19990127 Ver 1_Complete File_19990212

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
February 24, 1999
Richmond and Montgomery Counties
WQC 401 Project # 990127
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 2520
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 0.5 acres of wetlands or
waters for the purpose of replacing bridge # 131 as you described in your application dated February 12, 1999. 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 the Corps of Engineers issues it. 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 send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. 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. 27611-7447. 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 Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Pr on Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
.-Mr. John Dorney ;
Central Files 990127.1tr
Division of Water Duality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 500/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper

s

Z
s t= :? : S
4011SSIT"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
January 15, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890gB
Attention: Mr. Scott Mclendon/Dave Timpy, WETL41?g S GROUP
OALITY SECTION
NCDOT Coordinator VdATE„Q._-
E. NoRRIs TOLSON
SECRETARY
KENT
REM N
Subject: Richmond/Montgomery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 131 over Big
Mountain Creek on SR 1153; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1153(4); State
Project No. 8.2580601; TIP No. B-3027.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document for the subject
property prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and signed by
the Federal Highway Administration on August 11, 1997. The project involves replacing Bridge
No. 131 over Big Mountain Creek on SR 1153. One change has been made in the project since
completion of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) in 1997. The existing bridge was to be replaced
with a reinforced triple barreled concrete box to the north, identified as Alternate 2 (see Figure 2
in the referenced document). Due to there being considerable evidence of beaver activity in the
project area, the structure will be changed to a cored slab bridge instead of a culvert. This will
reduce the possibility for the beavers to cause a maintenance problem at the project site, and will
reduce the disturbance to the creek during construction. There will be no new/additional
environmental consequences (see attached Project Environmental Consultation Form). Approach
work improvements are also necessary. During construction traffic will be maintained by
utilizing the existing bridge across Big Mountain Creek. There will be <0.2 ha (<0.5ac.) of
wetlands impacted by the proposed work. This project is scheduled to be let to construction in
November 1999.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). A copy o
11 document has been attached to this letter.
The NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a ection 04 Individual Permit but proposes to
proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Per it 23 i accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A
(B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the Corp ngineers (COE). The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.

2
The NCDOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. A copy of the CE document has also been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
In summary the DOT is also requesting authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 23 to replace Bridge No. 131 over Big Mountain Fork Creek. Comments from the WRC
on this bridge replacement are requested. The DOT also asks for 401 Water Quality
Certification from the DWQ to replace the existing bridge.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Jared
Gray at [phone], Extension 329.
Sincerely,
W. D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
wdg/jg
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W.F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E., Bridge Replacement Unit
I
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
I. D. No. B-3027
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase: Right-of-Way
b. Project Description: Richmond/Montgomery Counties, Bridge No. 131 on
SR 1153 over Big Mountain Creek
C. State Project: 8.2580601
Federal Project: BRZ-1153(4)
d. Document Type: Categorical Exclusion 8/11/97
Date
II. CONCLUSIONS
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771. It
was determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the original proposed
action. Proposed changes, if any, are noted below in Section III. It has been determined that
anticipated social, economic, and environmental-impacts were-accurately described in the above
referenced document(s) unless noted otherwise herein. Therefore, the original Administration
Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES
One change has been made in the project since completion of the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) in 1997. The replacement structure is shown to be a culvert in the CE. Due to there being
considerable evidence of beaver activity in the project area. the structure will be changed to ay
cored slab bridge. This will reduce the possibility for the beavers to cause a maintenance problem
at the project site, will reduce the disturbance to the creek during construction, and will not
significantly effect the project cost. There will be no new/additional environmental
consequences.
IV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and properly
maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Once construction of the new structure and approaches are complete, the existing bridge
will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
V. COORDINATION
Planning and Environmental Branch personnel have discussed current project proposals
with others as follows:
Design Engineer: Brenda Moore 10/6/98
Date
FHWA Engineer: Not Required
Date
Permits Section: Not Required
(Construction Consultations Only) Date
VI. NCDOT CONCURRENCE
ILA)
Project Planning Engineer Date
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch Date
VII. FHWA CONCURRENCE
Not Required
Federal Highway Administration Date
Division Administration

Richmond/Montgomery Counties,
Bridge No. 131 on SR 1153
Over Big Mountain Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1153(4)
State Project 8.2580601
TIP Project B-3027
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
8- 6 q7
Date
-1-7/47
Date

H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

icholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
1.
Richmond/Montgomery Counties,
Bridge No. 131 on SR 1153
Over Big Mountain Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1153(4)
State Project 8.2580601
TIP Project B-3027
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August 1997
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
-// - 71 XJ- (... _ //_ R- L -
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
l?/4 y,? 8--6-97
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

9- K'- 97
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
VV
?.? ? •?OFESS/p •.•q ?;
SEAL = -
z• 210 -
• ate=
?rrru 010

