20041649 Ver 1_Complete File_20041011

11f4 k
e,,swt? ?Fl???l cENk- K, e'? r'(f(/ti ??
3 ? FR
e?N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY P.O. Box 275, Marion, North Carolina 28752
GOVERNOR MAY 13, 2005
STATE PROJECT: 33317.3.1
TIP NO: B-3873
F.A. PROJECT: BRZ-1737(6)
CONTRACT NUMBER: C200916
COUNTY: McDowell
DESCRIPTION: Grading, Drainage, Paving & Culvert on
Bridge over Fork Muddy Creek & Approaches
on SR-1737
SUBJECT:
Preconstruction Conference
Clark Ledbetter Grading & Hauling
1806 Gaffney Road
Shelby, NC 28152
Gentlemen:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The preconstruction conference for the above referenced project will be held at
10:00 am on Friday, May 27, 2005 in the Resident Engineer's conference room at 3931
NC 226 South in Marion.
Yours rul ,
R.C. Moody
Resident Engineer
BCS/fhm
cc: E.C. Powell, Jr., PE
J.J. Swain, Jr., PE (Attn:
A.C. Cochran, PE
T.B. Adams, PE
Roger Bryan
Ed Ingle
R.A. Tipton, PE, PLS)
Page 2
Clark Ledbetter Grading & Hauling
May 13, 2005
cc: Dave Frye
Robert Haskett
Candie Auvil
Jerry Lail
J.K. Bartlett
J.M. Watkins
Aydren Flowers
Bill Graham
Mark Teague, PE
D.D. Galloway, PE
D.R. McNeal, PE
Angie Pennock, Corps of Engineers
Clarence Coleman, PE, FHWA
Regional Engineer, DEHNR
Marella Buncick, USFWS/
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ ?
Richard Hensley
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File
B-3873 McDowell
Subject: B-3873 McDowell
From: Michael A Turchy <maturchyC dot. state. nc.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:17:32 -0500
To: Brian Wrenn <brian.wrennC ncmail.net>
Brian,
First, thanks for attending our meeting at such short notice this afternoon.
As requested from our meeting this afternoon, here are some of the reasons NCDOT
is recommending that a culvert is the preferred replacement structure for project
B-3873 (replacement of bridge 183 over Fork Muddy Creek in McDowell County.
-Construction time and cost is greatly increased with a bridge. In this part of the
state, drilled shafts would have to be used, along with a shorter construction season,
increase the cost and time of the project.
-From a cost/ maintenance standpoint, culverts require little maintenance and have a
much greater life span than bridges.
-To meet highway design standards, the new structure would be wider, resulting in
construction of the new bridge to be on a curve, which is not preferred design.
-The new structure would also be built at a grade (6%), also not preferred design.
Thanks for sending me Marla's comments.
-Michael
--------------------------------------------
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA I Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
voice: 919.715.1468 fax: [phone]
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/
1 of 1 12/17/2004 2:59 PM

M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 29, 2004
Jim Stanfill
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 183 over Fork Muddy Creek on SR 1737 in
McDowell County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1737(5), State Project No.
8.2871901, T.I.P. No. B-3873.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to remove and replace Bridge
Number 183 carrying SR 1737 over Fork Muddy Creek in McDowell County. A 125-foot triple
barrel 10 x 12 foot reinforced concrete box culvert will be replaced at the same location.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the jurisdictional wetland impacts
by using the EEP program. We estimate that there will be impacts to 125 feet of Fork Muddy
Creek. There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. The project is located in Upper
Catawba river basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03050101.
F@@0y@0
SEP 2 9 2004
"sAND Sri ? TM u
".4t I
Please send the letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, NC
28801-5006.

RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA RIPARIAN BUFFER PROGRAM
As this project is in the Catawba River Basin, but not located on the mainstem, no regulated
buffer impacts are anticipated.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Michael Turchy at
[e-mail] or (919) 715 - 1468.
Sincerely,
Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Angie Pennock, USACE
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Ms. Angie Pennock
October 4, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
A.- M
MCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
1CV 9
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
r
R Lg L-P-3
D
O C T 1 2 2004
CENR - WATER QUALITY
IETLA°;DS A"!C STGil,°r iWATER BRANCH
B-3873, Bridge 183 over Fork Muddy Creek on SR 1737, McDowell
County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 3050101); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1,250 feet of stream preservation at a 10:1 ratio for the 125 feet of
unavoidable stream impacts associated with the subject project. The preservation site that will
be debited for this mitigation is:
Little Tablerock (Avery, Mitchell, and McDowell Counties) 1,250 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
1144 4?- /0
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3873
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 4, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Project: Bridge Replacement, Fork Muddy Creek, SR 1737
TIP#: B-3873, McDowell County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
you in a letter dated September 29, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 3050101 of the Catawba
River Basin in the Northern Mountains Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 125 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The ecosystem enhancement for the subject project
will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3873
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCarofiina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ;Vaturally
° s4AIt o
?ty r
4
T ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICI L< EL F. E,\SLEY
GOVERINOR
October 7, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office r?
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
``
.5 p
u?; r i i 7004
DENR - ?- - - QUALITY
iET1Atr'p$ a'dD STORbn'iATER 6wl' CN
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Applications for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 183 on SR 1737 (Flat Gap Road) over
Fork Muddy Creek in McDowell County. Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1737(5), State Project No.8.2871901, TIP No. B-3873.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 183 on the existing alignment with a
125-foot triple barrel, 10.0 x 12.0-foot reinforced concrete box culvert. The northwest
barrel will be silled to simulate the natural width of the stream. Traffic will be
maintained using a signed off-site detour on SR 1741. There are no jurisdictional
wetlands within the project area.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Permanent Impacts: Fork Muddy Creek will be impacted by the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed project will result in total of 0.0156 acre of permanent fill in
surface water. In total, 125 feet of existing stream channel will be permanently impacted
by this project.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary dewatering is necessary for culvert installation. Diking
materials and methods will be determined during construction by the contractor, and will
adhere to NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities. It is anticipated that there will be 30 feet of temporary impact to Fork Muddy
for culvert installation.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 183 in McDowell County was built in 1952. The structure consists of one 36-
foot span, completely spanning Fort: Muddy Creek. The height of the structure above the
streambed is 12 feet. The structure of the existing bridge is composed of a timber deck
with bituminous wearing surface on steel girders. This structure can be removed without
dropping any of its components into Fork Muddy Creek. Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented.
Water Resources
The water resource impacted for project B-3873 is a Fork Muddy Creek. However,
according to the Marion East, N.C. Quadrangle and the FEMA flood map, this stream is
known as Young's Fork. Fork Muddy Creek is a tributary to the Catawba River. The
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies Fork
Muddy Creek as "C". Class "C" waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture.
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I,
or WS-II within 1 mile upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Fork Muddy Creek is not designated as a National Wild and Scenic River or a State
Natural and Scenic River.
Avoidance & Minimization
The construction of this project has minimized the extent of the built-upon area by using
the existing alignment for the widening. Traffic will be maintained using an off site
detour. Best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized to minimize water quality
impacts. No portion of the project is located in the critical area of the watershed. In
compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we have incorporated the use of BMP's in the
design of the project.
A culvert was chosen for this replacement due to the following constraints:
The current bridge has vertical abutments that constrict the flow of Muddy Creek. A new
bridge would have to be longer to remove these abutments, and restore the stream bank.
However, lengthening the bridge is limited by the current alignment, proximity to NC
226 and conflicts with existing driveways.
Mitigation
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of Nationwide Permits is that all
impacts to perennial streams or intermittent streams that exhibit important aquatic
function require mitigation. Therefore, the remaining unavoidable impacts to 125 linear
feet of stream will be offset by compensatory mitigation.
Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District" (MOA), it is understood that the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), will assume
responsibility for satisfying the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation
requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during
the EEP transition period which ends on June 30, 2005.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 1, the necessary compensatory mitigation to
offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water
Act will be provided by the EEP. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory
of assets already in existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit. The Department
has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four federally protected species for McDowell
County (Table 1).
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were reached for all listed species with the
exception of small whorled pogonia which was "Unresolved" as reflected in the Natural
Resources Technical Report (NRTR) dated December 16, 2002. We have updated the
survey for small whorled pogonia in July 2003. No suitable habitat was present within
the project area, resulting in a biological conclusion of "No Effect."
Table 1. Federall -Protected S ecies for McDowell Count
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological conclusion
o turtle Clenunvs muhlenber ii T(S/A) /A
Bald Eagle aliaeetus leucoce halus T No Effect
Mountain olden heather udsonia montana T No Effect
mall whorled o onia lsotria medeoloides T o Effect
KEY:
Status Definition
T - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range."
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of Fork Muddy Creek
will be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction
Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide
Permit 33 authorizing the temporary dewatering of Fork Muddy Creek. All other aspects
of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests
that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages
2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3403 and
3366 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are
providing five copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be requested prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy
of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT
requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
Please see enclosed Pre-Construction Notification form, permit drawings, Categorical
Exclusion, Natural Resources Technical Report, and Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Acceptance Letter.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Michael Turchy at [e-mail] or
[phone].
Sincerely,
r; s Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E. (Div. 13), Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan (Div. 13), DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Ms. Karen Capps, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
16
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ini
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thome, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page I of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 183 on SR 1737 over Fork Muddy Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3873
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Marion
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): SR 1737 Between NC 226
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 39'50"N, 81 ° 58'28"W Marion East
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Fork Muddy Creek/ Young's Fork
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:
Residential
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Bridge
replacment project with a culvert, heavy construction equipment will be used in the removal
and construction of the new structure.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a structurally obselete structure.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No previous permits issued for this project.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
There are no future plans for this project with the exception of those described above.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The installation of the culvert will
result in 0.0156 acre of permanent fill and 125 of permanent stream channel impact. There
will be temporary impacts with the dewaterin? of Fork Muddy Creek with the installation of
a 125 foot culvert.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
"Type of Wetland***
No Weiland impacts

