19940922 Ver 1_Complete File_19941004

r
L?Ll 9a:
?Ty µ?Fo
M d ?a
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR

WETLANDS Fi !, e
1hIATER_Q?IAL«`,? ;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
September 16, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
41) 1
qrk g ,i
-®
Subject: Stanly County, Replacement of Bridge 43 on SR
1428 over Big Bear Creek; Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1428(2); State Project No. 8.2680601; TIP
Project No. B-2629.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project
planning report for the subject project. The subject project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A .(B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Sectipn 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project. If a Nationwide
No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts associated with
bridging and approach improvements should be allowable under
General Bridge Permit 031, issued by the Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-3141.
Sincerely
IaB.J. `Quin
nt t M nager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE-Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NC DEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NC DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coord.
w/out attachment
dir. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. B. G. Payne, Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
T
I
s
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No. _
Federal-Aid Project
B-2629
8.2680601
No. BRZ-1428(2)
A. Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN STANLY
COUNTY OVER BIG BEAR CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 43 ON SR 1428
WILL BE REPLACED WITH A 4 Q 12 FT. x 8 FT. REINFORCED
CONCRETE BOX CULVERT. THE ROADWAY GRADE WILL BE RAISED
APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET. THE BRIDGE WILL BE REPLACED IN
ITS EXISTING LOCATION AND TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO
EXISTING AREA ROADS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 43 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING
OF 24.8 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 2
YEARS. THE ONE LANE BRIDGE IS POSTED 9 TONS SV and 13
TONS TTST. BECAUSE OF THE DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE
NO. 43 SHOULD BE REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
1

Date: 1/93 ,
Revised: 1/94
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
0 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
S. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
D.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special Project Informatio
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
WETLANDS WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED BY THE PROJECT.
ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TOTAL
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
- $ 245,000
- $ 22,000
$ 267,000
1994 - 600 VPD
2016 - 1200 VPD
THE LENGTH OF THE CULVERT SHOULD BE ADEQUATE TO
ACCOMMODATE A 22-FOOT PAVEMENT AND 6-FOOT GRADED
SHOULDERS. THE APPROACHES SHOULD BE A 22-FOOT PAVEMENT
WITH 6-FOOT GRADED SHOULDERS.
3
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
DUE TO FREQUENT OVERTOPPING OF SR 1428, THE ROADWAY GRADE
WILL BE RAISED APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET.
THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH.
SR 1428 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR COLLECTOR.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1)
(2)
Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource.
Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
a-
Y
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary a
wetland taking less than one-third X
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(S) Will the project require the use of F-1 X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
t
4
P
f

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(S) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
-
underground storage tanks (UST's) or 1 X
hazardous materials sites ?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
-
county, will the project significantly F
1 X
affect the coastal zone a nd/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
5
1 k
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in -1 X
access control?
(19) will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent -1 X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
YES XO
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?

t
6
r
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the T Y
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks;
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl T x
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated F X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
O
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
RESPONSE TO QUESTION j2
AS OF MAY 12, 1994 THE USFWS LISTS TWO FEDERALLY
PROTECTED SPECIES FOR STANLY COUNTY: THE BALD EAGLE
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) AND SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER
(Helianthus schweinitzii).
THE STUDY AREA DOES NOT SUPPORT SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE
BALD EAGLE. THE BALD EAGLE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
THE STUDY AREA SUPPORTS SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE
SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER ALONG THE ROADSIDE SHOULDERS. NO
SUNFLOWERS WERE OBSERVED DURING THE OCTOBER 4, 1993
PLANT-BY-PLANT SURVEY. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WILL
NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER.
7

Date: 1/9,3
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2629
State Project No. 8.2680601
Federal-Aid Project No. _BRZ-142S(2)
Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN STANLY
COUNTY OVER BIG BEAR CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 43 ON SR 1425 WILL
BE REPLACED WITH A 4 C 12 FT. X S FT. BOX CULVERT. THE
BRIDGE WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION AND
TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING AREA ROADS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE I I (B)
Approved:
Date foss"/,Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Ul _7
Date Proje t Planning Unit Head
Date Pr ject Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
C R__? 5_7 ?-: ? ? 4, Z,, 0
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
S

