20020758 Ver 1_Complete File_20020515

a.w SUTp
way
Q2 0758
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTN MNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 8, 2002
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ,
S
cop
ATTN.: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator ?S Gf"UP
- i:w'cCfl^vN
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 45 over the Uwharrie River on NC
109 in Montgomery County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-109(7), State
Project No. 8.1551101, TIP No. B-3210. Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit
Applications.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 45 will be replaced by a new bridge approximately 360.0 ft in length and
32.0 ft wide approximately 50 feet east of the existing location. The project length is
approximately 3400.0 ft. Traffic will remain onsite during construction on the existing bridge
until the new bridge is completed. Construction of the proposed bridge will require impacts to
0.04 ac of a jurisdictional wetland as shown on Sheet 3. Temporary causeways will be needed
for the construction of the new bridge and the removal of the existing bridge resulting in 0.14 ac
of surface waters being temporarily filled. These impacts are depicted in the attached drawings
(Sheets 4A, 4B, and 4C). A project vicinity map and preconstruction notification form are also
included with this permit application.
Temporary Causeway Information:. To construct the causeways, 0.14 ac of surface
waters will be temporarily filled. Approximately 740 tons of Class II rip rap will be used for the
proposed bridge and 760 tons of Class II rip rap will be used at the existing bridge.
MAI LC
1548, MAIL SER`i ICE CEN17=R 1 SOUTH 1A,:LM!'4GT0N -S -R=ET
RALEIGH NC 27599-1548 WESSITE. WWWNCDOTORG RALEIGH, NC
1. Restoration Plan: The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeways
will be removed after their purpose has been served. The temporary fill areas will be restored
to their original contours once the rip rap is removed.
2. Schedule: The project schedule calls for a September 17, 2002 let date. It is expected that
the contractor will chose to start construction of the causeways shortly after the project is let.
The causeways will probably be in use for approximately nine months.
3. Disposal: After the causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will remove the rip rap
used in the causeways. All containment materials will become property of the contractor.
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal and disposal of all
materials off-site.
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge has seven spans totaling 350.0 feet in length.
The deck and bridge railings are composed of concrete. The interior bents are composed of
concrete posts and beams. The end bents are composed of steel piles with concrete caps. The
bridge rail and the steel piles will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the
United States. There is potential for components of the deck, interior bents, and concrete caps to
be dropped into Waters of the United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
deck, interior bents, and concrete caps is approximately 475 yd3. NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Waters of the U.S: The following jurisdictional waters will be impacted. One perennial
stream in the Yadkin River Basin, the Uwharrie River [DWQ Index No. 13-2-(17.5), (8/3/92)] is
crossed by NC 109. This stream carries a Best Usage Classification of WS-IV. No permanent
impacts to this stream will result from the construction of this project. One small jurisdictional
wetland is located-within the project area. A piedmont bottomland hardwood wetland will be
permanently impacted by 0.032 ac of fill and 0.008 ac of mechanized clearing as a result of
project construction.
U.S. Forest Service: A portion of the project area exists on U.S. Forest Service property.
As a result, the U.S. Forest Service has prepared a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the project. It
was determined that the project will have no effect on proposed, endangered, or threatened
wildlife or plants. The project will not cause a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive
aquatic species or a loss of viability to any PET species listed for the Uwharrie National Forest.
Four mitigation measures were listed in the Aquatic Analysis section of the BE. The following
measures will be implemented before and during project construction:
1. All freshwater mussels (excluding fingernail clams) should be removed from any area of
the river bottom proposed for disturbance prior to project implementation to minimize
effects to mussel community diversity and stability. These mussels should be maintained
in the Uwharrie River upstream of the aquatic project area or at a reputable rearing
facility until project completion, when they should be placed back into the aquatic
analysis area. This procedure should be conducted or, at a minimum, supervised by one
(or more) aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, USFWS, NCWRC, NCDENR, or USFS.
2. Erosion control such as (but not limited to),silt fence should be placed along the length of
river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to
project implementation to minimize soil entering the Uwharrie River. Erosion control
efficiency should be maintained until vegetative cover is established upon project
completion.
3. All coffer dams should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic
materials unless the work area can be completely dry during installation and curing. If
uncured concrete is used to form abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one
or more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, USFWS, NCWRC, NCDENR, or USFS
should be present to insure that no uncured concrete comes in contact with the Uwharrie
River. Uncured concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
4. Center supports and abutments of the old bridge should be left to avoid unnecessary river
bottom disturbance. Only those parts of the structures that do not impede river flow or
are crucial to bank stability should be left. All portions of the structures removed should
be disposed of off-site.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we propose to proceed under a
Nationwide Permit in accordance with Federal Register: January 15, 2002 (Volume 67, Number
10, Pages 2019-2095, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix
A(C) of these regulations will be followed during construction of the project. It is anticipated
that these activities will be authorized via a Nationwide Permit. 23 (Categorical Exclusion) and a
Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering). By copy of this
application, we are also requesting the appropriate 401 General Water Quality Certifications
from the NC Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P.E., ranch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr

Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. Ray Johns, USFS, Asheville
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics, Raleigh
Mr. Ken Pace, NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit, Raleigh
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Karen Capps, P.E., PD & EA
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 and 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 Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone],
E-mail Address:
2. Agent 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:
PZIM?l of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 45 on NC 109 over the Uwharrie River
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3210
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): n/a
4. Location
County: Montgomery- . Nearest Town: Troy
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Troy travel approximately
9.6 mi. northeast on NC 109 to Bridge No 45 over the Uwharrie River
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): N35° 25.905', W80° 00.996'
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for.each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
rural highway, forested
7. Property size (acres): approximately 8.6 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake):
9. River Basin: Yadkin
Uwharrie River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: replacement of Bridge No. 45 on NC 1.09
1 - . o1 1, 3
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: backhoe, crane, bulldozers,
heavy-duty trucks
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: forested, pasture
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 additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application:
n/a
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
?., cj`
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
Site 1 Fill 0.032 413 forested wetland
Site 1 Mech. Clearing 0.008 413 forested wetland

- List each impact separatery and identify temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.049 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.04 ac
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Site
Number
(indicate on map) Type of
Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
Site 2 Temporary fill 105 Uwharrie River 119 feet Perennial

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: (temp fill) 105 feet
C a - Poll 13,
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Site 2 Temporary fill 0.14 Uwharrie River stream

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. 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 F-1 stream E] 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 viatering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Project involves bridge replacement with a bridge structure approximately 50 feet east of the
existing bridge location with minimal impacts to wetlands and no permanent impacts to surface
waters. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during the construction period. Any
material that falls into the stream it will be removed as soon as possible as part of the bridge
removal process.
Page 7 of 13
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.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.
3 c" l3,
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): n/a
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):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No Fj
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 E] No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes F? No F-I
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes 0 No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:

Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
n/a
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Impervious area will be similar to that of current conditions. The existing bridge is to be replaced
near the existing bridge location and at approximately the same elevation. NCDOT BMP's for
the protection of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction.
XIL Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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 (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes El No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes No
Pa'- e 10 of 13
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
n/a

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 11 of 13
BEG. PROJECT 109
MORRIS

GOV. MOUNTAIN
A

END PROJECT _
?o l
tea'
115 -' BUND
MOUNTAIN
1
w
J ARRI E hame
' U

DLIFE
- '
AREA
•
? 11 2
BU
1150
?
109

\ 1214 jjWHA?RIE' l Cedar CrJ

- BUCK
MOUNTAIN
NOT TO SCALE
NCD.O.T
VICINITY
MAP
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MONTGOMERY COUN7T
BRIDGE NO. 45
OVER UWWI L RRIE RIVER
ON NC 109
STATE PROJECT #8.1551101 B-3210
SHEET I OF 6
r_.

1 .

LOCATION'
?\/` /` T:
"23
a"
°20
ANT, V jj,+,+,?'33N?
Nco "l, 0
o C,
DIT/ri-SIG-1--l 01,
(9 y /f Y a ?•r? -•
^
'BIRD-5110"S" i? 1-45
PRO
r
Z
E
m
r
z
v
C?
t^
CrJ
r
II
0
I
r , ? I Il
I I O

b , p
p
I
cn I C
I
I ?w
I? I n •o
I
I?

I I
m
I
1
1
.I ,
I

I
I
I
I Z

''
I rr
w
I
1 , W
1
W _
LA
l , p NI
' I
n
n I)
r I 1
I 1

'
I I

?b
y'H

yy ? o
wow, ?
n `a7
??
?

r r
01 ?
4V
o ? O

? M
1-4

ti
?l D

A 3

A 4

A 5

CJ? I

II C7
Q
z
C'1 Y
?

rn
OD
Cn( '?

J

c
a
.y?
n
ca
2
Ctl
a
?S
m
O
o D
i
0 2
coo
N
pD x
cD z
D
? Z
t
N 0
z
CC)
c7
D
C

0 U)
FT I
m
D

n ?
U)

y
a
•i
owe
c,
O?
?o
a?
a
ti
N
LZ\
ObL 9d 22E 90
XINMm 31NNO?
?b
0 C;?
y0 ;Rr
Zcb
a
N C)
e?1O v?
? M
c? y
y ?
(In
X I I
? cn r----1

x z

v
D 0
z
m

0 n I
0
I
c I
o i----?

m
m
x
N
ti
n
A
C
2 ? C
D Z
nm
m -I 0
-? (/) C/)
m ?
D :z D
C7 < ---I
-I F) m
m
9Z9 Jd 60Z 90
J\NOHINV SGWOHI
a SMSllO? 3Nj3 ?12?3d0ad
'ANVS ii3N LS.LbN 3.L?,9, N
3.6Q- ,8?' L6
m

c
O
D

D
C
fTl

D

,b8'6?1 3NIl J.1a3d0ad
MO?lO ?
??j

I
M0N
Z? i
N
TI T
--4 z
O O - I I D
to I w
•• w ? iv w w
N p , I N O
0 bm
m I m
' I <
1 0
_ I to
p
O ?
C O
? N
Or-
r
O'
°(A
Ln
Y n W? 1 Z.
C=7 Z m
N `
y o O? i
co-
?? oho ?? O 1
a?
h
N r?

i
0 4 I I
z 1
M I i
> ? I I
?n 1 I
ON ' I I
X0 I I
---------------- 1
h n 0-13
/
v Oa I I
???444 Z-0
/ I I
/ I I
Ln N 1 i
Ln I I
-- -------------------
?
I I
I I
0 0 I I
t I
I I
I I
i t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ ,m Z I I
cn G; Icy I i I f
O O N I. D I I
1 I
n -n ro or,
1 w
0 m ` IAN o ° I I
0
'? I I
--- - ---------------------
n Z I. t
t"" ? 1 I 1
1 I
n ?r , I I
D
A -}- I 1
O
N - T - - - - - - - - - - - 1
?< Ln
r
? N A ` i I
0:5
\ i
-4 m I 1
OD , I I
Z-0
N ` I
I i
O O? 7/ I i
I I
?On ?~ / I I
0Cl ? O? , ! I
I I
O --- \------------t----t
C
0

-0 o

0 c:

0
Z O
C
N
O `

?
: o
o3
a=O co
O>? U.
Z
x? z
9
co
??
0

U. o
z
O
w

CL ai I- z mx0
It
o
o
h
U
Q
Z O
>
Co

'a co

Lj- U)

0
CL

}

W

= o
~
N
O
m M
cr-
O N
N

LL
C) J
O
0
+

a? ?

? L
o m
? U

m a
? ? 0

?- v
c
tA N c0 .._
.
Q W
U ?
a

W o
? o
? ? C U
v? c ao v

m

Co
?

C'
C p U
O
O
L ? L f0
v
U CD
Ug
Q ?

? c
'E
~ U >
U

w ?
W

C. p
Z
m
Z W E a m

N
N O M
C (0 ? O O

LL >N
H
? Z
J }
N ' co
d Q W ? 2 Z
W O
v ~ Z U)

(n ?
Z Q
"
U F
? ?

Z ?
Q a <n
m
w 0 0
X
O
°- ?
O
J
O
F-
° o
m o
co F=- o M
p
?
M U-)
M J
?. M co
a: O J
Cn Z f N a II
I O
II (

I

?

!

