19940875 Ver 1_Complete File_19940922

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, F15%
Health and Natural Resources 4"YA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 28, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Dean Sarvis
DOT
From: Eric Galamb u
Subject: Comments for -2541 and B-2542
Davidson County
The Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401
Water Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including wetlands.
A major portion of the study area has been designated WS IV watershed. DEM requests that
hazardous spill catch basins be installed at all water supply stream crossings. The BMP for
the protection of surface waters requires DOT to install hazardous spill catch basins in water
supply critical areas. Other stream crossings may be outside of the critical area but DEM still
believes that hazardous spill catch basins at these locations will provide extra protection at
minimal cost. There may be locations where the hazardous spill catch basins cannot be
installed due to space limitations. DOT has informed DEM that the space limitations exist for
this project. Therefore, DOT requested that DEM concur with utilizing a berm instead of
hazardous spill catch basins. DEM does concur with DOT for this request. Bridge deck runoff
should not drain directly into the bodies of water.
All stream relocations should adhere to DOT's Stream Relocation/ Channelization guidelines.
DEM requests that DOT utilize HQW soil and erosion control measures to protect the water
supply.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in
DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
b-2541-2.com
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
IAMEs B. HUNT, IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
0
April 6, 1993
401 ISSUED
SAM HUNT
1993
APR 1 3
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental rang/ wo
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacement of Bridge No. 4
on SR 1176 over Hartley's Creek, Davidson County,
B-2537
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 May 18, 1993 at 9:00 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 James Bridges, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JB/plr
Attachment
? ?E 23
>(
AU, I?
?f
I--,? _1co,) WS - 7*
12 - 100 Z U,3 S -- 1%
3,? A&Jj
dt-e -710 4Y7?4

.
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date ? Apc ) 1993
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP# B- Jt537 c?
State Project#_ r 2-60 F.A. Project# U-74
Div ision___? -
County
Route_
Purpose of Project: ILle-p _aee Obsolete Iirid c
Description of Project: _r) e-PIAGe, hr; ? e- ?/ env r ?Kr e. Is
_ Gee, K
Method of Replacement:
1. Existing Location - road closure
2. -"xisting Location- on-site detour
3. Relocation
4 Other - -----?
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other:' 1-es--. No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
(%)
Page l
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current VPD Design Year VI'D
TTST % DT %

Typical
Roadway Section: /
I
Existing Structure: Length-71 feet Width ad•0 feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length....______reet Width._..._ ____.feet
or
Culvert - Size (Wfeet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length"_____feet. Width
or
Pipe - Size -inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ................................ $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., uti.1.,
and acquisition) ................................
Force Account Items......... ...................... $
Total Cost ...................................... $
feet
TIP Construction Cost ............................. edo oO
TIP Right of Way Cost :............................... $ ,?5,G0O
TIP Total Cost ...................................... s (0 _3. Co O
U G?
? AD
s - ?
ZQ 13 3oo 3 V 5-00 ? ??S 7d a? ?
page
iv,
IV12 1-1
?, "
146 e-,

'1 H P 1 16E. '.ICE

[.`
?
v ?"yr 1163
63
1176

'IJ
;
1

/ BRIDGE N4. 4
5?.ray
ss n?fi e

"Buncombe
Bop1. Ch. 1179
1196
"63
.86 C.
t
C,
.1.60 1177 -5" 1160 a?
1161
'J1 (irae ?
1369 bopl. Ch. r
L sch. 133
5.19
'
01 .o, ,i62
1.
172

? Tyro
6
i 17o
58 1183 ?
sC
1172 116^ Tyro
f C^
4 , 131 ]
Tyro Meth,
Ch- ? 132e
m
JD 1311" '215
1'
1275
4 0^
'329 dl
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT O
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 4
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B - 2537
3/93 FIG. 1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
June 23, 1993
TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
FROM: James Bridges PIT NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
PIT L
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
B-2562 - Forsyth County
scoping meeting Minutes

JAMES B. HUNT, JP,
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
4jy tt $?/??q
p4?N ? W m,?
paw v?•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 23, 1993
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
401 ISSUED
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
FROM: James Bridges
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for the Replacement of Bridge No.
4 on SR 1176 over Hartley's Creek, Davidson County, State
Project 8.2602901, Federal Aid Number BRZ-1176(1) TIP No.
B-2537
On March 17, 1993 a scoping meeting was held on the above referenced
project. The following attended the meeting:
R. M. Girolami
Jerry Snead
Annette Morticls
Betty C. Yancey
Leon Oliver
LeRoy Smith
Mike Patton
Sid Autry
Eric Galamb
David B. Foster
Rob Hanson
James Bridges
Ron G. Lucas, Jr.
Patrick Bradshaw
Structure Design
Hydraulic Design
Hydraulic Design
Right of Way
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Division 9
Location and Surveys
DEM
DEHNR - Highway Environmental Evaluation
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Bridge No. 4 on SR 1176 over Hartley's Creek, is being replaced due to
its overall deteriorated condition, posting for 9 tons maximum load and low
sufficiency rating. Hartley's Creek has been classified as water supply 4
(drinking water).
Three alternatives were discussed for the replacement of Bridge No. 4.
The first alternative recommended by Hydraulic Design was to replace the
bridge with a culvert west of the structures present location. This
alternative was opposed by Roadway Design because it would leave SR 1176 with
a bad alignment.