7lle \ 2117 } lam 1!11

y j? Belhiehsm:;?
Ilt 01 O 2 30 Y- t

C
1
]4?4
?
u .S 1 _
?
-) 2661
6 a
I l 1
.
.
al . /
1u
3 .7 J d
y
1 ? 2AP
, 4
,
b
\4
? .H S\\
I !? 2.091 " a
f.7
/
'V 2601 ?/? 4
O/ 1412 `+ /?•
]est /
:eo\ /
_ ?7J
?`
'

~

'
v\ /
3602 M1 Jla ]' 1731
•?
to - _ _ I _xeo. /I
h 1442 M1
`
l J D
1151

2604
7407 1A
I ti 12]I 1?iQ

/ j• ieae, !
` 144 l?(ll
l le
C ? ?
Ll
.d .) FnQar .
-J Mill
7617 f?
- j .
-
/
'' X
/ •9 ? 1 N
' 2 ?
" / 161 t idyl 1191-
_ 177] 171.
ielo I e /
?te?
?A Al
>33
7
s
14x4
, \2 \. 1210
Gj 0 4 O
761]J/r,U r
??Z/ ?? 1211 ?•
M1
1111 v 1
rd ° 1221 L 1L
S vW co
V ?
IaQO ..._ ?.?
= I.7s r
P d L!4i
'? 41 Z
p !4S .4
v
ll4 a J 1 .)
7 .b I 1
111! ? w 11!! ' 1?
STUDIED DETOUR
ROUTE
143! 1V /A
.ld

N
T
D
P
B
7-
RTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
?NSPORTATION - F
ISION OF HIGHWAYS I
.NNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INCH
BRIDGE NO. 43
STANLY COUNTY
B-2629
0 miles 2
i 1 , FIG. 1
s?
.?v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DWISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GovERNOR RO. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
Julv 12. 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridle Unit
ATTENTION: Michelle James. Project Manager
FROM: Tim W. Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 43
on SR 1428 over Big Bear Creek. Stanly
County, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1428(2),
State Project No. 8.2680601,
TIP No. B-2629
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts. likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected
species is also provided.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner,.Environmental Supervisor
File B-?i?
U
.J
S

Replacement of Bridge No. 43
On SR 1425
Over Bit Bear Creek
Stanly County
TIP No. B-2629
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1428(2)
State Project No. 8.2650601
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2629
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
TIM SAVIDGE. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
June 15, 1994

S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...........................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................1
1.2 Purpose ..........................................1
1.3 Project Area .....................................1
1.4 Physiography and Soils ...........................1
1.5 Methodology ......................................2
2.0 Water Resources ........................................2
2.1 Waters Impacted ..................................2
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ...................2
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification ................3
2.1.3 Water Quality .................... .......3
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources .............3
3.0 Biotic Resources ......... 3
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..........................4
3.1.1 Maintained Communities ....................4
3.1.2 Piedmont Alluvial Forest ..................5
3.2 Aquatic Community ................................6
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities..........'
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts .............7
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts .................8
4.0 Special Topics ........................................9
4.1 Waters of the United States ......................9
4.1.1 Permits ..................................9
4.1.2 Mitigation ..............................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................10
4.2.1 Federally Protected ...................... 10
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ...................12
5.0 References ............................................14
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms .............................15
Appendix B:`S.pecies Observed List .........................17
Appendix C: Protected Species Survey Results
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE). This report inventories the natural
resources occurring within the project area and identifies
anv environmental concerns which must be addressed in the
planning stages of this project.
1.1 Project Description
Two alternates are proposed to replace the existing
bridge with an 4 C 12' x 8' Reenforced Concrete Box Culvert.
Alternate 1 calls for replacement on existing location with
road closure. Alternate 2 calls for replacement on existing
location with an on-site detour south of the existing
structure. The detour structure includes four 84" pipes.
The overall grade of the improved roadway will be raised 2
feet.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and
inventory the natural resources identified within the project
vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing design concepts. If
preliminary design parameters change, additional field
investigation may be necessary.
1.3 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in northwest Stanly County,
approximately 13 km (8 mi) west of Albemarle (county seat).
The project area is rural, with agricultural fields
dominating the landscape. Forested tracts are limited to
narrow strips following the stream course.
1.4 Physiography and. Soils
Stanlv County is in the southern piedmont physiographic
province. Broad upland plains and moderately rolling hills,
with narrow valleys characterize the topography of the area.
The majority of the project occurs in the Carolina Slate
Belt System. These generally well-drained loams, or sands.
have a bedrock of volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs,
breccias and flows. The soils of the nearly level-to-gently
sloping uplands are well drained silt loams of the Badin and
Kirksey soil series. Moderately drained, frequently flooded
silt/loams of the Oakboro series occur on the narrow
floodplain of Big Bear Creek. No hydric soils are mapped in
the project area.
1
n
JSL4 24S2 Tut
7 ?? Be1AleAem?:{ 99/
/
7411
7..7 O /
. 1 -

