19940751 Ver 1_Complete File_19940811

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary p E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 24, 1997
Ire&II County
wQC 401 Project #940751
TIP # B-2579
COE #-199404181
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
W. Frank Vick
NC DOT
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge 314 at Fourth Creek as
you described in your application dated September 12, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107 This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23
when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead
with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water
Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless
otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your project, you
must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid,
you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within
60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. Z7611-7447. This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water AcL If you have any
questions, please telephone John Dorsey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
ox Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Sincerely,
P.E.
a
9407511tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX #[phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
September 12, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY

,c°J s
Esc 93P
Fm
Subject: Iredell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 314 over Fourth Creek on
SR 2322, Federal Project No. BRZ-2322 (2), State Project No. 8.281301,
T.I.P. No. B-2579. Action I.D. 199404181.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 314 will be replaced approximately 6 meters (20 feet) southeast of
the existing structure with a new bridge 50 meters (165 feet) long and 9.75 meters
(32 feet) wide. Traffic will be detoured on secondary roads during construction.
Construction of the proposed project will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands.
On August 8, 1994 an application for a Nationwide Permit 23 was submitted and the
permit issued on October 21, 1994 for a period of two years. The existing permit is no
longer valid. In addition, the design of the project has been revised as described in the
attached report. The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) was updated to assess
impacts not addressed in the original NRTR. Impacts on jurisdictional areas were
unchanged.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 77 15(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
,11 requesting an individual permit, but p gpose to
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix ' (B-23).
Appendix A (C) of these regulation will be f9
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
/ed under a Nationwide Permit in
provisions of Section 330.4 and
ed in the construction of the project.

4 0 ;?'?
2
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Bob Johnson, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. R. W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Beverly J. Robinson, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2579
State Project No. 8.281301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-?32(2)
A. Project Description : Bridge No. 314 is located in Iredell County on SR 2322
over Fourth Creek. This project involves replacing the existing structure with a new bridge
50 meters (165 feet) long and 9.75 m (32 feet) wide. The bridge will be constructed in a
curve and located approximately 6 meters (20 feet) southeast from the existing location.
Traffic will be detoured on secondary roads during construction. The project also consists of
realigning SR 2322 (Simonton Road) and SR 2422 (Signal Hill Drive). The total length of the
project is approximately 0.38 km (0.24 miles).
The existing Simonton Road is a continuous east/ west corridor. The improvements
will realign Simonton Road south with Signal Hill Drive to provide a continuous north/ south
corridor for the area. Signal Hill Drive is currently a four lane undivided roadway. The
realigned Signal Hill Drive will be constructed as a four lane undivided curb and gutter section
for approximately 150.0 meters (500 feet) and tapered to two lanes approaching the bridge
(see Figure 3 for lane configuration). The existing two-lane section of Simonton Road in the
eastbound direction will form a T-intersection with the realigned Simonton Road-Signal Hill
Drive.
The existing right of way width along Simonton Road is approximately 15 meters (40
feet) and 24 meters (80 feet) along Signal Hill Drive. Additional right of way will be required
to realign Signal Hill Drive and Simonton Road.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 314 has a sufficiency rating of 22.0 out of 100.0. Weight postings are 12.7
metric ton (14 tons) for single vehicles and 17.6 metric ton (18 tons) for TTST's. Due to its
deteriorated condition, Bridge No. 314 must be replaced to preserve the safety of the traveling
public. Signal Hill Drive is a major thoroughfare on the City of Statesville Thoroughfare Plan.
The realigning of SR 2322 (Signal Hill Drive) will provide a continuous north/ south route
from Mocksville Road to Salisbury Road (see Figure 1) and will change the alignment to the
configuration recommended in the Thoroughfare Plan..
. ' "*ti
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
O Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replaces existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
2
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
D. S cial Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
- - 2. Iredell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. Fourth Creek is included in the detailed flood study. -The
proposed bridge will be designed not to require channel realignment and
modification of the existing floodway.
3. No special environmental commitments are required for this project.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 800,000
Right of Way $ 44,500
Total $ 844,500
Estimated Traffic:
Construction Year 1998 - 5190 VPD
Design Year 2018 - 9090 VPD
1% TTST 3% DUAL
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
14.6 - meters (48 - foot) wide travelway plus curb and gutter on the four lane
section.
7.3 meters (24-foot) wide travelways plus 0.9 meter (3.0-foot) shoulders on the
two lane section.
Detour Structure:
No detour structure is recommended for the proposed project. Traffic will be
detoured on other secondary roads.
Design Speed:
80 km/h (50 mph)
4
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Functional Classification:
SR 2322 is classified as a rural minor collector and SR 2422 is classified as a
rural local on the functional classification system,
Right of Way Acquisition: FY 1997
Construction: FY 1998
Division Office Comments:
The Division 12 Office concurs with tying the proposed improvements to
improvements proposed in the City of Statesville Thoroughfare Plan, replacing the existing
structure approximately 6 meters (20 feet) southeast of the existing location and detouring
traffic along existing secondary roads.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of ?
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than N/A
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ? -
X
5
,'
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 11 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? F-1 X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? 1-1 X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any D N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ? -
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
F-1 X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ? -
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F-1 X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
6

(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
1-1 X
X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? E X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? F-1 X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, x ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic -
volumes? F-1 X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
7
.0064- - ,
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-I X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl x
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for F-I X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
8
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable ResMonses in Part E
(NOT APPLICABLE)
.golk---
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2579
State Project No. 8.2821301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2322(2)
Project Description : Bridge No. 314 is located in Iredell County on SR 2322
over Fourth Creek. This project involves replacing the existing structure with a new bridge
50 meters (165 feet) long and approximately 9.75 m (32 feet) wide. The fianl structure width
will be determined during the design phase. The bridge will be constructed in a curve and
located approximately 6 meters (20 feet) southeast from the existing location. Traffic will be
detoured on secondary roads during construction. The project also consists of realigning SR
2322 (Simonton Road) and SR 2422 (Signal Hill Drive).
The existing Simonton Road is a continuous east\ west corridor. The improvements
will realign Simonton Road south with Signal Hill Drive to provide a continuous north/south
corridor for the area. Signal Hill Drive is currently a four lane undivided roadway. The
realigned Signal Hill Drive will be constructed as a four lane undivided section for
approximmtely 152.4 meter (500 feet) and tapers to a two lane curb and gutter section
apporaching the bridge (see Figure 3 for lane configuration). The existing two-lane section of
Simonton Road in the eastbound direction will form a T-intersection with the realigned
Simonton Road-Signal Hill Drive.
The existing right of way width along Simonton Road is approximately 8 meters (26
feet) and 24 meters (80 feet) along Signal Hill Drive. Additional right of way will be required
to realign Signal Hill Drive and Simonton Road.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
10
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Approved:
Y-30 -7&'
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Enviromnental Branch
Date Project Planning Unit Head
to sect P ' eer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
11
FIGURES

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 314 AND REALIGN
SIMONTON ROAD AND SIGNAL HILL DRIVE
IREDELL COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. B-2579
NOT TO SCALE FIG. 1
24 37

mr.
Sl
6
1=5 2
ENSiON ?
aim
'q0
•.'? 2436
:'i '•'•'•?
r'• ::i ?b 00,01;05
'
?2322
?., BRIDGE
314
2322 '•':•_ 1
eA.
2
3
•,?q' 112.2.
-T,
2562
4??/
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
lNey PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
BRIDGE NO. 314 ON
SR 2322 OVER FOURTH CREEK
IREDELL COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT B - 2579 FIG. 2
. ._4P--.140*, .
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2322 (SIMONTON RD.)
NOT TO SCALE

cc; lq,
6.
P x2
, ? V
BRIDGE No.314
F
APARTMENTS
0
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
SR 2322 (SIMONTON RD.)
SR 2322
/
?y
BRIDGE NO. 314
APARTMENTS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
a TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
LANE CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM
REPLACE BRIDGE No.314 AND
REALIGN SIMONTON ROAD & SIGNAL HILL DRIVE
TIP PROJECT B-2879
FIG.3
I

APPENDIX
rC
i; t:u:iurai Zesources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Willi= S. Price, Jr., Director
March 18, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 314 on SR 2322 over
Fourth Creek, Iredell County, B-2579, BRZ-
2322(2), ER 93-8234
Dear Mr. Graf:

MAR 2 3 li9i
?? UIV1?1^ <
On March 16, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this protect.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
A-1
109 Cast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27G01-2807