Richmond/Montgomery Counties,
Bridge No. 131 on SR 1153
Over Big Mountain Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1153(4)
State Project 8.2580601
TIP Project B-3027
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 131 on the Richmond and Montgomery County line. This bridge carries SR 1153 over Big
Mountain Creek (see Figure 1). NCDOT includes this bridge in the 1998-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) classify this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies
expect no notable environmental impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 131 on new alignment, to the north of the existing
bridge, as shown in Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a reinforced
concrete box culvert. The culvert will be a triple barreled culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0
meters (10 feet) by 2.1 meters (7 feet). The approach roadway will consist of a 6.0 meter (20
foot) travelway and a total shoulder width of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). The new roadway will
be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. The completed project will provide
a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph). Traffic will be maintained on the existing
roadway during construction.
The estimated cost is $ 339,000 including $ 14,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 325,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1998-2004 TIP is $ 260,000.
H. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT is not expected to need any design exceptions for this project.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and properly
maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.

A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Once construction of the new culvert and approaches are complete, the existing bridge
will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1153 as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The surrounding area is primarily wooded with a scattering of homes and
small farms mixed in.
Near Bridge No. 131, SR 1153 is a two lane paved road, 5.0 meters (16 feet) wide with
grassed shoulders. The vertical alignment in the area is good, however the horizontal alignment
is poor in the immediate area.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 131 in 1952. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a
timber deck with steel I-beam girders. The abutments are made of rubble masonry. The deck of
Bridge No. 131 is 3.0 meters (10 feet) above the streambed. Water depth is approximately 1.2
meters (4.0 feet) in the project area. The bridge is 11.9 meters (39 feet) long with a 5.8 meter (19
foot) roadway width. It carries two lanes of traffic and is currently posted at 13 tons for single
vehicles and at 17 tons for Truck-tractor Semi-trailer (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 131
is 34.0 of a possible 100.0.
The current traffic volume is 120 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to 300 VPD by the
design year (2020). No speed limit is posted in the project area, therefore it is assumed to be 55
mph by statute.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate one accident was reported in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 131 between May 1, 1992 and April 30, 1995.
The Richmond and Montgomery County School Bus Transportation Coordinators have
indicated that there is one school bus using this route. Detouring traffic off-site would create
some inconvenience, but would not cause problems in school bus operations.
2
V. ALTERNATES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 131 were studied. All other possible alternates can
be eliminated either from an economic standpoint or due to environmental impacts.
Alternate One - replace the bridge in the existing location with a triple barreled reinforced
concrete box culvert. Each barrel of this culvert will measure 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 2.1
meters (7 feet). Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads.
Alternate Two (Recommended) - replace the bridge on new alignment to the north of the
existing bridge with a triple barreled reinforced concrete box culvert. Each barrel of this
culvert will measure 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 2.1 meters (7 feet). Traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate Two is recommended because it replaces Bridge No. 131 on an alignment that
meets an acceptable design speed of 80 kph (50 mph). Alternate One would have a design speed
of approximately 50 kph (30 mph), which is not acceptable.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Misc. & Mob.
Engineering & Contingencies
Total Construction
Right of Way & Utilities
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Alternate One Alternate Two
Recommended
$ 65,000 $ 65,000
132,000 165,000
6,000 6,000
31,000 36,000
41,000 53,000
275,000 325,000
16,000 14,000
$ 291,000 $ 339,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 131 on new alignment, to the north of the existing
bridge, as shown in Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a reinforced
concrete box culvert. The culvert will be a triple barreled culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0
meters (10 feet) by 2.1 meters (7 feet). The approach roadway will consist of a 6.0 meter (20
foot) travelway, and a total shoulder width of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). The new roadway will
be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. The approach roadway will extend
a distance of approximately 200 meters (650 feet) on each side of the proposed structure. The
completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph).
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it is the most reasonable and feasible alternate
for replacing Bridge No. 131. Alternate 2 improves the alignment of SR 1153 in the area of the
Big Mountain Creek crossing, does not have significant environmental impacts, and allows
traffic to be maintained on-site.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing Bridge No. 131 on new alignment to
the north of the existing bridge, with traffic maintained on the existing bridge during
construction, would be acceptable.
Construction of Alternate 2 will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain
or associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be increased by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches).
