20000435 Ver 1_Complete File_20000329

W 2 9 2000
S
_
WETLANDS GROUP
?TFR_OUALITY SECTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. DAVID MCCOY
27611-5201
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 10, 2000
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
000435
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 83 on SR 1657 over the Little Snow
Creek, Federal Project No. MABRZ-1657(2), State Project No. 8.264080 1,
T.I.P. No. B-3246.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge No. 83 will be replaced at its existing location with a triple
barreled culvert. Each barrel will measure 2.7 meters by 2.4 meters (9 feet by 8 feet).
During construction traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the construction of the proposed project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 83 is located on SR 1657 over Little Snow Creek
in Stokes County. It has one span totaling 40 feet in length. The bridge is composed
entirely of timber and steel with a concrete abutment. Therefore, Bridge No. 83 will be
removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States during
construction.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-1162.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, PD & EA Planning Engineer Unit Head
To: Beth Harmon
From: Cindy Roebuck
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.: B-3246
State Project No.: 8.2640801
Federal-Aid Project No.: MABRZ-1657(2)
?r
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 83 on SR 1657 over Little Snow Creek in Stokes
County. The bridge will be replaced with a triple barreled culvert. Each barrel of the
culvert will measure 2.7 meters by 2.4 meters (9 feet by 8 feet). The new culvert will be
placed such that the roadway will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing
bridge. The new approach roadway will have a 6.0-meter (20-foot) travelway with
shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulder width will be increased to at least
2.2 meters (7 feet) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing
secondary roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 83 has a sufficiency rating of 19.2 out of 100. The deck of Bridge No.
83 is only 5.8 meters (19 feet) wide. Bridge No. 83 is posted at 15 tons for single vehicles
and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. For these reasons Bridge No. 83 needs
to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment r ,
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes -
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
2
.V
D
loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2020
$ 225,000
$ 17.250
$ 242,250
240 VPD
500 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will have a 6.0 meters (20 feet) wide travelway with at
least 1.2 meter (4 foot) shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased to at least 2.2 meters
(7 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
50 km/h (30 mph)
The design speed is limited by a steep grade on the north approach to the existing
bridge. The elevation of the roadway across the proposed culvert will be raised as much
as is reasonable to reduce this grade, but the design speed will not reach the desirable
3

E.
level of 100 km/h (60 mph). A design exception will likely be required due to the design
speed not meeting the minimum acceptable design speed.
Functional Classification:
SR 1657 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed method for
detouring traffic during construction.
Other Alternates Considered
One other alternate was considered and rejected. An on-site detour alternate had a
cost of maintaining traffic on-site of more than four times the cost to local road users for
detouring during construction. This eliminates on-site traffic maintenance from
consideration.
Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or ? X
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed ?
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1/3) acre
and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize X
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted ? X
by proposed construction activities? -
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ? X
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW) ? -
4
V.

a

(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any
of the designated mountain trout counties?
17

X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks -
1
(UST's) or hazardous materials sites? 1
1 X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
- (10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the project
significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area of X
Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F? X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or ? X
land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? D X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
1-1
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X

(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
+ (20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land

use of any adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local F-1
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or

Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in X El
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
5
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? 11 X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing X j
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? u
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) and
will all construction proposed in association with the bridge X
replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or ?
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X F-1
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or ? X
listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ? X
important to history or pre-history ? -
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, ?
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined X
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1966, F-1 _
as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F-1 X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question no. 8 - Trout County
Stokes County is one of the designated mountain trout counties, but Little Snow Creek
does not support trout populations. The NCWRC has indicated that replacing the existing bridge
with a culvert will be acceptable as long as the culvert is placed such that the culvert bottom is
below the streambed and does not impede fish passage. This is standard practice as long as site
conditions allow.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-3246
State Project No.: 8.2640801
Federal-Aid Project No.: MABRZ-1657(2)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 83 on SR 1657 over Little Snow Creek in Stokes
County. The bridge will be replaced with a triple barreled culvert. Each barrel of the
culvert will measure 2.7 meters by 2.4 meters (9 feet by 8 feet). The new culvert will be
placed such that the roadway will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing
bridge. The new approach roadway will have a 6.0-meter (20-foot) travelway with
shoulder widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Traffic will be detoured on existing
secondary roads during construction.
Catep*orical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
9- e_7 9 V
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
CcYnQ
'N-98 w
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
9 N 1 1 161 1 - ?y04 b? ? 1
5 •, 1615
A
•I 603
160fl 7
1610 •8`
.
` l
.6 1609 '-' 1614
• /
' J 5?+? • 1653
N \ - ??
?tsp /•
106 ! 0
r /'
2
N 1604 2.
1606 / 1651
1605 16-52,
I
X606
: 1P '606
• , 1653 t
1497 • 1 C _ Et' • . ?J?? /
,c 1
2.0
1495 •4 777,
Lawsorrviile W I 1651 1651
1496 , ,'\ ?? •fl 1658 \ . 1649
,' •, /° 1657
1494 1 . 9 1661 "1742
?.
tS t. 0 13 _ • .-7
1500 I'$ A r S • 1 g ,
0
1501 9 / . r, 1652 ) , , • ' J ,
.' (• .. /
1513 g i 1660 .? b
- c? .1655 - ' 1659 a
.3 qs
• . 7 ' '? • s ? 1657 1654 1647
1493 •P% 162 62 •t' . 6 . , l • I 1674 t
11 11663 ? 16551
1 490 • .?f 4 t>` ,? , a
1
(/ 1' v • ?? i i 'i 1652
1665
v • ??2 ( 16-S5 .? 746
? ?n• /I Q t656 ?0 7 N J• 1675
7V7 I - M-1177 -71 ti 70 g H ,
_ .. _ 2 1674 • 8
1
001672
- K. Al 1671
Fr na 1 Sandy R;• \ _ • y . /
lawf ?i 2
l1thN C6 lrtftonWtlt l I 1652
f '?? ? 167_. \ N., 17m Imo' I C-%
_ f tt.d
Wo _ f r 1?
IC
S T O K S f=
10 I Studied Detour Route r-
,, ?la„?. _ ,.tom
0 Ao0
-"5^74'C4"N North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
,-Op ..
Stokes County
Replace Bridge No. 83 on SR 1657
Over Little Snow Creek
13-3246
Fi-ure One