1 ?
Nicholas L. Graf
March 18, 1993, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review co-ordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett

t
A-2
GE1?
J `n '?
-? APR 0 7?? Ift _
U
DIVISION OF t,<
HIGHWAYS
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commi-ssio
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David L. Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: March 25, 1993
SUBJECT: N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Bridge
Replacement, Bridge No. 314 on SR 2322 over Fourth-
Creek, Iredell County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2579.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed bridge replacement and
possible impacts on existing wildlife and fishery resources in
the project area. 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)'.
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete bridge
with a new bridge. The NCWRC supports the preferred alternative
which involves replacement at existing location with road
closure. This alternative will minimize impacts to Fourth Creek,
which now exists beneath the bridge.
Iredell County is not considered a "Tr6ut Water County" with
respect to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Discretionary
Authority on 404 Nationwide Permits. Although the project will
not require NCWRC review of the Nationwide Permit application, we
may provide comment on the attending 401 Water Quality
Certification administered by the N. C. Division of Environmental
Management. Based on information available at this time, we have
no objection to the preferred replacement alternative as
proposed.
A-3
? I
Memo Page 2 March 25, 1993 t
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Stephanie Goudreau, Mtn. Region Habitat Biologist
Maria Lapomarda, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
c
v
A-4

?ard?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNoR
August 27, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
Rob Hanson, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
GARLAND B. GARRET JR.
SECRETARY
Beverly J. Grate, Project Manager
Tim W. Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Evaluation of design change for the proposed
replacement of bridge No.314 on SR 2322 over
Fourth Creek, Iredell County, State Project No.
8.281301, T.I.P. No. B-2579.
REFERENCE: April 18, 1994 Natural Resources Technical Report
by Tim Savidge for B-2579.
Since the referenced Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), project design
has changed to include a realignment of Simonton Road (SR 2322) and Signal Hill Drive
(SR 2422). Additional areas that were not evaluated in the original NRTR will be
impacted by the current design. The subject project was visited on August 13, 1997 by
NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge, Logan Williams and Teryn Smith, to assess project-
related impacts not addressed in the referenced NRTR.
Two terrestrial community types, Maintained Community (MC) and Dry-Mesic-
Oak-Hickory Forest (MOF), described in the referenced NRTR will be impacted by the
current project design. Quantitative impacts to these community types were calculated
based on Right-of-way (ROW) delimited on an aerial photograph of the project area.
Estimated impacts were derived using the entire ROW. Actual impacts may be less since
project construction often does not impact the entire ROW. Approximately 0.38 ha (0.98
ac) of MOF community and 0.28 ha (0.70 ac) of MC will be impacted by the current
proposed design. These numbers should replace the calculated impacts shown in Table 1
of the referenced NRTR.
An artificial stormwater channel (ditch) has been cut through the MOF
community, running parallel to SR 2322 eventually into Fourth Creek. There are no
jurisdictional wetlands associated with this ditch, nor is the ditch considered jurisdictional
n
?J
surface waters. In the area of project crossing, Fourth Creek is considered to be "bank to
bank" jurisdictional surface waters.
The information provided in the original NRTR pertaining to water resources
(Sec. 2.0), aquatic community (Sec. 3.2) and Special Topics (Sec. 4.0) does not need to
be amended. Additionally, qualitative impacts to the terrestrial communities discussed in
Section 3.3.1 are unchanged with the current design.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Alice Gordon, Permit Specialist
File: B-2579

Replacement of Bridge No. 314
On SR 2322
Over Fourth Creek
Iredell County
TIP No. B-2579
F.A. Project No. BRZ-2322(2)
State Project No. 8.2821301
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2579
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
TIM SAVIDGE, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
April 18, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...........................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................1
1.2 Purpose ..........................................1
1.3 Project Area .....................................1
1.4 Physiography and Soils ...........................1
1.5 Methodology ......................................2
2.0 Water Resources ........................................2
2.1 Waters Impacted ..................................2
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ...................2
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification ................3
2.1.3 Water Quality ............................3
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources .............3
3.0 Biotic Resources ......................................3
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..........................4
3.1.1 Maintained Community ......................4
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest ..............5
3.2 Aquatic Communitiy ...............................6
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Co mmunities.......... 7
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts .............8
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts .................8
4.0 Special Topics ..... ... .................. ..........9
4.1 Waters of the United States .............. .........9
4.1.1 Permits .................................10
4.1.2 Mitigation ..............................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................10
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ..............11
4.2.2 Federal Candidate And
State Protected Species .................11
5.0 References...... ..........13
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms .............................14
Appendix B: Species Observed List .........................16
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for this project. This report inventories the
natural resources occurring within the project area and
identifies any environmental concerns which must be addressed
in the planning stages of this project.
1.1 Project Description
Two alternates are proposed. Each alternate calls for
replacement of the existing 41 m (135 ft) long 6.1 m (20 ft)
wide bridge with a 41 m (135 ft) long, 9.1 m (30 ft) wide
replacement bridge. Proposed right-of-way (ROW) for both
alternates is 24 m (80 ft).
Alternate 1: Replacement at existing location with road
closure. Traffic will be maintained on secondary roads during
construction.
Alternate 2: Replacement at existing location with an on-site
detour to the south. The proposed detour structure is 30 m
(100 ft) long and to be constructed at an elevation 0.6 m (2
ft) lower than the existing bridge.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and
inventory the natural resources identified within the project
vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts.
1.3 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in the town of Statesville,
in a moderately developed area. A small amount of forested
area remains, following the stream course.
1.4 Physiography and Soils
Iredell County is in the central-western Piedmont
Physiographic Province and is characterized by moderately
sloping to steep hills and associated narrow bottomland
floodplains. The project area is in the Felsic Crystalline
System. Parent material is mostly granite, granite gneiss,
mica gneiss and mica schist. The topography is moderately to
steeply sloping banks grading downwards into the streambed
and associated floodplain. The soils of the slopes are well
drained, highly erodible, gravelly fine sandy loamy of the
Madison series. The narrow bottomland associated with the
stream contains moderately drained, loamy fine sand and silt
formed from recent alluvial deposits (overwash) and erosion
1

Low
?N14o
H70 71 ? •
- 1 • ? w LL
,nf 7 ? ?? ? ',ice (-:
M. 7171 ? _ i i / I
t •t7' i 7701 1
117 /=^
•
? i R L?G7
LUZ ? Lz/ ?? /
• ` w!,r • J79L
, 910 ffi0 0 . 71N a , V.? 2M
IUL M •?.M X11=
•7 i:S' • ?' • 2449
LIM 2Z U)
AID
a::: 4, i 07 a' • 1!7t aeM
71 ??. v•1''.i 7 7!N I,IL ? - 1.77 n
.01
jilt U]0
0 ..101 .Q• ? w 7U1 `Y 11
. yf» Oaof ? l17..'a •I
' S ,,,a u70 b
' 7 7f71?? ? r.u
'BRIDGE NO,
® 1172 -;: ,? Lll t11 ` ?` 111Y
ULt
"Wul
its
d'r a; 77 ?? ' r3u' li, aU a!'1 J7f7 ?? ' lilt
21
,Ne U21 i_'. R " 7NU ".a.l = I" u?• 7711. c mwslon
? e 1sYJ' !1l. .77
,0a4y ' W u' ?? ?-
w i uua
.? ??' Ins tlra 7!1!. ?,-' Mill x711 1719
-' 1411 'r, t• 1470
1771 n a,a 41 -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OIL
TRANSPOItTATION
DIVISION OIL HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 314
IREDELL COUNTY
B - 2579
1/93 FIG. 1
of adjacent upland slopes. No hydric soils are mapped within
the project boundaries.
1.5 Methodology
Preliminary resource information was gathered and
reviewed prior to site visit. Information sources include;
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Statesville
east), Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Soils Map of Iredell
County, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200),
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification for the Yadkin/Pee Dee River
Basin, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database
of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment on July 22, 1993. Plant communities were
identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a
number of observation techniques; active searching and
capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording the
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic communities were
conducted using a hand held dip net; organisms captured were
identified and then released.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the physical characteristics,
Best Usage Standards and water quality"of the water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed.
2.1 Waters Impacted
Fourth Creek is in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River drainage and
arises approximately 17.7 km (11 mi) northwest of the project
crossing. The stream flows in a southeastern direction until
.reaching the South Yadkin River 29 km (18 mi) downstream of
crossing.
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Fourth Creek is approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) wide, with
depth ranging from 0.3 m (l ft) to 1 m (3.3 ft). The
substrate is composed of a soft sandy/clay, with scattered
cobble and gravel. Heavy sedimentation is evident, and the
stream apparently experiences periods of very high flow.
Water depth appeared lower than normal during the site visit,
and the flow was sluggish. In addition to sedimentation and
erosion, dumping and non-point source pollution have
contributed to noticeably poor water quality.
2
-
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The waters of Fourth Creek carry a Best Usage
Classification of WS-IV as assigned by the North Carolina
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993). Class WS-IV designates waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds. Best usage of WS-IV waters are water
supply source for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes and any other usage specified for Class C waters.
Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-
I, or WS-II, occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area.
2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. Fourth Creek has
been sampled approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) downstream of
project crossing. The most recent data for this location was
a rating of "Good-Fair", given in June 1989.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) report lists three permitted discharge sources:
Scioto Inc., Bartlett Milling Co., and Boyle and Co., into
Fourth Creek less than 1.6 km (1 mi) upstream of project
crossing. The types of discharge include, Contact cooling
water and stormwater.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to the waters affected by the proposed
project, include decreases of dissolved oxygen, and changes
in temperature. This is due to removal of the streamside
canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation. Water
clarity can be significantly reduced during the construction
activity, because of sedimentation and substrate disturbance.
however, water is already very turbid.
Alterations of water level, due to interruptions or
restrictions of surface water flow are also likely during
"in-water" construction activities, and especially with
Alternate 2 (onsite detour).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes.the ecosystems encountered and
the relationships between floral and faunal components within
terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the
3
terrestrial systems are subordinated into floral community
classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of
their respective "roles" within that community. For complete
listings of flora and fauna which occur in Iredell county, a
composite of specific references listed in section 5.0 should
be consulted. Animals that were observed during site visit
are denoted by (*) in the text and are also listed in
Appendix B.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references of the same organism will include the
common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct biotic community types were identified in
the project impact zone, however there is some degree of
overlap between communities, particularly with the faunal
components. Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive
and populate a variety of habitats, therefore many of the
species mentioned may occur in any number of the different
community types described.
3.1.1 Maintained Community
This community type includes the existing roadside
shoulder and a powerline corridor. Fescue (Festuca spp.) is
the dominate roadside vegetation. Low growing herbaceous
plants such as dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), chickweed
(Stellaria sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), white clover
(Trifolium repens) and wild onion (Allium canadense) are
scattered throughout. On the edges of the mowed area are
other species, which are common in open disturbed areas and
are also abundant in the powerline corridor. These include
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), blackberry (Rubus spp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Although plant succession is suppressed by human
activity, numerous opportunistic animal species residing in
nearby habitats, utilize these areas as foraging zones.
Various species of reptiles, birds and mammals may venture
into the roadside environment and particularly the powerline
corridor, to feed on seeds, berries, roots and insects.
These species include: the Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis)*, northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*,
northern mockingbird (Mimus pol.velottos)*, American robin
(Turdus migratorius)*, Carolina wren (Thrvothorus
ludovicianus) and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
4

