaced with a bridge approximately 55 in
(180 ft) long and 8.6 in (28 ft) wide; this bridge width will provide
for two 3.3-meter (11-foot) travel lanes with 0.9 in (3 ft) of lateral
clearance on each side.
Bridge No. 147 is to be replaced with a double barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert (RCBC), approximately 3.4 in x 2.1 in (11 ft x
7 ft). The culvert will be of sufficient length to accommodate the
proposed roadway typical section. The proposed culvert will
require only minor channel widening upstream and downstream.
The proposed roadway improvements include approximately
122 in (400 ft) of approach roadway work north of Bridge No. 50,
approximately 244 in (800 ft) of roadway work between the two
structures, and approximately 122 in (400 ft) of approach roadway
work south of Bridge No. 147. The approach roadway to Bridge
No. 50, the roadway over the proposed culvert at existing Bridge
No. 147, and the roadway between these structures will consist of a
6.6-meter (22-foot) paved travelway with 1.8-meter (6-foot)
grassed shoulders. The roadway grade will remain approximately
the same as the existing grade. The proposed improvements are
shown in Figure 2.
The temporary off-site detour, which utilizes existing area roads,
will require shoring up Bridge No. 103 on SR 1129. Presently,
Bridge No. 103 does not have adequate posted load limits and
shoring up this bridge will allow it to carry the weight needed for
anticipated detour traffic.
Estimated Costs:
New Structure (Bridge) @ Bridge No. 50 $ 280,000
Structure Removal @ Bridge No. 50 $ 23,000
New Structure (Culvert) @ Bridge No. 147 $ 47,000
Structure Removal @ Bridge No. 147 $ 5,000
Roadway Approaches $ 119,000
Temporary Off-Site Detour $ 12,000
Misc. & Mobilization $ 142,000
Engineering & Contingencies $ 84,000
Right of Way $ 60,000
Total Cost $ 772,000
Note: The total cost reflects an increase from the TIP funding due
to shoring up Bridge No. 103 along the temporary off-site
detour.
Estimated Traffic on SR 1123 at Project Site:
Year 1997 - 600 Vehicles Per Day
Year 2017 - 1600 Vehicles Per Day
Design Speed:
approximately 90 km/h (55 mph)
Functional Classification:
SR 1123 in McDowell County is not a classified route,
and it carries traffic which is local in nature.
! 1
6
E
Division Office Comments:
The Division 13 Engineer concurs with the proposed
improvements and with the temporary closure of the roadway
during construction.
Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation
must be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
YES NO
F? x
?x
?x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated? N/A
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? F1 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 7 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters ?
(HQW)? X
L ?
7
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ?X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
F-1
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X

PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
F-1
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? N/A

(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act X
resources?

(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? [-? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F] X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? F-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? 1:1 X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
8
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or
land use of any adjacent property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
l y
F-1 l ?
X
F-1 X
X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
1990)? X
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using
existing roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action?
1:1 X
x F-1
?x
xF-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites or-historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)? 1-1 X
J
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? 1:1 X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Regarding Item E.8: The project is located within a designated "trout
county" and has been coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC). The WRC has stated that trout do not
inhabit the river in the vicinity of the project and that the WRC is
unaware of any other special concerns for this area (see attached WRC
memos, pages A-1 and A-2).
10
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2846
State Project No. 8.2870601
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1123(6)
Project Description:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 50 over Crooked Creek and
Bridge No. 147 over Bradley Creek on SR 1123 in McDowell County.
Bridge No. 50 is located 244 m (800 ft) north of Bridge No. 147. The
general location of the two bridges is shown in Figure 1. Bridge No. 50
will be replaced with a bridge and Bridge No. 147 will be replaced with a
culvert. The proposed roadway improvements include approximately
122 m (400 ft) of approach roadway work north of Bridge No. 50,
approximately 244 m (800 ft) of roadway work between the two
structures, and approximately 122 m (400 ft) of approach roadway work
south of Bridge No. 147. Both bridges will be replaced at their existing
locations. SR 1123 will be closed during construction. However,
construction will be phased so that only one bridge is closed at a time, so
as to maintain access to SR 1133, located between the bridges. Traffic
will be maintained on existing area roads (see Figure 1 for detour route).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
7- 1
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Enviro ental Branch
'lk I lmAIYL?-
Date P je t Planning Unit Head
Iz Q1 /rJ
ate Project Planning
For Type II (B) proje is only:
ate Divisio Administrator
jFederal Highway Administration
?j A. •
'
2
1246 24
ee
1
30 Gl
>k