I Zm
U
>
u..
r ?
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
Pauline C. Mullniz 1886 Ophir Rd.
Troy, NC 27571
Thomas Anthony 1405 Majestic Forrest Lane
Warham, NC 28175
United States Forest Service
N.C.D.O.T.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MONTGOMERY COUNYY
BRLDGE NO. 45
OVER UNWARRIE RIVER
ON NC 109

Montgomery County
Bridge No. 45 on NC 109 ()20758
Over Uwharrie River
Federal Project BRSTP-109 (7)
State Project 8.1551101
TIP No. B-3210
0 w
------------
' E
nett
-73-,TTLANPDS GNU
J- CT
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
3 -7-01
?.,?
Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
3
Date V Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Montgomery County
Bridge No. 45 on NC 109
Over Uwharrie River
Federal Project BRSTP-109 (7)
State Project 8.1551101
TIP No. B-3210
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March, 2001
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
-z 7- a,?-hruL,?
Date Karen T. Orthner
Project Development Engineer
'S- z -0l
Date
SFAS
%
-10
-4 Jon Williams I N
Bridge Project Development Engineer, Interim Unit Head ''',
A
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
wxv
1111W
y
s
i

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 45
On NC 109 over the Uwharrie River
Montgomery County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-109 (7)
State Project No. 8.1551101
T.I.P. No. B-3210
Commitments Developed Through Proiect Development and Design
Hydraulics Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Eight Construction Office,
Structure Design Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 45. All interior and end
bents of the existing Bridge No. 45 will be cut flush with the streambed to avoid
unnecessary river bottom disturbance. In addition, all portions of the existing bridge that.
are removed will be disposed of off-site. (Please reference U. S. Forest Service
commitment below.)
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Structure Design Unit, Roadside
Environmental Branch, Division Eight Construction Office, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
The U. S. Forest Service prepared a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the project
due to a large portion of the project area existing on U. S. Forest Service property.
Subsequently, 12 rare aquatic species were found to occur in the project area. The U. S.
Forest Service requested that the following four environmental commitments for these
aquatic species be implemented for this project:
1.
2.
3.
4
All freshwater mussels (excluding fingernail clams) will be removed from any
area of the river bottom proposed for disturbance prior to project implementation
to minimize effects to mussel community diversity and stability. These mussels
will be maintained in the Uwharrie River upstream of the aquatic project area or
at a reputable rearing facility until project completion, when they will be placed
back into the aquatic analysis area. Tim Savidge and Logan Williams of the
NCDOT will conduct this procedure. Aquatic biologists from the USFWS,
NCWRC, NCDENR, or USFS may be present as well.
Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence will be placed along the
length of river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the
water's edge, prior to project implementation to minimize soil entering the
Uwharrie River. Erosion control-efficiency will be maintained until vegetative
cover is established upon project completion.
All cofferdams will be constructed using drill shafts so that no wet concrete
comes in contact with the Uwharrie River. When pouring abutments or interior
bents, one or more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, USFWS, NCWRC,
NCDENR, or USFS will be present to insure that no wet concrete comes in
contact with the Uwharrie River. Wet concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
All interior and end bents of the old bridge will be cut flush with the streambed to