albicollis). Snakes such as the black racer (Columber
constrictor) and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small
mammals. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamacensis) often soars
above open areas such as roadsides and pastures, to spot prey
such as small mammals, reptiles and insects.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginana), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). frequently
forage nocturnally in these habitats, or travel along
roadways between habitats. These animals are often roadkill
victims. Consequently roadkills attract a large number of
scavenger species including turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)*, as well as domestic
dogs and cats.
Because of the limited size, diversity and the
precarious nature of these environments, few resident
vertebrate species are expected, however species such as
mourning dove (Zenaida asiatica)*, eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulus) and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus) may nest in the more dense portions of the
powerline corridor. Occasionally house mice (Mus musculus)
will construct nests out of and under discarded trash along
the roadway. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), a
small lizard common throughout the state, is often found
under cardboard, tires and other debris along roadsides.
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest
This is the most abundant forested community type
occurring within project ROW. This community occurs mainly
on the southeastern side of the roadway on steep slopes
grading toward Fourth Creek. Encroaching development and
forest thinning have altered the hydrological regime of this
forest type. The remaining canopy is very thin, allowing
drier conditions to persist. Red oak (Quercus rubra), white
oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), hickory (Carya sp.)
.and short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata) are the dominate canopy
species. American beech (Fagus gradifolia) becomes prevalent
towards the stream. Sourwood (Oxydendrum arborem), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and black cherry (Prunus serotina)
comprise the mid-story. Few herbaceous species were
observed, these include heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.) and
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata).
This community grades directly into the streamside
canopy of Fourth Creek. The streambanks are very steep and
highly incised at this area and a floodplain is entirely
lacking. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), and hackberry
(Celtis laevigata) comprise the streamside canopy. Shrubs
such as elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata) along with herbaceaous species including
5
1)
bittercress (Cardamine sp.) and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) are sparse along the streambank.
Faunal diversity is expected to be fairly low in this
community near the roadway. This low diversity can be
attributed to limited amount of forested habitat. Very few
vertebrate species were observed during the field
investigation. Although faunal diversity is limited, numbers
of some species adapted to disturbed forested habitats may be
very high. Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)*, white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitter carolinensis)* and Carolina chickadee were
observed to be very abundant. Other birds expected to occur
here include; downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus) and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea).
Other vertebrate species likely to occur in this
community include: the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)*,
Virginia opossum, grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis and H.
veriscolor) and the eastern pipstrelle (Pipstrellus
subflavus), a very small bat common in the piedmont, found
near bodies of water.
3.2 Aquatic Community
Research has shown that a large amount of food chain
energy of stream communities is derived from allochthonous
(produced outside of stream ecosystem) sources, in the form
of terrestrial detritus. Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks
etc), and low velocity areas in the stream trap or retain
detritus within the stream. The detritus is then decomposed
by heterotrophic microorganisms, such as bacteria, and
consumed by macroinvertabrates, such as aquatic insects.
Decomposers and primary consumers are, in turn, consumed by
larger organisms. The amount of allochthonous energy input
within a stream varies seasonally, and is expected to be low
in the streams crossed by the project, due to lack of
streamside vegetation.
Autochthonous (produced within the stream ecosystem)
energy sources include planktonic and benthic micro and macro
algae as well as aquatic vascular vegetation. Algal growth
is excessive in some of these streams, a sure sign ofy
nutrient overload. Eutrophication can be very detrimental to
aquatic organisms, particularly during developmental stages,
because of depleted oxygen levels, and toxins produced by the
algae.
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream
ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, and as prey
items for organisms higher in the food chain. Aquatic
invertebrates, including crayfish (Cambaridae)* and insects
were found in Fourth Creek.
6

Gamefish such as sunfishes (Lepomis spp.)*, largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides)*, and catfish (Ictalurus spp.)*
were found to be common in the stream. The eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)* was also observed to be
abundant. Other species which may occur in Fourth Creek
include shiners (Notropis spp.), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
Several other animals representing all vertebrate
classes are integral parts of the aquatic system. The
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)* and the two-
lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) occur under rocks and
logs within the streambed. Frogs which prey on a large
amount of aquatic insects are abundant in this habitat.
Species which may be present include pickeral frog (Rana
palustris) and bullfrog (R. catesbeiana).
Reptiles such as the Queen snake (Regina septenvittata),
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)* and the snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentine) are common occupants of piedmont
streams. Fish and amphibians are the chief foods of the
northern water snake. Crayfish which are abundant in the
stream are the preferred prey of the Queen snake. Snapping
turtles consume a wide variety of food items including
carrion, aquatic invertebrates and plant material.
The belted kingfisher (Megaceryle.alycon)*, a
piscivorous bird common throughout the state, which nests
within stream embankments, by digging a burrow 100 mm (4 in)
across and 1-2 m (3-6 ft) deep, was observed near the stream.
Several nest holes were also observed. Small fish are the
preferred prey items.
. Mammals likely associated with the stream community
include the semiaquatic muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and
raccoon. Muskrats are primarily herbivorous, feeding on
..roots and tubers of aquatic vegetation. Animal material such
as shellfish (when present) may also be consumed. Raccoon
feed on a variety of items including crustaceans, fish,
amphibians and small mammals, as well as fruits, berries and
seeds.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of this project will have various impacts
on the biotic communities described. This section quantifies
and qualifies impacts to these resources in terms of area
impacted (cleared/modified), and ecosystem effects. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here.
7
T ?
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Project construction will result in clearing and .
degradation of portions of the three plant community types
described. The estimated acreage loss to these communities
is listed in Table 1. It should be noted that estimated
impacts were derived using the entire proposed right of way.
Project construction often does not require the entire right
of way and therefore actual impacts may be considerably less,
Particularly with Alternate 1 which is on existing location.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Community
Alternate MOF MC
1 0.08 (0.2) 0.25 (0.6)
2 0.20 (0.5) 0.25 (0.6)
Impacts in hectares (acres), based on 24 m (80 ft) of ROW
MOF and RC denote Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest and Maintained
Communities respectively
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the
number of faunal organisms, and concentrate them into a
smaller area, which causes some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals
closely associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals,
etc.), because of construction machinery used during clearing
and grading activities. Mobile species will be displaced
during construction activity. These animals may return to
the area following construction, however the amount of
-forested habitat, which has already been abated by
agricultural clearing, will be reduced even further.
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts
Anticipated impacts to the stream community can be
attributed to construction related habitat disturbance and
sedimentation. Although disturbance and sedimentation may be
temporary processes during the construction phase of this
project, environmental impacts from these processes may be
long-lived or irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source
for many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various
species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also
serves as a means of predator avoidance for amphibians (frogs
8