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year []oodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local tloodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at httn://www.f'cma.,nv.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: None
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secif )
See Cover Letter

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
Page 4 of 8
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs. 'ov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.e., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 125
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name
Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
No open water impacts

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Traffic will be controlled urine an off-site detour, which will allow replacement in the
current in project footprint. The length of the culvert has also been reduced to the fullest extent
possible.
Page 5 of 8
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strmgide.htm1.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
EEP has accepted 125 feet of stream mitigation (see attached EEP acceptance letter
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 125 feet
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Page 6 of 8
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Lone 1 extends out A feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 8
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
None
L L
pplicant/Agent's Signature D Ate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

tL ' L' NI) PROJECT
221
MARION
- Ft
?\ um 2263
221 t. '
[8 61
A nRANT W r+ 21 \ s;.
NCDOT
VICINITY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?/ MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871901 (B-3873)
MAPS YOUNG'S FORK MUDDY CREEK
ON HWY SR1737 BETWEEN NC226
SHEET ' OF 03 / 18 / 04
NORTH CAROLINA
Ai
1 rZ: :•i )•r ,
\
?Lh ;N 1 t
-. v? r .rar.1
v ,„.,?:,? ??'i ,•,? ?,.;: :? Tit ? ' `;?\ f ? \3 i. I
wv ?? .?1. of 'x .?, "'HI: i?-•i ?/1'? ?%.• n 'li c.^??[,1 ?. ??:Ilc..? •<rtv„c??'_
r ?? {,,•• ? w.o'?-"Z'-?.?.u.?'E'T'? ,s. .k tL .k ,11 { ? •? y j :_ .3
!-J• t: F? i 1+ , „? 1y?{`f?'-11'1 I?' \\? ^} 1 J rvr rr„?k f/ ' ?
r??3i?_fr
D,..':
1[ 1\ / i i r r 1
1 ? C?y ! !r C _I •? r //J( f r I : f? /r r? ; s ?r l 3? (l ? ?\.
'?h` !!? ??j? ?r^, ?,.? ???-(??..' 1 1`' 11 tj ...i 1 If 1 ?• 11 .??? ! 1 it ?±; J 1?? .
?ri' :<? ???? y ?t' ?? 1.' ,? ??..++ \ '`` _r?11i ?• r - ? -?l ? ?. 'l: ? 1 t ti ? f.. { r,..
. Ham' `• ? ? ?/ 1'' ?f ?? ?.w:t4' i y?'? \ TZ? r,?? 1 ? J t d ?1 +'"??1'\? ?if ? .6. i.
?' R i f I j t ?`l.'?`r ? 1 .; ? CP7, ^Kp ^ ? l w'? • I 1 ? { u 1 ? CS r / . ?? ? 1'/ I { { l.. ti
x'? ?. ) ':-'J?' r r 1 1 t_ ?. ? +J"" +:?t+? 1?i +'' /,? a:, ,? ? ? J? V J. / 1 ?I`il{! ?I ??ffrt 'T ..
74(;,?i^? - r •l4 {'ff }1. [ f ?I 'jr? t 1 ' M; („J ?: 1 ??. I i , ?'%. t 1•L rr )
} AZT-??•?.t'' ?4[+. ,? !- ?f j ?? //?? ? -?? ?;. ? ?`? I:>'Z7 y??\.// •i its !?{ 1 ''{? lil 1?`7? f «--"
1) J"ti wi 7 Cn 1?. t 1 11
4 f ' ? '?"?f ?? t ti• y'? i ?•? j r lb ?'• ? ^?', ? '1 ? ?1 fi ?? r I + - t ;
lliJ
.? -. f., .rJ,,r ? -In ?? '. ?f ??e r\. r 1 1?Gr 1\ 1 ;11 r+J /Jil` TJ4
r. ? '•- ? I r 'r 1 1 1 ? ? -D 1 ? ?t? - ? , t ?''• I ... r. ! : 1 r .
' ,- r " ? 1 1 . ,lll' Y ?°' : i ?: ? ?`,.?? ! ? ? ?`L?-.i ? ? •?_S j + 'rq"Sah? ..
di I1 t ITE /
1y
P A? , 1 ?• I [ _ f i? f t if_lr ,?1 rr, F>
rr_i ?'ryY. `,a•..I., ff 1 ,,f'. ,,, 1( ``?(iil??t ?`?'" l.?r?.f? 1??,, -,?1?,,,J t +? ?}Z ??1? „?r'..
' / j IJI? fr/?i l?^? sr?~\:t a ;?I\? t faJitl;, ?`
`' ? _ i I C, "? (? ? ? 'ti ? 1 f _ - -•? - i?,?? II Wy!'`ti • !`v?i??? xt J x` ? `i % ?l ?S? +• / :.s f ? Z'6• .
-IV
- ? lit.c ?1 i ? ?i l •- ^S i17i? . }-` `?f t'J /??A ?' f` ?" L ?? 1? ?` ',
> rf r i•rt rr \\ 3'?: S a :. e!! /t C?rpej3{Ip`
r. ,?r•.i f Y? i? i7 1 1 1 ,
cn,
• '. 1 F ? ?-^ f J ? i`_'. } lP? ';•1} f? f 1? J r .? l j t ?4 `,,' ?L.?l?.,? ? _ ? •.e -:?J? f ? ?.
f ,1 i ii 1 - ?L' r .r { r _ ? U n.?if, s•'???1 ?..---. It i ?/ /.''? -(-, `? - ?? ?-• " ?Ir, •-
?•' ?i ff ?•.? t'. ?? ? ?t f " ? ?1., ?\?/? ?141? /r.l?"? ^-•+Z'. tl?}??i .,/ } = `1?Lw_„Q•y'.'? a.` ?f' ,? -?
r
S J 1 ? J?
' !rl 1? r ti k ? L^ (,'•./ \ If ? +trll?? :? 111t k (t `?. _ J? ( ??: ?{ ? ? ?c?? -,
,1 j1,?;e+? ',/(> _ ,.J( ?? t'3'`I 4_`_''? ?'?` ?i \`• I ?1 ???r\ ?5?, ; J,?l •( \I?
1r' ? %? t ? i ? ,•t ? ? ?•f sP•. t ??\?` r /?; 1 1 f j! ? .? \ ?? r .,?'i. 11 i, i /
• l
'.Q?? 13? ! '.r r -? '[r! ,, rr1 t`t? ?i?/?`J?f t , ,,r !? - /4} ?! J. .7 /--.. ._? ? I
! r r ,• 1? l ? ..?iJ 1 ? ` -,: 7 1 i 7 ?J, ?f 1 ?p'3- i ? \1 ? 1 ? `t f.J?.? { L`? `,r/e ,. ? ' :: ;, `. ? :L1 ?. _ +`f?
•-?,- I b:.,`?_ ,'? 1. ,?-?., r. :,f ,.../,f _1. 27:k til r1?..+1 ? ,S1 S?j j_,?._L f;.:!r 1ry.- /?1' 2? ?. - !?_?
NCDOT
VICINITY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ll MCDOWELL COUNTY
MAPS PROJECT: 8.2871901 (B-3873)
YOUNG'S FORK MUDDY CREEK
ON HWY SR1737 BETWEEN NC226
HEET OF 03/ 18/ 04

