20051126 Ver 1_Complete File_20050623

?N
T? , yk
s
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NO o` ?r",
WILMINGTON DISTRICT sr09, Qu
?R
Action Id. 200531504 County McDowell U.S.G.S. Quad Dysartsvilre
INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
Responsible Party: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 13
Attn: Paul Wiesner
Address: Post Office Box 3279
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Telephone: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The project is the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 223 on SR 1771 (Dairy Road), over and in Hoppers Creek,
McDowell County, North Carolina. The current proposal is to replace the existing bridge with a triple
box culvert.
Type of Permit Applied For (check one): IP ( ) NWP (X) GP ( )
Applicable law: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (X); Section 10, Rivers and Harbor Act ( )
YOUR APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE AND CANNOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS RECEIVED (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Your application form has not been completed and/or signed (see remarks)
Under the conditions of Nationwide Permit , mitigation is required for your project.
The mitigation proposal submitted with your application is either insufficient or absent
(see remarks).
X Your application did not include a statement explaining how avoidance and minimization
for losses of waters of the U.S. were achieved on the project site (see remarks).
Your submitted project plans or maps were insufficient, too large, or not legible (see
remarks)
Your application did not include an accurate delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands, vegetated shallows, and riffle and pool complexes as required.
You must submit a copy of your application to the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) since your proposed work is in a designated trout water county (see
remarks section below for the address of your WRC representative). SEE REMARKS.
Other (see remarks below)
REMARKS: General condition 19(a) of the 2002 Nationwide Permits states that a
"project must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects to
waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable at the project site." The replacement
of a bridge with a culvert does not typically constitute avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects and the documentation provided with the permit application does not
provided an adequate discussion of the practicability of the proposed replacement.
Additional information associated with avoidance and minimization, including the
replacement of the existing structure with another bridge, is required before your
application can be reviewed. Please keep in mind that the cost of compensatory
mitigation must be taken into account if the practicability of the project is based on a
financial comparison.
Date:
Corps Regulatory Official: Angie Penn
Corps Regulatory Field Office Address:
c Telephone No.: [phone] ext 226
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
CC: Mr. Brian Wrenn
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Mike Parker
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Mr. David McHenry
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
20830 Great Smokey Mountain Expressway
Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
PR@muw
?6
?Y ?p?
O C T 0 4 2005
.?°?^ ?? DENR-WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
PO BOX 3279, ASHEVILLE, NC 28802
September 29, 2005
Mrs. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Subject: Application Withdrawal (Action ID 200531504)
Nationwide Permit #23 and # 33
B-4198, Bridge No. 223
McDowell County, NC
Dear Mrs. Pennock:
I wish to withdraw the application due to change in proposed structure to a bridge. We
do not anticipate the need for a permit for the proposed structure on SR 1771, McDowell
County, NC.
If you have any questions or information needs, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
D Rog YD. Bryan
Division 13 Environmental Supervisor
cc: J. J. Swain, Jr., P.E.
Greg Shuler
Garry Moore
David McHenry
Mike Parker
Brian Wrenn
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA ?OSr rFR ?U3'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,?ry
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIP,T
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
PO BOX 3279, ASHEVILLE, NC 28802
June 16, 2005
Mrs. Angie Pennock
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Subject: Nationwide Permit #23 and # 33
B-4198, Bridge No. 223
McDowell County, NC
Dear Mrs. Pennock:
b51126
I have enclosed plan sheets and cross-sections, a PCN application for NWP #23 & NWP
# 33, and a vicinity map relative to the purchase order bridge replacement project on SR
1771, McDowell County, NC.
We propose to replace the existing timber/steel bridge with a triple barrel box culvert.
The new culvert will be 45 feet long. The current structure is in poor condition and
needs replacement. Construction activities will be conducted from dry work areas
whenever possible. Existing channel morphology will be maintained upstream and
downstream of the bridge. Riparian vegetation will be reestablished along disturbed areas
associated with project.
The creek that we propose to impact, Hoppers Creek, is an approximately 15 foot wide
"Class C" creek with riffle/pool habitats, gravel/sand substrate, and bed/bank features.
No federally listed species (threatened or endangered) or critical habitats will be affected
by the proposed project.
By copy of this letter, we request the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Coordinator, to comment directly to the Corps concerning the permit request.
Erosion control measures will be employed from the "Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Guidelines for Division Maintenance Operations" and reviewed by Mr. Ed Ingle,
Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer.
Mrs. Angie Pennock
Page -2 Bridge No. 223, McDowell County
June 16, 2005
The proposed project qualifies under DWQ General Certifications 3361 and 3366.
Accordingly, two copies for notification purpose have been forwarded to the NC Division
of Water Quality, 401/Wetland Unit with an additional copy to Mike Parker, NC DWQ
Asheville Regional Office for review.
Your earliest consideration for this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any
questions or information needs, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Paul G. Wiesner
Division 13 Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
cc: J. J. Swain, Jr., P.E.
Greg Shuler
Garry Moore
David McHenry
Ed Ingle
Mike Parker
Brian Wrenn
Office Use Only: ve i rch 05
? v
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. sT°???v 'iis,
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicab ,,"N/A".)
1. Processing 0511 2 1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: b
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23, NWP 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: J.J. Swain, Jr., P.E.
Mailing Address: N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 3279
Asheville, NC 28802
Telephone Number: 828-251-6171 Fax Number: 828-251-6394
E-mail Address: rdbryan(Z_Ddot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 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: Bridge 223 on SR 1771, McDowell County
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4198
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: McDowell Nearest Town: Dysartsville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Bridge 223 is located on
SR 1771 approximately 1,000 feet east of SR 1769. From I-40, take exit 86 (NC 226 south).
Once in Dysartsville, take a left on SR 1770 followed by a left on SR 1769. SR 1771 will be
immediately on the right.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35 degrees 36'2.24" °N 81 degrees 51' 35.40" °W
6. Property size (acres): 0.1
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Hoppers Creek (Class C)
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.ne.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: The site is currently an existing bridge. The area in the
vicinity of the project consists of rural agricultural land.
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: We
propose to replace the existing timber/ I-beam steel bridge with a triple barrel box culvert.
The proposed box culvert will be 45 feet long. Equipment to be utilized includes an
excavator, crane and trucks.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: We propose to replace the existing timber/ I-
beam steel bridge with a triple barrel box culvert. The new culvert will be 45 feet long. The
existing bridge must be replaced due to the poor condition of the existing 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. N/A
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.
No no future plans
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The stream impacts consist of a
proposed box culvert that will impact 45 linear feet of perennial stream. No wetland impacts
are anticipated.
Page 3 of 8
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The stream impacts consist of a
proposed box culvert that will impact 45 linear feet of perennial stream. No wetland impacts
are anticipated.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
CeflArately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres) N/A
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial t?
Intermittent. Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
Sta. 10+23 Hoppers Creek Box Culvert Perennial 15 ft. 45 ft. 0.0155

___
Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 45 ft.
r 0.0155
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma ocean, etc. acres
Page 4 of 8
Total Open Water Impact (acres) N/A
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.0155
Wetland Impact (acres): N/A
Open Water Impact (acres): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.0155
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 45 ft.
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
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. The existing bridge must be
replaced due to the poor condition of the structure.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 5 of 8
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 1.50 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 January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http •//h2o. enr.state.nc. us/ncwetlands/strm p-ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
We propose to utilize the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for the mitigation
requirements. NCDOT will be coordinating with the EEP to obtain the appropriate
mitigation credits.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http:,'/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
I 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0244, or.0260.
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
No significant chance in impervious surface. Stormwater will be diverted through settling basins
or grass lined buffers prior to entering the stream.
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. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
With regard to hazardous spill basins, the road is not classified as an arterial route, therefore a
Page 8 of 8
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
.oui 'uoaldew 'R66 L (-)) 14ijAdon
euiloJeO 4JoN 'A1unoo ilamoQow '£ZZ abpug laal OOOZ slenbe youi L :aleoS
961iv-8 :uolldeo SOOZ/b L/9 :9120
M ,L£'SZ . LS L20 N 6'£S S£ -S£0 :uo1leoo? ?MIASiHVSAG :aWEN
M ..00'0 09 I Leo
/V\..00'0 £9 , L
M ,00,0 , L9 0180
M „00 0 ,Z9 , L90
M o9
' t e v \ f ?'? SIT - /
t
i /
ice?
rU82t ti ?yt1 ,
???? ? ,' ? • I ' x? gat. ? ? ; v ?? ? ,t ? t? , ? ? , ?; ??
7
UT t 4111
e0 lei
j r - ?fP?l o - _ .rr
'._.. a
•.? ? / ?/,,fit 1 ?,?: I` ?-v ?@? ? ?? ?' ?``" '-' ! i ? ? ,
7)
t 0?
4 CD
C -.C* L ? Y a e „", •- ?./.ri{' ?• ? ??. ..: _ ? a?It;ASZ.lY.??• (? ` ?? ?+ j j f? />^
/ G
t " - t
??? ?? ?, ri f ? _? / - ? ? ? _ ? . ? A ?? ? ice/ • ? ? -
CIx
?
10
?.. ?, r t 7 \)1
`? ? .? '? ? -.._ . ? ? _?.? i ! i Utz d?t ?r? / O
I , ? ? to ? lF 7 ?
i
? O
08
Ali rfin t !].?r?OE., .• .?... "
M 00 0 .09 o M M, 00'0 l9 .120 M ..00'0 n o L80
M.000.£S;l
1I011N ILIUI)111?11A\op 2L{1 1O AW)[A :- OIOLld
uoll,?as Iueailsdn aL11.10 .V,01A b- :1 01Ogd
J? •.iaunOJ IIaktOQaI\: '9ZZ J\- I a)!S :sO)Oyd

G
I All 1)

i

050 8 ()t

215 0

4

LOGA? FA

[R? oPEFn -1
i I

_
i

EKIS T!?4G B ?
- I \ l v I

I

_ q 9 q
DS PQ EN MW MOD

E!? ?
)
w r-

NC
DOT
.
,

-4'
X DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

Yy McDOWELL COUNTY
c f

Az;
BRG.# 223 ON SR 1771
--- -- -,-.? - - _ _ ;-- -- ---
OVER HOPPER CREEK

SCALE. 1"= 50'HORIZ
.
P
'
= 10
VERT.

