20110857 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20080226

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Uwharrie National Forest
Rehabilitation of FDR 597
From SR 1179 to FDR 544
Montgomery County, North Carolina
Project NC PHF 49 -1(3)
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
Prepared in cooperation with the
United States Forest Service
January 2009
Prepared pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR 1500) and 42 U.S.0 4332(2)(C)

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
In Cooperation with
United States Forest Service
North Carolina Department of Transportation
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 303
for
Rehabilitation of FDR 597
From SR 1179 to FDR 544
Montgomery County, North Carolina
Additional information may be obtained from:
Ms. Lisa Landers
Environmental Protection Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
21400 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
- -- . ... . . . ....... -
Paul T. Nishimoto, Planning '& Programming Engineer
/ I/ --"- --P—/O 9
Date

Abstract
This Environmental Assessment addresses the proposal by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) to widen and pave four miles of Forest Development Road (FDR) 597, also known as
Badin Lake Road. The project is located in the Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery County,
North Carolina.
FDR 597 (Badin Lake Road) stretches approximately six miles, from FDR 576 (Moccasin Creek
Road) to Secondary Route (SR) 1179 (Shamrock Road). FDR 597 runs south -north near the
eastern shore of Badin Lake and is a gravel road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. It is part
of Forest Highway (FH) 49, which is a south -north roadway within Uwharrie National Forest.
FH 49 comprises all or part of the following roadways: FDR 576 (Moccasin Creek Road), FDR
544 (McLean's Creek Road), FDR 544 (Mark's Road), and FDR 597. FH 49 has been upgraded,
widened, and paved within the last several years, with the exception of two sections. The
proposed project is to widen and pave four miles of FDR 597 from FDR 544 (McLean's Creek
Road) to SR 1179 (Shamrock Road) and to replace the vented ford over Reeves Spring Branch.
This project is the next -to -last in the series of projects to upgrade FH 49; the last section to be
improved is FDR 576 from the intersection with Reservation Road to the intersection with
FDR 544. Once improvements have been finished and FDR 597 has attained North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) standards, the Forest Service anticipates transferring the
road to NCDOT, which would add it to the state highway system.
FHWA's goal in selecting a preferred alternative is to provide a safe, long - lasting driving surface
for residents, visitors, and Forest Service staff. Substantial effort has been given to preserving the
Forest's natural and cultural resources by minimizing impacts to the environment from the
proposed improvement.
This document determines which aspects of the proposed action have potential for social,
economic, or environmental impacts and it identifies measures that may mitigate adverse impacts.
The public involvement and coordination /consultation with other government agencies is also
presented.

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................... ..............................i
Tableof Contents ............................................................................................ ............................... iii
Listof Figures ................................................................................................. ............................... vi
Listof Tables .................................................................................................. ............................... vii
Appendices..................................................................................................... ............................... vii
1.0 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................... ............................... 1 -1
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................ ............................... 1 -1
1.2
Project Background .................................................................... ...............................
1 -1
2 -2
1.2.1 Study Area Description ..................................................... ............................1
-1
Modification 3A: Station 16 +00 to 26 +85 .................... ...............................
1.2.2 Study Area History ......................................................... ...............................
1 -6
1.3
Purpose of the Action ................................................................ ...............................
1 -6
1.4
Need for the Action .................................................................... ...............................
1 -6
1.5
Decision to be Made .................................................................. ...............................
1 -7
1.6
Impact Issues and Topics ........................................................... ...............................
1 -7
1.7
Permits ..................................................................................... ...............................
1 -10
1.8
Interrelationship with Other Plans and Projects ........................... ...........................1
-11
2.0 Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................. ............................2 -1
2.1
No Action Alternative ................................................................... ............................2
-2
2.2
Alternative 3 with Modifications, Preferred Alternative ........... ...............................
2 -2
2.2.1
Modification 3A: Station 16 +00 to 26 +85 .................... ...............................
2 -3
2.2.2
Modification 313: Station 97 +35 to 177 +70 .................. ...............................
2 -3
2.2.3
Modification 3C: Station 176 +65 to 198 +91 ................... ............................2
-3
2.2.4
Modification 3F: Station 176 +65 to 198+ 91 ................. ...............................
2 -3
2.3
Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ..................................... ...............................
2 -4
2.3.1
Alternative 2 ................................................................... ...............................
2 -4
2.3.2
Alternative 2 with Modifications ................................... ...............................
2 -4
2.3.2.1 Modification 2A: Station 15 +33 to 26+ 28 ...... ...............................
2 -4
2.3.2.2 Modification 213: Station 42 +70 to 57+ 67 ...... ...............................
2 -6
2.3.2.3 Modification 2C: Station 83 +45 to 123+ 39 .... ...............................
2 -6
2.3.2.4 Modification 21): Station 174 +50 to 200+ 60 .. ...............................
2 -7
2.3.3
Alternative 3 ................................................................... ...............................
2 -7
2.3.4
Individual Modifications from Alternative 3 with Modifications .................
2 -7
2.3.4.1 Modification 31): Station 165 +42.25 to 197 +51.79 .......................
2 -7
2.3.4.2 Modification 3E: Station 165 +42.25 to 182 +59.99 .......................
2 -7
2.3.5
Non - Construction Options ............................................. ...............................
2 -8
2.4
Selection
of the Preferred Alternative ........................................ ...............................
2 -8

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................. ............................... 3 -1
3.1
Cumulative Impacts: Explanation and Methodology ................ ............................... 3 -2
3.1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries .................................. ...............................
3 -2
3.1.2 Past, Present, and Future Actions ................................... ...............................
3 -5
3.1.2.1 Detail ................................................................... ............................3
-5
3.1.2.2 Summary ............................................................. ............................3
-8
3.2
Land Use .................................................................................... ...............................
3 -8
3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................... ...............................
3 -8
3.2.1.1 Residential .......................................................... ............................3
-8
3.2.1.2 Recreational ....................................................... ...........................3
-10
3.2.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -10
3.2.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................ ...........................3
-10
3.2.2.2 Preferred Alternative .......................................... ...........................3
-10
3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impact ............................................. ...........................3
-13
3.3
Demographics .......................................................................... ...............................
3 -13
3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -13
3.3.1.1 Age Characteristics ............................................ ...........................3
-13
3.3.1.2 Minority Characteristics ................................ ...............................
3 -14
3.3.1.3 Economics .......................................................... ...........................3
-17
3.3.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -18
3.4
Environmental Justice .............................................................. ...............................
3 -18
3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -18
3.4.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -18
3.4.2.1 Cumulative Impact ............................................. ...........................3
-19
3.5
Cultural Resources ................................................................... ...............................
3 -19
3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -19
3.5.1.1 Archaeological Resources .............................. ...............................
3 -19
3.5.1.2 Historic Resources ......................................... ...............................
3 -24
3.5.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -27
3.5.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................... ...............................
3 -27
3.5.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...................................... ...............................
3 -27
3.5.2.3 Cumulative Impact ......................................... ...............................
3 -28
3.6
Natural Resources .................................................................... ...............................
3 -29
3.6.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -29
3.6.1.1 Jurisdictional Topics ...................................... ...............................
3 -29
3.6.1.2 Floodplains .................................................... ...............................
3 -30
3.6.1.3 Water Resources ............................................ ...............................
3 -30
3.6.1.4 Physiography and Soils .................................. ...............................
3 -37
3.6.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -38
3.6.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................... ...............................
3 -38
3.6.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...................................... ...............................
3 -39
3.6.2.3 Cumulative Impact ......................................... ...............................
3 -42
3.7
Biological Communities .......................................................... ...............................
3 -42
3.7.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -42
3.7.1.1 Plant Communities ......................................... ...............................
3 -43
3.7.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................ ...............................
3 -45
3.7.1.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife ....................... ...............................
3 -45
3.7.1.4 Rare and Protected Species ............................ ...............................
3 -46
3.7.1.5 Significant Natural Heritage Areas ................ ...............................
3 -56
3.7.1.6 Exotic Species .................................................... ...........................3
-56
iv

4.0 Summary of Direct Impacts /Alternatives ............................................ ............................... 4 -1
5.0 Commitments and Resources .............................................................. ............................... 5 -1
5.1 Applicability to Environmental Laws ........................................ ............................... 5 -1
6.0 Public Involvement and Coordination ................................................. ............................... 6 -1
6.1 Agency Involvement .................................................................. ............................... 6 -1
6.2 Public Involvement ....................................................................... ............................6 -2
6.3 Interested Agencies and Other Parties ....................................... ............................... 6 -2
6.4 Public Notice /Public Comment Period ...................................... ............................... 6 -3
7.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers .......................................................... ............................... 7 -1
8.0 References and Web Sites ................................................................... ............................... 8 -1
v
3.7.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -57
3.7.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................... ...............................
3 -57
3.7.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...................................... ...............................
3 -58
3.7.2.3 Cumulative Impact ......................................... ...............................
3 -62
3.8
Human Environment ................................................................ ...............................
3 -62
3.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -62
3.8.1.1 Aesthetics and Viewsheds ............................. ...............................
3 -62
3.8.1.2 Air Quality ..................................................... ...............................
3 -63
3.8.1.3 Noise .............................................................. ...............................
3 -63
3.8.1.4 Energy ................................................................ ...........................3
-63
3.8.1.5 Utilities .......................................................... ...............................
3 -63
3.8.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -64
3.8.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................... ...............................
3 -64
3.8.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...................................... ...............................
3 -64
3.8.2.3 Cumulative Impact ......................................... ...............................
3 -69
3.9
Visitor Use and Experience ..................................................... ...............................
3 -70
3.9.1 Affected Environment .................................................. ...............................
3 -70
3.9.1.1 Visitation and Facilities ................................. ...............................
3 -70
3.9.1.2 Existing Roadways ........................................ ...............................
3 -74
3.9.1.3 Existing Intersections ..................................... ...............................
3 -78
3.9.1.4 Traffic Volumes ................................................. ...........................3
-79
3.9.1.5 Operational Analysis ..................................... ...............................
3 -83
3.9.1.6 Crash History ................................................. ...............................
3 -85
3.9.2 Environmental Effects .................................................. ...............................
3 -86
3.9.2.1 No Action Alternative .................................... ...............................
3 -86
3.9.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...................................... ...............................
3 -87
3.9.2.3 Cumulative Impact ......................................... ...............................
3 -89
3.10
Summary of Mitigation ............................................................ ...............................
3 -89
3.11
Section 4(f) .............................................................................. ...............................
3 -91
4.0 Summary of Direct Impacts /Alternatives ............................................ ............................... 4 -1
5.0 Commitments and Resources .............................................................. ............................... 5 -1
5.1 Applicability to Environmental Laws ........................................ ............................... 5 -1
6.0 Public Involvement and Coordination ................................................. ............................... 6 -1
6.1 Agency Involvement .................................................................. ............................... 6 -1
6.2 Public Involvement ....................................................................... ............................6 -2
6.3 Interested Agencies and Other Parties ....................................... ............................... 6 -2
6.4 Public Notice /Public Comment Period ...................................... ............................... 6 -3
7.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers .......................................................... ............................... 7 -1
8.0 References and Web Sites ................................................................... ............................... 8 -1
v

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Study Area
Figure 1.2: Holt's Picnic Area
Figure 1.3: Parking Pullout at Holt's Picnic Area
Figure 1.4: Vented Ford at Reeves Spring Branch
Figure 2.1:
Design Speed and Curves in Alignment
Figure 2.2:
Alternative 3 with Modifications
Figure 2.3:
Modification 3A
Figure 2.4:
Modification 3B
Figure 2.5:
Modification 3C
Figure 2.6:
Modification 3F
Figure 2.7:
Alignments of All Considered Alternatives
Figure 3.1:
Spatial Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts
Figure 3.2:
Private Dock on Badin Lake
Figure 3.3:
Wood Land Estates Entrance
Figure 3.4:
Recreation Facilities and Topography
Figure 3.5:
Census Blocks
Figure 3.6:
Cultural Resources
Figure 3.7:
Stone Culvert
Figure 3.8:
Water Resources
Figure 3.9:
Utilities
Figure 3.10:
Holt's Picnic Area
Figure 3.11:
Roadway Network and FDR 597 Intersections
Figure 3.12:
FDR 597 Vented Ford at Reeves Spring Branch
Figure 3.13:
Turning Movement and Daily Count Locations
Figures on Attached CD:
Alternative 2 with Modifications
Alternative 3 with Modifications
Vi

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives
Table 2.2: Summary of Impacts of Alternatives
Table 3.1:
Present Actions in the USFS Schedule of Proposed Actions
Table 3.2:
NCDOT Projects within Spatial Boundaries
Table 3.3:
Age Distribution
Table 3.4:
Residential Economic Characteristics
Table 3.5:
Unemployment Rates
Table 3.6:
Stream Information
Table 3.7:
Federal Species of Concern Listed for Montgomery County, North Carolina
Table 3.8:
State Species Protection List for Montgomery County, North Carolina
Table 3.9:
USFS Invasive Species List for Uwharrie National Forest
Table 3.10:
Hunting Season Dates in Montgomery County, North Carolina
Table 3.11:
Increase in OHV Passes Sold, 2004 -2007
Table 3.12:
Level of Service at the Intersection of FDR 597 and FDR 544
Table 4.1: Summary of Direct Impacts
vii
Appendices
Appendix A:
US Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)
Appendix B:
Agency Response Letters
Appendix C:
Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List
Appendix D:
Existing and Projected Traffic Volume
Appendix E:
Agency Scoping Letter
Appendix E:
Public Involvement
vii

viii

1.0 Purpose and Need for Action
1.1 Introduction
FDR 597 (Badin Lake Road) stretches approximately six miles, from FDR 576 (Moccasin Creek
Road) to Secondary Route (SR) 1179 (Shamrock Road). FDR 597 runs south -north near the
eastern shore of Badin Lake and is a gravel road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph). It
is part of Forest Highway (FH) 49, which is a south -north roadway within Uwharrie National
Forest. FH 49 comprises all or part of the following roadways: FDR 576 (Moccasin Creek
Road), FDR 544 (McLean's Creek Road), FDR 544 (Mark's Road), and FDR 597. FH 49 has
been upgraded, widened, and paved within the last several years, with the exception of two
sections. The proposed project is to widen and pave four miles of FDR 597 from FDR 544
(McLean's Creek Road) to SR 1179 (Shamrock Road) and to replace the vented ford over Reeves
Spring Branch. This project is the next -to -last in the series of projects to upgrade FH 49; the last
section to be improved is FDR 576 from the intersection with Reservation Road to the
intersection with FDR 544.
Uwharrie National Forest consists of 50,189 acres of forest, rivers and streams, diverse
vegetation, and wildlife habitats. The Forest is located in the Piedmont region of central North
Carolina and is within a two hour drive of the state's largest population centers: Charlotte, the
Triad (Greensboro, Winston- Salem, and High Point), and the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and
Chapel Hill). It provides timber, wildlife, and water recreation opportunities to the area's
population. Three of the Forest's popular recreational attractions are Badin Lake, the off -
highway- vehicle (OHV) trail system, and the 20 -mile Uwharrie National Recreation Trail.
Hunting, camping, picnicking, horseback riding, fishing, and boating are also popular recreational
uses of Uwharrie National Forest.
1.2 Project Background
1.2.1 Study Area Description
The project study area is located in Montgomery County, North Carolina. It extends 300 feet on
either side of the FDR 597 centerline, including intersecting roads. The study area is
approximately four miles, from FDR 544 (McLean's Creek Road) to SR 1179 (Shamrock Road).
The roads intersecting FDR 597 in the study area are FDR 544 (McLean's Creek Road),
1 -1

FDR 597A, Skiers Cove Road, Lakeland Drive, and SR 1179 (Shamrock Road). Figure 1.1
shows the location of the study area.
Within the study area are several Forest facilities, private residences, and other cultural and
natural resources. The Holt's Picnic Area, with a parking pullout large enough for 10 vehicles, is
located along the west side of FDR 597, approximately midway through the study area (Figures
1.2 and 1.3). Other Forest facilities are located outside the study area but are accessed through
the study area, including the Badin Lake Hiking Trail, King's Mountain Point and Floating Pier,
Badin Lake Campground, Badin Lake Group Camp, and equestrian trails 702 (Josh/Lake trail)
and 700 (Greg's Loop trail).
Figure 1.2: Holt's Picnic Area
Figure 1.3: Parking Pullout at Holt's Picnic Area
1 -2

1 -4

Two residential communities are located along FDR 597. Wood Land Estates is a gated
residential community on the west side of FDR 597, north of Holt's Picnic Area. Skiers Cove is a
residential community located on the west side of FDR 597, south of Holt's Picnic Area, and is
composed of houses and mobile homes. Two stand -alone residences are also located along
FDR 597. One house is located on the east side of FDR 597 near the entrance to Wood Land
Estates. The second is located on the east side of FDR 597 near the north end of the project, with
a set of stairs located across the road leading down to a dock on Badin Lake.
Just north of the house and dock at Reeves Spring Branch is a vented ford built in 1937. A
vented ford is a structure designed to allow water to flow underneath it or, when the water levels
are high, over the top of it (see Figure 1.4). As part of the build alternatives for this project, the
vented ford would be replaced.
Figure 1.4: Vented Ford at Reeves Spring Branch
1 -5

1.2.2 Study Area History
The federal government purchased the land now known as Uwharrie National Forest in 1931.
Originally known as the Uwharrie Reservation, the Uwharrie National Forest was officially
designated as such by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. The Forest is named after the
Uwharrie Mountains, which are some of the oldest mountains in North America. Geologists
claim the 1,000 foot high mountains were part of a chain of ancient volcanoes that were once over
20,000 feet high. The Forest contains many pre - historic and historic settlements and has one of
the greatest concentrations of archaeological sites in the southeast.
The first gold discovery in the United States was in 1799 at nearby Reed Gold Mine in Cabarrus
County. Gold was discovered in the Uwharrie Mountains in the early 1800s. A second gold
boom hit the area during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Old mining sites can still be found in
the Forest, and panning for gold is a recreational opportunity for Forest visitors.
1.3 Purpose of the Action
The purpose of this project is to upgrade FDR 597 from FDR 544 to SR 1179 in Uwharrie
National Forest to current North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) standards,
while preserving the adjacent natural and cultural resources and minimizing impacts to private
properties along the road corridor. This project includes widening and paving FDR 597,
replacing a vented ford with a bridge at Reeves Spring Branch, and reconstructing two stone
masonry headwall culverts. NCDOT anticipates adding FDR 597 to the state highway system
following improvements.
1.4 Need for the Action
The primary reason for reconstructing FDR 597 is to meet current NCDOT design standards for
Secondary Roads. These standards are based on safety criteria. The proposed project would
provide safety improvements to FDR 597, including widening lanes, standardizing lane width,
and improving the horizontal alignment. The existing gravel- surfaced road ranges from 13 to 16
feet wide, which is narrower than required by current NCDOT design standards and is
inconsistent throughout the length of the project. The project also would improve the horizontal
alignment at the intersection of FDR 597 and SR 1179 to a more perpendicular angle, which
1 -6

would improve visibility at the intersection. Improving FDR 597 to NCDOT standards also
allows the State to assume future maintenance for FDR 597.
The vented ford is a structure designed to allow water to flow underneath it or, when the water
levels are high, over the top of it. The primary reason for replacing the vented ford is to meet
current NCDOT design standards for Secondary Roads. The existing vented ford, which is
approximately 20 feet long, is functionally obsolete. It is one lane wide, is susceptible to
clogging by natural debris, and shows evidence of frequent overtopping. The US Bureau of Land
Management guidelines for vented fords note that crossing can be dangerous during periods of
overtopping. Replacing the existing structure with a bridge would allow natural debris to pass
under the structure, would raise the roadway grade to meet NCDOT hydraulic design standards,
and would provide more protection to drivers and passengers crossing during high water events.
Additionally, FDR 597 is one of two remaining sections of FH 49 that have not been upgraded,
widened, and paved within the last several years. Improving FDR 597 would provide a more
consistent south -north roadway for recreational and residential use.
1.5 Decision to be Made
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires consideration of the
environmental impacts of a proposed federal action. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has
been prepared to assist Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) decisionmakers in developing
solutions to improve FDR 597 and in considering the environmental effects of the Preferred
Alternative. The decision about the proposed project is one of three choices: accept the
Preferred Alternative, accept the No Action Alternative, or accept a modified Preferred
Alternative based on comments received and issues identified with the Preferred Alternative.
Chapter 2 has more information about the Preferred Alternative, the No Action Alternative, and
alternatives considered but dismissed.
1.6 Impact Issues and Topics
In preparation for this EA the FHWA, US Forest Service (USFS), and NCDOT met to coordinate
the project scope and to determine issues specific to the project that are to be highlighted during
1 -7

this study (Agency Kickoff Meeting Minutes, March 22, 2006). These issues include
archaeological resources, tourism and visitor use, and design speed and posted speed.
As required, this EA examines specific topics in order to address the potential natural, cultural,
and social impacts that could result from the proposed construction work. These topics address
both the requirements of federal laws, regulations and orders, as well as issues raised in the
Uwharrie National Forest Draft Proposed Land Management Plan (US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, February 2007). Topics in this EA focus on information that is
presented and discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section
(Chapter 3) of this document. Each topic relates to a specific aspect of the Forest and its
surrounding community.
A brief rationale is provided below to explain why each impact topic either does or does not
require further analysis in this EA.
• Socioeconomic Environment — Since the proposed action has the potential to impact
residents, visitors, staff, and the local economy, this topic is discussed further in
Section 3.3.
• Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, signed
February 1994, requires federal agencies to identify and address any disproportionately
adverse effects on human health or the human environment of minority and /or low
income populations resulting from federal programs, policies and activities. This topic is
evaluated further in Section 3.4.
• Cultural Resources Cultural Resources addresses both historical and archaeological
resources. As outlined in 36 CFR, Part 800, regulations issued by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), the potential impacts on cultural
resources must be addressed. Under the "Criteria of Effect" (36 CFR Part 800.9(a)),
federal undertakings are considered to have an effect when they alter the character,
integrity, or use of a cultural resource, or qualities that qualify a property for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the National Historic Preservation
Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) further requires the United
States Forest Service (USFS) to consider the effects of their proposed actions on cultural
1 -8

resources. Additionally, the Uwharrie National Forest is rich in archaeological sites.
This topic is discussed in this EA in Section 3.5.
• Wetlands Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires federal agencies
to minimize the loss, destruction, or degradation of wetlands and to enhance their natural
and beneficial values. Wetlands are located in the study area. Impacts to and potential
mitigation of wetlands are addressed in this document in Sections 3.6 and 3.10.
• Floodplains Development within floodplains and floodways is regulated by federal
and state laws to reduce the risk of property damage and loss of life due to flooding as
well as to preserve the natural benefits floodplain areas have on the environment.
Executive Order 11988 ( Floodplain Management) requires all federal agencies to avoid
construction within 100 -year floodplains unless no other practical alternative exists.
Floodplains are located within the study area and are addressed in Section 3.6.
• Water Quality The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977, establishes a national policy to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; to enhance the quality
of water resources; and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Since the proposed
action has the potential to impact water quality through stormwater runoff, this topic is
discussed further in Section 3.6.
• Natural Environment The NEPA requires an examination of impacts on the
components of affected ecosystems. Impacts to resources such as soil, vegetation, and
wildlife are included in this topic and are addressed for each alternative in Section 3.7.
• Special Status Species Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs all federal
agencies to use their authority in the furtherance of the conservation of rare, threatened,
and endangered species. Federal agencies are required to consult with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, and /or carried
out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or
critical habitat. Protection and preservation of special status species in the Forest are of
critical importance and are discussed as part of this document in Section 3.7.
• Air Quality The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), requires
federal land managers to protect Forest air quality. The act also assigns the federal land
manager an affirmative responsibility to protect the Forest's air quality related values —
including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural and historic resources
1 -9

and objects, and visitors from adverse air pollution impacts. Section 118 of the 1963
Clean Air Act requires the USFS to meet all federal, state, and local air pollution
standards.
Because the proposed project would not increase traffic capacity and is not expected to
increase traffic volumes, air quality impacts of traffic are not anticipated. Vehicular
travel on the existing gravel- surfaced road raises dust particulate matter, therefore the
proposed project could benefit air quality along the road. Air quality is addressed in
general terms, concentrating on construction impacts, in Section 3.8.
• Noise Because the proposed project would not increase traffic capacity and is not
expected to increase traffic volumes, noise impacts of traffic are not anticipated to be an
issue. Noise is addressed in general terms, concentrating on construction impacts, in
Section 3.8.
• Energy Energy requirements associated with the study area relate to the amount of
energy that is required to operate and maintain buildings and other permanent facilities.
Energy also is required for the operation of motor vehicles traversing the study area.
Because the proposed project would not increase traffic capacity and is not expected to
increase traffic volumes, energy changes are not anticipated. Energy is addressed in
general terms, concentrating on construction impacts, in Section 3.8.
• Visitor Use, Forest Operations, and Public Safety Since the proposed action has the
potential to impact visitor use and operations, this topic is discussed further in
Section 3.9.
• Hazardous Materials and Waste Potential hazardous waste sites will be addressed
during the design phase of the project; therefore hazardous materials and waste do not
require further analysis in this EA.
1.7 Permits
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Permits are
required for highway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and ponds. The
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) will likely cover the impacts to the
jurisdictional wetland and streams within the project study area. NWP 33 (Temporary
1 -10