avoid unnecessary river bottom disturbance. All portions of the structure that are
removed will be disposed of off: site.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Pagel of 2
March 7, 2001
. Q
i
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Division Eight Construction Office
NCDOT will preserve the old roadway approaches to the existing Bridge No. 45
in place to be utilized as an access area for canoeing and fishing. Barricades will be
installed for vehicular traffic safety after the new bridge is complete.
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Division Eight Construction Office
NCDOT will provide accommodations for bicycles on the new alignment with 4 -
foot (1.2-meter) wide offsets on the new bridge as well as 4-foot (1.2-meter) wide paved
shoulders on the roadway approaches. In addition, NCDOT will provide a bridge rail
height of 54 inches (1372 millimeters) for bicycle safety.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2
March 7, 2001
Montgomery County
Bridge No. 45 on NC 109
Over Uwharrie River
Federal Project BRSTP-109 (7)
State Project 8.1551101
TIP No. B-3210
Bridge No. 45 is located in Montgomery County over the Uwharrie River. It is
programmed in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion".
No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 45 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on new location 50 feet (15.2 meters) east of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The
new structure will be approximately 360 feet (109.7 meters) long and 32 feet (9.6 meters)
wide. The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-meter)
lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) offsets. The 4-foot (1.2-meter) offsets will accommodate
bicycle traffic. In addition, a bridge rail height of 54 inches (1372 millimeters) will be
provided for bicycle safety. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during
construction.
There will be approximately 1912 feet (582.8 meters) of new approach work to
the north and 1127 feet (343.5 meters) of new approach work to the south of the new
bridge. The pavement width on the roadway approaches will be 32 feet (9.6 meters),
including two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders on each
side to accommodate bicycles. Additionally, there will be 4-foot (1.2-meter) grass
shoulders. The shoulder width will increase by 5 feet (1.5 meters) where guardrail is
installed. A design exception may be required for this project; therefore, final design
analysis will determine the design speed.
The estimated cost of the project is $2,367,000, including $2,300,000 in
construction costs and $67,000 in right-of-way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
Draft 2002-2008 TIP is 1,129,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
Based on preliminary analysis, a design exception may be required for this project
regarding the vertical alignment in order to design the proposed bridge at approximately
the same elevation as the existing bridge. Final design analysis will determine the design
speed. Design speed is anticipated to be 50 mph (80 km/h) to 60 mph (100 km/h).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 109 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Currently the traffic volume is 2000 vehicles per day (VPD) and
projected at 4000 VPD for the year 2025. There is a 55-mph posted speed limit in the
vicinity of the bridge. The road serves primarily local residential traffic.
Bridge No. 45 was completed in 1947. The seven-span bridge is composed
entirely of concrete with the exception of steel piles located on the end bents. The deck is
350 feet (106.7 meters) long and 29.5 feet (9.0 meters) wide. There is approximately 34
feet (10.4 meters) of vertical clearance between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and
streambed. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 28.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is not posted with weight
restrictions for single vehicles or truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Horizontal alignment is good and vertical alignment is fair in the project vicinity.
The pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 20 feet (6.1 meters).
Shoulders on the approaches to the bridge are approximately 4 feet (1.2 meters) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that one accident has been reported in
the vicinity of the project during a recent three-year period. This accident involved a
driver exceeding a safe speed on snow and ice.
There are 4 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the
Transportation Director for Montgomery County Schools, closing the road would be a
major inconvenience, as there are no feasible alternate routes for buses.
An underground telephone line is located on the east shoulder of the road. This
underground telephone line becomes aerial across the river. In addition, an underground
water line is buried under the river, located on the west side of the bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1: Bridge No. 45 would be replaced with a 360-foot (109.7-meter) long
bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained using a temporary on-site
detour located east of the existing bridge.
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Bridge No. 45 will be replaced with a 360-foot
(107.9-meter) long bridge located 20 feet (6.1 meters) east of the existing
structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during
construction.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
An alternate that would replace Bridge No. 45 at the approximately the same
location while detouring traffic off-site was not considered due to the fact that no suitable
off-site detour exists in the project vicinity.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 (Recommended)
ALTERNATE 2
Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches 806,000
83,000
165,000
751,000 806,000
83,000
599,000
N/A
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 630,000 512,000
Engineering & Contingencies 365,000 300,000
Total Construction $ 2,800,000 $ 2,300,000
Right of Way $ 31,000 $ 67,000
Total Cost $ 2,831,000
,000
$2,367
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 45 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new
bridge on new location 50 feet (15.2 meters) east of the existing structure (see Figure 2).
The new structure will be approximately 360 feet (109.7 meters) long and 32 feet (9.6
meters) wide. The roadway cross section of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-
meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) offsets. The 4-foot (1.2-meter) offsets will
accommodate bicycle traffic. In addition, a bridge rail height of 54 inches (1372
millimeters) will be provided for bicycle safety. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing alignment during construction.
There will be approximately 1912 feet (582.8 meters) of new approach work to
the north and 1127 feet (343.5 meters) of new approach work to the south of the new
bridge. The pavement width on the roadway approaches will be 32 feet (9.6 meters),
including two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders on each
side to accommodate bicycles. Additionally, there will be 4-foot (1.2-meter) grass
shoulders. The shoulder width will increase by 5 feet (1.5 meters) where guardrail is
installed. A design exception may be required for this project; therefore, final design
analysis will determine the design speed.
According to Bridge Policy, Bridge No. 45 should be replaced with a 40-foot (12-
meter) wide bridge. However, the Policy makes a provision for structures over 200 feet
(61.0 meters) in length to be evaluated on an individual basis to reduce excessive costs
associated with the bridge width. The Roadway Design Unit has concluded that the
additional offset width of 4 feet (1.2 meters) on each side of the bridge is not necessary
for a safe and sufficient replacement structure. Adding the additional width onto the 360-
foot (107.9-meter) long bridge would cost an additional $201,600. Therefore, the bridge
will be replaced with a 32-foot (9.6-meter) wide bridge.
Alternate 2 is recommended due to lower cost. Both alternates would provide the
same design speed. Wetland impacts are exactly the same for both alternates. In
addition, the U. S. Forest Service concurred in the proposed project on new location with
the condition that several environmental commitments are implemented, as listed on the
Project Commitments ("Green") Sheet of this document. Therefore, Alternate 2 is the
most reasonable and feasible alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in the Project Commitments ("Green") Sheet of this document. In addition, the use
of current NCDOT standards and specifications will be implemented.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
A portion of the proposed bridge replacement project is located in the Uwharrie
National Forest. Ray Johns of the U. S. Forest Service was contacted on February 14,
2001 for a determination on the designated purpose of the portion of forestland affected
by the project. Ray stated that the forestland affected by the bridge project is not
designated as, nor are any of its purposes to, function for a park, recreation area, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge. Therefore, the Federal Highway Administration has
determined that this project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
Coordination with the U. S. Forest Service was initiated to request a Biological
Evaluation (BE) of the portion of forestland affected by the proposed construction.
Subsequently, a Biological Evaluation report of the Uwharrie National Forest Proposed,
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species list for biological, botanical, and
aquatic species was submitted by the U. S. Forest Service. The report stated that no
biological or botanical PETS species are known to occur within the project area.
However, 12 aquatic PETS species are known to occur in the aquatic analysis area for the
project. The U. S. Forest Service determined that no effect will occur to the PETS
aquatic species, nor will suitable habitat be affected for either Alternate 1 or Alternate 2
with the implementation of four environmental commitments. These commitments are
listed on the Project Commitments ("Green") Sheet of this document.
4
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Montgomery County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
As this project does not propose relocations, nor does it negatively effect property
access or access to public facilities, no negative community impacts are anticipated to
result from this project.
This project will not result in the substantial loss of any federal or state designated
prime, unique, or important farmland soils, nor will this project disrupt an active farming
operation.
This project is not located on a federally or state designated scenic river.
This section of NC 109 does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a
designated bicycle route. However, the project is located in the Uwharrie National
Forest, approximately one mile from a designated NC Bicycling Route, Piedmont Spur,
which runs through the Forest. The Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
has requested accommodations for bicycle facilities due to the increasing attractiveness of
the National Forest and the adjoining Morrow Mountain State Park for a variety of
outdoor recreational pursuits, including bicyclists. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Division
recommended AASHTO standard wide paved shoulders of 4 feet (1.2 meters) along both
sides of the bridge deck and approaches. In addition, the Division recommended a bridge
rail height of 54 inches (1372 millimeters) for bicycle safety. (See Division of Bicycle
and Pedestrian Transportation letter dated February 10, 1999.)
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project and
recommended no historic architectural survey be conducted. However, due to five
prehistoric archaeological sites within the vicinity of the project, the SHPO recommended
an archaeological survey be conducted (See August 17, 1999 SHPO letter).
Subsequently, an archaeological survey report by Lewis Berger and Associates
was submitted to the SHPO for concurrence. The SHPO concurred with the
determination that the prehistoric archaeological sites are not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (See June 16, 2000 SHPO letter).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project area, are discussed below
with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
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
quality of water resources, 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.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project is located in northwestern Montgomery County. This area
is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina (see Appendix A).
Project elevations range from 320.0-440.0 feet (97.5-134.1 meters) above mean sea level.
Soils
At the date of this NRTR, Montgomery County does not have a completed soil
survey, however the Montgomery Soil and Water Conservation District provided
information about the soils within the project study area.
The Chenneby silt loam series is the dominant soil in the study area. Georgeville
silt loam and Badin-Tarrus complex are also located within the project study area.
Descriptions of each soil type are provided in Table 2.
Tahle 2. Soils located within the nroiect studv area
Series name :Drainage Runoff Slo e Permeability,.
Chenneby silt somewhat poorly Slow 0-2% Moderate
loam drained
Georgeville silt well drained Medium 8-15% Moderate
loam
Badin-Tarrus well drained Medium to 8-15 % Moderate
complex very rapid 25-50 %
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 the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATION
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned index numbers for streams
and tributaries in North Carolina. Two perennial streams in the Yadkin River Basin are
crossed by this project. The Uwharrie River [DWQ Index No. 13-2-(17.5), (8/3/92)]
carries a Best Usage Classification of WS-IV NSW. Class WS-IV waters are protected
6
as water supplies, which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Local programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges of pollution are
required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C freshwaters are protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW) are waters subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs. Spencer Creek [13-2-19-(0.7),
(8/3/92)] will be crossed by Alternate 2. Spencer Creek is also classified as WS-IV. One
intermittent unnamed tributary to the Uwharrie River is also located within the project
area. Unnamed tributaries carry the same Best Usage Classification as the receiving
surface water.
Several surface waters are located within the project vicinity. However these
surface waters will not be crossed or impacted by the subject project. Each of these
streams is listed in Table 3.
Table 3_ Surface waters within the nroiect vicinitv
Surface water ' DW index no. DW classification`- Date classified
Barnes Creek 13-2-18-(2.5) WS-IV ORW 8/3/92
McLeans Creek 13-2-20-(0.7) WS-IV 8/3/92
West Branch 13-2-20-1 WS-IV 8/3/92
Moccasin Creek 13-2-20-1-1 WS-IV 8/3/92
Note: Outstanding'Resource Waters (ORW): unique and special waters of exceptional state or
national recreational or ecological significance, which require special protection to maintain
existing uses.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of project study area. However, Barnes
Creek which is classified as WS-IV ORW, is located approximately 0.9 mile (1.4
kilometers) upstream of the project area. In addition, the entire project is located within
the Lake Tillery (DWQ Classification WS-IV, 8/3/92) watershed. This watershed is
classified as a protected watershed. A protected watershed is defined as land within five
miles and draining to the normal pool elevation of water supplies, or within ten miles
upstream and draining to a river intake.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
One piedmont perennial stream is crossed by Bridge No. 45. At the time of the
field visit, the Uwharrie River had an approximate depth of 8.0 feet (2.4 meters). The
river had a moderate flow. The average channel width was approximately 100.0 feet
(30.5 meters). The substrate consisted primarily of silt and sand. One intermittent
unnamed tributary to the Uwharrie River is also located within the project area. This
tributary had a channel width of approximately 3.0 feet (0.9 meters) and a depth of 2.0
inches (5.0 centimeters). The substrate consisted of silt. The flow in the channel was
slow at the date of the site visit.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers located throughout
North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required to register for a permit. There are
no permitted dischargers located within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) upstream of the project
study area.
Ndn-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of nonpoint source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters.
WATER QUALITY
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide
approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites throughout the state. There is one biological monitoring site located
within the project vicinity. The monitoring site near the NC 109 crossing of the Uwharrie
River received a rating of "good" on August 7,1996. This site is approximately 750 feet
(228.6 meters) downstream of this project.
BIOTIC. RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships between
vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented where applicable in the context of
plant community classifications (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species, which are likely to occur in these habitats, are
cited. Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*) in the text.
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.
Biotic Communities
Six biotic communities: maintained roadside/ disturbed, basic mesic forest
(piedmont subtype), pine hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest, riparian fringe,
and piedmont perennial stream, exist within the project study area and may be impacted
by the subject project. Each of these communities is described below.
MAINTAINED ROADSIDE/ DISTURBED COMMUNITY
The maintained roadside community consists of the highly maintained shoulders
and some less intensively managed areas that grade into the surrounding natural
communities. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing
or herbicide application, keep this community in an early successional state.
Dominant plants in the heavily maintained portions of the roadside community
include fescue (Festuca sp.) and plantain (Plantago sp.). In the areas, which receive less
maintenance, more diverse communities can develop. This community is populated by
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), winged elm
(Ulmus alata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American holly (Ilex opaca), southern
lady fern (Athyrium filix femina spp. aspleniodes), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica).
A field on the southeast quadrant of the bridge lies adjacent to the roadside
shoulders. Wild onion (Allium canadense), sweetgum, loblolly pine saplings (Pinus
taeda), Japanese honeysuckle, black cherry, and red maple (Acer rubrum) dominate this
area. Four small drainage ditches lie perpendicular to the road. Each of these ditches
was dry during the site visit.
BASIC MESIC FOREST (PIEDMONT SUBTYPE)
The basic mesic forest consisted of species such as white oak (Quercus alba),
American holly, red maple, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American elm (Ulmus