a
8m a

I- » b
- - / YG
\ 5 /
I ?
/
/ I
I
I
I
.? l
I ?
O i
/ q
15
e

• j ?d v
/
, o

/o
M
i
r ?I.•8

\1.
\I`
£a ("Vt
o \.

m
W

S?
? G
O
O
/ -
_..j
j%

SNOISAU
i
m
a
a
U
I

3
O

a
ti
O
Wp
4
a
7
K
J j`Y
1 ?

d
CJ
/
o
1
z ?
'--W
J I-
?Q
U- 3
? W
W V
F- a
o I-`-
zn
W n
o?

c??0 \ \ c
V ,
V J \ ?
N n Q
w w u
o o>
' M D
V
otf -in
W
cr a a
a
/' v0
/ N
/ w
I /
I ?
I /
1 / w
5
a
/ i w c
/ N K
J
/
Ilk
J N
uw
TDB
•a
? ? 91
1
/4t? 1
/ 4 p
W U-
/4 ?
? O
?, of ; TaE-?
PO
?(((
r ?
1
o
Tuu
F?
Q
N
N
`\ tD
// ? ZIr
W
p J
u J Q
N lL 3
\ N u
4LD \ ~LL-
O Ir
O
W
9 O ?
O
N
O
O
to
II
w
J
?n a
N U
N
O
N
O
Ln
O
J
_J
N
O O ?
J
Ll-
N
QOM
?p J
+ Qtni "
N =
F-,IZ
DO ??7-
U WQ
~ m Y >
< U V)LLi
N
N
O x
L
M
O
O
O
LCD 11.278.62

O

a
\ ? N
W
O
W > V)
O
to
0 0 0
Ifl lD U1
N N N
O
Ul
N
O
O
Ln
n
T
Lil
J
Ln Q
N U
N
1 IL
?o
\ ,n w a
v 1 IN > 0

to
N
Z
c ?
J
w J
a
°
-
(A o
3
I
fl o
w
L
T
O +1
a
O I
I ui
I
N
N I 2
3
1257.69 0
o

?- , 0

1
N
\

x ?
J
?
o
I' I 2
1 V
1? I
i x ' Z
z ??
N
?

j C,
/? 1 w
I o?

, \ I ?
a
I r
\

it Ld
m
O

J

' I I I J a Q
°
LLJ
I II I NI Cn ? 's
I 1 C13 Ld

/
\ Lj
w
?- w
= CO
0
W J
w 3
J J
M Co J
Q Q
I< 3
ao
Ln w
4
C?
v w
?- O 1
N O Z
Z Q
n p ?1
Jcw
_
WN
N ?
S

ti r ? I ???v I
C7 ? I ?
1 ?fI ?
N
r -I
r ti J
N W
/ I to
1 ?
II
/? / U I J T
O ' IW U')
3 N
N
/ °o_
/ o
U
W
x
w
0
N
F- o
L z
Y O
Z
a0
co
J
LL Q
O? 3
O

O
CL?-

?z J
LL-

O
Lr) o o Ln
- N ' co
N -
°
1/
-J
V = Q C'
.N4
z?
N
O C6
v

m? '
?D
iD
N

N

22 O
O LLa N ti O
Q O N J W N
222 O
-
O w a ?
_I
J 1-z L
/ J
N ZW
Z ?.
222
N ?/ O
O N
3 v Z
_j a IM ?. Z

/ L O
p ,, rl N?
w
-?
1O'^
L
~ / I N CD P-
a .,. (D
u,
.L

W
'

L

N

L n

C\j
0

Z La

°? 22
N 1 !
J N 12.E iv co
11
00 _
F
-Ln li ` ((
O
_
+
N ? M
N O
O
O Z
Z L, Igo--? Q
Om ~ V W
Q?Y> \
N 0O
F- N N J P vi

X N
O 22 2 O
'
"' I 1 2 22
I 1 - .- o
I 1 22
2 N
ti
O I 1 ""
w O
O I / 2 22 Q

I /
2 N Z
22
v w

N
/ °

O -Z 0
Y O LC)
Y O

zx z x

<0
-
<0

m co
J
J
LLa LI-
O?
ocr a?=-
a?-
oa oa
?-z
?z
x
r?
0
PlIv,
0
O
t.N
0
0
Ln
it
T
w
J
Ln Q
N U
N
0
Ln

n

N
C
p
Z
O v

to ri U
Q

L _ r
? Q
a
O 7
m
d 2
j L LL
Q
0: LL
F- O m 3 LL F-

L LLJ
LL Z N N w
O O U m =

=3
N
C
U F- (n U a U)

(n

C
O
co CL - .v
w ? o
ooa
U p
Z co
m

c

a
C?
C? d
Im
m

cn C:

co

? E c

O d N ?
Z to O

H N ? Q` N N
C .
w U E

a
W
Q d (? U
E
fO

W
U
Q

N m
}
7 N ?
?
U
v

a
?Z ?

_N tm
C
N C O U
;
L ra
6 L 19
....
U C) U S
a ? v
a
S
`
C N
O 'a
L
f I "' ? 19

U U
? v m

w
? w c
D. o
z

? Q
N
Z J
J = ?
11'
ri.
E 6
w F- c:

N
C
_ f
0 U
LL
U
m
? v
a U
cr

U ? (V
? Ql X

O
O ?

O N

_y p J
Q
(n Z
O
Z O O O

O
2rn V x p0
N O

PARCEL NO. PROPERTY 07WNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES ADDRESSES
OI RANDY LEE GRANT PO.BOX343
MARION NC. 28752
O WNC PALLET & PO.BOX 38
FOREST PRODUCTS CO.INC. CANDLER NC.28715
O JANICE R. STEVENSON 1405 HWY.226 S.
MARION NC. 28752
4O P. BRADFORD LAIL 210 JACKTOWN RD.
MARION NC. 28752
O5 MICHAEL VAN BRANCH 216 JACKTOWN RD.
MARION NC 28752
1V ` DOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MCDOWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2871901 (B-3873)
YOUNG'S FORK MUDDY CREEK
ON HWY SR1737 BETWEEN NC226
SHEET OF q 04 / 08 / 04