Construction, Access, and Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construction access if that
issue is not addressed in the NEPA document. The project impacts are expected to exceed the
NWP 14 permit thresholds (300 linear feet of impact per stream and 0.5 acre cumulative wetland
impact), therefore an Individual Section 404 permit likely will be required.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any activity that may result in a
discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a federal permit is
required. The issuance of a required Section 401 certification is a prerequisite to the issuance of a
Section 404 permit. Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications for NWP 14 and 33 are
43704 and 43688, respectively. If project impacts exceed the NWP 14 impact thresholds, an
Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE and DWQ.
1.8 Interrelationship with Other Plans and Projects
The Forest Service has developed a Draft Proposed Land Management Plan for the Uwharrie
National Forest (February 2009). This plan establishes long -range strategies for resource
management and visitor use; and it provides goals, objectives, and policies that support these
strategies. This plan updates a 1986 land management plan for the Forest. The plan contains
general guidelines for roadway maintenance and development but does not mention specific
projects.
Aside from the planned improvement of FDR 576 from the intersection with Reservation Road to
the intersection with FDR 544, there is one additional Forest Service projects in the vicinity of
this section of FDR 597. The Fraley /Todd Equestrian Trail is proposed to be rerouted, with the
planning process beginning in January 2009.
The Town of Troy has a draft land use plan. Montgomery County has a transportation plan from
the 1970s which was never adopted.
Handy Sanitary District plans to provide sanitary sewer service along NC 109 from the
intersection with Blaine Road to the Town of Troy. This project is called the Badin Lake Sewer
Project. The sanitary sewer line crosses Forest land only where NC 109 crosses Forest land
1 -11

(telephone conversation May 16, 2008 with Mr. Fred Hobbs, Hobbs, Upchurch, and Associates,
Badin Lake Sewer Project Consultant Engineers).
1 -12

2.0 Alternatives Analysis
Other than regularly scheduled maintenance, a no action alternative and four build alternatives
were considered for this project. The four build alternatives considered were Alternative 2,
Alternative 2 with Modifications, Alternative 3, and Alternative 3 with Modifications.
Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative, which consists of performing no actions to the road.
Alternative 2 is a build alternative with a 35 mile per hour (mph) design speed. Alternative 2
with Modifications differs from Alternative 2 in four places for the following reasons:
• to alter impacts to wetlands,
• to avoid cutting into a hill on a curve,
• to rebuild the Holt's Picnic Area parking pullout, and
• to provide another crossing option at Reeves Spring Branch.
Alternative 3 is a build alternative with a 30 mph design speed. Alternative 3 with Modifications
differs from Alternative 3 in six places for the following reasons:
• to alter impacts to wetlands,
• to rebuild the Holt's Picnic Area parking pullout, and
• to align the FDR 597 / SR 1179 intersection more perpendicularly.
• Three modifications involve providing another crossing option at Reeves Spring Branch
and /or avoiding an historic house.
The four build alternatives have the following characteristics in common:
• The horizontal and vertical alignment was designed to follow the existing roadway
alignment when possible.
• In some areas the alignment was shifted to better balance cut and fill while meeting
design criteria.
• The proposed cross - section provides two 10 -foot lanes with four -foot shoulders on each
side. The right -of -way (ROW) extends 30 feet on either side of the centerline, for a total
ROW of 60 feet.
NCDOT standards for this type of road call for a 35 mph design speed with a 30 mph posted
speed. Varying design speeds were evaluated because design speed affects how sharp a
horizontal or vertical curve may be. As design speed increases, curves in the road must lengthen
and flatten, which requires more land. Reducing the design speed reduces the length of the curve.
2 -1

Because FDR 597's existing alignment has relatively sharp curves and steep topography, higher
design speeds translate to more differences between existing and proposed alignments and
therefore cause more impacts. The 30 mph design speed is much closer to the existing roadway
alignment horizontally and is closer to the existing ground vertically than the 35 mph design
speed. Figure 2.1 illustrates the difference between a 35 mph and a 30 mph design speed
(Station 44 +00 to 56 +00).
In addition to the no action and build alternatives, non - construction options have been considered.
Non - construction options include traffic demand management, signage, and speed limit
reduction.
Through analysis, Alternative 3 with Modifications was chosen as the Preferred Alternative.
Four of the six modifications were included in the Preferred Alternative; the other two
modifications were eliminated. Impacts of the Preferred Alternative were evaluated in detail and
are presented in Chapter 3. The other build alternatives were considered but dismissed from
further evaluation. A description of the dismissed alternatives and reasons for dismissal are
found in Section 2.3.
2.1 No Action Alternative
Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. This alternative makes no changes in the project
study area other than regularly schedule maintenance. The No Action Alternative is presented in
this EA to provide a baseline of existing impacts continued into the future against which to
compare impacts of the action alternatives.
2.2 Alternative 3 with Modifications, Preferred Alternative
In addition to the build alternative characteristics listed above, the Preferred Alternative
(Alternative 3 with Modifications, shown in Figures 2.2 through 2.4) uses a 30 mph design speed
horizontally and vertically. Modifications to Alternative 3 were made in four locations to reduce
specific impacts. Each modification was evaluated on its individual impacts to the study area.
These modifications are included in the Preferred Alternative and are discussed below. The
attached compact disc illustrates them in greater detail.
2 -2

2.2.1 Modification 3A: Station 16 +00 to 26 +85
The objective of Modification 3A is to eliminate impacts to 0.04 acres of wetlands. The proposed
centerline of Modification 3A is approximately 50 feet west of the proposed centerline for
Alternative 3 in the middle of the curve. While this modification would allow the proposed
alignment to completely bypass the wetlands, construction of the modified centerline would cut
into a hill, which would cause additional excavation. This modification would result in greater
total land impact.
2.2.2 Modification 3B: Station 97 +35 to 177 +70
The objective of Modification 3B is to rebuild the pullout at the Holt's Picnic Area. This
roadway alignment was shifted away from the pullout to allow for a 100 -foot by 10 -foot parking
area with 10 spaces to be built at the existing location, which has 10 parking spaces. Slight
alterations to the existing parking and recreational areas would be required. This modification
would cause the least amount of impacted area at the pullout while still allowing for the pullout to
be rebuilt.
2.2.3 Modification 3C: Station 176 +65 to 198 +91
The objective of Modification 3C is to construct a new crossing of Reeves Spring Branch that
would allow for the existing roadway and vented ford crossing to remain open during
construction. The new cored slab bridge would cross the creek at a new location just upstream
from the existing crossing. A cored slab bridge is constructed of prestressed, precast concrete
slabs that are bolted together and covered with asphalt. This type of bridge is used for spans up to
50 feet in length. Modification 3C results in slightly more impacts but would be able to be
constructed without closing the road or requiring a detour for an extended period. Since this
modification would be close to the existing crossing, it would require temporarily widening the
existing road and placing temporary pipes during construction.
2.2.4 Modification 3F: Station 176 +65 to 198 +91
The existing T- intersection at SR 1179 (Shamrock Road) is not a 90- degree intersection. Since
there are potential issues with visibility for approach vehicles, FDR 597 would be realigned to
intersect more perpendicularly with SR 1179 while avoiding an historic property.
2 -3

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed
The attached compact disc contains figures depicting all considered alternatives. Tables 2.1 and
2.2 show the impacts for all four build alternatives.
2.3.1 Alternative 2
In addition to the build alternative characteristics listed above, Alternative 2 uses 35 mph design
standards horizontally and vertically. Alternative 2 would not allow enough area to retain the
Holt's Picnic Area parking pullout. This alternative crosses the creek at a new location
approximately 230 feet downstream of the existing Reeves Spring Branch crossing. It would
require a higher amount of excavation than Alternative 3 at the creek crossing due to the new
location but could be constructed while keeping the existing road open to traffic.
During a meeting on July 13, 2006, the FHWA, USFS, and NCDOT agreed to use a 30 mph
design speed in order to reduce impacts, maintain the same posted speed limit as is currently used
in the adjacent roads, and retain as much of the character of the roadway as possible. With that
decision, Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Modifications were removed from further
consideration.
2.3.2 Alternative 2 with Modifications
Modifications to Alternative 2 were developed in four locations to reduce specific impacts.
These modifications are discussed below.
2.3.2.1 Modification 2A: Station 15 +33 to 26 +28
The objective of Modification 2A is to reduce impacts to the wetlands. Alternative 2 would
impact 0.07 acres of wetlands while Modification 2A would impact only 0.01 acres of wetlands.
The proposed centerline of Modification 2A is approximately 50 feet west of the proposed
centerline for Alternative 2 in the middle of the curve. While this modification would reduce the
amount of wetlands impacted, construction of the modified centerline would cut into a hill, which
would cause additional excavation and greater total land impact than Alternative 2.
2 -4

Table 2.1
Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives
Alternative [modification]
Area of
Fill
Excavation
Streams
Wetlands
Impacts (acres)
(cubic yards)
(cubic yards)
(linear feet)
(acres)
13 +00 to 15 +33
Alternative 2
0.26
22
304
0
0
15 +33 to 26 +28
Wetlands
Alternative 2 [2A]
1.35 [1;64]
1,640 [1,637]
1,336 [5,165]
0 [0]
0.07 [0.011 ;
26 +28 to 42 +70
Alternative 2
2.08
1,435
2,339
57
0
42 +70 to 56 +67
Alternative 2 [213]
2.13 [2.05]
3,078 [6,254]
6,532 [2,346]
140 [347]
0 [0]
56 +67 to 83 +45
Alternative 2
3.09
2,528
4,070
37
0
83 +45 to 123 +60
Alternative 2 [2C]
5.84 [6:29]
28 567 ,
9.,214 [32,242]
360 [315]
0 [0]
Holt's Picnic Area
[15,612]'
123 +60 to 174 +50
Alternative 2
6.39
4,951
12,597
67
0
174 +50 to 198 +74
Reeves Spring
Alternative 2 [21D]
3.44 [3.11]
8,400 [5,654]
15,582 [6,474]
91 [64]
0101
Branch
198 +74 to 204 +00
SR 1179
Alternative 2
0.61
55
947
0
0
Intersection
Alternative 2 Total [total with
25.19 [25.52]
50,676
52,921
752 [887]
0.07 [0.01 ]
Modifications]
[38,148]
[66,484]
13 +00 to 16 +00
Alternative 3
0.34
79
482
0
0
16 +00 to 26 +61
Wetlands
Alternative 3 [3A]
1.30 [1.62]
1,470 [1,138]
1,035 [5,114]
0 [0]
0.04 [0]
26 +61 to 97 +35
Alternative 3
8.96
11,580
11,489
452
0
97 +35 to 117 +89
Holt's Picnic Area
Alternative 3 [313]
2.83 [2.96]
12,470 [7,506]
2,441 [10,534]'
96 [76]
0 [0]
117 +89 to 176 +65
Alternative 3
7.53
5,803
13,741
60
0
176 +65 to 198 +45
Reeves Spring'
Alternative 3 [3C]
2.47 [2:49]
4,858 [6,725]
2,712 [2,707]
68 [63]
0101
Branch
198 +45 to 207 +13
SR 1179
Modification 3F
[0.95]
[119]
[1,082]
[0]
[0]
Intersection
Alternative 3 Total [total with
24.38 [24.85]
36,379
32,982
676 [651]
0.04 [0]
Modifications]
[32,950]
[451149]
Note: Preferred Alternative impacts are bolded.
2 -5

Table 2.2
Summary of Impacts of Alternatives
Alternative
Area of
Impacts
(acres)
Fill (cubic
yards)
Excavation
(cubic
yards)
Streams
(linear
feet)
Wetlands
(acres)
Impact Totals by Alternative
Alternative 2
25.19
50,676
52,921
752
0.07
Alternative 2 with Modifications
25.52
38,148
66,484
887
0.01
Alternative 3
24.38
36,379
32,982
676
0.04
Alternative 3 with
Modifications (Preferred
Alternative)
24.85
32,950
45,149
651
0
Difference Between Alternatives Considered but Dismissed and Preferred Alternative'
Alternative 2
0.34
17,726
7,772
101
0.07
Alternative 2 with Modifications
0.67
5,198
21,335
236
0.01
Alternative 3
-0.47
3,429
- 12,167
25
0.04
Note: Preferred Alternative impacts are bolded.
Positive numbers indicate that the Preferred Alternative has fewer impacts; negative numbers indicate that
the Preferred Alternative has greater impacts.
2.3.2.2 Modification 2B: Station 42 +70 to 57 +67
The objective of Modification 213 is to eliminate cutting into the hill on the inside of the curve
near station 50 +00. This modification would widen to the outside of Alternative 2 for the
majority of the curve. Instead of the excavation impact of Alternative 2, there would be a
substantial amount of fill caused by the steep embankment on the outside of this curve.
2.3.2.3 Modification 2C: Station 83 +45 to 123 +39
The objective of Modification 2C is to rebuild the pullout at the Holt's Picnic Area. The
alignment for this modification was shifted away from the pullout to allow for a 100 -foot by 10-
foot parking area in the existing location. This modification would still require a slight alteration
of the parking and recreation area by the lake. This modification also would require additional
excavation as a result of cutting into the hills on either side of the pullout in order to keep the
grade low at the pullout.
2 -6

2.3.2.4 Modification 2D: Station 174 +50 to 200 +60
The objective of Modification 2D is to provide a second option for crossing Reeves Spring
Branch at the existing vented ford location. The horizontal alignment closely follows the existing
alignment in both approaches. There would be less impact, but this modification would require a
detour and temporary bridge or full closure of the existing road.
2.3.3 Alternative 3
In addition to the build alternative characteristics listed above, Alternative 3 uses a 30 mph design
speed. Alternative 3 without modifications crosses Reeves Spring Branch at the existing location,
which would require constructing a detour and temporary bridge or closing of the existing road.
This alternative was considered and dismissed because of the four modifications included in the
Preferred Alternative would reduce impacts.
2.3.4 Individual Modifications from Alternative 3 with Modifications
Two of the six modifications originally proposed in Alternative 3 with Modifications were
dismissed. Both of these modifications are described below.
2.3.4.1 Modification 3D: Station 165 +42.25 to 197 +51.79
Modification 3D was considered early in the process, when the vented ford was considered
potentially historic. This modification is similar to Modification 3E in that it avoids the cabin
location. Additionally, Modification 3D crosses Reeves Spring Branch downstream of the
existing crossing in order to avoid impacting the vented ford. This new alignment would flatten
the curve in the existing alignment. It would be able to be constructed without closing the
existing road or requiring a detour for an extended period. This modification was dismissed as it
was determined that staying on or close to the existing alignment between the cabin and the lake
was preferable to building on new location.
2.3.4.2 Modification 3E: Station 165 +42.25 to 182 +59.99
The objective of Modification 3E is to provide an option that does not impact the house at
Station 172 +50. This modification would be constructed on a new alignment behind the house
rather than widening the existing road. During a meeting on May 25, 2007, the FHWA, USFS,
and NCDOT agreed to widen the existing roadway rather than move FDR 597 to a new location
due to the anticipated impacts. As a result, Modification 3E was eliminated from further
consideration.
2 -7

2.3.5 Non - Construction Options
Two non - construction options also were examined. The first non - construction option is to add
signs along FDR 597 to provide additional warning about pedestrians and equestrians to drivers.
The second non - construction option is to create textured and /or colored crosswalks at major
crossings to alert drivers to areas of likely pedestrian and equestrian crossing. Appropriate
signing and pavement marking compatible with the scenic nature of the roadway will be
determined during the final design of the project and incorporated into the project during
construction.
2.4 Selection of the Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3 with Modifications 3A, 313, 3C, and 3F was chosen by the FHWA, USFS, and
NCDOT as the Preferred Alternative. This alternative uses 30 mph design standards, which
allows for the proposed roadway to follow the existing roadway alignment. In order to balance
cut and fill and minimize impacts, the roadway alignment was shifted in several locations. There
would be no impacts to wetlands or cultural resources. The existing one lane crossing of Reeves
Spring Branch would be replaced with a new two -lane bridge which would allow for debris
movement under the roadway and would accommodate flood waters so that water no longer
would overtop the roadway. The parking at the Holt's Picnic area would be reconfigured for
easier use. The intersection at SR 1179 would be aligned more perpendicularly to improve
visibility and safety. Alternative 3 with Modifications would upgrade the existing roadway to
NCDOT standards and improve safety and visitor access to potential recreation opportunities at
Badin Lake and Holt's Picnic Area. Residents of Wood Land Estates and Skiers Cove would
experience a more consistently maintained roadway. Alternative 3 with Modifications fully
meets the purpose and need.
Under the No Action Alternative, the existing roadway would remain as an unpaved, gravel
roadway, with a speed limit of 25 mph, and would not meet NCDOT design standards.
Therefore, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project but will
be further analyzed in this EA to provide a baseline for comparison.
2 -8

Alternative Design Speed Impacts

2 -10

2 -12

2 -14

2 -16

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The following information addresses the affected environment and the environmental
consequences for the No Action Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Each primary affected
environment section has one or more sub - sections for which environmental consequences
(impacts) are discussed. When available, quantitative measures have been used to assess direct
impacts. In the absence of quantitative data, impacts are based on best professional judgment.
All impacts are evaluated as either adverse or beneficial. The length of time and the magnitude of
impacts also are included. Definitions of lengths of time are shown below:
• Temporary Impacts Impacts anticipated during construction only, which is expected
to last approximately two years. Upon completion of the construction activities,
conditions are likely to return to those that existed prior to construction.
• Short -Term Impacts Impacts that may extend past the construction period, but are not
anticipated to last more than two years after the end of construction.
• Long -Term Impacts Impacts that may extend well past the construction period, and
are anticipated to last more than two years after the end of construction.
Impact magnitudes are defined as follows:
• Negligible Impacts Little or no impacts (not measurable).
• Minor Impacts Changes or disruptions may occur, but do not result in a substantial
resource impact.
• Major Impacts Easily defined and measurable, resulting in a substantial resource
impact.
The affected environment has been assessed for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
• Direct Impacts which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
• Indirect (Secondary) Impacts which are caused by the action but are later in time
and /or farther removed in distance but which are still reasonably foreseeable.
• Cumulative Impacts which are incremental impacts of the proposed action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Direct and indirect impacts have been assessed for affected environment subtopics for both the
No Action and Preferred Alternatives, and cumulative impacts have been assessed for all primary
3 -1

topics. Where there are no direct or indirect impacts, there can be no cumulative impacts as a
result of this project.
3.1 Cumulative Impacts: Explanation and Methodology
As distance and time increase from the environment in question, impacts lessen. Therefore, to
determine cumulative impacts it is important first to establish spatial and temporal boundaries for
the affected environments. Once these boundaries are established, past, present, and future
actions within these boundaries can be determined and their impacts evaluated.
3. 1.1 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries
The spatial boundary for impacts to natural resources and biological communities is the east
boundary of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Subbasin 03 -07 -08 and the Yadkin River /Badin
Lake/Lake Tillery on the west (Figure 3.1).
Because access to the Forest is an important predictor of impacts to land use, cultural resources,
human environment, and visitor use and experience, the spatial boundaries for these topics are
based on transportation routes in the area that could be important to the Forest. These boundaries
are shown in Figure 3.1 and are as follows:
• Northern: Denton RoadBringle Ferry Road /High Rock Road in Denton, Davidson
County, to Gold Hill, Rowan County.
• Western: US 52 in Gold Hill, Rowan County, to Albemarle, Stanly County.
• Southern: NC 24/27 in Albemarle, Stanly County, to Troy, Montgomery County.
• Eastern: NC 109 in Troy, Montgomery County, to Denton, Davidson County.
NC 49 is a direct route to the Forest for residents of Asheboro, Randolph County, and
Greensboro, Guilford County. Residents from the large population centers to the east (Charlotte
and surrounding cities) would access the Forest through Albemarle or along other state highways
within the spatial boundaries.
3 -2