and salamanders), reptiles (snakes and turtles), and mammals
(muskrat and mink).
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit
feeders, and macro and micro alga, are particularly sensitive
to construction activities such as dredging, filling, pile
driving operations and slope stabilization. These
construction activities physically disturb the substrate,
resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of
these aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an
area, because they require a stabilized substrate for
attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to
develop, therefore, changes in community composition will
occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary
producers in the food chain, can be greatly effected.by
siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing
available light. Clogging of feeding apparati of suspension
feeders and burial of newly settled .larvae of these
organisms, are other effects of siltation. These species are
.often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major
step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may
directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as
fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects
of siltation, however gills of fish, crustaceans and larval
amphibian and insect forms. can become clogged and
dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning
habitats for these mobile species may become filled with
sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably
reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely
detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must be strictly
adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water
bodies impacted by this project.
Additionally, if measures are not taken to reduce the
amount of probable increased concentrations of toxic
compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream, coming from
construction related machinery and road paving activities,
mortalities to numerous types of aquatic organisms are
likely.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33
9
. . s
CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met;
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix A), and 3)
evidence of hydrology, or hydrological indicators, including;
saturated soils, stained, oxidized rhizospheres, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases
and surface roots.
No wetland communities were identified within the
project ROW. Construction of the proposed project will have
no impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
4.1.1 Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23, for impacts to surface
waters of Fourth Creek is likely to be applicable. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in
part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency
or department has determined that the activity is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation,
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required, prior to issue of the Nationwide permit #23. Final
permit decisions lie with the Army Corps of Engineers.
.4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the
potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well being of any species classified as federally protected,
is'subject to review by the FWS and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered
species receive additional protection under separate state
10
statutes. In North Carolina protection of plant species
falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-
202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331
to 113-337 of 1987.
4.2.1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of December 20, 1993 the FWS lists no
federally protected species for Iredell County.
Biological Conclusion: Construction of this project will not
adversely impact any federally protected plant or animal
species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species

There are three federal candidate (C2) species listed
for Iredell County. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here
for information purposes, should they become protected in the
future. Surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits, nor were any of these species observed.
The North Carolina status of these species is also
listed in Table 2. Plants or animals with state designations
of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC),
are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979,
administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
TABLE 2. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
. Iredell County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC
Clemmvs muhlenbergii bog turtle No T
Delphimium exalatum tall larkspur Yes E-SC
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil Yes C
NC Status: T, E and SC denote
Special Concern respectively
C, denotes Candidate Species,
afforded State protection.
Threatened, Endangered and
which at this time are not
11
T i i s
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and
animals revealed one record of big leaf magnolia (Magnolia
macrophylla), which is classified as SR (Significantly Rare)
in North Carolina, approximately 1/2 miles downstream of the
project area. Species which are classified as SR are not
afforded State protection. This species was not surveyed
for, nor was it observed during field investigations.
12
L ' I T
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of Int. Washington D.C.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd and J.A.
Phillips, 1984. Soil Systems in North Carolina. N.C.
Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State Univ. Raleigh
N.C. Bulletin 467.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps.of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to Waters of the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate Data
Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1984.
Soil Survey of Iredell County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
1981. Effects of Highways on Wildlife. Report n FHWA/RD-
81/067.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
13
I , i
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
abiotic pertaining to nonliving or physical (air. water,
soil) aspects of an environment.
alluvial sediments deposited by flowing water, as in river
bed floodplain or delta.
allochthonous of foreign origin; transported into an area
from outside of area.
autochthonous formed within the place where it is found.
benthic pertaining to the bottom of a body of water; a
benthic organism lives on or in the bottom substrate.
biotic pertaining to living aspects or specific life
conditions of an environment.
canopy the uppermost layer of vegetation in a plant
community.
carnivore an organism that feeds on animals.
channel an open conduit either naturally or artifically
created which periodically or continuously contains moving
water.
disturbed community a community that is not in its natural
state. Sources of disturbance include human activity. fire
and wind.
ecosystem a biological community plus its abiotic (nonliving)
environment.
Endangered a taxa that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
fauna animals collectively, of a particular region.
flora a treatise describing the plants of a region.
fluvial produced by the action of a river or stream
food chain specific sequence of organisms, including
producer, herbivore, and carnivore, through which energy
and materials move within an ecosystem.
herbivore an animal that consumes plant material.
hydric soil soil that is wet long enough to periodically
produce anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the
growth of plants.
hydrophytic vegatation plants which grow in water or on a
substrate that is at least periodically- deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
livebearer an ovoviviparous fish (produces eggs which hatch
inside the body).
nocturnal animals that feed or are active at'night.
omnivore an animal which feeds on both plant and animal
material.
photosynthesis conversion of radiant energy (sunlight) into
chemical energy (food).
piscivore an animal that feeds primarily on fish.
primary consumer organisms that are the second step in a
community food chain, feeding on the producers.
primary producer organisms capable through photosynthesis to
manufacture their own food through direct capture of light
14
R I ' ?
energy: producers compose the first step in a community `
food chain.
Proposed Endangered a species that has been formally proposed
as Endangered; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
Proposed Threatened a species that has been formally proposed
as Threatened; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
sessile an organism which permanently attaches itself to the
substrate.
spoor the track or trail of an animal, particularly a wild
animal.
succession The process of community change through time,
with an orderly sequence of seral stages,. the organisims
(plants, animals) of each stage modify the environment,
making it less suitable for themselves, and more suitable
for the next. The end point or climax perpetuates itself.
Threatened a taxa that is likely to become Endangered in the
foreseeable future.
is
I t ( i 6
APPENDIX B
ORGANISMS OBSERVED DURING SITE VISIT
Class Common name Habitat
Crustacea crayfish FC
Osteichthyes catfish (sp.)

11 eastern mosquitofish "
largemouth bass
sunfish - "
Amphibia northern dusky salamander
Reptilia northern watersnake
Aves American robin MC
It belted kingfisher FC
" blue jav OH
If Carolina chickadee OH, NIC
If common-crow MC
mourning dove it
" northern cardinal MC,OH
northern mockingbird MC
white-breasted nuthatch OH
Mammalia grey squirrel If
FC and OH, denote Fourth Creek and Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory
Forest respectively.
16
w
ti

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPLANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 8, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir/Madame:
SUBJECT: Iredell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 314 on SR
2322 over Fourth Creek, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-2322(2), State Project No. 8.2821301, TIP No.
B-2579.
Attached for your information are three copies of the project
planning report3for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at [phone].
Sincerely,,--,
B. . 0' nn, P.E.
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

BJO/rml
Attachment
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Chapin, COE-Asheville
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unrit
Mr.-Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. R. W. Spangler, Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Beverly Y. Grate, Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

? t i
a
pol, Date: 1/93

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2579
State Project No. 8.2821301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2322(2)
A. Project Description: Bridge No. 314 is located in Iredell
County on SR 2322 over Fourth Creek. This project involves
replacing the existing structure with a new bridge 41 meters
(135.0 feet) long. The bridge will be replaced in existing
location, and traffic will be detoured along existing
secondary roads.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information," for
list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 314 has a sufficiency rating of
44.3 out of 100.0 and an estimated remaining life of ten
years. Weight postings are 12700.6 kg (14 tons) for single
vehicles and 17593.5 kg (18 tons) for TTST. Due to its
deteriorated condition, Bridge No. 314 must be replaced to
preserve the safety of the travelling public.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply
to the project:
Type I Improvements
1. Non-construction activities (program activities)
2. Approval of utility installations along or across a
transportation facility
3. Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and
facilities
4. Activities included in the State's "highway safety plan"
under 23 USC 402 (programs administered by the Division
of Motor Vehicles)
5. Transfer of Federal lands pursuant to 23 USC 317 when
the subsequent action is not an FHWA action
6. The installation of noise barriers or alterations to
existing publicly owned buildings to provide for noise
reduction
7. Landscaping
8. Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small
passenger shelters, traffic signals, and railroad
warning devices
9. Emergency repairs under 23 USC 125 (Governor Declared
Emergency)
10. Acquisition of scenic easements
11. Determination of payback under 23 CFR Part 480 for
property previously acquired with Federal-aid
participation
12. Improvements to existing rest areas and truck weigh
stations