f t.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 18, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 83 on SR 1657 over Little Snow Creek,
Stokes County, B-3246, Federal Aid Project
MABRZ-1657(2), State Project 8.2640801, ER
97-8357
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On February 25, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites in the immediate project vicinity. A high
probability exists, however, that prehistoric archaeological sites will be affected by
the proposed project. Prior to project implementation, we recommend an
archaeological survey of the area of potential effect.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Joncs Strect • Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 T-OD,
3
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
` Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 20, 1998
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 83 on SR 1657 over Little Snow Creek,
Stokes County, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1657(2),
TIP B-3246, State Project 8.2640801, ER 97-8357,
ER 98-8851
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
E I V;N
MAY 2 6 1998
G "_ • r rC
Thank you for your letter of March 30, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation concerning the above
project.
During the course-of the survey no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were located
within the project area. Due to the absence of archaeological resources, Dr. Glover has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
C,??_
?Atj
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: "H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
G. Glover
log Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 83
ON SR 1657 OVER LITTLE SNOW CREEK
STOKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. B-3246
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2640801
FAP NO. MABRZ-1657(2)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BY:
Resource Southeast, Ltd.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
January, 1998
P.N. 94028.35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description ...............................................
1.2 Purpose .......................................................1
1.3 Study Area .....................................................1
1.4 Methodology ..................... ............................1
1.5 Topography and Soils ............................................. 2
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................................. 4
2.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................................... 4
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .................................. 4
2.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ......................... 4
2.1.3 Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) ......................... 5
2.2 Aquatic Communities ............................................. 5
2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............................ 6
2.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................................... 6
2.3.2 Aquatic Communities ....................................... 7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES ................................................. 8
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics ..................................... 8
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............................. 9
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ...................................................10
4.1 "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues ..................... 10
4.2 Permits .......................................................10
4.3 Mitigation .....................................................11
4.4 Rare and Protected Species ....................................... 11
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species .................................. 11
4.4.2 Federal Species of Concern .................................. 13
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 14
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................ 15
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................17
TABLES
Table 1 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial & Aquatic Communities ..................... 7
Table 2 - Federally Protected Species for Stokes County ............................. 11
Table 3 - North Carolina Status of Federal Species of Concern in Stokes County ........... 13
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Rglaeemcnt
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
FIGURES
Figure I - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Alternates and Terrestrial Communities
Appendix A - Photographic Record
Stoke County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow
Propo..cd Bridge Replacancnt
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted for use as a supplement to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 83 on SR 1657 over Little Snow
Creek in Stokes County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The existing bridge is a 6.1 x 12.2 meter
(20.1 x 40 foot) dual lane structure with a timber deck on I-beams with timber bulkheads and
concrete abutments, caps, posts, and sills. It was constructed in 1956. The existing roadway
approaching the bridge is a 5.5 meter (18.0 foot) two lane undivided facility with shoulders of
variable width ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 meters (1.0 to 10.0 feet). The existing right of way width
is 18.3 meters (60 feet).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 83
with a new three barrel culvert. There are two proposed alternates for the project. Alternate
One replaces the bridge in place, detouring traffic off-site during construction. No temporary
crossing would be built. The construction impact limits would be no more than 210 meters (700
feet). Alternate Two builds the new structure on new alignment west of the existing crossing,
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during construction (Figure 2). The existing bridge
would also be removed following construction. The proposed right of way will remain at 18.3
meters (60 feet). The project length for Alternate Two is less than 365 meters (1,200 feet).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. Identification and estimation of the likely
consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources are also presented in this report.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. It may become necessary to conduct additional field investigations should design
parameters and criteria change.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of Stokes County, approximately 5.1
kilometers (3.2 miles) southeast of Lawsonville, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project site lies
within the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Danbury quadrangle map (1971); United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 13.3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Stokes County (1995); United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map (Danbury, 1994 USFWS list of protected and
candidate species (1997); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats (1997); North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR, DWQ), formerly NCDEM, water resources