americana), winged elm, sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), shortleaf pine (Pinus
echinata), dogwood (Corpus florida), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), wild ginger
(Asarum canadense), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), tulip poplar, Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), ground cedar (Lycopodium
tristachyum), sweetgum, horsesugar (Symplocus tinctoria), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), strawberry bush (Euonymus americana), and Japanese honeysuckle.
PINE HARDWOOD FOREST
Christmas fern, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly, dogwood,
shortleaf pine, red cedar, red maple, white oak, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata), and red bud (Cercis canadensis)
are the dominant species that exist in this community.
RIPARIAN FRINGE
The riparian fringe exists along the banks of the Uwharrie River. Dominant plants
present in this community include Chinese privet, red maple, black walnut (Juglans
nigra), American holly, greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and
plantain.
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD
One small bottomland hardwood community exists in the southwest quadrant of
the bridge. Dominant plants in this community include Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), sweet gum, box elder (Acer negundo), and Chinese privet. Soils
in this wetland have a hue of l OYR, value of 5, and a chroma of 1. Hydrologic indicators
included saturation within 12 inches of the surface and inundation. This wetland is
approximately 0.02 acres (0.01 hectares) in size. A small unnamed intermittent stream
bisects this wetland.
9
PIEDMONT PERENNIAL STREAM
The Uwharrie River is located within the project area. Fishes likely to be found in
streams such as the Uwharrie River may include rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), bluehead chub (Hybopsis leptocephala), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
WILDLIFE
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species, which are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), beaver (Castor canadensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes. The most common
reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and predators
such as black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
These species are likely to be found searching for small mammals such as the
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and
hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) in these disturbed habitats.
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), domestic pigeon (Columbia livia), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project study area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected..
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project study area, and thus the loss of community
area. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area (Table 4). Estimated impacts are
derived based on the project length of 2470.0 feet (753.0 meters) for Alternate 1 and
3400.0 feet (1,036.3 meters) for Alternate 2. The entire right-of-way [80.0 feet (24.4
meters)] was used for this calculation. The entire right-of-way will probably not be
impacted; therefore actual impacts to the communities may be considerably less.
10
Table 4. Estimated impacts to terrestrial communities
Community type Alternate 1 ac (ha) Alternate 2 ac (ha)
Maintained Roadside /Disturbed 1.56 (0.63) 4.49(l.82)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)
Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 0.66 (0.27) 0.66 (0.27)
Pine Hardwood Forest 1.80 (0.73) - 1.80 (0.73)
Riparian Fringe 0.04 (0.01) 0.04 (0.01)
Total 4.08(l.65) 7.01 (2.84)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common throughout
North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental factors.
Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the project study area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly after project completion
to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES
Estimated impacts to Uwharrie River and Spencer Creek will be minimal. The
bridge over the Uwharrie River has seven spans totaling 350.0 feet (106.7 meters) in
length. The deck and bridge railings are composed of concrete. The interior bents are
composed of concrete posts and beams. The end bents are composed of steel piles with
concrete caps. The bridge rail and the steel piles will be removed without dropping
components into Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the
deck, interior bents, and concrete caps to be dropped into Waters of the United States.
The resulting temporary fill associated with the deck, interior bents, and concrete caps is
approximately 475 yd3 (363.1 m).
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any action
that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although
most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary, some
environmental impacts caused by the proposed project will be long term or irreversible.,
Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement of bridges, can
permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
• Changes in light incidence, water clarity, and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or ground
water drainage patterns.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water resources
in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of
Surface Waters must be strictly enforced throughout the construction stage of the project.
A large portion of the project area exists on U.S. Forest Service property. As a
result, the U.S. Forest Service has prepared a Biological Evaluation (BE) for the project.
Four mitigation measures were listed in the Aquatic Analysis section of the BE. These
are required to be implemented with either of the action alternatives. They include:
All freshwater mussels (excluding fingernail clams) will be removed from any
area of the river bottom proposed for disturbance prior to project implementation
to minimize effects to mussel community diversity and stability. These mussels
will be maintained in the Uwharrie River upstream of the aquatic project area or at
a reputable rearing facility until project completion, when they will be placed
back into the aquatic analysis area. Tim Savidge and Logan Williams of the
NCDOT will conduct this procedure. Aquatic biologists from the USFWS,
NCWRC, NCDENR, or USFS may be present as well.
2. Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence will be placed along the
length of river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the
water's edge, prior to project implementation to minimize soil entering the
Uwharrie River. Erosion control efficiency will be maintained until vegetative
cover is established upon project completion.
3. All cofferdams will be constructed using drill shafts so that no wet concrete
comes in contact with the Uwharrie River. When pouring abutments or interior
bents, one or more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, USFWS, NCWRC,
NCDENR, or USFS will be present to insure that no wet concrete comes in
contact with the Uwharrie River. Wet concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
4. All interior and end bents of the old bridge will be cut flush with the streambed to
avoid unnecessary river bottom disturbance. All portions of the structure that are
removed will be disposed of off-site.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates, which regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 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 are considered "wetlands"
under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into waters of the United states
falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
12
CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE WATERS
Three surface waters, the Uwharrie River, an unnamed tributary to the Uwharrie
River, and Spencer Creek, exist within the project study area and are considered
jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Discussion of the biological and water quality aspects of these water resources is
presented in previous sections of this report.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Estimated impacts to Uwharrie River will be minimal due to the fact that the river
will be spanned. Estimated impacts to the unnamed tributary to the Uwharrie River and
Spencer Creek are 80.0 feet (24.4 meters). Impacts to a small bottomland hardwood
wetland may occur as a result of project construction. Approximately 0.02 acre (0.01
hectare) of the wetland may be impacted for both Alternate 1 and Alternate 2. Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project length of 2470.0 feet (753.0 meters) for
Alternate 1 and 4,065.0 feet (1,239.0 meters) for Alternate 2. The entire right-of-way
[80.0 feet (24.4 meters)] was used for this calculation. The entire right-of-way will
probably not be impacted; therefore actual impacts to the stream may be considerably
less.
Permits
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities permitted
by the federal government comply with state water quality standards. The DWQ may
require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills or substantially
modifies waters or wetlands. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulation. North Carolina developed General Certifications (GCs) that satisfy CWA
§401 and correspond to the Corps of Engineers' NWPs (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality
Section, Wetlands Water Quality Certification, undated Internet site). The issuance of a
401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. Water
Quality Certification No. 3107, which corresponds to NWP 23, will likely be required for
the project.
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into Waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for
minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other authorities. A
nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP
rules satisfies the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Forty
NWPs referenced by a number currently exist (Strand, 1997). Nationwide 23, entitled
Approved Categorical Exclusions, covers certain activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another Federal agency
or department. Nationwide Permit 23 applies when another Federal agency or
department determines that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded
from an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes categorically excluded when its
actions neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. The Office of the Chief of Engineers must receive notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concur with the categorical
exclusion determination (61 FR 65874, 65916, December 13, 1996).
13
A Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23) is likely to be applicable
for the crossings of the Uwharrie River and Spencer Creek. This permit authorizes
construction provided the following conditions are met:
• the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing;
• the fill place in Waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no more than
1.0 acre (0.45 hectare);
• no more than a total of 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) of the fill for the roadway can
occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
• the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of,
and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic
organisms, and;
• the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of
a single and complete project for crossing of Waters of the United States.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
AVOIDANCE
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
MINIMIZATION
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts, which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically
14
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Estimated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are less than 0.02 acre (0.01 hectare).
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Finalpermit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE and
DWQ.
Minimal impacts to jurisdictional surface waters may occur as a result of the
proposed project. If fill or dredging in surface waters occurs as a result of construction
activities, permits and certifications will be required from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public waters resources.
Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject
to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and-animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. An endangered
species is considered to be a species that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered to be a species
that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
As of June 16, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists five federally
protected species for Montgomery County (see Table 5). Brief descriptions and
biological conclusions are provided for each species below.
Tnhle 5_ Federally Protected Species for Montgomery Countv
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Felis concolor cougar Eastern cougar Endangered*
Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle Threatened
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered
Echinacea laevi ata Smooth coneflower Endangered**
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"-Historic record-the species was observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
" ** "-Obscure record- the date and /or location of the observation is uncertain.
15
Eastern Cougar (Fells concolor cougar)
Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Felidae
Date Listed: 6/4/73
The eastern cougar is described as a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat. Its body and
legs are a uniform fulvous or tawny hue. Its belly is pale reddish or reddish white. The
inside of this cat's ears is light-colored, with blackish color behind the ears. Cougars feed
primarily on deer, but their diet may also include small mammals, wild turkeys, and
occasionally domestic livestock, when available.
Observations of the western subspecies suggest that cougars begin breeding
when 2 or 3 years old and breed thereafter once every 2 to 3 years. Whether or not there
is a definite breeding season is a matter of contention. Courtship is initiated by the
female and generally includes mating with a number of males. Spotted kittens weighing
8 to 16 ounces are born after a gestation period of about 3 months. Litter size is usually
three. The kittens attain a weight of approximately 10 pounds in 8 weeks, and may weigh
30 to 45 pounds at 6 months. By the time they are yearlings they may weigh 60 to 90
pounds.
Sightings have been reported in three North Carolina areas including the
Nantahala National Forest, the northern portion of the Uwharrie National Forest, and the
State's southeastern counties. The remaining population of this species is extremely
small; exact numbers are unknown.
No preference for specific habitat types has been noted. The primary need is
apparently for a large wilderness area with an. adequate food supply. Male cougars of
other subspecies have been observed to occupy a range of 25 or more square miles, and
females from 5 to 20 square miles.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Eastern cougar in the form of a large wilderness area was
observed during the site visit. However, no cougars were observed during the site visit.
In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
on December 19, 2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of the Eastern cougar
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. Therefore, this project will not affect
this species.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Status: Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
16
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat in the form of close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a
clear flight path to the water was observed during the site visit. However, neither eagles
nor eagle nests were observed during the site visit. In addition, a review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on December 19, 2000 indicated
that there is no known occurrence of the bald eagle within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
project area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 500.0 acres (200.0 hectares). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 12-100 feet (3.6-30.3 meters) above the ground and average 30.0-50.0 feet (9.1-
15.7 meters) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker in the form of trees that are >60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age was not observe)
during the site visit. 'In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database on December 19, 2000 indicated that there is no known
occurrence of red-cockaded woodpeckers within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project
area. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Status: Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: June 6, 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows 1-2 meters 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
17
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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower in the form of full sunlight or light
shade in clearings was observed during the site visit. However, Schweinitz's sunflower
was not observed during a plant by plant survey conducted on October 14, 1999 by
NCDOT Natural Systems Specialists Dale Suiter, Michael Wood, and Shannon Simpson.
In addition, a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
on December 19, 2000 indicated that there is no known occurrence of Schweinitz's
sunflower within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project area. Therefore, this project will
not affect this species.
Federal Species Of Concern And State Listed Species
There are eleven Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the FWS for
Montgomery County (Table 6). Federal Species Of Concern are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be
included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern are defined as a species, which is
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the
NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
18
Tohla (, FPl1PraI CnPeiac of Canrern for Mantlinmerv CountV
1 NVa?. V• l rYra wa v vv
Scientific Name
Common Name
NC Status
Habitat
Etheostoma collis collis Carolina darter Sc es
Pituophis melanoleucus
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC** yes
Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater T/PE es
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic i toe T/PE es
Gomphus parvidens carolinus Sandhills clubtail
dra onfl SR no
Toxolasma ullus Savannah lilli ut T/PE es
Villosa vau haniana Carolina creekshell SC/PE no
Aster eor ianus Georgia aster C 1 es
Carex im resinervia ravine sedge C no
Lindera subcoriacea bo s bush E no
Solidago plumosa. Yadkin River
goldenrod E* yes
"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 one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one 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 Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened
or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct
in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with I-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** -- Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of the rare species and unique habitats on
December 19, 2000 did not reveal any records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
19
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Montgomery County
Replace Bridge No. 45 on NC 109
Over Uwharrie River
W210
Figure 1
`
f

r 7 l J'
?
7t.t Y ? '? *t9r ? f
? _

? r'?1s k
yti

? s
}
a

4?
n -

f
r
-

r

li d,

l
o
i

111

4,f`t . I

+.'.