3 -4

Information for past projects was compiled using the US Forest Service Schedule of Proposed
Actions (SOPA), which was available through 1999. Present projects were listed based on the
current SOPA (through March 2009), and future projects were from the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (through 2015). A determination of predictive measurable impacts to
resources reduces to negligible after 10 years. Based on available data for past and future plans,
the temporal boundaries for indirect and cumulative effects range from 1999 to 2015.
3.1.2 Past, Present, and Future Actions
3.1.2.1 Detail
Information about plans as well as past, present, and future actions, came from the following
plans and reports:
• USFS Draft Proposed Land Management Plan for the Uwharrie National Forest (LM
Plan) (February 2009). Establishes long -range strategies for resource management and
visitor use. Provides guidance via goals, objectives, and policies, but does not promote
specific projects. An update of the approved 1986 approved land use management plan.
• USFS Schedule ofProposed Actions (SOPA) (April 1999 — March 2009). Quarterly
release from the USFS of all planned projects in the Forest.
• USFS Roads Analysis Process Report: Uwharrie National Forest (December 2003).
Assessment of transportation needs and forest resource impacts.
• NCDOT 2009 -2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Biennial list of
transportation projects in the state, listed by county.
• Telephone calls to Town of Troy and Montgomery County (Hiram Marziano and Teresa
Thompson, respectively; May 28, 2008).
The Town of Troy has a draft land use plan. Montgomery County has a transportation plan from
the 1970s which was never adopted.
Past Actions
Past actions that are significant in the history of the Forest include the discovery of gold in the
early 1800s, the federal land purchase of what was then known as the Uwharrie Reservation in
1931, work performed in the Forest by the Civilian Conservation Corps between 1934 and 1937,
and the designation as a National Forest in 1961.
3 -5

More recent past actions in the Forest are found in the quarterly SOPAs. Appendix A has a list
of these past actions, which range from 1999 to 2008 (present actions first appear in January
2009). The SOPA actions can be divided into three groups: construction of or maintenance on
Forest facilities; maintenance on or upgrade of Forest roads; and regular maintenance of Forest
flora, including controlled burns, thinning, and destruction of unwanted plants. A summary of
past actions that did not involve maintenance of Forest flora follows:
• Construction of a bathhouse
• Reconstruction of a boat ramp
• Pavement or repavement of roads
• Replacement of a bridge
• Construction of a shooting range
• Timber harvest and reforestation to manage ecosystem
• Closing an illegal OHV trail
• Construction of a mobile telephone tower
Although these actions appear beginning in a particular month and year, the actions may not
occur during that timeframe. The SOPA does not list a projected start date.
Present Actions
Two present actions (defined as actions that appear in the current SOPA, January through March
2009) can be found in Table 3.1. Additionally, NCDOT has a multi -year project to increase
bicycle routes and signage in the greater Uwharrie Lakes area.
Table 3.1
Present Actions in the USFS Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA)
Year
Month
Project
Description
2009
January
Fraley /Todd
The proposed action will relocate a portion of the Fraley equestrian
Equestrian Trail
trail from its current location to an adjacent site. Approximately 1
Reroute
mile of the existing trail would be relocated. The purpose of this
relocation is to provide for public safety.
On Hold
Reconstruction/
The proposed action involves the reconstruction and paving of
Paving of
approximately 1.3 miles of Forest Service Roads 544 and 576.
Forest Service
Roads 544 and
576
3 -6

Also, there is a low - income housing initiative within the Town of Troy, which involves building
two to three houses in the downtown area. The houses will utilize existing utilities and roadways.
This project is scheduled to be built by 2010.
Future Actions
Table 3.2 lists the projects in the TIP for the four counties (Montgomery, Davidson, Rowan, and
Stanly) within the spatial boundaries defined above. Project R -4069 completes the FH 49
improvements. Two projects increase vehicle capacity around the town of Troy, and a third
project increases capacity on NC 49. The NC 49 project begins outside the above - defined spatial
boundaries but ends within the spatial boundaries.
Table 3.2
NCDOT Projects within Spatial Boundaries
TIP#
Road
In Progress
Construction
Description
Status
Year
R -2533
NC 49
Planning /Design
2010
Harrisburg to Yadkin River. Widen to multi -
lanes (29.3 miles)
R -2527
NC 24/27
Planning /Design
2014
NC 73 to the Troy Bypass. Widen to multi -
lanes (9.1 miles)
R -0623
NC 24/27
Planning /Design
2014
Troy Bypass, SR 1138 to East of Little River.
Four lanes, part on new location (5 miles)
R -2903
US 52
Unfunded
Future Years
Multi -lanes south of NC 49 at Richfield to I-
85 north of Salisbury. Four lanes divided on
new location (coordinate with 1 -2511) (19.2
miles)
R -4069
FH 49
Federal Land
Future Years
Uwharrie National Forest, PFH 554(1),
Program
Hunt's Camp to existing pavement.
Funding
Reconstruct roadway (1.5 miles)
EB -3410
N/A
In Progress
Future Years
Uwharrie Lakes Region Bicycle Route
mapping and signing
Additional future plans include the USFS' plans to improve FDR 576 (from the intersection with
Reservation Road to the intersection with FDR 544) and the Handy Sanitary District's Badin
Lake Sewer Project. Also, within Montgomery County, there are three future development
projects. One project is near the northwestern shore of Badin Lake and is projected to have
between 50 and 60 single- family houses. The second project is near the eastern edge of Lake
Tillery and is projected to have between 15 and 30 single family houses. The third project is near
3 -7

the southeastern part of Lake Tillery and is projected to have approximately 15 single family
houses.
The above past, present, and future actions are used to determine cumulative impacts for the
designated affected environment topics. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impact assessments for
these topics can be found in the Environmental Effects subsection for each topic.
3.1.2.2 Summary
The USFS has past and present projects that create or improve Forest facilities. The NCDOT TIP
contains future projects to widen the following roads: NC 49, which increases capacity from the
Charlotte metro area; NC 24/27, which increases capacity from Albemarle and the Charlotte
metro area; and US 52, which increases capacity from Salisbury, Lexington, and Winston -Salem
(this project currently is unfunded). Also, the Handy Sanitary District plans to install sanitary
sewer service along NC 109. Additionally, there is one small housing initiative within the Town
of Troy, and there are three developments planned within Montgomery County which range from
15 to 60 single - family houses (Figure 3.1).
3.2 Land Use
3.2.1 Affected Environment
Users of FDR 597 consist of Uwharrie National Forest visitors, residents of communities along
FDR 597 and the surrounding area, and Forest Service personnel. For the purpose of this study,
only land uses within the study area and land uses that are accessed via FDR 597 are considered.
Land uses in the area are either residential or are recreational and related to the Uwharrie National
Forest.
3.2.1.1 Residential
Along FDR 597, one residential structure is located across from Wood Land Estates, and another
residence with a dock on Badin Lake is located south of Reeves Spring Branch (see Figure 3.2).
Skiers Cove Road leads to the residential community of Skiers Cove. Lakeland Drive leads to the
residential community of Wood Land Estates.
3 -8

Skiers Cove
Skiers Cove is a small residential community located along Skiers Cove Road off of FDR 597.
Skiers Cove contains eight houses and approximately seven mobile homes.
Wood Land Estates
Wood Land Estates is a gated community located along Lakeland Drive, off of FDR 597. Aerial
photography and Montgomery County tax records indicate that there are 12 houses located within
the development. Many lots are large, with several over four acres. Figure 3.3 shows the
entrance to Wood Land Estates from FDR 597.
Figure 3.2: Private Dock on Badin Lake
Figure 3.3: Wood Land Estates Entrance
3 -9

3.2.1.2 Recreational
Recreational land uses include hiking, camping, picnicking, water sports, horseback riding,
hunting, fishing, off - highway vehicle riding, and sight- seeing. Forest facilities for these activities
are described in Section 3.9.1.1. The Badin Lake Campground, Badin Lake Group Camp, King's
Mountain Point and Floating Pier, and the Badin Lake Hiking Trail are accessed via FDR 597A
from FDR 597, and the Holt's Picnic Area is accessed directly from FDR 597 (see Figure 3.4).
3.2.2 Environmental Effects
3.2.2.1 No Action Alternative
Direct Impact: The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to
land use along FDR 597.
Indirect Impact: The No Action Alternative would have no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial,
to land use along FDR 597.
3.2.2.2 Preferred Alternative
Direct Impact: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would impact the house located
south of Reeves Spring Branch. In addition, 15 other private parcels would be impacted, with the
total area to be acquired from private owners of 0.74 acres. Any acquisition of property and /or
relocation of residents, if applicable, would be done in accordance with the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public law 91 -646, as
amended by 100 -17; regulations at 49 CFR 24). The program is committed to assisting
individuals and families find and relocate to decent, safe, and sanitary housing that is adequate to
meet their needs and within their financial means. The direct impact to land use is long -term,
minor, and adverse.
3 -10

3 -12

Indirect Impact: Land inside Wood Land Estates is has already been divided into parcels, which
presumes eventual development. Several tracts of land along FDR 597 are privately held and
may be developed in the future. The proposed project could hasten but would not increase this
development. Other privately- owned, non - lakefront parcels along FDR 597 are unlikely to be
developed due to the lack of roadways leading to the inside of these tracts and the steep terrain
indicated on topographic maps. With the improvement of FDR 597, the USFS could add to the
Forest's facilities along the road. The indirect impact of the proposed project is judged to be
long -term, minor, and beneficial.
3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impact
Increasing access to utilities increases the development potential of land, which could bring new
residents to the Forest. The combination of improving Forest facilities, increasing capacity and
access, and increasing the potential of new residents could lead to increased use of the Uwharrie
National Forest by the general public. This increased use supports the USFS' motto ( "Caring for
the Land and Serving People "). Therefore, the cumulative impact on land use is long -term,
minor, and beneficial.
3.3 Demographics
3.3.1 Affected Environment
To determine the socioeconomic characteristics of the study area, Census 2000 data were used.
The study area is within Tract 9603. Block Group 1 within that tract is directly impacted. Within
that block group, only four blocks —1122, 1123, 1125, and 1146 — within or adjacent to the study
corridor are populated. Figure 3.5 shows the blocks within or adjacent to the study area. The
block group boundaries extend beyond the borders of the map and thus are not shown. The
following sections discuss the age, minority, and economic characteristics of the study area.
3.3.1.1 Age Characteristics
Table 3.3 shows the age distribution for the study area by Census block. As shown in the table,
citizens ages 50 and older form a substantial portion of the population, while residents younger
than 40 years old tend to be under - represented, compared to the county, state, and country.
3 -13

Table 3.3
Age Distribution
Location
Population
Age (Years)
<39
40 -49
50 -64
65+
Tract 9603, Block Group 1'
Block 1122
5
0%
60.0%
40.0%
0%
Block 1123
17
11.8%
0%
47.1%
41.2%
Block 1125
5
20.0%
40.0%
0%
40.0%
Block 1146
19
36.9%
10.5%
52.6%
0%
Tract 9603, Block Group 1 Total
1,881
39.2%
18.6%
26.3%
15.9%
Montgomery County
26,822
54.6%
14.8%
16.6%
14.0%
North Carolina
8,049,313
57.7%
14.9%
15.4%
12.0%
United States
281,421,906
57.6%
15.1%
14.9%
12.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Summary File 1, 100% Data, Census 2000 (March 2006).
Blocks 1122, 1123, 1125, and 1146 are the only blocks within or adjacent to the study area in Tract 9603,
Block Group 1 that are populated.
3.3.1.2 Minority Characteristics
The Census Bureau defines minorities as any race that is not white, including African - American,
Asian, Native American or Alaskan, Pacific Islanders or Hawaiians, other unspecified races, or
people who consider themselves to be two or more races (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Minority
populations within Census blocks within or adjacent to the study area were appraised to
determine whether concentrations of minority populations exist. The results of the analysis show
that in the study corridor there are no minority residents present, compared to 30 percent minority
residents in Montgomery County, 27 percent minority residents in North Carolina, and 23 percent
minority residents in the United States.
3 -14

3 -16

3.3.1.3 Economics
To better understand Montgomery County and the study area from an economic viewpoint,
several factors were examined. The block group containing the study area was compared to
Montgomery County, to North Carolina, and to the United States (Table 3.4). Economic
information is not available by block. Poverty status is determined by the Census Bureau and is
based on income versus a poverty threshold, which varies according to family size and ages of
family members. The same thresholds are used throughout the United States and are updated
annually for inflation (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 3.4
Residential Economic Characteristics (1999)
Location
Median Household
Income
per Capita Income
Percent Below
Poverty Level
Tract 9603, Block Group 1
$40,486
$27,216
8.1%
Montgomery County
$39,616
$16,504
15.4%
North Carolina
$39,184
$20,307
12.3%
United States
$41,994
$21,587
12.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Summary File 3, 100% Data, Census 2000 (March 2006).
As shown in Table 3.4, the percent of people below the poverty level in the block groups in the
study area is lower than in the county, the state, or the country. Correspondingly, the median
household income and the per capita income in the census block study area are higher than for the
county and the state.
Table 3.5 shows the unemployment rates for Montgomery County, North Carolina, and the
United States. This information is not available for the study area. The unemployment rates in
Montgomery County have been consistently higher than in North Carolina or the United States
since 2001.
3 -17

Table 3.5
Unemployment Rates
Percent Unemployedt
Area
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Montgomery County
3.9%
6.8%
8.2%
9.0%
7.3%
North Carolina
3.6%
5.5%
6.8%
6.4%
5.5%
United States
4.0%
4.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.5%
Source: The Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, Labor Market Information (2006)
(http://www.ncesc.com).
Not seasonally adjusted.
3.3.2 Environmental Effects
The proposed project's effects on the study area's demographic characteristics are summarized in
the Environmental Justice section (Section 3.4).
3.4 Environmental Justice
3.4.1 Affected Environment
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-
Income Populations, directs federal agencies to consider proposed actions on minority and /or
low - income populations to ensure that agency actions do not have a disproportionate adverse
impact on these communities.
3.4.2 Environmental Effects
Direct Impact: There are no minority residents in the study area (see Section 3.3.1.2). The
poverty level in the study area is substantially less than in the county, state, and country (see
Section 3.3.1.3). Therefore there would be no direct disproportionate adverse impacts on
Environmental Justice populations for either the No Action or the Preferred Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There would be no disproportionate adverse indirect impacts on Environmental
Justice populations.
3 -18

3.4.2.1 Cumulative Impact
There would be no disproportionate adverse cumulative impacts on Environmental Justice
populations.
3.5 Cultural Resources
Archaeological and historic cultural resources were summarized in the Phase IArchaeological
Survey (New South Associates, March 2008), Rehabilitation ofFDR 597 From SR 1179 to
FDR 544, Uwharrie National Forest (New South Associates, June 2007), Existing Conditions:
Cultural Resources Survey (New South Associates, May 2006), and Archaeological Survey and
Evaluation of 11 Sites (November 2008) (all are appended by reference) and are discussed below.
3.5.1 Affected Environment
The following sections describe the archaeological and historic resources in the study area.
3.5.1.1 Archaeological Resources
Archaeological Research
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Archaeological Research section was defined as 200
feet on either side of the center line of the existing road for the length of the project.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh, and at the Uwharrie National Forest office in Troy.
In Raleigh, the archaeological site files and associated report library at OSA were examined to
identify previously recorded sites in or near the project area, to determine the extent of previous
archaeological surveys in or near the project area, and to generate expectations for the types and
densities of as yet undiscovered sites in or near the project area. In Troy, the archaeological atlas
was examined to obtain better information on site boundaries. Secondary historic resources and
the compartment records also were examined to establish a timeline for settlement of the area.
The review determined that the entire area from the existing road to the shore of Badin Lake had
previously been surveyed by a series of projects by the USFS. This area contains a high density
of prehistoric and historic sites, including 11 sites within the APE. The site density to the east of
3 -19

the existing road is lower, but only because that area has not been intensively surveyed. Details
of some of the previous surveys are as follows:
• Sites 31MG498 to 31MG524 (inclusive) were discovered during the Catawba College
survey of 4,875 acres of Uwharrie National Forest (Cooper and Norville 1979). The
survey totally relied on surface survey, and no site delineations or evaluations were
completed. Typically, roads, trails, and other areas of exposed soils are examined for
artifacts. Above - surface features such as chimney piles and cemetery headstones were
noted as sites. This 1979 survey examined all of the APE west of the existing center line.
• The 1991 survey of the proposed Reeves Spring Branch timber sale resulted in the revisit
or discovery of 11 sites (Harmon and Snedeker 1991). No site evaluations were
completed. The sites included: 31MG502, 31MG503, 31MG504, 31MG505, 31MG507,
31MG510, 31MG511, 31MG601, 31MG874, 31MG875, and 31MG876.
• Harmon and Snedeker (1993) surveyed proposed recreation areas at Badin Lake. Among
the sites they discovered were 31MG517, 31MG521, 31MG575, 31MG518, and
31MG1032. It is unclear if the report and recommendations were accepted by the OSA.
• In 2002, Harmon conducted an evaluation of sites 31MG514/514, 31MG630, 31MG575,
and 31MG1697/1697. All four sites were recommended not eligible, and the OSA
concurred with those recommendations.
In recognition of areas of high archaeological potential, the Uwharrie National Forest designated
Archaeological Zones in their draft Forest Management Plan. Archaeological Zones represent
areas of preservation priority. Two Archaeological Zones are partially within the APE (see
Figure 3.6).
3 -20

3 -22

The general project area was used in all prehistoric periods as a source for Morrow Mountain
rhyolite, a stone used for tools. This material was used by groups throughout North Carolina but
has only limited exposures in the state. Accordingly, many sites were created near the project
area by groups extracting the rhyolite and /or settling near a convenient source of the material.
The full prehistoric sequence — Paleoindian [12,000 -7,500 Before Current Era (B.C.E.)], Early
Archaic (7,500 -6,000 B.C.E.), Middle Archaic (6,000 -3,000 B.C.E.), Late Archaic
(3,000 -700 B.C.E.), Early Woodland [700 B.C.E. - Current Era (C.E.) 200], Middle Woodland
(C.E. 200 -800), Late Woodland (C.E. 800 - 1,000), and Mississippian (C.E. 1,000- 1,600) —is
represented in the Badin Lake vicinity. Sites from these periods may range from extremely short-
term stone knapping episodes, and overnight hunting camps, to seasonal base camps, and
intensively utilized quarries.
Archaeological Fieldwork and Findings
A Phase I Archaeological Survey and site delineation were completed for the Preferred
Alternative. The fieldwork for the Archaeological Fieldwork and Findings section was
performed as part of the Phase I Archaeological Survey. Because this fieldwork occurred after
the Preferred Alternative was selected, the APE for the Archaeological Fieldwork and Findings
section was defined as all land within the proposed cut and fill lines of the Preferred Alternative
for the length of the project.
A survey conducted in March 2008 entailed the excavation of 324 shovel tests at 30 -meter
intervals for site discovery. Five sites were discovered. Shovel tests were excavated at 15 -meter
intervals to delineate the four sites within the APE, all of which were determined to not be
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In October 2008, the entire APE
was resurveyed. This survey entailed the excavation of 314 shovel tests at 30 -meter intervals for
site discovery. Fifteen sites were discovered, including the four sites from the original survey.
Of the 15 sites, two of the previous delineations were determined to be sufficient
(31MG509/1835/1835 ** and 31MG1836 * *), two sites were outside of the APE (31MG876 and
31MG1926 * *), and the remaining 11 sites were delineated using shovel tests at 15 -meter
intervals. All 15 sites are recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
3 -23

3.5.1.2 Historic Resources
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Historic Resources section was defined as 200 feet on
either side of the center line of the existing road for the length of the project.
Historical Research
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Office of Archives and History, where state architectural survey files, maps, and National
Register of Historic Places nomination forms were consulted. Additional historic context
research was conducted in the local history /genealogy room at the Montgomery County Public
Library in Troy, North Carolina. Tax records and deeds of the surveyed properties were
consulted at the Montgomery County Administrative Building located in Troy.
Also, Uwharrie National Forest land acquisition records and other background history sources
were obtained from the Uwharrie Ranger Station in Troy. Local residents in Blaine, the closest
community to the project area, were informally interviewed during fieldwork to gain local oral
history information on the surveyed properties. An attempt was made to visit the North Carolina
State Archives in Raleigh, but it was closed for remodeling during the fieldwork phase of the
project. The state library holdings, however, were available during the remodeling and provided
sources in the state's architectural history.
Additionally, archival research was undertaken at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., to
better understand the scope of Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) activities in Montgomery
County and to determine where CCC camps were located. (CCC crews worked on government
land throughout the country. Their projects including road building and road improvements, and
their efforts improved transportation networks in the National Forests.) All available CCC
records for Montgomery County found in Record Group 35, Box 156 were reviewed. One folder
labeled "North Carolina, Co. 2410, F -17, Montgomery County, Troy" had area- specific
information. Research indicates that a CCC camp (Camp NC P -17, Camp Albert R. Ives,
Company 2410, December 20, 1934 — May 11, 1937) was located in the Troy vicinity, with Troy
being the closest railhead and post office to the camp.
A windshield survey and subsequent field survey of the APE confirmed the location of a
farmhouse, two CCC- derived cabins, a CCC -style vented ford (marked "1937 "), and 25 stone
culverts in the project area roadbed (see Figure 3.7).
3 -24