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this type and magnitude.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
4
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area.
B. Architectural and Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are no known
architectural or archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown sites are likely to be
found. Therefore, SHPO has recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys be
conducted in connection with this project.
C. Natural Systems
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project area lies within a Triassic Basin in the Chatham Group. Sandstone and
mudstone are the predominant rock types. Metamorphic rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt occur
just due east of the project area.
Physiography and Soils
and Richmond Counties is located in the Piedmont
The project in Montgomery
physiographic region in south-central North Carolina. The landscape is mostly gently rolling
except for a broad floodplain around Big Mountain Creek. Major drainageways are dendritic.
The floodplain in the project vicinity is one of the largest in the project region. Almost all of the
project area is in the floodplain. The elevation at Big Mountain Creek is about 113 meters (370
feet). The highest elevation in the project area is about 119 meters (390 feet), and the highest
elevations in the project vicinity approximate 152 meters (500 feet).
The soils of the project vicinity are virtually all in the Chewacla loam soil series. These
are very deep floodplain soils that are somewhat poorly drained, but moderately permeable. They
form in recent alluvium on first bottoms. Slopes range from 0-2%, and they are frequently
flooded. In the western part of the project area there is a very small section of the upland Peawick
fine sandy loam soil; this soil occurs on 2-6% slopes.
No hydric soils are mapped in the project area or vicinity. However, the Chewacla series
is listed as a soil unit that may have hydric soil inclusions or wet spots. The hydric Wehadkee
soil may occur in depressions and adjoining upland sideslopes.
Waters Impacted
The project vicinity lies in sub-basin 03-07-10 of the lower drainage area of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The sub-basin includes stream systems on both sides of the Pee
5
Dee River. There are eight sub-basins in this drainage area which encompasses 4506 kin (2,639
mil) (NCDEHNR 1988).
All drainage from the project area flows ultimately into Big Mountain Creek. The
affected stream reach on Big Mountain Creek is water resource Index No. 13-28-1-(0.5)
(NCDEHNR 1993). Big Mountain Creek flows in a southerly direction and is joined by Little
Mountain Creek to form Mountain Creek which enters Blewett Falls Lake on the Pee Dee River
approximately 22 kilometers (14 miles) downstream.
Silver Creek is a perennial stream paralleling SR 1153 adjacent to the project area and
joining Big Mountain Creek on the southeast side. The project area is aligned perpendicular to
Big Mountain Creek and parallel to Silver Creek.
There are no other small or large perennial or intermittent streams in the project area.
There is one wet ditch near the bridge on the southwest side and two dry ditches on the east side.
Big Mountain Creek and Silver Creek will receive all of the runoff from the roadway and
construction activity.
A large wetland complex occurs near the junction of Silver Creek and Big Mountain
Creek. Silver Creek does not have a well-defined channel; it consists of several meandering
channels that eventually unite and enter Big Mountain Creek. Much of this wetland system
appears to be the result of extensive beaver activity in this otherwise low part of the floodplain.
Big Mountain Creek in the project area is an entrenched stream about 6 meters (20 feet)
in width and from 15-30 centimeters (6-12 inches) in depth. The banks are 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4
feet) in height. The substrate is silt and mud with occasional rocks. Some mud bars are present.
At the time of the site visits, the water was clear and the current was moderate. There is a lot of
woody debris in the stream, some of it is old beaver cuttings.
Fish (1968) describes Big Mountain Creek both above and below SR 1153. Below SR
1153, the stream is referred to as a "typical medium-size Piedmont stream." It is further
.described as having an average width of 3 meters (10 feet) in the "robin-warmouth" ecological
classification. Such streams have moderately abundant pools; minimum flows from 0-50 cfs;
warm summer temperatures; varying turbidity; and sand, muck, and silt bottoms. The deeper
pools in this section are said to provide "good fishing for various sunfishes." The upper section
above SR 1153 is described by Fish as headwaters "too small to be of fishing significance."
Bet Usage Classification
Big Mountain Creek is classified as a Class "C" stream (NCDEHNR 1993). The same
classificati6n is also given to all other nearby tributaries in the project vicinity. These are
"freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and
survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1996). This is the lowest freshwater classification; all
6
freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. All unclassified tributaries carry the same
classification as the streams to which they are tributary.
There are no High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
"WS-I," or "WS-II" water supply watersheds located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the
proposed project.
Water Quality
There are no chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical or
benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] available for Big Mountain Creek or any of its
tributaries in the watershed or in this part of the sub-basin on the east side of the Pee Dee River
(NCDEHNR 1988, 1989, 1991, 1994). There is only one monitoring station in the entire
sub-basin; it is across the river in Anson County.
There are no metropolitan areas or large towns in the sub-basin; consequently, there are
no dischargers in the sub-basin with permitted flows greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD
(NCDEHNR 1988, 1989, 1991).
The water quality in this lower section of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin is rated
"Good-Fair" based on data from a station on the Pee Dee River near Rockingham (NCDEHNR
1994). Blewett Falls Lake is considered eutrophic, and non-point origins are the greatest sources
of pollution (NCDEHNR 1994). There are no data indicating whether streams support their