?.. r:
Alm
at*
a
oft-
14 A
46

i

s

ik .

\, ? . ^ Jfi ;mow,
1
F 4i YA
? i
' may'

w i
}? f
k -
_ S may' ^/f: ?_...
1 4p.
•

s ? w
r a
- R
s.,
•s,
n
rt t
Ir .1
B-3210 FIGURE 3A
Looking North Across the Bridge
Looking South Across the Bridge
B-3210 FIGURE 3B
East Side of Bridge
West Side of Bridge
d?,u STATf a,?6
ti Z
uS D
?pW,va?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAILING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
August 17, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Orthner
Division of Highways
Department of Tr sportation
FROM: David Brook CO
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge 45 on NC 109 over the Uwharrie
River, Montgomery County, B-3210, ER 99-
8181
LOCATION
507 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC
State Courier 53-31-31
Thank you for contacting us regarding the above project. We have reviewed our files
and found that our Environmental Review Coordinator, Renee Gledhill-Earley, called
Karen Orthner, North Carolina Department of Transportation, on March 8, 1999, and
advised that no architectural survey was recommended for this project. However,
there are five prehistoric archaeological sites within the vicinity of this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
William D. Gilmore
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?c?

..? STATE o.
Q _5y:?ts?• D.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
June 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historl Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge #45 on NC 109 over Uwharrie River, B-3210, Montgomery County,
ER 99-8181
Thank you for your letter of May 11, 2000, transmitting the survey report by Charles J. Rinehart of
Lewis Berger & Associates, Inc. concerning the above project. __
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places:
31 MG679 Prehistoric Late Woodland campsite Lack of research potential
31 MG 1600 Prehistoric isolated find Lack of research potential
Our review of the draft final archaeological report revealed an over-reliance on Ward and Davis (1999)
as a primary reference for much of the Prehistoric Background section. Although this work presents a
broad synthesis of North Carolina prehistory, it does not replace citation of primary references. "Town
Creek Indian Mound, A Native American Legacy" (Coe 1995) was cited by Ward and Davis as a
primary source, but was not referenced in the current Berger report. Omission of Coe's work weakens
contextual development for. discussion of the Late Woodland/Mississippian period. Discussions of
historic and prehistoric background should utilize primary references to locate the project within the
context of previous work as well as create a research framework that allows the evaluation of
significance and justification of recommendations. Future report submissions should utilize primary
sources, where possible.
In general, and noting the above referenced exception, the report meets our office's guidelines and
those of the Secretary of the Interior.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 3 [phone] 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801
page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator.
cc: N. Graf, FHwA
Charles Rinehart, Louis Berger & Assoc.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 19, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Replacements in Granville, Johnston, Montgomery, Wake and
Watauga counties. TIP Nos. B-3459, B-3481, B-3210, B-3529, and
B-3534.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 March 19, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 March 19, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3459 - Granville County - Bridge No. 6 is over Island Creek, which is low
gradient, deep channeled stream with a sand and silt substrate. This stream
may provide fair fishing for sunfish and pickerel. Our general comments
apply.
2. B-3481 - Johnston County - Bridge No. 94 is over the Little River. The
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alismidonta heterodon) and other
freshwater mussels are found just downstream of this bridge. We request that
a field meeting be held to discuss conservation measures to protect these
species. This structure should be replaced specifically with a bridge. There
are plans to remove a dam on the Little River downstream of this site which
will open this area up to anadromous fish runs.
3. B-3210 - Montgomery County - Bridge No. 45 over the Uwharrie River. The
Uwharrie River is a very high quality stream and supports an important and
diverse fishery for all sunfish and also supports a spawning run for white bass
from Lake Tillery. The river also contains numerous species of freshwater
mussels including federal species of concern as well as state listed species.
The Uwharrie and Little rivers are two of only a few river basins within the
Pee Dee system which still supports a high diversity of mussels. We request
that NCDOT hold a field meeting to discuss mussel conservation measures.
We request that sedimentation and erosion control measures for sensitive
watersheds be used to protect these aquatic resources. No in-water work
should be performed from March 1 to May 30. We request that the new
structure be replaced on existing location. If the bridge must be replaced on
new location, the old bridge approaches should be retained and used as a
fishing access area.
4. B-3529 - Wake County - Bridge No. 124 crosses Perry Creek a tributary to
the Neuse River. Due to recent dam removals on the Neuse River this stream
now supports an anadromous fish spawning run. Therefore, NCDOT should
follow the NCDOT officially adopted document " Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Aadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work should occur from
February 15 to June 15.
5. B-3534 - Watauga County - Although this project was sent to field biologists
for comment, I have not received comments at this time. There is the
possibility that you may receive comments directly from the biologist or
through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
Bridge Replacement Memo 4 March 19, 1999
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle. related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

yyas STATF o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
February 10, 1999
E. NoR is TOLSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
b4
FROM: Curtis B. Yates, Director
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge Replacement Project:
Bridge No. 45 on NC 109. Over Uwharrie River.
Montgomery County. TIP No. B-3210
In your memorandum of January 29, 1998, you requested our comments
regarding the proposed improvements to the subject project.
This section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a
designated bicycle route. However, the subject project is located in the Uwharrie National
Forest and is approximately one mile from a designated NC Bicycling Route, Piedmont
Spur, Map B-5 (Potter's Wheel), which runs through the forest. Since the National Forest
and the adjoining Morrow Mountain State Park are increasingly attractive destinations for a
variety of outdoor recreational pursuits, including bicyclists, we recommend that the
subject facility consider accommodations for bicycle facilities. The proposed improvement
should accommodate AASHTO standard wide paved shoulders of 1.2 m (4 ft.) along both
sides of the bridge approaches and bridge deck. Bridge rail height of 1372 mm (54-inch)
should also be provided for bicycle safety.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If there is a need for further
information, please contact Tom Norman, Facilities Program Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/rwd
Curtis B. Yates
Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

y c m y o E T d E` d d N. _ `° E g v"?, m m 2-0 i s
>>d aa`??m OU: daOl -L vdn a J-:331p dLy
i,c mt o.0uiytoay c^ Day E9 3:c0E I D
O d aL d D o m -'a v 3 m
v A m 3 v 3 N d- d c T 3 c c End d o a E 2 OE o c N
od3>.ojdQNM.2E02 oy Hd=mi 3JOEmdo
=o?t0v-Ld.dO`o r- `n-L'- N?c;
v w ?e E 0 d Y' c a d Odi = O d c rn= A o'-ui c N 0.2
? :?c A
d d E Oio > v o L d D N `-' c o y c d y o
.a°EocaoojT'-Lt dN m. m. ; O J m N
oy
v v' .a d 'u y° c v-° -m o O o t d o_ m- o
cdio?co=o:°?c0'm _m0 mct°vdL°agco
J '^p Te=d-LV Tyy as a• dc
v °EaE°v,ooa-2 0o vo ''°--ndor^`c°u3y
o TV 0m3oo a, E_c3U md Oyi? y°r'daocdjL amad
=uiEzdc `moNr a
a cOO0o TV?c an
o ^-3 T
EO°TDdc Nda L-E a UO L'ay-dNd add aL l 3 m
"-D1`an°3.2E=' 'EI and CL ?v w-?'mcc°u
d Ei-oo3oo do ZYCm`?noocomm'>
0 Ef0x ? d3t_° 'c-0 cdi3 m mta>°=c°im odDp 'm
a _ _ ydd-a_cJ3EC ocd ao Eucw°_ m.iL um>. anic
O N)'E oNm- L<J 07m O._d rLd-°cL >. y' dyny0
C t 'y d a il y L_ N N p j` 3 O p. C d ?. C m G d` d _m d d ?` >,
O L A O C O N a C 6 o U c D Oa O p O V; ': L y A- C J Y
o
m d m> d' S o a D 0"..o - rn 1p a m T c C T L
c =yob xa?uE_Ema N cr.p y 1 v'OCmU?NOd_0 Cm ? mOC>
0 010
0, z
°' <.°='.?E<` co a? Ma"mE <'a < mczt V) E.,'a w 4 E
-= y V d 0 O 16 N L E O `d d N C E m N ti D c.
d co - 5. o_ O V E d- `c v v c m a c o w E, c° -
vA-md_ cc ..cc0 E Ed-_8,vm
d U.0O L d 0 w O Y C.- D c y c N- O m O p T m
2 Datua~.dc6 v1c0o °mm-°- Ny umY?E;?"
E o y Q
N y b 3 y d c O 'D a a 3 0 N 3 1p °y y N `O C t2 0
d ?V. d O N 1? U J O a` C y y `O = L N T E d` d_
L O1C0?02 Gain°°1E Emmdv o L cc EnomN
° d D d C d` d C y O 'D O L 0 m °- a V 0013
C Oam U._L O Ud a 0C._ZL _T v
O d"i d 0 A ^ a U m d L- x 0 0 c y d d N N`°
CL LDO.0'0- 05 L? oLEdEo -? o °ioo,
SE. -°'>, and v3`: 6 "D> m
.'dm. 3 3 T_ t N N u° y w vd -° c h? c m T -_ o?
U C p d d 9- a C C N E T -'0 d N y C O% O d d V p 0
ce m c-LED.?EOddTy o°m;?-? C daEioaOyi?
m
V _m
cm o cleocdim°yL3:= Tadnt`mb JLVCO_°'_"0'J?
G E °dC°OyO1=doVN rnN.'-ONTOL J dU0ai0iaL1Od
3 N mdmEvnOm'LayL°c W-o$c E °E
a o3w-
! : E
° N 3 L C E C d O y° C p x p O U d O C m O C C d< L L O
fy 7 3o d?=^3dao? >?2
1o° a-p cvhc d~c
OE-'ccE°:cd Lv-v- Em
Od tmdcoJnc c1 °o°oa
?? c? tda'ooog-oJO d
aOE>1nNcENdm rEDNEDu -n3 ow3-D
N0c:-mL E and W0,1a
crcOm d^ °-' 2yc QDdo
y a o
E m
?p x =' d ymd
o E y m c= c J - 3 v H -= m E
o.c D c v .d `m m n LL N u
d- N L D c C L> C
C_ L- m .C J = O d
0O CaC O y B. c s J 2
L C>
- m y _ J
U m - a V O a
dOL Tt= n LLOdj LL?10
C V D 3 A
m E.6 m d ; 3
JG aEO1 m` > O'odD cdEvc
Ocr rn 3 = Odod
a J= u o d m d Q; d m
E J v N D d<
¢ ?Aco A dc °>. N<yc
p N a m- G
1D d vD.
dL O` 0= ` C O
C Oi11d`JCd C c °od rA`-Om
N ywa,°OUrnrn m G E ?cN3 Doom
?n. J_d.0 d E a? at c1- o
'yC d m T tO W N °e t y 0.0 U? Na
jj a3 d`o'do= T s L mmLm dc'
GG yd?E¢JO E c ''? ;Lao Em
A o n? c>m` E ?D c ?O ;N o L+ dm mmc
G c m
c c o C d m> V°?
C c ?y?- S ma-
0= E Y °-'Q1 vc ?c L00 cdoo YrmNz
Y ¢Ei0`?0T < C ru = <aua Vol w me
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Uwharrie National Forest
Uwharrie Ranger District
Uwharrie River Bridge Replacement Project
Montgomery County
Proposed Actions and Existing Conditions
This document discloses the effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) and proposed terrestrial
wildlife' plants, and aquatic species as a result of a bridge replacement project proposed by the NC Department of
Transportation. Three alternatives are proposed with this project. Alternative 1 is no action. However, the bridge is
becoming unsafe to drive across and needs to be replaced. Alternative 2 proposes to replace the bridge with another
bridge, approximately 360 feet in length, at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on site using a temporary detour bridge, 350 feet in length, on the east side of the
existing bridge. Alternative 3 proposes to replace the bridge with another bridge, approximately 360 feet in length,
on a new location to the east side at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained using the currently existing bridge. Both alternatives would affect Forest Service land beginning at the
junction of SR 1153 and Highway 109, moving south and ending at the Uwhatrie River. Land affected is located on
the east side of Highway 109.
The affected habitat consists of shortleaf pine, sweetgum, tulip poplar, oak species, and hickory species in the
overstory. The shrub and herb diversity is low.
Results and Discussion
Species considered for this project include those listed for the Uwhatrie National Forest in the National Forests in
North Carolina Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species List. See the attached list of these
species. As part of the determination of effects to PETS species, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
occurrence records for Montgomery County were reviewed, and an assessment of the presence of potentially
suitable habitat for PETS species was determined. The NCNHP data revealed no rare plants known to occur within
the project area or directly adjacent to the proposed project site. No terrestrial wildlife PETS species occurrences
are known to occur within the proposed project area or directly adjacent to the project area. However, 12 rare
aquatic species are known to occur in the aquatic analysis area for this project. These species include the Carolina
darter, Roanoke slabshell, Atlantic pigtoe, Carolina creekshell, Lenat's ceraclea, Greensboro burrowing crayfish,
cinnamon shadowdragon, robust redhorse, Leptohyphes robacki (a mayfly), eastern lampmussel, notched rainbow,
and eastern creekshell. Four of these species are considered sensitive, while the remaining eight are considered
Forest Concern species. Additional methods used for determining presence of PETS species and determination of
effects to these species include consultation with public and/or private individuals who are knowledgeable of the
area and conducting field surveys in the proposed project area.
Sheryl Bryan and Kelly Howell, Forest Service Fishery Biologists, surveyed the aquatic habitat within the aquatic
analysis area on June 19 and 20, 2000. Twenty-nine PETS aquatic species were considered for the proposed project.
Seventeen of these species were dropped from further consideration based on either lack of suitable habitat or
because they weren't found during the field survey. Fourteen aquatic species were analyzed in the Aquatic
Analysis. These include two management indicator species and twelve rare species. Of the twelve rare species, four
are considered sensitive species, while the other eight are Forest Concern species. The sensitive species include the
Carolina darter, Roanoke slabshell, Atlantic pigtoe, and Carolina creekshell. Four mitigation measures were listed
in the Aquatic Analysis. These are required to be implemented with either of the action alternatives. They include:
1. All freshwater mussels (excluding fingernail clams) should be removed from any area of the river bottom
proposed for disturbance prior to project implementation to minimize effects to mussel community
diversity and stability. These mussels should be maintained in the Uwharrie River upstream of the aquatic
project area or at a reputable rearing facility until project completion, when they should be placed back into
the aquatic analysis area. This procedure should be conducted or, at a minimum, supervised by one (or
more) aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, USFWS, NCWRC, NCDENR, or USFS.
2. Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence should be placed along the length of river bank that
will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to project implementation to
minimize soil entering the Uwharrie River. Erosion control efficiency should be maintained until
vegetative cover is established upon project completion.
3. All coffer dams should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic materials unless the
work area can be completely dry during installation and curing. If uncured concrete is used to form
abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one or more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT,
NCWRC, USFWS or USFS should be present to insure that no uncured concrete comes in contact with the
Uwharrie River. Uncured concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
4. Center supports and abutments of the old bridge should be left to avoid unnecessary river bottom
disturbance. Only those parts of the structures that do not impede river flow or are crucial to bank stability
should be left. All portions of the structures removed should be disposed of off-site.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, it was determined that no effect will occur to threatened,
endangered, or proposed aquatic species, nor will suitable habitat be affected. It will not have long-term impacts on
aquatic sensitive species nor will the project result in a trend toward listing for any species assuming that the above
mitigation measures are implemented successfully. Habitat for these species could be temporarily affected, with
conditions quickly returning to normal upon project completion. Consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service is not required.
Moni C. Bates, Independent Contract Botanist, surveyed the project area for PETS plant species on July 13, 1999.
Twenty-three PETS plant species were considered with this project. Suitable habitat exists in the project area for
nine PETS plant species including Helianthus schweinitzii, Helianthus laeviQatus, Ruellia purshiana, Aster
georQianus. Baptisia albescens. BaDtisia alba. Quercus austrina. Cardamine dissecta. and Helenium brevifolium.
Although some of these species can be found a mile or more from the proposed project site, one of these plants were
found during the botanical survey, and none are known to occur within the project area. It was determined that no
effects will occur to any of the PETS plant species as a result of the replacement of the Uwharrie River Bridge. No
cumulative effects will occur. See attached Botanical Analysis for further details.
Five PETS terrestrial wildlife species were considered for this project. See the attached list of species. None of
these species are known to occur within the proposed project area. No suitable habitat exists for these species within
the proposed bridge replacement area. It was determined that this project will have no effect on any TES or
proposed terrestrial animal species on the Uwharrie National Forest rare species list. The implementation of this
project will not cause a trend toward federal listing of sensitive species or a loss of viability to any PETS terrestrial
wildlife species. No cumulative effects will occur.
Determination of Effect
It was determined that the implementation of this project will have no effect on proposed, endangered, or threatened
terrestrial wildlife or plants. No sensitive botanical or wildlife species will be affected. Because the four mitigation
measures listed above will be implemented, there will be no effect to any threatened, endangered, or proposed
aquatic species. This project will not cause a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive aquatic species or a loss of
viability to any PET species listed for the Uwharrie National Forest. No cumulative effects will occur. Consultation
with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Prepared by:

MEGAN MARTOGLIO
Wildlife Biologist
September 14, 2000
PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, THREATENED, and SENSITIVE
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES on the UWHARRIE NATIONAL
FOREST
S cies Habitat " US Fish and State Forest Suitable
Association Wildlife Status Service Habitat
Service Status Status; Occurs in . 1
the Project
Area
Mammals
eastern cougar extensive forests, Endangered Endangered Endangered No
Felis concolor coy ar remote areas
Birds
Bachman's sparrow pine savannas; old Federal Special Sensitive No
Aimophila aestivalis fields Species of Concern
Concern
bald eagle large bodies of Threatened Endangered Threatened No
Heliaeetus water with mature
leucocephalus trees nearby for
perching
red-cockaded pine savannas Endangered Endangered Endangered No
woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Ain' Ir
mole salamander fish-free - Special Forest No
Ambystoma talpoideum semipermanent Concern Concern
woodland ponds;
forages in
woodlands

BOTANICAL ANALYSIS
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
UWHARRIE RANGER DISTRICT
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (NO. 45 ON NC 109)
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the findings of a Botanical Analysis (BOTA) of the proposed bridge
replacement on NC 109 over the Uwharrie River. The proposed bridge replacement and possible
extent of this activity is listed below. The potential effects of this proposal on endangered, proposed
endangered, threatened, Forest Service Sensitive (PETS) and Forest Concern plant species are
evaluated. Potential direct and indirect effects to PETS plant and Forest Concern species were
analyzed in the area where the bridge replacement is proposed. This area is referred to as the
"activity area." The attached map shows the location of the project area in compartment 16 of the
Uwharrie Ranger District, Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery Co. North Carolina.
METHODS
Potentially affected PETS plant species were identified after (1) reviewing the list of PETS plant
species of the Uwharrie National Forests and their habitat preferences; (2) consulting element
occurrence records of PETS plants as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs;
(3) consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the
area and its flora (4) conducting a field survey in the area designated for ground disturbing activities.
The field survey was conducted by walking the road shoulder east of NC 109 and within the forested
area adjacent to the road shoulder. Focused .attention was given during the survey to the roadside
and riparian habitats within the area that may be associated with plant PETS species. The search was
focused on the possibility of occurrences of the PETS plants listed on Table 1, however, all PETS
plant species were searched for during the survey. Table 2 summarizes the habitats in the proposed
area.
RESULTS
Of the total of 23 plant PETS species known to occur in Montgomery Co. NC., all but nine species
were dropped from the list for further consideration and discussion for one of the following reasons:
1) lack of suitable habitat for the species in the project area, or 2) the species has a well-known
distribution that does not include the project area. Habitats, community types and ranges of plant
PETS species are derived from information in Classification of the Natural Plant Communities of
North Carolina, the Natural Heritage Program's List of Rare Plant of North Carolina or information
obtained through other botanist. A list of PETS plants known to occur or potentially could occur'
' In this document, the use of the phases "could occur" or "may occur" are taken to mean
probable species occurrence in the very broadest of senses. Only very general habitat preferences
in the botanical analysis area or activity areas is listed in Table 1.
The proposed activity area was surveyed by Moni C. Bates, Independent Contract Botanist on July
13, 1999.
A summary of the field survey is provided in Table 2. This table lists the communities found.
Appendix 1 includes a list of the plant species noted during the field survey.
TABLE 1. Known & Potential PETS plant species in the proposed NC 109 bridge replacement area.
Species Habitat or Natural Community Occurrence
Ruellia purshiana Glades and woodlands, mostly Potentially may occur in activity or project
over mafic or calcareous rocks area but not known to occur.
Helianthus schweinitzii Open woods and roadsides Potentially may occur in activity or project
area but not known to occur.
Helianthus laevigatus Shaley open woods and roadsides Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
known in activity areas.
Baptisia albescens Open woodlands and clearings Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
known in activity areas.
Baptisia albs Open woodlands and clearings Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
known in activity areas.
Ouercus auhrina Bluff and bottomland forests Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
known in activity areas.
Cardamine dissecia Rich woods, cove forests, and Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
bottomland- s known in activity areas.
Helenium brevifolium Bogs, seeps, riverbanks, and other Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
wet sites known in activity areas.
Aster georgianus Open woods and roadsides Potentially may occur in activity area. Not
known in activity areas.
and species distribution are used to determine if a species may or could occur. This does not imply
their existence in an area.
TABLE 2. Natural Communities and plant PETS species within the NC 109 bridge replacement
activity area.
Compartment
/Stand(s) Proposed
activity(s) Natural communities or habitat Occurrence of plant PETS species
16 Bridge Riparian habitat Searched for Quercus austrina along
replacement river banks. Field survey was too late in
on NC 109 the season to detect Cardamine dissecta,
over however, habitat was not indicative of
Uwharrie this species. No evidence of Helenium
River brevifolium, not likely habitat.
16 Bridge Roadside habitat Most of the roadside habitat was
replacement overgrown with shrubs, no evidence of
on NC 109 rare plant species that are frequently
over occur in open roadside habitats.
Uwharrie Searched for Helianthus schweinitzii, H.
River laevigatus, Baptisia alba, B. albescens,
Aster georgianus, and Ruellia
purshiana.
DISCUSSION
This discussion describes the potential effects on plant PETS species of this proposal.
Discussion of general communities and habitats found in the proposed area:
The proposed area for bridge replacement over the Uwharrie River on NC 109 begins at the junction
of NC 109 and SR 1153 and terminates at the Uwharrie River. The site elevation is 310 to 490 feet.
The proposed bridge replacement will impact the roadside vegetation on the east side of NC 109.
The four PETS plant species that are known to occur along roadsides in the vicinity of this project
area are Helianthus laevigatus, Ruellia purshiana, Helianthus schweinitzii, and Aster georgianus.
An element occurrence of H. laevigatus is found approximately two and one half miles northwest of
the proposed area on FSR 597. Both A. georgianus and H. schweinitzii occur about two miles west
of the proposed area. Additionally, a record of Ruellia purshiana occurs about one mile northwest
on FSR 544. Two other rare plant species that are occasionally found in roadside habitats include
Baptisia alba and B. albescens. The closest known element occurrences of both of these species are
further than three miles from the proposed activity area.
Several rare plant species occur in the riparian habitat of the Uwharrie River. About two miles
upstream and one mile downstream of the proposed activity area are populations of Cardamine
dissecta. This species typically occurs in areas of high herb diversity within floodplains and at the
base of steep slopes that border rivers or creeks. The herb diversity is low in the floodplain of the
proposed area and does not appear to be likely habitat for C. dissecta. Quercus austrina occurs
about one mile downstream at the same location as the Cardamine dissector population. No O.
austrina individuals were noted in the Uwharrie River floodplain in the proposed area. Carex
impressinervia is known to occur along West Branch about one mile northwest of the proposed
activity area. West Branch is a first order tributary of the Uwharrie River. The habitat for C.
impressinervia is wet forests and in this vicinity it occurs along flood prone areas of small creeks.
There are no known element occurrences of C. impressinervia along the Uwharrie River. There are
also no known element occurrences of Helenium brevifolium along the Uwharrie River. No
individuals of these species were noted during the field survey.
No rare plant species were seen in the wooded habitat adjacent to the road shoulder. The tree canopy
includes Pinus echinata, Liquidambar styracifula, Liriodendron tulipifera, and species of Carya and
Ouercus. The shrub and herb diversity is low.
Discussion of effects to particular PETS plant species found in the activity area:
There are no known PETS or Forest Concern plant species within the proposed activity area. There
are also no known PETS or Forest Concern species that this proposed activity will indirectly affect.
All the known populations of PETS or Forest Concern species are to far from the proposed activity
to have any effect.
SUMMARY OF EFFECT
This proposal will not affect any proposed or listed Federal threatened or endangered plant species.
This proposal will not affect the viability of any Forest Sensitive or Forest Concern plant species.
Prepared by Moni C. Bates, Independent Contract Botanist.
Reviewed by David M. Danley,
Forest Botanist
APPENDIX 1
VASCULAR PLANTS FOUND DURING SURVEY:
Acer barbatum
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Achillea millefolium
Aesculus sylvatica
Agrimonia parvijlora
Anemone virginiana
Apocynum cannabinum
Asplenium asplenioides
Asplenium platyneuron
Betula nigra
Bignonia capreolata
Boehmeria cylindrica
Botrychium virginianum
Campsis radicans
Carpinus caroliniona
Carya ovata
Carya tomentosa
Carya glabra
Cercis canadensis
Chasmathium laxum
Chasmathium latifolia
Chimaphila maculata
Clitoria mariana
Corpus jlorida
Cornus amomum
Danthonia sericea var. sericea
Danthonia spicata
Daucus carota
Diospyros virginiana
Erianthus contortus
Euonymus americanus
Euphorbia corollata
Fagus grandifolia
Fraxinus pennsvlvanica
Gelsemium sempervirens
Goodvera pubescens
Helianthus atrorubens
Hvpericum stragalum
Hvstrix patula
Ilex opaca
Juglans nigra
Juncus effusus
Juniperus virginiana
Ligustrum sinense
Lindera benzoin
Liquidamber styracijlua
Lonicera japonica
Lycopodium jlabelliforme
tllatelea sp.
Menispermum canadense
Alicrostegium virmineum
Morus rubra
:vssa syhatica
Ostrya virginiana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Panicum anceps
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Penstemon australis
Phrvma leptostachya
Physalis virginiana var. virginiana
Phvtolacca americana
Pinus echinata
Plantago spp.
Platanus occidentalis
Polymnia uvedalia
Polvstichum acrostichoides
Prunella vulgaris
Prunus serotina
Quercus coccinea
Ouercus rubra
Quercus nigra
Quercus phellos
Quercus falcata
Rhododendron sp.
Rhus copallinum
Rhus glabra
Rhus toxicodendron
Rosa multiflora
Rubus sp.
Ruellia carolinensis
Sambucus canadensis
Sassafras albidum
Scleria oliganiha
Silphium dentatum var. dentatrum
Smilaz bona-nox
Solidago caesia
Tilia sp.
Tovara virginiana
Ulmus alata
Ulmus rubra
Uvularia pudica
I'accinium stamineum
V'erbesina alternifolia
Yervesina occidentalis
Viburnum prunifolium
V itis rotundifolia
AQUATIC RESOURCE ANALYSIS (AQUA)
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
NATIONAL FORESTS IN NORTH CAROLINA
UWHARRIE NATIONAL FOREST
Highway 109 Bridge Replacement
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Montgomery County, North Carolina
Analysis Prepared By:
SHERYL A. BRYAN
Fisheries Biologist
August 23, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Legal Requirements for AQUAS 3
Project Proposal Description 4
Issues Considered in This AQUA 4
Affected Environment 5
Aquatic Project and Analysis Areas 5
Existing Condition 5
Data Sources and Surveys Conducted 5
Aquatic Habitat 6
Aquatic Populations 7
Existing Land Uses and Impacts 9
Species Considered in AQUA 10
Rare Aquatic Species 10
Likelihood of Occurrence 10
Aquatic Management Indicator Species 1 I
Rationale for Selection 11
Effects Analysis by Alternative 11
Alternative 1 (No Action) 12
Alternatives 2 and 3 12
Mitigation Measures 13
Determination of Effect 14
Persons Contacted 14
References 14
Appendix Tables 19
2
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AQUAS
This section should be considered a summary of environmental laws and regulations most
applicable to this analysis. References for these and other environmental laws and regulations can
be found at the end of this document.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that effects of a project proposal on Federally-listed
(threatened or endangered) species and species proposed for Federal listing be analyzed, and that a
determination of potential effects be made for each of these species. Consultation with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required to assess these potential effects to a listed or
proposed species, which results in concurrence by the USFWS or the issuance of a jeopardy
opinion.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that potential effects of a proposed project
on identified (and appropriate) management indicator species (MIS) be analyzed and disclosed.
Furthermore, the NFMA requires potential effects on MIS viability at local and regional scales be
analyzed and disclosed.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that potential effects of a proposed project
on natural resources be analyzed for a reasonable range of alternatives, and that such effects be
disclosed and made available to the public.
Forest Service Manual 2670 (FSM 2670) is directly related to the ESA, and also allows the Forest
Service to identify species as sensitive based on regional data and species information. FSM 2670
applies to Federally-listed and proposed species and Forest Service sensitive species, and requires
that the Forest Service:.
"1 . Manage habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and
wildlife species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species;
2. Conduct activities and programs to assist in the identification and recovery of
Threatened and endangered plant and animal species; and
3. Avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered."
The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Uwharrie National Forest (hereafter, the
Forest) identifies species that are considered to be generally rare based on local data and
information as Forest concern and requires that effects on these species be considered in project
analyses.
In addition, the LRMP includes practice standards and desired future conditions for the Forests that
are related to several environmental laws or regulations. Particular attention is given to riparian
areas and associated aquatic resources. Incorporation of LRMP standards during project planning
and successful adherence to them during implementation virtually ensures compliance with
environmental laws and regulations involving aquatic resources. The LRMP allows for mitigation
measures to be implemented that minimize or eliminate potential effects.
PROJECT PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
A more complete description of the project proposal can be found in the environmental assessment
(EA) or other environmental documentation for this project. In summary, three alternatives are
being considered by the NCDOT for this project. For this analysis, the alternatives are identified
as:
1. Continue to use the existing bridge (the No Action alternative). The bridge is
deteriorating and is becoming unsafe for highway users.
2. Replace the existing bridge with a similar bridge in the same location. This will
require the construction of a temporary bridge to the east of the existing location
for highway traffic during bridge renovations.
3. Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge to the east and remove the old bridge.
Table 1 lists proposed activities by alternative for the Highway 109 bridge replacement that have
the potential to affect aquatic resources.
Table 1. Proposed activities for the Highway 109 Bridge Replacement Project.
(No Action)
Activi Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt.3 _
Continue to use existing bridge X
Replace existing bridge in current location X
Construct bridge in new location (temporary or permanent) X X
Remove old bridge structure X
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THIS AQUA
Table 2 lists issues related to aquatic resources identified by the Forest Service interdisciplinary
team (IDT), other resource agencies, and the public for the highway 109 Bridge Replacement
Project
Table 2. Issues related to aquatic resources identified during the NEPA process for
the Highway 109 Bridge Replacement Project.
Identified
Issue By*
Effects on water quality within the Uwharrie River agency, public
Sedimentation of the Uwharrie River agency, public
Effects on local aquatic habitat and populations agency, public
Effects on freshwater mussels agency,
Effects on other rare aquatic species agency
4
*Members of the general public and environmental organizations who provided comments during the NEPA
process are not identified by name in this AQUA. They are referred to as the "public". Other State and
F• :feral resource agencies providing comments during the NEPA process are identified as "agency".
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed project lies within the Uwharrie River (hereafter, the River) drainage basin.
Specifically, the project proposes to cross the River at or in the vicinity of the existing Highway 109
bridge. There are no tributaries involved.
For this analysis, the aquatic project area is defined from 50 meters downstream of the existing
bridge upstream to 100 meters above the existing bridge, for a total of approximately 200 meters of
the Uwharrie River.
The aquatic analysis area is defined as the above area and extends downstream approximately 500
meters (to consider potential sediment transport), for a total of approximately 700 meters of the
Uwharrie River.
The aquatic project area is defined as the area immediately adjacent to ground-disturbing activities,
where aquatic habitat and populations may be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected. The
aquatic analysis area, or area of this effects analysis, includes the aquatic project area and
downstream reaches potentially affected (indirectly and cumulatively) by the project proposal.
Downstream boundaries of the aquatic analysis area are based on local conditions and
recommendations made by the Forest Hydrologist. In the absence of a project-specific
recommendation by the Forest Hydrologist, a logical downstream point will be identified based on
field observations (by a Forest Service Fisheries Biologist) of local stream and landscape
conditions.
EXISTING CONDITION
Data Sources and Surveys Conducted
Existing data for aquatic resources within an aquatic analysis area is used to the extent it is relevant
to the project proposal. This data exists in two forms: general inventory and monitoring of Forest
aquatic resources, and data provided by cooperating resource agencies from aquatic resources on or
flowing through the Forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are
used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 is used sparingly (mostly as a
historical reference). Project-specific surveys are conducted to obtain reliable data where none
exists.
Table 3 lists survey methods used. for aquatic resource parameters and references to descriptions of
the methods. All data used in this AQUA (existing or project-specific) was collected using an
appropriate survey method. Full citations of listed references can be found at the end of this
document.
6
Table 3. Data collection methods for aquatic resource parameters used in AQUAS.
Parameter Method
Fish populations (streams) backpack electrofishing
visual (snorkel)
Fish populations (rivers)
Fish populations (ponds,
reservoirs, rivers
IBI
boat electrofishing
visual (snorkel, SCUBA)
nets/traps
Aquatic insects and crayfish net samplers (Surber,
kick, drift)
Freshwater mussels
Aquatic salamanders
Habitat
Substrate composition
visual (snorkel, SCUBA)
backpack electrofishing
visual (snorkel, SCUBA)
BVET
pebble count
Reference(s)
Murphy and Willis 1996
Schreck and Moyle 1990
SD-AFS 1992
Dolloff et al. 1993
Hankin and Reeves 1988
Karr et al. 1986
Lyons 1992
Murphy and Willis 1996
Schreck and Moyle 1990
Murphy and Willis 1996
Schreck and Moyle 1990
Murphy and Willis 1996
Schreck and Moyle 1990
Brigham et al. 1982
Hauer and Resh 1996
Hawkins et al. 1998
Hobbs 1972
Merritt et al. 1996
Rosenburg and Resh 1993
USEPA 1989
Athearn 1969
Cummings et al. 1993
Williams and Hocutt 1981
Williams and Hocutt 1981
Dolloff et al. 1993
Hankin and Reeves 1988
Harrelson et al. 1994
Bevenger and King 1995
Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic habitat within the aquatic analysis area was surveyed on June 19 and 20, 2000 by Sheryl
Bryan and Kelly Howell, Forest Service Fisheries Biologists. Within the aquatic analysis area, the
Uwharrie River is a wide, shallow river with moderate flow. Substrate consists primarily of
uniformly-sized cobble mixed with sand and small gravel. Flow obstructions such as the existing
bridge supports accumulate larger substrate and woody debris, which provides some instream cover.
Riparian vegetation also provides habitat diversity in terms of overhead cover, large wood
accumulations, and thermal refuge (i.e. shade). Beds of aquatic vegetation are common in the
Uwharrie River, especially during the summer months, which also provide aquatic habitat diversity.
Figure 1 shows the Uwharrie River at the Highway 109 bridge.
7
Figure 1. Uwharrie River upstream of the Highway 109 bridge, Montgomery County, North
Carolina (photo date: June 19, 2000).
Aquatic Populations
Qualitative mussel and aquatic insect*.* ' -,,s were conducted on June 19, 2000 and qualitative fish
surveys were conducted on June 20,26U-: by Sheryl Bryan and Kelly Howell. These surveys were
conducted to familiarize the biologists with the River, and to look for the sensitive species
identified in Table 4. Recent information on the Uwharrie River at this site is also available for use
in this analysis (e.g. data collected by the NC)WRC, NCDENR, NCDOT, and USFS).
Fish
Approximately 61 species of freshwater fish have been collected from the Uwharrie River above its
confluence with the Pee Dee river since 1980 (Appendix Table 1). Local fish community structure
is summarized in Figure 2, which displays the contribution of the six major fish groups to overall
community composition. With all of the groups'being strongly represented in the Uwharrie River, it
is suspected that the fish community and species populations, while naturally dynamic, are
relatively stable. Two rare fish species, the Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) and the robust
redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), are known to occur in the Uwharrie River system. These species
will be discussed in more detail below.
Freshwater mussels. crash, and aquatic snails
Alderman and McGrath (1994) found three species of crayfish, nine species of aquatic snails, and
nine freshwater mussel species in the Uwharrie River (Appendix Table 2), which are summarized in
Figure 3. Six rare freshwater mussels and one rare crayfish are known to occur in the Uwharrie
River system. These species groups and individual species will be discussed in more detail below.