Figure 3.7: Stone Culvert
Historical Fieldwork and Findings
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)
FDR 597 was built by the CCC in 1934 to replace an earlier road that was inundated by the
creation of Badin Lake in 1917. It features several resources associated with the CCC, including
a stone vented ford, 25 stone culverts, and two small cabins (one in ruins).
The roadbed of FDR 597 is a product of CCC construction or improvement, but it does not
possess the distinctive physical characteristics of other historically significant park or forest roads
such as scenic vistas, retaining walls, or turnouts. The collection of 25 stone culverts found in the
road bed might have constituted a sort of "CCC culvert district," but taken together the culverts
do not retain a sufficient level of integrity to convey their historic significance. Many of the
smaller culverts' stone end walls are collapsed or buried by decades of erosion. The larger
surveyed culverts appear to have been better maintained through the years because they contain
3 -25

large streams. They display a higher level of integrity, but on their own do not possess enough
distinctive design characteristics to make them historically significant CCC- designed structures.
The presence of the cabins suggests that they represent either a small CCC side camp, or that they
were salvaged from an abandoned CCC camp elsewhere, possibly Camp F -17 at Troy. As noted,
Camp F -17, which housed Unit 2410, was established in December 1934 and received its water
and sewer services directly from the city of Troy. Camp F -17, therefore, was located in or
immediately adjacent to Troy, 10 miles from the FDR 597 survey area. This documentary
evidence and a metal- detector reconnaissance confirm the absence of a full CCC unit camp near
the cabins. These cabins do not appear to be associated with any particular historically significant
event, such as an historically significant project within Montgomery County or the establishment
of a major CCC company camp.
Coggin House
At the north end of the project area is the circa 1845 Coggin House, a one -story T -plan farmhouse
with associated outbuildings. The Coggin House is individually eligible for nomination to the
NRHP for architecture as an intact example of an antebellum T -plan farmhouse. It has distinctive
characteristics of type, period, and method of construction as an early- nineteenth century
vernacular T -plan "Palladian- inspired" farmhouse. This house type has been documented in two
major scholarly works on North Carolina architecture and is recognized as an historically
significant vernacular house type during the state's Federal period. Moreover, the examples cited
in current scholarship are limited to the more common two -story T -plan house, making the
Coggin House all the more historically significant as a rare one -story version of the type.
It does not appear that this house type has been previously identified in Montgomery County; no
examples are included in the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office architectural
survey or NRHP files. The period of significance associated with the house coincides with its
period of use as an agricultural property from circa 1845 -1917. The Coggin House with its two
outbuildings and surrounds are also NRHP - eligible as an agricultural property.
3 -26

3.5.2 Environmental Effects
3.5.2.1 No Action Alternative
Archaeological Resources
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to archaeological resources as a
result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to archaeological resources as
a result of the No Action Alternative.
Historic Resources
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to historic resources as a result of
the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to historic resources as a
result of the No Action Alternative.
3.5.2.2 Preferred Alternative
Archaeological Resources
Although no previously recorded archaeological sites are present in the APE, the vicinity has a
high density of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. As a result, a Phase I Archaeological
Survey was completed. This initial field survey discovered four archaeological sites within the
APE. Subsequent surveys revealed I I additional sites. The archaeological survey team
determined that none of the artifacts found would provide appreciably more understanding about
the Badin Lake prehistoric or historic era. Based on the field results, no sites have been
determined eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP.
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to eligible archaeological
resources as a result of this project.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to eligible archaeological
resources as a result of this project.
3 -27

Historic Resources
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)
The culverts and roadbed are unelaborated, practical examples of 1930s era engineering that lack
distinction. As a group, they do not constitute either a landscape or district that can convey the
historical significance of CCC activities in Montgomery County. The other CCC resources lack
distinction and many suffer from a loss of integrity. The cabins, ford, and culverts are of
standardized construction, and further study of the architecture of the buildings or the structures
would not yield historically significant information. Additionally, neither the buildings nor
structures on FDR 597 are associated with an historically significant person, and the lack of
documentary and archaeological support for a larger camp around the cabins lessens their
historical interest. As such, the CCC - related historic resources identified by this survey are not
recommended eligible for the NRHP.
Coggin House
The Coggin House is considered individually NRHP eligible as an example of an antebellum
vernacular T -plan house type. The house, outbuildings and surrounds may also be eligible under
Criterion A as an agricultural property associated with Montgomery County subsistence
agriculture in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The road alignment has been developed to
avoid this property.
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to any NRHP - eligible historic
resources by the Preferred Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to any NRHP - eligible historic
resources by the Preferred Alternative.
3.5.2.3 Cumulative Impact
Because there are no direct or indirect impacts on archaeological or historic resources, there are
no cumulative impacts.
3 -28

3.6 Natural Resources
3.6.1 Affected Environment
The following sections describe natural resources in the study area.
3.6.1.1 Jurisdictional Topics
Waters of the United States
The Clean Water Act (CWA) defines "Waters of the United States" as waterbodies including
lakes, rivers and streams, and wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation
of discharges into "Waters of the United States." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) is the principal administrative agency of the CWA; however, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility for implementing, permitting, and enforcing provisions
of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320 -330.
Wetlands, streams, and open waters are regulated by the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the
CWA (33 U.S.0 1344). The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) also has regulatory input through Section 401 Water
Quality Certification. Streams are described in Section 3.6.1.3, and wetlands are described
below. There are no open waters in the study area.
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. The project study area was surveyed for jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with
guidelines for wetland definition as given in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. This approach incorporates three criteria in delineating wetlands, (1) the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation, (2) the presence of hydric soils, and (3) evidence of wetland hydrology.
All three criteria must be present in a given location for an area to be considered a jurisdictional
wetland.
One jurisdictional wetland was identified and delineated within the project study area. The
boundary of the wetland location was identified in the field and located using GPS survey
3 -29

methods. The wetland, shown in Figure 3.8, is located at the southern end of the project study
area and is the headwaters for Stream 413. Dominant vegetation includes carex (Carex crinita),
juncus (Juncus effusus), and various other Carex spp. Based on the Cowardin classification, the
wetland is a Palustrine Emergent wetland system.
Hydrology indicators for the wetland included saturation in the upper 12 inches of soil, drainage
patterns in the wetlands, hydrophytic- dominated plant species, and a reduced soil matrix (Munsell
moist) with a chroma of one within the first 12 inches of the soil surface. Hydrology for this
wetland is dominated by groundwater discharge.
3.6.1.2 Floodplains
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with federal, state, and
local governments, has developed floodway boundaries and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS)
for Uwharrie National Forest. The base, or 100 -year, flood is defined as an event that is equaled
or exceeded on average once every 100 years. There are 17.7 acres of 100 -year floodplains
within the study area, located at five places along FDR 597. The water surface elevation of the
current 100 -year floodplain is 519.11 feet above sealevel. Figure 3.8 shows the 100 -year
floodplains.
3.6.1.3 Water Resources
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project vicinity are part of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
basin. The Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin covers 7,221 square miles in portions of seventeen
counties. The Yadkin Pee -Dee River basin headwaters are located in northwestern North
Carolina and southern Virginia and flow through central North Carolina into South Carolina. The
project study area falls within the USGS hydrologic unit codes 03040103050110 and
03040103050090, sub - basins 03 -07 -09 and 03- 07 -08.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Reeves Spring Branch, eleven unnamed tributaries (UTs) of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River, and one
UT of Moccasin Creek represent the surface waters in the project study area (Figure 3.8).
Reeves Spring Branch and the UTs of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River flow into Badin Lake, which is
an impoundment created by a dam on the Yadkin -Pee Dee River. The UT of Moccasin Creek
flows into Moccasin Creek and eventually into the Yadkin -Pee Dee River. Stream
classification determinations were made according to NCDWQ's Identification Methods for the
3 -30

r l '
t ,
Figure 3.8 - Water Resources
N
w E
S
0 1,000 2,000
I B B B 1 9 B B I
Feet
U.S. Department of Transportation
Cafthaw Federal Highway
Administration

3 -32

Origins oflntermittent and Perennial Streams (Version 3. 1, February 28, 2005). These methods
define a perennial stream channel as one that meets any of the following criteria: biological
indicators such as fish, crayfish, amphibians, or clams are present in the channel; a numerical
value of 30 or greater is determined based on the DWQ Stream Classification Form; or the
presence, as later instar larvae, of more than one benthic macroinvertebrate that requires water for
entire life cycles. Reeves Spring Branch, the UT of Moccasin Creek, and all the UTs to Yadkin -
Pee Dee River except for UT3 are perennial.
To differentiate between intermittent and ephemeral streams, DWQ Stream Classification
methodology uses a numerical cutoff value of 19. Streams that score between 19 and 30 are
intermittent, while those with scores below 19 are considered ephemeral. The descriptions and
surface water characteristics of each stream are summarized in Table 3.6.
Water Quality and Best Usage Classification
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. This section
of the Yadkin -Pee Dee and its tributaries are classified as "WS -IV & B, CA" waters. Reeves
Spring Branch is classified as "WS -IV CA," while Moccasin Creek is classified as "WS -IV."
NCDWQ defines "Water Supply" (WS) as a surface water classification intended for waters used
as sources of water supply. "WS -IV" waters are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds or Protected Areas. NCDWQ defines class `B" as freshwaters protected for primary
recreation and other uses suitable for Class C. NCDWQ defines class "C" as waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. NCDWQ defines "CA" as a critical area, which is an area within a half mile of
and draining into water supplies. Sources of water pollution that preclude any of these uses on
either a short-term or long -term basis are considered to be violating water quality standards.
In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.0 1344), states are required to
develop a list of waterbodies not meeting federal water quality standards or that have impaired
uses. North Carolina's Section 303(d) list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired
waterbodies in the state (NCDENR — DWQ, 2006). An impaired waterbody is one that does not
meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti -
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. No Section 303(d) waters are located within
the project study area.
3 -33

No High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters occur within one mile of the project
study area. Montgomery County is not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters.
Montgomery County is not one of the 13 coastal counties under the jurisdiction of North
Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality
monitoring stations used for the collection of physical and chemical water data. Ambient water
quality is not currently being monitored within the project study area. The nearest AMS station is
located three miles from the project study area on the Uwharrie River. All AMS stations are
located downstream of the study area.
Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges
Point source discharges are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ( NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a permit. Based upon
NCDWQ's database (accessed October 31, 2007), there are four NPDES permitted sites located
downstream of the project study area, the closest of which is 2.5 miles away.
Nonpoint source (NPS) discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater,
snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition. Land use activities such as land development, construction,
mining operations, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots are contributors of nonpoint source pollutants. The dominant land use within
and surrounding the project study area is forest. There is little NPS runoff from the project study
area except for runoff from FDR 597, associated parking, and the development of residential
homes in the project vicinity.
Land clearing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to
sedimentation in streams. Loss of streamside vegetation, which can be caused by construction
activities, also can contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Sediment is the most widespread
cause of NPS pollution in North Carolina. Sedimentation can clog the gills and /or feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Sedimentation may also cover
benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment that inhibits their ability to obtain
oxygen.
3 -34

Table 3.6
Stream Information
Description
Characteristics
Stream
Name
Stream
Number
Top of
Bank
Width
(ft)
Channel
Depth
(ft)
Water
Clarity
Linear Feet
Within
Project
Study Area
NCDWQ
Stream
Index #
Water
Quality
(all are
WS -IV)
Benthos
Present
NCDWQ
Rating #
USACE
Stream
Quality
Score
Classifi-
cation
Reeves
Spring
Branch
1
15 -20
4 -6
Cloudy
356
03 -07 -08
CA
Yes
48.5
75
Perennial
UT
Moccasin
Creek
13
1
1
Cloudy
244
03 -07 -09
—
Yes
27.5
61
Intermittent
Unnamed Tributaries to Yadkin -Pee Dee River
UT1
2
3 -4
3 -4
Cloudy
308
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
38
74
Perennial
UT2
3
2 -3
1 -2
Cloudy
602
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
31.5
69
Perennial
UT3
4
3 -4
1
Cloudy
563
03 -07 -08
B, CA
No
22
64
Intermittent
UT4
5
6 -8
2
Cloudy
350
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
34
66
Perennial
UT5
6
2 -3
2
Cloudy
225
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
31.5
65
Perennial
UT6
7
4
1
Cloudy
730
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
32
66
Perennial
UT7
8
4 -6
1
Cloudy
1451
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
30
64
Perennial
UT8
9
4 -6
1.5
Cloudy
556
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
30.5
64
Perennial
3 -35

Table 3.6, continued
Description
Characteristics
Stream
Name
Stream
Number
Top of
Bank
Width
(ft)
Channel
Depth
(ft)
Water
Clarity
Linear Feet
Within
Project
Study Area
NCDWQ
Stream
Index #
Water
Quality
(all are
WS -IV)
Benthos
Present
NCDWQ
Rating #
USACE
Stream
Quality
Score
Classifi-
cation
UT9
10
2
1
Cloudy
390
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
26.5
61
Intermittent
UT10
11
2 -3
1 -2
Clear
315
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
33
65
Perennial
UT11
12
2
1
Cloudy
348
03 -07 -08
B, CA
Yes
30.5
62
Perennial
Note: Class B waters are defined as freshwaters protected for primary recreations and other uses suitable for Class C. Class C waters are defined as waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
3 -36

Buffer Rules
Currently, there are no buffer regulations in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. Therefore, no
buffer rules apply for the proposed project.
3.6.1.4 Physiography and Soils
Physiography
Montgomery County is situated in the southeastern portion of the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina. The geography of the county consists predominantly of steep hills
and valleys along most streams. The elevations in the project study area range from
approximately 520 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the drainage ways to approximately
650 feet above MSL along ridgelines, as depicted on the Badin, North Carolina, United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (see Figure 3.4). The dark green areas
of the map represent Uwharrie National Forest lands, while the light green areas represent
privately owned land.
Soils
Soil associations are classified as a group of defined and named taxonomic soil units occurring
together in an individual and characteristic pattern over a general region. The soils within an
association generally vary in depth, slope, stoniness, drainage, and other characteristics. Based
on information contained in the draft soil survey data for Montgomery County (2005), the soils
within the project study area are composed of six soil series. The soils are mapped as Badin -
Tarrus complex, Cullen silt loam, Wynott -Eason complex, and Georgeville silt loam.
• The Badin series consists of moderately deep, well- drained, moderately permeable soils,
which formed in residuum weathered from fine - grained metavolcanic rocks of the
Carolina Slate Belt. These soils are located on the gently sloping to steep uplands of the
project study area.
• Soils of the Tarrus series are deep, well - drained, moderately permeable soils, which
formed in residuum from argillite or other fine - grained metavolcanic rocks of the
Carolina Slate Belt. These soils are located on gently sloping to very steep uplands of
the project study area.
3 -37

Soils of the Cullen series are very deep, well - drained, moderately permeable soils, which
formed in residuum from mixed mafic and felsic crystalline rocks. These soils are located
on upland ridgetops and side slopes of the project study area.
The Wynott series consists of moderately deep, well - drained, slow permeability soils,
which formed in residuum from gabbro, diorite, and other dark colored mafic rocks.
These soils are located on gently sloping to steep uplands.
• The Enon series consists of very deep, well drained, slowly permeable soils on ridgetops
and side slopes within the project study area. They have formed in clayey residuum
weathered from mafic or intermediate igneous and high -grade metamorphic rocks such as
diorite, gabbro, diabase, or hornblende gneiss or schist. Enon soils are located on gently
sloping ridgetops and sloping to steep side slopes of the project study area.
The Georgeville series consists of very deep, well- drained, moderately permeable soils,
which formed in material mostly weathered from fine- grained metavolcanic rocks of the
Carolina Slate Belt. These soils are located on gently sloping to moderately steep uplands
within the project study area.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated,
flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part of the soil. Such soils usually support hydrophytic vegetation. Based on information
obtained from the Montgomery County soil survey, none of the soils mapped within the project
study area are designated by the NRCS as hydric; however, soils designated as non -hydric may
develop hydric characteristics where the presence of surface and /or groundwater is conducive to
the formation of a wetland area. Wetlands are discussed in detail in Section 3.6.1.1 of this report.
3.6.2 Environmental Effects
3.6.2.1 No Action Alternative
Jurisdictional Topics
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to "Waters of the US" (surface
waters or wetlands) as a result of the No Action Alternative.
3 -38

Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to "Waters of the US"
(surface waters or wetlands) as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Floodplains
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to the existing 100 -year
floodplains as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to the existing 100 -year
floodplains as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Water Resources
Direct Impact: The No Action Alternative would not adversely affect the physical characteristics
of the surface waters or the existing water quality classifications. There are no point source
discharges within one mile of the study area. Nonpoint source discharges from the existing,
unpaved FDR 597 and surrounding residential developments would remain the same and would
not be adversely impacted. There are no buffer regulations in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin;
therefore, neither alternative would be subject to surface water buffer rules. Overall, there would
be no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to water resources as a result of the No Action
Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to water resources as a result
of the No Action Alternative.
Physiography and Soils
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to the study area's physiography
or soils as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to the study area's
physiography or soils as a result of the No Action Alternative.
3.6.2.2 Preferred Alternative
Jurisdictional Topics
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to "Waters of the US" (surface
waters and wetlands) as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
3 -39

Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to "Waters of the US"
(surface waters or wetlands) as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Floodplains
Direct Impact: At Reeves Spring Branch, the proposed project is expected to increase the water
surface elevation of the 100 -year floodplain from the existing 519.11 feet above sea level to
519.25 feet above sea level. As a result, the proposed project would have a long -term, negligible,
adverse impact on the existing drainage pattern and water courses.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to floodplains as a result of
the Preferred Alternative.
Water Resources
No Section 303(d) waters are located within the project study area; no High Quality Waters or
Outstanding Resource Waters occur within one mile of the project study area; Montgomery
County is not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the NCWRC as containing
Mountain Trout Waters; and Montgomery County is not one of the 13 coastal counties under the
jurisdiction of North Carolina's Coastal Area Management Act.
There are no point source discharges within one mile of the study area. Because the Preferred
Alternative is not expected to induce development beyond full build -out of current residential
patterns in Wood Land Estates and Skiers Cove, additional point source discharge sites are not
expected as a result of this project.
There are no buffer regulations in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, therefore, no buffer rules
apply to the proposed project.
Direct Impact: The Preferred Alternative is expected to impact 651 linear feet of streams within
the study area during construction, although it is not expected to change the physical
characteristics of the streams permanently. Therefore, the overall impact would be temporary,
minor, and adverse.
The Preferred Alternative would produce slightly more automobile - associated nonpoint source
discharge because the automobile effluent — primarily oil and gas — would have less pervious
3 -40

surface into which it can drain. Because the expected change in volume of traffic is long -term
and negligible, the resulting automobile effluent would have only negligible adverse impacts;
therefore the impact to water quality of the streams would be long -term and negligible. More
information on expected future traffic volumes is found in Section 3.9.1.4.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction enhances
erosion and possible sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic
compounds, trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site,
although the presence of toxic compounds is unlikely given the length of time that the Uwharrie
National Forest has been a protected area. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the
impacts by stabilizing the underlying soils. Best Management Practices would be used during
construction to prevent or minimize erosion, sedimentation, and other adverse water quality
impacts. Material staging and stockpiling would occur in parking lots or other disturbed areas.
Sedimentation and erosion impacts would be short-term and minor.
Indirect bnpact: Privately -owned parcels along FDR 597 have already been subdivided. While
the improvements to FDR 597 might increase the pace of development, there is not expected to
be an increase in the amount of developable land due to the improvements. As such, the amount
of cut and fill or of sedimentation and erosion is not expected to increase as an indirect result of
the proposed project. Therefore, there is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to water
resources as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Physiography and Soils
Direct Impact: The improvements proposed by the Preferred Alternative would require an
estimated 45,149 cubic yards of excavation and 32,950 cubic yards of fill. The Preferred
Alternative was chosen in part because of its lower design speed, which requires less excavation
and fill than a higher design speed. The Preferred Alternative would cause long -term, minor,
adverse impacts on physiography and soils.
Indirect bnpact: Privately -owned parcels along FDR 597 have already been subdivided. While
the improvements to FDR 597 might increase the pace of development, there is not expected to
be an increase in the amount of developable land due to the improvements. As such, the amount
3 -41

of cut and fill or of sedimentation and erosion is not expected to increase as an indirect result of
the proposed project. Therefore, there is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to
physiography or soils as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
3.6.2.3 Cumulative Impact
The USFS has past and present projects that create or improve Forest facilities, the NCDOT TIP
contains future projects to increase capacity and access, and three housing developments are
slated for Montgomery County. Access to utilities will improve inside and outside the Forest
boundaries, which increases development potential. An increase in visitors and potential
residents would cause increased vehicle effluent, which could adversely affect wetlands and
water quality. Although the USFS Draft LMPlan states that the USFS is avoiding building roads
on new locations, paving existing gravel roads would cause more construction- related
sedimentation, erosion, and possible loss of streamside vegetation. These impacts could
adversely affect floodplains, water quality, and physiography and soils. The temporal boundary
for which this document assesses cumulative impacts is 2015. It is unlikely that major changes in
new residents and visitation would occur by that time. Given the temporal boundary, cumulative
impacts on floodplains, water quality, and physiography and soils are judged to be long -term,
minor, and adverse. There would be no cumulative effect on wetlands since there are no direct or
indirect impacts.
3.7 Biological Communities
3.7.1 Affected Environment
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife that occur within the project
study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial communities are presented in the context of plant
community classifications based on Schafale and Weakley, Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation (1990). Additional detail is in the Natural
Resources Technical Report (October 2008).
The project study area is composed of five different vegetative communities based on
topography, soils, hydrology, and disturbance. These systems are interrelated and, in many
aspects, interdependent. Scientific nomenclature and common name (when applicable) are
3 -42

provided for each plant and animal species listed. Subsequent references to the same organism
include only the common name.
3.7.1.1 Plant Communities
Five plant communities were observed in the project study area: dry oak - hickory forest,
Piedmont monadnock forest, dry -mesic oak - hickory forest, mesic mixed hardwood forest
(Piedmont subtype), and maintained - disturbed areas. Maintained - disturbed areas do not
correspond to any Schafale and Weakley (1990) community classification because the native
vegetation has been removed and /or altered. Maintained - disturbed areas include the maintained
road shoulders, utility corridors, and a clearcut located within the project study area. Figure 4 in
the Natural Resources Technical Report shows terrestrial communities in the study area.
Dry -mesic oak - hickory forest is the dominant plant community within the project study area.
This community is dominated by various oaks and hickories and is typically found on mid slopes
with acidic soils. Dry -mesic oak - hickory forest grades into dry oak - hickory forest or Piedmont
monadnock forest on the upper slopes and ridge lines. On the lower slopes and stream drainage
ways dry -mesic oak hickory forest grades into mesic mixed hardwood forest.
Dry Oak - Hickory Forest
The dry oak - hickory forest is located on and near the ridgelines where site conditions are drier.
The canopy is dominated by similar species to the dry -mesic oak - hickory but also includes
blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica). The understory and herb layer is less diverse and dense
due to the drier conditions.
Piedmont Monadnock Forest
Piedmont monadnock forest contains similar species to dry oak hickory forest except there is
more chestnut oak (Quercus montana) in the canopy. These forests are also located on the
ridgelines on the drier sites.
Dry - Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest
The canopy of the dry -mesic oak - hickory forest is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba),
scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), and black oak (Quercus velutina) with scattered loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). The midstory consists of a variety of smaller oaks, sourwood
3 -43