r
June 23, 1993
Page 2
Two alternatives were identified for study during the scoping meeting.
One alternative identified for study is to replace Bridge No. 4 on the
existing alignment. The construction cost for this alternative is $600,000.
Off-site detours would be used for this alternative. This alternative may
involve a possible channel change for Hartley's Creek. The next alternative
is to replace the existing structure with a three barrel 10'x9' reinforced
concrete box culvert. This culvert will be built on the same location as the
bridge. The proposed culvert will be designed to accommodate the Sandy Creek
confluence and avoid channel realignment. An off-site detour would be used
for this alternative also. Construction cost for this alternative is
$600,000. With both alternatives aerial utilities will require relocation
before construction.
Attached for your review are the revised scoping sheets. Thank you for
your assistance in this part of our planning process. If you have any
questions please call me at 733-7842.
JB/wp
Attachment
y r• ?
13111 DO L
PROJECT SCOPINC SHEET
Date ? A?-;1 j773
Revision Date 93 U13
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
T I P #_I=- aS -7
State
F.A. Project;_ 13R2-n7&?-J
Division
County__
Route
Purpose of Project: ltetLlace Obsolete Bride
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 particil)ation by municipality,
developers, or other:' Yes
-_ No %-,?
If yes, by whom <ind amount: ( $ )__--
Pn9 e 1

BUDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current-300 VPD Design Year ,500 VPD
TTST I % DT
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Length 7/ feet Width JO feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Lerigth..... feet Width feet
Culvert - Size -3 _C0?_ ID feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length -feet Width _feet
01,
Pipe - Size - __ir?ches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) ............................... $ &00,00o
Right of Way Cost (including rel., ut'il.,
C?oe
and acquisition) ................................ $ 354
Force Account Items ................................. ) S O c?
Total Cost ...................................... $6. So 0
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $ 600 00 0
TIP Right of Way Cost ................. $ 3,51 (9
TIP Total Cost ...................................... $ 63,5000
Page Z
t
yy??o
CI [y? x I J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September S. 1994
District Engineer 401 ISSUED
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
r,. C. -ox 1001
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory bL'a nCi1
Dear Sir:
Sub-: ect . Davidson Count v - Repl a-eiilent of Br-dce No. 4
over Hartley' S Creek at SR 1 1 76; State Yroect
No. 8.2602901, T.T.P. No. B-..53fj
.t act-Aed -? r _'our i hf' Im t1i on is ... cow .:' o?- t<h_ p: c? e?
planning _ eport for the sum j ect project. Tice project is
being processed by the Federal ..igt.aay tLminis?ration as
"Catecorical Exclusion" in accordaih(A( itil
we do not anticipate reCiti g a il i'?di 'v _d .? ci
There fcL e ,
Permit but Ypropose to proceed Lander Nation4aid Permit in
accorda:hce with 3? CFR 33 0 Appendix 8-23 Sued No?_jember
22, 1991. by t?.e Corps of Engi?heers Tile pr' isiohs of
Section '_^ ? and idi.x A (C ) of -egulat-ons ll
followed in the construction of t`_he pr o j ect .
4-' C
Xe antici_Le --. L, -0-1 Gene a=
(rateacrical E?aclusion) will apply to
providi g one copy or tl e C-E document
Department of Environment, Health and
Division of Environmental 'Management,
--ti?icat iOlh ''1o. 2745
this project, and are
to he Ncrt__ ca.-olina
ijatural Resources,
for their rev-=w.
if you have any questions or feed additional
i?: ormation please call Cyndi Bell at (919) / 33-3141 .
Sincerely
b J O' Qu' 1in P. E
Assista? Manager,
Planning and EnvironTiental Branch
??rl
>?
` 1
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: COE, Raleigh Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P . E . , Roadway Design
D.B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
James F. Bridges, Jr. Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2537
State Project No. 8.2602901
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1176(1)
A. Project Description: Bridge No. 4 is located in Davidson
County on SR 1176 over Hartley's Creek. This project involves
replacing the existing structure with a three barrel 3 meter x
2.7 meter (10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced box culvert. The bridge
will be replaced in existing location, and traffic will be
detoured along existing secondary roads. A location map is
attached.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information," for
list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 4 has a sufficiency rating of
17.0 out of 100.0 and an estimated remaining life of 2 years.
Weight posting is 8,145 kg (9 tons). Due to its deteriorated
condition, bridge No. 4 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 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.
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
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
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge
rail retrofit
3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or
the construction of grade separation to replace existing
at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge
approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red
lead paint), scour repair, fender systems, and
minor structural improvements
d?. 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.
2
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area
consisting of passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks
and related street improvements) when located in a
commercial area or other high activity center in which
there is adequate street capacity for projected bus
traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or
transportation purposes where such construction is not
inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes,
advance land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the
UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition
qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not
limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts
in alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information: (Including ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS):
Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
NCDOT conducted an archeological survey of the Area of
Potential Effect for this project. The APE surveyed took into
account the possibility of an on-site detour being built. The
survey found that part of archaeological site 31DV427 is
within the boundaries of the APE. Since the survey, NCDOT has
eliminated the on-site detour alternative, which reduces the
APE for this project. Construction of this project without an
on-site detour should avoid any involvement with the
archaeological site.
NCDOT will further coordinate with the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding site 31DV427. If it is
determined that site 31DV427 is affected by final design,
additional studies will be conducted to determine eligibility
of the site to the National Register of Historic Places and to
determine the effects of the project on the property.
3
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Other Information
Replacement Structure: Three barrel 3 meter x 2.7 meter
(10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced box
culvert
Estimated Cost: Construction - $600,000
Right of Way - $ 35,000
Estimated Traffic: 1996 - 330 vehicles per day
2016 - 530 vehicles per day
1.0% TTST 3.0% DUAL
Proposed Typical Section: 6.7 meter (22 feet) roadway with
1.8 meter (6 feet) grass shoulder
Design Speed: 100 km/h (62.14 mph)
Right of Way Acquisition: FY 1995
Construction: FY 1996
Detour Analysis
The Benefit/Cost Ratio for building a detour structure is
0.53. Because the Benefit/Cost Ratio is below 1, construction
of a temporary detour structure is not considered cost
effective. The Division Engineer and the Director of
Transportation for Davidson County Schools are both in
agreement that closing Bridge No. 26 without a detour
structure would not cause a problem. The proposed detour
route is shown on Figure 2.
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
(1) Will the project
on any unique or
(2) Does the project
federally listed
species may occu
YES NO
have a substantial impact ? X
important natural resource?
involve habitat where
endangered or threatened a X
r?
a
. Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
(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 x
(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)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or x
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier a X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be a x
required?
5
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
(13) Will the project result in the modification X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way X ?
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in F X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(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?
6
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged
construction, or on-site detours?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
X F-1
(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 see
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X note
National Register of Historic Places? page 8
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks, see
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? X note
refuges, historic sites, or historic page 8
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 -1 X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Note: NCDOT conducted an archeological survey of the Area of
Potential Effect for this project. The APE surveyed took
into account the possibility of an on-site detour being
built. The survey found that part of archaeological site
31DV427 is within the boundaries of the APE. Since the
survey, NCDOT has eliminated the on-site detour
alternative, which reduces the APE for this project.
Construction of this project without an on-site detour
should avoid any involvement with the archaeological site.
NCDOT will further coordinate with the State Historic
Preservation office regarding site 31DV427. If it is
determined that site 31DV427 is affected by final design,
additional studies will be conducted to determine
eligibility of the site to the National Register of
Historic Places and to determine the effects of the project
on the property.
8
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G.
CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2537
State Project No. 8.2602901
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1176(1)
Project Description: Bridge No. 4 is located in Davidson
County on SR 1176 over Hartley's Creek. This project involves
replacing the existing structure with a three barrel 3 meter x
2.7 meter (10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced box culvert. The bridge
will be replaced in existing location, and traffic will be
detoured along existing secondary roads. A location map is
attached.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information," for
list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Date Project Planning Unit Head
R /6 /
- /_ Date P ject Planning n neer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9