designated uses. _
nticinated Waler Resource Impacts
Water resources can be impacted by construction activity. Significant pollution
discharges are possible when roads, culverts, and bridges are constructed. Construction impacts
can degrade waters, with pollutants and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological
and chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to
discharges and inputs deriving from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid
spillage, control runoff, and reduce or eliminate stream disturbances. These measures must
include an erosion and sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm
water management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management
Practices should be employed consistently.
Table 1 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts. Big Mountain Creek will
be impacted by both alternates. Silver Creek will also be impacted by in-place replacement.
There will be some impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, primarily on-site. Even though the
project area lies within a large floodplain, most sites within the construction area do not meet the
definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Most of the impact will be on downstream off site wetlands.
7
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of Big Mountain Creek, certainly
not much more than it has already been modified through past construction of the existing
bridge. Streams can be crossed effectively with appropriately designed and placed bridges and
culverts. Careful design should avoid the necessity of any stream relocation. Erosion control
measures will be necessary to protect the river, and all in-stream activities should be scheduled
during low flow periods. When the old bridge is removed, similar precautions will be necessary
to reduce potential impacts.
Table Water Resources Potential Impacts
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Big Mountain Creek, crossing
[ca 6 m (20 ft) width] <0.1 ha (<O.1 acre) <0.1 ha (<O.1 acre)
Silver Creek, parallel 30 m (100 ft) None
[length outside R/Wl
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that protects
streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in species composition
will modify affected stream reaches. Sediment deposition will adversely affect aquatic
organisms.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general vegetation in
and near the project study area. The natural vegetation of most of the project area would be
classified as Piedmont Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). However, the natural
vegetation has been modified by extensive past logging, road construction and maintenance, and
through hydrological modification by beaver. No parts of the study area exist in mature
condition. Successional communities and second-growth forests are widespread. There is a vast
recently clear-cut area in the project vicinity on the northwest side of the project area.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, the following communities are recognized
in the project area: Young Alluvial Hardwoods-Wet Phase, Young Alluvial Hardwoods-Dry
Phase, Young Pine Plantation, Late Successional Mixed Pine/Hardwoods, Thickets, Marsh, Wet
Ditches and Stream Zone. The land surface areas existing as Maintained Roadside and paved
Roadway are also recognized.
Communities and land types are described below, and acreage estimates for each
classification are given in Table 2. Most of the land potentially impacted in the project area is
Young Alluvial Hardwood Forest and Maintained Roadside.
Natural Communities
Young Alluvial Hardwood Forest-Wet Phase. Red maple and river birch are the most
abundant trees, but black willow and willow oak commonly occur. Titi and smooth winterberry
are common shrubs. Common greenbrier and trumpet creeper are frequent vines, but grape and
yellow jessamine are also present. The herbaceous layer is rather sparse, with royal fern,
tick-trefoil, and sedges most commonly occurring. Other herbs present are false nettle,
Jack-in-the-pulpit, smartweed, arrow-head, and bugleweed. Sphagnum moss is also present.
Young Alluvial Hardwood Forest-Dry Phase. This community is part of, and
contiguous to, the Wet Phase described above. It is slightly more diverse than the Wet Phase,
containing somewhat different species or with different importance for the same species. There
are wet spots within the community, but hydric soils are not present. River birch is dominant,
probably reflecting a successional condition from former clearance. Common trees include red
maple, willow oak, ironwood, tuliptree, and American holly. Arrow-wood is a common to
abundant shrub. Other common and frequently occurring shrubs are Chinese privet, farkleberry,
and silky dogwood. Vines are abundant, including trumpet creeper, common greenbrier, grape,
muscadine, Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper, and crossvine. Herbaceous plants are not
abundant. Those herbs present include goldenrods, greenhead coneflower, clearweed, false nettle,
virgin's bower, jewelweed, Jack-in-the-pulpit, lizard's tail, Japanese grass, sensitive fern, and
lady fern.
Young Pine Plantation. This is a small-statured community with loblolly pine as the
clear dominant on slightly higher terrain. Various hardwoods are frequent associates, including
red maple, sweetgum, and willow oak. Shrubs have low importance value, but blackberry and
winged sumac are the most common. Virginia creeper is an abundant vine, followed in
importance by trumpet creeper and poison ivy. Herbs are not important, but goldenrods occur
most commonly.
Late Successional Mixed Pine/Hardwood. Loblolly pine is common to abundant, and
the hardwoods of the area are common in this community. This community is also on higher
terrain. Black gum was the only different hardwood tree noted. The shrubs and herbs are
essentially similar to the Young Pine Plantation, however, pipsissewa was also noted in this
community.
Thickets. This community type is developed around the bridge and adjacent to the
maintained roadside on the southeastern side of the road. Thickets vary from wet to dry
depending on the particular location. Transgressives of the forest trees, blackberry, goldenrods,
and witchgrasses are abundant in this community. Swamp rose, alder, buttonbush, yellow
jessamine, and lady fern are common in these thickets.
_. Some shrub thickets are also developed within the context of the Young Alluvial