/ 1 ?.
13 v fAf
y n ._
7.33 l /.
. trt p?
3 ' 1 JA!?
7.4.
as ?/
7.31
MT
s
-I ? 4 1?J1
.6 .3
0 7e,o
/ Jay, VO
C-2
u.
Ina . 4, 19l-
1.31
17a. 1-3q 1214
BRIDGE NO. 43
.1 .. .J Mal Po
ti 7
is
A Y Ll4L
I a 13. ^ .i 0 .3 _.1 , y, I o
?L 1777 In° I_!My r •.1 r?rtywf 173
?. 1.73•• r•r•
ills
1.7 b ••1741 ^
•4 I7i/ IA ?V -?~
1739 ` `M1 b 12-1
17.7 .3 N
1.0 ` •? a 249
,3, 46 D
I711 y .? M P.
B. Z : ?• X71. s '
v, .1 B.

2TH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NSPORTATION
ISION OF HIGHWAYS
NNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
INCH
BRIDGE NO. 43
STANLY COUNTY
B-2629
D miles 2
FIG. 1
1•
1.5 Methodology
Preliminary resource information was gathered and
reviewed prior to site visit. information sources include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Richfield).
Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Soils Map of Stanly County.
NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200). North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (.DEM) water
quality classification for the Yadkin River Basin. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon and
protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment on September 17, 1993 by NCDOT biologists Tim
Savidge. Plant communities were identified and recorded.
Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture. visual observations
(binocular), and recording the identifying signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of
aquatic communities were conducted using a hand held dip net
and tactile searches for benthic organisms. Organisms
captured were identified and then released. Surveys for the
federally protected Schwe.initz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) were conducted by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and
Cyndi Bell on October 04, 1993.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the physical characteristics.
Best Usage Standards and water quality of the water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed. as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.1 Waters Impacted
Big Bear Creek is in the Yadkin River drainage basin,
and arises approximately 6 km (4 mi) upstream of project
crossing, in Cabarrus County. The stream flows southeasterly
into Long Creek, 20 km (.12 mi) downstream of project
crossing.
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Streambed width of Big Bear Creek is approximately 1-2 m
(40 ft) at the point of crossing, but is much more confined
upstream and downstream. The stream bed was dry during the
site visit. A small 3 m x 3 m (10 ft x 10 ft) pool with a
depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) occurs just upstream of crossing. and a
slightly smaller one occurs on the downstream side of the
bridge. Substrate is composed of stone and boulders.
overlain with coarse sand. The extreme drought in this
region preceding the site visit likely contributed to the dry
2

4
creekbed, however existing land usage upstream of project
crossing is presumably a major factor as well. The USGS
quadrangle map indicates that Big Bear Creek is a perennial
stream with a fairly significant drainage area, and thus
should have flow even under drought conditions.
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The waters of the Big Bear Creek carry a Best Usage
Classification of C as assigned by the Forth Carolina
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR). 1993. Class C designates waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), WS-I, or WS-II occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the
project area.
2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
Macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and
overall biomass are reflections of water quality. BMAN data
is available for Big Bear Creek approximately 1.5 km (1 mi)
upstream of project crossing. This location received
biodiversity ratings of "Good" between 1957 and 1990.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) report lists no permitted discharge sources into the
Big Bear Creek near the project area.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources include, decreases
of dissolved oxygen, and changes in temperature. The later
two impacts are due to removal of the streamside canopy and
removal/burial of aquatic vegetation. Sedimentation and
substrate disturbance occurring during construction, can
significantly reduce water clarity.
If stream channel relocation becomes necessary and if
the stream relocation is greater than 100 ft or > 50 ft on
one side, consultation with the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) will be required, per the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 USC 661-667d). Relocated
streams will be designed to have similar characteristics
(depth, width, and substrate) as the original stream. This
also includes re-establishment of streamside vegetation.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and
the relationships between vegetative and faunal components
3