e ou.
e! :;?; -
Ca 1246 'O c
y. ne ,y0 1161 H

!' 1246 232
cJ 1240 75 v?
........
`
$
2
'
OLD FORT
sf 1161 126
'
POP, 752 :.
; 1 1.2
4
5 "4/
cv
. 1. .

.. 322 , 1240 40
`?

$: ?P
1234
234
•J I

1278-
.

5 1240
1241 N

73

2 1243
Gi¢ 1242 '8 w
1
1112b 110 p, 1295 123 1238 v, 113
128a 129 2 X7.7 1240 1288 5 2
,?•? ? n h .2 1136128 6 123 1135
1258 -\ A
1111 .3, s 1311 17 1136
1?11'Q 5 .1.2 .1 1135
t
1103 1298 1124 1 1123
1110 Moffitt b BRIDGE NO. 50
1289 '5 1125
^ 1126
> 1127
282 \ 1106 c14 a S 1133
8
\\ GiOO
ur1i
1134
3 11
28 HARRIS MT
r A BRIDGE NO. 147
•4 104 1 129 1130 1 133

1123
•? 3
1103
6 (b
1105 w 12 1 23 1123
f 1131
.Si
102 y
1103
1132
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
Ii., 7711"k

TIP ID NO. B-2846
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE FROM
FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES

P North Carolina Wildlife Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-7
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director J
.D
MEMORANDUM z JUN 1 ° 1995
Z
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT XfF?
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program 4"
? LLc_--
DATE: June 16, 1995
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge #50 on SR 1123 over
Crooked Creek, McDowell County, TIP #B-2846.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the
scoping sheets for the subject project and have not identified any special concerns regarding this
project. Although McDowell County is a trout county as designated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Crooked Creek does not support trout. Our comments on the 404 permit application
will reflect this.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.

A-1

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aileen Scott, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
' Habitat Conservation Program x/L „? f
C -
DATE: January 24, 1996
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge #50 over Crooked Creek and Bridge
#147 over Bradley Creek along SR 1123, McDowell County, TIP #B-2846.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping minutes for the subject project. I provided scoping comments to Mr. H. Franklin Vick of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in a memorandum dated 16 June
1995 regarding the replacement of Bridge #50 over Crooked Creek. Since then, replacement of
Bridge #147 over Bradley Creek has been added to this project.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife. Resources Commission have reviewed plans
for the replacement of both bridges and have not identified any special concerns regarding this
project. Although McDowell County is a trout county as designated by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Crooked and Bradley Creeks do not support trout. Our comments on the 404 permit
applications will reflect this.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Briggs, NCDOT
A-2
.

yj s r STA °
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
17 November 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Replacement of Bridges No. 50 and
147, over Crooked and Bradley Creeks,
McDowell County, TIP No. B-2846; State
Project No. 8.2870601; Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1123(6).
ATTENTION: John Williams
Project Planning Engineer
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2846
dnk