Figure 2. Fish community structure within the Uwharrie River, Montgomery County,
/,,..., Bass &
Sunfish
Catfish 21%
15%
North Carolina
(Menhenick 1991).
Figure 3. Freshwater mussel, crayfish, and aquatic snail communities within the Uwharrie
River, Montgomery County, North Carolina (Alderman and McGrath 1994).
10
9
8
7
_Y
6
Y
a
0 5
L
Y
4
ie
0
e 3
2
1
0
9
®Forest Concern
® Se ns itiv e
¦Common
crayfish mussels snails
Aquatic insects and other
invertebrates
NCDENR records from the Uwharrie River and major tributaries indicate that approximately 300
species of aquatic insects and invertebrates (other than species considered above) occur in the
Uwharrie River system. This data is summarized in Alderman and McGrath 1994, and more
detailed information is available from the NCDENR (www.esb.enr.state.nc.us%BAU.html).
Figure 4 further summarizes this information.
Figure 4. Aquatic insect and other invertebrate community structure within the Uwharrie
River, Montgomery County, North Carolina (NCDENR, as referenced in Alderman
and McGrath 1994).
10
Of the species identified from the Uwharrie River above Badin Lake, approximately 130 (40%) are
members of the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), or Trichoptera
(caddisflies), as indicated in Figure 4. These orders are typically indicators of good water quality
and stream health. Their collective relative abundance has been indexed as a metric for use in
determining overall stream health (EPT Index) by the NCDENR. In this light, overall stream health
within the Uwharrie River is good.
Existing Land Uses and Impacts
Within the aquatic analysis area, land use is primarily road right-of-way. Beyond this area, the
northern riverbank is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and is forested. The Uwharrie Hunt Camp
is adjacent to this area. This area is used by hunters as a base camp while hunting and for game
preparation after harvest. The southern riverbank is privately owned and supports land uses such as
rural housing development and agriculture. Part of the area is forested.
Upstream of the aquatic analysis area, several hog and chicken farms occur on private land, which
are a source of nutrient-laden runoff into the Uwharrie River. During the June 2000 surveys, Forest
Service fisheries biologists observed a thick mat of fungus growing on the substrate throughout the
aquatic analysis area where flow did not scour the riverbottom. It is unclear what long-term effects
this heavy fungal growth will have on the aquatic communities within the Uwharrie River. After
talking to several local landowners (not the farm owners) and aquatic biologists, it was determined
that this growth was fairly common in the Uwharrie River system.
AQUATIC SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE AQUA
Rare Aquatic Species
National Forests in North Carolina recognizes three types of rare species during a NEPA analysis,
which are described below.
A proposed threatened or endangered species (T. E. PT. and PE) is a species that has been
formally listed or is proposed for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These
species are included in every AQUA conducted for projects within a watershed where the species is
known to, likely to, or may occur. These species are also included in AQUAs for watersheds where
11
the species occurred historically but hasn't been found during recent surveys.
A sensitive species (S) is a species appearing on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species list for
the Southern Region. These species may or may not have a Federal or State status, but generally
have a global rank of G 1, G2, or G3 and a State rank of S 1 or S2. These species are included in
every AQUA conducted for projects within a watershed where the species is known to, likely to, or
may occur.
A Forest concern species ,FC) is a species, which National Forests in North Carolina considers to
be generally rare, and an important part of the biodiversity across the Forests that do not fall within
one of the above categories. These species may or may not have a Federal or State status, and
generally have a global rank of G3 or lower and a State rank of S 1 or lower. These species are
included in every AQUA conducted for projects within a watershed where the species is known to
or is likely to occur. The large group of Forest concern species, which may occur within the aquatic
analysis area, but are not known to or are not likely to occur within this area are addressed
collectively as the aquatic insect community.
Twenty-nine rare aquatic species have been listed by the NCWRC, USFWS or NCNHP as
occurring or potentially occurring on the Uwharrie National Forest. These species are listed in
Appendix Table 3. Of the 29 aquatic species included on the original list for analysis, 17 were
dropped as a result of a likelihood of occurrence evaluation based on preferred habitat elements and
field survey results. Species that do not occur (based on survey results) or are not likely to occur
(based on a lack of suitable habitat) are removed from the list of species considered. Species that
may occur due to the presence of suitable habitat, but that have not been documented as occurring
in the vicinity of the analysis area are not considered in this analysis. Rather, potential effects on
suitable habitat for these species are addressed. This process is summarized in Appendix Table 4.
Management Indicator Species (MIS)
Largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, chain pickerel, and redfin pickerel are known to occur within
the aquatic analysis area. Chain and redfin pickerel were chosen as project-level management
indicator species since they are sensitive to changes in and habitat condition and are the best
representative of the type of aquatic habitat within the aquatic analysis area.
A management indicator species is a species identified in the Forest Plan that represents a
community, assemblage, or special habitat in the Forests. MIS are intended to aid in the description
of biodiversity and to serve as a mechanism for monitoring population viability across the Forests.
Therefore, potential effects of the propose project on two aquatic MIS and twelve rare aquatic
species will be analyzed in this report. These species are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Aquatic species considered in the AQUA for the Highway 109 Bridge Replacement
project.
Sees
chain pickerel (Esox niger)
Rationale
Tv a for Inclusion
fish management indicator species
12
redfin pickerel (Esox americanus) fish
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) fish
robust redhorse (Moxostoma rubustum) fish
Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) mussel
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) mussel
Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) mussel
Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) mussel
notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) mussel
Eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) mussel
Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius) crayfish
a caddisfly (Ceraclea sp. 1) caddisfly
cinnamon shadowdragon (Neurocordulia virginiensis)dragonfly
a mayfly (Leptohyphes robacki) mayfly
management indicator species
sensitive species
Forest concern species
sensitive species
sensitive species
sensitive species
Forest concern species
Forest concern species
Forest concern species
Forest concern species
Forest concern species
Forest concern species
Forest concern species
DISCUSSION
Please refer to the Environmental Assessment for a complete list of project issues and a detailed
description of each alternative. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing each
alternative on aquatic resources will be discussed using a tiered approach. First, effects on aquatic
community structure will be examined. Second, if necessary, effects on specific parts of the
community (e.g. insects, fish, etc.) will be evaluated. And third, species-specific effects will be
discussed when a species will be affected differently than other species in the community.
Mitigation measures will be stated where such actions are necessary to comply with local, State,
and Federal environmental regulations. Management recommendations to protect or enhance
aquatic resources are made where practical.
Potential Effects of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
Implementation of the no action alternative will avoid disturbance of the river bottom and banks,
which avoids any potential effects on aquatic species and habitats. Natural aquatic community
dynamics will continue. However, continued deterioration of the existing structure could ultimately
result in bridge collapse, which would cause a major disturbance to the Uwharrie River.
The aquatic analysis area is an extremely sensitive area in terms of freshwater mussels, and any loss
of individual mussels or their habitat could potentially affect local species viability. Of the nine
species documented from the Uwharrie River, six (66%) are considered rare by the Forest Service
(Figure 3). Three (33%) are listed as regionally sensitive and three (33%) are listed as locally rare.
For example, this location is the only documented occurrence of the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis) in Montgomery County, and on the Forest. The species does occur more frequently
east of the Forest; however, loss of a viable population of E. roanokensis from the Uwharrie River
would reduce the species' range in North Carolina and affect aquatic biodiversity on the Forest.
Other mussel species are equally susceptible to habitat loss and destruction, but their ranges are
broader and local populations are considered more stable.
Potential Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3
13
Implementation of either action alternative will result in some disturbance to the Uwharrie River
within the aquatic project area. Included are disturbances to the riverbanks and bottom during
construction of bridge abutments (either temporary or permanent) to the east of the existing bridge,
at the site of new center supports (either temporary or permanent), and at equipment access points.
Also, turbidity is likely to be increased during the implementation of either alternative.
Disturbance of the riverbanks and bottom will result in the sedimentation of local and downstream
habitats. Sedimentation of aquatic resources reduces the amount of habitat available to fish and
other aquatic organisms. This includes the loss if interstitial space within the substrate, which is
particularly important for aquatic invertebrates (including mussels and crayfish), as well as for fish
and salamander spawning and rearing areas. In addition, fine sediment particles, such as silt,
decrease oxygen transport to and from aquatic populations and increase the risk of disease
introduction. Long-term loss of suitable habitat can result in a decline in fish, invertebrate, and
other aquatic organism productivity. However, the method of project implementation can affect
how much sediment is transported and how much habitat is affected. Therefore, the mitigation
measures listed below are required to minimize these negative effects during project
implementation.
Aquatic habitat within area streams may be lost locally to increased sedimentation and turbidity
during and after bridge replacement; however, such losses are expected to be of short duration. As
bare soil is revegetated and sediments are flushed downstream, local aquatic invertebrate
communities will recolonize quickly. Long-term changes in local hydrology and aquatic
microhabitat distribution will not affect aquatic insect community composition since no habitats
will be lost-- only "reorganized".
Sediments that are flushed downstream may also temporarily affect interstitial habitats downstream
in the Uwharrie River. However, these potential effects are not likely to be measurable based on
flow volume and potential sediment transport rates within the Uwharrie River.
As stated above, the aquatic analysis area is an extremely sensitive area in terms of freshwater
mussels, and of rare aquatic species in general (reference Appendix Table 4), with 12 rare aquatic
species known to occur and suitable habitat for an additional 14 species. Combined, these groups of
species represent 90% of the rare aquatic species known to occur in Montgomery County.
Of particular concern is the Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), Carolina creekshell (Villosa
vaughaniana), and the Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius) since their known
ranges are the most restricted in North Carolina and fewer stable populations of the species have
been documented. For both of these species, the loss of viability in one of the known populations
could affect local and range-wide viability.
Other, more mobile species, such as juvenile and adult fish and crayfish will likely respond to
disturbance by leaving the area during adverse conditions, and return when conditions improve. In
addition, aquatic insect communities generally adapt quickly to local conditions, and have
demonstrated the ability to recolonize affected areas quickly after disturbance (Rosenberg and Resh
1983). Aquatic communities within the Uwharrie River have, over time, adapted to the natural
occurrence of flooding and turbidity associated with piedmont river systems. And in general,
14
species persisting in these systems are the ones that are tolerant of these temporary conditions.
However, for management indicators, such as the two pickerel species, as well as other fish species,
the timing of project implementation can be important to avoid key spawning and rearing times
(which for most species is early to mid spring), as the egg and larval life stages of fish are less
mobile and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of turbidity and sedimentation.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are management actions that are required to maintain compliance with
environmental laws and regulations and are required in either action alternative to achieve the
determination of effect below.
All freshwater mussels (excluding fingernail clams) should be removed from any area of the
river bottom proposed for disturbance prior to project implementation to minimize effects to
mussel community diversity and stability. These mussels should be maintained in the River
upstream of the aquatic project area or at a reputable rearing facility until project
completion, when they should be placed back into the aquatic analysis area. This procedure
should be conducted by or, at a minimum, supervised by one (or more) aquatic biologist
from the NCDOT, USFWS, NCWRC, NCDENR, or USFS.
2. Erosion control such as (but not limited to) silt fence should be placed along the length of
river bank that will be disturbed, between the disturbance and the water's edge, prior to
project implementation to minimize soil entering the River. Erosion control efficiency
should be maintained until vegetative cover is established upon project completion.
3. All coffer dams should be constructed using pre-formed concrete and other non-toxic
materials unless the work area can be completely dry during installation and curing. If
uncured concrete is used to form abutments or center supports behind a coffer dam, one or
more aquatic biologist from the NCDOT, NCWRC, USFWS, or USFS should be present to
insure that no uncured concrete comes in contact with the Uwharrie River. Uncured
concrete is toxic to most aquatic life.
4. Center supports and abutments of the old bridge should be left to avoid unnecessary river
bottom disturbance. Only those parts of the structures that do not impede river flow or are
crucial to bank stability should be left. All portions of the structures removed should be
disposed of off-site.
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
Implementation of either of the action alternatives proposed for the Highway 109 Bridge
Replacement Project will not affect threatened, endangered, or proposed aquatic species, nor will
suitable habitat be affected. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
Implementation of either of the action alternatives proposed for the Highway 109 Bridge
Replacement Project will not have long-term impacts on aquatic sensitive or Forest concern species,
15
nor will project implementation result in a trend toward listing for any species assuming that the
above mitigation measures are implemented successfully. Habitat for these species could be
temporarily affected, with conditions quickly returning to normal upon project completion.
PERSONS CONTACTED
Megan Martoglio, USFS Wildlife Biologist
Donley Hill, USFS Fisheries Biologist
Richard Burns, USFS Hydrologist
Kelly Howell, USFS Fisheries Biologist
Roger Bryan, NCDOT Environmental Officer
John Aldermen, NCWRC Nongame Biologist
REFERENCES
Alderman, J.M. and C. McGrath. 1994. Uwharrie Mountains inventory: mollusks, crayfish, and
mammals. Report to the U.S. Forest Service, N.C. Department of Natural Resources, and
the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Nongame Division. 77 pages.
Athearn, H.D. 1969. How to find freshwater clams in creek-sized streams. American
Malacological Union Annual Report (1969), pages 31-33.
Berner, L. and R.K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Serratella
(Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44:149-158.
Bevenger, G.S. and R.M. King. 1995. A pebble count procedure for assessing watershed
cumulative effects. USDA-FS Research Paper RM-RP-319. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 17 pages.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes
of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois.
837 pages.
Bryan, C.F. and D.A. Rutherford (editors). 1993. Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines for
evaluation. Southern Division American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas, 285
pages.
Clean- Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 1948. P.L. 80-845; 62 Stat. 1155,
as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1254, 1323, 1324, 1329, 1342, 1344.
Cumings, K.S., A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (editors). 1993. Conservation and management
of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium. Upper Mississippi River
River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 189 pages.
Dolloff, C.A., D.G. Hankin, and G.H. Reeves. 1993. Basinwide estimation of habitat and fish
16
populations in streams. GTR 5E-83. USDA-FS southeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Asheville, North Carolina. 25 pages.
Endangered Species Act. 1973. P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536,
1538-1540.
Environmental Quality Improvement Act. 1970. P.L. 91-224, 84 Stat. 114, as amended;
42 U.S.C. 4371(note), 4371-4374.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1994. The fishes of Tennessee. University Press, Knoxville,
Tennessee.
Federal Water Project Recreation Act. 1965. P.L. 89-72, 79 Stat. 213; 16 U.S.C. 4601-12,
4601-18.
Fish and Wildlife Act. 1956. P.L. 84-1024, Ch. 1036, 70 Stat. 1119, 16 U.S.C. 742a, 742d,
742e, 742i, 742j.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. 1980. P.L. 96-366, 96 Stat. 1322, 16 U.S.C. 2901 (note),
2901-2904; 16 U.S.C. 2905-2911.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 1934. P.L. 73-321, Ch. 55, 48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661, 662(a), 662(h), 663(c), 63(f).
Georgian, T.J. and J.B. Wallace. 1983. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild of
periphyton-grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236-1248.
Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects of
forest practices on riparian zones. PNW-GTR-220. Portland, Oregon: USDA-FS, Pacific
Northwest Station. 36 pages.
Hankins, D.G. and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in
small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 45(5):834-844.
Harrelson, C.G., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. GTR RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 61 pages.
Hauer, F.R. and V.H. Resh. 1996. Benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapter 16 in Methods in
stream ecology (F.R. Hauer and G.A. Lamberti, editors), Academic Press, Inc., San
Diego, California.
Hawkins, C. J. Ostermiller, and M. Vinson. 1998. Stream invertebrate and environmental
sampling associated with biological water quality assessments. Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 15 pages plus appendices.
17