Hardwoods community. These are virtually impenetrable and include blackberry, pokeweed,
Chinese privet, and common greenbrier.
9
Marsh. An extensive scrub-shrub and emergent wetland is developed in the project
vicinity on the southeast side of the project area. The project area includes a very small part of
the marshy edge of the north side of this wetland. The wetland system appears to occur in broad
depressions associated with Silver Creek, and has probably been enhanced by beaver activity.
Herbaceous species that occur abundantly in this community are lamp rush and bulrush.
Common herbs are flatsedges, burreed, seedbox, and smartweeds. The shrubs and small trees
present in this wetland system are frequent river birch and black willow and infrequent alder,
silky dogwood, and red maple.
Wet Ditches. Ditches occur within several of the other communities, but particularly
within the maintained roadside on the eastern side of the bridge. Many of the herbaceous species
of the Marsh community occur in these ditches, particularly burreed. Some other taxa also
present or common include lady fern, taper-tip rush, shallow sedge, fringed sedge, and plume
grass.
Stream Zone. The streambanks have a distinctive vegetation. Silky dogwood,
arrow-wood, and yellowroot are abundant on the streambanks. This community includes the
stream itself, but the stream contains no vegetation.
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low state of succession by
regular mowing or bush-hogging. The community is variously grass or herb dominated,
depending on the location, but Japanese honeysuckle and sericea were common in spots. The
berm areas are the most regularly maintained, while roadbanks away from the berm are
maintained less frequently. The most abundant grasses included crabgrass, Bermuda grass, and
annual fescue, but other unidentified grasses were also abundant. Bushclover was the most
abundant forb. Other common forbs were partridge pea, buttonweed, horseweed, and ragweed.
Wet ditches occur throughout much of this community as noted previously.
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area without
special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through habitat
evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect
evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating the expected fauna of a
given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available and
the human population density and development, are given below. Those taxa actually observed in
the field or for which direct evidence was seen are noted with an asterisk (*) in the text.
There is moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area, but the animal diversity is
expected to be considerably enhanced by additional habitat types present in the vicinity. The
habitat type of greatest extent consists of young second-growth alluvial hardwood communities,
10
both in the project area and in the vicinity. An important and large habitat adjacent to the project
area is a wetland complex consisting of a mosaic of scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands. A large
clear-cut tract adjacent to the project area on the north side provides significant habitat. There is
only one small older forest area consisting of mixed pine and hardwoods. Of course, Big
Mountain Creek provides substantial aquatic habitat. Many of the habitat types are large and
contiguous, though only a small part may be within the project area. Habitat types as units are
generally large and not fragmented. The only open and early successional upland habitats are the
maintained roadsides. Ecotonal zones are not abundant.
Overall, animal diversity is moderately high. The landscape diversity in the area is judged
to be generally good for birds of a variety of habitats, particularly those favoring wetlands and
those requiring the interiors of large unbroken tracts, especially forests. Avian fauna were found
to be abundant, especially those species that utilize forested habitats. There are three small ponds
in the project vicinity, but none in the study area. The distinct array of reptiles, birds and
mammals that frequent lentic environments is not expected to be important in the project area,
but there might be occasional occurrences of these species in the project zone. The low human
development of the vicinity should allow the presence of many species that are intolerant of
human intrusion and that require large expanses of natural communities.
Based on available habitat, animals are here roughly divided into five general groups.
Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
ubiquitous. The specific habitat groups are as follows: more open areas, consisting of
maintained roadside communities; intermediate habitats, consisting of thickets; forest habitats,
consisting of young hardwoods, young pine, and older mixed pine/hardwood; and aquatic and
wet habitats, consisting of the stream, the wet ditches, and marshy areas.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland chorus
frog, and spring peeper. The abundant wetlands in the project area appear to be good habitat for
eastern spadefoot toad, eastern narrowmouth toad, and cricket frogs. *Treefrogs are common,
particularly in the alluvial forest. The two-lined salamander, the eastern newt, and the slimy
salamander are expected in the moist forest habitats. Ambystomid salamanders are expected
because there are likely suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink, rat snake, rough green snake, eastern ribbon snake, earth snake, and copperhead.
The eastern hognosed snake might be expected in some of the more open areas having friable
soils. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include Carolina anole, eastern fence lizard,
eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are
eastern box turtle, ground skink, brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake.
The avifauna that typically characterize open areas are expected to be few in number but
would probably include American kestrel, turkey vulture, *mourning dove, field sparrow,
common grackle, and grasshopper sparrow. Birds in intermediate areas include song sparrow,
brown thrasher, gray catbird, northern mockingbird, American goldfinch, *indigo bunting,
*common yellowthroat, and white-throated sparrow. Forest species include various *wood
11
warblers, *blue-winged warbler, *ovenbird, *wood thrush, tufted titmouse, *pileated
woodpecker, *summer tanager, *great-crested flycatcher, eastern phoebe, *red-eyed vireo,