Replacement of Bridges No. 50 and No. 147
On SR 1123 Over Crooked and Bradley Creeks
McDowell County
TIP No. B-2846
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1123(6)
State Project No. 8.2870601
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2846
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist
17 November 1995
.u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Methodology..... • ............................1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ................3
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................3
2.1 Soils ..........................................3
.2.2 Water Resources........ • .... ........ .......5
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics...5
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............5
2.2.3 Water Quality........ ................6
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........ 6
3.0 Biotic Resources ......... ..........................7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .. .....................7
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community ........ 7
3.1.2 Alluvial Forest .......................8
3.2 Aquatic Communities ... .........................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................9
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics. .. . ........................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Waters ..................11
4.1.2 Permits ...............................11
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...... 12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........... 12
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ..............15
5.0 References .........................................17
Table 1. Soils Series in Projeet Area ...................4
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ..... 10
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species
for McDowell County ......................... 13
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed
Species for McDowell County..... ..........16
Figure 1. Project Location ...............................2
Figure 2 Project Study Area ............................19
` .,
i'
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated 4.8
km (3.0 mi) east southeast of the town of Moffitt Hill in
McDowell County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of
Bridges No. 50 and No. 147 on SR 1123 over Crooked Creek and
Bradley Creek respectively (Figure 2). Bridge No. 50 was
built in 1955, and Bridge No. 147 was built in 1951, both are
in need of replacement.
The existing cross sections consist of 5.5 to 6.1 m
(18.0 to 20.0 ft) pavement plus 0.6 to 1.5 m (2.0 to 7.0 ft)
grass shoulders. The proposed cross sections are 6.6 m (22.0
ft) pavement plus 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders.
The existing right-of-ways are 12.2 m (40.0 ft). The
proposed right-of-ways are 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Project length
is approximately 366 m (1200 ft). It is proposed that the
bridges will be replaced on existing locations with road
closure.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Moffitt Hill), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) soil maps and NCDOT aerial photographs of
project area (1:1200). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of McDowell County, 1992). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
1a16
14 Sa
J
tat ••FAS
R Mackey
°Od 1414 .7 1%. . i
' 1458
Creelc PPf -70 6. e,1I`IB
1453
1227 GY` 25
1214
Greenlee
r `+ 1
IAII 6 1246 4
c
lrr?` `? 9 •:_:,'? ::`.1 FAS::• .6 1229
• 1410 Z`;i?.?'.? •
?C
1231 1230 Glee p 1246 1245
C o - - SOtl. ?' n 1247
1246 10 c 1241
Cane ,y0 1161 H
1246 232 1240 75 1248
OLD FORT 8 _•2 1161 1263 04 13
1407 POP. ,7.52;.";? 4.5 Fad 1.2 C,, 3
322 2y 1240 3 40
?p? 1234
1234 1278--/
1,0
1303
i 72 b' ?4
40 C,
1235
1240 1244
1254 ' 1241 `)
:.c! 1243 ??
8 © ef
.': .. G{? 1242 •8 w
RIVER .2;? C
1112b 1110 p- 1295 1237 1238 v, 1137 1283
1284 129 •2 f 1136 !t? 1240 1288 .5 Z
?,?•?d ,• 1 a h .2 .6128 •6 .2 1239 ry 1135
? 1258 NA 1111 .3• s 1311 1317
1136
4. l 1 t 'p t 5 •1.2 .1 •4 `?' .7 1135
1124 .S
1103 1298 1 1123
1289 1110 `- b Moffitt b J 1128
Hill 1125 ^ 1 126 ? b
1282 1106 cv 1127 deb -7 1133
1109 0 .3 ? 112e •2 Gt? 113A.
HARRIS MTN.
?U 08 •S 1106 1130
•tj -.4 .1104 1129 1133
1123
„ar 1104 3/ .6 N
1 106 1 103 g J??Q•
7- 1105 2 1123 ?O
1100 1123
•? f 1131 PROJECT LOCATION
1102 ' B-2846
1103
1132 Figure 1
1.3 J?
t% ?L?O 1139
11at v 1.0
.6 J
,s 1140 ,O 1001
4
` ` ' 1142 41140
3
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Bruce O. Ellis and Dale Suiter
on 17 October 1995. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. wildlife
identification involved using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs
of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science
Rutgers University, College of Agriculture and
Environmental Science.
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc.
March 1976-April 1994.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management,. wetland
delineations; Section 7 field investigations;
NEPA investigations.
2.0 Physical Resources'
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the portion of
McDowell County that is situated within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. The topography in this section of
McDowell County is characterized by rolling hills which are
dissected by broad alluvial plains. Topography in vicinity
of the project area is relatively flat since it is located in
an alluvial plain. Project elevation averages 439 m
(1440 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Four soil types (Table 1) occur within project
boundaries: Rosman fine sandy loam, Biltmore fine loamy sand,
Dillard loam and Hayesville-Evard Complex. Rosman fine sandy
loam and Biltmore loamy sand are the dominant soil types
found within the study area. Dillard loam and Hayesville-
Evard complex are present to a lesser extent.
4
TABLE 1. SOIL SERIES IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
Map Unit Soil Series Percent Drainage* Hydric**
Symbol slope Class Classification
BmA Biltmore 0-3 well and
- mod well non hydric
DdB Dillard 1-4 mod well inclusions+
HeD Hayesville- 6-25 well non hydric
Evard Complex
RoA Rosman 0-3 well non hydric
* well and mod well, denote well.drained and moderately
well drained respectively.
** Information obtained from National and county lists of
hydric soils.
+ Hydric soil inclusions may be found along drainageways
and in depressions.
Rosman fine sandy loam is a nearly level soil located on
floodplains. It dominates the southern half of the study
area where it is associated with the floodplain of Bradley
Creek. Rosman fine sandy loam has a seasonal high water
table at 0.8 m (2.5 ft) below the surface during the winter
months. Most areas where this soil is found are in pasture
or cultivation.
Biltmore loamy fine sand is a very deep soil that formed
in recent stream sediments on flood plains. This soil is
associated with the Crooked Creek flood plain, and dominates
the northern portion of the project. Biltmore loamy fine
sand is occupied by pasture and alluvial forest within the
project study area.
Hayesville-Evard Complex is composed of very deep soils
formed in residuum weathered from gneiss or schist. This
soil occupies a small area near the southern terminus of the
project. This soil is well suited for locally grown crops
and pasture.
Dillard loam is a very deep soil that formed in old
stream sediments. It is present on low stream terraces. A
small area of Dillard loam is present south of Bridge No.
50. Dillard soils are listed as soils having hydric
inclusions along drainageways and in depressions.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area
revealed soils with a sandy silt texture. The soils did not
exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors,
accumulation of organic matter or mottling. Hydric soils, as
5
defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" were not observed within the project study area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Crooked Creek and Bradley Creek (Figure 2) are
tributaries of the Catawba River. Both creeks are located in
sub-basin no. 03-08-30 of the Catawba River Basin. The
Catawba River has its origin in the eastern slopes of the
Blue Ridge Mountains. It flows easterly until the outfall of
Lake Hickory (Alexander county) and then begins to flow in a
southerly direction. The Catawba River crosses the North
Carolina/South Carolina state line near Charlotte.
Bridge No. 147 spans Bradley Creek, which is a tributary
to Crooked Creek. The average width of Bradley Creek in
vicinity of Bridge No. 147 is 2.1 m (7.0 ft). Its average
depth is 15.2 cm (6.0 in). The substrate is composed of
rubble, gravel, sand and silt. Bradley Creek has its
confluence with Crooked Creek approximately 30.5 m (100.0 ft)
upstream of Bridge No. 50.
Bridge No. 50 spans Crooked Creek which flows in a
northeasterly direction at this location. The average width
of Crooked Creek within the project study area is 9.1 m (30.0
ft) and the average depth is approximately 45.7 cm (18._0 in).
The substrate consists of rubble, gravel, sand and silt.
Under Bridge No. 50, the creek channel widens to
approximately 15.2 m (50.0 ft). The creek bed at this
location contains sand bars in vicinity of the creek banks.
The banks of Crooked Creek rise 1.2 to 1.8 m (4.0 to
6.0 ft) above normal water levels. The floodplain contains
evidence of recent overbanking which is indicated by
scouring, over wash of vegetation and the presence of flotsam
0.3 to 0.6 m (1.0 to 2.0 ft) above ground level.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The
classification of Bradley Creek (index no. 11-12-8) and