JII I i `.
j? 8 a{{
_S G? ?J
BRIDGE NO. 4 °
F ?` ~
.55 r? o
"' D?ncombe
bop'. Ch.
I
I >ma?? ?
ro? 3 Sch. L!.: _
c, _u
t.°t
nn -b
- 1°
ti
:nn ?e Tyr°
JJ . jbpt.
{^
Tyro
1 C1
_! ? 1115
tyro /'?TM.,C! .<<
Ch. 1]{ m
5 1])5 i• i o? 'z 5
a
s .c V _3L
NOIZTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIIZONMENTAI,
BRANCH . .
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 4
ON SR 1176 OVER HARTLEY'S CREEK
DAVIDSON COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2537
4/93 FIG. 1

BRIDGE NO. 4
s, ..,.
:LZ .6
Sour. Ch. tt?.
nn

».
r
UAL
U _
U4 .?
A
nu
Gras.
a sd..

?? Tyre
Ch.
Ty
Tr.a M..n.
Ch. ir.
•?. De.V.en S.?.or
? ? • STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1*1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 4
ON SR 1176 OVER HARTLEY'S CREEK
DAVIDSON COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. B - 2537
FIG. 2 1
APPENDIX
SUTE
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
November 1, 1993 ?Ci
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration e?3
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue z
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Z
2 DIVISION OF
Re: Bridge #4, SR 1176 over Hartley's Creek, B-2537, , HIGHIiVAyS
Davidson County, ER 94-7662 '90 etj P?
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1993, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Gerald F. Glover concerning the above project.
Our review of the archaeological report for the above project indicates that the proposed
project may affect site 31 DV427, a site recommended by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation for additional testing to determine its eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places. Specifically, Figure 3 of the report shows an overlap of the site boundaries,
the proposed alignment, and the area of potential effect.
Given these circumstances, we cannot concur with Federal Highway Administration's
determination that the project will not affect significant archaeological resources. Once the
additional testing to determine the National Register eligibility of the archaeological remains
associated with 31 DV427 has been conducted and we'have reviewed the results, we will
be happy to provide a final opinion.
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
fnr C'mmnliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely
' tel:
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett

a ?
j z
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T7 ANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT. JR. DIVisION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 12, 1993
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section
Division of Archives & History
Dept. of Cultural Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
RE: Bridge #4 on SR 1176, Davidson County, TIP No. B-2537,
Your reference ER-94-1662.
Dear Mr. Brook:
In your letter of November 1, you commented that you could not concur
with the Federal Highway Administration's determination that the subject
bridge project will not affect significant archaeological resources because
Figure 3 in the archaeological survey report indicates that the boundaries of
site 31DV427 overlap the area of potential effect.
The dashed line in Figure 3 represents the maximum area of potential
effects, based upon the possibility of having to include alternatives that
incorporate on-site detours or a new location for the structure and
approaches. The solid line in Figure 3 represents the existing. 60 foot wide
right of way. Since the archaeological study was completed prior to the
completion of the environment document, it covered an area necessarily much
larger than the actual impact area will be.
Currently, the project planners anticipate replacing the bridge at the
present location, using existing roadways to provide an off-site detour
during construction. The approaches will be widened from a current 19 foot
roadway with 6 foot shoulders to a 22 foot wide roadway with six foot wide
shoulders, for a total additional width of 3 feet. This can be accomplished
within the existing 60 foot right of way. However, we recognize that
construction impacts may extend beyond that line.
The report recommended that any detours be constructed on the north side
of the existing roadway to avoid impacts upon the site, and recommended
additional testing at the site if that were not possible. It now appears
that no on-site detours will be necessary, and it may be possible to

November 12, 1993
` Page 2
accomplish all of the roadway widening on the north side, away from the
archaeological deposits. However, we will not know whether the latter can be
accomplished until after further design studies are completed. If it is
determined that site 31DV427 may be affected by the final design, additional
studies will be conducted to determine eligibility of the site to the
National Register of Historic Places and to determine the effects of project
on the property. Further consultation with your office will be necessary at
that time.
If you have any questions on this project, please call Mr. James
Bridges, Project Engineer, or Mr. Tom Padgett, Archaeologist, at (919)
733-3141.
Sincerely,
r H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
JB/sdt
cc: Nicholas L. Graf
Tom Padgett
James Bridges

STATt
?rf c?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 6, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
SUBJECT
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of. Highways
Department oaf-Transportation
?
i,/^\\
David Brook %';-•`1 Deputy State4storic Preservation Officer
Bridge #4, SR 1 176 over Hartley's Creek, B-2537,
Davidson County, ER 93-8644, ER 94-7662
EIV
DEC 0 8 1993
DIVISION C"
C?
? ?NVlRONN?G?,?f
Thank you for your letter of November 12, 1993, concerning the above project.
As indicated in our letter of November 1, 1993, to the Federal Highway
Administration, we do not concur with the determination that the subject bridge
project will not affect significant archaeological resources. The information
presented in your letter of November 12, 1993, supports our position that such a
determination is premature and should await the completion of further design
studies.
If site 31 DV427 is threatened by the bridge's plans, additional archaeological
studies will be necessary to determine eligibility of the site for the National
Register of Historic Places and to determine the effects on the property. We look
forward to further consultation with your office once additional design plans are
available.
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.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
s
cc: Federal Highway Administration
T. Padgett

Replacement of Bridge No. 4
On SR 1183*
Over Hartley Creek*
Davidson County
TIP No. B-2537
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1176 (1)
State Project No. 8.2602901
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2537
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
Gary B. Blank, Ph.D., and Richard R. Braham, Ph.D.
Ecological Consultants
July 18, 1994