within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited. along with brief descriptions of
their respective "roles" within that community. For complete
listings of flora and fauna which occur in Stanly county, a
composite of specific references listed in section 5.0 should
be consulted. Animals that were observed during site visit
are denoted by (*) in the text and are also listed in
Appendix B. Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with
sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct biotic community types were identified in
the project area, however there is some degree of overlap
between communities, particularly with the faunal components.
?numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and utilize
a variety of habitats, therefore many of the species
mentioned may occur in all of the community types described.
3.1.1 :Maintained Communities
Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the
vegetation is kept in a low-growing. non-successional state.
These communities include the existing roadside shoulder and
agricultural fields. The roadside shoulder is dominated
largely by fescue (Festuca sp.) and low-growing herbaceous
plants such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). red clover
(Trifolium pratense), wild onion (Allium canadense),
chickweed (Stellaria media) and nightshade (Solanum sp.).
Small shrubs and weedy vegetation occur at the edges of the
cleared roadside, grading into the forested bottomland and
adjacent fields. Common species found here include smooth
sumac (Rhos glabra), beggartick (Bidens sp.), pokeweed
(Phjrtolacca americana). maypops (Passiflora incarnata),
milkweed (Asclepias sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry
(Rubus spp.) and kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Some of these
species are scattered at the edge of the agricultural fields,
otherwise these fields are populated with crops such as corn
and soybeans.
Few animals reside along roadsides because of the
limited size and complexity of the habitat, however numerous
opportunistic animals use this area as a foraging zone, or as
a passage-way between forested habitats. Species found here
are able to adapt to the "edge" habitat created by human
4
•f
activity. This edge is actually an ecotone between
communities.
Various species of birds, which reside in nearby
habitats, may feed along the roadside on seeds. berries and
insects. Few species were observed. These include northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*. American robin (Turdus
migratorius)*, northern mockingbird (dfimus polyglottus)* and
mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura)*. Other species common to
this types of habitat include; killdeer (Charadrius
vociferus), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) and white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Snakes such as
the black racer (Columber constrictor) and eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this habitat to
feed on insects and other invertebrates, as well as small
mammals, such as house mouse (Mus musculus).
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)* and raccoon
(Procyon lotor)*, frequently forage nocturnally in these
habitats, or travel along roadways between habitats. These
animals are often roadkill victims. Consequently roadkills
attract a large number of scavenger species including turkey
vulture (Carthartes aura)* and common crow (Corvus
americanus)*, as well as domestic dogs and cats.
3.1.2 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Much of this floodplain community'has been cleared for
agricultural purposes, and that which remains has had some
degree of past disturbance. The absence of any old-growth
trees suggests that this forest has been logged in the past..
Dominant canopy species include sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), hickory (Carya sp.), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), red maple (Ater rubrum), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), shingle oak (Q. imbricaria) and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). American holly (Ilex opaca),-red maple and
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) comprise the majority of the.
subcanopy. The presence of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) in the subcanopy reflects
the past alterations.
American strawberry bush (Euonymus americana) was the
only shrub species noted. The herbaceous component exhibited
low diversity (unusual for this community type). Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) and rattlesnake fern
(Botrychium virginianum) were abundant, while jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis) and violet (Viola sp) were present to a
lesser extent. Beggartick (Bidens sp.) and pokeweed were
found growing in the dry streambed, where there was an
opening in the canopy. The presence of these plants
indicates that the dry conditions have persisted for some
time.
The faunal component of Alluvial forests in the Piedmont
5
T ,
is normally fairly diverse and abundant. The vegetative
composition of these forests provides a wide variety of food
and shelter resources, and the periodic flooding creates
conditions favorable for many water-dependent species (frogs
and salamanders). The situation with this alluvial forest is
likely very different. The availability of sufficient food
and cover is low due to the young age and limited size of
this community. The apparent hydrological alteration of the
stream (lack of flow) and past disturbances of this stand,
which have created canopy gaps, have created much drier
conditions than is normal in this habitat type.
Animals observed in this community include Carolina
chickadee (Parus caroliniensis)*, tufted titmouse (P.
bicolor)*. white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)* and
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)*. A red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)* was also seen perched on a tree at
the edge of this community, overlooking the adjacent fields.
This species feeds mainly in open areas such as fields and
nests along woodland borders.
Forested tracts along streams serve as travel corridors
between habitats for many animal species. Assuming that in
some areas upstream or downstream of the project. woodland
habitat is more extensive and supports higher numbers of
fauna, highly mobile species such as white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon and Virginia opossum,
routinely travel through the project area en-route to o.ther
communities.
2.2 Aquatic Community
With the exception of pools, the lack of water in the
majority of the streambed, precludes fully aquatic species
from occurring in this stretch of Big Bear Creek.
Semiaquatic species such as three-lined salamander (Eurz'cea
guttolineata)*, eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum)*
and eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus)* were found