data; and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed critical habitat
information. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on September 11,
1997. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques including active searching and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using the 18.3 meters (60.0 feet) wide
right of way limit and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for aquatic
impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less,
but without specific replacement structure design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.) the
worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor" denote the specific area being directly impacted by each alternative.
"Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the project area.
Photographs of the study area are located in Appendix A.
1.5 Topography and Soils
Stokes County lies primarily in the Piedmont physiographic region, with a small mountain range,
the Sauratown Mountain Range running through the central portion of the county. The
topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping
banks along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 231.4 meters (700 feet)
above mean sea level.
According to the General Soil Map for Stokes County (USDA-SCS 1995), the project area
consists of the Riverview-Toccoa-Chewacla soil association. The Riverview-Toccoa-Chewacla
association is described as nearly level and gently sloping well drained, moderately well drained,
and somewhat poorly drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil or that
have a loamy surface layer and loamy and sandy underlying material. These soils were formed in
recent alluvium. This soil association consists of 50 percent Riverview soils, 40 percent Toccoa
soils, and 10 percent Chewacla with some other soils to a minor extent.
The major map units within the project area include the Riverview and Toccoa soils (0 to 4
percent slopes) which are found on flood plains and are occasionally flooded. The Toccoa soils
are generally found closer to the streams and between areas of the Riverview soils and the stream.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
2
The Riverview and Tocca soils are non-hydric (USDA-SCS 1991) but may contain inclusions of
hydric Chewacla Soils.
The Riverview soils are a dark yellowish brown loam with a depth to bedrock of more than 150
cm (60 inches). Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high. The erosion
hazard is slight and the shrink-swell potential of the subsoil is low.
The Toccoa soils are a dark brown fine sandy loam with a depth to bedrock of more than 150 cm
(60 inches). Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is moderate. The
erosion hazard is slight and the shrink-swell potential of the subsoil is low.
The Chewacla soils make up 10 percent of the entire soil association and are often found
intermingled with the Riverview soils in the part of the unit that is farthest from the stream. The
Chewacla soils are sandier and wetter than the major soils. These soil types were confirmed in the
field by taking soil borings. Chewacla soils are listed as a hydric soil (USDA-SCS 1991).
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Rglacancnt
TIP No. &3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
3
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on the
system used by NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow the
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). More recent nomenclature is used when
appropriate. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations,
evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation (Webster et al. 1985;
Potter et al. 1980).
2.1 Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are Man-dominated,
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, and Basic Mesic Forest (Figure 2). Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description.
Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but
may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes road shoulders, maintained
yards, and the northwest end of the study corridor where Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) is
dominant adjacent to the road shoulder (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these
disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders are
dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major), woodsorrel (Oxalis sp.)
alexandergrass (Brachiaria sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Panicum sp., wild carrot (Daucus
carota), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), foxtail (Setaria sp.), and morning glory (Ipomoea
purpurea).
Fauna present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of
resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living and dead
faunal components. Wildlife that might utilize this type of habitat include turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), song sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and
rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophihalmus).
2.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Remnants of this community occur directly adjacent to the bridge and along the creek. In some
areas on the east side of the bridge it is only separated from surrounding pasture and maintained
yards by one or two canopy species and the herbaceous layer. It is more abundant on the west
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek
proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
4
side of the bridge. The floral canopy consists of black walnut (Juglans nigra), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and red mulberry (Morus rubra). The
understory and shrub layer includes dogwood (Corpus florida), tag alder (Abius serrulata), black
locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), black willow (Salix nigra), beauty-berry (Callicarpa
americapa), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba). The herbaceous layer consists of joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium fistulosum), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), cardinal flower (Lobelisa
cardinalis), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), sunflower (Heliapthus sp.), blackberry (Rubus argutus),
microstegium (Microstegium vimenium) and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia).
Wildlife that might utilize the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest habitat include downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivaceus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetoruni), southeastern shrew
(Sorex longirostris), American toad (Bufo americanus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), green frog
(Rana clamitans), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus),
and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
2.1.3 Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
This community occurs at the northeastern edge of the study corridor. Canopy species include
hickory (Carya spp.), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Virginia pine. The understory
is diverse and consists of beech (Fagus grandifolia), redbud (Cercis canadensis), dogwood, red
maple (Ater rubrum), yellow-poplar, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), hickory, and ironwood