?a

t;
V

00
m m m

r
^ cl cl

v
,
t ? M
g Cj c
n
r
a
o A
M M
1
?-+ O U
N
O
L
O

L
0
x
O
I o
Q
V)
vi
i
'IT
E8 GVN
rLy ?? o?
at ``? ?:bo
M
as
U
W
ti
0
A?
1?1
F
a
W
o?
Q
e» avr,
'Ad \
1 a
qp.
1
_ ?_ WW z
A , 1 O 1?
T
at rzJ? -
'. C7 -* CRECR

i?
z
I I
0
h
Co
M
1
p
U
W
O
H
C7
W
i
W
O
O
C
IHI^
V/
0
clf
LLA
cee
W
m
J
J
3
Z
O
E
6
0
W
dx.
Z
U
W
t
y ?
y? ce ?
ow h? ?
h y
4 4
r
i w
W q
e
3
W
a?
lL L
o ? W?
m
Cti ? W 3 t;
? tt? q
O
$ a
N in
bbQ J
O
w
N N
[.? N
° ?.
}
~ N
A °a D
m W
W U-
n °•
c 0 ?
o if
c
II ^ o
G7 ?
G? ?.. op
W p
a a ti
a o
w F per,
o`?z
x?w
F
Wwo
..a .a F"
co
oo ae 3° Q
CD W) tn
0
in 'I N
'Z II II II II 11 II ao
LL] '
N N
0 o n
h a _
Vj y O o ode
V g = w
o o o U.
?0 r=cee
V 14'.'.1 a.
x_17 L"
[IL- FU ?f-? *.Il3Hll?Y?'l dll 9160OLL?) <.,??16'?'LILI?
ysi•? fig; ..a?i',?.7. ;,:

0
m
r
LU
w
t
? I
L ?
0 0
r?
f
r
.1 1
-
w
? a
r? y
O
.2' II
O u?
z
J
0
W
O
V
i
0 0 0 's i ? 71 ©®® ? n i O? ?? 0 0? b O (] O© z?? g ? 0
Ld
? W v
y j 0
v
m : 0
Ld j W p n ui p aY
ari H ? U j ? C;
I p U v 3 c j
c ° p ° u an -
° j :7 c o n v c o p
v 7 = a u 0 0 o o c I x J 0 0
v O p D U ` 00 , p J S c ` 4 d N ?i m O p w
0 3 0 o c u. o U o o a ° o d o m° o U O? v c
s T U. 0 V rY V O N ` LL C v p O
O In O O wwz .. N ° N ..c O m e ° m u
i5 41 ° v o o i 3 3 Z' N N O c_i u 0 3 3 o Q
s
tC ` > -p 'D O ... t0 U 'fl •° 'O O N o q O p N -° W O m O .Y T '° O
0 p 0 U p D 3 0 0 u 0 o p o o U ?` 2` o U d° g a° O°.. J F= j C c :n c
'o 0 o p o ° D ?_ >?° _? o Q o o N m E _c ?-° F° ?? 9 0
?- O O O O u h O y N u h N u O C C O V N
w o t' i' we o We o c? we
3 3 3 3 3
v N an m o>>>>> a w
it
L4 LL!
3 W
v
C y
•? m
p?77 W to
^I C O = O o s •? c v O
a p ? o v T .o U c U , u
l? 3 c _o o T U U U
o m v w o ' T c s c s a 0
x= - s o o a°. ° 0 3 0 a o 0 s 0 EL o-C o 0 0
m0 = ° " c 0 o° ° I T 3 ao m c° 0 3 a m° o m U.
1 p a m ,n '- o m o C o 0 o U m F_• m h? 'O U.
° -a U.
U 7 a .. an J a t
-0 r_ x
c °' "' t °_ °; w 3 r ?' u o O m m m a° U o
c c 0 p m ._u 3 ?ti a°. °. _o o v © a Q Li; o a? v n
nC u oZ o V v °rn ? N N o o 7 1= o ° o o Z t Q c° c c O G ° ° O
"'VVV m o C 0 o m Q °° Q °°°
°i oa •° J C: 0 c ??u p ° ° o o `m a' ° ccio = o a a a 1- ao ao -° ao
C C Z U p2 O 2 0 0 0 LL. °- Oa O O O o u u 'y
m m T a U. ? aL N N O a a? a s a. a. T we D w t? a` FQ Fp- ?-° 7 w p w D WID
? } I I I V I I I I I ? ? I I ? ??
? .a ? I ( I I I I I ? a
A } I ? V x? •? W ? 4 6 I I V ? 4I ? ? ? ? 9 y,,? ,J
f ? ? I C I IV' ? I c, I=
?' ? ? I V I I I `' I I ? ? I I a
E c
..C t 0 W W E ' '?-
N °
`m y 2 0 0 w °. V
o c° c° o .5 .c S E o
0 c T 7 u p o o = v U i. ° o
`c_ o o a o v Q o U?? j E o v
° -'a, 3 Q p g
'p p p 3 30 3 p Q p j ?• C C O .O s m -- D
vj d o a 3 3 0 o U o tj o o c o o c c° N in U>; 'o o U o
aA a D ° o o c •. o° 0. a°° o o m w C7 O o 0 o O
oA p v cO s -C ° s v " c E E E€€ a°° LL .°
° o -0 h
Vr CO C O ao oe a a O U° f°- a s °' o° o a .0 0 F s
U a a G. O U W W U N i/f .... l9 V N ace m t
C C .° 4 Y V O ?o U W a q 0 ?cr p o m
° ° E N c N
N
N C N
N ?I N N W`, N VI N V N ^I n
v O Vi p 5 c o 0 0 0 0 c 0 5 0 0 0 o?I c .5 0 0 o c o ?
c o E V' m o C
CL a
c N N r_, ti - flu a ?- a a a a N a a a
L r, a a a m oa as .° o p
0 3 p O O O O x O O O O O O O O p O O cr b C C Q O .. c
N 2? N am o? m a2f ;5 n. a m a a a a a Ra' aIf 1S n. a n. U tIS a 5 D. LLa a in in T 3 0>
'' !I ? x III
I I ?.. ?W © x ? r 4
l( II I ? ?I
o °
.0 TO 0. u C O 0 0
aL p v m E
? u.
E 0 m
w o v o
p c ° m c?-0 .° c o 0
ii `m E u 0 5 p c° d oa m
c
c T p c E as °u o s a -° o t o 0
m c 0 3 ° U p v U. m 3 U m? 3 ap c c
> T
c? a p .- LT N •v •v -° W W
v
c '? i7 O O C p C C C
0 a 0. n` a a n r_'a a Tn
p t( x x x
N U F-° V a O`. a` n°. ai ai o`. x aL W W x
v
s
C
0 ?
q ?
e ?
o
r ?, c
j °
c c
0. o
E c
o O 0 w s
a L q c - O C O E v 05E
rqU N 3 W d, 5 V m an U?
III' i ?e
Ljl?l?
p m
0
64 m o m 3 c 0 9 a
D
E m Q. a
° a ° p ° N
p o ` O0
p p O O .C O a n
N T U. ? N O
N ai LL°.
0
M
N
O
N
10

r
M
r-
N
r
a. co 1*. %0 to v
M I I C I I 'N" I I N I I N I 101 I N
O
M
N
r-
O
N
N
r
O
r
a