within the dry streambed. Provided they are not too far from
water (pools), these species are able to aestivate in mud, or
under rocks, logs and other debris, during drought
conditions.
Many stream species of fish require continual flow and
will not be found in this stretch of Big Bear Creek during
periods of no flow. However, the pools in the streambed
contained a large number of fish, and frogs. These
concentrated numbers are a result of limited amount of water
within the stream. as these individuals become confined to
these pools. Eventually food availability and space become
limiting factors, assuming water remains in these pools.
Species observed here include pickeral frog (Rana
palustris)*, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)*, green
6
't
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)* and eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia affinis)*. These species are able to tolerate
ponded conditions, .or waters with no flow. If waters
continue to dry up these fish become easy prey for
terrestrial animals such as raccoon. or they will die from
exposure.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of this project will have various impacts
on the biotic communities described. This section quantifies
and qualifies impacts to these resources in terms of area
impacted (cleared/modified), and ecosystem effects. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of the two terrestrial community
types described. The estimated loss to these communities is
listed in Table 1. It should be noted that estimated impacts
were derived using the entire proposed right of way. Project
construction often does not require the entire right of way
and therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Biotic Community
Alternate AF MC
1 0.4 (0.9) 0.3 (0.8)
2 0.2 (0.6) 0.3 (0.8)
Impacts in hectares (acres) are based on 18 m (60 ft) of ROB';
AF and MC denote Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Maintained
Communities. respectively.
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. The alluvial forest system has been
greatly reduced by land use practices in the area. Further
reduction of this community is likely to jeopardize the
existing faunal communities. Loss of habitat is likely to
reduce the number of faunal organisms, and concentrate them
into a smaller area, which causes some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. It is thus
recommended that alternate 2 (on-site detour) be avoided,
because it impacts more of the forest than Alternate 1.
Individual mortalities during construction, are likely
to occur to animals closely associated with the ground
(snakes, small mammals, etc.). Mobile species will be
displaced during construction activity. These animals may
7
s?
return to the area following construction, however the amount
of forested habitat, will be reduced even further.
3.3.3 Aquatic Community Impacts
Anticipated impacts to the stream community of Big Bear
Creek will vary greatly depending on the presence/absence of
water within the stream. If the streambed remains dry during
the construction period. impacts to aquatic organisms will be
minimal. However, the aerial photograph utilized in this
investigation and additional color photos of the stream
reflect that there was a significant amount of flow in the
stream when photographed. and thus it is likely that the
absence of flow during the site visit was highly unusual for
this stream.
In general impacts to-aquatic ecosystems can be
attributed to construction-related habitat disturbance and
sedimentation. Although disturbance and sedimentation may be
temporary processes during the construction phase of this
project, environmental impacts from these processes may be
long-lived or irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source
for many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various
species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also
serves as a means of predator avoidance for amphibians (frogs
and salamanders) and reptiles (snakes and turtles).
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit
feeders, and macro-and-micro alga, are particularly sensitive
to construction activities such as dredging, filling, pile
driving operations and slope stabilization. These
construction. activities physically disturb the substrate,
resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of
these aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an
area, because they require a stabilized substrate for
attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to
develop, therefore, changes in community composition will
occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary
producers in the food chain, can be greatly effected by
siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing
available light.- Clogging of feeding apparati of suspension
feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these
organisms, are other effects of siltation. These species are
often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major
step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may
directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as
fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects
8
?c
of siltation, however gills of fish. crustaceans and larval
amphibian and insect forms can become clogged and
dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning
habitats for these mobile species may become filled with
sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably
reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely
detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must be strictly
adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water
bodies impacted by this project.
Additionally, if measures are not taken to reduce the
amount of probable increased concentrations of toxic
compounds (gasoline, oil. etc.) in the stream, coming from
construction related machinery and road paving activities,
mortalities to numerous types of aquatic organisms are
likely.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33
CFR 328.3. in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 198' "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland". the following three specifications must be met:
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix A), and 3)
evidence of hydrology, including; saturated soils. oxidized
rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
No jurisdictional wetlands occur within the Piedmont
Alluvial Forest. Construction of this project will result in
fill (especially Alt. 2) to surface waters of Big Bear Creek.
4.1.1 Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23, for impacts to surface
waters of Big Bear Creek, is likely to be applicable. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in
part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency
or department has determined that the activity is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation,
9