*See explanation in the Introduction, page 1.
NORTH CAROLINA Dl?FARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONRIENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 4
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B - 2537
3193 FIG. 1
2 July 18, 1994
1.0 Introduction
The following natural resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation
of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). This report inventories the natural resources occurring within the
project area, identifies environmental concerns which must be addressed in the planning stages of
this project, and recommends means for minimizing environmental degradation.
Please note that Hartley Creek is shown as Hartleys Creek on the location map included here
but is referred to as Hartley Creek by other current sources. Moreover, other sources also identify
the segment below confluence of Hartley and Sandy Creeks as Mill Creek. This report will refer to
Hartley and Mill Creeks, and the matter of nomenclature will be discussed further in § 2.1.
The location map also shows this project situated on SR 1176, but signs in the field indicate
that the road is SR 1183, which is used in this report.
1.1 Project Description
Project B-2537 proposes to replace the existing structure (Bridge No. 4) on SR 1183 over
Hartley Creek. Built in 1950, the existing structure is 5.8 in (19.0 ft) wide with 1.8 in (6.0 ft)
grass shoulders along the approaches. Replacement will accommodate a 6.7 in (22.0 ft) wide
roadway and retain 1.8 in (6.0 ft) wide shoulders.
Two alternatives, both involving off-site detours, are being considered: (1) replacing the
bridge on the current alignment with a possible channel change in Hartley Creek, or (2) replacing
the existing structure with a three barrel 10'x9' reinforced concrete box culvert designed to
accommodate the Sandy Creek confluence and avoid a channel realignment.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to discuss current natural resource conditions surrounding the
B-2537 project site and to determine what impact, if any, proposed actions would have on existing
resources. Recommendations to minimize impacts are made with the understanding that proposed
actions result from preliminary design parameters. Thus, design alterations could necessitate
further field investigation.
1.3 Study Area.
The study area is shaped like a rectangle with the long axis of 510 in (1675 ft) centered along
SR 1183 and a width of about 58 in (190 ft). This rectangle encloses about 2.9 ha (73 ac) of
land. The study area contains a combination of remnant bottomland hardwood forest along Sandy,
Hartley, and Mill Creeks, oak-hickory forest located upslope south of Hartley Creek, agricultural
land, and homesites. About 8 percent of the project area is bottomland hardwood, about 19
percent is oak--hickory, about 26 percent is agricultural land, about 17 percent is homesites, about
6 percent is roadsides, and about 26 percent is SR 1183. Only the Bottomland Hardwoods and
Roadside communites are described in detail, since the oak-hickory community will not be
impacted by construction.
1.4 Methodology
A site visit occurred on June 23, 1994 to determine natural resource conditions and confirm
published information available concerning the site (Sources cited where applicable in the report).
Vegetation communities were identified according to dominant species types, supplemented with
detailed species lists for all strata. Dominance of the woody overstory was determined by the
variable plot method (Dilworth and Bell 1986). Percent foliar cover of vegetation was ocularly
estimated, using cover guides prepared by Belanger and Anderson (1989). Plant nomenclature
follows Radford et al. (1968. Tree heights were measured using an Abney level hypsometer
(Dilworth and Bell 1986). Percent cover of ground-layer vegetation was ocularly estimated, using
cover guides prepared by Belanger and Anderson (1989). Terrestrial wildlife habitat was
,B-2537 3 July 20, 1994
characterized by vegetation type, but the site was examined for signs of use by and life-requisite
availability for species typical of the locale. Aquatic conditions were examined immediately --
beneath and proximal to the existing bridge. Wetland delineation follows procedures established by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental Lab 1987).
2.0 Physical Resources
This section examines water and soil resources within the project study area, especially
focusing on water quality documentation (NCDEM 1991, 1993, and 1994), information gathered
on-site, and information found in the Davidson County Soil Survey (Hardison and Brinkley 1917)
and available maps.
2.1 Water Resources
Hartley Creek is joined by Sandy Creek immediately upstream of Bridge No. 4 on SR 1183.
Downstream from this confluence, therefore under the bridge, the resulting stream is called Mill
Creek (NCDEM 1991). As was noted above, this nomenclature is not consistent from source to
source. The Davidson County Soil Survey map (Hardison and Brinkley 1917) and the county
road map show the name as Hartleys Creek and do not show the name "Mill Creek" at all. The
"Churchland" (7.5 Minute Series) USGS topographic map shows Mill Creek, as do Division of
Enviornmental Management documents (NCDEM 1991, 1993). As is also noted above, this report
follows what appears to be the later convention.
Hartley Creek drains a watershed of approximately 1030 ha (2543 ac). Sandy Creek drains
approximately 324 ha (800 ac). Both watersheds are located in sub-basin 03-07-04 of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. They are dominated by agricultural and forest cover types on gentle
slopes, but steep side slopes occur. Watershed elevations range from about 204 m (670 ft) at
Bridge No. 4 up to 262 m (860 ft) above MSL along NC 150.
Table 1. Characteristics of Hartley Creek at the B-2537 Project Site.
Location Hartle Creek Sandy Creek
Substrate Sand, gravel Sand, gravel
Current Brisk Brisk
Stream Gradient Flat Flat
Channel Width 1.5 m (5 ft) 0.6 m (2 ft)
Bank Height 2.4 m (8 ft) 0.6 m (2 ft)
Water depth < 15.2 cm (< 6 in) 7.6 cm (3 in)
Water Color Clear Clear
Water Odor None Clear
Aquatic Vegetation None Algae clinging to stones
Adjacent Vegetation Brush, weeds, vines Same
Wetlands Associated Bank to bank Bank to bank
_ 8-2537 4 July 18, 1994
2.1.1 Water Quality
From its source to its juncture with Sandy Creek to become Mill Creek, Hartley Creek is
rated "WS-IV" (NCDEM 1993). Sandy Creek and Mill Creek are also rated "WS-IV." This
classification means these are "waters protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted ... ; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharges are required;
suitable for all Class C uses" (NCDEM 1993). No NPDES dischargers are located in Hartley,
Sandy or Mill Creeks (NCDEM 1994).
No BMAN sites exist in the vicinity (NCDEM 1991), and no waters are designated "High
Quality Waters" or "Outstanding Resource Waters" (NCDEM 1993). Upstream of the project site,
Sandy Creek flows through pastures where livestock have direct access to the creek. Algae
observed in Sandy Creek and Mill Creek give evidence that livestock wastes may be affecting
water quality. Hartley Creek does not show such evidence.
2.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Using off-site detours during construction under either proposed alternative means potential
impacts to water quality will be minimal. Bridge demolition and replacement, if best management
practices are followed, should have little effect on the observed characteristics. Of the two
alternatives, number (2) would create less disturbance because it would avoid a channel change in
Hartley Creek. Therefore, replacing the existing structure with a three barrel 10'x9' reinforced
concrete box culvert designed to accommodate the Sandy Creek confluence and avoid a channel
realignment is preferred.
Alternative (1) would require relocating about 30 in (98 ft) of Hartley Creek, shifting its
confluence with Sandy Creek about 10 in (33 ft) upstream. This realignment of would entail
considerable clearing of streamside vegetation, excavation of highly erodible alluvial soil,
placement of riprap to stabilize the new banks, and reestablishment of suitable vegetation. Such
activity is prone to increase silt loads downstream and potentially further degrade conditions in this
water supply-rated stream.
2.2 Soils
The Davidson County Soil Survey (Hardison and Brinkley 1917) indicates that soil on either
bank adjacent to Hartley Creek is Congoree silt loam. This soil, typically found along all creeks in
Davidson County, is alluvial in origin, "consisting of reworked Piedmont materials" (Hardison and
Brinkley 1917). Occupying about 7.3 percent of the county, it occurs in strips ranging in width
from 30.5 in (100 ft) to 0.8 km (0.5 mi). "The topography is level and all the type is subject to
overflows during ordinarily heavy rains. Most of it is sufficiently well drained to be used for
agriculture. Many swampy areas have been reclaimed by straightening the stream channels and
constructing open ditches" (Hardison and Brinkley 1917).
3.0 Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities that occur
at the B-2537 project site. It also discusses possible impacts to these resources as a result of
proposed actions.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities.
Terrestrial vegetation within the project area varies considerably. North of Hartley and Mill
Creeks the land has been cleared for agriculture, except for the roadsides and a narrow strip of
natural, but degraded bottomland forest about 45 in (148 ft) wide along Hartley, Sandy, and Mill
Creeks. At the north end of the project area, a small grove of trees screens a house from SR 1183.
South of Mill and Hartley Creeks the land is forested with bottomland hardwoods that grade
upslope into oak-hickory, except along the roadsides. In addition, a powerline parallels SR 1183
on the west side, and recently before the time of the field investigation, the vegetation under the
JB-2537 5 July 18, 1994
powerline had been completely cleared. At the extreme south end of the project area, the land has
also been cleared for agriculture and several homesties.
3.1.1 Floral Communities.
Three floral communities occur within the project area: Bottomland Hardwood,
Oak-Hickory, and Roadside. The Bottomland Hardwood community occurs in a narrow strip
along both sides of Hartley, Sandy, and Mill Creeks. Bottomland hardwood is the least common
of the three communities, occupying about 8 percent of the study area. This community is roughly
similar to the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest of Schafale and Weakley (1990) or the
Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm community of Eyre (1980), except that shade-loving
wildflowers have been replaced by coarse, somewhat weedy, wildflowers owing to disturbance.
In addtion, many woody plants consist of multiple-stemmed sprout clumps--the result of periodic
cutting.
Bottomland Hardwoods. The overstory of the Bottomland hardwood community contains
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nig_ra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), boxelder (Acer ne ug ndo), black willow (Salix nigra), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), and yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The presence of
yellow-poplar and black cherry indicate moist, but well-drained soil. Dominance of the overstory
averages 27 m2/ha (120 ft2/ac), a figure lower than normal for this community owing to periodic
disturbance. The shrub layer contains common blackberry (Rubus argutus), smooth sumac Rhus
lg abra), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), pasture rose (Rosa carolina), silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Instead of the typical shade-tolerant species, the ground layer contains species adapted to
high light levels, owing to the large amount of edge effect. The ground layer includes poison-ivy
(Rhus radican s), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), greenbrier (Smilax glauca), summer grape (Viti i
aestivalis), panic grass (Panicum sp.) wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), jewelweed (Impatiens
ca ensis , knotweed (Polyg-onum sp.), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), ironweed Vernonia
noveboracensis), horse-nettle (Solanum carolinense), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis),
Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), pokeweed (Phvtolacca americana), common fescue
(Festuca elatior), Japanese grass (Microstegium virmineum), begger-lice (Bidens sp.), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium plat ny euron), and false-nettle (Boehmeria cy_lindri
caJ.
Foliar cover of the ground layer averages 90 percent, but frequency among individual
species varies greatly. Panic grass, common blackberry, and Japanese grass dominate the
community, providing about 40 percent of the total foliar cover. The other species listed above,
represented by as few as one individual, provide the remaining 50 percent.
Oak-Hickory. The Oak-Hickory community occupies about 19 percent of the study area. It
occurs upslope of the Bottomland hardwood community. The boundary between these two
communities occurs about where dominance of sweetgum, sycamore, and river birch is replaced
by white oak (Quercus alba) and yellow-poplar. The Oak-Hickory community is similar to the
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest of Schafale and Weakley (1990) or the Shortleaf Pine-Oak Type of
Eyre (1980), except that the understory is less well-developed. The overstory contains white oak,
yellow-poplar, northern red oak (Quercus rubra), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata), and pignut hickory (Carya lg abra). Since this community will not be impacted by
the proposed project, it is not described further.
Roadside. The Roadside community occurs along SR 1183. It occupies about 6 percent of
the project area, and it contains disturbance-tolerant species, many of which are non-native.
Roadside communities contain a single layer of vegetation; no true overstory or understory exists.
It has not been systematically researched, and no published vegetation studies exist.
The Roadside community, where foliar cover averages 80 percent, contains poison-ivy,
Japanese honeysuckle, wild lettuce, common fescue, horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), plantain
B-2537
July 18, 1994
(Plantao lanceolata), panic grass, (Panicum sp.), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemesiifolia), rye
grass (Lolium multiflorum), sheep-sorrel (Rumex acetosella), wild onion Allium sp.),
broomsedge (AndEWgon vir ing ius), and orchard grass. The Roadside community is frequently
disturbed by mowing that reduces total plant height and increases the dominance of grasses.
3.1.2 Faunal Communities
The interspersion of agricultural and remnant forest habitat limits the variety of wildlife to
species tolerant of human activity. Few indicators of wildlife were observed on site.
Small mammals typical of the developed Piedmont are likely residents of the surrounding
terrestrial habitat. Species such as gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern chipmunks
Tamias striatus , opossums (Didephis vir iniana , and southern short-tailed shrews (Blarina
carolinensis) are common in such areas. However, raccoon (Procyon lotor tracks were the only
signs observed in the mud flats along the streams.
Songbird calls were heard in the surrounding forest remants and, again, were indicative of
populations tolerating development and frequent habitat disturbance. Calls from American robins
Turdus migratorius), Mockingbirds (Mimus 1 lottus , Gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis),
Brown thrashers (Toxostoma rufum , American redstarts (Septophaga ruticilla , Cardinals
(Cardinal cardinalis , common grackles ( uiscalus uiscalus and Yellow-breasted chats (Icteria
virens were distinguished. Cavity trees were not observed, probably a fact related to the evidence
of frequent disturbance cited above.
The area did not appear to be exceptional herptile habitat, though the riparian zone
undoubtedly harbors common species of frogs and perhaps a few salamanders. The absence of
wetland habitat and significant amounts of dead and downed woody material limits such
populations.
3.2 Aquatic Communities.
No rooted aquatic plants were observed, but rush (Juncus sp.), sedge Carex sp.), and
knotweed (Polygonum sp., possibly P. hvdropiperoides) grow at the edge of the creek bank. The
latter species grows into the water, forming adventitious roots at submerged nodes, and it also
colonizes small sand/gravel bars in Mill Creek.
Mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.) and a variety of aquatic insects were observed in the creeks,
but no mussels and few signs of larger aquatic species were noted.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Two construction alternatives have been identified: (1) replacement with a bridge that would
require relocation of Hartley Creek near its confluence with Sandy Creek, or (2) replacement with a
three-barrel concrete box culvert that would not require relocation of Hartley Creek. Both
alternatives would utilize a road closing with off-site detour, so construction of temporary detours
is not an issue.
As noted above (§ 3.1.1), the oak-hickory community will not be disturbed, and the total
area expected to be directly affected by construction under either alternative is only about 0.2 ha
(0.5 ac). Additional paving along approaches to the new structure will permanently impact
approximately 111.5 m2 (1200 ft2), which will come from the Roadside floral community. The
amount of impact to the bottomland hardwood community will depend upon which alternative is
selected.
Channelization (Alt. 1) would completely disrupt 0.16 ha (0.4 ac) of the Bottomland
hardwood community along Hartley and Sandy Creeks, disturbing plants adjacent to the bridge
and channelized portion of Hartley Creek by cutting and trampling. The rush, sedge, and
knotweed plants along the creek banks and on sand/gravel bars of Mill Creek will be partly or
completely smothered by sediment produced from channelization. Even though this community is
B-2537
July 18, 1994
already seriously degraded, it has established some stability in species composition and ecosystem
function. Among other things, stability has been effective in limiting the direct impact of rain drops
on soil, overland water flow, and creek bank sediment provided to Hartley, Sandy, and Mill
Creeks. Channelization will remove all stability, and the ecosystem would require 3-6 years to
recover to pre-construction stability levels. If rip-rap is used to help stabilize the new creek bank, a
different floral community might ultimately develop, although the information on communities
developing on rip-rap is extremely limited.
Avoiding channelization, Alternative (2) would only affect a very small area immediately
around the existing bridge and access needed during construction of a box culvert. Vegetation
immediately surrounding the bridge will be disturbed by cutting and trampling. Disruption of the
bottomland hardwood community would total less than 0.04 ha (0.1 ac). Since the level of
disturbance caused by the second alternative is relatively minor, the vegetation should recover to
pre-construction conditions in 2-3 years.
The important environmental difference between the first and second alternative is the scale of
system disruption. The first alternative completely destroys the affected bottomland ecosystem,
whereas the second alternative only temporarily disturbs it. Thus, from an environmental
perspective, the second alternative is very much the favored construction alternative.
No permanent adverse impacts to plant populations are expected from the proposed project,
since (1) all species observed are common with adequate populations outside of the impact area
(see Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2), (2) most plants are weedy and many are non-native, and (3) all
communities within the impact area are already considerably degraded and no prime-quality or
unique situations exist. Wildlife populations will be affected to the extent that habitat is removed,
but none of the species believed to frequent this area will be permanently adversely affected by the
proposed action.
4.0 Special Topics
4.1 Waters of the US: Jurisdictional Issues
Alternative (1) would realign approximately 30 m (100 ft) of Hartley Creek to protect the
road embankment and bridge foundations from erosive effects of high stream flows. This
channelization of Hartley Creek could lead to slight alterations in the proximal hydrology.
Alternative (2) would avoid this action and confine activity to the small area immediately disturbed
during box culvert construction.
No wetland occurs in Hartley, Sandy, or Mill Creeks.
4.1.1 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
Assuming Best Management Practices are used, the long-term impacts to the streambeds and
biota in them would be minimal. Short-term disruption, however, would be severe due to
excavation, equipment traffic, placement of stabilizing riprap, and the interim potential for sediment
loading downstream.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 should be applicable to project B-.
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 nor cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. A North
Carolina Department Divisiorrof Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (1665) Water
Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
J3-2537 8 July 18, 1994
4.1.3 Avoidance; Minimization, Mitigation
Project B-2537 does not involve any wetland beyond the bank to bank impact area.
Placement of a culvert will minimize construction disturbance.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to federally
protected plants and animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the case of
state-funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be required, for example, the
USFWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any
endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS
has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a
protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise
jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect
certain plants and animals where statewide populations are in decline.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is the only species identified as
endangered or threatened in Davidson County. Schweinitz's sunflower generally occurs in full
sun or light shade in low-density stands dominated by oaks, pines, and hickories. Chestnut oak
Quercus prinus), scarlet oak Q. coccinea , black oak Q. velutina , blackjack oak Q.
marilandica), post oak Q. stellata , shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), pignut hickory (CMa glabra),
sand hickory (C. allida , and mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa are typical overstory species,
whereas pinelands threeawn (Aristida stricta), little bluestem (Andropo og n scoparius), panic grass
(Panicum sp.), blazing star (Liatris spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), aster (Aster spp.), bracken
fern (Pteridium aq_uilinum), and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) are common understory species.
These stands are typically bi-layered, maintained by occasionally surface fires that limit lower
canopy and shrub development. In addition, Schweinitz's sunflower may occur in the Roadside
community, where periodic mowing, but not herbiciding, roughly approximates the open
conditions of fire-maintained forests.
Typical forest habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower does not occur within the area impacted by
construction, although the Roadside community occurs. In September, 1993, biologists from
NCDOT surveyed the project area for Schweinitz's sunflower, but they did not observe it.
During the current field reconnaissance, roadsides were again searched for Schweinitz's
sunflower, but it was also not observed. Even though the current survey was conducted in early
summer, before the flowering season, Schweinitz's sunflower would have been identifiable, due
to its characteristic opposite, sessile-subsessile, somewhat revolute leaves with strigose-tomentose
undersides--a character combination not common among herbaceous plants.
Biological Conclusion. The proposed project will have no effect on Schweinitz's
sunflower.
4.2.2. State Protected Species.
Prairie birdfoot-trefoil (Lotus helleri, also called Lotus purshianus var. helleri is a species
which shows evidence4 declining population levels, and this species has been seen in Davidson
County (Radford et al. 1968). Prairie birdfoot-trefoil typically occurs in uplands in open
oak--hickory stands on basic or circumneutral soils. Typical overstory species include white oak
Quercus alba), post oak Quercus stellata), southern red oak Quercus falcat , black oak uercus
velutina , shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and pignut
hickory (Car, lg_abra). The understory contains flowering dogwood (Cornus florid a), redbud
(Cercis canadensis), maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), and arrowwood (Viburnum
rafinesquianum). The ground layer includes Solomon's seal (Polygonatum biflorum) and bellwort
(Uvularia perfoliata). The somewhat open understory of this community is probably maintained by
periodic fires.
B-2537 9 July 18, 1994
The oak-hickory community is present within the study area, but it does not occur in the area
to be impacted by construction. Therefore typical habitat for Prairie birdfoot-trefoil will not be
impacted. This species could possibly occur on roadsides, where mowing roughly approximates
the open understory, caused by periodic fires. Nevertheless, Prairie birdfoot-trefoil was not
observed during the field investigation, which was conducted at the beginning of the flowering
season for this species. In addition, records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
indicate no known populations of Prairie birdfoot-trefoil in the project area.
4.2.3. Federal Candidate Species.
Prairie birdfoot-trefoil has been identified as a candidate for federal protection (C-2), and this
species has been observed in Davidson County. As explained in Section 4.2.2, habitat occurs in
the study area but not in the area to be impacted by the proposed project.
4.2.2 State Protected Species
A review of NC Natural Heritage Program office records concerning state-protected species
revealed no records of specimens or other concerns either at this site or within reasonable
proximity.
4.2.5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Action at the B-2537 project site will have no impact on federally or state-protected species.
5.0 References
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1992. A guide for visually assessing crown densities of
loblolly and shortleaf pines. USDA, Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note SE-352. 4 p.
Dilworth, J. R. and J. F. Bell. 1986. Log scaling and timber cruising. O. S. U. Book Stores,
Inc., Corvallis, OR. 468 p.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.
Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types. Soc. Amer. For. Washington, D.C. 148 p.
Hardison, R.B. and L.L. Brinkley. 1917. Soil Survey of Davidson County, North Carolina.
USDA Bureau of Soils. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 39 p.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic
macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990. NC
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt., Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. Env Health
and Natl. Res., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1994. Miniature Subbasin Files. Correspondence from M. Toler-McCullen, Instream
Assessment Unit, Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. Env. Health and Natl.
Res., Raleigh, NC.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 p.