• t
r f
MCDEM
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
October 4, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Subject: Project: Bridge Replacement, Fork Muddy Creek, SR 1737
TIP#: B-3873, McDowell County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
you in a letter dated September 29, 2004, the impacts are located in CU 3050101 of the Catawba
River Basin in the Northern Mountains Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 125 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The ecosystem enhancement for the subject project
will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3873
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 NorthCarollina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/ ;Vattzrally
MCDEVAR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 4, 2004
Ms. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:)
B-3873, Bridge 183 over Fork Muddy Creek on SR 1737, McDowell
County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 3050101); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1,250 feet of stream preservation at a 10:1 ratio for the 125 feet of
unavoidable stream impacts associated with the subject project. The preservation site that will
be debited for this mitigation is:
Little Tablerock (Avery, Mitchell, and McDowell Counties) . 1,250 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
l ??L? .mss
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3873
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3873
State Project No. 8.2871901
Federal Project No. BRZ-1737(5)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace McDowell County Bridge No. 183 on
SR 1737 over Fork of Muddy Creek. The replacement structure will be a three-
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (each barrel 10 x 12 feet (3 x 3.7 meters).
The cross section will include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8-meter
grass shoulders (9-foot grass shoulders where guardrail is required). The project
length is 350 feet (107 meters). Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
25.7 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The condition of the concrete
abutments and footings has deteriorated to a point of needing major repair. In
addition, the cross section of the bridge does not conform to modern standards.
For these reasons Bridge No. 183 has been programmed for replacement.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
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
9- 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
3O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
2
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D
Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 375,000
Right of Way $ 53,000
Total $ 428,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1200
Year 2025 - 1800
TTST - 2%
Dual - 4%
Accidents: In a check of a recent three-year period, no accidents have been
reported in association with the bridge.
Design Speed: The speed limit is not posted along this route. Therefore, statutory
55 mph (90 kph) is assumed. The design speed for the project is 60 mph (100
kph).
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Busses: The School Transportation Director for McDowell wrote in
comments indicating that road closure does not present any problems to school
busses.
Emergency Services: McDowell County EMS has reviewed the project area and
can work around a road closure situation. They have requested notification prior
to road closure.
Division Office Comments: The Division has reviewed the project and supports
replacing the bridge with a culvert on the existing location and detouring traffic
offsite during construction. There was concern for WNC Pallet Company located
just across the bridge. In speaking with the manager of WNC, temporary closure
of the bridge does not pose a problem since the company has another way out
unaffected by this project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 183 is a single span structure with I-beams and
timber deck and reinforced concrete abutments. The abutments can be removed
without placing fill into Fork Muddy Creek. Therefore, there will be no resulting
fill from demolition.
Offsite Detour: The offsite detour utilizes SR 1737, SR 1741, and NC 226. The
average road user will travel an additional 2.2 miles per trip over a period of six
months or less.
Design Exception: There will be a design exception for both the vertical and
horizontal alignments. The vertical alignment has a design speed of 20 mph and
the horizontal alignment has a design speed of 30 mph.
3
Alternates Eliminated from Further Study
The "no-build" alternate is not feasible. If the existing bridge is not replaced,
continued deterioration will necessitate closing the bridge. Closing the bridge is
not acceptable due to the amount of traffic SR 1737 serves.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to the existing
substructure. The reinforced concrete abutments would have to be bought up to
current standards along with the need to carry additional loading from a new
deck. This is not economically feasible.
4
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been

evaluated? a
X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(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
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
5
(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? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on ?
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
6
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of ?
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ?
Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ? -
Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding a unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
X
X
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
B-3873
8.2871901
BRZ-1737(5)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace McDowell County Bridge No. 183 on
SR 1737 over Fork of Muddy Creek. The replacement structure will be a three-
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (each barrel 10 x 12 feet (3 x 3.7 meters).
The cross section will include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8-meter
grass shoulders (9-foot grass shoulders where guardrail is required). The project
length is 350 feet (107 meters). Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
4919
D to
Date
/ZZ s
Date
Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Planning U it fi'6ad
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch

4 . t * f-_i. ?,
Project Development I
Project Development &
For Type II(B) projects only:

ineer
nvironmental Analysis Branch
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
Project Commitments
Replacement of Bridge No. 183 on SR 1737 Over Muddy Creek
McDowell County
F. A. Project No. BRZ-1737(5)
State Project No. 8.2871901
T.I.P. No. B-3873
There are no project specific commitments at this time.
PDEA
August 2003
V&-eur
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Division of Highways
C4 _J Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 183 on SR 1737
Over Fork Muddy Creek
B-3873
SCALE: 1 in = M mi Figure 1 I
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #183
OVER FORK MUDDY CREEK
MCDOWELL COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3873
State Project No. 8.2871901
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1737(5)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
JERRY A. PARKER
DECEMBER 12, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................4
1.4 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................4
1.5 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATOR ...............................................................4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................5
2. I SOILS ........................................................................................................................5
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................5
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics .....................................................................6
2.2.2 Water Quality ..................................................................................................6
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification ...............................................................................6
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .......................................................................................................8
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .............................................................................9
3.1.1 Alluvial Forest Community ............................................................................9
1.2 Maintained/Disturbed Areas ..........................................................................9
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ...................................................................................10
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ........10
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..............................................................................11
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ..................................................................................11

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL. TOPICS ..........................................................................................12
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: .......................................................................12
4.1.1 Impacts to wetland and surface water ............................................................12
4. 1.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams ..................................................12
4. 1.3 Impacts from bridge demolition ..................................................................... 13
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimalization and Mitigation ...................................................14
4.1.5 Permits ..........................................................................................................14
5.0 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ...........................................................................14
5.1 FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................15
5.2 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN ....................................................................18
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................20
TABLES
Table 1. - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities...........
Table 2. - Federally Protected Species for McDowell County
Table 3. - Federal Species of Concern for McDowell County
FIGURES
..........................................11
..........................................15
..........................................19
Figure 1. - Project Vicinity Map .....................................................................................................4
Figure 2. - Aerial Photograph of Project Study Area ......................................................................5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the replacement of Bridge No. 183 on
SR 1737 (TIP B-3873) in McDowell County (Figure 1).
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes the replacement of Bridge No. 183 over Fork Muddy Creek on
SR 1737 (Figure 2). It should be noted that on the McDowell County map and Bridge
Maintenance records the stream is known as Fork Muddy Creek but according to the
Marion East, NC quadrangle and the FEMA flood map the stream is known as Youngs
Fork. It should also be noted that the Division of Water Quality refers to Youngs Fork as
Coperning Creek in many oftheir reports and data listings.
The bridge was constructed in 1952 and has an overall length of 36 feet. It is a single
span bridge and consists of a timber and steel beam deck resting on vertical concrete
abutments with an asphalt overlay. The width of the bridge deck is 20.2 feet. The width
of the existing roadway approaching the bridge is 19.2 feet which lies within an
approximate 60 foot right of way measured from ditch line to ditch line. The proposed
right of way will be a 40-foot corridor with an estimated project length of 500 feet. The
streambed lies approximately 12 feet below the low cord of the steel support girder.
Land use adjacent to the project area is mostly residential or undeveloped along the
stream banks. However, a lumber plant does exist immediately northwest of the bridge.
The NC Department of Transportation proposes to replace the bridge in the same
location and roadway grade as the existing bridge with three 10' X 12' reinforced
concrete box culverts (RCBC) with debris deflectors. Only one build alternative is being
considered for this project. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
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 that 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.
3
v C')
x
1806
'
. 1736
06
\
1830 1738 1749
\
"?? \ CT O 40 1 i

- - I

1830 04
I 1737
12
i ?
o

.03
d0

Y \ r+l 1 809
'
N
?j
1737

\v\\\?`?
221
W
11
1 7 1751 A
1 3 1738 .05 10

- - w
w
15
1811
1740 32

1 165 20 , 4?v
1741
6p 1256
I O

Bridge No. 38 ..._.-_..-
O^ creek 1742 c?S

1255 1825
221 "1
1165 A p
,
• ,
1819:'
1262 1165 i? S9
•
' ?p '.
3
3 1832.
1819 _'
1306 14

? •
"per `• 1828

. N
North Carolina Dept of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
McDowell County
Replace Bridge No. 183 on SR 1737
Over Fork Muddy Creek
B-3873
SCALE: 1 in = 0 mi Figure 1
i • 90,
1739

l
Iw !r"