Date: 1/93
13. Ridesharing activities
14. Bus and rail car rehabilitation
15. Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to
make them accessib-le for elderly and handicapped persons
16. Program administration, technical assistance
activities, and operating assistance to transit
authorities to continue existing service or increase
service to meet changes in routine demand
17. The purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the use
of these vehicles can be accommodated by existing
facilities or by new facilities which themselves are
within a CE
18. Track and railbed maintenance and improvements when
carried out within the existing right of way
19. Purchase and installation of operating or maintenance
equipment to be located within the transit facility and
with no significant impacts off the site
20. Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or
adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning,
climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary,
and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and
drainage pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one
through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp metering
control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type
barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading
median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
realignment
2
• 1 I
Date: 1/93
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge
rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or
the construction of grade separation to replace existing
at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge
approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including pAinting (no red
lead paint), scour repair, fender systems, and
minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for
joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the proposed
use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or
transportation purposes where such construction is not
inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated
bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and
bus buildings and ancillary facilities where only minor
amounts of additional land are required and there is not
a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area
consisting of passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks
and related street improvements) when located in a
commercial area or other high activity center in which
there is adequate street capacity for projected bus
traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or
transportation purposes where such construction is not
inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
3

Date: 1/93
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes,
advance land acg-uisition loans under section 3(b) of the
UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition
qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not
limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts
in alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Proiect Information: (Including ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
t
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All applicable NCDOT Best Management Practices and
standard procedures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental effects. Iredell County is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Fourth Creek is
included in the detailed flood study. The proposed bridge
will be designed not to require channel realignment and
modification of the existing floodway. No special
environmental commitments are required for this project.
OTHER INFORMATION
Replacement Structure
Length : 41 meters (135.0 feet) long
Typical Section: 7.3 meter (24 foot) travelway with
0.9 meter (3.0 foot) paved shoulders.
Detour Structure: No detour structure is reccomended for the
proposed project. Traffic will be detoured
on other secondary roads.
Estimated Cost: Construction - $ 550,000
Right of Way - $ 27,000
Estimated Traffic: 1996 - 4600 VPD
2016 - 8500 VPD
1.0% TTST 3.0% DUAL
Design Speed: 80 km/h (50 MPH)
Right-of-Way Acquisition: FY 1995
Construction: FY 1996
4

Date: 1/93
A benefit cost analysis [based on 4000 vehicles per day and
2.3 (1.45) additional kilometers (miles) of travel) indicates
the cost of additional travel would be approximately $591,300
during construction. The estimated cost of providing an -
on-site detour is $180,000 resulting in a benefit cost ratio
of 3.3. This rate indicates that a detour structure should be
considered. A suitable detour route is available therefore,
traffic will be detoured on the existing secondary roads.
Division Comments: The Division 12 Office concurs with
replacing the structure in existing
location and detouring traffic along
existing secondary roads.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project consists
only of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not need
to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource.
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened ? X
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third N/A ?
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
5
Date: 1/93
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States- in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
YES NO
1-1 X
F-1 X
F-1 N/A
c
F-1 X
F-1 X
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
?x
X F-1
F-1 X
6

Date: 1/93
YES NO
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X ?
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase traffic volumes?
t
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged X ?
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal,
State, and local laws relating to the X ?
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
.Rivers?
7
Date: 1/93
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(NOT APPLICABLE)
Date: 1/93
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2-579
State Project No. 8.2821301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2322(2)
Project Description: Bridge No. 314 is located in Iredell
County on SR 2322 over Fourth Creek. This project involves
replacing the existing structure with a new bridge 41 meters
(135.0 feet) long. The bridge will be replaced in existing
location, and traffic will be detoured along existing
secondary roads.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information," for
list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE I
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date anager
AdImplanning & Environmental Branch
z5 q
Date Project Planning Unit Head
11116114 c7j__Y?
Efate' Project P1 ning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9
FIGURES
5 Union LoneT
IODe rove Hickory
1: I
2l
1 Harmon
1
4 61
E ' T°rger3o°r
5 .1
Fg?v Y
1r. , 7 / 64
7 Statesville
5 M 1 Elmwood /
8s? Amrty
HI
n {
.j.? _ Oswalt
)Vti Moun
1
MQ 21
s
-

• :

uL!
I9lf ?
. •

1°
2173 I
r" .00 77 • / 224! 1
12u
21f2 . . ?? 21117 .
f M-1
ziz : zi 4
4 : 2 Lr? ?224Z

2 6
-

{!1 `'`
1435
° V 2212,
? <?'i . 1
jLL
•
.
`

y
1411 0
i
'7 ..l

7 ? 1 a
v
:::?:1211.c•
co i
• _
7144
2
? - f ? ' ? %' • 2 •t 2734 {}}G 0
V7
l0
41

!71
2 274
1

1}4• 7?S
?.,? • 11 J 3 2111
2322

2Z
•
? .43 28Y A n i!!! E O7

d .
.Q• 02 iiLt
?`.:. t
07 B Jt}I
3
.?, 7322
.
0a03
S 07
L21 2
23711 L le
4.14
GE N
'
°
'
.
® BRID
O. 31
2}71 °a 7!1
'?'i
2111
}
? 2!22 , 2112
2}71 a
:»i_ a. 32J- i
f
fw.
' .
1 0 041 .! e 0 Iut /
07
-?
_
,
113 r
1! .11
??
11{2 ?
7
n
73__ ?. -2'71 ?217L -
2
'
? 1!2!
1
21
64 14• ^
]37
j .
?':}
o1 \ 05 1

?? 77)? J
.0 - Z :J!11
: /4 pe: u7aalo.r --
e - ,
j
2711
LQ 7349 .77 . /

90 211.E
a
'
.7 2723. 2741 I Q
•: _ i / V1MN 177z'
7347. .772E
r 3. ei
zvs J ' y,
NORTH CAROLINA DL'PARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
13RANCII
BRIDGE NO. 314 ON
SR 2322 OVER FOURTH CREEK
IREDELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2579
FIG. 1
0 kilometers 3 0 miles 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
......................................y. Nel
i 19
I I 11
cotts
,? Lorat
-437 21

r.- 152
:
.. r30
a
r
:
5 •
Q

;•) 2436
•
.8 b 'i
S 1 •'? ?:??r?'? b p.S

2562

13

2322

t
• t •'?''
BRIDG 24
;.,
Ei
314
2322 •?

• 322
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

NORTH CAROLINA Dlil'AR'I V1GNl' OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OI' HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND 1?NVIRONMENTAI.
BRANCH
PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
BRIDGE NO. 314 ON
SR 2322 OVER FOURTH CREEK
IREDELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2579 FIG. 2
APPENDIX
r,l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
March 18, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 314 on SR 2322 over
Fourth Creek, Iredell County, B-2579, BRZ-
2322(2), ER 93-8234
Dear Mr. Graf:

MAR 2 3 1993
On March 16, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservatjon's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
A-1
109 Cast Jones Street • RACibh, North Caroliua 27WI-2807

Nicholas L. Graf
March 18, 1993, Page 2
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.
Sincerely,
1.
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
C
A-2

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissio
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, N?DOT
FROM: David L. Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: March 25, 1993
SUBJECT: N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Bridge
Replacement, Bridge No. 314 on SR 2322 over Fourth-
Creek, Iredell County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2579.
The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
completed a review of the proposed bridge replacement and
possible impacts on existing wildlife and fishery resources in
the project area. 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).
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete bridge
with a new bridge. The NCWRC supports the preferred alternative
which involves replacement at existing location with road
closure. This alternative will minimize impacts to Fourth Creek,
associated wetlands, and the vegetated wildlife habitat corridor
which now exists beneath the bridge.
Iredell County is not considered a "Trout Water County" with
respect to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Discretionary
Authority on 404 Nationwide Permits. Although the project will
not require NCWRC review of the Nationwide Permit application, we
may provide comment on the attending 401 Water Quality
Certification administered by the N. C. Division of Environmental
Management. Based on information available at this time, we have
no objection to the preferred replacement alternative as
proposed.
A-3
Memo Page 2 March 25, 1993
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: David Sawyer, District 7 Wildlife Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Stephanie Goudreau, Mtn. Region Habitat Biologist
Maria Lapomarda, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
t
A-4
t
auw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS $ECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 18, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:. Rob Hanson, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Tim W. Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit I
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 314
on SR 2322 over,Fourth Creek;
Iredell County, Federal Aid No. BRZ-
2322(2), State Project # 8.2821301,
TIP # B-2579
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File B-2579

s
Replacement of Bridge No. 314
On SR 2322
Over Fourth Creek
Iredell County
TIP No. B-2579
F.A. Project No. BRZ-2322(2)
State Project No. 8.2821301

Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2579
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH l
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
TIM SAVIDGE. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
April 18, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...........................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................1
1.2 Purpose ..........................................1
1.3 Project Area .....................................1
1.4 Physiography and Soils ...........................1
1.5 Methodology ......................................2
2.0 Water Resources ........................................2
2.1 Waters Impacted ..................................2
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ............... ..2
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification............ '..3
2.1.3 Water Quality ............................3
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources .............3
3.0 Biotic Resources.. **''********......................3
3.1 Terrestrial Communities.-. ....................... . 4
3.1.1 Maintained Community ..................... .4
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest ............. .5
3.2 Aquatic Communitiy .............................. .6
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities......... .?
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts ............ .8
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts ................ .8