Crooked Creek (index no. 11-12) is "C". The "C"
6
classification denotes waters
life propagation and survival,
recreation and agriculture.
that,are suitable for aquatic
fishing, wildlife, secondary
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water supplies (WS-i
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. No BMAN data is available for
Bradley Creek or Crooked Creek.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No permitted
dischargers are listed for Bradley Creek or Crooked Creek.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location
with a road closure during construction is almost always
preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new
location usually results in more severe impacts.
Project construction may result in the following impacts
to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from
construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to
interruptions and/additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to vegetation
removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via
runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from
highway runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area, NCDOT'S Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to
preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during
the construction interval should also be strictly enforced.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Faunal species observed during
the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities (Figure 2) are
identified in the project study area: maintained/disturbed
and alluvial forest. Community boundaries within the study
area are well defined without a significant transition zone
between them. Faunal species likely to occur within the
study area will exploit both communities for shelter and
foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community is the dominant
community type within the project area. This community is
dominated by agricultural fields and also includes road
shoulders that are periodically maintained. The northwestern
quadrant, the roadway corridor between the two bridges and
the southeastern quadrant are dominated by hay fields and
pasture that consist of fescue (Festuca spp.) and orchard
grass (Dactvlis clomerata), which are interspersed with wild
radish (Rhaphanus raphanistrum), clover (Trifolium spp.) and
henbit ( um spp.).
8
Road shoulder environment occurs along the entire length
of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained
community includes; fescue, buckhorn plantain (Plantaao
lanceolata), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusaalli) and
clover.
Faunal species that would inhabit or forage in this
habitat would be species that prefer more open terrain and
those species that have adapted to exploit a human dominated
community. Faunal species that would be present include:
white tailed deer* (Odocoileus virainianus), raccoon*
(Procyon tor), woodchuck (Marmots on ), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilaaus floridanus) and eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis). The black racer (Coluber
constrictor) and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) will hunt small
vertebrates in this community.
Avian species that prefer open habitat include: mocking
bird* (Mimus polvalottos), crow* (Corvus brachvrhvnchos) barn
swallow (Hirundo rustica) and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella
magna). Red-tailed hawk* ( u o iamaicensis) and American
kestrel (Falco sparverius) can be found perching on tall
trees and telephone poles while searching the fields for
prey. Turkey vultures* (Cathartes aura) search for carrion
while soaring above the open fields.
3.1.2 Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is present along the Bradley Creek
and Crooked Creek corridors and within an extensive
floodplain area east of Bridge No. 50. The transition from
alluvial forest to maintained/disturbed community is abrupt
due to agricultural activities. The hydrology is palustrine
with intermittent flooding during high flow periods.
Periodic flooding provides nutrient input through sediment
deposition making this system very productive. However,
periodic flooding can also be a destructive factor during
large storm events by undercutting banks and eroding soils.
The canopy is composed of river birch (Betula niara),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus Qennsylvanica), mockernut
hickory ( a a tomentosa) and red maple ( c r rubrum). The
shrub layer consists of tag alder ( nu serrulata),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), flowering dogwood ( o u o a), spicebush
(Lindera benzoin) and ironwoood (Carpinus caroliniana).
Herbs within the alluvial forest include; giant cane
(Arundinaria aiaantea), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
Japanese grass (Microsteaium vimineum) and Christmas fern
(Polvstichum acrostichoides). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica), trumpet vine (Campis radicans) and green brier
(Smilax rotundifolia) comprise the vine layer of this
community.
wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include:
two-lined salamander (Eurvicea bislineata), spring peeper
(Hula crucifer), gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis) and
raccoon*. White-tailed deer* will use this small forest
community for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as
well as mast. The belted kingfisher* (Meaacervle a c on) and
red-winged blackbird (Aaelaius phoeniceus) find foraging and
nesting habitat in this community.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic communities, Bradley Creek and Crooked
Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water
resource influence faunal composition of aquatic communities.
Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities. No aquatic vegetation
was observed within either creek.
Fauna associated with the aquatic community include
various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Prey fish
including shiners (Notropis spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.),
darters (Etheostoma spp.) and dace (Rhinichthvs spp.) provide
foraging opportunities for redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritis) and bluegill (L, macrochirus). Invertebrates
observed in both Bradley Creek and Crooked Creek include:
crayfish (family Cambaridae) and insect larvae; caddisfly
(family Hydropsychidae) and water penny (Psephenus herricki).
Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) will forage on small
vertebrates in this community. Fish 1968, indicates that
Crooked Creek is too small to be of fishing significance.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will-result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
10
TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Maintained/Disturbed 0.8(2.0)
Alluvial Forest 0.3(0.8)
TOTAL IMPACTS 1.1(2.8)
Note: values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area
serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife.
Replacing Bridges No. 50 and No. 147 and associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby
diminishing faunal numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some
species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and
starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will
become road shoulders and early successional habitat.
Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of
more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas
suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of
animals may result in an increase in competition for the
remaining resources.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes
in their environment. Stream channelization, scouring,
siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will effect water quality and biological
constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction
include increased channelization and scouring of the
streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site.
Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which
clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish
and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered
by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow
to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light
penetration thus decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of
fill material at the construction site alters the terrain.
Alterations of the streambank enhances the likelihood of
erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds
the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and
11
sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation
of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering
water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside
alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and
to elevations of water temperatures which may impact many
species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant
to the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual".
The three parameter approach is used where hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic
characteristics must all be present for an area to be
considered a wetland. No jurisdictional wetlands were
observed within the project area, however, jurisdictional
surface waters are present.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from,the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States."
McDowell County is one of 25 counties which contains WRC
designated "Trout Waters". General permits are not available
in these counties without concurrence from the WRC. A
Nationwide 404 permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23, for impacts to
surface waters is likely to be applicable if the WRC