(Oxydendrum arboreum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The
understory is composed of a variety of shrubs including blueberries (Vaccinium vacillans and
V. corymbosum), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), dogwood (Cornus florida), fringe tree
(Chionanthus virginicus), and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). Common vines include
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia) and grape (Vitis rotundifolia). The herbaceous layer include
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), crane -fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The Piedmont subtype of mesic mixed hardwood forests generally occurs in areas along the
drainage ways of the numerous streams. A variety of moist upland soils support mesic mixed
hardwood forests. The canopy is composed of a variety of hardwoods similar to dry - mesic oak
hickory forest except it includes such canopy species as poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua). All of the stream drainage ways have a narrow fringe of
mesic mixed hardwood forest on either side of the stream channel. Some common understory
shrub species include witch -hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), buckeye
(Aesculus sylvatica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood, and sapling of American
holly (Ilex opaca) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Common herbs include Hepatica spp.,
Hexastylis spp., Solomon's seal (Polygonatum b florum), jack -in- the - pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), (Microstegium virmineum), partridge berry (Mitchella repens), cross vine (Bignonia
capreolata), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia), and black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa).
Agricultural /Maintained- Disturbed Area
The maintained - disturbed areas include the grassed shoulders along roads, utility corridors, and a
clearcut located in the northern portion of the project study area. The vegetation within these
areas varies with different management regimes. The road shoulders contain various turf grasses
including fescue (Festuca spp.) and Bermuda grass (Cynadon dactylon) with scattered herbs,
which include (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese honeysuckle, Galium sp., goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
green and gold (Chrysogonum virginianum), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), bluets
(Houstonia caerulea), Oxalis spp., windflower (Thalictrum thalictroides), Rumex sp., henbit
(Lamium amplexicaula), black -eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), whorled coreopsis ( Coreopsis
major), (Lespedeza bicolor), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium obtusifolium), and onion (Allium sp.).
3 -44

The clearcut included dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), blackberry, Aster spp., smooth
sumac (Rhus glabra), and winged sumac (Rhus copallina).
3.7.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
The continuous forested areas provide abundant cover and foraging habitat for a variety of
wildlife. Evidence of white - tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) were observed during the site visit. Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo),
black vulture (Coragyps atratus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) also were observed.
Common mammals that could be expected to utilize the project study area habitat include the
striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), red fox ( Vulpes vulpes), and various shrews, moles, bats, and
mice.
Reptiles likely to use the area include the rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), slider (Trachemys scripta), five -lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus),
southeastern five -lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
auriculatus), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), water snakes (Nerodia spp.),
toads (Bufo spp.), leopard frogs (Rana spp.), tree frogs (Hyla spp.), and salamanders (Ambystoma
spp.). Other aquatic species likely to be found in the project vicinity include the snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), and the yellow belly slider
(Chrysemys scripta).
3.7.1.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
Reeves Spring Branch, the associated tributaries of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River, the UT of
Moccasin Creek, and Badin Lake provide aquatic habitat within the project study area. The
physical characteristics (size and water quality) of a waterbody, as well as the adjacent terrestrial
community, directly influence the faunal composition of the aquatic community. The quality of
aquatic habitat within the project study area is expected to be high due to the lack of development
within the watershed. Woody debris located throughout the streams provides habitat, shade, and
concealment pockets for several aquatic species. Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of
3 -45

aquatic ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, as well as prey items for organisms
higher in the food chain.
Macrobenthos were observed in the streams within the project study area indicating good water
quality. Aquatic insects observed include caddisflies (Trichoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and
midges (Diptera). Crayfish (Decapoda) were also observed.
Fish species expected to occur within the project vicinity include bullhead catfish (Ameiurus
spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), shiners (Notropis spp. and Cyprinella
spp.), and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). In addition, Badin Lake supports warm
water fish species such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), pickerel (Esox niger), and pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus).
3.7.1.4 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect a federally protected species be
subject to review by the USFWS. Separate state laws may protect additional species. These
federal and state lists are all - inclusive for the Forest and include species outside of the project
study area.
Field surveys were conducted by trained biologists on October 20, 2005 and April 19, 2006. The
surveys included an assessment of the presence of the federally listed species within the proposed
project study area. A letter was received from Pete Benjamin of USFWS (May 22, 2006; see
Appendix B) stating that this project is not expected to impact any threatened and endangered
species.
Field surveys were only done for those species protected under federal law by the Endangered
Species Act. Other rare or protected species that could be present in the study area are identified
through county -wide database lists and coordination with USFWS and NCDENR.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. An endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout all,
3 -46

or a significant portion, of its range. According to the January 31, 2008, USFWS internet listing,
there are four endangered species listed for federal protection in Montgomery County:
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), the eastern cougar (Puma concolor couguar),
the red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and the smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata). More detailed information on these species is detailed below. None of these listed
endangered species are aquatic species.
A threatened species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all,
or a significant portion, of its range. Currently, there are no threatened species, proposed
endangered species, or proposed threatened species listed for federal protection in Montgomery
County.
"Critical habitat," as defined in the ESA, is a term for habitat given special protection for the
benefit of a listed species. Critical habitat is not designated for any species listed in Montgomery
County, North Carolina.
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower is a tall perennial herb growing from 3 to 6 feet in height with a tuberous
root system. The stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above mid -stem. The stem is
usually pubescent and purple. The yellow disk and ray flowers are formed on small heads, and
the disc is a little more than 0.5 inch across. The petals are 0.75 to a little less than 1.25 inches.
The leaves are opposite with the uppermost leaves on the stem alternate. The leaf is scabrous
(rough) above and tomentosa (downy) underneath. Leaf margins are entire or with a few obscure
serrations and also are somewhat revolute.
Schweinitz's sunflower is typically found in open habitats where naturally occurring periodic
fires suppress competition and allow sufficient sunlight. Schweinitz's sunflower also inhabits
maintained areas such as power line rights of way, railroad rights of way, and roadsides where
regular maintenance simulates the effects of fires. Schweinitz's sunflower grows from a variety
of soil types but generally is found growing on shallow, poor, clayey, and /or rocky soils,
especially those derived from mafic rocks (USFWS 1994).
All suitable habitats for Schweinitz's sunflower within the study corridor were surveyed during its
flowering period. No populations of Schweinitz's sunflower were found during this search. The
3 -47

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's ( NCNHP) database (reviewed January 22, 2006)
documents the location of several known populations of the sunflower within 0.5 miles west and
southwest of the study corridor. As of August 2008, no new occurrences were recorded within
two miles of the project corridor.
Eastern Cougar
The eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long - tailed cat. Its body and legs are a uniform fulvous
or tawny hue with a pale reddish or reddish -white belly. The inside of this cat's ears are light-
colored, with blackish color behind the ears.
Cougars feed primarily on deer, but their diet may also include small mammals, wild turkeys, and
occasionally domestic livestock, when available. Their primary habitat need is large wilderness
areas with an adequate food supply. Male cougars of other subspecies have been observed to
occupy a range of 25 square miles or more and females from five to 20 square miles.
Although there are large tracts of forested land available, no eastern cougars have been sighted
within the last 50 years in Montgomery County. The eastern cougar is considered by many to be
extirpated from North Carolina. In addition, NCNHP records (August 2008) did not document
the location of any known populations of the eastern cougar in or immediately adjacent to the
study corridor.
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker
Typically, red - cockaded woodpeckers inhabit the Coastal Plain plant communities dominated by
large tracts (i.e., 25+ acres) of pine trees. Suitable red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
includes pine or pine /hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Nesting occurs in stands of
mature 60 year -old or older pine trees, usually longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with a sparsely
vegetated understory less than 20 feet tall. The birds nest in live trees that are identifiable by the
resin that surrounds the nesting cavity.
Although there are large pines scattered throughout the project study area, there is no suitable
habitat available for red cockaded woodpeckers either adjacent to or within the project study area.
No cavity trees or individual birds were observed during the field surveys. NCNHP records
(August 2008) did not document the location of any known populations of the red - cockaded
woodpecker in or immediately adjacent to the study corridor.
3 -48

Smooth Coneflower
Smooth coneflower is a tall rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 5 feet in height. The
stems are smooth with leaves that are lance -ovate to elliptic. The smooth to slightly rough leaves
are acuminate, i.e., taper to a slender point, with often coarse serrations. The ray flowers (2 to 3
inches long) are light pink to purple, usually drooping. Flower heads are usually solitary with
flowering occurring from May through July (USFWS 2005).
Smooth coneflower typically inhabits open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry
limestone bluffs, and power line rights of way. The smooth coneflower is associated with the
gabbro and diabase parent material soil types, which are usually rich in magnesium and calcium
(USFWS 1995).
All suitable habitats for smooth coneflower within the study corridor were surveyed. No
populations of smooth coneflower were found during this search. The search area was not within
a mile of other known location of the plant. NCNHP records (August 2008) did not document the
location of any known populations of the smooth coneflower in or immediately adjacent to the
study corridor.
Candidate Species
Candidate species are defined as species under consideration for listing for which there is
sufficient information to support listing as threatened or endangered; however, they have not yet
been added to the Threatened and Endangered Species list. Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. The status of these
species may be upgraded at any time, which is why they are included here for consideration.
Two species are listed under consideration for listing and are noted here as candidate species.
These species are the Yadkin River goldenrod (Solidago plumosa) and the Georgia aster
(Symphyotrichum georgianum). The study area provides suitable habitat for both Georgia aster
and Yadkin River goldenrod.
Federal Species of Concern
There are 15 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Montgomery County.
(The USFWS list was updated by the USFWS January 31, 2008.) FSC are not afforded federal
protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
3 -49

they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. FSC are defined as species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing as
threatened or endangered. The status of these species may be upgraded at any time, which is why
they are included here for consideration. Table 3.7 lists the federal species of concern and the
existence of suitable habitat within the project study area.
State Species
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the
NCDENR Natural Heritage Program (NHP) list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act of 1979. The state definition for an
endangered plant species is "any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a
viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy" (GS 19B 106: 202.12). The
state definition for an endangered animal species is "any native or once - native species of wild
animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined by the
NCWRC to be in jeopardy or any species of wild animal determined to be an'endangered species'
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act" (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes;
1987). Table 3.8 shows species protected by the State of North Carolina.
The study area provides suitable aquatic and terrestrial habitat for many of the state -listed species;
however, field surveys were not conducted to determine the presence of these species. NCNHP
records (reviewed on August 18, 2008) document occurrences of 10 state -listed species within a
mile of the study area: piedmont indigo -bush (Amorpha schwerinii), thin -pod white wild indigo
(Baptisia albescens), piedmont horsebalm (Collinsonia tuberosa), littleleaf sneezeweed
(Helenium brevifolium), smooth sunflower (Helianthus laevigatus), Schweinitz's sunflower,
glade wild quinine (Parthenium auriculatum), Georgia aster, buffalo clover (Trifolium reflexum),
and four -toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum).
3 -50

Table 3.7
Federal Species of Concern Listed for Montgomery County, North Carolina
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat
Habitat
Present
Bog spicebush
Lindera subcoriacea
Streamhead pocosins, white
No
cedar swamps, seepage
slopes
Atlantic pigtoe
Fusconaia masoni
Most Atlantic drainages, in
Yes
lower Piedmont and upper
Coastal Plain; also in Black
River in lower Coastal Plain
Carolina creekshell
Villosa vaughaniana
Pee Dee and Catawba
Yes
systems (endemic to North
Carolina and adjacent South
Carolina
Savannah lilliput
Toxolasma pullus
Number of Atlantic
Yes
drainages
Yellow
Lampsilis carioca
Number of river systems;
Yes
Lampmussel
mainly near the Fall Line
Carolina darter
Etheostoma collis collis
Streams in the Yadkin - Pee
Yes
Dee and Catawba drainages
Northern pine
Pituophis
Dry and sandy woods,
No
snake
melanoleucus
mainly in pine /oak sandhills
melanoleucus
Pinewoods Darter
Etheostoma mariae
Streams of Lumber
No
drainage, mainly in the
sandhills; perhaps in
adjacent Pee Dee drainage
Sandhills chub
Semotilus lumbee
Streams in the sandhills
No
Bog Oatgrass
Danthonia epilis
Seepage bogs, wet seepy
No
powerlines
Piedmont Aster
Eurybia mirabilis
Rich slopes and
Yes
bottomlands
Ravine sedge
Carex impresinervia
Rich alluvial forests
No
American eel
Anguilla rostrata
Catadromous
No
Brook floater
Alasmidonta varicosa
Piedmont systems and
Yes
along Blue Ridge
escarpment of Catawba
River system
Carolina redhorse
Moxostoma sp. 2
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Yes
system
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service
3 -51

Table 3.8
State Species Protection List for Montgomery County, North Carolina
Common
Scientific
State
Federal
County
Habitat
Habitat
Name
Name
Status
Status
Status
Present
Invertebrate Animal
Carolina
Alasmidonta
EX
None
Obscure
Small, freshwater creek
Yes
Elktoe
robusta
with varying substrates
A Bivalve
Alasmidonta
Small, freshwater creek
(Uwharries
sp. 2
SR
None
Current
with varying substrates
Yes
region)
Big rivers with moderate
Triangle
Alasmidonta
current in muddy sand;
Floater
undulata
T
None
Current
small streams with slow
Yes
current in varying
substrates
Greensboro
Cambarus
Permanent or temporary
Burrowing
catagius
SC
None
Current
ponds and swamps
Yes
Crayfish
Large rivers or their
Roanoke
Elliptio
T
None
Current
tributaries in near -shore
No
Slabshell
roanokensis
troughs with sand /gravel
substrate
Mottled
Erynnis
SR
None
Current
Hilly areas near woods or
No
Duskywing
martialis
in open brushy fields
Most Atlantic drainages, in
Atlantic
Fusconaia
lower Piedmont and upper
Pigtoe
masoni
E
FSC
Current
Coastal Plain; also in Black
Yes
River in lower Coastal
Plain
Spine-
Gomphus
Lotic; clear rivers and
crowned
abbreviatus
SR
None
Obscure
streams
Yes
Clubtail
Yellow
Lampsilis
E
FSC
Current
Number of river systems;
Yes
Lampmussel
carioca
mainly near the Fall Line
Small streams, large
Eastern
Lampsilis
T
None
Current
rivers, ponds, lakes in a
Yes
Lampmussel
radiata
wide variety of substrate
types.
Lasmigona
Pools and calm water
Green Floater
subviridis
E
FSC
Current
areas in gravel and sand in
Yes
1 -4 ft of water
Northern Oak
Satyrium
Open woodlands, oak
Hairstreak
favonius
SR
None
Current
groves, cedar barrens
Yes
ontario
Strophitus
Wide distribution in
Creeper
undulatus
T
None
Current
streams, rivers, lakes, and
Yes
ponds
3 -52

Table 3.8, continued
Common
Scientific
State
Federal
County
Habitat
Habitat
Name
Name
Status
Status
Status
Present
Savannah
Toxolasma
E
FSC
Current
Number of Atlantic
Yes
Lilliput
pullus
drainages
Tributary and headwater
Notched
Villosa
SC
None
Current
creeks and rivers with
Yes
Rainbow
constricta
coarse substrate within its
historical range
Eastern
Villosa
SR
None
Current
Pools of small creeks and
Yes
Creekshell
delumbis
rivers in mud or soft sand
Pee Dee and Catawba
Carolina
Villosa
E
FSC
Current
systems (endemic to North
Yes
Creekshell
vaughaniana
Carolina and adjacent
South Carolina)
Agoyan
Cataract
Scopelophila
SR -D
None
Current
Copper rich soils
Yes
Moss
cataractae
Vascular Plant
Piedmont
Amorpha
SR -T
None
Current
Xeric and rocky forest and
Yes
Indigo -bush
schwerinii
woodlands
Southern
Anemone
Forested slopes with
Anemone
berlandieri
SR -P
None
Current
shallow, circumneutral
Yes
soils
Thick -pod
White Wild
Baptisia alba
SR -P
None
Current
Open woodlands, clearings
Yes
Indigo
Thin -pod
Baptisia
Open pine or pine -oak
White Wild
albescens
SR -P
None
Current
woodlands, barrens,
Yes
Indigo
clearings, banks, roadsides
Short -grass plains, prairie
Prairie Blue
Baptisia minor
T
None
Current
relicts, pastures;
No
Wild Indigo
var. aberrans
calcareous -clay, rocky
slopes, limestone bluffs
American
Berberis
Open forests and glades
Barberry
canadensis
SR -T
None
Current
on basic soils
Yes
Dissected
Cardamine
SR -P
None
Current
Rich woods, cove forests,
No
Toothwort
dissecta
bottomlands
Ravine
Carex
Sedge
impressinervia
SR -T
FSC
Current
Rich alluvial forests
No
Carolina
Cirsium
Forests and disturbed
Thistle
carolinianum
SR -P
None
Current
areas, mostly on basic
Yes
soils
Piedmont
Collinsonia
SR -P
None
Current
Rich hardwood forests
Yes
Horse balm
tuberosa
Bog Oatgrass
Danthonia
SR -T
FSC
Current
Seepage bogs, wet seepy
No
epilis
powerlines
3 -53

Table 3.8, continued
Common
Scientific
State
Federal
County
Habitat
Habitat
Name
Name
Status
Status
Status
Present
A Witch
Dichanthelium
Dry sandy or rocky open
Grass
annulum
SR -P
None
Historical
woods and borders of
Yes
thickets
Eastern
Dodecatheon
Rich, rocky woods, over
Shooting -Star
meadia var.
SR -P
None
Current
mafic or calcareous rocks
Yes
meadia
Open woods, cedar
Smooth
Echinacea
E -SC
E
Historical
barrens, roadsides /rights
Yes
Coneflower
laevigata
of way, clearcuts, dry
limestone bluffs,
Piedmont
Eurybia
SR -T
FSC
Current
Rich slopes and
Yes
Aster
mirabilis
bottomlands
Large Witch-
Fothergilla
Dry ridgetop or bluff
alder
major
SR -T
None
Current
forests
No
Indian Physic
Gillenia
SR -P
None
Current
Forests and open woods,
Yes
stipulate
mainly over mafic rocks
Littleleaf
Helenium
E
None
Current
Bogs, seeps, riverbanks
Yes
Sneezeweed
brevifolium
Smooth
Helianthus
SR -P
None
Current
Open woods and
Yes
Sunflower
laevigatus
roadsides /rights of way
Schweinitz's
Helianthus
Open habitats with fire or
Sunflower
schweinitzii
E
E
Current
regular maintenance
Yes
(roadsides /rights of way)
Sarvis Holly
Ilex
SR -P
None
Current
Blackwater swamps and
No
amelanchier
riverbanks
Bog
Lindera
Streamhead pocosins,
Spicebush
subcoriacea
T
FSC
Current
white cedar swamps,
No
seepage slopes
Glade Wild
Parthenium
SR -T
None
Current
Glades and openings over
Yes
Quinine
auriculatum
mafic rocks
Heller's
Dry woodlands, openings,
Rabbit-
SR -P
None
Current
and glades, especially
Yes
Tobacco
alium h lied
alium helleri
over mafic rocks
Bluff Oak
Quercus
SR -P
None
Current
Bluff and bottomland
No
austrina
forests
Pursh's Wild-
Ruellia
Glades and woodlands,
petunia
purshiana
SR -O
None
Current
especially over mafic or
Yes
calcareous rocks
Azure Sage
Salvia azurea
SR -P
None
Current
Sandhills
No
Yadkin River
Solidago
E
C
Current
Riverside rocks
Yes
Goldenrod
plumosa
Western
Solidago
Dry woodlands, over mafic
Rough
radula
SR -P
None
Current
rocks
Yes
Goldenrod
3 -54

Table 3.8, continued
Common
Scientific
State
Federal
County
Habitat
Habitat
Name
Name
Status
Status
Status
Present
Freshwater
Spartina
SR -P
None
Historical
Freshwater marshes
No
Cordgrass
pectinata
A Hedge-
Stachys sp.
SR -T
None
Current
Sandy edges of forested
Yes
nettle
floodplains
Mountain
Stewartia
SR -P
None
Current
Bluffs and forests, usually
Yes
Camellia
ovata
with rhododendrons
Georgia Aster
Symphyo-
Open woods and
( =Aster
trichum
T
C
Current
Yes
georgianus)
georgianum
roadsides
Virginia
Tradescantia
SR -P
None
Historical
Rich woods on
Yes
Spiderwort
virginiana
circumneutral soils
Chapman's
Tridens
Dry pine and oak woods,
Redto p
chapmanii
SR -P
None
Current
sandy roadsides
Yes
Buffalo
Trifolium
SR -T
None
Current
Open woods and clearings
Yes
Clover
ref/exum
Prostrate
Viola walted
SR -T
None
Current
Rich cove forests
Yes
Blue Violet
Vertebrate Animal
Breeds in fish -free semi -
Mole
Ambystoma
SC
None
Current
permanent woodland
No
Salamander
talpoideum
ponds; forages in adjacent
woodland
Timber
Crotalus
SC
None
Obscure
Rocky upland forests
Yes
Rattlesnake
horridus
Carolina
Darter -
Etheostoma
Streams in the Yadkin -
Central
Collis pop. 1
SC
FSC
Current
Pee Dee and Catawba
Yes
Piedmont
drainages
Population
Streams of Lumber
Pinewoods
Etheostoma
drainage, mainly in the
Darter
SC
FSC
Current
sandhills; perhaps in
No
mariae
adjacent Pee Dee
drainage
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus
T
None
Current
Mature forests near large
Yes
leucocephalus
bodies of water
Four -toed
Hemidactylium
SC
None
Current
Wetlands (pools, bogs) in
Yes
Salamander
scutatum
hardwood forests
Loggerhead
Lanius
Open grasslands,
Shrike
ludovicianus
SC
None
Current
herbaceous fields,
No
pastures
3 -55