because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification
is also required. prior to issuance of the Nationwide permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species.
Federal law requires that any action. which has the
potential to jeopardize the continued existence of any
species classified as federally protected, is subject to
review by the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Rare species receive
additional protection under separate state statutes. In
N6rth Carolina protection of plant species falls under N.C.
General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of
1987.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and Animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. as amended. As of May 12, 1994 the FWS lists the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) for Stanly County. A brief
description of these species' characteristics and habitat
requirements is provided, along with a Biological Conclusion
addressing potential impacts to these species from the
proposed project.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Status: Endangered
Family: Acciptridae
Listed: 3-11-67
These large predatory birds are found in North America
from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting populations
in the southeast occur in Florida: however migrants and rare
nesting pairs do occur in North Carolina. Adults are dark
brown except for.the white head and tail. Immatures are
brown and irregularly marked with white until their fourth
year.
10

C
Eagles nest close (within 0.5 mile) to large expanses of
water usually in the largest dominant tree of an old-growth
stand. Nests constructed in marine environments have been
shown to be more successful than nests on lakes and
reservoirs (Stocek and Pearce 1981). The nests may measure
two meters (6 ft) across and are often as deep. Nests are
often used for many years and may increase in size as the
birds continue to add to it.
In the southeast, nesting activity usually begins in
early September, with breeding taking place in December or
January (Murphy 1989). Breeding and incubating is usually
later (Nov-March) in the Chesapeake Bay area (Cline 1985).
Usually two eggs are laid, which are incubated for 35 days.
The young remain in the nest at least 10 weeks. although
parental care may extend 4 to 6 weeks after fledging.
Studies of post-fledging movements of southeastern nesting
eagles demonstrate extensive northward migration.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Big Bear Creek is not a large enough body of water to
support an eagle population. No signs of eagles utilizing
the area were observed at the project site. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will not impact
the bald eagle.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's'sunflower)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: June -6, 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb
that grows 1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tubrous
roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and only branch
above mid-stem. The leaves are rough feeling above and
resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves of
the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and
usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad
flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers
are yellow in color and arranged in an open system of
upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black
achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South
Carolina. These sunflowers grow best'in full sunlight or
light shade in clearings and along the edges of open stands
of oak-pine-hickory upland woods. Common soils that this
species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or
sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel content and always
moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores
are considered to be historically important in maintaining
open habitat for these sunflowers.
11
J?
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species occurs along the
existing roadside and field edges within the project ROW.
Plant-by-plant surveys were conducted for this species on
October 04. 1994 by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and Cyndi Bell
(Appendix C). No Schweinitz's sunflower was found. It can
be concluded that construction of this project will have no
impact on this species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are a total of five federal candidate (C2)
species listed for Stanly County (Table 1). Candidate 2
(C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough
data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time.
The North Carolina status of these Federal Candidate
species is also listed in Table 1. Plants or animals with
state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC), are given protection by the State
Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture respectively. Species
with state designations of Candidate (C). Significantly Rare
(SR) and Watch List (W) are not protected under state laws,
however there is evidence of declining populations, and
therefore those species are monitored by the NHP to determine
if protected status is warranted, if populations continue to
decline.
These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become protected in the future.
Specific surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits, nor were any of these species observed during
site visits.
12