(Carpinus caroliana). The shrub layer is fairly open and includes spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
and juvenile beech. The herbaceous layer has abundant poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Fauna associated with this type of community include whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus),
comon flicker (Colaptes auratus), Carolina chickadee (Parus Carolinensis), tufted titmouse, red-
eyed vireo, woodland vole, white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern chipmunk, long-
tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), redbelly snake (Storeria
occipitomaculata), and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus).
2.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Little Snow Creek. Within the project
area of Bridge No. 83, Little Snow Creek flows east and is approximately 3.05 to 7.62 meters (10
to 25 feet) wide (Figure 2). On the day of the field investigation the water was turbid and the
flow was moderate. The depth of the creek was approximately 0.1 to 0.3 meters (0.3 to 1.0 feet)
along the bank then became deeper toward the middle of the creek. The creek bottom consisted
of rocks and sand with a high mica content in both. In the southwestern quadrant of the project
area a small intermittent tributary flows through a cow pasture and drains into Little Snow Creek,
approximately 9.1 meters (30 feet) from the bridge. This intermittent tributary is >1.5 meters (>5
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Crock
Proposed Bridge Repla=ncnt
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
feet) wide, >0.3 meters (>1 foot) deep with a rocky bottom, and shaded by trees along its banks
(see photo 5) in Appendix A.
Vegetation along Little Snow Creek includes golden rod, paw paw, microstagium and tag alder.
Animals such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Northern water snake (Natrix sipedon
sipedon), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) may also reside or forage within this aquatic
community or along the waters edge. A cursory survey for clams and mussels along the creek and
tributary did not uncover any evidence of their presence. Macroinvertebrates such as larvae of the
mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) would be expected to
be found within the snag habitats and within the riffle areas in the creek. The macroinvertebrate
fauna within the creek channel may be dominated by chironomid larvae (midges) and oligochaetes
(segmented worms). On the day of the site visit an active search for macroinvertebrates was
conducted by turning over rocks and digging in the sediment, but none were found.
2.3 Anticipated Impacts.to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts (Table 1). However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to note that construction
impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site and that NCDOT
best management practices (BMPs) are implemented.
2.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The Basic Mesic Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Man-dominated
communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The loss of these habitats
will result in the displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities
may occur to terrestrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Impacts for each alternate are listed in Table 1. Alternate One proposes to
replace the bridge in place with a culvert and detour traffic off-site. This activity will result in
minimal impacts of 0.35 hectares (0.88 acres) to the Man-Dominated and 0.03 hectares (0.08
acres) to the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Communities. No impacts will occur in the
Basic Mesic Forest Community. Alternate Two proposes to replace the bridge on new alignment
west of the existing crossing while maintaining traffic on the current bridge during construction.
Alternate Two will not impact the Basic Mesic Forest Community since it lies to the northeast of
the project area. This alternate will impact 0.52 hectares (1.28 acres) of the Man-Dominated
Community, and 0.04 hectares (0.10 acres) of the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Community.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.33
January 1998
• 6
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED INIPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Man-
Dominated Piedmont/Low
Mountain Basic
Mesic Aquatic Intermittent
Tributary* Total
Alluvial Forest Forest
Alternate
One 0.35
(0.88) 0.03
(0.08) 0.00
(0.00) 0.01
(0.03) 0.00
(0.00) 0.39
(0.99)
Alternate
Two 0.52
1.28 0.04
0.10 0.00
0.00 0.01
0.03 <0.01
0.02 0.57
(1.41)
Under current preliminary design, Alternate two win nave up to ov tnctctb <<.Vv L"Ll .,1
length if impacts to this intermittent tributary.
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 18.3 meter (60 foot) right of way limits.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above,
calculations were based on the worst case scenario.
• Values given are in hectares (acres).
2.3.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Little Snow Creek Channel. The
replacement of Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek with a culvert will result in up to 18.3
meters (60 feet) linear or 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of impacts to the crossing whether the
crossing is replaced in its current location or at the alternative site just west of the existing bridge.
This represents worst case conditions; actual disturbance will likely be less. Since the culvert
construction dimensions will remain the same at either creek location the area of disturbance will
be the same for both alternates. However, Alternate One utilizes an existing crossing site that is
previously disturbed, and Alternate Two would impact an undisturbed new alignment location.
Alternate Two lies between the intermittent tributary and the existing SR 1657. Approximately
60 meters (200 feet) of this intermittent creek channel will require relocation (Figure 2).
In addition, impacts to the adjacent man-dominated and forested communities can have a direct
impact on aquatic communities. Construction of the culvert and approach work as well as the
removal of trees will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperature and a
decrease in dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase the
possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways and
impacting aquatic organisms. These factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality
of fish and local populations of invertebrates which inhabit these areas. Best management
practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to minimize
potential adverse impacts due to this project.
Stokcs County Bridge No. 83 over I!Ule Snow Creck
Proposed Bridge Rcplacctncnt
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.33
January 1998
7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Dan River drainage basin flowing from the state of Virginia.
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Little Snow Creek flows east through the proposed project area with a width of 3.0 to 7.5 meters
(10 to 25 feet). Little Snow Creek drains into the Dan River. This section of the creek is