Table 3.8, continued
Common
Scientific
State
Federal
County
Habitat
Habitat
Name
Name
Status
Status
Status
Present
Coachwhip
Masticophis
SR
None
Current
Dry/sandy woods in
No
flagellum
pine /oak sandhills
Red-
Longleaf Pine or
cockaded
Picoides
E
E
Current
Pine /Hardwood stands
No
Woodpecker
borealis
60+ yrs old with sparsely
vegetated understory
Northern Pine
Pituophis
Dry and sandy woods,
Snake
melanoleucus
SC
FSC
Current
mainly in pine /oak
No
melanoleucus
sandhills
Eastern
Puma
Cougar
concolor
E
E
Historical
Large wilderness areas
Yes
couguar
Sandhills
Semotilus
Chub
lumbee
SC
FSC
Historical
Streams in the sandhills
No
Pigmy
Sistrurus
Rattlesnake
miliarius
SC
None
Current
Pine /Oak Forests
Yes
Source: NC Natural Heritage Program, database updated on May 4", 2008
3.7.1.5 Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The Registry of Natural Heritage Areas inventories areas with significant natural areas and
diversity. The registry is a non - regulatory program that strives to protect examples of unique and
diverse natural features. There is one Significant Natural Heritage Area within the study area, the
West Branch/Eldorado Forest, shown on Figure 3.8. According to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (letter dated May 30, 2006 in Appendix B), this area contains a diverse
collection of typical and rare Piedmont natural communities in exemplary condition.
3.7.1.6 Exotic Species
Exotic species are those species that are not part of the indigenous ecosystems. These non - native
species are of concern because they can be aggressive invaders and can out - compete native
species. While field surveyors did not search for exotic species during fieldwork, surveyors noted
the presence of Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet. Table 3.9 below shows the invasive
species about which the USFS is most concerned at the Forest (list provided via email from Gary
Kauffman, USFS, April 1, 2008).
3 -56

Table 3.9
USFS Invasive Species list for Uwharrie National Forest
Common Name
Scientific Name
Honeysuckle shrubs
Lonicera shrubs
(standishiMmaackii /morrowii)
Bicolor Lespedeza
Lespedeza bicolor
Sericea Lespedeza
Lespedeza cuneata
Chinese Privet
Ligustrum sinense
Japanese Clover
Kummerowia striata
Russian /Autumn Olive
Elaeagnus umbellata/pungens
Multiflora Rose
Rosa multiflora
Johnson Grass
Sorghum halepense
Stilt Grass
Microstegium virmineum
Princess Tree
Paulownia tomentosa
Tree -of- Heaven
Ailanthus altissima
Chinese Silver Grass
Miscanthus sinense
Mimosa
Albizia julibrissin
Japanese Honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Source: NC Wildlife Resources Commission
3.7.2 Environmental Effects
3.7.2.1 No Action Alternative
Plant Communities
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing plant communities as
a result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing plant communities
as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Terrestrial Wildlife
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing terrestrial wildlife as a
result of the No Action Alternative.
3 -57

Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing terrestrial wildlife
as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Aquatic Habitat and Wildlife
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing aquatic habitat and
wildlife as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing aquatic habitat and
wildlife as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Rare and Protected Species
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to rare and protected species as a
result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to rare and protected species
as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to any significant natural heritage
areas as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to any significant natural
heritage areas as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Exotic Species
Direct Impact: The No Action Alternative would not perpetuate exotic species in the area.
Therefore, there is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing plant communities as a
result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to exotic species as a result of
the No Action Alternative.
3.7.2.2 Preferred Alternative
3 -58

Plant Communities
Any changes to maintained - disturbed areas are not noteworthy because the original, native plant
communities no longer exist in these areas.
Direct Impact: The primary plant communities affected by the proposed Preferred Alternative
would be the dry -mesic oak - hickory forest, and the mesic mixed hardwood forest. Improvements
at stream channels would affect the mesic mixed hardwood forest, and remaining improvements
would affect the dry -mesic oak - hickory forest. The amount of forestland that would be adversely
impacted at any given point depends on the width of the existing road, which varies, as well as
construction limits of the proposed widening. The proposed project would cause long -term,
minor, adverse impacts to 6.54 acres of forestland.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to plant communities as a
result of the Preferred Alternative.
Terrestrial Wildlife
Direct Impact: Loss of wildlife is an unavoidable aspect of development. Temporary
fluctuations in populations of animal species that utilize communities within the study area are
anticipated during the course of construction of the Preferred Alternative. Slow - moving,
burrowing, and /or subterranean organisms may be directly impacted by construction activities,
while mobile organisms may be displaced to adjacent communities. The Preferred Alternative
would cause short-term, minor, adverse impacts to terrestrial wildlife.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to terrestrial wildlife as a
result of the Preferred Alternative.
Aquatic Habitat and Wildlife
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment. Environmental impacts
from construction of a new bridge could result in long term or irreversible effects. Impacts
usually associated with in- stream construction include alterations to the substrate and impacts to
adjacent streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation,
which can clog the gills and /or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian
3 -59

species. Siltation may also cover benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment
that inhibit their ability to obtain oxygen.
Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may increase water
temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life dependent on high
oxygen concentrations. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts by
stabilizing the underlying soils.
Direct Impact: Overall impacts to aquatic habitat and wildlife are judged to be long -term, minor,
and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to aquatic habitat and wildlife
as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Rare and Protected Species
Direct Impact: Three of the four federally protected species listed for Montgomery County have
suitable habitat within the Uwharrie National Forest. Based on fieldwork conducted by a trained
biologist on October 20, 2005, and April 19, 2006, no populations of these species were found.
There is no suitable habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker within one mile of the project study
area. As such, the proposed project would have no impact, adverse or beneficial, on rare and
protected species. Other rare or protected species identified that had suitable habitat present in
the study area were assumed to be present in order to complete the impact analysis.
Impacts to any of the Candidate Species, Federal Species of Concern, and state -listed species that
occur in the study area are assumed to be minor. If present, non - mobile species, and those with
limited mobility will be impacted during removal of the existing vented ford, construction of the
bridge at Reeves Spring Branch, and the widening of the existing roadway. Mobile species will
move into directly adjacent, similar habitat during construction. Due to the nature of the project,
as well as the existing conditions of the proposed project corridor and surrounding area, no
significant reduction of habitat will occur.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to rare and protected species
as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
3 -60

Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Any changes to maintained - disturbed areas are not noteworthy because the original, native plant
communities no longer exist in these areas.
Direct Impact: There is one significant natural heritage area that would be impacted by the
Preferred Alternative, the West Branch/Eldorado Forest. The amount of natural heritage area that
would be adversely impacted at any given point depends on the width of the existing road, which
varies, as well as construction limits of the proposed widening. Correspondence from the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (letter dated May 30, 2006 in Appendix B) indicates that this
impact is considered insignificant if it is confined to a narrow area immediately adjacent to the
existing road right of way. Cut and fill was minimized through this area to reduce impacts.
Therefore, the proposed project would cause long -term, minor, adverse impacts to approximately
3.1 acres of natural forests within this area.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to any significant natural
heritage areas as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Exotic Species
Direct Impact: Any new disturbance has the potential to create a suitable environment for
aggressive non - native species to become established. During construction it is important that any
materials brought into the Forest are free of exotics. In accordance with Executive Order 13112:
Invasive Species, signed by President Clinton on February 3, 1999, the FHWA, which oversees
the construction of the proposed action, would require that only invasive -free mulches, topsoil,
and seed mixes be used on the project. The final construction plans would include directions and
specifications to the Contractor for revegetating disturbed areas with non - invasive species as
specified by the USFS. The continued absence of exotic species is beneficial. Therefore, the
Preferred Alternative would cause a long -term, negligible, beneficial impact on exotic species.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to exotic species as a result of
the Preferred Alternative.
3 -61

3.7.2.3 Cumulative Impact
The USFS has past and present projects that create or improve Forest facilities, the NCDOT TIP
contains future projects to increase capacity and access, and three housing developments are
slated for Montgomery County. Access to utilities will improve inside and outside the Forest
boundaries, which increases development potential. Increased visitation could negatively impact
air quality for ozone via increased vehicular and boat emissions. Because Montgomery County is
in attainment for ozone, however, it is unlikely that the amount of increased ozone would be great
enough to adversely impact plant communities. Aquatic species and habitat, particularly in the
streams, could be adversely impacted by construction via sedimentation and erosion. The USFS,
however, is committed to protecting Forest resources by using aggressive sedimentation and
erosion protection plans and practices, so it is unlikely that these impacts would be more than
temporary. Evaluations of impacts on rare and protected species would be done by project, so
few future direct impacts are expected. Suitable habitat for rare and protected species exists in
the area, and at some point in the future, populations could appear. If such an event occurs, an
increase in residents and visitors to the FDR 597 corridor could adversely affect these vulnerable
species. Within the temporal boundaries (2015), however, it is unlikely that Forest development
and /or visitor use would be great enough to have a major adverse impact on these species.
Increasing visitation to and development within the Forest could give rise to more exotic species,
although again, the USFS' commitment to preserving Forest resources should serve to lower this
risk. The combination of improving Forest facilities, increasing capacity and access, and
increasing the potential of new residents could lead to increased use of the Uwharrie National
Forest by the general public. This increased use supports the USFS' motto ( "Caring for the Land
and Serving People "). Overall, the cumulative impact on the human environment is long -term,
minor, and adverse.
3.8 Human Environment
3.8.1 Affected Environment
3.8.1.1 Aesthetics and Viewsheds
Most of the area surrounding FDR 597 is forested. There are several locations where Badin Lake
can be seen from the road such as south of the vented ford, near Holt's Picnic Area, and south of
Skiers Cove Road. At Holt's Picnic Area, there is a small parking area for motorists to stop.
3 -62

Currently FDR 597 is an unpaved road and dust from vehicles may diminish the visual quality of
the area.
3.8.1.2 Air Quality
Montgomery County is currently in attainment with all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) air quality standards, including standards for fine particulate matter. The county is
therefore designated as a non - attainment area. Particulate matter is a general term used for a
mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. It can include aerosols, smoke, fumes,
dust, ash and pollen. Particulate matter that is 2.5 microns in diameter or less is also known as
fine particulate matter.
3.8.1.3 Noise
The area surrounding FDR 597 is relatively quiet, with only infrequently passing motorists and
motorboats on Badin Lake creating noise in the area.
3.8.1.4 Energy
Energy requirements associated with the study area relate to the amount of energy that is required
to operate and maintain buildings and other permanent facilities. These include any outbuildings
at Uwharrie National Forest, the operation of maintenance vehicles and equipment (grounds
maintenance equipment), and the operation of USFS equipment. Energy also is required for the
operation of motor vehicles traversing the study area.
Energy sources utilized include electricity and petroleum products (heating oils and fuels). The
operations related to the study area are dependent upon the continued availability of the existing
energy sources.
3.8.1.5 Utilities
Progress Energy provides electricity and Sprint provides telephone service to Forest residents.
Although the Town of Troy provides water, sewer, and solid waste pickup for Town residents, the
Forest is outside of the town limits, and Forest residents do not receive these services. Charter
Communications provides cable service to Town residents but not to residents immediately
adjacent to the Forest. Figure 3.9 shows the location of electric and telephone lines.
3 -63

3.8.2 Environmental Effects
3.8.2.1 No Action Alternative
Aesthetics and Viewsheds
Direct Impact: The No Action Alternative would not affect existing aesthetics or viewsheds in
the study area. Dust from the unpaved roadway would continue to detract from the view. The
impact, therefore, is long -term, negligible, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to the existing aesthetics or
viewsheds as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Air Quality
Direct Impact: Dust from the existing gravel- surfaced road would continue to adversely affect air
quality. Therefore, the impact is long -term, negligible, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to air quality as a result of the
No Action Alternative.
Noise
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing noise as a result of the
No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing noise as a result of
the No Action Alternative.
Energy
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to the supply or usage of energy
as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to the supply or usage of
energy as a result of the No Action Alternative.
3 -64

3 -66

Utilities
Direct Impact: There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing utilities as a result of
the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing utilities as
a result of the No Action Alternative.
3.8.2.2 Preferred Alternative
Aesthetics and Viewsheds
Direct Impact: The parking area at Holt's Picnic Area would remain in the same location,
therefore views from this area would not change. Views of this area would change slightly as the
configuration and size of the parking area would be modified. The vented ford would be
replaced, which would affect the aesthetics at Reeves Spring Branch; however vehicles traveling
along the roadway are not able to view the sides of the crossing, so the impact would be
negligible.
The view of the roadway while driving would change because there would be an asphalt road
instead of a gravel road. The road near Reeves Spring Branch would be temporarily widened
while under construction, which could cause a temporary change in the location's aesthetics.
Paving FDR 597 would reduce the amount of dust raised by traffic, which would improve the
view.
Views of the lake from FDR 597 could improve: cut and fill would require that trees be removed,
which in turn would provide additional lake views and /or longer stretches where the lake is
visible currently. The grade in low -lying areas would be raised, which would lead to better views
of these areas. Forest views would remain essentially the same. Overall impacts on aesthetics
and viewsheds caused by the Preferred Alternative are judged to be long -term, minor, and
beneficial.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to the existing aesthetics or
viewsheds as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
3 -67

Air Quality
Direct Impact: The Preferred Alternative would affect ambient air quality in the study area
during construction due to the exhaust emissions from diesel - burning construction equipment as
well as an increase in airborne particles that result from ground disturbance activities. Proper
vehicle maintenance, limiting the duration of idling of construction equipment and trucks, not
allowing on -site incineration of construction materials, frequent wetting of exposed soil, and
proper use of required erosion control Best Management Practices would be expected to
minimize these temporary, minor adverse effects.
Fine particulate matter conditions would be expected to improve once FDR 597 is paved due to
the reduction of airborne dust from the existing gravel surface. The long -term benefits from
reducing dust by paving the road would be negligible. Overall impact on air quality caused by
the Preferred Alternative is judged to be temporary, minor, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to air quality as a result of the
Preferred Alternative.
Noise
Direct Impact: The Preferred Alternative temporarily would affect noise conditions in the study
area during construction from the noise of the equipment engines and from the construction
activity itself. Construction activities such as excavation, milling, and paving would be limited to
daylight hours, Monday through Friday, and would not occur on holidays. Work that produces
objectionable noise would be limited to occur outside peak visitor hours. The increase in noise
levels during construction would be temporary and minor.
Tire friction on a paved road is quieter than on a gravel road. Final noise conditions caused by
vehicles are anticipated to decrease negligibly. Overall impact on noise caused by the Preferred
Alternative is judged to be long -term, negligible, and beneficial.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing noise as a result of
the Preferred Alternative.
3 -68

Energy
Direct Impact: A temporary increase in energy consumption is expected during construction.
The expected increase is due to fuel use of construction machinery. The frequency of
maintenance required on FDR 597 would decrease, however. Overall impact on energy caused
by the Preferred Alternative is judged to be long -term, negligible, beneficial impact.
Indirect Impact: Energy costs, particularly oil costs, are rising. The temporary, minor, and
adverse impact of the Preferred Alternative on energy is rising construction costs. Depending on
final energy usage, the impact could be major, although such a change is not anticipated.
Utilities
Direct Impact: All utility poles are within the proposed project's construction limits and so
would be temporarily impacted. No change in final distribution of utilities (electric and
telephone) is expected. Construction would be coordinated with local utility companies in order
to avoid or minimize temporary disruption of service. Impacts to utilities would be temporary,
minor, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: The decision to replace utility lines above or below ground or a combination of
the two is the jurisdiction of the utility companies. If lines are replaced solely below ground,
indirect impacts are that service is less likely to be disrupted by high winds, falling trees, and ice
accumulation. However, if service problems arise, underground lines take longer to repair. If
lines are placed solely above ground, they are more vulnerable to storm, wind, and ice events.
Problems with these lines would be easier to repair due to accessibility. Lines placed in a
combination of the above have of the advantages and disadvantages of both options. Regardless
of placement, impacts would be long -term.
3.8.2.3 Cumulative Impact
The USFS has past and present projects that create or improve Forest facilities, the NCDOT TIP
contains future projects to increase capacity and access, and three housing developments are
slated for Montgomery County. Access to utilities has recently improved inside and outside the
Forest boundaries, which increases development potential. Increased visitation could negatively
impact air quality via vehicular and boat emissions. Although unlikely, increased emissions
could adversely affect plant communities (see Biological Communities Section 3.7), which could
adversely affect Forest aesthetics. Noise conditions could also be negatively impacted by an
3 -69

increase in the number of vehicles and boats. It is unclear whether the recent Embarq installation
is a harbinger of future increases in utilities access in the Forest, which also could expand the
number of residents within Forest boundaries. An increase in the number of residents could
negatively affect aesthetics. The combination, however, of improving Forest facilities, increasing
capacity and access, and increasing the potential of new residents could lead to increased use of
the Uwharrie National Forest by the general public. This increased use supports the USFS' motto
( "Caring for the Land and Serving People "). Overall, the cumulative impact on the human
environment is long -term, minor, and adverse.
3.9 Visitor Use and Experience
3.9.1 Affected Environment
There are a number of activities for visitors within the Forest, several of which are within or are
accessed from FDR 597 within the study area. The recreational activities that exist within or are
accessed via the study area are shown on Figure 3.4 and described in more detail in
Section 3.9.1.1.
3.9.1.1 Visitation and Facilities
The Holt's Picnic Area is the only visitor facility within the study area. Several other facilities,
such as the Badin Lake Campground, the Badin Lake Group Camp, the Badin Lake Hiking Trail,
and King's Mountain Point and Floating Pier, are located outside the study area but must be
accessed via FDR 597. Fishing is permitted year -round and hunting for turkey, small game, deer,
and waterfowl is permitted during designated hunting seasons. Hunting season dates change
every year; the 2007 -2008 hunting season dates are shown in Table 3.10.
3 -70

Table 3.10
2007 -2008 Hunting Season Dates in
Montgomery County, North Carolina
Begins
Ends
Deer - Bow & Arrow
9/8/07
11/2/07
Deer - Muzzleloading
11/3/07
11/9/07
Deer - Gun
11/10/07
1/1/08
Wild Boar*
See Note
Wild Turkey
4/12/08
5/10/08
Youth Turkey Hunt Day
4/5/08
4/5/08
Squirrel - Gray /Red
10/15/07
1/31/08
Rabbit
11/17/07
2/29/08
Take by Falconry
(Red /Gray Squirrel, Rabbit)
10/15/07
2/29/08
Quail
11/17/07
2/29/08
Grouse
10/15/07
2/29/08
Pheasant
11/17/07
2/1/08
Bobcat
10/15/07
2/29/08
Raccoon & Opossum
10/17/07
2/29/08
Fox
11/17/07
1/1/08
Beaver
Any Open Season
Groundhog
No Closed Season
Coyote
No Closed Season
Nutria
No Closed Season
Striped Skunk
No Closed Season
Source: NC Wildlife Resource Commission
* In Montgomery County, feral pigs are not considered wild boars and so are not regulated
by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
A wide variety of water sports are permitted in Badin Lake, such as boating, kayaking, canoeing,
and water skiing. Access is provided through Forest facilities along the lake, as well as through
private access points. OHV trail use, another popular recreational activity in Uwharrie National
Forest, is available from April I to December 15 of every year. Although no OHV trails are
located near the study area, the trails draw many visitors to the Forest who may use other
3 -71

facilities or drive along roads that are within the study area. A description of the facilities located
along or accessed via the study area follows, as shown in Figure 3.4.
Holt's Picnic Area
Located along FDR 597 inside the study area, the Holt's Picnic Area is a day -use facility located
on the shore of Badin Lake (see Figure 3.10). Tables, fire- grates, a pull -in parking area, and
toilet facilities are provided for the public.
Figure 3.10: Holt's Picnic Area
Badin Lake Group Camp
The Badin Lake Group Camp is located on FDR 597A near the Badin Lake Campground. The
group camp features three campsites designed for families, clubs, and other groups, each with a
capacity of 50 people. Each site contains tent pads, grills, and tables, while centrally located
3 -72

toilet facilities, water spigots, and showers serve all three sites. The Badin Lake Hiking Trail
runs through the group camp. The Forest Service charges a $40 fee per site per night, and the
sites must be reserved in advance. Badin Lake Group Camp is open year round.
Badin Lake Campground
Badin Lake Campground is located on FDR 597A, and features 37 sites for tent and trailer
camping. Tables, grills, lamp posts, and tent pads are available in each camp site. Water spigots,
toilets, showers, and pay phones are available in central locations. Some campsites are located
along the shore of Badin Lake. The Badin Lake Hiking Trail runs through the campground, along
the lakeshore. An occupancy fee of $12 per site per night is charged to campground users. The
campground is open year round.
King's Mountain Point and Floating Pier
King's Mountain Point and Floating Pier is accessed via FDR 597A. Hiking, fishing, picnicking,
and swimming are available in this area. A floating pier is provided for fishing in Badin Lake
and the Badin Lake Hiking Trail runs through the area.
Badin Lake Hiking Trail
The Badin Lake Hiking Trail begins at the Cove Boat Ramp, runs along the shore of Badin Lake,
and then returns to its starting point via an inland hardwood forest, forming a 5.6 mile loop. A
shorter 2.5 -mile loop is part of the trail. The trail provides scenic views of the lake, as well as
access to camping and fishing areas along the lakeshore. The trail runs through Arrowhead
Campground, Cove Boat Ramp, Badin Lake Campground, Badin Lake Group Camp, and King's
Mountain Point. Although portions of the trail are located close to FDR 597, the trail does not
enter the study area.
Equestrian Use
Uwharrie National Forest contains a large network of equestrian trails along with two horse
camps. The horse camps (Badin Lake Horse Camp and Canebrake Horse Camp) are located east
of the study area along FDR 544, and provide camping facilities along with facilities for housing
horses overnight. The equestrian trail network covers approximately 40 miles of the Uwharrie
National Forest. Trails 702 (the Josh/Lake trail) and 700 (the Greg's Loop trail) intersect
FDR 597 within the study area. Trail 702 crosses FDR 597 at FDR 597A and at FDR 544.
Trail 700 intersects with FDR 597 in the vicinity of Skiers Cove Road.
3 -73