TABLE 1. Federal Candidate Species Stanly County
NC
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Aster georgianus Georgia aster Y C
Juglans cinerea Butternut Y W
Lotus purshianus Heller's trefoil Y C
var. helleri
Nestronia umbellula nestronia N SR
Verbena riparia riverbank vervain Y C
NC Status: C. SR and W denote Candidate. Significantly Rare
and Watch List. which are not Protected by state laws.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and
animals resulted in no records of any rare or protected
species in the project area.
13

5.0 REFERENCES
Cline. K. 1985. Bald eagles in the Chesapeake: A management
guide for landowners. National Wildlife Federation, 16pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of Int. Washington D.C.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd and J.A.
Phillips, 1984. Soil Systems in North Carolina. N.C.
Agricultural Research Service. N.C. State Univ. Raleigh
N.C. Bulletin 467.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters.
University of Toronto Press, 555 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Murphy, T.M. 1989. Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery
Plan. Prepared for USFWS Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to Waters of the Yadkin River Basin. Raleigh
Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate Data
Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Potter. E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
Stocek. R.F., and P.A. Pearce. 1981. Status and breeding
success of New Brunswick Bald Eagles. Canadian Field-
Naturalist 95(4): 428-433.
14

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1984.
Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
abiotic pertaining to nonliving or physical (air, water,
soil) aspects of an environment.
alluvial sediments deposited by flowing water, as in river
bed floodplain or delta.
allochthonous of foreign origin; transported into an area
from outside of area.
autochthonous formed within the place where it is found.
benthic pertaining to the bottom of a body of water; a
benthic organism lives on or in the bottom substrate.
biotic pertaining to living aspects or specific life
conditions of an environment.
canopy the uppermost layer of vegetation in a plant
community.
carnivore an organism that feeds on animals.
channel an open conduit either naturally or artifically
created which periodically or continuously contains moving
water.
ecosystem a biological community plus its abiotic (nonliving)
environment.
Endangered a taxa that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
fauna animals collectively, of a particular region.
flora a treatise describing the plants of a region.
fluvial produced by the action of a river or stream
food chain specific sequence of organisms, including
producer, herbivore, and carnivore, through which energy
and materials move within an ecosystem.
herbivore an animal that consumes plant material.
hydric soil soil that is wet long enough to periodically
produce anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the
growth of plants.
hydrophytic vegetation plants which grow in water or on a
substrate that is at least periodically deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
nocturnal animals that feed or are active at night.
omnivore an animal which feeds on both plant and animal
material.
photosynthesis conversion of radiant energy (sunlight) into
chemical energy (food).
15
a

piscivore an animal that feeds primarily on fish.
primary consumer organisms that are the second ste- in a
community food chain. feeding on the producers.
primary producer organisms capable through photosynthesis to
manufacture their own food through direct capture of light
energy: producers compose the first step in a community
food chain.
Proposed Endangered a species that has been formally proposed
as Endangered; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
Proposed Threatened a species that has been formally proposed
as Threatened; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
sessile an organism which permanently attaches itself to the
substrate.
spoor the track or trail of an animal, particularly a wild
animal.
succession The process of community change through time,
with an orderly sequence of seral stages, the organisims
(plants, animals) of each stage modify the environment,
making it less suitable for themselves, and more suitable
for the next. The end point or climax perpetuates itself.
Threatened a taxa that is likely to become Endangered in the
foreseeable future.
16
C
APPENDIX B
ORGANISMS OBSERVED DURING SITE VISIT
Class Common name Habitat
Osteichthyes eastern mosquitofish BC
11 green sunfish
it largemouth bass "
Amphibia pickeral frog
it three-lined salamander "
Reptilia eastern mud turtle
it eastern ribbon snake "
Aves American crow MC
American robin "
blue-gray gnatcatcher AF
it Carolina chickadee if
it mourning dove MC
" northern cardinal MC,AF
" northern mockingbird MC
" red-tail hawk AF,MC
" tufted titmouse AF
turkey vulture MC
white-breasted nuthatch AF
Mammalia Raccoon* AF
of Virginia opossum MC, rk
AF, MC and BC denote Piedmont Alluvial Forest, Maintained
and Big Bear Creek Communities, respectively. rk denotes
roadkill, * d enotes spoor evidence only
1 7