>.4 cs 41
? ?
cU JA P, V G,t y
4 r, I t' 1

1I'
1
n?
4 tli
G
1
t' 1 M M

r 1 1
., U
t
? .
Gs
E I
„tt PA ly- ':.: (tf 'in tl ?: ?+1 t

.r
r 1 f?;t

a tly 6161 ?@tui "?.,,,.
Af .i
li
k?
it
10
a eIf
` FT.
F a , A
?A p blki
f
m

z
VIT F111F,
t
.,1 ,
. ?? tq ras
,. 1
• r4'. • ?rtY. , i
t
'y$'uu y Jd, ? it w?.1 kY:
1
t t ?t
u l 1 t1 ? 1?r t??l? ? A ?'Td 4 ! ar ? Cr ,' J
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in the
pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Marion East), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory Maps (from GIS/Arcview), information from Department of Agriculture Soil
Survey (McDowell County), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the NC: Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 1998). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the
US Fish and Wildlife Service list of protected species and species of concern (March 7,
2002), and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (July 1999).
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists, Jerry Parker, Elizabeth Lusk and Matt Haney, on August 14, 2002. 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, and identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 DEFINITIONS
Definitions for aerial descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending 0.5 miles on all sides of the project study area; and Project
Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with
the project occupying the central position.
1.5 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Jerry A. Parker, Natural Systems Specialist, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT.
Education: B.S. Professional Biology, North Carolina A & T State University, 1975
M.S. Coastal Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 1990
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist - NC Dept. oil' Transportation, July, 2002-
present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Coastal
Management, 1994-2002
Marine Biologist 11, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, 1983-1994
Marine Biologist, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, 1978-1983
Fisheries Technician, NC Division of Marine Fisheries, 1975- 1978
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources occurring 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 central part of western North Carolina. It is a
rural area in the southeastern portion of McDowell County. The topography of the area
consists mostly of strongly sloping to very steep uplands. The project area is drained by
Muddy Creek and it's tributaries. The approximate elevation above mean sea level of the
project area is 1257 feet.
2.1 SOILS
Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of
flora and fauna in any biotic community. This section describes the soil characteristics of'
the project study area."
According to the General Soil map (MRCS, 1995), the project study contains soils
from the Iotla land association which are characterized as being sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, and occasionally flooded. The map unit consists mainly of very deep,
somewhat poorly drained, nearly level Iotla and similar soils on flood plains adjacent to
streams."
The NRCS defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated, flooded or ponded long
enough during the growing season to develop anerobic conditions in the upper part of the
soil. Such soils usually support hydrophytic vegetation. The soil survey for McDowell
County shows no mapped hydric soils within the project study area. No hydric soils were
found in the project area during the field investigation.
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 well as
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Resource Characteristics
Fork Muddy Creek is a perennial tributary within the 03050101 hydrologic unit of the
Catawba River Basin. The creek flows southeast through the project area. The reported
base width of the creek is 33 feet with a top width of 50 feet. The reported overall depth
is 8ft to 15ft with a normal depth of flow of one foot. On the day of the field
investigation, the water depth within the creek was approximately 0.5 to 1.0 feet deep.
The water was clear and the stream bottom was visible. The bottom substrate consisted
of sand, large gravel and cobbles.
2.2.2 Water Quality
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a basinwide approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide approach
allows for more intensive sampling of biological, chemical and physical data that are
used in basinwide assessment and planning. Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos
(mostly aquatic insects that live at least part of their life cycle on the bottom substrate of
rivers and streams) have been shown to be very sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality. The overall species richness and presence of these indicator organisms help to
assess the health of streams and rivers. So it follows that the use of benthos data has
proven to be a reliable tool when assessing the cleanliness of streams. Polluted streams
result in the elimination of intolerant Benthic macro invertebrates which are replaced by
more tolerant taxa. The DWQ has developed criteria which is used to assign
bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample based on
the number of taxa present in the more intolerant orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies). The DWQ refers to this method of
sampling as EPT sampling and has also developed different criteria for different
ecoregions (mountains, piedmont and coastal) in North Carolina. EPT sampling stations
are located across the state. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes
in water quality and to facilitate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit review.
The Division of Water Quality does not maintain an EPT sampling station within
three miles of the project area.
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) assigns streams a best usage classification
based on the intended uses of the waters. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) assigns
streams a best usage classification based on the intended uses of the waters. Fork Muddy
Creek has a Class C rating (NCDENR-DWQ 1998), indicating the creek's suitability for
aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary
recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary recreation or as a source of
water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and estuarine
water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and
chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters that are
collected is determined by the classification of the waterbody (freshwater or saltwater)
and corresponding water quality standards. There are no AMS stations located within 1.0
mile of the project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
NPDES Program. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. There are no
permitted NPDES dischargers located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater flow or through no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land
use activities that can serve as sources of non-point source pollution, including land
development, construction, crop production, animal feedlots, failing septic systems,
landfills, roads, and parking lots. Sediments and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off
the ground and carried into surface waters. The non-point sources that could be
identified during the site visit were runoff from SR 1737 and from adjacent parking areas.
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Fork Muddy Creek will be the only stream that will be impacted by the proposed
project. Within the permanent right-of-way, approximately 36 linear feet of stream will
be impacted by the installation of the RCBC.
The greatest impact to water resources in the project study area will be at the stream
crossing, which will require vegetation clearing and fill placement in and/or around the
streambed and floodplain. The replacement of the bridge with a box culvert will result in
permanent alteration of the streambed and could diminish the movement of aquatic
species through avoidance of the structure or by removing possible habitat for benthic
organisms. These impacts should diminish over time if substrate begins to accumulate in
the culvert. Short-term impacts include erosion and sedimentation of the streambed,
which may occur during construction activities. Other adverse affects may include
degradation of water quality, disturbance of the stream bottom, alterations of water levels
and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow, and
increased turbidity during construction. Highly turbid waters can result in oxygen
depletion, coating of gills on fish, incapacitation and potential death of filter feeding
organisms, changes in light incidence and water clarity, and interference with spawning
activities. The installation of a box culvert can significantly diminish fish and other
aquatic animal movements. Impacts are especially detrimental to the less mobile benthic
organisms. Many fish may exhibit an avoidance response and leave the immediate area.
Impacts to water quality will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT's "Best
Management Practice for Protection of Surface Waters" (June 1991). In addition, a
detailed sediment and erosion control plan consisting of best management practices
should be developed for the project. Sedimentation and erosion can be reduced through
sediment controls such as retention/detention basins, limits on the extent of disturbed
areas, turbidity curtains, and discharging stormwater over vegetated buffers. Cut and fill
areas should be slope graded appropriately and vegetated promptly. Best management
practices to control non-point source pollution will aid in delaying the entry of hazardous
material spills into the stream.
This project consists of replacing a deficient bridge with a reinforced concrete box
culvert. The new structure is proposed to be placed at the same location and roadway
grade as the existing bridge. Capacity, traffic patterns and access improvements are not a
part of the project's scope of work. Thus, changes in the patterns of development and/or
land uses in the vicinity of the bridge project would not be anticipated as stemming from
the bridge's replacement. This type of project is not anticipated to alter the existing land
uses or increase accessibility to adjacent parcels. Thus, a detailed cumulative impacts
study would not be needed.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic 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 and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. 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. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted by an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area through aerial
interpretation and field observation conducted on August 14, 2002. The communities
identified include an alluvial forest community and maintained/disturbed areas. A
photographed image of the project study area is shown on Figure 2.
3.1.1 Alluvial Forest Communities
Within the project study area, forested communities occurred along the northeast and
southwest banks of Fork Muddy Creek from SR 1737. These somewhat disturbed forests
consist of river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and white oak
(Quercus albs) as overstory dominants. Understory and ground cover species
composition include saplings of the overstory dominants mixed with red maple (Ater
rubrum), privet (Ligustrum sinense), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), smartweed (Polygonum spp), and kudzu (Pueraria lobata).
Alluvial forests provide food, shelter, foraging and nesting resources for a relatively
diverse population of wildlife. These areas may be particularly suited to wildlife
diversity when they act as an ecotone adjacent to maintained/disturbed areas. Terrestrial
faunal species are likely to exploit all communities as shelter and foraging resources or as
movement corridors.
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed Areas
Maintained/disturbed areas are present in the project study area along the maintained
right-of-way for SR 1737 and along the southeast and northwest shoreline of Fork Muddy
Creek. Dominant vegetation include fescue (Festuca sp.), crab grass (Digitaria sp.) and
golden rod (Solidago spp). The northwest shoreline is mostly void of vegetation,
inundated with fill and utilized as a parking area.
Mammals likely to inhabit forested areas include the gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana) The transitional areas are likely to be inhabited by the
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), woodchuck* (Marmota monax), and many
varieties of small rodents such as field mice (Peromyscus sp.)and voles (Microtus spp).
Common reptiles and amphibians likely to be found in these type forested
communities include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), wood frog (Rana sylvatica), and redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus). In
addition to these species, the black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern garter snake
(Thannophis sirtalis), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix) are likely to be found in
the transitional areas.
Avian species likely to be found in these forested communities include the blue jay
(Cvanocitta cristata), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpas carolinus), tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),. The common crow (Corvus
brachrhynchos), American robin (Turdis migratorius ), and American kestral (Falco
sparverius) are most likely to be found in the transitional areas.
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
This category typically includes streams and waterbodies within a project study area.
Fork Muddy Creek is the only stream within the study area. It is described in detail in
Section 2.2.
No intensive fish or aquatic organism surveys were performed on the stream.
However, during a cursory visual survey, an abundant number of small fish were
observed within the stream north of SR 1737 and dobsonfly larvae were observed on the
underside of stones within the streambed south of SRI 737. According to the WRC,
typical fish species that are likely to inhabit such areas include the creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), common sucker (Catostomas commersoni), longnose dace (Rhinichthys
cataractae), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atractulus), and rock bass (Ambloplites
rupestris). During a scoping meeting on May 4, 2000, it was stated that the NC Wildlife
Resource Commission (WRC) has reviewed the project plans and has no special
concerns.
Common benthic invertebrates found in such communities would include stoneflies,
caddisflies, and crayfish (Cambarus spp.) In addition to these invertebrate species, the
pickeral frog (Rana catesbiana), mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus
ochrophaeus), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) are likely to occur within the
stream as well.
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Construction of the proposed bridge 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. Table 1 shows
the impacts for the proposed project within the permanent right-of-way. Estimated
10
aquatic impacts are based on the proposed bridge structure. Estimated terrestrial impacts
are based upon a project length of 500 ft and a ROW width of 80 ft. These impacts are
derived using the entire proposed right of way width; however, project construction does
not usually require the entire right of way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community type Permanent
Impacts(ac)
Alluvial Forest .04
Maintained/Disturbed Area <0.01
Fork Muddy Creek .03