Hobbs, H.H. 1972. Biota of freshwater ecosystems identification manual #9: crayfishes of North
and Middle America. EPA Project # 18050-ELD. 173 pages.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angenneier, P.R. Yant, and I.J Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History
Survey Special Publication #5. 28 pages.
Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert (editors). 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. 1965. P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 as amended; 16
U.S.C. 4601-4(note); 4601-4 through 6a, 4601-7 through 4601-10, 4601-10a-d.
Lyons, J. 192. Using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to measure environmental quality in
warmwater streams of Wisconsin. GTR NC-149. North Central Forest Experiment
Station, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate
effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. EPA,
Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, Washington. 166 pages.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. Freshwater fishes on North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pages.
Menhenick, E.F. and A. Braswell. 1997. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North
Carolina, Part IV: a reevaluation of the freshwater fishes. North Carolina Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North
America. Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages.
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act. 1960. P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528(note),
528-531.
Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis (editors). 1996. Fisheries techniques. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Environmental Policy Act. 1969. P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 (note),
4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4346, 4346a-b, 4347.
National Forest Management Act. 1976. P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 2949, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
472a, 476, 476(note), 500, 513-516, 518, 521b, 528(note), 576b, 594-2(note), 1600(note),
1601(note), 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614.
Reiman, B. and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and
conservation of sensitive species. Fisheries 22(11):6-15.
18
r
Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenburg (editors). 1984. The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger
Publishers, New York. 625 pages.
Rosenburg, D.M. and V.H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall Publishing, New York, New York.
Schreck, C.B. and P.B. Moyle (editors). 1990. Methods for fish biology. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Scientific Council of Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of North
Carolina's freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in Accordance with Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statues of north Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices.
Scientific Council of Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the conservation
status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Annual report
prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues of North
Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices.
Sikes Act (Fish and Wildlife Conservation). 1960. P.L. 86-797, 74 Stat. 1052, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 670g-6701, 670o.
Southern Division American Fisheries Society (SDAFS), Trout Committee. 1992. Standardized
sampling guidelines for wadeable trout streams. 12 pages
Terwilliger. K. (editor). 1991. Virginia's endangered species. McDonald and Woodward
Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pages.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/
4-89-001.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. 1954. P.L. 83-566, 68 Stat. 666 as amended;
16 U.S.C. 1001(note), 1001-1003, 1003a, 1004-1006, 1006a-b, 1008, 1010; 33 U.S.C.
70lb(note).
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 1968. P.L. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
1271(note), 1271-1287.
19

Appendix Table 1. Fish species occurring in the Uwharrie River.
Lake Historical Species
Species Group Comon Name Scientific Name Species Record Status
Bass & Sunfish redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus MIS
Bass & Sunfish green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus
Bass & Sunfish pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Bass & Sunfish warmouth Lepomis gulosus
Bass & Sunfish bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Bass & Sunfish redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus
Bass & Sunfish smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui
Bass & Sunfish largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides MIS
Bass & Sunfish white perch Morone americana x
Bass & Sunfish white bass Morone chrysops x
Bass & Sunfish striped bass Morone saxatalis x
Bass & Sunfish white crappie Pomoxis annularis
Bass & Sunfish black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Catfish snail bullhead Ictalurus brunneus
Catfish white catfish Ictalurus catus
Catfish blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus x
Catfish yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis x x
Catfish brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Catfish flat bullhead Ictalurus platycephalus
Catfish channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus x
Catfish margined madtom Noturus insignis
Catfish flathead catfish Pylodictus olivaris
Darters & Perch Carolina darter Etheostoma collis S
Darters & Perch fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
Darters & Perch tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Darters & Perch yellow perch Perca flavescens
Darters & Perch Piedmont darter Percina crassa
Darters & Perch walleye Stizistedion vitreum x x
Minnows & Chubs rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides
Minnows & Chubs grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella x
Minnows & Chubs common carp Cyprinius carpio
Minnows & Chubs highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus
Minnows & Chubs bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
Minnows & Chubs golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Minnows & Chubs whitemouth shiner Notropis alborus
Minnows & Chubs highfin shiner Notropis altipinnis
Minnows & Chubs satinfin shiner Notropis analostanus
Minnows & Chubs redlip shiner Notropis chiliticus
Minnows & Chubs spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius
Minnows & Chubs whitefin shiner Notropis niveus
Minnows & Chubs swallowtail shiner Notropis procne
Minnows & Chubs fieryblack shiner Notropis pyrrhomelas
Minnows & Chubs sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus
Minnows & Chubs creek chub. Semotilus atromaculatus
Suckers quillback carpsucker Carpoides cyprinus x
Suckers white sucker Catostomus commersoni

Appendix Table 1, continued. Uwharrie River fish species list.
Suckers creek carpsucker Erimyzon oblongus
Suckers smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus x
Suckers largemouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus x
Suckers silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
Suckers shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum x
Suckers suckermouth redhorse Moxostoma pappillosum x
Suckers robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum
Other American eel Anguilla rostrata
Other pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus
Other gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Other threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense x
Other redfin pickerel Esox americanus
Other chain pickerel Esox niger
Other speckled killifish Fundulus rathbuni
Other Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki x
X
FC
MIS
MIS
w k
Appendix Table 2. Uwharrie River crayfish, mussel, and aquatic snail species list.
Species Group Comon Name Scientific Name
Crayfish Cambarus acuminatus
Crayfish Cambarus catagius
Crayfish Cambarus howardi
Mussels Eastern elliptio Elliptio complanata
Mussels variable spike Elliptio ictarina
Mussels Roanoke slabshell Elliptio roanokensis
Mussels Elliptio spp.
Mussels Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni
Mussels Eastern lampmussel Lampsilis radiata
Mussels notched rainbow Villosa constricta
Mussels Eastern creekshell Villosa delumbis
Mussels Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana
Snails Amnicola limosa
Snails Gillia altilis
Snails Goniobasis catenaria
Snails Goniobasis proxima
Snails Helisoma anceps
Snails Laevapex fuscus
Snails Leptoxis carinata
Snails Menetus dilatatus
Snails Physella spp.
Species
Status
FC
S
S
FC
FC
FC
S
IL
Appendix Table 4. Rare Species Likelihood of Occurrence Evaluation - Highway 109 Bridge
Replacement. Date: 08/21/2000
Likelihood of
Common Name
Sensitive Specie:
Tar River crayfish
Sandhills Clubtail
Carolina Darter
Sandhills Chub
Brook Floater
Scientific Name
s (based on 7/96 Regional Forester's List)
Gomphus parvidens carolinus
Etheostoma collis collis
Semotilus lumbee
Alasmidonta varicosa
Roanoke Slabshell
Atlantic Pigtoe
Savannah Lilliput
Carolina Creekshell
Forest Concern Species
A Caddisfly
Lenat's Ceraclea
Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish
Spine-Crowned Clubtail
Splendid Clubtail
Cinnamon Shadowdragon
Appalachian Snaketail
Riverine Clubtail
Elusive Clubtail
Pinewoods Darter
Robust Redhorse
Carolina Redhorse
A Mayfly
A Mayfly
A Stonefly
Triangle Floater
Eastern Lampmussel
Squawfoot
Notched Rainbow
Eastern Creekshell
Elliptio roanokensis
Fusconaia masoni
Toxolasma pullus
Villosa vaughaniana
Ceraclaea joannae
Ceraclea species 1
Cambarus catagius
Gomphus abbreviatus
Gomphus lineatifrons
Neurocordulia virginiensis
Ophiogomphus incurvatus incurvatus
Stylurus amnicola
Stylurus notatus
Etheostoma mariae
Moxostoma robustum
Moxostoma species 2
Leptohyphes robacki
Pseudiron centralis
Shipsa rotunda
Alasmidonta undulata
Lampsilis radiata
Strophitus undulatus
Villosa constricta
Villosa delumbis
Tvpe Occurrence
crayfish not likely to occur
dragonfly may occur
fish known to occur
fish not likely to occur
mussel may occur
mussel known to occur
mussel known to occur
mussel may occur
mussel known to occur
caddisfly may occur
caddisfly known to occur
crayfish known to occur
dragonfly may occur
dragonfly may occur
dragonfly known to occur
dragonfly may occur
dragonfly may occur
dragonfly may occur
fish not likely to occur
fish known to occur
fish may occur
mayfly known to occur
mayfly may occur
stonefly may occur
mussel may occur
mussel known to occur
mussel may occur
mussel known to occur
mussel known to occur

Appendix Table 3. Rare Species List - Uwharrie National Forest
List Updated 2/3/00
Common Name
Sensitive Species
Tar River crayfish
Sandhills Clubtail
Carolina Darter
Sandhills Chub
Brook Floater
Roanoke Slabshell
Atlantic Pigtoe
Savannah Lilliput
Carolina Creekshell
Scientific Name
(based on 7/96 Regional Forester's List)
Gomphus parvidens carolinus
Etheostoma collis collis
Semotilus lumbee
Alasmidonta varicosa
Elliptio roanokensis
Fusconaia mason
Toxolasma pullus
Villosa vaughaniana
Forest Concern Species
A Caddisfly
Lenat's Ceraclea
Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish
Spine-Crowned Clubtail
Splendid Clubtail
Cinnamon Shadowdragon
Appalachian Snaketail
Riverine Clubtail
Elusive Clubtail
Pinewoods Darter
Robust Redhorse
Carolina Redhorse
A Mayfly
A Mayfly
A Stonefly
Triangle Floater
Eastern Lampmussel
Squawfoot
Notched Rainbow
Eastern Creekshell
NC US NC Global
Type Status Status Rank Rank
crayfish
dragonfly SR FSC S2S3 G4
fish SC FSC S3 G3T?
fish SC S3 G3
mussel T FSC S1 G3
mussel T S1 G2
mussel T FSC S1 G2
mussel T FSC S1 G3
mussel SC FSC S2 G2
Ceraclaea joannae caddisfly SR S1 S2 G?
Ceraclea species 1 caddisfly SR FSC S? G?
Cambarus catagius crayfish SR S3 G3
Gomphus abbreviates dragonfly SR S2S3 G3G4
Gomphus lineatifrons dragonfly SR S2S3 G4
Neurocordulia virginiensis dragonfly SR S2S3 G4
Ophiogomphus incurvatus incurvatus dragonfly SR S2S3 G3T3
Stylurus amnicola dragonfly SR S2S3 G3G4
Stylurus notatus dragonfly SR FSC S1S3 G3G4
Etheostoma mahae fish SC S3 G3
Moxostoma robustum fish SC FSC SH G1
Moxostoma species 2 fish SR FSC S1 S2 G1 G2Q
Leptohyphes robacki mayfly SR S1 G?
Pseudiron centralis mayfly SR S2S3 G?
Shipsa rotunda stonefly SR S2S3 G?
Alasmidonta undulata mussel T S1 G4
Lampsilis radiata mussel SC S1 S2 G5
Strophitus undulatus mussel T S2S3 G5
Villosa constricta mussel SR S3 G3G4
Villosa delumbis mussel SR S3 G4
# Taxomonic change (may be common name)
* Remove from Sensitive Species List (add to Forest Concern List)
" Remove from Uwharrie NF Sensitive Species List (does not occur on or adjacent to Forest)
! Add to Sensitive Species List (remove from Forest Concern List)
Remove from list - no longer considered rare in NC
-All 'I
Cr
cn
a
ti

CD
Moor
CD =
-v a O

<,..: CD
3
o
m -,,

CC
G
..S
CD?
CD

F
oa D-7,5-F
M,V1t+50rne_(_L
d ram O+a
M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GovERNOR
January 29, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FEB _
? 1/999
l
SECRETARY
FROM: W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3483 Jones No. 19 SR 1004 Bill Goodwin
B-3481 Johnston No. 94 NC 96 Karen Orthner
B-3210 Montgomery No. 45 NC 109 Karen Orthner
B-3534 Watauga No. 209 SR 1508 Karen Orthner
B-3529 Wake No. 124 SR 2006 Karen Orthner
B-3527 Wake No. 437 SR 1831 Dennis Pipkin
B-3377 Watauga No. 168 SR 1217 John Williams
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information 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 projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
March 4, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). These
scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown above.
You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior. to the meeting, or
e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3210
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-109(7)
STATE PROJECT: 8.1551101
DIVISION: Eight
COUNTY: Montgomery
ROUTE: NC 109
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 45 on NC 109 over Uwharrie River
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Lovejoy and Badin Quad Sheets
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Arterial
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 1,216,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 98,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $1,314,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 2000 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 4000 VPD
TTST 10 % DUAL 6 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 20 foot
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE
COMMENTS:
LENGTH 106.7 METERS WIDTH 9.0 METERS
350.0 FEET 29.5 FEET
196
N
s
1154
0

Bridge No. 45
UWHARRIE ,
WILDLIFE \.
AREA
8 1214
\'? `•i LWMARRIE
1302
Eldorado
i
O
r*1
MORRIS
MOUNTAIN
1303
Y•
BUNDLE
15 s MOUNTAIN;
Uwharrie
N
? 109
1152 • 6 BUCK
1150
BUCK
MOUNTAIN
DARK
MOUNTAIN
1134
i
A
W
1147
i ,.
)113741
?3- a - (1-7,5
15L V
?0-:
go
nv nwi
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Montgomery County
Replace Bridge No. 45 on NC 109
Over Uwharrie River
B-3210
Figure 1
t
y