-- I a
SURVEY BY.-l<FKKAS,CNC
- DRAWN BY.KAS
- DESIGN BY
. W
_ CHECKED BY.
-- "3

;'/," sT)<. r1 AN6, E_ .r 3(-) / z, e 16 ) E ?-'7 ;3C
HAZARDOUS SPILL BASIN CHECKLIST
RIVER BASIN: CATAWBA
STREAM CLASSIFICATION "C"
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA:
YES NO
STREAM CROSSING BLUE LINE ON USGS 0
ORW Q Fx-l
WS] a 0
WS 11,111 OR IV, CROSSING WITHIN 0.5mi OF W.S. CRITICAL AREA 7]
ROADWAY CRITERIA:
ROUTE DESIGNATION- YES NO
ARTERIAL URBAN O O
ARTERIAL RURAL C? Fx-l
YES NO
S A HAZARDOUS SPILL BASIN REOUIRED? = EK
A DENOTES ROD SOUNDING
y,
W
U
D
W
n0
('O
Lr'L
r
U
CC)
U
Cr
O
x
N
lrI
n
N
0 N
00 ,
m o ? d m
U Qo
a
QC7
cl? Z N

i
O :
O

? O
? O
[
C
c N
0
CJ ,
i
u W O
O -
IV
All
III I?
'llli
II
I
illll

A 11
q
it
I
I
i

[3-4198
Subject: B-4198
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:35:56 -0500
From: "Andrew Nottingham" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Brian. [e-mail]
CC: Andrew Nottingham <anottingham@dot. state. nc.us> ,
"John L. Williams" <[e-mail]>
Brian,
I have attached a Hydraulics preliminary recommendation document
for your review. This is the information we provide to the other
DOT Units prior to attending the scoping meeting for the project.
A culvert was recommended as the replacement structure for this
site because of the following:
The required culvert size based on the drainage area and design
discharge is roughly the same area as the existing bridge and
should provide improved hydraulic conveyance. When a culvert can
be used to provide the required design they are preferred over
bridges due to lower maintenance costs and better safety for the
traveling public ( more shoulder room and less icing concerns).
The proposed stream was not considered to be a high quality
resource that would benefit from using a bridge at the site. The
culvert can be buried below the stream bed and designed with
sills to maintain the normal low flow patterns at the crossing.
Minimum fill could be used and the culvert crosses at 90 degrees
which will minimize the culvert length.
I am sending a copy of the preliminary sketches we prepared for
this project in the mail to you also.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Andrew
??) r
E!.J
UO
Andrew T. Nottingham, PE
Project Engineer
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
Name: Prelim Recommendation.doc
Prelim Recommendation. doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 2/8/2005 4:37 PM
February 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: D. R. Henderson, P.E.
State Hydraulics Engineer
SUBJECT: Hydraulics Aspects of the Environmental Impact of the
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 223 on SR 1771,
Over South Muddy Creek, McDowell County,
State Project No. 8.2872601, TIP No. B-4198
The Hydraulics Unit staff recently conducted a field investigation and preliminary study for the
subject bridge replacement project. In consideration of all aspects noted below the hydraulic
recommendations are summarized as follows:
It is recommended that the existing bridge be replaced with a three barrel twelve-foot
(width) by ten-foot (height) reinforced concrete box culvert at the same location and
elevation as that of the existing. To facilitate drainage, it is recommended that a minimum
0.3 percent roadway gradient be used over the new structure. An off-site detour is
encouraged. If an on-site detour is chosen, it will require three at 72 inch corrugated steel
pipes placed just north (downstream) of the existing structure. Strictly from a hydraulic
point of view, the grade of the detour structure can be two feet lower than that of the
existing. Recommendations made in this report are preliminary and subject to change
during the final and more detailed design phase of the project.
The existing single span bridge over South Muddy Creek, constructed in 1959, has an overall
length of 41 feet. It consists of an asphalt-wearing surface on a timber deck on top of I-beams.
The end and interior bents consist of timber caps on timber piles. The existing deck has a total
thickness of two and one half feet and is approximately twelve feet above the creek bed. The
normal water depth of South Muddy Creek was estimated at one foot. Overhead telephone and
power lines are located south of the existing structure. No other utilities were observed in the
vicinity of the existing bridge.
According to a local resident, floodwater overtopped the existing bridge in 1977. There have
been no major problems since that incident. Bridge Maintenance personnel from Division 13
confirmed this information and added that during high intensity rainfall events the stream will
rise to the top of its banks. Bridge scour information for the existing bridge is not available, due
to insufficient substructure data. There was no evidence of recent high water at the site.
B-4198
2/14/05
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. The drainage area of South Muddy Creek at
the proposed crossing is 5.3 square miles. This crossing of South Muddy Creek is located in a
designated flood hazard zone, where no detailed flood study has been performed. Attached is a
copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map on which the approximate 100-year flood fringes are
shown. The majority of the upstream floodplain consists of pasture and fields.
No apparent wetlands were observed in the vicinity of the bridge during the field investigation.
This crossing of South Muddy Creek is located below headwaters and has a stream classification
of Class C. It is anticipated that the proposed project should not have any adverse impacts on the
existing floodplain. Groundwater resources should not be affected by the project, as the roadway
approaches are primarily on fill. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the
specification, installation, and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control
methods.
It is anticipated that construction of the project can be authorized under a United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE) nationwide permit. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained
to the extent practicable.`` The Hydraulics Unit will assist the Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, in coordinating with the USACOE and other governmental
regulatory agencies to ensure that all environmental concerns are appropriately addressed.
DRH/atn
Attachment: Mcdowell County Flood Insurance Rate Map
cc: Ms Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Ms. Beth Harmon, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
2
i ? ?' i I I i I I I I i ?i i
I, ?i ili ail ? I lid

-

T
R + , 1 {

I t!

:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-

-- - - - - - - - - - -

1 1 57 1 1

IJ I

If I I f z

I
:
I

m ;
' I T

1

1
a
u,
! i

I
,

-
T
:-
'- I T _ r y

-

r
r

t-
t L
L ?
_I ?-:-r_r:L

L ; I
4 . ; I• ? L i ?
_ 1-
- I
I
- i ; ?
1" t t
. r

I
r r-

?liijiv?????I?i ?? ????.I I?III?Ii r,l ????ii??'I?i? I??r?li !lilt, ?!
i I I i i l i I i i I I I ? I! i ? i I? ? i l ? i f I
,. ...y„ Y .$?F r,?....>•. '?Q :;. t .i,) ,i`: r .i,'Mr'
A
_ ?. IC ?; ?'3'w t / S. : r l,., a," s ,1--'?•, vi'I 1 x'''"=0..• ?' 7 i ';?°>?A 7s.`+1 vt 'af ? 5 ?,.ni -
_ q- 1 ' '" w,. :??' 'wy '?tAf, c-t °+`k mi zt`'. ':rra ;-4 Y.. , e•>- .?.a/ x i;_.? F,,'r'>! ?sr'l?^.°°. ''r???; ,f s1,•: gN,f
?t 4' i VL, t ?.' x { 7j ??J. -:5i i• y ".'. Jr ., 'w?,tc, . ? `.??, *?i.. .Y: r; s..?. "'oD' !!?'i. r.'-?- ?`,??;t ? a '_.'i
- f. s? ,: ,? .t ':ii . ' y v . •?', , . ? ? a? °;1 ?'p..,. ri ? ^? fi ? j" a ".??1?; ? _:3i`?'Tt >s =?''?'`?a+ {_b! P fir} ?• , s >?? * _
`° ? ' . : ?d} ?'?i'?' r':; 1' C .. k. ??`+j'-' ee 4' } s :Y°F"fiA M +? "?"'?,•,. ? t ,? a •Si U,., , >r2? ? 9? _
? .... i.. Y } ' t•f P,• - ?t, ? <• f 4 "1 Y A J'.'? x y'Ril ?' 9. Y+
M y..i '; 7.I. }?.- 3,^r; 3. J ;' A ? t e' .: y,C K + a ti 1 r , /:,•r xF? .?, •?.'; ,? : v ? t
s.r, a t,.yt: '-`^i n' )Y e' ,,':3 / ,, X ?'• w'. Y .+ t1 A ;x?,t n. L. :t :Si
LY R?: w.'c. .'".?@ i`?, Y•: ? T?.SyK!` Y ,r4. (' ,.,,:,"? xrt. r ,rY ? .4 ,% ,?? :JY
r# L ,
;, 'ti"; ? • -....; 1 ?3 " - :?. ?f` sy''::!r <. e' ,. f . , ;_ ,' -V? }
. 3 . ,?.. - ?. ?+..: 1 7F. 'i7 • it + :•, r;7•y.(#e 1 t I-?. ? ?:? r. ...Y'.^ ? 1. y,yt ?ex'i.
.u 2•r"i.-: `R A? K•", r.i e`-... ? .t •,?y ..a... / d w 4 7. , .I ,.,A?9£ , rt •r:'y`? ,y'
r7
>l C.. ?, p i":Y hew 1 _'7 1. _ f. r, 1 ' L". jyq•rK?t.._
A; ,1?'- ,,, ti ;, .,. x.._.}?.. . ? r.?. ,, r'K6,.. ¢., ??:. > •r.''r. 1 ?• v v u• a ak..d ., ;a
,
..h.;.l(:+ .:.?xKa_.?i .i?.:?... . a.rs9" :3i, ?xaL •si:.,az:•$?b;4_. .y. ?y?y ?_.:p, s. N t J. a< is,, q - ,.
•
'?-.• ? ?µ ?J1?r?iK1L••rila.u\?. l.flrYAdl.+.,.u.;41 1,._.ys •.,al Ln b,i.:.e., i-a?fh,l-. is M. ?Orl a?.ns _41.:• .e ?.^h'7?:1
` C
,l _ ' V ?e,i' - ri g 69 ?-
?' IZOp 120
?.. II der -
an 12
_., moo, ,` 20 ?.-' ii "-._. .? ?` :• ,
1 /
) c.
1 /
O f-t rim ,\• n
,?? 0 ? wTv __ \ ? % ? ,,.v •://. ? 4? ? •???:• is
_Ij
.qX, ??t it j ?JI
?/ ? _I J ? .'.'Cem CAL/ `?, `1 ?? . •. J ??,'• a °,? ? pl1 - -. O \\ ? .';`., u \ ?' - k ?' j .???? ? -
_ \6 i , ? o /? '•.HI•.179$ I-`-. ? "'\N- r \ ? I'll
= \ ? I i /?i 1 J'f it
m U _ _
i
0 0
\ t -
•i
o •?
I
o
14 ? -? \• ?j a /? ? - -- ? `'\ ? \Zp ? lp ,???' / ? ???•\
v r?
, tl \ °O? •> II ? // X1370 ? b ; ? t?\./ \ ,• /.o tI ?'?
-Ce
Sarts?lle L r
ar N %° ?. 7i• --?I I mod, ???'?.
°
eel " r _ '
'-_.. ._ ---"-e'-7776
1320 O 136
O
?• , p ?, "_? _?r=lood Con of?''. zo I
<25 X 2 r /
`>?' ? 1 - - l am', o 't 1175 1481 _ \?Ib;.t
C
1 \
\) v
iy l7 /320 ! I Q p'=?Y I ?m /3 7'I•'v' -nf v v
A 280
4-5e 1 °I N r' ?` \ d II 1 I ? \?
L - .? •? i II ? ?? C 11 \?? 111 ? \\ ? .`\_L.
?? ? I x/402 ? Av II ? s. ? ? I
/40 0 1 ?O - 266
CCC ° - 1777
1 ' \ 0
Q) 0
o - i28 0 o r
NBM
695--
i
V
• 1 '
7 5
a nrr 0 0 1 Ci °I
u U -?
tr=
o n ?\ ll \60 ? f ?! I'1? ? S}?
'? ? ? \ u(\\ \\\` O \--lam ? I t+,^ - ??• ? _,
? + (? \` 0 - jr/ /i 169 U• I f!' ? ?? 1 ` •• U O
X/665
N'l
m ? _ .r4c0 a r
\ X 1955 v ? ? ?-. ?.-"-?-
t
I ? ` I BOO ? ? I/ `' ; ` .,11J',I??lj
1 11 ll / ? 111 x-, ? ??/'1 I(JJ°4`;
1
-l-a'?+•v+ ? ?/? 1970 ?? ?'l n ?-? ? 0 ? J ? _ (l•(\"'\ ??'L-, 1 1l li-r
-Cd - ?r.? .Tniw - n a,*..•A. n +X•f.T •{,aT. r).?a.Y fSi'.'4M1 , .:, - ?-i. . -ts ?MR....::esn::. ..
i
i
i

REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 223 ON SR 1771
OVER HOPPERS CREEK
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4198
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2872601
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4198
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FEBRUARY 2002
)i-? ?,-q
TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 223 ON SR 1771
OVER HOPPERS CREEK
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4198
' STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2872601

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4198
TABLE OF CONTENTS
;fin
PRO
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... ..................................1
1.1 Project Description .......................................................................... ..................................1
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................... ..................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions .......................................................... ..................................3
t 2
0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4
. ............................................................................. ..................................
2.1 Regional Characteristics ................................................................. .................................4
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................. ..................................4
2.3 Water Resources ............................................................................. ..................................5
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ..................................................... ..................................5
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters ..................................7
2.3.3 Water Quality ........................................................................
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring ................................................ ..................................8
..................................8
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges ................... ..................................8
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... ..................................9
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................10
'
3.1 Biotic Communities ......................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities ...................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Cropland ............................................................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Scrub/Shrub Communities .................................................................................... 12
t 3.1.4
3.1.5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest ................................................................
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) ............................................ 12
13
3.1.6 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area ................................................................... 14
' 3.1.7 Aquatic Community ............................................................................................... 15
NCDOT Page 1 02)20/2002

TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.7.1 Flora .........................................................................................................15
3.1.7.2 Fauna .......................................................................................................15
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................................................15
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ....................................................................................................16
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...........................................................................................................16
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................17
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected .....................................17
4.1.2 Permits .................................................................................................................18
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition ....................................................................................19
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ......................................................................19
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...........................................................................................20
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................20
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................20
5.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ..........................................................:...........................................................2
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region ......................................................................6
Figure 3. Biotic Communities of the 8-4198 Project Area ..........................................................................11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. - Federally Protected Species of McDowell County .....................................................................20
Table 2. - Federal Species of Concern for McDowell County .....................................................................22
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix N. Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in McDowell County, North Carolina ........................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Qualifications of Principal Investigators .............................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Wetland Data Forms ...........................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets .....................................................................................D-1
NCDOT Page ff 02/20/2002
TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and
describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which have a
' probability of being impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable
impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concerns that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
' be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 223 on SR 1771 in McDowell County,
North Carolina. The proposed project crosses Hoppers Creek approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) east
of the community of Dysartsville (Figure 1).
' 1.2 Methodology

Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Dysartsville 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (1994).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Dysartsville
7.5-minute quadrangle (1995).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1,200 scale).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
McDowell County, North Carolina (1995).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR, 1999; 2000, 2001). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service list of protected and candidate species (3 March 2001) and from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, January
2001). NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state and federal-listed species.
NCDOT Page 1 02/20/2002

TIP 8-4198
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1
NCDOT Page 2 0212012002
TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1

r

1
USFWS Recovery Plans for federal-listed species were reviewed, where applicable.
Environmental scientists on the staff of HSMM, Inc. conducted a field investigation of natural
resources within the project area on 20 July 2001. Qualifications of environmental scientists who
conducted the field investigations are provided in Appendix B. Water resources were. identified and
categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify plant
communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968). Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980), Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware (Rohde, et al., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas (Potter, et al., 1980), and Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985).
Approximate boundaries of major vegetations communities were mapped while in the field utilizing
aerial photography of the project site. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or
suspected species, incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as birdsong and
other sounds), and secondary indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and
burrows). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented utilizing a general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the
Corps' 6 March 1992 guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Values of
wetlands delineated were assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). Wetland types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland
boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey
methods.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations:
Project area - denotes the area bound by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of
the project alignment.
Project vicinity - denotes an area extending 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) on all sides of the project
area.
Project region - denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS
quadrangle map (i.e., 60.8 square miles or 157.5 square kilometers).
NCDOT Page 3 02/20/2002

TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES '
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography can significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality
degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the
flow and the quality of the water resources, potentially limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Most of McDowell County lies within the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian Mountains) t
Physiographic Province of western North Carolina, with the exception of the southeastern portion of the
county, which lies within the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Province (USDA, 1995). The county
encompasses 437 square miles (1,132 square kilometers) and is primarily rural. The county ranges in
elevation from approximately 980 feet (299 meters) mean sea level (msl) along Cane Creek on the
Rutherford County line to 5,665 feet (1,727 meters) msl on Pinnacle Mountain where Buncombe and '
Yancey Counties abut McDowell County. Elevations within the project area range from approximately
1,175 to 1,185 feet (358 to 361 meters) msl, with the stream bed near the bridge lying at approximately '
1,175 feet (358 meters) msl.
Hoppers Creek is located within the upper portion of the Catawba River basin. The headwaters of
the Catawba River and its tributaries are located within the mountain physiographic region. This river basin
originates on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge Mountains and flows towards the North Carolina - South
Carolina border near Charlotte, North Carolina. The Catawba River basin, along with the adjoining Broad '
River basin, forms the headwaters of the Santee-Cooper River system, which flows through South
Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean. The Catawba River basin encompasses all of McDowell and Catawba
Counties, as well as portions of Alexander, Avery, Caldwell, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell,
Mecklenburg, Union, and Watauga Counties. There are 58 municipalities located in the Catawba River
basin, with several areas of the basin being classified for water supply use. Over 45 percent of the land in
the Catawba River basin is covered in forests (NCDENR, 1999).
2.2 Soils
The portion of McDowell County within which the project area lies (N RCS map panel 6 of 10) has
been mapped by NRCS under the most recently published soil survey of McDowell County (USDA, 1995).
A brief description of mapped and observed soil units is as follows:
Fluvaguenta-Lldifl v nt complex along the stream bed (unmapped by NRCS but observed during '
field investigation).
NCDOT Page 4 02/20/2002
TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Craddock clay loam, 6 to 15 percent Sloes, _rodA (gr This unit consists mainly of very
deep, well-drained, moderately steep Braddock and similar soils on mountain foot slopes, colluvial
' fans, and high stream terraces. The surface layer is typically reddish brown clay loam
approximately 7.0 inches (18 centimeters) thick. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is
rapid in bare or unprotected areas. The seasonal high water table is more than 6.0 feet (1.8
meters) below the surface. In the project area, Braddock clay loam occurs upon gently sloping
land surfaces to the east and west of the Hoppers Creek floodplain. This soil is classified as non-
hydric (USDA, 1996).
IotI2 sandy In2m. 0 to 2 percent slopes, accasennnily flooded phase (10A)_ This unit
•
consists
mainly of very deep, somewhat poorly drained; nearly level lotla and similar soils on floodplains
adjacent to stream through out the county. The surface' layer is dark yellowish brown sandy loam
up to 12 inches (30 centimeters) thick. Permeability is moderately rapid or rapid and surface
runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is 1.5 to 3.5 feet (0.45 to 1.1 meters) below the
surface. In the project area, lotla sandy loam occurs along the floodplain and banks of Hoppers
Creek. This soil is classified as hydric (USDA, 1996).
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
r drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
Hoppers Creek, a perennial stream, comprises the single water resource within the project area
(Figure 2). The portion of Hoppers Creek flowing through the project area is located within the Catawba
River drainage basin. The Catawba River basin is the eighth largest river basin in North Carolina,
encompassing 3,279 square miles (8,493 square kilometers).
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050101 (the Upper Catawba drainage basin). Under the
North Carolina DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as Subbasin 03-08-30 (Catawba River Headwaters).
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ). The assigned best usage classification reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the named streams to
which they flow.
The single water resource located in the project area, Hoppers Creek, has been designated as
DWQ Stream Index Number 11-32-2-9. Hoppers Creek in the project vicinity has been assigned a primary
NCDOT Page 5 02/20/2002
TIP 8-4998 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
70
?\, N ...^. \ n ,1 ••. ?? i "?\ __ yam/ `'??
f r?1./ ??,a `?) i'a % _ , ?1 l' `? ?y2q ,?, ?1v•? ? /-? •-•/ G1365 ?-,
(_=•w ? i ` r?V ilk LL" - ?_;---'?
'04
2MOI 4,000,
-''' t r\ } r •. I SCALE: 1" = 2,000,
v
xtiw
?.}taa ??' 1. .? ??R •?J ^.'7 ?.
`_ /'? +•?-?...?'r^ ? ??' ? !.r[ 91 ? ? .. / r _ . j ? ` ti - ., a f? i ? ? ` 1 ^;?-..
?- ?.• 1 ?' / rte. '3 t? ??.
• • _ ,{ ti . '? r' \.t'??
1257'
r t \~?` OQR. Jtlood on
WATER RESOURCES AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
SR 1771 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
OVER HOPPERS CREEK (TIP B-4198) FIGURE 2
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from USGS Dysartsville 7.5-minute Quadrangle, 1994)
NCDOT Page 6 02/20/2002
TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

water resource classification of "C". Class "C" refers to waters that are protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses found suitable
for Class "C" waters. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental
manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges in Class "C" waters.
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-11), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the project area. These
findings are based on review of the most recently updated state-maintained databases as made available
through the date of preparation of this report.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters
As previously discussed, Hoppers Creek comprises the single water resource within the project
area. The proposed project crosses Hoppers Creek on SR 1771 approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) east
of the community of Dysartsville. Hoppers Creek ranges in width from approximately 10 to 15 feet (3.0 to
4.6 meters) within the project area. Observed depths at the time of field investigation ranged from several
inches (several centimeters) in weakly defined riffles to approximately 1.5 feet (0.5 meter) in runs. The
average water depth of the creek was estimated at 10 inches (25 centimeters) and the creek was flowing
at an estimated velocity of 1.5 feet/second (0.5 meter/second) at the time of field investigation. Field
investigation was conducted following a significant rain event. Surface waters were slightly turbid and
water levels appeared to be at or near the ordinarily high water level at the time of investigation.
The substrate of Hoppers Creek in the project area is comprised of sediments ranging in size
from silt to cobbles. Hoppers Creek is relatively straight and featureless and appears to have been
rechannelized throughout at least a portion of its length within the project area. The stream channel
exhibits a simple trapezoidal cross-section with relatively low and moderately sloping banks. The stream
within the project area is comprised largely of runs (approximately 80 percent of the total aquatic habitat).
Where present, the weakly defined riffles are not as wide as the stream and their length is less than twice
the width of the stream. No sand bars or major channel meanders are present. An intermittent drainage
way flows into Hoppers Creek from the east just upstream of the existing bridge. A beaver dam is present
on Hoppers Creek approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters) downstream of (north of) the project area at the
time of field investigation. Stream bed sediments just upstream of the beaver dam exhibit a high silt
content.

The stream banks within the project area are vegetated with a few trees and shrubs that appear to
be generally healthy, and as a result, the banks exhibit indicators of moderate erosion. The width of the
riparian vegetation zone is less that 20 feet (6.0 meters) throughout the project area and small breaks are
present where the stream flows through the right-of-way. Vertical bridge abutments and riprap laterally
confine the stream below the existing bridge. The stream banks are comprised of unconsolidated poorly
sorted sediments of alluvial and colluvial origin.
NCDOT Page 7 02/202002
TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area. Potential sediment
loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water
quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing general watershed
characteristics. This data provides insight into the value of the water resources within the project area with
respect to their ability to meet human needs and to provide suitable habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water qualityby sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa of intolerant groups
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera or "EPT") present and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection is also
calculated for the sample. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic
index and EPT taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
No previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist within the
Hoppers Creek watershed; however benthic monitoring station B-45 is located approximately 3.0 miles
(4.8 kilometers) downstream of the project area on South Muddy Creek. Although not within the project
vicinity, benthic monitoring station B-45 was assigned a bioassessment water quality rating of "good-fair"
in 1997 (NCDENR, 1999).
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges
Point source discharge is defined as "any discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe,
ditch, or any other well-defined point" (NCDEHNR, 1993). The term commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Discharges from stormwater collection systems at industrial
sites and in large urban areas are also considered point source discharges. Point source discharges
within North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any point source discharger is required to apply for a permit.
No registered point discharges exist within the Hoppers Creek watershed or within the project
vicinity (EPA, 2001).
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt (NCDEHNR, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of Nonpoint
sources pollution in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal waste can be transported to receiving streams and waterways via runoff - potentially
NCDOT Page 8 02,20/2002
TIP 84198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
elevating concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be the source of
bacterial contamination and can elevate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils can contribute to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surface waters
(NCDEHNR, 1993).
Under the NC Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) program, the Upper Catawba River
Hydrologic Unit (03050101), within which the project area is located, is classified by DWQ as a UWA
Category "II" watershed for nonpoint source pollution. Under this classification, the watershed is identified
' as a watershed "meeting goals, including those needing action to sustain water quality" (NCDENR, 2000).
Currently, Mackey Creek and Corpening Creek are the only two impaired waters listed within Subbasin 03-
08-30. Both creeks are located well downstream of the project area and neither creek is located within the
project vicinity.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream
banks, removal of riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of
revegetation operations, and installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources
are likely to result from the aforementioned construction activities:
. Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project area during and immediately following construction.
. Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
' vegetation removal.
. Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface
water and groundwater during construction.
I . Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed
land surfaces.
. A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum
' products) from construction equipment and other vehicles.
. Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of
vegetation within or overhanging the watercourse.
. Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree
practicable by limiting instream activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading. Additionally, since the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) trout county the NCWRC may require a moratorium for instream construction
from November to March.
NCDOT Page 9 0020/2002

TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the biotic communities observed within the project area, as well as the
basic relationships between flora and fauna within these communities. Biotic resources assessed as part
of this investigation include discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities within the project area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities '
and are classified in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to
inhabit or utilize biotic communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also '
discussed. Species observed at the time of field investigation are listed.
3.1 Biotic Communities '
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the
project area, making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Five visually discernable terrestrial
communities are located within the project area (Figure 3). Three of these communities have been altered
to the extent that they cannot be classified as a natural vegetation community under the Classification of ,
Natural Communities of North Carolina. These altered communities consist of. (1) altered right-of-way
communities, (2) cropland, and (3) successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities. Two communities
within the project area retain enough of their natural characteristics as to be classifiable under the
Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina. These natural communities consist of (1)
remnants of a Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest along Hoppers Creek and (2) an isolated remnant of '
a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) located in the western most portion of the project
area. In addition to the aforementioned terrestrial components, the aquatic community associated with
Hoppers Creek was assessed within the project area. I
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities
These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR 1771 (Communities No. 1
of Figure 3). Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession through
mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices. Well-drained Braddock clay loams '
and somewhat poorly drained lotla loams underlie these communities. It is estimated that 0.67 acre (0.27
hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
No mature woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered right-
of-way communities of the project area. Saplings and seedlings of dominant woody species observed at
the time of site investigation include tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), pignut hickory (Carya glabra),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
southern red oak (Quercus falcate), scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), black walnut (Juglans nigra), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), yellow buckeye saplings (Aesculus flava),
sassafras (Sassafras albidum), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), '
NCDOT Page 10 0212012002

TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1

tag alder (Alms serrulata), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), flowering dogwood (Comus florida), and
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation
include pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), violets (Viola sp.),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), Curtis'
goldenrod (Solidago curfisii), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), asters (Asterspp.), and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium
frstulosum). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
3.1.2 Cropland
This community consists of recently cultivated cropland located in all quadrants of the project area
(Communities No. 2 of Figure 3). This cropland is located on gently sloping land surfaces adjacent to a
floodplain terrace, which separates the cropland from Hoppers Creek. These communities are underlain by
poorly drained lotia loams. The crop vegetation was not noted during this investigation. It is estimated that 2.7
acres (1.1 hectares) of this community type exist within the project area.
3.1.3 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Community
This community occurs along an intermittent drainage way between cropland and the right-of-way
in the southwest quadrant of the project area (Community No. 3 of Figure 3). This community is underlain
by poorly drained loth Ioams. It is estimated that 0.39 acre (0.16 hectare) of this community exists within the
project area.
The successional sapling and scrub/shrub community, as mapped, supports no mature trees.
Dominant woody species observed at the time of site investigation include black cherry (Prunus serotina),
black walnut (Juglans nigra), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time
of site investigation include Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisit), common milkweed (Asc/epias syriaca),
and unknown grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), morning glory (Ipomoea
sp.), and riverside grape (Vitis riparia).
3.1.4 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This community type occurs as remnant stands along the floodplain and banks of Hoppers Creek
in all quadrants of the project area (Communities No. 3 of Figure 3). It is estimated that 0.5 acre (0.2
hectare) of this community type exist within the project area. The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
stands occur upon a gently sloping floodplain terrace perched approximately 3.5 to 4.5 feet (1.1 to 1.4
meters) above the stream bed. The terrace is largely underlain by poorly drained lotla Ioams exhibiting
relatively high chromas; however, where poorly drained conditions prevail, hydric soil inclusions are
observed. Portions of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest underlain by these hydric soils have been
mapped as wetlands and are discussed in section 4.1 of this report.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of site
NCDOT Page 12 02/20/2002
1
TIP 84198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
investigation include tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), American beech (Fagus
grandifolla), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), southern red oak (Quercus
falcata), scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). Dominant sapling and shrub species
observed at the time of site investigation include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), spicebush (Lindera
benzoin), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), tag alder (Alms serrulata), cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), flowering dogwood (Comus flodda), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include pokeweed (Phytolacca amedcana),
orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), violets (Viola spp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), bush clover (Lespedeza
sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisit), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
asters (Aster spp.), and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatodum fistulosum). Dominant vine species observed at the time
of site investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), riverside grape (Vitis hpada), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia).
Wetlands Component: The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest contains narrow (generally less
than 5.0 feet (1.5 meters) wide) discontinuous bands of. wetlands along the lowermost stream banks of
Hoppers Creek. These wetlands bands are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Dominant ,species
observed include tag alder (Alms serrulata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Comus
amomum), dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), spleenwort fern
(Asplenium sp.), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
clearweed (Pilea pumila), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), asters (Aster
spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum). Soils observed within the wetlands are
comprised of up to 4.0 inches (10 centimeters) of light brown (10YR4/3 to 7.5YR4/4) sandy clay loams
overlying dark drown (10YR4/1) sandy loams with bright colored mottles (10YR5/8) that were saturated in
the upper 12 inches (30 centimeters) -at the time of field investigation. In places, the wetlands also
exhibited sediment deposits and drift lines.
3.1.5 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
An isolated stand of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) occurs on nearly level to
gently sloping land surfaces in the westernmost portion of the project area (Community No. 5 of Figure 3).
The community is underlain by well-drained Braddock clay loams exhibiting relatively high chromas. It is
estimated that 0.32 acre (0.13 hectare) of this community type exists within the project area.
Dominant tree species observed within the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest at the time of site
investigation include tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), American beech
(Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). Dominant sapling and
shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), red
maple (Acer rubrum), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), blackberry (Rubus sp.), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), flowering dogwood
(Comus florida), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time
NCDOT Page 13 0212012002
' TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' of site investigation include pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Curtis' goldenrod (So/idago curtisit),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the
' time of site investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), morning glory (/pomoea
sp.), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and riverside grape (Vids riparia).
3.1.6 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area
All of the communities within the project vicinity have been altered or affected by man's activities
to varying degrees. Due to, forest tract fragmentation common to the project region, species that require
large contiguous tracts of forests are not likely to utilize the site on a normal basis. Certain opportunistic
wildlife species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and
eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), can be expected to utilize edge habitat present within the
project area. Due to the relatively small size of the project area and the fact that many wildlife species are
capable of moving between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct terrestrial wildlife habitat can
be assigned to any one terrestrial plant community within the project area.
No mammals were observed in the project area at the time of field investigation, however signs of
raccoon (Procyon lotor) and beaver (Castor canadensis) were observed within the project area, and a
' beaver dam was observed just downstream of the project area. Although not observed, other mammals
common to the project region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of the project area
include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivora), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern woodrat
(Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetonum),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse
(Mus musculus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus
insignis), red fox (Vu/pes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale
putorius), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).
The communities on the project site provide limited but suitable habitat and forage areas for a
variety of birds typical to the region. A variety of resident and migratory songbirds can be expected to
periodically utilize forested tracts in the project vicinity. The open areas within the project area provide
probable hunting grounds for birds of prey, such as hawks and owls.
' No reptiles or amphibians were observed within the project area. A variety of reptile and
amphibian species may, however, use the communities located in the project area. These animals include
the rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bis/ineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and American toad
(Bufo americans). Fish species are discussed in following sections.
NCDOT Page 14 02/20/2002

TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.7 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community of the project area consists of Hoppers Creek below the ordinary high
water line. As previously discussed, Hoppers Creek ranges in width from approximately 10 to 15 feet (3.0
to 4.6 meters) within the project area. The dominant aquatic habitat within this section of Hoppers Creek
consists of cobble/boulder substrate, sticks and leaf packs, snags and logs, and root mats. The stream
within the . project area is characterized by a weakly defined riffle and run sequence, except in the
northernmost portion of the project area where backwaters resulting from a beaver dam prevail. The riffles
are not as wide as the stream and their length is less than twice the width of the stream. Gravel and
cobble substrate was less than 50 percent embedded on the day of investigation. Pools are infrequent,
(comprising less than 30 percent of the total aquatic habitat) and are present in a variety of sizes. The
riparian vegetation zone is less than 20 feet (6.0 meters) wide throughout the project area and small
breaks occur where the creek passes through the right-of-way. The stream is generally well shaded with
some breaks for light penetration.
3.1.7.1 Flora
No aquatic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water line of Hoppers Creek at the
time of field investigation. Narrow (generally less than 5.0 feet (1.5 meters) wide) discontinuous bands of
wetlands occur along the lowermost stream banks of Hoppers Creek. These wetlands are discussed as a
component of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest of section 3.1.4.
3.1.7.2 Fauna
Aquatic vertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation include
several unidentified species of minnow (Cyprinidae) and a number of unidentified juvenile finflsh. Aquatic
invertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation include abundant Asiatic
clams (Corbicula manilensis), snail (Pleuroceridae), snail (Physidae), flatheaded mayfly larvae
(Heptageniidae), hellgrammites (Cordalidae), stonefly larvae (Perlidae), and case-making caddisfly larvae
(Trichoptera).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species, 'thereby
diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the project area concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation, and starvation.
Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
NCDOT Page 15 02/2012002
A TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' successional habitat. The increased traffic noise and reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other
wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by construction
' activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species. However, the increased animal density can
result in an increase in competition for the remaining resources.
Construction of the project will result in certain unavoidable impacts to biotic resources within the
project area. Temporary and permanent impacts were assessed from the perspective of impact areas (the
acreage or hectares of affected biotic communities) and from the perspective of resource functions and
' values, where possible. Impacts to the previously identified communities will not exceed those acreages
stated in their respective sections. Practicable means to avoid or minimize impacts were evaluated and
recommended, where applicable. Temporary impacts will be subject to restoration.
1
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
' The replacement of the bridge over Hoppers Creek at SR 1771 (TIP Number B-4198) will result in
certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic community of the creek. Probable impacts will be associated
with the physical disturbance of the benthic aquatic habitat and water column habitat disturbances
resulting from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of stream segments can have
an adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality
' of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:
t . Inhibition of plant growth.
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to increased
nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn,, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of
dissolved oxygen levels.
Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of feeding
structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
' . Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project
area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable
guidelines pertaining to best management practices. Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing
construction methods that will limit instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed
as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas and species and an assessment of
possible impacts for (1) waters of the United States and (2) rare and protected species. Waters of the
NCDOT Page 16 02/20/2002
TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
United States and rare and protected species are of particular significance when assessing impacts
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address those
measures that will be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project
construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Certain surface waters considered significant to interstate commerce and wetlands adjacent to
these waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" (as defined in codified federal
regulation 33 CFR 328.3). The discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States is
regulated by the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Regulated surface waters typically consist of standing or flowing waters that have
commercial and/or recreational value to the general public. As a category of waters of the United States,
wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions".
To determine whether wetlands exist within the project area, vegetation, soils, and hydrology were
assessed using criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical
Report Y-87-1). As specified in the Manual, wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology - all three of which must be present for an area to meet
the federal definition of a wetland.
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected
The NWI map for the Dysartsville 7.5-minute quadrangle depicts the portion of Hoppers Creek
flowing through the project area as a temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, scrub-shrub, palustrine
wetland (PSS1A of USFWS classification). Within the project area, these scrub-shrub wetlands were
delineated as narrow discontinuous bands (generally less than 5.0 feet (1.5 meters) wide) along portions of
Hoppers Creek. Wetlands encountered in the project area are associated with seasonally saturated,
gleyed and/or mottled soils, and are discussed as components of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest of section 3.1.4. It is estimated that 0.06 acre (0.02 hectare) of scrub-shrub wetlands exists within the
project area.
Despite the fact that the aforementioned stream bank wetlands are located adjacent to a perennial
waterway, their relatively steep slopes, and limited extent limit certain of their values. Utilizing NCDENR's
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the stream bank wetlands within the project
area have been estimated to have the following ratings for values assessed: 8 of 20 for water storage, 12 of
20 for bank/shoreline stabilization, 20 of 25 for pollutant removal, 6 of 10 for wildlife habitat, 12 of 20 for
aquatic life value, and 2 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total rating of 60.
No waters of the United States are depicted on the NWI map for the Dysartsville 7.5-minute
quadrangle along the portions of Hoppers Creek flowing through the project area. Although not depicted
on the NWI map, field investigation confirms that the portions of Hoppers Creek flowing through the
NCDOT Page 17 02/20/2002
TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' project area are permanently flooded, upper perennial, riverine habitats with an unconsolidated bottom
(R3UBH of. USFWS classification). It is estimated that 280 feet (85 meters) of waters of the United States
exist within the project area
4.1.2 Permits
' Based on wetland field indicators observed at the time of field investigation, waters of the United
States, including wetlands, subject to regulation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the North
Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification program have been delineated and mapped within the proposed
project area. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated to occur as a result of project
' construction. As a result, proposed construction activities will require permits and certifications from the
various state and federal regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
Based on past experience with similar actions, if non-tidal wetland impacts at each bridge crossing
are less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) and none of the activities jeopardize the continued existence of a
' threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, the action would be
considered a Class 11 Action as defined under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.115(b). As a Class 11 Action,
bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion as defined
under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.117.
As a categorically excluded Class II Action and a public linear transportation project in non-tidal
waters, bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or- replacement impacting less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of
waters of the United States at a stream crossing could be authorized under the provisions of a U.S. Army
' Corps of Engineers Nationwide 23 Permit for Categorical Exclusions or a Nationwide 14 Permit for Linear
Transportation Projects, respectively. Since the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county,
the authorization of a nationwide permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.

u

If the proposed work cumulatively impacts more that 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of non-tidal waters of the
United States, an Individual Permit may be required at the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
unless authorization is granted under the provisions of Department of the Army General Permit Number
198200031 (for NCDOT bridge crossings). If the proposed work involves greater than 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare)
of wetland impacts, the Corps could not make a discretionary determination regarding Nationwide Permit
applicability nor could the General Permit option be exercised and, therefore, an Individual Permit would be
mandatory.
In addition to the aforementioned permit requirements, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will be
required for the project prior to issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land disturbance. The issuance of a
401 Certification from DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
NCDOT Page 18 02/20/2002

TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The bridge addressed under TIP Number B-4198 is located on SR 1771 over Hoppers Creek in
McDowell County. The possibility exists that demolition materials (such as asphalt, concrete rubble,
portions of deck timbers, etc.) could be inadvertently dropped into waters of the United States during bridge
demolition. Should this occur, such materials would be removed from waters of the United States as soon
as possible, where conditions allow. The resulting temporary fill associated with bridge demolition will be
determined later.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The 14 December 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Department of
the Army on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sets forth the policy and procedures to be
used in the determination of the type and level of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the MOA is to implement the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including wetlands. As
part of the MOA, a project assessment procedure is set forth requiring a sequential assessment of (1)
impact avoidance, (2) impact minimization, and (3) compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Adherence to sequencing during project planning and design stages is intended to assist in attaining a
goal of no net overall loss of wetland functions and values.
The impact avoidance stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all appropriate
-and practicable alternatives for avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. Cost, existing technology,
significant adverse environmental consequences to other resources, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes are considered in identifying "appropriate and practicable" avoidance alternatives.
The impact minimization stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all
measures that would minimize unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States to the fullest degree
practicable. The final determination regarding the availability of practicable minimization measures lies
with the reviewing regulatory agencies and, if it is determined that additional minimization measures are
available, such measures will be required through project modifications and/or permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time that it has been
demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable measures for
minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design. Compensatory mitigation
includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation. Where possible,
mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed as near to the impacted area as conditions
allow. Compensatory mitigation is conventionally required for projects authorized under Individual Permits
or certain Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acres (0.04 hectares) of all
wetlands and/or 150 feet (46 meters) of streams within or adjacent to tidal waters. Under the nationwide
permit program, the District Engineer must be notified if proposed discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.1
acres (0.04 hectares). Discharges to wetlands exceeding 0.1 acres (0.04 hectares), for which
NCDOT Page 19 02/20/2002
' TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' authorization under a Nationwide Permit 14 is being sought, require submittal of compensatory mitigation
plan as part of the Notification.
' 4.2 Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely .
affect a species listed as a federally protected threatened or endangered species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species (such as state-listed threatened or
endangered species) may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the USFWS lists
three federally protected species for McDowell County (Table 1). Brief descriptions of the characteristics
' and habitat requirements for these species are provided in Appendix A. A review the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats indicates no occurrences
of federally protected species in the project area. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat
' for any of the species listed in Table 1 were observed within the project area at the time of site
investigation.

L

1 able 1. veaerauy Protectea species for Mcoowett county
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Ha//aeefus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Note:
"Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
`Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
"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:
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 13 federal species of concern in McDowell County (Table 2). Federal species of concern are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of the provisions
included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The status of
NCDOT Page 20 02/20/2002
n
TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
these species is subject to change so their status should be periodically monitored prior to project
construction if individuals or suitable habitat is present within the project area. In addition to the federal
program, organisms that are listed as endangered (E) or threatened (T) by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program on its list of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the
N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 2 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. This species list is provided for
information purposes, as the protection status of these species may change in the future.
The NCNHP database of rare and unique habitat (as updated through January 2001) was
reviewed. The database shows no occurrences of federal species of concern (FSC) within 0.6 mile (1.0
kilometer) of the project area. Determinations regarding the presence of suitable FSC habitat, as indicated
in Table 2, were based on site conditions observed at the time of field investigation and search of
published literature.
NCDOT Page 21 02/20/2002
I TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

7

1

i aDie Z. reaerai species of concern (ana associates NC status) for McDowell County
'NC Habitat
Scientific Name Common :Name StatusW present, '
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian Woodrat Sc No
Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat SC No
Contopus borealis Olive-sided Flycatcher Sc No
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler SR No
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave Water Slater SR No
Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary Butterfly SR Yes
Carex roanenis Roan Sedge C No
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur E No
Hymenocallis coronaria Rocky Shoal Spider Lily - Yes
Juglans cinerea Butternut - No
Lilium grayi Gray's Lily T No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap C No
Note:
E An "Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's
Flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
T A "Threatened" species is any native or once native species that is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
C A "Candidate" is any species that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
SC A "Special Concern" species is on which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold
of Special Concern plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A "Significantly Rare" species is not listed as "E", 'T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in small numbers
NCDOT Page 22 02/20/2002