classified as C by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR). Class C indicates freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic
life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. The Classification Index number for this
portion of the creek is 22-20-3 and was classified on September 1, 1974. The un-named
intermittent tributary is not separately classified, but would carry the classification of Little Snow
Creek.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Stokes
County (1989) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood elevations have been
determined.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The DWQ uses benthos data as a tool to monitor water quality as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. According to Ms. Nancy
Guthrie, the DWQ does not have any benthic macroinvertebrate data for Little Snow Creek within
the project area. Ms. Guthrie also indicated that there was no data available for any nearby
locations that would give reliable information about the water quality at this site.
The Stokes County Watershed Map indicates that the project area is not within a Critical Area.
No waters classified by the DWQ as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within the project vicinity.
Point-source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers located in the project vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, storm water runoff from SR 1657 may cause
water quality degradation along with agricultural and residential runoff. No commercial sites are
within the project area.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Rcplacemrnt
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
8
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures or a culvert
in the creek channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will
increase sediment loads and removal of trees which provide shade along the banks will likely
result in an increase in water temperature. Sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a
decrease in oxygen levels. The NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ, has developed a
sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection
of surface waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• strict adherence to BN Ps for the protection of surface waters during the life of the
project
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along the streams
Stokcs County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B•3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
9
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CAR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). "Waters of the United States" are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as wetlands do not occur within
the project area around Little Snow Creek. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project
impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
Construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Alternate One will
impact up to 18.3 meters (60 feet) of linear stream channel or < 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of
jurisdictional surface waters due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 83 with a new
culvert. Alternate Two will impact essentially the same area but on new alignment. Discussions
with Eric Alsmeyer of the USACOE, indicate that categorical exclusion projects where no
wetlands are impacted do not require USACOE on-site visits for approval. In accordance with
this policy, the USACOE has advised that it will not make a site visit at this time.
4.2 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USACOE 1344), a
permit is generally required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will be
subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CAR 33-.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any
activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Since no jurisdictional
wetlands will be impacted by this project, no Section 404 permit is required. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACOE and the DWQ.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, is also generally
required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters
for which a federal permit is required. This certification requirement is not anticipated for this
project, however, DWQ has the final decision.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
10
4.3 Mitigation
Since this project is covered by Nationwide Permit No. 23 and no wetland impacts are
anticipated, mitigation should not be required by the USACOE or the DWQ. Mitigation for
impacts to surface waters of less than 46 linear meters (150 linear feet) is generally not required
by the USACOE or the DWQ. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rest with
the USACOE and the DWQ.
4.4 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due either to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for
Stokes County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for
Stokes County as of the November 4, 1997 listing.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Cardamine micranthera E
(Small-anthered bittercress)
Helianthus schweinitzii E
SchweinitZs sunflower
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range)
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
11
I
Cardamine micranthera
Family:
Date Listed:
Distribution in NC
(Small-anthered bittercress)
Brassicaceae
9/21/89
Forsyth and Stokes
E
The small-anthered bittercress is an erect, slender perennial herb with fibrous roots and most often
a single stem. Height ranges from 20 to 40 cm (8 to 16 inches). Basal leaves are 1 to 5 cm (0.4
to 2.0 inches) long and 0.5 to 2.0 cm (0.2 to 0.8 inches) wide, crenate, and have one pair
(occasionally two) of small lateral lobes or leaflets. Stem leaves are alternate, mostly unlobed, I
to 1.5 em (0.4 to 0.6 inches) long, crenate, and cuneate. Flowers are subtended by leafy bracts,
have four white petals, six stamens, and small round anthers. Anthers are about 0.5 mm (0.02
inches) long, and the petals are 1.2 to 2 mm (0.05 to 0.08 inches) wide. Flowering and fruiting
occur in April and May.
The habitat of the small-anthered bittercress consists of seepages, wet rock crevices, streambanks,
sandbars, and wet woods along small streams. The area is usually partially to fully shaded, and
occupied by trees and shrubs typical of moist soils of the upper Piedmont. This plant is extremely
rare, with only nine small populations currently known to exist. .
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The small-anthered bittercress is native to the Dan River drainage of the North Carolina
and Virginia Piedmont. Habitat does exist for this species along Little Snow Creek at the
project site. A field survey must be conducted during the flowering time of April to May to
determine if this species occurs in the project area.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 5/7/91
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Davidson, Gaston, Mecklenburg, Montgomery,
Randolph, Rowan, Stanley, Stokes, Union.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1.0 to 2.0 meters (3.3 to
6.6 feet) tall with a tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-
stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing
to alternate above. They are lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough, thick texture. The yellow