4.0 Special Topics ....................................... .9
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................... .9
4.1.1 Permits ........... ..................... 10
4.1.2 Mitigation .............................. 10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...................... 10
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .............. 11
4.2.2 Federal Candidate And
State Protected Species ................. 11
5.0 References ............................................ 13
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms .............................14
Appendix B: Species Observed List .........................16
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for this project. This report inventories the
natural resources occurring within the project area and
identifies any environmental concerns which must be addressed
in the planning stages of this project.
1.1 Project Description
Two alternates are proposed. Each alternate calls for
replacement of the existing 41 m (135 ft) long 6.1 m (20 ft)
wide bridge with a 41 m (135 ft) long, 9.1 m (30 ft) wide
replacement bridge. Proposed right-of-way (ROW) for both
alternates is 24 m (80 ft).
Alternate 1: Replacement at existing location with road
closure. Traffic will be maintained on secondary roads during
construction.
Alternate 2: Replacement at existing location with an on-site
detour to the south. The proposed detour structure is 30 m
(100 ft) long and to be constructed at an elevation 0.6 m (2
ft) lower than the existing bridge.
1.2 Purpose'
The purpose of this document is to describe and
inventory the natural resources identified within the project
vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts.
1.3 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in the town of Statesville,
in a moderately developed area. A small amount of forested
area remains, following the stream course.
1.4 Physiography and Soils
Iredell County is in the central-western Piedmont
Physiographic Province and is characterized by moderately
sloping to steep hills and associated narrow bottomland
floodplains. The project area is in the Felsic Crystalline
System. Parent material is mostly granite, granite gneiss,
mica gneiss and mica schist. The topography is moderately to
steeply sloping banks grading downwards into the streambed
and associated floodplain. The soils of the slopes are well
drained, highly erodible, gravelly fine sandy loamy of the
Madison series. The narrow bottomland associated with the
stream contains moderately drained, loamy fine sand and silt
formed from recent alluvial deposits (overwash) and erosion
1
et
I
1 •Unuwl loner
o . . . o . . o . ove Nukwy
......................... ....... o..w N wl s, 11 I
11
f _ 1 .1l Ham I1
I 17 I
1 Ij 11 /
MI sl)71W ) 1
f E •,D E .L-••?.
L ay
tee .1 Statesrltie
•? 5
m -6K its 1 Cllawaod /
???? lany Anrty
. 411.1
Oswalt