TIP B4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
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, North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press. 264pp.
North Carolina Department.of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide
Planning Program. December 1999. Catawba River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
http7//h2o-enr-state,nc.us/basinwide/catawba -wq_management_plan_htm.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2000. Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. (as revised through 2 February 2000) Raleigh,
North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information
Management System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: Catawba River. Accessed 10
September 2001.
http?//h o_ nr.stat .n . /born /r ports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydro/Gatawba,pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993. Classifications and
Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins. Division of Environmental Management.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina, Fourth Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Element Occurrence Search Report: McDowell County,
North Carolina. http-//www.ncsparks.net/nhp/-search.htmi. Updated July 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The
University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. 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 Hill, North Carolina. 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. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDOT Page 23 02/20/2002
TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

I
I

1

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memo to
USACE districts from Headquarters, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 6 Mar 1992,
signed by MG Arthur E. Williams, Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of McDowell
County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. 1996. NRCS National Hydric Soils List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(OSD). Accessed 21 September 2001. gip://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Dysartsville 7.5-minute Quadrangle,
North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National List of Plants That Occur in Wetlands: Summary of Indicators.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2001.
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: McDowell County. Updated 22 March 2001.
http7/lnc-es.fws-goy/`es/count?dr.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. Dysartsville, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
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.
NCDOT Page 24 02/20/2002

' TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
NCDOT
APPENDIX A
Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in McDowell County, North Carolina
02/20/2002
' TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: Endangered, 1967; Threatened, 1995
t Characteristics:
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail with a dark brown
body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and tail until the fifth or
' sixth year. Fish are the primary food source, but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles
(troth live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about- 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) from head to
tail, weigh approximately 10.0 to 12.0 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) and have a wingspan that can reach 7.0 feet
' (2.1 meters). Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Distribution:
Bald eagles breed primarily in the eastern third of Texas (mostly east of 1-35) and winter wherever open water
occurs.
Habitat:
' Habitat includes quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees. Man-made reservoirs have also
provided habitat.
Bald Eagles in North Carolina:
' In 1982, there were no bald eagle nests in North Carolina. In 1998, there were 17 nests, and in 2000, there were 34
nests. Several new, nests have been located so far during the 2001 nesting season. The bald eagle's recovery has
led to a proposal for de-listing the bald eagle from the Endangered/Threatened Species List.

1

Threats to Species:
The decline of the Bald Eagle coincided with the introduction of the pesticide DDT in 1947. Birds of prey at the top of the
food chain, such as eagles, ingested relatively high levels of the pesticide, which was concentrated in the fatty tissues of
their prey. Eagles contaminated with DDT failed to lay eggs or produced thin eggshells that broke during incubation. In
1972, DDT was banned in the United States, and a slow recovery for the Bald Eagle began. Loss of nesting habitat due
to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways also has resulted in decreasing numbers of bald
eagles.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) adults have white heads and tails, a dark brownish black body, with yellow
bill, eyes, and feet. Immature species are variable in plumage but generally have a dark brown, blotchy head, tail
and bodies; brownish bill, yellow feet, and pale yellow-gray eyes. They are normally found near water, but during
migration may occur in any part of the state. Their size is approximately 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) long with a 7.0 feet (2.1
meters) wingspan.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 20 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Page A-1 02/20/2002
11
TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muh/enbergit) Threatened (S/A) '
Animal Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997.
Characteristics: '
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is a small freshwater turtle that has a carapace length of 4.5 inches (11.4
centimeters) or less. The surface of the carapace is rough with growth annuli, (wom smooth on adults) and a dark
brown, black or mahogany color. The plastron is hingeless and black with irregular shaped yellow to cream blotches '
along the midline. Fleshy parts are brown to pink-brown and may have some red mottles on limbs. A large
conspicuous orange, yellow or reddish blotch lies behind both eyes, but is degenerated in old adults. A low medial
keel is present in juveniles. They are found in freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, marshes,

slow moving streams, ditches, or boggy areas. In July and August, they aestivate in the soft mud. '
Distribution:
The northern population of the bog turtle, which ranges from New York and Massachusetts south to Maryland, is

designated as threatened. The southern. population of the bog turtle, ranging from southern Virginia to northern '
Georgia, is also protected with a threatened designation because its physical appearance is similar to the norther
population. The southern bog turtle population is separated from the northern population by approximately 250 miles
(402 kilometers). '
Currently, bog turtles (Clemmys muh/enbergi?) are known to remain at fewer than 200 sites in their northern range.
Based on site habitat quality, only 35 of the 176 sites assessed may be capable of supporting healthy bog turtle
l
h
popu
ations into t
e future unless measures are taken to protect, maintain, and restore bog turtle habitat. '
The northern population of the bog turtle has declined by 50 percent, mostly within the past 20 years.
Habitat: '
It is found in freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, marshes with slow moving streams,
ditches, and boggy areas. In July and August, the turtle aestivates in soft mud. During winter, they hibernate below
the frost zone in holes, muskrat burrows, clumps of sedges, or the mud of waterways.
Threats to Species:
Illegal collection, primarily for the national and international pet trade, as well as loss and modification of the bog
turtle's wetland habitat, has resulted in a reduction of the species' range and a decline in the size of the remaining
populations.
Bog turtles are highly prized in the pet trade, bringing high prices from collectors and dealers, according to Hamilton.
With the new threatened designation, the Endangered Species Act prohibits collection and other activities such as
habitat destruction or degradation, and interstate sale, export, or import of bog turtles. Since 1975, the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has monitored international trade in bog
turtles, requiring permits for legal trade. However, significant illegal trade in bog turtles exists. All seven states in its
norther range and all five states in its southern range provide varying degrees of protection for the bog turtle.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Bog turtles are easily distinguished from other turtles by the large, conspicuous bright orange, yellow, or red blotch
found on each side of the head. Adult bog turtle shells are 3.0 to 4.5 inches (7.6 to 11 centimeters) in length and range
in color from light brown to ebony.
Investigation:
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as threatened (S/A) due to similarity of appearance with the
northern population of the bog turtle (which is federally listed as threatened but which does not occur in North
Carolina). Species identified as "Threatened (S/A)" are not subject to Section 7 Consultation.
Biological Conclusion: No Survey Required
NCDOT Page A-2 02/202002
TIP B-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
fl

Mountain Golden Heather (Hudsonia montana) Threatened
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually
grows in clumps of 4.0 to 8.0 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and about 6.0 inches (15 centimeters) high and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) across. The plants have the general aspect
of a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch (0.6 centimeter)
long; and the plant is often somewhat yellow-green in color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years
appear scale-like and persist on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow, nearly
1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) across, with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5
inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks, and are roundish with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after
opening, and may be seen at any time of the year.
Distribution:
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to
1,219 meters). Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, mountain golden heather has since been
found at several other sites in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites are on public land within the Pisgah
National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from several localities within its range with the total number of
plants possibly numbering 2,000 to 2,500. Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic.
Habitat:
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Leiophyl/um
dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some time in the partial shade of pines,
but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
Critical Habitat:
Critical habitat includes the area in Burke County bounded by the following: on the west by the 2,200-foot (671-
meter) contour, on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2,200-foot
(671-meter) contour and the Short Off Mountain Trail to where it intersects the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour at
the "Chimneys"; then follow the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour north until it re-intersects with the Wilderness
Boundary; then follow the Wilderness Boundary again northward until it intersects the 3,200-foot (975-meter) contour
extending west from its intersection with the Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south. At this point, the
boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2,200 foot (671-meter) contour. (The Woods Mountain sites were
unknown at the time Critical Habitat was designated.)
Threats to Species:
Threats to the species include fire suppression and recreational activities such as hiking that result in a loss of plants
due to trampling and soil compaction. Competition with other shrubs has also reduced size and vigor of populations.
The small size and number of populations increases the plant's vulnerability to extinction through both natural and
man-made factors.
References:
Morse, L. E. 1979. Report on the Conservation Status of Hudsonia montana, A Candidate Endangered Species.
Prepared by the Cooperative Parks Study Unit of the New York Botanical Garden. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Mountain Golden Heather Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlanta, Georgia. 26 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) is a member of the rockrose family (Cistaceae) that is characterized
as a small needle4eaved shrub with yellow flowers nearly 1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) across and long-staked fruit
capsules. It is usually growing in clumps 4.0 to 8.0 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and 6.0 inches (15
centimeters) high. The flowers are made up of five blunt tipped petals, and flowering occurs from mid-June to July.
Non-flowering plants resemble large moss or small juniper with leaves about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter) long and
somewhat yellow-green in color. Fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks that are roundish with three
projecting points at the tips. They are found in exposed quartzite ledges at elevations from 2,200 to 3,400 feet (671
to 1,036 meters), between bare rock and sand myrtle-dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The
plant can persist for some time in the partial shade of pines to open areas.
NCDOT Page A-3 02/20/2002