flowers have small heads and bloom from September until frost. The nutlets are approximately
3.3 to 3.5 mm (0.13 to 0.14 inches) long and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the Carolinas. It occurs in open
habitats such as edges of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures. Soils are
usually moist to somewhat dry clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.33
January 1998
12
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Man-Dominated community provides some characteristics of the habitat needed for
this species. An active search for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on the day of the
visit and none were located. The NCNHP database shows no recorded occurrences of this
species in the vicinity of the project.
4.4.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979;
however, the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 3 includes listed FSC species for Stokes County and their state classifications.
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN IN STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
Common Name Status
Noturus gilberti E No
Oran efin madtom
Speyeria diana SR No
Tana ftitillary)
Monotropsis odorata C No
Sweet inesa
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
13
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any FSC within the project
vicinity.
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is not present for Schweinitz's sunflower; however, habitat is present for the federally
® protected species, small-anthered bittercress. A field survey should be conducted during
flowering time to search for the species. Habitat does not exist for any of the listed federal
species of concern noted for Stokes County.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Rcplaccr=t
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
14
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
ANDREA M. WARFIELD, Program Manager (B.S., Education, Mansfield University; B.S.,
Biology, Minor: Chemistry and Mathematics, Mansfield University): Ms. Warfield has had
sixteen years of combined management and operations experience with responsibilities including
hiring, training, supervising personnel, policy formulation and implementation; budget
development and execution; and company operations. She has demonstrated excellent technical
Q ability and superior problem solving skills in the management of large task order contracts. She
has served on numerous steering and task force committees in Virginia, North Carolina and
Maryland, providing guidance for the successful implementation of public participation programs
designed to inform and support alternative impact studies.
FRANK PRICE, P.E., R.L.S., Project Manager (B.S.C.E., Civil Engineering, North Carolina
State College, 1969; M.S.C.E., Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1969;
Certificate in Planning, Georgia Tech, 1964; Certificate in AASHTO Management, University of
Mississippi, 1987): Mr. Price has over 34 years of engineering, planning and management
experience, and over 30 years of experience with the NCDOT as a project engineer, unit head,.
program manager and engineering manager. He has served as project planning engineer on
numerous highway projects throughout North Carolina. Mr. Price has managed the planning and
environmental development of transportation projects for Resource, NCDOT, and other private
consulting firms.
KENNETH R. ROEDER, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Scientist, (Ph.D., Forestry, Minor:
Soils, North Carolina State University; M.S., Forest Genetics, Concentration: Statistics,
University of Florida; B.S., Forest Resources Management, SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, and Syracuse University): Mr. Roeder has over 20 years of Natural
Resource Assessment experience dealing with NEPA/SEPA and Section 401/404 Clean Water
Act compliance of Transportation and other private and public sector projects. Mr. Roeder's
technical areas of expertise include wetland delineations, permitting, and mitigation planning, soil
studies, ecology, threatened and endangered species studies, feasibility studies, environmental
impact studies, natural resource assessments, biomass productivity and yield, statistics, and field
research. Mr. Roeder's experience also includes agency coordination, public involvement and
public hearings.
AMY S. MORGAN, Staff Scientist (?vf.S , Ecology, Minor: Water Resources, North Carolina
State University; B.S., Biology and Science Education, North Carolina State University): Ms.
Morgan has six years of environmental monitoring and research experience in hydrology and
wetland settings. She has extensive experience in groundwater-surface water interactions in
coastal hydrogeologic settings. Ms. Morgan's other areas of technical experience include site
remediation, wetland delineation, monitoring well design and installation, data logger
programming, plant identification, soil classification, ecology, project design and implementation
and water quality monitoring (including work with the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida).
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
15
Ms. Morgan has experience working with both federal and state government agencies, the private
sector and non-profit agencies.
LISA S. WARLICK, Staff Scientist (B.S., Natural Resources, Concentration: Ecosystem
Assessment, Minor: Zoology, North Carolina State University): Ms. Warlick has experience in
conducting research and field work for habitat assessments, inventories, and land management.
She has field skills in soil classification, forest and wetland plant identification, and terrestrial
vegetation measurements. Additionally, Ms. Warlick has experience with federal and state
governments working with insect monitoring and control, and in molecular botany and
reproductive and developmental toxicology laboratories.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
16
6.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Justice, W. S. and C. R. Bell. 1968. Wild Flowers of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey and J. R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Murphy, T. R., D. L. Colvin, R. Dickens, J. W. Everest, D. Hall and L. B. McCarty. Weeds of
Southern Turfgrasses. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, Athens.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Computer Database List of Rare Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1996.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Upper
Roanoke River Basin. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of
Stokes County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Hydric Soils of the
United States. Misc. Pub. No. 1491.
Stoka County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Creck
Proposed Bridge Rcplaccmcnt
TIP No. B•3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
17
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). United States Fish and
Wildlife Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region,
Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map - Danbury, NC.
United States Geological Survey. 1984. Topographic map - Danbury quadrangle.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over little Snow Crcck
Proposed Bridge Rcpla=cnt
TIP No. B-3246; P.N. 94028.35
January 1998
18
FIGURES

NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FIGURE 1--
SITE LOCATION MAP RESOURCE
M 11P NO. B-3246 SOUTHEAST, LTD.
co
BRIDGE NO. 83 REPLACEMENT ENVMONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
ON SR 1657 1519 TAU= S7=- , SU= ZW o CARZ IX MU
STOKES COUNTY (919) .W-= 0 TAX (910) ,W-CM
MAP PROVIDED BY NCDOT
I-
Z W W
QP w
?? ?Q
Z? c,4 r--
Wo I?°
?U m
. Pr) It
Q -?
000U)
_a
W? Q Z - ZO
W 0
0
m
H
w w
Ch
0 0-

J :D
Q (n
5 ?
D Z
J
O
Q

Z W ?-
d Q
Z I-
w
O m
O
3 L F-
Q
Z
U

(n

E

0
\ w
(n I-

F-
?
O

Z I m u
D Z 0W N H
O D m ?
U
0
Z r771
0 Q
W J
J d
:H
APPENDICES

f

APPENDIX A
..-Photographic Record
i

SR 1657, From Little Snow Creek Bridge - Facing South
?tOKCS i- ounq uriage NO. as over Little snow
TIP B-3246: P.N. 94028.35

Photo No. 4
Little Snow Creek Looking East From Bridge
Stokes County Bridge No. 83 over Little Snow Creek
'I'II' B-3246: P N. 94028.35
- - Ii - t t?? ?-fit ! i

{
(
a

A; t.-t
R"!fyPr.?r Imo.
I° rte' • r?"`*
ow?
?? 1 ? I,@? .ate
Photo No. 5
SR 1657 Southwest Quadrant with Little Snow Creek
Looking Northwest
Note: Intermittent Tributary Parallel to SR 1657
_ 1 I is !
{ I •
TIP I3-3246; N.N. 94028.35
?' !IIII?I'i II