Total .07
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 183 will temporarily reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas suitable for the species. Due
to the relatively small size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-related
work will affect 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 (which is vital for
streambank stabilization) 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. Many of these organisms are slow to recover
or repopulate a stream.
Erosion and 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
Stages," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Section 328.3(a).
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR Section 3283(b), 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 (USACE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Fork Muddy Creek has
well defined banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into the wetland
occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction
of the USACE. Up to 36 linear feet of permanent jurisdictional surface water impacts
may occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 183. Temporary impacts may
also occur during construction.
4.1.2 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Streams
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 1-3 )0.7, hereafter referred to as the NC 2000 Section
303(d) list. The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies.
An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including
12
designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria and anti-degradation requirements defined
in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple
pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The source of impairment
could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition. Some
sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly
based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines
(EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting
(PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list.
Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the NC 2000 Section 303(d)
list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the
stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, N.C. has
developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value
and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State.
Fork Muddy Creek (Coperning Creek), from The Town of Marion WTTP to North
Muddy Creek in McDowell County, is listed as biologically impaired water in Part 5 of
the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list. Part 5 contains biologically impaired waterbodies with
no identified cause of impairment. Roughly half of the waters on the list appear on
Part 5. Identification of the cause(s) of impairment will precede movement of these
waters to Part 1 (impaired by a pollutant as defined by EPA) and Part 2 (impaired by
pollution as defined by EPA). EPA recognized that in specific situations the data is not
available to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) and that these specific waters
might be better place on a separate part of the NC 2000 Section 303(d) list (64 FR,
46025, August 23, 1999). Data collection and analysis will be performed in an attempt to
determine a cause of impairment. According to DWQ, the listing is historical for
"sediment" based on biological impairment. Potential Sources are urban runoff and
storm sewers. The priority for value and benefits of this stretch of Fork Muddy Creek is
low. Because the proposed road improvement project may contribute to the source of
impairment it may be necessary to conduct an Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis
of the project to the health of this stream.
4.1.3. Impacts from Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 183 has a timber deck on steel 1-beams resting on vertical concrete
abutments. There is the potential for spans of the bridge deck to be dropped into the
water during removal of this bridge. Removal of the vertical abutments may result in as
much as 30 cubic yards of concrete being temporarily placed in waters of the United
States. All temporary fill material will be removed from Fork Muddy Creek as soon as
possible as part of the bridge removal process. The project engineer has also stated that
care and creativity on the part of the contractor may significantly reduce the total amount
of temporary fill.
13
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, mitigation will not be
required. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters
will be implemented, as applicable, to minimize adverse impacts to surface waters.
4.1.5 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). A Nationwide Permit No. 23 may be required by the USACE for
Categorical Exclusion's due to the expected minimal impacts. Nationwide Permit No. 33
may also be required for temporary construction access. It will be up to the USACE to
determine the applicability of Nationwide Permit No. 23 for this project. Depending upon
the decision by the USACE, a Nationwide Permit No. 23 may be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project.
McDowell County is one of the 25 counties designated as having trout waters.
Projects in these trout water areas must be reviewed and approved by the WRC prior to
issuance of the USCOE permit. Also, Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to the waters of the Unites States prior to issuance of
USACOE permits. Nationwide permits 23, 33 and General Permit No. 198200031
require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the NCDEM before certification can be
issued.
Foundation investigations may be required on this project. The investigations will
include test borings in soil and/or rock for on-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams.
5.0 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject
to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws. Rare and protected species listed for
McDowell County, and any impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction are discussed in the following sections.
14
5.1 FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of March 2,
2002, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for McDowell County
(Table 2). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat requirements
follows.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for McDowell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle Threatened (S/A)
Haliaeetus leucoceplalus Bald eagle Threatened (proposed for
delisting)
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather Threatened
Isotna medeoloides Small whorled pogonia Threatened
Threatened: A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
it's range."
Threatened (S/A): Threatened due to similarity of appearance- a species that is threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
Name: Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Status:T(S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small [three to 4.5 inches (7.6 to 11.4 centimeters)] semiaquatic turtles
that have a dark brown carapace and black plastrons. They usually exhibit distinctive
orange or yellow blotches on each side of the head and neck.
The bog turtle inhabits shallow, spring fed fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy
meadows, pastures which have soft, muddy bottoms, and clear, cool, slow-flowing water,
often forming a network of rivulets. Bog turtles inhabit damp grassy fields, bogs, and
marshes in the mountains and upper Piedmont.
The bog turtle is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7
consultation and therefore does not require a biological conclusion.
15
.. , ..
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur
elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The
body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. Immature eagles lack the
white head plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color with
blotchy white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar. Adults range in length from 27 to 37 inches and have a
wingspan ranging from 70 to 90 inches.
There are several factors that affect an eagle's selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are
found in close proximity to water (within 0.50 mi) with a clear flight path to the water, in
the largest living tree in the area, and having an open view of the surrounding land.
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests
are approximately ten feet in diameter.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the
major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
-*VFFVT 100 efrpf
Suitable open water that would provide feeding habitat for the bald eagle is not present
within one mile of the project area, therefore, nesting habitat does not exist at this site.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was reviewed on
December 12, 2002 and no records of existing bald eagle occurrences were found within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to the bald eagle should result
from project construction.