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. Hurry. )R DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
October 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: , Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
FROM: Hal Bain, Environmental Biologist ?-
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species survey for Proposed
replacement of Bridge # 43 over Big Bear
creek on SR 1428, Stanly County; TIP # B-
2629; State Project # 8.2680601; Federal Aid
Project # BRZ-1428(2).
Surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) were conducted by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and
Cyndi Bell on October 4, 1993. Existing road shoulders and
ecotonal areas associated with the project area were surveyed
on a plant by plant basis. Although habitat exists in the
project study area, no Schweinitz's sunflower was found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
SAM Hurry
SECRETARY
?J
4

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO' REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ri J??wr?? Dot -?.
FROM:
l
& R F. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
=
p
e
:
g j r
l
y-E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
e, <

?d.? STATE on
JAMES B. HUNT, IR
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 4, 1993
p f??C?QdC???i
W-810
Mr. Eric Gal amb WATER UALLITY SECTIO ?g
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 43,
SR 1428 over Big Bear Creek, Stanly County, B-2629
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 6, 1993 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room. You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/pl r ?tf 7l
Attachment
4

Ap. 4
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 3-5-93
TIP PROJECT B-2629
STATE PROJECT 8.2680601
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1428(2)
DIVISION 10
COUNTY Stanly
ROUTE SR 1428
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING x
DESIGN
1 6 d
rAlki
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 43 on SR 1428
in Stanly County over Big Bear Creek
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (a)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET

CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE @ INCHES
TRAFFIC: CURRENT '600 PD DESIGN YEAR(2016 1200 VPD
TTST 1 DT 2 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 49 FEET; WIDTH 15.8 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES AND
ACQUISITION) ................... $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $ 150,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 15,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 165,000
r r
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The hydraulic information will be provided
at the scoping meeting.
SR 1428 is classified as a minor collector.
z
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 3-5-93

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

M
TO:
7
? REF. NO. OR ROO
. BLDG.
e
r i?
5alav? b ut- aE?? -lo
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Wc-liele Dawes 1 E _
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

dat STATp q,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 7, 1993
0
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb L;
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: Michele James
Planning and Environmental
SUBJECT: Stanly County, SR 1428, Bridge No. 43
over Big Bear Creek, B-2629
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
M NOW fi
JUN - 1993
A scoping meeting was held on April 6, 1993 to initiate the subject
project.
A list of those attending is as follows:
Carolyn Hignutt
Wanda James
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Betty Yancey
Robin Stancil
Eric Galamb
Jerry Snead
Michele James
Location and Surveys
Traffic Control
Program Development
Structure Design
Right of Way
DCR-SHPO
DEM
Hydraulics
Planning and Environmental
Based on available information, it appears that the subject bridge
should be replaced at the existing location. To improve the level of service
to pass the design storm (25-year frequency), a 4 @ 12' x 8' RCBC would be
required, and the roadway grade would need to be raised approximately 2 feet.
Traffic should be detoured onto the existing secondary roads.
A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended replacement is $245,000.
The estimated cost in the Transportation Improvement Program is $165,000.
A list of alternatives to be studied is as follows:
1. Replacement at existing location - road closure.
2. Replacement at existing location with an on-site detour to the
south.
MJ/sdt

e •
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 3-5-93
REVISION DATE 6-4-93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2629
STATE PROJECT _8.2680601
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1428(2)
DIVISION 10
COUNTY Stanly
ROUTE SR 1.428
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 43 on SR 1428
in Stanly over Big Bear Creek
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE X
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
1
IL
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 600 VPD DESIGN YEAR(2016) 1200 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 2 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 49 FEET; WIDTH 15.8 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CULVERT - 4 @ 12' x 8'; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE 4 @ 84 INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 245,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES 15,000
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 260,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $ 150,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................... $ 15,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 165,000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
SR 1428 is classified as a minor collector.
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 6-4-93