. C r
12
certifies that construction of this project will not
adversely affect trout waters. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded or financed in whole or in part, by another Federal
agency or department. Projects are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation, because their construction
will neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is
required prior to the issuance of the nationwide ##23.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or
other land manipulations.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for McDowell County
(Table 3). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.

13
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
for McDOWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Glaucomvs sabrinus Carolina northern
coloratus flying squirrel E
Hedovtis purpurea
var. montana Roan Mountain bluet E
Hudsonia montana mountain golden heather T
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Glaucomvs sabrinus coloratus
(northern flying squirrel) E
Animal Family: Sciurdiae
Date Listed: 7/1/85
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
Haywood, Jackson, McDowell, Mitchell,
Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well
furred flap of skin along either side of its body. This
furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front
and at the ankle in the rear. The skin flaps and its broad
flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide
from tree to tree. It is a solely nocturnal animal with
large dark eyes.
There are several
flying squirrel in the
the Tennessee border.
meters (5000 ft) in the
hardwood and coniferous
to search for food and
nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
isolated populations of the northern
western part of North Carolina, along
This squirrel is found above 1517
vegetation transition zone between
forests. Both forest types are used
the hardwood forest is used for
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of hardwood and coniferous
forest communities does not exist for the northern flying
squirrel within the project study area. Project elevation is
439 m (1440 ft)' above msl which is considerably lower than
elevations where the squirrel is normally found. The NC
Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique
habitats has no record of the northern flying squirrel in or
near the project study area. Therefore, project construction
will not affect the northern flying squirrel.