nn
I, ]fu

I
I
11x.
M .a
a. ? 7171
BRIDGE NO. 314
11x1
Jan
Owe,
T41i ?? 1
131/• 771 111
y ': ?.? ? NIT 7111 ?? ? ?
xt.
718
.o>w a7 .? ?, 71it -
7!1!. 2717 ? 1)f1 2714
r? ? t oil 1 7J. r' tir1 1436
? .H II r Y
71/f »'• 111
14U
J 1t2f
eanl/)lal
NORTH CAROLINA DMIARTMII:N'1' OP
TRANSPORTAPION
DIVISION OP 1:11CHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEWAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 314
IREDELL COUNTY
B - 2579
1/93 FIG. 1
of adjacent upland slopes. No hydric soils are mapped within
the project boundaries.
1.5 Methodology
Preliminary resource information was gathered and
reviewed prior to site visit. Information sources include;
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Statesville
east), Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Soils Map of Iredell
County, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200),
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification for the Yadkin/Pee Dee River
Basin, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database
of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment on July 22, 1993. Plant communities were
identified and recorded. Wildlife was ident.ified using a
number of observation techniques; active searching and
capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording the
identi-fying signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic communities were
conducted using a hand held dip net; organisms captured were
identified and then released.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the physical characteristics,
Best Usage Standards and water quality.of the water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed.
2.1 Waters Impacted
Fourth Creek is in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River drainage and
arises approximately 17.7 km (11 mi) northwest of the project
crossing. The stream flows in a southeastern direction until
reaching the South Yadkin River 29 km (18 mi) downstream of
crossing.
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Fourth Creek is approximately 7.6 m (25 ft) wide, with
depth ranging from 0.3 m (1 ft) to 1 m (3.3 ft). The
substrate is composed of a soft sandy/clay, with scattered
cobble and gravel. Heavy sedimentation is evident, and the
stream apparently experiences periods of very high flow.
Water depth appeared lower than normal during the site visit,
and the flow was sluggish. In addition to sedimentation and
erosion, dumping and non-point source pollution have
contributed to noticeably poor water quality.
2
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The waters of Fourth Creek carry a Best Usage
Classification of WS-IV as assigned by the North Carolina
Department of.Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR., 1993). Class WS-IV designates waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds. Best usage of WS-IV waters are water
supply source for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes and any other usage specified for Class C waters.
Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-
I., or WS-II, occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area.
f
2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. Fourth Creek has
been sampled approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) downstream of
project crossing. The most recent data for this location was
a rating of "Good-Fair", given in June 1989.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) repoft.?lists three permitted discharge sources;
Scioto Inc., Bartlett Milling Co.., and Boyle and Co., into
Fourth Creek less than 1.6 km (1 mi) upstream of project
crossing. The types of discharge include, Contact cooling
water and stormwater.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to the waters affected by the proposed
project, include decreases of dissolved oxygen, and changes
in temperature. This is due to removal of the streamside
canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation. Water
clarity can be significantly reduced during the construction
activity, because of sedimentation and substrate disturbance,
however, water is already very turbid.
Alterations of water level, due to interruptions or
restrictions of surface water flow are also likely during
"in-water" construction activities, and especially with
Alternate 2 (onsite detour).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes.the ecosystems encountered and
the relationships between floral and faunal components within
terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the
3
terrestrial systems are subordinated into floral community
classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of
their respective "roles" within that community. For complete
listings of flora and fauna which occur in Iredell county, a
composite of specific references listed in section 5.0 should
be consulted. Animals that were observed during site visit
are denoted by (*) in the text and are also listed in
Appendix B..
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references of the same organism will include the
common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct biotic community types were identified in
the project impact zone, however there is some degree of
overlap between communities, particularly with the faunal
components. Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive
and populate a variety of habitats, therefore many of the
species mentioned may occur in any number of the different
community types described.
3.1.1 Maintained Community
?1
This community type includes the existing roadside
shoulder and a powerline corridor. .Fescue (Festuca spp.) is
the dominate roadside vegetation. Low growing herbaceous
plants such as dandelion (Taraxacum'officinale), chickweed
(Stellaria sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), white clover
(Trifolium repens) and wild onion (Allium canadense) are
scattered throughout. On the edges of the mowed area are
other species, which are common in open disturbed areas and
are also abundant in the powerline corridor. These include
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), sassafras
(Sassafras albiduin), blackberry..(Rubus spp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Although plant succession is suppressed by human
activity, numerous opportunistic animal species residing in
nearby habitats, utilize these areas as foraging zones.
Various species of reptiles, birds and mammals may venture
into the roadside environment and particularly the powerline
corridor, to feed on seeds, berries, roots and insects.
These species include: the Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis)*, northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*,
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)*, American robin
(Turdus migratorius)*, Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus) and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
4
albicollis). Snakes such as the black racer (Columber
constrictor) and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small
mammals. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamacensis) often soars
above open areas such as roadsides and pastures, to spot prey
such as small mammals, reptiles and insects.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginana), striped skunk.
(Mephitis mephitis) and raccoon (Procyon lotor), frequently
forage nocturnally in these habitats, or travel along
roadways between habitats. These animals are often roadkill
victims. Consequently roadkills attract a large number of
scavenger species including turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)*, as well as domestic
dogs and cats.
Because of the limited size, diversity and the `
precarious nature of these environments, few resident
vertebrate species are expected, however species such as
mourning dove (Zenaida asiatica)*, eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulus) and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus) may nest in the more dense portions of the
powerline corridor. Occasionally house mice (Mus musculus)
will construct nests out of and under discarded trash along
the roadway. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), a
small lizard common throughout the state, is often found
under cardboard, tires and other debris along roadsides.
3.1.2 Dry-Me'sAc-Oak-Hickory Forest
This is the most abundant forested community type
occurring within project ROW. This community occurs mainly
on the southeastern side of the roadway on steep slopes
grading toward Fourth Creek. Encroaching development and
forest thinning have altered the hydrological regime of this
forest type. The remaining canopy is very thin, allowing
drier conditions to persist. Red oak (Quercus rubra), white
oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), hickory (Carya sp.)
and short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata) are the dominate canopy
species. American beech (Fagus gradifolia) becomes prevalent
towards the stream. Sourwood (Oxydendrum arborem), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) and black cherry (Prunus serotina)
comprise the mid-story. Few herbaceous species were
observed, these include heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.) and
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata).
This community grades directly into the streamside
canopy of Fourth Creek. The streambanks are very steep and
highly incised at this area and a floodplain is entirely
lacking. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river-birch
(Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), and hackberry
(Celtis laevigata) comprise the streamside canopy. Shrubs
such as elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata) along with herbaceaous species including
5
bittercress (Cardamine sp.) and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) are sparse along the streambank.
Faunal diversity is expected to be fairly low in this
community near the roadway. This low diversity can be
attributed to limited amount of forested habitat. Very few
vertebrate species were observed during the field
investigation. Although faunal diversity is limited, numbers
of some species adapted to disturbed forested habitats may be
very high. Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)*, white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitter carolinensis)* and Carolina chickadee were
observed to be very abundant. Other birds expected to occur
here include; downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), pileated
woodpecker (Drvocopus pileatus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus) and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea).
Other vertebrate species likely to occur in this r
community include: the grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)*,
Virginia opossum, grey treefrog (Hyla chr_vsoscelis and H.
veriscolor) and the eastern pipstrelle (Pipstrellus
subflavus), a very small bat common.-in the piedmont, found
near bodies of water.
3.2 Aquatic Community
Research has shown that a large amount of food chain
energy of stream communities is derived from allochthonous
(produced outside of stream ecosystem) sources, in the form
of terrestridl?detritus. Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks
etc), and low velocity areas in the stream trap or retain
detritus within the stream. The detritus is then decomposed
by heterotrophic microorganisms, such as bacteria, and
consumed by macroinvertabrates, such as aquatic insects.
Decomposers and primary consumers are, in turn, consumed by
larger organisms. The amount of allochthonous energy input
within a stream varies seasonally, and is expected to be low
in the streams crossed by the project, due to lack of
streamside vegetation.
Autochthonous (produced within the stream ecosystem)
energy sources include planktonic and benthic micro and macro
algae as well as aquatic vascular vegetation. Algal growth
is excessive in some of these streams, a sure sign of
nutrient overload. Eutrophication can be very detrimental to
aquatic organisms, particularly during developmental stages,
because of depleted oxygen levels, and toxins produced by the
algae.
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream
ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, and as prey
items for organisms higher in the food chain. Aquatic
invertebrates, including crayfish (Cambaridae)* and insects
were found in Fourth Creek.
6
Gamefish such as sunfishes (Lepomis spp.)*, largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides)*, and catfish (Ictalurus spp.)*
were found to be common in the stream. The eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)* was also observed to be
abundant. Other species which may occur in Fourth Creek
include shiners (Notropis spp.), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crvsoleucas), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
Several other animals representing all vertebrate
classes are integral parts of the aquatic system. The
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)* and the two-
lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) occur under rocks and
logs within the streambed. Frogs which prey on a large
amount of aquatic insects are abundant in this habitat.t
Species which may be present include pickeral frog (Raga
palustris) and bullfrog (R. catesbeiana).
Reptiles such as the Queen snake (Regina septenvittata),
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)* and the snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina) are common occupants of piedmont
streams. Fish and amphibians are the chief foods of the
northern water snake. Crayfish which are.abundant in the
stream are the preferred prey of the Queen snake. Snapping
turtles consume a wide variety of food items including
carrion, aquatic invertebrates and plant material.
The belfe.0 kingfisher (Megaceryle alycon)*, a
piscivorous bird common throughout the state, which nests
within stream embankments, by digging a burrow 100 mm (4 in)
across and 1-2 m (3-6 ft) deep, was observed near the stream.
Several nest holes were also observed. Small fish are the
preferred prey items.
Mammals likely associated with the stream community
include the semiaquatic muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and
raccoon. Muskrats are primarily herbivorous, feeding on
roots and tubers of aquatic vegetation. Animal material such
as shellfish (when present) may also be consumed. Raccoon
feed on a variety of items including crustaceans, fish,
amphibians and small mammals, as well as fruits, berries and
seeds.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
. Construction of this project will have various impacts
on the biotic communities described. This section quantifies
and qualifies impacts to these resources in terms of area
impacted (cleared/modified), and ecosystem effects. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of the three plant community types
described. The estimated acreage loss to these communities
is listed in Table 1. It should be noted that estimated
impacts were derived using the entire proposed right of way.
Project construction often does not require the entire right
of way and therefore actual impacts may be considerably less,
Particularly with Alternate 1 which is on existing location.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Community
Alternate MOF MC
r
1 0.08 (0.2) 0.25 (0.d)
2 0.20 (0.5) 0.25 (0.6)
Impacts in hectares (acres), based an 24 m (80 ft) of ROW
MOF and RC denote Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest and Maintained
Communities respectively
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the
number of fadn.#l organisms, and concentrate them into a
smaller area, which causes some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals
closely associated with the ground (snakes, small mammals,
etc.), because of construction machinery used during clearing
and grading activities. Mobile species will be displaced
during construction activity. These animals may return to
the area following construction, however the amount of
forested habitat, which has already been abated by
agricultural clearing, will be reduced even further.
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts
Anticipated impacts to the stream community can be
attributed to construction related habitat disturbance and',
sedimentation. Although disturbance and sedimentation may:;be
temporary processes during the construction phase of this
project, environmental impacts from these processes may be
long-lived or irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source
for many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various
species of snakes, birds, turtles and amphibians. It also
serves as a means of predator avoidance for amphibians (frogs
8
and salamanders), reptiles (snakes and turtles), and mammals
(muskrat and mink).
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit
feeders, and macro and micro alga, are particularly sensitive
to construction activities such as dredging, filling, pile
driving operations and slope stabilization. These.
construction activities physically disturb the substrate,
resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Many of
these aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or repopulate an
area, because they require a stabilized substrate for
attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to
develop, therefore, changes in community composition will
occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary
producers in the food chain, can be greatly effected by
siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing
available light. Clogging of feeding apparati of suspension
feeders and burial of newly settled :larvae of these
organisms, are other effects of siltation. These species are
often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major
step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may
directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as
fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects
of siltation,' 4owever gills of fish, crustaceans and larval
amphibian and insect forms can become clogged and
dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning
habitats for these mobile species may become filled with
sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably
reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely
detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must be strictly
adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water
bodies impacted by this project.
Additionally, if measures are not taken to reduce the
amount of probable increased concentrations of toxic
compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream, coming from
construction related machinery and road.paving activities,
mortalities to numerous types of aquatic organisms are
likely.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad
category of "waters of the United States" as defined in 33
9
CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met;
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix A), and 3)
evidence of hydrology, or hydrological indicators, including;
saturated soils, stained, oxidized rhizospheres, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases
and surface roots.
No wetland communities were identified within the
project ROW. Construction of the proposed project will.`have
no impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
4.1.1 Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23, for impacts to surface
waters of Fourth Creek is likely to be applicable. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in
part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency
or department has determined that the activity is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation,
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required, prior to issue of the Nationwide permit #23. Final
permit decisions lie with the Army Corps of Engineers.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the
potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well being of any species classified as federally-protected,
is subject to review by the FWS and/or,.the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered
species receive additional protection under separate state
10
statutes. In North Carolina protection of plant species
falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.).106-202.12 to 106-
202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331
to 113-337 of 1987.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of December 20. 1993 the FWS lists no
federally protected species for Iredell County.
Biological Conclusion: Construction of this project will not
adversely impact any federally protected plant or animal.
f
species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are three federal candidate (C2) species listed
for Iredell County. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here
for information purposes, should they become protected in the
future. Surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits, fiq(r were any of these species observed.
The North Carolina status of these species is also
listed in Table 2. Plants or animals with state designations
of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), of Special Concern (SC),
are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and
the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979,
administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
TABLE 2. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Iredell County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat NC
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle No T
Delphimium exalatum tall larkspur Yes E-SC
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil Yes C
NC Status: T, E and SC.denote Threatened, Endangered and
Special Concern respectively
C, denotes Candidate Species, which at this time are not
afforded State protection.
11
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and
animals revealed one record of big leaf magnolia (Magnolia
macrophvlla), which is classified as SR (Significantly Rare)
in North Carolina, approximately 1/2 miles downstream of the
project area. Species which are classified as SR are not
afforded State protection. This species was not surveyed
for, nor was it observed during field investigations.
4
.71