16

Name: Hudsonia montana (Mountain golden heather)
Status: Threat, s ed
Plant family: ;taceae
Date listed: October 20, 1980
Flowers Present: Late May-June
Distribution in NC: Burke, McDowell Counties
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long
stalked fruit capsules. It usually grows in clumps of 10.16 to 20.32 centimeters (4 to 8
inches) across and approximately 15.0 centimeters (6 inches) high. The leaves are
alternate and point toward the tops of the branches. The plant may be yellow-green,
especially when growing in the shade. New leaves appear in May, although dead and
brown leaves from previous years will persist on the older branches. Flowers bloom from
late May to June.
Mountain golden heather grows on gorge rim out crops, rocky summits, pine-oak/heath
ridges, rock cliffs, and shrub balds at 2,800 to 4,000 feet elevation. It typically inhabits
exposed quartzite ledges in the transition between bare rock and sandmyrtle-dominated
heath balds which merge into pine/oak forests. May survive for a while in areas shaded
by pines.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of quarzite ledges are not present in the project area. The
project area elevation of approximately 1257 feet is also considerably less than the
elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet elevations reported to be necessary for propagation. A
review of the North Carolina NHP database indicated no known occurrence of Mountain
golden heather within 1.6 km (I.Omi) of the project area. It can therefore be concluded
that this project will not affect this species.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia)
Status: Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Distribution in NC: Burke, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, McDowell,
Surry.
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a hollow
stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are
somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem.
Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
17

The small whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous
forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic
soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or
high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION UNRESOLVED
Although the project site does not contain the ideal habitat described for the existence of
small whorled pogonia, it does contain a habitat that loosely fits the description. It may
be necessary to conduct a survey before a conclusive determination of it's absence or
presence can be made.
5.2 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) 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 listed or proposed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the
status of these species is subject to change, and therefore should be included for
consideration. FSC are defined as a species that is under consideration for listing but for
which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms, which
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded
state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
There are 13 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the FWS for McDowell
County. Detailed surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were any of these species observed. A review of the NHP database of rare species and
unique habitats on August 14, 2002, revealed no federal species of concern within one
mile of the project area.
Table 3 lists the Federal Species of Concern, the species' state status and the presence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area.
18

Table 3. Federal Species of Concern For McDowell County
Scientific name Common name State
Status Habitat
Present
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR Yes
Contopus borealis Olive-sided flycatcher SC Yes
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern appalachian
woodrat SC Yes
Neotoma magister Alleghany woodrat SC Yes
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave water
slater SR No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR Yes
Carex roanensis Roan sedge SR-T Yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Hymenocallis coronaria Rocky shoal spider lily NL No
Juglans cinerea Butternut NL No
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC Yes
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap SR-T Yes
Shortia galacifolia var brevistyla Northern oconee-bells E-SC Yes
T : Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
E: Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
SC: Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws)
SR: Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended)
NL: Denotes species for which the state status is unlisted at this time
19

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L., 2002. Natural Ieritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species ot'North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Invironmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. IJ.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
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., and S. P. Hall, 2001. 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 the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill. The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. NC WRC, Raleigh.
NCDENR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina
River Basins. Raleigh.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1998. Basinwide Assessment Report, Catawba River Basin. Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DWQ. 1997. Standard Operating Procedures-Biological Monitoring.
Environmental Sciences Branch, Ecosystems Analysis Unit. Raleigh.
NCDEI-INR-DWQ. 1999. Internet Page:http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us /strmclass/alpha/
lbr.html. Raleigh.
Potter, I:.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
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.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. Chapel Dill. 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.
20

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 1995. General
Soil Map McDowell County, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina. Asheville.
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.
21

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: John Williams, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Karen M.'Lynch, Environmental Specialist
Office of the Natural Environment
SUBJECT: Proposed Bridge Replacement of Bridge No. 83 on SR 1737
over Muddy Creek, McDowell County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1737(5), State Project No. 8.2871901, TIP No.
B-3873.
The proposed action calls for replacement of Bridge No. 83 on SR 1737 over Muddy
Creek. Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is federally-listed by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as "Threatened" and occurring in McDowell County. On June 9,
2003, NCDOT biologists visited a known population of this plant at South Mountain
State Park in Burke County. In early June, small whorled pogonia plants had finished
blooming and had produced seed, but were easily recognized.
After observing a known population of small whorled pogonia, NCDOT biologists,
Logan Williams and Karen M. Lynch, surveyed for habitat for small whorled pogonia
within the project limits of the proposed bridge replacement site (referenced above). The
project area consists of manicured lawns, industrial parking lots, fescue grass (Festuca
sp.) and prolific growths of kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Habitat for small whorled pogonia
does not exist within the project area. A description of Isotria medeoloides follows.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May- end of May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Surry.
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a
hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PRO.IECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
I

are somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the
stem. Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-
coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It
prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub
coverage or high sapling density.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Because no habitat exists for small whorled pogonia, it can therefore be concluded
that replacing bridge No. 83 will have "No Effect" on small whorled pogonia.
cc: Heather Montague, Permit Specialist
Office of the Natural Environment

n "? SfAtr u?
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA tANn __,
R 111gi I
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID W COY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 4, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: File

FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1737, McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 183
over Fork Muddy Creek, State Project 8.287190 1,
F. A. Project BRZ-1737(5), B-3873
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation
Building on March 2, 2000. The following people were in attendance:
Lanette Ingham Programming & TIP John Taylor Location Surveys
Andre Davenport Structure Design Greg Brew Roadway Design
Wayne Best Roadway Design Randy Henegar Hydraulics
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
B-3873 has the following schedule: Plan-Design Project
Planning Document: November 2001
Right of Way: March 2002
Construction: March 2003
Bridge No. 183
[ 1 span bridge, timber floor on I-beams on reinforced concrete abutments]
[Built in 1952] [36 feet long] [20.2 foot wide deck] [19.2 feet bridge roadway width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 14 feet]
[Posted 13 tons for SV and 16 tons for TTST's]
[Sufficiency Rating 26.3] [Estimated useful remaining life 9 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1737 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Land use is primarily agricultural, scattered residential and undeveloped.
Current ADT is less than 1200 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 1800 VPD
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1 % TTST)
Bus Information: Road closure will not create a problem for the County School Busses.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Randy Henegar of Hydraulics recommended a 3-barrel @ 10x12 RCBC.
He suggested that consideration would be given to debris deflectors.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission has written that he has no
special concerns.
McDowell County Emergency Services has written that they can work
around a road closure situation provided they are given notice of the details of
the detour.
John Taylor of Location Surveys noted the presence of aerial power and
phone along the east side of SR 1737 and aerial phone along NC 226. There is
also sanitary sewer along the north side of NC 226 and water along the south
side of NC 226. There is a NCGS Bench Mark on the abutment at the NE
corner of the bridge. Utility impacts should be low. The junkyard in the SW
Quadrant may need to be evaluated for pollutants.
April Alperin of SHPO indicated that neither an architectural nor archaeological
survey would be required.
Max Phillips, Division Construction Engineer, had the following comments:
• A detour structure is not practical. The bridge will have to be closed
and traffic detoured via SR 1737, SR 1741 back to NC 226.
• In a conversation with the manager of WNC Pallet Company, Mr.
Phillips learned that road closure will not affect their company since
the company has another private access they can utilize during the
period of closure.
• Mr. Phillips recommended the bridge be wide enough to
accommodate the 60 foot long trailers turning off the bridge into the
facility.
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
Only one build alternate will be considered for this project.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 183 on the existing location with a box
culvert. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
Maintaining traffic onsite via a new alignment or a temporary onsite
detour would result in heavy right of way impacts. Emergency Services, School
Busses, WNC Pallet Company, and Division have all indicated that temporary
road closure is acceptable at this location.
Greg Brew of Roadway Design has indicated that construction estimates
will be available at the end of Sept 29, 2000.
10-08-`04 12,41 FROM-DENR EEP 9197152001 T-138 P02 U-311
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Ecosystem Enhancement
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr,, Secretary
October 4, 2004
Ms. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3873, Bridge 183 over Fork Muddy Creek on SR 1737, McDowell
County; Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 3050101); Northern
Mountains Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide 1,250 feet of stream preservation at a 10:1 ratio for the 125 feet of
unavoidable stream impacts associated with the subject project. The preservation site that will
be debited for this mitigation is:
Little Tablerock (Avery, Mitchell, and McDowell Counties) 1,250 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance
with Section IX, EEP Transition Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Bath
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Transition Manager
cc: Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3873
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
OCT-8-2004 FRI 12:15 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2