American redstart, and blue-gray gnatcatcher. Species ranging through many habitats include
*red-shouldered hawk, eastern screech owl, American crow, *northern cardinal, *Carolina wren,
*yellow-billed cuckoo, blue jay, *rufous-sided towhee, *ruby-throated hummingbird, red-bellied
woodpecker, downy woodpecker, *common flicker, and Carolina chickadee. *Green heron and
*belted kingfisher utilize the streams and open wet areas. *Wood ducks were observed flying
over the area, and *Canada geese were heard on one of the nearby ponds. Other ducks may use
the area in winter.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew, least shrew,
long-tailed weasel, eastern harvest mouse, meadow vole, and hispid cotton rat. Those ranging
into forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are southern short-tailed shrew, eastern
mole, striped skunk, gray fox, white-footed mouse, and eastern cottontail. Species usually
shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and forested areas, include opossum and golden
mouse. Several species of bats, such as eastern pipistrelle, Seminole bat, and red bat are expected
to be common, foraging over the streams and forests. Species that occur mostly in forests include
raccoon, gray squirrel, and evening bat. Muskrat and mink should be common along the ditches
and in riparian areas around the creeks. *Beaver occur in the area. Evidence of white-tailed deer,
a typically mid-successional species, was not observed in the area, however, they should be
expected.
Fish (1968) describes Big Mountain Creek as a "robin-warmouth" stream, such streams
containing robin, various other sunfishes, and creek chub. A number of fish were observed
during the study, including *shellcracker, *robin, *warmouth, and *pumpkinseed. Some
segments of Big Mountain Creek and Silver Creek might support yellow bullhead and creek
chubsucker. Smaller fish that might occur would likely include rosyside dace.
No evidence of crayfish was noted. Adult *dragonflies and *water striders were observed.
The land and community types present in the study area and the surface area of each type
that is potentially affected by direct impact due to project construction are presented in Table 2.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the precision
possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial photographs onto which the
study area and land type and community boundaries were drawn. Wet ditches were not separately
tabulated and are included within the other types.
Construction on new location instead of in-place replacement will potentially impact four
times as much land area, with subsequently greater habitat losses. New location construction will
12
affect approximately 1.08 ha (2.66 acres), while in-place replacement will affect approximately
0.23 ha (0.55 acre). The young alluvial hardwood community type will likely receive the greatest
impacts. There would likely be no wetland forest impacted with in-place construction. There
would be no differences between the two alternates in the amount of stream area affected. Some
of the communities (e.g., maintained roadsides) will re-establish themselves following
construction.
Young Alluvial Hardwoods -Wet None 0.17 (0.42)
Young Alluvial Hardwoods - Dry 0.08 (0.19) 0.33 (0.81)
Young Pine Plantation <0.01 (<0.01) 0.04 (0.10)
Mixed Pine/Hardwoods None 0.11 (0.28)
Thickets 0.01 (0.03) 0.04 (0.10)
Marsh None <0.01 (<0.01)
Stream Zone 0.04 (0.09) 0.04 (0.09)
Maintained Roadside 0.06 (0.15) 0.23 (0.57)
Roadway 0 03 (Q 08) 0.11 (0.28)
TOTAL <0.23 (<0.55) <1.08 (<2.66)
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on the alternate
selected and how much of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction. Habitat losses
would be minimal with in-place replacement, with a reduction only in small part of the edges of
the natural habitat in the project area. Regardless of the alignment selected, there should be no
net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas
such as roadsides. The new location alternate will cause a reduction in the available habitat for
animals that require forest and intermediate habitats.
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change
significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase. The existing
roadway already disrupts natural movements, so bridge replacement will not introduce a
significantly new factor, except during the construction phases of the project.
. Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside right-of-way and construction
limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and injury, placing of fill dirt
over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and skinning of trees by machinery.
With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be avoided.
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It appears that all
construction will-occur either on or adjacent to the existing roadway.
13
Aquatic Systems
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced. Any
culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of movement
for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance and
will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively alter the
stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have negative effects
on sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. Sediment deposition adversely affects
breeding sites and periphyton communities. Stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate are reduced. Many breeding vertebrates and invertebrates and grazing benthic
invertebrates depend on oxygenated substrates. Big Mountain Creek could be impacted in this
way.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff pollution
after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water quality.
Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs. If construction is done
carefully to reduce sediment runoff, there should be no impact to off-site aquatic systems.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters.of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking and by
alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important
because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species; maintenance of
biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping;
shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology; recreation; their
uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases. Highway construction in
wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and regulations. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill materials