Off - Highway- Vehicle (OHV) Trails
Several miles south of the study area are 16 miles of off - highway- vehicle (OHV) trails. A user
fee of $5 per vehicle per day, or $30 per vehicle per season, is charged for OHV use in the Forest.
While OHV use does not occur within the study area, a spike in traffic volumes on opening day
of OHV season (see Section 3.9.1.4) indicates that traffic volumes on FDR 597 are influenced by
OHV use.
Number of Visitors
The Forest Service does not track visitor usage in the Uwharrie National Forest. The number of
OHV passes sold in recent years suggests that the total number of visitors to the Forest is
increasing each year. Table 3.11 shows the number of OHV passes sold between 2004 and 2007.
The USFS believes that the estimated number of passes sold in 2007 is an anomaly and not
indicative of future sales. Sales from January — April 2008 have been brisk.
Table 3.11
Increase in OHV Passes Sold, 2004 — 2007
Year
Day
Annual
# of
Passes
% Annual
Increase
# of
Passes
% Annual
Increase
2004
16,000
N/A
1,077
N/A
2005
18,000
12.5%
1,300
20.7%
2006
20,000
11.1%
2,000
53.8%
2007
15,000
-25%
2,000
0%
3.9.1.2 Existing Roadways
The roadway network within the study area (see Figure 3.11) includes FDR 597, SR 1179,
Lakeland Drive, Skiers Cove Road, FDR 544, and FDR 597A.
3 -74

3 -76

FDR 597
FDR 597, Badin Lake Road, is a part of FH 49, and runs from FDR 576 north to SR 1179 through
Uwharrie National Forest. It is approximately six miles long. The road varies in width from 13
feet to 16 feet wide and is currently unpaved with a gravel surface. There are two houses located
along the road, in addition to access to the Skiers Cove and Wood Land Estates communities.
The posted speed limit on FDR 597 is 25 mph. Stone masonry headwall culverts are located at
mile posts 1.9 and 2.4. There is one parking area along the road at Holt's Picnic Area.
A vented ford is located at Reeves Spring Branch near the northern end of the project (see
Figure 3.12). As noted in Section 1.2.1, a vented ford is a bridge -type structure designed to
allow water to flow underneath or over the top of it. The existing vented ford is one lane wide
and has a concrete slab with stone headwalls and triple 30 -inch corrugated metal pipe culverts.
Figure 3.12: FDR 597 Vented Ford at Reeves Spring Branch
3 -77

FDR 544 (McLean's Creek Road)
FDR 544 (McLean's Creek Road) is a paved road that begins at a stop- controlled intersection at
the southern end of the study area. FDR 544 currently provides access from FDR 597 east to
NC 109.
SR 1179 (Shamrock Road)
FDR 597 has its northern terminus at SR 1179. SR 1179 is a paved NCDOT road, which runs
from Badin Lake on the south to NC 109 on the north. The intersection between FDR 597 and
SR 1179 is a T- intersection, with FDR 597 as the stop - controlled road.
FDR 597A
FDR 597A leads west towards Badin Lake at a stop- controlled T- intersection with FDR 597 just
north of the FDR 544 intersection. This road has an unpaved gravel surface with similar
characteristics to FDR 597. FDR 597A provides access to Badin Lake Campground, Badin Lake
Group Camp, King's Mountain Point and Floating Pier, and the Badin Lake Hiking Trail. It ends
at Badin Lake Campground.
Skiers Cove Road
Skiers Cove Road provides access to Badin Lake and the Skiers Cove community from FDR 597.
It is an unpaved private road that ends near an arm of Badin Lake.
Lakeland Drive
Lakeland Drive provides access to the Wood Land Estates gated community on the west side of
FDR 597. This paved road has a stop - controlled T- intersection with FDR 597.
3.9.1.3 Existing Intersections
FDR 597 in the study area has five intersections, shown in Figure 3.11 and listed below from
south to north:
• FDR 544 (McLean's Creek Road)
• FDR 597A
• Skiers Cove Road
• Lakeland Drive
• SR 1179 (Shamrock Road)
3 -78

The intersection at FDR 597 and FDR 544 was analyzed in detail in the traffic portion of this
report (Section 3.9.1.4).
3.9.1.4 Traffic Volumes
Traffic data were summarized in the Traffic Needs and Safety Report (Kimley -Horn and
Associates, Inc., June 2006; appended by reference) and are discussed below.
Vehicular traffic in the study area consists primarily of personal automobiles and Forest vehicles.
The corresponding traffic- generating activities are recreational and residential. In addition to
vehicular traffic, some pedestrian traffic and equestrians use trails and other visitor facilities.
Current and historic traffic count data (daily counts and turning movement counts) were gathered
and analyzed to determine traffic characteristics and historic traffic growth.
Historic Traffic Volumes
To estimate the traffic growth that can be expected to occur in the study area, historical traffic
counts were gathered from NCDOT. Six years of historic Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
counts were obtained for two locations along NC 109 in the northern part of Montgomery
County. These two locations are just south of the Randolph County line and just south of River
Road near the town of Uwharrie. The historic traffic counts are indicative of approximately 2.6
percent growth in average daily traffic per year. The 2004 AADT counts were between 2,000 and
2,500 for both locations. Appendix D includes more detail on historic traffic volumes.
Current Traffic Volumes
To determine current traffic demand along FDR 597, automated daily counts were conducted by
Carolina Traffic Services at four locations along the study corridor over a two -week period from
March 25, 2006 to April 8, 2006. Accurate counts could not be obtained at a fifth location,
FDR 597 north of FDR 544, due to the topography and alignment of the roadway. This two -week
period included one week before OHV season began and one week after the season began, and it
included opening day. A turning movement count also was conducted at the intersection of
FDR 544 and FDR 597 from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on April 1, 2006 (opening day of OHV
season). The automated daily counts were taken at the following locations:
• FDR 544 east of FDR 597
• FDR 597 south of FDR 544
3 -79
• FDR 597A west of FDR 597
• FDR 597 south of SR 1179

Figure 3.13 shows the locations of the turning movement count and the daily counts. Weekend
peak times are mid - afternoon (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM). These peak times are independent of OHV
season, although during OHV season the traffic counts are higher at all locations studied.
Weekday peaks occur in the afternoon as well, although the volume of traffic is less than on
weekends. Approximately 85 vehicles traveled through the intersection of FDR 597 and FDR
444 during the weekend peak hour prior to OHV season. Traffic volumes nearly doubled during
weekends in the OHV season when compared with weekend traffic volumes prior to OHV
season. More information on traffic counts can be found in Appendix D.
Future Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes were projected for the year 2030 at the intersection of FDR 597 and FDR 544 in
order to determine how well the facility is expected to operate in the future. Traffic volumes are
expected to increase along FDR 597 for two reasons: background traffic growth and additional
development along FDR 597.
Background traffic growth reflects increases in traffic levels due to growth in the state and region.
As noted previously, the historical growth rate along NC 109 in northern Montgomery County
was 2.6 percent. Since NC 109 is a state highway providing access from Troy to the northwest, it
can be expected to have a higher growth rate than FDR 597 since only a portion of that total
growth is related to Uwharrie National Forest. Based on historical growth rates in the area, a
growth rate of 2.0 percent per year was assumed for FDR 597.
Several tracts of land along FDR 597 are privately held along and may be developed in the future.
Currently the Wood Land Estates gated community has 12 houses. Aerial photography indicates
that the houses are on lots of approximately four acres each. It is expected that any new
development at Wood Land Estates would take place on similar sized lots at a similar density to
the current development.
3 -80

3 -82

On the east side of FDR 597, across from the Wood Land Estates, there are several large tracts of
land that are privately owned. Due to the lack of lakefront property, the lack of roadways leading
to the inside of these tracts, and the steep terrain indicated on topographic maps, it is unlikely that
these tracts would be fully developed. A conservative assumption was made that the entire area
would be developed at a similar density to Wood Land Estates.
Based on the relative size of the tracts, it was assumed that 10 additional residences could be built
in Wood Land Estates, and 26 additional residences could be built on the east side of FDR 597,
for a total of 36 new residential dwelling units with potential future access to FDR 597. It was
assumed that this development would occur regardless of the proposed improvements to
FDR 597.
The new residential trips were calculated using the trip generation rate formula from the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (2003). During the weekday peak hour, 11
new residential trips are projected to occur on the peak segment of FDR 597. This results in a
total of 83 projected trips on FDR 597 at FDR 544 during the peak weekday hour, which occurs
from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM on Friday. Trip generation was also calculated to determine the
number of trips generated per day on FDR 597. On weekend days in 2030, a total of 883 trips are
projected to occur on FDR 597; while on weekdays, a total of 442 trips are projected. More detail
on projected trips is in Appendix D.
3.9.1.5 Operational Analysis
To analyze the traffic operations characteristics of the intersection of FDR 544 and FDR 597, a
traffic operations model was developed using the software Synchro 5.0. Traffic volume data and
roadway and intersection geometry were obtained in April 2006, on the opening day of OHV
season, which is one of the peak traffic volume days of the year for the Forest. The traffic
volumes and geometry were input into the Synchro network to perform capacity analyses for
existing weekend peak hour conditions. The intersection was analyzed for the peak hour of
volume to provide a worst -case analysis for the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual
(TRB Special Report 209, 2000) control delay methods were used in reporting the results. A
segment analysis using Highway Capacity Manual methods was performed on the segment with
the highest volume.
3 -83

Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a particular road
segment or through a particular intersection within a given period. Capacity is combined with
level of service (LOS) to describe the operating characteristics of a road segment or intersection.
LOS is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions and motorist perceptions within a
traffic stream. The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service, LOS A through
LOS F, with A representing the shortest average delays and F representing the longest average
delays.
Intersection of FDR 597 at FDR 544
The study intersection is a T- intersection with a stop sign on FDR 544. FDR 544 is a two -lane
road with a single lane approach to FDR 597 from the east. FDR 597 is an unpaved road with no
separate turn lanes. The intersection currently operates at LOS A overall, with all approaches
operating at LOS A during the weekend peak hour. In the design year 2030, the intersection of
FDR 597 and FDR 544 is projected to still operate at LOS A overall, with all approaches
operating at LOS A during the weekend peak hour in 2030 (Table 3.12).
Table 3.12
Level of Service at the Intersection of FDR 597 and FDR 544
Movement
LOS (Delay in Seconds per
Vehicle)
LOS (Delay in Seconds per
Vehicle)
2006 Weekend Peak Hour
2030 Weekend Peak Hour
Minor -Road Approach
A (8.8)
A (9.1)
Major -Road Left Turn
A (2.3)
A (2.5)
Overall
A (4.0)
A (4.1)
FDR 597 Segment Analysis
A segment analysis was performed on FDR 597 to determine the current level of service along
the road. The Highway Capacity Manual methodology for a Class II two -lane road was used.
According to the existing daily traffic counts, the most heavily traveled segment of FDR 597, at
the southernmost end of the study area in the vicinity of the intersection with FDR 544, carried 58
vehicles in both directions during the weekend peak hour. Highway Capacity Software was used
to determine the level of service on this segment based on the volumes and the existing physical
3 -84

characteristics of the roadway. FDR 597 currently operates at LOS A on its most heavily traveled
segment, and therefore on all other segments as well.
The segment analysis was again performed to determine the future level of service along the
roadway. According to the projected traffic volumes, the most heavily traveled segment of
FDR 597 is expected to carry 106 vehicles in both directions during the peak hour. Highway
Capacity Software was used to determine the level of service based on the projected volumes and
both the existing physical characteristics of the roadway, as well as a paved roadway with 10 -foot
lanes and 4 -foot shoulders, the minimum values that can be used in the software. In both cases,
the roadway is expected to operate at LOS A.
Operational Analysis Summary
The study intersection currently operates at LOS A during peak season peak hour. In the design
year, the intersection would still operate at LOS A. Additionally, the roadway segments along
FDR 597 operate at LOS A presently and in the future.
3.9.1.6 Crash History
Traffic crash data for the period from October 2003 to June 2006 has been obtained for the
roadways and intersections in the FDR 597 study area from the United States Forest Service.
This data has been reviewed and analyzed to determine the level of safety needs at the study
intersections.
Only one crash occurred within the study area during the time period studied. The crash occurred
on October 26, 2003 when a Jeep overturned onto its side. No injuries were reported, and the
crash was not severe enough to report to the State of North Carolina. Weather conditions were
clear and lighting conditions were dark when the crash occurred.
The crash rate was calculated for the study area of FDR 597. The crash rate was computed at
94.12 crashes per hundred million vehicle miles. The low AADT of only 326 vehicles per day on
FDR 597 means that there would always be a low sample size of crashes on the roadway, and one
crash can drastically impact the crash rate on the roadway. The crash rate on FDR 597 is
substantially lower than the crash rate on a typical rural secondary road in North Carolina and in
Montgomery County, which were 355.13 and 339.02 respectively. A rural secondary road is the
most similar road type to FDR 597 for which NCDOT collects crash statistics.
3 -85

Three other crashes occurred within Uwharrie National Forest, but outside the study area during
the same time period. Two of the crashes involved cars driving off the road into a ditch. The
third involved an abandoned car found crashed into a tree, possibly as a result of excessive speed.
No injuries were reported in any of the crashes.
3.9.2 Environmental Effects
3.9.2.1 No Action Alternative
Visitation and Facilities
Direct Impact: There is no impact, adverse or beneficial, to visitation or Forest facilities as a
direct result of the No Action Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no impact, adverse or beneficial, to visitation or Forest facilities as an
indirect result of the No Action Alternative.
Existing Roadways
Direct Impact: FDR would continue to operate below NCDOT design standards, which are
based on safety criteria. This impact is long -term, negligible, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing roadways as an indirect
result of the No Action Alternative.
Existing Intersections
Direct Impact: The No Action Alternative would not improve existing intersections, including
the intersection with SR 1179. This intersection, which is not at a 90- degree angle, provides poor
visibility to drivers. This impact is long -term, minor, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing intersections as an indirect
result of the No Action Alternative.
Traffic Volumes
Direct Impact: There is no impact, adverse or beneficial, to traffic volumes as a direct result of
the No Action Alternative.
3 -86

Indirect Impact: There is no impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing intersections as an indirect
result of the No Action Alternative.
Safety
Direct Impact: The No Action Alternative would not improve safety along FDR 597 or at
existing intersections. The intersection with SR 1179 would continue to have poor visibility,
vehicles would still cross the vented ford during times of high flow and overtopping, and
FDR 597 would continue to operate below NCDOT design standards, which are based on safety
criteria. The combined impact of these conditions is long -term, minor, and adverse.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to safety as a result of the No
Action Alternative.
3.9.2.2 Preferred Alternative
Visitation and Facilities
Direct Impact: While the Preferred Alternative would expand the existing parking area to
100x10 feet, the number of parking spaces would remain at 10. Slight modifications to the
existing recreational area would be required.
Paving and widening FDR 597 would improve the driving conditions for residents along
FDR 597 and for visitors who use the Forest facilities accessed via FDR 597. The impact is long-
term, minor, and beneficial.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to visitation and facilities as a
result of the proposed project.
Existing Roadways
Direct Impact: Paving and widening FDR 597 would improve the driving conditions for
residents and visitors. It would also improve access to existing Forest facilities. Replacing the
vented ford would eliminate dangerous travel over moving water. By re- aligning the intersection
at FDR 597 and SR 1179, the Preferred Alternative would improve visibility by allowing drivers
to better see vehicles approaching in either direction. The impact is long -term, minor, and
beneficial.
3 -87

Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing roadways as a
result of the proposed project.
Existing Intersections
Direct Impact: The existing T- intersection at SR 1179 is not a 90- degree intersection. Since
there are potential issues with visibility for approach vehicles, FDR 597 would be realigned to
intersect more perpendicularly with SR 1179 while avoiding a historic property.
By re- aligning the intersection at FDR 597 and SR 1179, the Preferred Alternative would
improve visibility by allowing drivers to better see vehicles approaching in either direction. The
impact of this change combined with the benefit of avoiding the historic property is judged to be
long -term, minor, and beneficial.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to existing intersections as a
result of the proposed project.
Traffic Volumes
Direct Impact: Traffic volumes were calculated based on an assumption of full build -out in
accordance with current density. The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to induce
development beyond this density and therefore is not expected to increase traffic volumes along
FDR 597. There is no direct impact, adverse or beneficial, on traffic volumes caused by the
Preferred Alternative.
Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to traffic volumes as a result
of the proposed project.
Safety
Direct Impact: The Preferred Alternative would improve safety along FDR 597 by upgrading it
to meet NCDOT design standards. The existing roadway would be widened and lane widths
would be made consistent. Improvements to the existing T- intersection at SR 1179 would
improve safety at that location by realigning it to intersect more perpendicularly, which would
allow drivers to better see vehicles approaching from both directions. Replacing the vented ford
would eliminate the need for vehicles to cross moving water. The impact is long -term, minor,
and beneficial.
3 -88

Indirect Impact: There is no indirect impact, adverse or beneficial, to safety as a result of the
proposed project.
3.9.2.3 Cumulative Impact
The USFS has past and present projects that create or improve Forest facilities, the NCDOT TIP
contains future projects to increase capacity and access, and three housing developments are
slated for Montgomery County. Access to utilities will improve inside and outside the Forest
boundaries, which increases development potential. The combination of improving Forest
facilities, increasing capacity and access, and increasing the potential of new residents could lead
to increased use of the Uwharrie National Forest by the general public. This increased use
supports the USFS' motto ( "Caring for the Land and Serving People "). Therefore, the cumulative
impact on visitor use and experience is long -term, minor, and beneficial.
3.10 Summary of Mitigation
The Council on Environmental Quality has defined mitigation of impacts to include the
following: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of the three main aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts.
• Modification 3A avoids all impacts on wetlands.
• Modification 3B allows the Holt's Picnic Area parking pullout to be rebuilt. This
modification avoids reducing easy access to a Forest facility, which is beneficial to Forest
visitors.
• The realignment of FDR 597 with SR 1179 has been designed to avoid any impacts to the
historic property at that location.
• Modification 3C constructs a new crossing of Reeves Spring Branch in order to allow the
existing roadway and crossing to remain open during construction. This modification
allows the proposed project to avoid inconveniencing Forest visitors and residents.
• Although the existing curve at the intersection of FDR 597 with FDR 544 is substandard,
it would not be improved since traffic volumes are low. This would avoid all
construction impacts at that location.
3 -89

Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts. Implementation of these steps would be required through project modifications and
permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed
project through the reduction of median widths, right -of -way widths, fill slopes, and /or road
shoulder widths.
• The Preferred Alternative has a design speed of 30 mph. This design speed allows the
proposed alignment to adhere more closely to the existing alignment than a higher speed
would allow. It also permits sharper curves in the alignment. Both of these advantages
minimize the amount of cut and fill material needed. Impacts to biological communities
and water resources are minimized with the lower design speed as well, since
construction on new alignment is minimized.
• During the design process, the alignment was shifted to balance the amount of cut and fill
material required. Balancing cut and fill minimizes the amount of material that would
need to be imported to or exported from the Forest.
• Modification 3F creates greater visibility at the intersection of FDR 597 and SR 1179.
This modification minimizes the chance of future crashes.
Other methods are suggested below to minimize adverse impacts to the Forest.
• Strictly enforce best management practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation and erosion
during project construction. Stage and stockpile materials in parking lots or other
disturbed areas to minimize construction traffic and impacts.
• Minimize clearing and grubbing, which protects biological communities and natural
resources as well as helps to prevent sedimentation and erosion.
• Decrease or eliminate discharges into surface waters, which protects water quality and
aquatic wildlife and habitats.
• Minimize "in- stream" activity.
• Quickly reestablish vegetation on exposed areas, particularly streamsides. This method
reduces sedimentation and impacts by stabilizing underlying soils.
• Ensure that materials brought into the Forest are free of exotic species in order to avoid
adverse effects from invasive species.
3 -90

Additionally, in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001 et sec), if during construction human remains are discovered, all work would
stop and the USFS and SHPO would be notified immediately in order to minimize impacts as
much as possible.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of the
United States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. As there are
no impacts to wetlands from the Preferred Alternative, no compensatory mitigation would be
required for wetland impacts. If compensatory mitigation is required for the 651 feet of stream
impacts, it would be determined during coordination with USACE.
3.11 Section 4(f)
In accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303)
and 23 CFR 771.135, FHWA "may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned
park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a
determination is made that: (i) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from
the property; and (ii) the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property
resulting from such use."
The proposed project is an improvement that is located entirely within the Uwharrie National
Forest. The Uwharrie National Forest is a mixed resource used for logging as well as recreation.
No archaeological sites or historic resources would be impacted by the proposed action.
Therefore, there is no use under Section 4(f).
3 -91

3 -92

4.0 Summary of Direct Impacts /Alternatives
Table 4.1 summarizes and compares the likely results of implementing the Preferred Alternative
as it relates to the environment. The No Action Alternative would not disturb the adjacent natural
and cultural resources and would not affect private properties; therefore it would cause no
impacts. It also would not provide the safety benefits that current NCDOT design standards
support. The Preferred Alternative would upgrade both FDR 597 and the vented ford to current
NCDOT roadway and hydraulic design standards, thereby increasing safety along the corridor.
This alternative does impact the natural environment and would affect some private properties
along the corridor.
Table 4.1
Summary of Direct Impacts
Topic
Preferred Alternative
Construction
Area of Impacts
24.89 acres
Excavation
45,219 cubic yards
Fill
32,959 cubic yards
Land Use
One residential relocation
Socioeconomics and
Community
No impact
Environmental Justice
No impact
Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
No impact
Historic Resources
No impact
Natural Resources
Jurisdictional Wetlands
0
Floodplains
0.14 feet above sea level
Streams
651 linear feet
Water Quality
Temporary, minor, adverse impact;
Long -term, negligible, adverse impact
Geology and Soils
Long -term, minor, adverse impact
4 -1