z C? ?
14
Hedvotis purpurea var. montana
(mountain purple or Roan Mountain bluet) E
Plant Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July (best time is mid June)
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Burke, McDowell,
Mitchell, Watauga, Yancey.
Roan Mountain bluet is a perennial species with roots
and grows in low tufts. Roan Mountain bluet has several
bright purple flowers arranged in a terminal cyme.
This plant can be found on cliffs, outcrops, steep
slopes, and in the gravelly talus associated with cliffs.
Known populations of Roan Mountain bluet occur at elevations
of 1400-1900 meters (4600-6200 ft). It grows best in areas
where it is exposed to full sunlight and in shallow acidic
soils composed of various igneous, metamorphic, and
metasedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of cliffs, outcrops, steep
slopes and gravelly talus is not present within the project
study area. Project elevation is 439 m (1440 ft) above msl
which is considerably lower than elevations where the Roan
Mountain bluet is normally found. The NC Natural Heritage
Program data base of rare species and unique habitats has no
record of the Roan Mountain bluet in or near the project
study area. Therefore, project construction will not affect
the Roan Mountain bluet.
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) T
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: October 20, 1980
Flowers Present: June (mid to late)
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, McDowell.
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub
that is yellow-green in color. This shrub usually grows in
clumps and retains its leaves from the previous year which
appear scale-like on the older branches. Leaves appear awl-
shaped and thread-like. Mountain golden heather forms
solitary, terminal, lanceolate flowers. These yellow flowers
have five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. Fruit
capsules have three projecting points at the tips and are
round in shape.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on
mountain tops, with known populations found at elevations of
850-1200 meters (2800-4000 ft). It can be found on exposed
quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath
balds dominated by Leiophvllum spp. which merge into pine
forest. Plants do live in partially shaded areas, but do not
M 4" 11
15
appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas. A
critical habitat area for mountain golden heather exists in
Burke County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
suitable habitat for mountain golden heather, in the
form of weathered rocky soils on mountain tops does not exist
within the project area. Project elevation is 439 m (1440
ft) above msl which is considerably lower than elevations
where the mountain golden heather is normally found. The NC
Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique
habitats has no record of mountain golden heather in or near
the project study area. Therefore, project construction will
not affect mountain golden heather.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 11 Federal Candidate (C2) species listed for
McDowell County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 1 (C1) species are defined as taxa for
which the FWS has on file enough substantial information on
biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals
to list them as Endangered or Threatened. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to
extinction although no sufficient data currently exist to
warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under
the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists Federal Candidate and State listed
species, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
t ? •4
nL ..
16
TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
for McDOWELL COUNTY
NC
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat
Mvotis subulatus Eastern small- SC yes
leibii footed bat
Neotoma £loridana Eastern woodrat SC no
maaister
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR no
Contopus borealis olive-sided flycatcher SC no
Clemmvs muhlenberaii Bog turtle T no
Caecidotea carolinens is Bennett's Mill
cave water slater SR no
Speveria diana Diana fritillary SR yes
butterfly
Tualands cinerea Butternut W5 no
iliu aravi Gray's lily T-SC no
Shortia clalacifolia Oconee-bells E-SC no
Shortia aalacifolia Short-styled oconee- E-SC no
var. brevistvla bells
SR denotes "significantly rare"
W5 denotes "watch list".
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.