TIP 8-4198
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 20 July 2001 and no suitable habitat was observed within the project area. Elevations within the
project area range from approximately 1,175 to 1,185 feet (358 to 361 meters) msl. These elevations are below
the elevation range of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to 1,219 meters) for known populations. Consequently, the proposed
project will have "No Effect" on Hudsonia montana.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Page A-4 02/20/2002
' TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' APPENDIX B
1
' Qualifications of Principal Investigators
I
NCDOT 0212012002
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIP B-4198
Investigator: Daren M. Pait
Education: B.S. in Environmental Engineering. North Carolina State University, 2000.
Registration: Engineering Intern - NC.
Experience: Environmental Engineer, HSMM, Inc., 2000 to present.
Technician II. North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1999 to 2000.
Expertise: Environmental data collection, wetland mitigation and stream restoration feasibility
studies, preparation of wetland water budgets, drainage calculations, benthic invertebrate
stream sampling assistance, GPS surreys.
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda
Education: B.S. Biology, Old Dominion University
Certification: N/A
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., January 2001 to present.
Environmental Scientist, TAF Group, June 1993 to 2001.
Environmental Scientist, James R. Reed and Associates, May 1988 to 1993.
Environmental Scientist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1987 to 1988.
Expertise: Wetland delineations, permit processing, wetland mitigation, threatened and endangered
species investigations, biotic community inventories and mapping, GPS surveys.
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCDOT
Page B-1
02/20/2002
I TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1

1

1

APPENDIX C
Wetland Data Forms
I
NCDOT 0212012002

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NE1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum lndicato Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Rosa multiflora
Prunus serotina
2 S/S
Tree UPL
FACU 9.
10.
.
3, Soliaado caesia var. curtisii Herb FACU 11.
4. Solidaao so.
5. Viola so.
6. Phvto/acca amencana
loomoea so.
7 Herb
Herb
Herb
Vine -"_
---
FACU+
--- 12.
13
14.-
15.
.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC. (excluding FAC-): 0%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
- Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
Series and Phase lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded)
( )? Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
ProfilDescription-
Depth Matrix Color
(inrhe? Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munc .II Moist) Abundance/Contrast- Structure-.; eta
0-3 Al 10YR 3/3 CLAY LOAM
3-12 A2 7.5YR 3/3 SANDY CLAY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 1

IJ

11

d

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NE1W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratijm Indicator Dominant Plant Sneries Stratum Indicator
1. Impatiens caoensis Herb FACW 9.
2. Solidaoo caesia var. curtisii Herb FACU 10.
3. Polvaonum ounctatum Herb FACW 11.
4. Panicum so. Herb --- 12.
5. Aster so. Herb --- 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 67%
Remarks: 67% of those species identified.
FACW species are most dominant.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pt: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain
Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
Series and Phase lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded)
( )? Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Descri pt ion.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches)- Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moist) AbundanceM.ontract_ Structures Ptr.
0-4 Al 10YR 4/3 SANDY LOAM
4-12 A2 2.5YR 3/2 10YR 518 10% SANDY CLAY
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils Last
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

C

F

0

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NW1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Snecies Stratu
1. Jualans niara Tree m Indicator
FACU Dominant Plant Species
9. Lonicera iaoonica Stratum Indicator
Herb FAC-
2. Prunus serotina Tree FACU 10.Camosis radicans Vine FAC

3. Alnus serrulata S/S FACW 111onicera iaoonica Vine FAC-
4. Comus amomum S/S FACW+ 12.loomoea so. Vine ---
5.Liaustrum_sinensQ.__.---___ ----_ ____S/5---- -- FAC__ -13•__--
6, loomoea so. Herb --- 14.
7. Camosis radicans Herb FAC 15.
8• Viola so. Herb --- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 56%
Remarks: 56% of those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Field Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Deccri tion
Depth Matrix Color
(inches- Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Ahundance/Contrast_ Structures?p#c"
0-4 Al 10YR 3/2 SANDY LOAM
4-12 A2 7.5YR 3/4 SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCR are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

u

I

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NW1W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Alnus serrulata
2. ImDatiens canensis Stratum
S/S
Herb Indicator
FACW
FACW Dominant Plant Species Stratum Ind?ator
9.
10..
3. Asimina triloba
4. Comus amomum
5. Po/voonum Dunctatum
6. Camnsis radicans Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb FAC
FACW+
FACW
FAC 11.
12.
13.
14.
7. Camosis radicans Vine FAC 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG-): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) -Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAG-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain
Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
.Profile Description-
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Hnriznn (M nsall Moictl (Munn -II Moist) Abundance/rnntrast_ StructurPS?p_tt.
0-4 Al 10YR 3/2 SANDY LOAM
4-12 A2 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/6 10% SANDY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or Fuvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

H

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SE1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Sn - .i .c Strahim Inds
1. Juatans niora
2. Vaustrum sinense
3. Comus amomum Tree
S/S
S/S FACU
FAC
FACW+ 9. Imoatiens caoensis
I O.Toxicodendron radicans
11.Lonicera iaoonica Herb
Vine
Vine FACW
FAC
FAC-
4. Smilax rotundifolia Herb FAC 12. Sambucus canadensis S/S FACW-
5. Toxicodendron radicans
6. Lonicera iaoonica Herb
Herb FAC
FAC- 13.
14.
7. Grass so. Herb --- 15.
8. ASDIenlUm so Herb --- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 70%
Remarks: 70% of those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) -Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

-Drift Lines
Field Observations:
-Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in_) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
_FAG-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded)
Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description-
Depth Matrix Color
(Inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Ahundan . / .ontraat_ Stru .t j na eta
0-5 Al 10YR 313 CLAY LOAM
5-12 A2 10YR 5/6 CLAY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon - High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCR are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

Fj
F
r

0

n

u
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SE1W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S
ecies Stratum Indicato nnminnnt Plant Species Strom indir:;tn
p
1. Lioustrum sinense
2. Comus amomum
3_ Desmodium nudiflorum
4. Impatiens caDensis S/S FAC
S/S FACW+
Herb NL
Herb FACW 9. Lonicera iaDonice Vine FAC-
10.
11.
12.
Panicum sD.
5 Herb --- 13.
.
6. Toxicodendron radicans
7. Asnlenium SD.
Toxicodendron radicans
8 Herb FAC
Herb - -
Vine FAC 14.
15.
16.
,
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 83%
Remarks 71% of those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain
Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase : lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile De-nrlptoojr
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inrhe.q) Horizon (Munsell Mnist) (Muncell Moist) AbundanrWContrast_ Structures etr-
0-4 Al 10YR 4/4 CLAY
4-12 A2 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/8 10%a SANDY CLAY
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
H

0
F

I I

H

0
0
H
u
H
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SW1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
nnminant Plant Species Strom lnd*rato nnminnnt Plant Sn - .i .s Stratum Indicator
1. Prunus serotina Tree FACU 9. Solidaao SQ. Herb ---
2. Liaustrum sinense S/S FAC 10Parthenocissus ouinouefolia Vine FAC
3. Comus amomum Sts FACW+ 11.
4. Asimina Triloba
5. Rubus so.
6. Lonicera iaoonica
7. Platanus occidenta/is S/S
Herb
Herb
Herb FAC
---
FAC-
FACW- 12.
13.
14.
15.
8, Lonicera iaoonica Vine FAC- 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 63%
Remarks: 63% of those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain caused the surface saturation. Wetland hydrology not found in combination with hydric soils or with
any secondary indicators. Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
0
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (oc casionally flooded)
Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile DPSCri Lion
Depth Matrix Color
(inrhec.)_ Horizon (MuOsell Moictl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(M me II Moist) Abundan . /Contract- Structures etr-
0-8 Al 10YR 4/3 CLAY LOAM
8-12 A2 10YR 4/6 CLAY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
C
11
n
0

L

L

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Investigator: Gregory G. Wilda (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: swlw
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Strom Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indinntnr
1. Liaustrum sinense S/S FAC 9.
2. Pilea oumila Herb FACW 10.
3. CamDsis radicans
4. Asolenium so.
5. Toxicodendron radicans Herb FAC
Herb ---
Herb FAC 11.
12.
13. -
6, loomoea so. Herb --- 14.
7, Lonicera iaoonica Vine FAC- 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 80%
Remarks: 80% of those species identified.
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) - Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Recent rain
Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
I
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (occasionally flooded) Drainage Class: Poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
PrnfilP DPSrrri to ion.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches- Horizon (Munsell Mnist)Mnist) (M me_i all Moist) Abundance/Contrast- Structures etc-
0-10 Al 10YR 4/3 CLAY LOAM
10-12 A2 10YR 3/1 CLAY LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
I TIP 8-4198 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX D
DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets

NCDOT 02/20/2002
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name NCDOT B-4198 Bridge Replacement NRTR Nearest Road SR1771
County McDowell Wetland Area <2 acres Wetland Width < 5 feet
Name of evaluator Greg Wilda, Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) Date 10/18/01
Wetland Location
- on pond or lake
x on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use
(within % mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
x forested/natural vegetation 10 %
x agriculture, urban/suburban 85 %
x impervious surface 5 %
Dominant vegetation

Soil Series Iotla sandy loam (1) Alnus serrulata
_ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or (2) Impatiens capensis
peat
x predominantly mineral - non-sandy (3) Polygonum punctatum
- predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
x steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
Flooding and wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
x intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
x Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest _
_ Freshwater marsh
_ Swamp forest _ Bog/fen
Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin _ Carolina Bay
_
Bog forest Other
* the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
weight Wetland
R Water storage 2 x 4.00 = Rating
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 x 4.00 = F_1
T Pollutant removal 4 x 5.00 = 20
I Wildlife habitat 3 x 2.00 = © 60
N Aquatic life value 3 x 4.00 = 1 21
G Recreation/Education 2 x 1.00 = 0

*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within '/z mile
upstream, upslope, or radius.
- ----------
---------
----------------
------------------------------