Table 4.1, continued
Biological Communities
Plant Communities
6.54 acres forestland
Terrestrial Wildlife
Short -term, minor, adverse impact
Aquatic Habitat and Wildlife
Long -term, minor, adverse impact
Rare and Protected
Species
No impact
Exotic Species
Long -term, negligible, beneficial impact
Human Environment
Aesthetics and Viewshed
Long -term, minor, beneficial impact
Air Quality
Temporary, minor, adverse impact
Noise
Long -term, negligible , beneficial impact
Energy
Long -term, negligible, beneficial impact
Utilities
Temporary, minor, adverse impact
Visitor Use and Experience
Visitation and Facilities
Long -term, minor, beneficial impact
Existing Roadways
Long -term, minor, beneficial impact
Existing Intersections
Long -term, minor, beneficial impact
Traffic Volumes
No impact
Safety
Long -term, minor, beneficial impact
4 -2

5.0 Commitments and Resources
5.1 Applicability to Environmental Laws
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Preferred Alternative would violate or contradict any of
the following relevant environmental laws.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions and to integrate
such evaluations into their decision making process.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Controls and regulates nonpoint source pollutants such as pesticide runoff, forestry operations,
and parking lots /roads as well as point source pollutants such as placement of fill material.
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Establishes standards for air quality in regard to the pollutants generated by internal combustion
engines. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) define the concentration of
these pollutants that are allowable in air to which the general public is exposed ( "ambient air ")
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Prohibits the harming of any species listed by the USFWS as being either Threatened or
Endangered. Harming such species includes not only directly injuring or killing them, but also
disrupting the habitat on which they depend.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
Ensures the protection and preservation of archaeological resources on federal lands.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
Provides protection of cultural resources, and ensures that they are considered during federal
project planning and execution.
Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-
Income Populations, directs all federal agencies to determine whether a proposed action would
have an adverse or disproportionate impact on minority and /or low - income populations. It also
5 -1

directs agencies to ensure that representatives of an affected community have every opportunity
to provide input regarding the impact of the proposed project.
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
Reduces the risk of property damage and loss of life due to flooding and preserves the natural
benefits floodplain areas have on the environment. Requires all federal agencies to avoid
construction within 100 -year floodplains unless no other practical alternative exists
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
Requires federal agencies to minimize the loss, destruction, or degradation of wetlands and to
enhance their natural and beneficial values.
Department of Transportation Act of 1966: Section 4(f)
Provides protection of significant publicly owned lands, including parks, recreation areas, wildlife
and waterfowl refuges, and significant historic sites.
5 -2

6.0 Public Involvement and Coordination
6.1 Agency Involvement
Coordination and public involvement in the planning and preliminary design of the proposed
action was initiated early in the process. It is the Forest Service's objective to work with state,
federal, and local governments to ensure that the Forest Service and its programs are coordinated
with theirs, are supportive of their objectives, and that their programs are similarly supportive of
Forest Service programs. The FHWA would coordinate with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) if further coordination is needed.
An agency scoping letter was mailed in March 2006 to agencies listed below. A copy of the
scoping letter is included in Appendix E; agency response letters are included in Appendix B.
(Agencies marked with an asterisk provided a response):
• *NC Department of Administration (State Clearinghouse)
• *NC Division of Archives and History (State Historic Preservation Officer, or SHPO)
• NC Department of Transportation
• *US Fish and Wildlife Service
• US Army Corps of Engineers
An interagency kickoff meeting was held on March 22, 2006 in Troy, North Carolina. At the
meeting, the project was described and agency concerns were identified. The following agencies
were represented at the meeting:
• Federal Highway Administration
• US Forest Service — Uwharrie National Forest
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• NC Department of Transportation
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
6 -1

6.2 Public Involvement
A letter was sent to 54 area homeowners and tenants in August 2006. The letter explained the
project and urged recipients to contact the USFS with any questions or concerns. The comments
that the USFS received were supportive of the proposed project. Appendix F includes a copy of
the letter.
A newsletter will be sent to area homeowners and tenants, the Town of Troy, and Montgomery
County when the EA is available for public comment. In addition to general information about
the project, the newsletter will contain a figure showing the study area. The newsletter also will
contain information about the broader NEPA process as well as an update on the project status
and schedule, and it will provide information on how to provide comments regarding the project.
6.3 Interested Agencies and Other Parties
Consultation and coordination have occurred with numerous agencies for the preparation of the
EA. The following organizations and agencies have jurisdictional approval authority relative to
the recommendations developed as part of this study or are anticipated to have a vested interested
in the study results. These agencies will receive a copy of the EA for review.
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Eastern Federal Lands
Highway Division
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina
Division
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• North Carolina Department of Transportation
• North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
• North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Montgomery County
The individuals and organizations listed below are anticipated to have either an interest in the
study area and /or safety improvement recommendations developed. In addition to the above-
6 -2

listed recipients, the individuals and organizations listed below will receive a newsletter
announcing the completion of the EA.
• Honorable Kay Hagan, U.S. Senate
• Honorable Richard Burr, U.S. Senate
• Honorable Beverly Perdue, Governor of North Carolina
• Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
• Wood Land Estates Homeowners Association
• Skiers Cove Homeowners Association
• Alcoa, Inc.
6.4 Public Notice /Public Comment Period
Members of the public and all interested parties will have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project. The comment period will be announced via newspaper ads and
information on the FHWA website. During this 30 day period, copies of the EA will be available
for review at the US Forest Service offices in Troy (located at 789 NC Hwy 24/27) and in
Asheville (located at 160A Zillicoa Street), as well as at the Montgomery County Public Library
in Troy (215 West Main Street). An electronic copy will be available on the Eastern Federal
Lands Highway Division of the FHWA website (www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov) and on the US Forest
Service website (www.cs.unca.edu /nfsnc /recreation /uwharrie).
Comments may be submitted to:
Ms. Lisa Landers
Environmental Protection Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
21400 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
lisa.landers(�fhwa.dot.gov
All comments received will be reviewed and addressed.
6 -3

6 -4

7.0 List of Preparers and Reviewers
The following individuals contributed to the development of this document:
Federal Highway Administration
Jack Van Dop, Environmental Compliance Specialist
Lisa Landers, Environmental Protection Specialist
Nicholas Finch, Highway Engineer (Environmental)
United States Forest Service
Deborah Walker, District Ranger
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Larry Meisner, P.E., AICP, Project Manager
Teresa Gresham, P.E., Lead Transportation Engineer
Norton Webster, Biologist
Laura Thornbrough, Environmental Scientist
Chuck Nuckols, P.E., Roadway Engineer
Chad Beck, P.E., Roadway Engineer
Pam Barth, Planning Analyst
Mike Tantillo, E.I.T., Transportation Analyst
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Alison Whitesell, P.E., Division Project Manager
New South Associates
Christopher Espenshade, RPA, Principal Investigator
Ricah Marquez, Archaeologist
David Price, Historian
7 -1

7 -2

8.0 References and Web Sites
Abbott, Lawrence, Jr., E.E. Sanborn, R.J. Marshall, III, J.N. Woodall, M.N. Vacca and E.H. Dull.
1987. An Archaeological Survey of Three Proposed Reservoir Areas, Rocky River
Basin, North Carolina, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, North
Carolina.
Adair, J. 1930. The History of the American Indians, (1775). Watauga Press, Johnson City,
Tennessee. Edited by S. C. Williams.
Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath. 1978. Meadowcroft Rockshelter,
1977, An Overview. American Antiquity 43(4):632 -651.
Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath. 1990. The Meadowcroft Rockshelter
Radiocarbon Chronology 1975 -1990. American Antiquity 55(2):327 -331.
Anderson, D. G. and G. T. Hanson. 1988. Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United
States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262 -286.
Anderson, D. G. and J.W. Joesph. 1988. Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah
River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell
Multiple Resource Area. Intergency Archaeological Services Division, National Park
Service, Russell Papers, Atlanta.
Bartram, J. 1942. Diary of a Journey Through the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida from July 1,
1765, to April 10, 1776, Annotated by Francis Harper. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society n.s. 33(l). Philadelphia.
Bartram, W. 1943. Travels in Georgia and Florida, 1773 -74: A Report to Dr. John Fothergill,
edited by Francis Harper. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 33(l).
Philadelphia.
Bass, Q.R., IL 1977. Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smokey
Mountains. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Bentz, C., Jr. 1988. The Late Archaic Occupation of the Baliey Site (40GL26), Giles County,
Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropological Association Newsletter 13(5):1 -20
Blanton, D., C. T. Espenshade, and P. E. Brockington, Jr. 1986. An Archaeological Study of
38SU83: A Yadkin Phase Site in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Garrow
and Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to South Carolina Department of Highways and
Public Transportation, Columbia.
Blanton, Dennis B. and Kenneth E. Sassaman. 1988. Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic
Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archeology: Papers in Honor of
Dr. Robert L. Stephensen, edited by Glenn T. Hanson and Albert C. Goodyear 111. South
Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Anthropological Studies 7.
8 -1

Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Broyles, Bettye J. 1971. Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawma Valley.
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological
Investigations 3.
Butler, J.R., and D.T. Secor, Jr. 1991. The Central Piedmont. In The Geology of the Carolinas,
edited by J.W. Horton, Jr., and V.A. Zullo, pp. 59 -78. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville.
Caldwell, J. 1958. Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States.
American Anthropological Association Memoir 88. Scientific Papers, Volume X, Illinois
State Museum, Springfield, Illinois.
Chapman, J. 1975. The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Report of Investigations 14.
Chapman, J. and A.B. Shea. 1981. The Archaebotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to
Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthroplogist 6(l).
Chapman, J., P.A. Delcourt, P.A. Cridlebaugh, A.B. Shea and H.R. Delcourt. 1982. Man -Land
Interaction: 10,000 Years of American Indian Impact on Native Ecosystems in the Lower
Little Tennesee River Valley, Eastern Tennesee. Southeastern Archaeology 1(2):115-
121.
Claflin, William H., Jr. 1931. The Stalling's Island Mound, Columbia County Georgia. Peabody
Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 14(l).
Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable (assemblers). 1982. The Haw River Sites: Archeological
Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Report submitted
to the Wilmington Corps of Engineers. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson,
Michigan.
Cleland, Charles E. 1976. The Focal - diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the
Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of
Archeaology 1:59 -76.
Coe, James. 1994. A Guide to Field Identification of North American Species of Eastern Birds.
Golden Press, New York.
Coe, Joffre L. 1952. Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of Eastern
United States. James B. Griffin (ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Coe, Joffre L. 1964. The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, n.s., 54.
Coe, Joffre L. 1995. Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
8 -2

Cooper, P.P., and C.R. Norville. 1979. An Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources
Survey of a Certain 4875 Acres of the Uwharrrie National Forest, Montgomery County,
North Carolina. Department of Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury, North
Carolina.
Cowardin, Lewis, M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979.
Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Department of
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.
Daniels, I.R., Jr. 1993. Uwharrie Rhyolite and Early Archaic Settlement Range in the Carolina
Piedmont. Paper Presented at the 15`h Annual Meeting, Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Raleigh.
Daniels, I.R., Jr. 1994. Hardaway Revisted: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropolgy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Ford, R.I. 1974. Northeastern Archaeology: Past and Future Directions. Annual Review of
Anthropology 3:385 -409
Gardner, W. M. 1974. The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971 -73
Seasons. Archeological Laboratory Occasional Publications No. 1. Department of
Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Godfrey, W. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States Dicotyledons.
University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Godfrey, W. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States Monocotyledons.
University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Goodyear, Albert C., John H. House, and Neal W. Ackerly. 1979. Laurens - Anderson: An
Archeological Study of the Interriverine Piedmont. Anthropological Studies 4. South
Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
Griffin, J.B. 1943. An Analysis and Interpretation of the Ceramic Remains From Two Sites Near
Beaufort County, South Carolina. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 133:155 -168.
Griffin, John W. 1974. Investigations in Russel Cave. National Park Service Publications in
Archaeology 13.
Harmon, M.A. 2002. Heritage Resources Survey for the Proposed Kings Mountain Point
Recreation Development (UW02 -1), Compartment 13, Uwharrie Ranger District,
Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery County, North Carolina. National Forests in
North Carolina, Asheville.
Harmon, M.A., and R.J. Snedeker. 1991. Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Reeves
Spring Branch Timber Sale, Compartment 12, Uwharrie Ranger District, Uwharrie
8 -3

National Forest, Montgomery County, North Carolina. National Forests in North
Carolina, Asheville.
Harmon, M.A., and R.J. Snedeker. 1993. 1993 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed
Badin Lake Recreation Development, Compartments 13, 14, 15, and 24, Uwharrie
Ranger District, Uwharrie National Forest, Montgomery County, North Carolina.
National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville.
Haynes, C. V. 1980. Paleo- Indian Charcoal from Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Is Contamination a
Problem? American Antiquity 45(3): 582 -587.
Hobbs, Fred. Hobbs, Upchurch, and Associates. Telephone conversation May 16, 2008.
House, John H. and David L. Ballenger. 1976. An Archaeological Survey of the Interstate 77
Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. Research Manuscript Series No. 104, Division of
Advanced Studies and Research, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University
of South Carolina, Columbia.
House, John H. and Ronald W. Wogaman. 1978. Windy Ridge: A Prehistoric Site in the
Interriverine Piedmont of South Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Anthropological Studies 3.
Keller, Gordon, and James Sherar. 2003. Low Volume Roads Engineering: Best Management
Practices Field Guide. US Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management.
Kimball, Larry R. 1981. An Analysis ofResidental Camp Site Stucture for Two Early Archaic
Assembleges from Rose Island (40MR44), Tennessee. M.A. Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Alternatives Analysis Report. 2007.
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Natural Resources Technical Report. 2008
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Safety and Needs Report. 2006.
Kraft, H.C. 1970. The Miller Field Site, Warren County, New Jersey. The Seton Hall University
Press, South Orange, New Jersey.
Krieger, A.D. 1964. Early Man in the New World. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, Jesse
D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck (eds.), pp. 23 -81. Rice University Semicentennial
Publications, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kunz M. and R. Reamer. 1993. The Mesa Site: A Paleolndian Site in the Arctic. Paper
presented at 58th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis.
Ledbetter, R.J. 1991. Mill Branch Archaeological Investigations of 9WR4 and 9WR11, Warren
County Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
Ledbetter, R.J. and L.D. O'steen. 1991. The Grayson Site, Phase III Investigations of 15CR73.
Cater County, Kentucky. Southeastern Archaeological Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia.
8 -4

Lefler, H. T. (editor). 1967. A New Voyage of Carolina. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Lewis, T.M.N. and Madeline Kneberg Lewis. 1961. Eva: An Archaic Site. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey and Julian R. Harrison, III. 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia_ The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Marziano, Hiram. Town of Troy, North Carolina. Telephone conversation May 28, 2008.
Merriam- Webster Online Search. Accessed August 2008. www.m - w.com.
New South Associates. 2008. Phase I Archaeological Survey: Uwharrie Road (FDR 597)
Reconstruction Project, Montgomery County, North Carolina.
New South Associates. 2007. Rehabilitation ofFDR 597 from SR 1179 to FDR 544, Uwharrie
National Forest, Montgomery County, North Carolina.
New South Associates. 2006. Existing Conditions: Cultural Resources Survey: Uwharrie Road
(FDR 597) Reconstruction Project, Montgomery County, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1990. Plant Conservation Program List of North
Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources — Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis. One Map Viewer. Accessed October 2007.
http:// www. nconemap.net/Default.aspx ?tabid =286
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality. 1998. Yadkin -Pee Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams, Version 3.1. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality — Modeling and TMDL Unit - NCDWQ 2006 Draft 303(d) list of impaired
waters. http: / /h2o.enr. state. nc. us /tmdl/ documents /2004IRCategories4- 7.PDF.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality. Stream Classifications by Hydrologic Unit. 2000.
http:// h20.enr.state.nc.us /strmclass /.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality. NPDES Permit List. Accessed October 2007.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/PublicNotices.html.
8 -5

North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources — Wildlife Resources
Commission. Accessed April 2008.
http:/ /www.ncwildlife.org /fs_index_04 hunting.htm.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water
Quality. Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. March 2003.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. State Transportation Improvement Program 2009-
2015. 2008.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. NCNHP Element Occurrence Search Page. Accessed
2003. http:// www .ncparks.net/nhp /search.html.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Virtual Workroom. Accessed November 2007.
http : / /nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us /nhis /public /gmap75 main.phtml.
Oliver, B. L. 1980. The Piedmont Tradition Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point.
M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Oliver, B. L. 1983. Refinement of the North Carolina Chronological Sequences. In Piedmont
Archaeology, J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle Browning (eds.), pp. 125 -147. Archeological
Society of Virginia, Special Publication No. 10
Oliver, B. L. 1985. Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point
Sequence. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S.
Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195 -211. University of Alabama Press, Tuscalloosa.
Oliver, B. L. 1992. Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropogy, Unversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Fine Particulate Matter. Accessed April 2008.
http: / /www.airqualityontario.com /science /pollutants /particulates. cfm.
Paoletti, Elena, et al. Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Change on Forest Ecosystems
Emerging Research Needs. Scientific World Journal, Vol. 7 (SI), pp. 1 -8. 2007.
http: / /aspenface .mtu.edu /2007.02.52.pdf
Perkinson, P. 1972. North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points: Survey Report No. 1. Southern
Indian Studies, Vol. XXII. The Archaeological Society of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Perkinson, P. 1972. North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points: Survey Report No. 2. Southern
Indian Studies, Vol. XXV. The Archaeological Society of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Purrington, Burton L. 1983. Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of
North Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory ofNorth Carolina, An
Archaeological Symposium, edited by M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow, pp. 83 -160. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Radford, A.E., Ahles, H.E. and Bell, G.R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
8 -6

Richie, W.A. 1956. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Northeastern North America. In
Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World. G.R. Willey (ed.), pp. 72 -80. Viking
Fund Publications in Anthropology 23.
Rohde, Fred C., Arndt, Rudolf G., Lindquist, David G., & Parnell, James, F. 1994. Freshwater
Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification Of Natural Rivers. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
CO. Accessed February 2004. wildlandhydrology @wildlandhydrology.com
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1983. Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina
Piedmont. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South
Carolina.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1988. The Mid- Holocene Archae000gical Record of the Middle Savannah
River Valley. Manuscript in possession of the author.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. Early Woodland Settlement in the Aiken Plateau: Archaeological
Investigations at 38AK157, Savannah River Site, Aiken County, South Carolina.
Savannah River Archaeological Research Paper 3. Occasional Papers of the Savannah
River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Unversity of South Carolina, Columbia.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1996. The Soapstone Vessel Dating Project: A Preliminary Report.
Paper presented at the 53 d Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Birmingham, Alabama.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson. 1990. Native
American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological
Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina.
Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan D. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Stuiver M., P. J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G. S. Burr, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G.
McCormac, J. Plicht, and M. Spurk. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon age calibration
24,000 - 0 cal BP, Radiocarbon, Volume 40, 1041 -1083.
Swanton, J.R. 1946. The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin No. 137. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Tippitt, V.A. and W.H. Marquardt. 1984. The Gregg Shoals and Clyde Gulley Sites:
Archaeological and Geological Investigations at Two Piedmont Sites on the Savannah
River. Russell Papers, Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Thompson, Teresa. Montgomery County, NC. Telephone conversation May 28, 2008.
8 -7

United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Accessed 2006. http: / /www.census.gov.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2005. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Draft
Soil Survey of Montgomery County. U.S. Department of Agriculture Press.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Press.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Roadless Area Conservation, Regional
Forester Sensitive Species List (Region 8). Accessed November 2007.
http: / /roadless.fs.fed.us/ documents /feis/ data / sheets / summspd /tes_supp /tes_supp.shtml.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Road Analysis Process Report, Uwharrie
National Forest. December 2003.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. National Wetlands Inventory Maps — Badin, NC
— (dated 1990). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Montgomery County Endangered Species,
Threatened Species and Federal Species of Concern. Accessed April 2006.
http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html.
United States Geologic Survey. Topographic Maps — Badin, NC — (dated 1994) North Carolina
Quadrangles. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
University of Washington Fire and Mountain Ecology Lab. "Impacts of Air Pollution on Natural
Resources." Accessed May 2008.
http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.FME/research/air.htm.
Uwharrie National Forest. Uwharrie National Forest Recreation Guide. Accessed 2006.
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/recreation/uwharrie/.
Voshell, J. 2002. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates ofNorth America. Department
of Entomology College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnical Institute
and State University. The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg,
Virginia.
Ward, H.T. 1983. A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of
Change. In The Prehistory ofNorth Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium. Mark A.
Mathis and Jeffery J. Crow (eds.) North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Wauchope, R. 1966. Archeological Survey of Northern Georgia: With a Test of Some Cultural
Hypotheses. Memoirs of the Society for American Archeology, No. 21, Salt Lake City.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill Bogan, A.E. 2002.
White, John W. 1982. An Integration of Late Archaic Settlement Patterns for the South Carolina
Piedmont. Unpublished masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
8 -8

Whitley, D.S. and R.I. Dorn. 1993. New Perspectives on the Clovis Vs. Pre- Clovis Controversy.
American Antiquity. 58(4): 626 -647
Wood, W.D. and R.J. Ledbetter. 1990. Rush: An Early Woodland Period Site in Northwest
Georgia. Occasional Papers in Cultural Resource Management 4. Georgia DOT, Atlanta.
Woodall, J.N., D.S. Weaver, and L.G. Eppley. 1978. The Donnaha Site: 1973, 1975
Excavations. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 22, Raleigh.
Woodall, J.N. 1990. Archaeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley 1984 -87. North
Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No. 25. Wake Forest University
Archaeology Laboratories, Winston -Salem
Wormington, H.M. 1962. A Survey of Early American Prehistory. American Scientist,
50(1):230 -242.
8 -9