17
5.0 REFERENCES
American ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Fish, F.F., 1968, "A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Water in
North Carolina", North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum-of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of t e Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
.?
., A.? •
r*t r
is
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas. Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.

t.r.
W
~;? (
ii,1.
r?s l:V
?} rt is
T -?1
Gts?
4-3 Tj T'?R•?
_ Y. tJf;v?
- E 7 ? wt7 ..
ra o ?' l "lt? ,,y :?
C) cu
Lr) CO
?S ?1.y 1
E- H
r:
04
r '??Z1.:1?`t7
?• ? a r J;' ?;. 4i
?.'?'):;',,"r?Sj:;?111 t`r' :?r?? ?`?t? ?( ?? ?,` r???? t.ti ?? ?y.v -,-?-?. '•r?3}S.k ": -:?t,Z?
.'f Y. '.r ??1;?' 2, t?.? J1• t ? \s?tl .?? `r. (•'?7 ?` ? , ,{, t ' • y iS? ???1•?
;.,?„ .?,: `ri ??'l-?44? t,t; , 1 ,1 :? ??) F ,4A1?'??.??'J? ??` •A•lt?••
c.??•.'!t; .r,? t? fFiit .; 1:•'j?f -? ?\? #? •i,S ?• '?7i r I 'Y' .' t? j11???yT ?ll:l
b i?,??•<<' ?f;`T.1t':)1?.. 1 IC' \•,F '.,vt ( ,,?? '?ft,f?arti r144'J', :?4,?.•1•;.h ??.?ri ?r}'•(;,?t
.4 40
(? •rl ` f:!' i p.r . /`.•? ..k' •rt' Y (?1 L, r ? ' .•1:.' .` _ • - - 1 :: `n i.._ •j`11;.•?.•••?.-•::?.
•`? w ?J??ISY?{.?•T'4'c', ?;.f?,, Ql ?}CA\•?• ';? I:.:l?:?', '•t J?:.?`''??"?,''•`?'?^•?i'r'_.• '.`?i :'-
?fafr(r>J r c :. `t:;.:`r^_ . 7 , `,` , . ?,.:. v t.. ?'`,? •,
r-A
^?? l'rl:.J;?rf ?r / . a ?'?. tS? •?:f. '^'?t'-cl•:•, '' .i• 3-1 ?1 " _ I
r-i r-i qtr.. '•t'1
i7 y. .j`r.?'•? ?l i ?- lam(, ?i?• ,' c?• ?'? : { i
U • 4
!i.,.c? ..?';,i?'S h rr? r- t??.i3t.. ... ?' w ???.?•;?•.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
GOVERNOR
March 11, 1999

cf (? o Es -s
"o (J&Uule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY

US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue. Room 143
Asheville. North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECI: Nationwide Permit 23 Renewal Application for Bridge No. 50 over
crooked creek and Bridge No. 147 over Bradley Creek, McDowell
County, TIP NO. B-2846. ACTION ID 199604317
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on October 31, 1996. This permit expired in January of 1997.
The replacement of the Bridge No. 50 and Bridge No. 147 is scheduled to be let to
construction in October 19, 1999. Consequently, the Department of Transportation
(DOT) needs to renew authorization for this work. A copy of the Nationwide Permit 23
is attached.
The information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion and the Natural Resources
Technical Report in a letter dated August 26, 1996. The Bridge No. 50 will be replaced
with a new bridge structure and Bridge No. 147 will be replaced with a double barrel 11
foot by 7 foot reinforced concrete box culvert. Both bridges will be replaced at their
existing location. Traffic will be maintained on an off-site detour during
bridge construction.
The NCDOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. A Reissuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested. If you have any
questions or need additional information please call Kendra Williamson [phone].

1

Sincerely.
William D. Gilmore, P.E.,
Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorny, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E.. Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill. P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William D. Smart P.E.. Division 13 Enginee-
Ms. Aileen Mavhew, PDEA
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 31, 1996
50.
I.
Action ID No. 199604317 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions); TIP No. B-2846
Mr. Frank Vick
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5202
Dear Mr. Vic)::
RE 6
C . 1996
?1'f?ErrrA? 0
Reference your August 26, 1996 application for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to replace Bridge #50 over Crooked Creek and Bridge #147
over Bradley Creek on SR 1123, near Moffitt Hill, in McDowell Coun-. _,
North Carolina. Bridge #50 is located 800 feet north of Bridge #147. Bridge
450 will be replaced with a new bridge structure and Bridge #147 will be
replaced with a double barrel 11 foot by 7 foot reinforced concrete box
culvert. The proposed roadway improvements include approximately 400 feet of
approach roadway work north of Bridge #50, approximately 800 feet of roadway
work between the two structures, and approximately 400 feet of approach
roadway work south of Bridge 4147. Both bridges will be replaced at their
existing locations and SR 1123 will be closed during construction. Traffic
will be maintained on existing area roads. No wetlands will be impacted and
there will be minimal disturbance to the waters of Crooked Creek and
Bradley Creek as a result of the project. This project has been coordinated
with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work or discharge
is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the
office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.

-2-
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
'accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone],
regarding water quality certification. This nationwide permit does not
relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local
approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified.
reissued or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modi`_ieu,
reissued or revoked prior to 21 January 1997. It is incumbent upon you to
remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public
notice announcing the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence
or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the preser._
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steve Chapin in our
Asheville Regulatory Field Office.at [phone].
Sincerely,
"? &"" 0 - ???
1

1! Robert W. Johnson
I?? Office Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607