12
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of Int. Washington D.C.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd and J.A.
Phillips, 1984. Soil Systems in North Carolina. N.C.
Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State Univ. Raleigh
N.C. Bulletin 467.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps.of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
t
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to Waters of the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate Data
Base and*?ong Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P.,Teulings. 1980..Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks.
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1984.
Soil Survey of Iredell County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
1981. Effects of Highways on Wildlife. Report # FHWA/RD-
81/067.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
13
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
abiotic pertaining to nonliving or physical (air, water,
soil) aspects of an environment.
alluvial sediments deposited by flowing water, as in river
bed floodplain or delta.
allochthonous of foreign origin; transported into an area
from outside of area.
autochthonous formed within the place where it is found.
benthic pertaining to the bottom of a body of water; a
benthic organism lives on or in the bottom substrate.
biotic pertaining to living aspects or specific life
conditions of an environment.
canopy the uppermost layer of vegetation in a plant '
community.
s carnivore an organism that feeds on animals.
channel an open conduit either naturally or artifically
created which periodically or continuously contains moving
water.
disturbed community a community that is not in its natural
state. Sources of disturbance include human activity, fire
and wind.
ecosystem a biological community plus its abiotic (nonliving)
environment.
Endangered a taxa that is threatened with extinction
throughout f11 or a significant portion of its range.
fauna animals collectively, of a particular region.
flora a treatise describing the plants of a region.
fluvial produced by the action of a.river or stream
food chain specific sequence of organisms, including
producer, herbivore, and carnivore, through which energy
and materials move within an ecosystem.
herbivore an animal that consumes plant material.
hydric soil soil that is wet long enough to periodically
produce anaerobic conditions, thereby influencing the
growth of plants.
hydrophytic vegatation plants which grow in water or on a
substrate that is at least periodically deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content.
livebearer an ovoviviparous fish (produces eggs which hatch
inside the body).
nocturnal animals that feed or are active at night.
omnivore an animal which feeds on both plant and animal
material.
photosynthesis conversion of radiant energy (sunlight) into
chemical energy (food).
piscivore an animal that feeds primarily on fish.
primary consumer organisms that are the second step in a
community food.chain, feeding on the producers.
primary producer organisms capable through photosynthesis to
manufacture their own food through direct capture of light
14
energy: producers compose the first step in a community
food chain.
Proposed Endangered a species that has been formally proposed
as Endangered; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
Proposed Threatened a species that has been formally proposed
as Threatened; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
sessile an organism which permanently attaches itself to the
substrate.
spoor the track or trail of an animal, particularly a wild
animal.
succession The process of community change through time,
with an orderly sequence of seral stages, the organisims
(plants, animals) of each stage modify the environment,
making it less suitable for themselves, and more suitable
for the next. The end point or climax perpetuates itself.
Threatened a taxa that is likely to become Endangered in the
foreseeable future.
.71

15

APPENDIX B
ORGANISMS OBSERVED DURING SITE VISIT
Class Common name Habitat
Crustacea crayfish FC
Osteichthy es catfish (sp.)
" eastern mosquitofish "
It largemouth bass
" sunfish - "
Amphibia northern dusky salamander "
Reptilia northern watersnake "
Aves American robin MC
" belted kingfisher FC
It blue jay OH
" Carolina chickadee OH, Mt
" common crow MC
" mourning dove it
" northern cardinal MC,OH
" northern mockingb-ird MC
" white-breasted nuthatch OH
Mammalia grey squirrel it
FC and OH, denote Fourth Creek and Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory
Forest respectively.

16
1
dsa STATFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM -.DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager /?
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacement of Bridge No.
314 on SR 2322 over ?Creek , Iredell County, B-2579
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 16, 1993 at 9:45 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Maria Lapomarda, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
ML/pl r
Attachment G/
c Jx
LL, v?

(3RIDGE
PROJECT SCORING SHEET
D a t e ......... --
TI P# B- ?5
State Project#_
F.A. Project# i l'Z 2 2- 2-
Division
County-
Route_?,? ? _
Purpose of Project: Replace Obsolete Br_idg_e
Description of Project:
Method of Replacement:
1. Existing Location - road closure
2. Existing Location - on-site, detour
3. Relocation
4. Other
Will. there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If ves, by whom and amount: ($)
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning ?
Design
, (%)
Page 1
r
r
s
BR1DGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
W
Traffic: Current-ACC) VPD Design Year VPD TTST d % DT %
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Length11j.()feet Width.__0.9 feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length_.____feet Wi.dtfeet
or
Culvert - Size @ feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Lengthfeet. Width feet
or
Pipe - Size - iIIcl,eS
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) .............................. $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., uti.]..,
and acquisition) ................................
Force Account Items .................................
Total Cost ...................................... $
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $ 305-, Cz
TIP Right of Way Cost ...............................
TIP Total Cost ...................................... 7
dO?

Page 2
1116,
"tt&a6? 6()"- f? (,?

BIt1DGE
PI20JEC'r SCOPING SHEET
Additional Comments:
Prepared By I' I• D0.____
late--?' ??1,) --
Page 3

1434 71
1432. '?
' ' ?
< e ,•
; ?
I

IO
2175 /
i i
?.
T rT/•
2209
/
•
2JlI
_

llli
• /?
Z12?
21L4?

ti ? 1 ? n 1St
2l2L 1 1121
14211 ?''? • • 2'S? J / aim
o.... Ex?N510Wi
o
y
4
?
•
J
•LYU 0 .O
l :
7311.
:1117 ?.b,...: ,e':
•? , ?L
34.
Y1
..?
`
• e4 .A-
-0=?
*
1431 ..ra.......; .;::r< a
:....:.....
.tlP
?:!x5; ...xi•: :::::;:;%::'
.
' :
?
:r
?
on,I

1.14
.. a sr:
i.::J4l3 " .?"A ,^;;;<:N
?
1 °
.
LEM :
S ?
.2 2320 33u p
5
••17.7 t1
.,
.0
Y .11+ 1134 ?M1
40 1
•
?
Ila xl3!
71 ? ? 5
? as1, u4n 7,
1
t?, yV n

64 2322
,1 •
• .tJ 7311
? 41

214!
!1 ?
.03
4 ? allZ \ 01 2{1t uy as
07 rI asx 04.05 7. n
] '
'
L1[Y. 21
su
1110
I4' 17'
'
BRIDGB NO. 314>
.,:.,
7Lx
as7i a
?
o`
2U1 1531 !' 1£14 s 1y7 0; . .\! 741 7?lP
2344
7511
-
115 r .11 ,?? /_ 1
24I0 1432
33! ,12
all 112Q
\
71 :.
2141
n,a 211 y V .. ` Oe ' ?q
1

4tl m /?' u
d- D 2?4 r;14
/
E15ENdlOr1
,? 0 ?2? 1
b •r? a 232!
- '.'"11r. .77
5
11
2
? x533
49 1!7
U

./uaou, x557. ?
73
1
s1
372,1
20
33ri
21! _
?uL2342
71 _
6.
9 .2_,Y1 U 2134
70 0
s .
_L170
1131 ' n: a1s
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTA'PION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 314
IREDELL COUNTY
B - 2579
1/93 FIG. 1

JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
e•a ?EO',y,
yr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
RECEIVO
MI 1 4 1994
ENWRONMENTAL SCIENCES
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Sef?vC11iber 30.. 1994 110.1
Dis ..r ?c i. ..wily in eI

}
c ' 0 VV? .
?r j lit24012
Y_F-Ql._ ?.,. a'n' cl--

L? _ C T.11: P. lv0. 3-2,57s
?. 1 c
:.'... 1. Ci. _. ll c
fail inu 1e-oo u t:1?
... ... ...c -1- 1 ..?+. Ex01: uiv:1} .?11 aC%L?la. ?.ll trC Nei ,.li LJ
...
..-CLGI_c '` N3 'L. :'1 Vee
..y
r...:N e'.. .+. i7 ..:1'? .....,1 .?., l... .. v L _. '+J.
'.n l.i 0
:V= C, t:1i8 C u„ -L ?::° ? E C 3 un.e_`slZ
1.i-aP, r nei.t Cf Elivli:o-1I.1e1:1t Naa_ :? ?.i1
Div_._:iG l ' f ii `' Gli i?it?? T•: i:Ci?iiicilt,
t 11i.. -D 0_Cl. t? ali d T-_
vr,i.ia
.-•a L.Liia' ..=SVLi
LO, tit`-2:
If 3o ha`'J, any T_..J tirJilJ 3i need .....:d-i L1. :)na.
I`/ v
r?'t 111-, P.L.
G t.
_•11:..x. _a a.:..._1 '.'ii _ l ; ._a?

r
BJO/c1b
Attachment
cc: Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville Field Office
J :?1n Dorney, DEHNR; DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/'Permit Coord- nator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Procram Development Branch
Don .-to::ton, P .E. , H4-ghway De-sign
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
?chn L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Des-Jgn
T.._,. S h e a r i , P . E . , R -D adwa1 Des _gI
.? . +d . Spangles Biv' s _on i? EEr.,ainee,
Bev Gr?te, P. _nn_: n a :,3nt 1
La'v?s It.:0 P1aLn..ng c EIiv7..="D...enzal
p