into these waters and wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to
33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgment of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine stream system and palustrine wetlands are the jurisdictional
waters present in the study area, to which construction will be limited. All of the alluvial forest in
the project-area does not meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. Some other jurisdictional
wetlands are present downstream of the bridge site and adjacent to the project area. They
potentially will receive inputs from road construction. Direct wetland impacts are given in
Table 3. The amount of wetlands impacted directly by construction is very small. Collectively,
14
the potentially impacted wetlands amount to <0.2 ha (<0.5 acre) on new location and <0.1 ha
(<0.1 acre) with in-place replacement. Surface water impacts are presented in Table 1.
Table 3 Wetland Impacts
I= Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Alluvial hardwood None 0.17 ha (0.42 acre)
Marsh None <0.01 ha (<0.01 acre)
In the NWI system, various classifications are possible for the waters and wetlands in the
project vicinity (Cowardin et al. 1979). Big Mountain Creek is R2UB3H (Riverine, Lower
Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Mud, Permanently Flooded). The alluvial hardwoods that are
wetland are PFO1 A (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded). The
marshy areas are PEM1F (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Semipermanently Flooded), but they
are actually part of a larger mixed shrub and marsh system that is mostly PSSIGb (Palustrine,
Scrub-Shrub, Persistent, Intermittently Exposed, Beaver).
Small wet spots and ditches fall into all of the above categories, except the riverine
system. The ditches are contiguous to other jurisdictional waters. Each area is <0.1 ha (<O.1
acre), and collectively they amount to <0.1 ha (<O.1 acre) for any given alternate. It will be
impossible to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters in project design and construction.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any jurisdictional
wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23
[33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)] should authorize this project. This permit authorizes approved
Categorical Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded from environmental
documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment." Individual or General
Permits are required for situations where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division of
Environmental Management in NCDEHNR is required for construction activity in surface waters
where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to issuance of a 404 permit.
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and a small
amount of palustrine wetlands. There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing Big Mountain
Creek at this point. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. However,
compensatory mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide Permits are authorized,
15
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the COE. If an Individual Permit should be required for the Big Mountain Creek crossing, all
sites (impact areas of surface and wetland waters) may have to be accumulated for mitigation
purposes. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage
culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will
have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and
soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after construction of
banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be disturbed.
Sediment and erosion control measures and borrow locations should not be placed in wetlands.
When the old bridge is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect the waters from
pollution discharges.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT), and
Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of August 23, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reports nine species with one of these classifications for Montgomery and Richmond
Counties (Table 4).
The current status of the_eastern cougar in North Carolina is unclear (Clark 1987). It is
assumed to have been extirpated, but reports of its presence persist. It possibly occurs in some
relatively uninhabited areas with extensive forests where deer are numerous. Montgomery
County, with the Uwharrie National Forest and a large deer herd, is appropriate habitat. The deer
herd in Richmond County is not as large. Definitive evidence of current existence of cougar in
the state does not exist, however. Documented reports have been of escaped or released captive
animals. The project area on the Richmond County line is probably only marginal habitat for the
species. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Though becoming more common in North Carolina, the bald eagle is not expected to
occur in the project vicinity except as a possible transient. It requires mature forests near large
bodies of water for nesting, and it typically utilizes lakes and sounds for nesting and
non-breeding sites. However, about 19-26 kilometers (12-16 miles) west of the project area on
the large reservoirs of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River system, there are significant numbers of
non-nesting eagles and recent reports of some nests. Eagles usually nest in the ecotones between
forest and water, often in large pines, but less than 3.0 kilometers (1.9 miles) from water (Lee
and Parnell 1989). Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature, open pine forests, primarily longleaf
pine forests in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont for breeding (LeGrand 1995). The species favors
large tracts of old pines, suitable for the construction of nesting cavities, in areas having sparse
understory vegetation. The woodpecker has been largely extirpated in most areas outside the
16
southeastern Coastal Plain of North Carolina due to the demise of mature pine forests following
logging and the elimination of fire (Lee and Parnell 1989). Old loblolly pine stands may also be
used (Lee and Parnell 1989). The red-cockaded woodpecker is recorded in the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database at a site in the Uwharrie National Forest approximately 14
kilometers (9 miles) northwest of the project area and other sites probably occur eastward in the
sandhills. Marginal habitat for this species occurs in the project vicinity, but individuals or cavity
trees were not observed. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Table 4. Federally protected species in Montgomery and Richmond Counties, with state
category also given. (M = Montgomery County, R = Richmond County)
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar E E
(M)
Bald eagle
(M)
Red-cockaded woodpecker
(M,R)
American alligator
(R)
Shortnose sturgeon
(R)
Smooth coneflower
(M)
Schweinitz's sunflower
(M)
Rough-leaved loosestrife
(R)
Michaux's sumac
Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E
Picoides borealis E E
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) T
Acipenser brevirostrum E E
Echinacea laevigata E** E-SC
Helianthus schweinitzii E E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia E E
Rhus michauxii E E-SC
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (or in the state); T = Threatened, likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future; SC = Special Concern, requires monitoring. T(S/A) _
Threatened because of similarity of appearance to other rare species and listed to
protect these species.
* * = obscure record.
The American alligator occurs in slightly brackish or fresh waters, in marshes, ponds,
lakes, and rivers. This large distinctive reptile, from 1.8-3.4 meters (5.9-11.0 feet) in North
Carolina, has undergone tremendous recovery in North Carolina and elsewhere. Richmond
County is markedly west of the generally known distributional zone in North Carolina which
covers most of the Coastal Plain north to Albemarle Sound (Scientific Council 1989). The range
has recently been extended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (August 23, 1996) to include
17
Richmond County. Habitat for this species does not exist in the project area. Species that have
the federal classification of Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance are not biologically
endangered or threatened and do not receive protection under Section 7. Biological Conclusion:
No effect.
The shortnose sturgeon is a marine and estuarine fish of the tidewater and coastal plain,
living in the brackish waters of large rivers and estuaries. It spawns in freshwater areas, including
the Pee Dee River system in Richmond County. Sturgeons require fast flowing streams with
rough bottoms for spawning (Rohde gl gl. 1994). Suitable habitat for this species does not exist
in the project area. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Smooth coneflower is a composite that typically is found on basic or circumneutral soils
derived from mafic rocks in glades, woodlands, and open areas. This perennial from 0.5-1.0
meters (1.6-3.3 feet) tall has distinctive heads that are easily recognizable. It flowers from
late-May to July. There are records for six counties scattered about the Piedmont, but no recent
records for Montgomery County. Suitable habitat does not exist in the project area, and no plants
were observed. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a tall perennial composite with a restricted regional
distribution centered in the south-central Piedmont of North Carolina, having been found in nine
Piedmont counties altogether. Extant populations have been documented within the last ten years
for Montgomery County and the surrounding counties of Davidson, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly,
and Union. It favors open woods and roadsides, apparently because it was once a component of
formerly open prairie-like communities on basic soils that were common in this region. There are
no known occurrences within the project vicinity. The plant flowers in September-October, but it
is recognizable vegetatively during the summer. No populations were discovered after carefully
searching for this plant in the project area. Suitable habitat for this sunflower does not exist in the
project area. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a small slender herb with whorled leaves in the Primulaceae.
It flowers in May-June and fruits in August-October. It is endemic to the Carolinas, but mostly in
the southeastern Coastal Plain in North Carolina. Pocosins and pocosin/savanna ecotones are the
exclusive habitats. This type of habitat does not occur in the project area. No plants were
observed. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Michaux's sumac is a small, dioecious, rhizomatous shrub up to 0.6 meters (2 feet) tall
in the Anacardiaceae. It is easily distinguished from winged sumac by being densely pubescent
throughout and having serrate leaflets. The plant flowers from June to August and fruits in
August to October. It has a limited distribution in the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont.
The habitat is sandhills, sandy or rocky open woodlands, and woodland edges. Populations have
been documented in Richmond County within the last 10 years; there are no records for
Montgomery County. There may be an affinity for basic soils. Habitat for this species is marginal
in the project area. No plants were observed. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
18
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of
economic resources. According to the NRCS, the proposed bridge replacement will not impact
prime farmland. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but the area
to be converted is wooded and void of agricultural uses. Therefore, no further consideration of
impacts to farmland is required.
WTG/ - -
19

1.5
1321
1319

•
/
/
•
/
n Vq ?• 1317 I ,
1• 1153 ' . 1153
1324 ,?
C,ree 9
1324 1153
b

d
Q
_ .2
1337
SL
5 1325 .8 1317
9 1332 1321 2;
1321 C?
\ .9 1331 G{ Plainview
a 1320 N
'19 1326 ? N.0
9 `.'Sy
'S
1453
)

North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Richmond/Montgomery Counties
Replace Bridge No. 131 on SR 1153
Over Big Mountain Creek
B-3027
Figure One
/ AN

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 17, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 131 on SR 1153 over Big
Mountain Creek, Richmond/Montgomery
Counties, B-3027, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1153(4), State Project 8.2580601, ER 96-7677
Dear Mr. Graf:
? 11995 ;
C 1? (j '
?? EiVV?RCN?
On November 14, 1995, Debbie Bevin 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.
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
comments.
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.
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett