20010584 Ver 1_Complete File_20010417

A ,,.swa
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovmNoR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SEaKmRY
April 10, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120 058 „401 ISSUED,
Raleigh, NC 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Application for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 61 on SR 1973 over Neatman's Creek, in Stokes County.
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ- 1973 (2), State Project No. 8.264100 1,
TIP No. B-3374.
Dear Sir:
PROPOSED PROJECT
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The construction of the project ' volve impacts to surface waters. Proposed impacts
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 61 on SR 1973 over Neatman's Creek (DWQ Index # 22-25-6), a Division of Water
Quality "Class C" Waters of the State. Bridge No. 61 will be replaced with a 3 @ 11 foot
by 11 foot reinforced concrete box culvert, (RCBC) at a new.location east of the existing
bridge. The existing bridge and approaches will be removed after construction of the
new facility. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be increased by a minimum of
3 feet on each side. The new roadway typical section will be at approximately the same
elevation as the existing structure and will have a 24 foot travelway, with at least an
8 foot grassed shoulder on each side. The project length is 1343 feet. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Please find the enclosed site
map, permit drawings, the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document (Appendix One), and
the protected species memo regarding the newly listed James spinymussel (Appendix
Two).
to the existing channel total 48 feet, which includes 0.034 acre of fill in surface water
and 59 feet of enclosed ch the placement of the culvert. The proposed surface
water impacts are depicted on sheets 4 and 5 of the attached permit drawings.
k 4
According to the 25 January 1999 site investigation, conducted by NCDOT's biologists
Bruce Ellis and Beth Smyre, no wetlands are associated with the floodplain of Neatman's
Creek within the project area. Therefore, no jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by
the proposed project.
Bridge No. 61 consists of one span, and has an asphalt overlay wearing surface on a
timber deck on steel I-beams. The asphalt overlay will be removed prior to bridge
demolition without dropping into the water. The remainder of the bridge, steel and
timber components will be removed without dropping into the water. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
As of 26 February 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists three federally
protected species for Stokes County (Table 1). Since the CE (approved May 2000) was
completed, the James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) has been added to this list.
A site investigation and a survey for the James spinymussel was conducted on
9 January 2001, by NCDOT's biologists Tim Savidge, Logan Williams, Sue Brady, and
Karen Lynch, as well as a consulting biologist Anne Timm. Based on the survey results,
a biological conclusion of "No Effect" was rendered (see Appendix Two for the
Protected Species Survey memo dated 12 January 2001). The biological conclusions of
"No Effect" for the two other listed species remain valid.
Table 1. Federallv-Protected Species for Stokes County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological
T Conclusion
James spinymussel Pleurobema collina E No Effect
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera E No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger or extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
All historic and archaelogical issues have been addressed for this project. It has been
concluded that this project will have no effect on historic architectural resources nor will
it have an effect on eligible archaeological resources. Letters from the NC State Historic
Preservation Office as well as a Concurrence Form for Properties Not Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places have been attached to the CE document.
SUMMARY
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (65
FR 12817, 12899; March 9, 2000). We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply
to this project, and are providing one copy of this application to the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Since the proposed project crosses waters administered as Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the authorization of
a Section 404 Nationwide Permit by the US Army Corps of Engineers is conditioned
upon concurrence of the NCWRC. The NCDOT has received comments from the
NCWRC through memos, dated 5 December 1997 and 27 September 1999 regarding
their review of this project. According to Ron Linville with the NCWRC, this project
will not impact trout waters. Therefore, the NCWRC has no objection to the project as
proposed, provided that concrete box culvert construction guidelines 1-4 for RCBC's
outlined in the 5 December 1997 memo from David Cox are implemented. (See the
NCWRC memos attached to the CE document for NCWRC's comments and a list of the
referenced conrete box culvert construction guidelines).
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mrs. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Doug Waters, 9 Division Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Planning
VICINITY MAP
y> P ? zo 1 o zTi ? i z9a --

\
P

-
2018 1990 1990
Qua Eror 993 1991
Gap ?•)
Vl-/199 oals 2019 10 1--

O `
'? 201 --
1994 A 6

19 1995'..: of 1973 •?

66 1 \ 1955 1976
i
S
N1 l ?
• J
1975 1977
W. OPrrs ;

61945
PRog 2024
1946
1 71
""
\
(
1972 1970
2069
rOP. 9 1970 / i 1974
J v 1947
\ "
\ ? Q.

?- ') 1955 ? ti 1961 D+
2043
\ 'reps /• ' ,` - 045
\ •
)
21 )
` - 1960
- 1955
c -? \
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STOKES COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2641001
B-3374 -- BRIDGE NO. 61 OVER
NEATMAN'S CREEK ON SR 1973
SHEET 1 OF 7 2/ 16,/ 01
4
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
®DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
MONO)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
E /E DENOTES
IN WETLAND EXCAVATION
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• •` » ` • CLEARING
ee ?- FLOW DIRECTION
TB -- TOP OF BANK
--WE - - EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P? - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
--- 0------" WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
E BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
S ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
BUFFER ZONE BUFFER ZONE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STOKES COUNTY.
PROJECT: 8.2641001
B-3374 -- BRIDGE NO.61 OVER
NEATMAN'S CREEK ON SR 1973
SHEET 2 OF 7 2 / 16 / 01
co
v
y
0
0
I
N
v
w
0
LLJ
a
W
m
O
O
O
O
O
V)
J
I
1
N

i
N
m
Q

F`
v
w

0

0

W

N

Q ?+
F`

J

s
--?-
O
_ _ - --- ,- I ?--
F w -
z ' I Z L
O J W
------ _ '=n LLJ a
-- o LL
co 3? z
_ o in
NEATMAN'S CREEK LL, -
p -J N Z - o- O
SLID --m-------- - O+
= N U? cn co
z w
W H c) F mLo - -- U-?-- ----- J
-i CL <
?- N 'Lo LLJ I oz
N
Z J Q >0?? 0 ui P-4
O x U
= co
W=ZX = W
Lci> z
U- L
U O `a
CT)
Lc) U
U \ pW to
30 V` J\ ZF-C
-i \? Q J <cO
to 0
M CL \ II ?, V)
V
N z \ _j m-
Z W p On
\ ??N
I \ p
= I \ O
I \
u)l
1 0 \ U-
i ? \ N
f
E- co
0 vii ?"
03 g z
o
WN
-1 o \ I L Z? o U z
m
Gs. c?
C6 V) Z \ 1 J o c:.. ° U o 0 0) W U) - I o- o z w m?
_m x Z I m? ° H o z
p I M Q, CA cn Q
x w? A? a M F' W
w V A Q W
1m U x

J z
o M

'?

:°
N F W
l
cv
o w o3 E• -4
o )
o C
?z
LL- J
J ?x o e O o
o LL- z?
x U z?
J z
m
Fo CW7 W
A
`
O z
u U
u, w
o

0 W

,z

A ri) a
C.
M H F
W
LEI ` U
co
U
U O
'
?

x

° `---
CE? G
LI c
l?
z z
o_ -

0
X
W
N
"
O
,- IJ
0
01
O ,
2:1
00
o_
? J
1 J
I l.L
Q0
I WW
t ?O
I ? F-
r 0 ?
I °a
ZUw
?N
t X CL
W D
N
C7 r
I
?
Z I
O
J Z

Q
Z i
W
CC) J-<
F- (L J
=
L: F
O
0

?
O O

WZ 0

QO
Lj-

CD -j
-0 O

Z I
i

F- Cj:?
W? W Q
ln:2 F-
JF-
Z
O NW
F-

Z=
ALL
Ja ,
F-
W CO>
QZO
Q3: >3::
JO QQ
F-U
t O
0F-
WW-I ZJ
UJ cnX
W I O
I Co
0a? W a0 W /
> Z
Z LL- W
OOCo >Z
F7-- C)
/
OO
F- a
F- Q ?-
?JU ?MQ W?Q. /
1
N
W JW
J(r?9-- WQaY
>WZ 02M
W> 1
F- ?O
? Z(rF- >O?
O QJ .F-< .fzZ
Z _ M LL. "vn Z r? IL a
W
m
J
W
Z
Z
a 0
_ O
U +
0 ~
w
N
O
IL
O
Ir
0
O
O
LO

b
> J
_J
Lf)
U ?
ca
F ?
z
o
N E...
x W
0 0
O O
N Ln

0
U ? U
y N
Fy- ? U
U
a p
0 N M
-
? N
W
LL O -
D
m y
CO
N
? rn
N C M
U 0 W
L
WU >

?
O

?
d C) co z

p ?O
o L Q} j W w
WU 3 V oaV
X
0
m
o a
co
m
v
C C v - N
Z
= M co I Q
¢
a < O Y r
N u'ScLi E LL Z M?
j
a 00 v, mz
a
ui C)
? W
? U
a of ?
?
W
H

E C

Z a. N
Q F n O
o
U

'
ti
co
(n
r
-
°m
a w
H LLv

N
? ?
p

O M
O
O
C .
_. N
l0

Q N tm
G O
C
U
4) :E A
? U
H
F- 2

F-
U
a
? m
3c o
C)
Q - ,'a d m
z uS }'
c

W -
N
? a
m
m
E
?- C
0
y
c
m
'
u. d
3
U

? m
U
N
U N
20
? X
M
C
O
:9 O
O
co
LL
(`1

J
:: O F
!q Z O . ,
F-

APPENDIX ONE
Appendix 1 of 2
APPENDIX TWO
Appendix 2 of 2
?SEA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum To:
From:
Attention:
Subj ect:
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
January 12, 2001
Heather Montague, Permit Specialist
Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist
Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Manager
Mussel survey for proposed replacement of bridge
no.61 over Neatman's Creek on SR 1973; Stokes County, B-3374.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 61 over Neatman's
Creek on SR 1973. A spinymussel was recently discovered in the Dan River in Stokes
County. This species is similar in appearance to the James spinymussel (Pleurobema
collina) as well as the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna), both of which are
federally Endangered. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is considering the spinymussel
from the Dan River to be an Endangered species. Neatman's Creek flows into Town
Fork Creek, approximately 5 miles downstream of the project crossing. Town Fork
Creek then flows approximately 7 miles before entering the Dan River. The confluence of
Town Fork Creek and the Dan River is approximately 20 River miles downstream of the
NC 89 crossing of the Dan River, which is the furthermost downstream point of the river
that is currently known to be occupied by the spinymussel.
The project site was visited on January 09, 2001 by NCDOT Environmental
Specialists Tim Savidge, Logan Williams, Sue Brady, Shannon Simpson and Karen
Lynch, as well as consulting biologist Anne Timm to survey for mussel fauna. Survey
methodology involved wading using view buckets. Water clarity and depth were optimal
for this type of surveying. A total of 3 man-hours were spent in the creek from a point
approximately 800 yards downstream of the existing crossing to approximately 300 yards
upstream. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was found to be present but
not abundant. No mussel fauna (Unionidae) was observed during the site visit.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The survey results indicate that this species is not present in Neatman's Creek
It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this species.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Stokes County µ491 ISSUED"
Bridge No. 61, on SR 1973
Over Neatman's Creek
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1973(2)
State Project 8.2641001
TIP Project B-3374
U I V5 4
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
APPROVED:
S - 8-00
Date
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
-5I1 00
k
Dat Nicholas L. Graf, PI L.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Stokes County
Bridge No. 61, on SR 1973
Over Neatman's Creek
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1973(2)
State Project 8.2641001
TIP Project B-3374
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch By:
Date Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
S-8-d0
Date
w4iyh V-
,11111111111,1
CAR
SEAL
6976
T
r:
+,11PR?''?`,
S---,? --t b°
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Stokes County
Bridge No. 61, on SR 1973
Over Neatman's Creek
Federal Aid Project No. M4,BRZ-1973(2)
State Project 8.2641001
TIP Project B-3374
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge Number 61, in Stokes County. Bridge Number 61
carries Highway SR 1973 over Neatman's Creek, in the south-central part of Stokes County.
NCDOT and FHWA classify this action as a Categorical Exclusion, due to the fact that no notable
environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of project construction. NCDOT will replace
Bridge Number 61 at a new location east of the existing bridge, as shown in Figure 2. The bridge will
be replaced with a 4 @ 10 foot by 9 foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. The roadway typical section will have a
24 foot travelway, with at least an 8 foot grassed shoulder on each side. Where guardrail is required,
shoulders will be increased by a minimum of 3 feet on each side. The new roadway will be at
approximately the same elevation as the existing structure.
The estimated cost is $827,000 including $52,000 for Right-of-Way acquisition and $775,000
for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement
Program is $250,000; including $20.000 for right of way and $230,000 for construction.
11. A'N'TICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS:
A design exception ma- be necessary for this project. Due to horizontal and vertical curvature
in the bridge vicinity, the design speed will be approximately 40 MPH, based on preliminary design.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1973 as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The land use of the surrounding area is rural residential, with a county school
located approximately 1.5 miles from the bridge on an intersecting secondary road.
. Near Bridge No. 61, SR 1973 is a two lane, paved facility, 24 feet in width, with 6 foot wide
or greater grassed shoulders on each side. The existing bridge carries two lanes.
Vertical and horizontal alignments in the general bridge vicinity in both directions are poor.
However, the alignments for the bridge approaches are good.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 61 in 1961. The bridge consists of one span, and has an asphalt
overlay wearing surface on a timber deck on steel I-beams. The abutments are mass concrete. The
deck of Bridge 61 is 12 feet above the stream bed of Neatman's Creek. The creek is approximately
one foot deep at the bridge vicinity. Bridge 61 is 51 feet long, with an 24.5 foot roadway width. Two
lanes of traffic are carried and the load limit is posted at 14 tons for all vehicles.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is 17.8 out
of a possible 100.0. The current traffic volume is 2,000 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to increase
to 4,300 VPD by the design year (2025). No regulatory speed limit is posted in area, therefore it is
assumed to be 55 mph by statute. An advisory speed of 25 MPH is posted for an S-curve north of the
bridge approach.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate there were 5 vehicle crashes reported within
500 feet of Bridge No. 61 during the three year period between 1994 and 1997. Of these, one crash
involved the bridge itself. Most crashes occurred at the S-curve north of the bridge approach.
The Transportation Director of Stokes County schools indicates that there are 10 school
busses crossing the bridge from two to four times per day, for a total of 34 trips per day. Road closure
would cause some difficulty for busses.
SR 1973 is not designated as a bicycle route, and there is no indication that an unusual
number of bicyclists use the road.
IV. ALTERNATES:
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 61 were studied. Both alternates involve a replacement
structure consisting of a 4 barrel @ 10 foot by 9 foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). Each
alternate would accommodate a 24 foot typical road section, with 8 foot grassed shoulders on each
side. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will be increased by a minimum of 3 feet on each side.
Alternate 1: Replace bridge with a new structure on existing location. During construction, traffic
would be detoured off-site.
Alternate 2: Replace bridge with a new structure to the east (downstream) of the existing bridge.
During construction, traffic would be maintained on-site using the existing bridge.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. The sufficiency rating of the existing bridge is only 17.8 out
of 100.0. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated project costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Subtotal
Engineering and Contingencies
Total Construction Cost
Right-of-Way and Utilities
Total Project Cost
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
(Recommended)
$146,000 $165,000
278,000 498,000
. 11,000 11,000
435,000 674,000
65,000 101,000
500,000 775,000
43,000 52,000
543,000 827,000
2
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 61 at a new location as shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction.
Alternate 2 was selected primarily for reasons of safety. The Division Engineer does not
support road closure, due to limited sight distances on available detours and the high volume of both
bus and car traffic generated by the nearby county school. Also, selection of Alternate 2 will result in
improvements in the south approach geometry and in design speed for the bridge.
In addition, road user costs of approximately $357,000 would occur for traffic detoured as a
consequence of Alternate 1.
Initial design indicates that completed project will provide a design speed of approximately
40 MPH.
The Division 9 Engineer concurs with the selection of the recommended alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) due to its limited scope and
insubstantial environmental consequences.
The bridge project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse effect on families or
communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic or religious opportunities in the area.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project.
Construction of the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain or
associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be increased by more than 12
inches.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this size and magnitude.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area.
3
B. Architectural & Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, & implemented by Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
for compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an
opportunity to comment.
Architectural Resources
A meeting was held with The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to evaluate potential
effects of the project. The SHPO recommended that a historic architectural survey be performed. This
survey was accomplished by NCDOT architectural historians, and the SHPO concurred in the
conclusion that the properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see
appendix). Thus, it is concluded that the project will have no effect on historic architectural
resources.
Archaeological Resources
The SHPO recommended that an archeological survey should be performed prior to construction
of the project bridge.
This survey was accomplished by NCDOT archaeologists, and documented in a study report
dated February 2000. This investigation recorded two previously undocumented archaeological sites.
However, neither site is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The SHPO concurred with the NCDOT report (see appendix). Thus, it is concluded that the project
will have -no effect on eligible archaeological resources.
C. Natural Systems
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The soils and the
availability of water directly influence composition of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont physiographic region. The topography of Stokes
County is characterized by numerous hills; a small mountain range, the Sauratown Mountain Range,
is located in the center of the county. There are numerous creeks in the area which drain into the Dan
River. Project elevation is approximately 806.0 ft. above mean sea level (nisi).
Soils
Two soil phases occur within the project boundaries of the proposed alignments. The soil along the
existing alignment is a Masada sandy clay loam with 2-8 percent slopes. Masada sandy clay loam is a
well drained soil found on high stream terraces. It is characterized by moderate permeability and
medium runoff, and it has a seasonal high water table of over
6 ft below the surface. Erosion, surface runoff, and low strength are the main limitations on
development.
4
The soil phase which occurs along the proposed alignment east of the existing location is Riverview
and Toccoa soils with 0-4 percent slopes. Both are very deep and well drained soils which are
occasionally flooded. The Riverview soil has a moderate permeability, a high water capacity, and a
slight hazard of erosion. It has a seasonal high water table of 3-5 ft below the surface. The Toccoa
soil has a moderate rapid permeability, a moderate water capacity, and only a slight hazard of erosion.
The seasonal high water table is between 2.5-5 ft below the surface. The Riverview and Toccoa soil
phase is not normally used in building site development because of its wetness and tendency of
flooding.
According to the NRCS hydric soils list for Stokes County, none of these soils are hydric or contain
hydric inclusions. Hydric soil indicators were also not observed in the project area.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards, and the quality of the water resources. Probable impacts
to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Neatman's Creek is the only surface water resource in the project study area. Neatman's Creek lies in
sub-basin 03-02-01 of the Roanoke River Basin and is a tributary of Town Fork Creek. At the project
location, the creek is approximately 20.0 ft wide and has an average depth of 1.0 ft in the project area.
The substrate is composed of boulder, rubble, gravel, and sand.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ,
formerly the Division of Environmental Management). The best usage classification of Neatman's
Creek (DWQ Index No. 22-25-6) is C. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0
mile of the project study area.
Water Quality
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. A biological
classification rating is not available for the project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. No point source dischargers are located
within the project vicinity.
5
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Utilizing the ROW width of 60.0 fl, anticipated impacts to Neatman's Creek will be 60.0 ft. Usually,
project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Water Supply Watersheds will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or
likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy
follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (9180), and Webster, et al. (1985).
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed
during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat
analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
Terrestrial Communities
Community boundaries within the study area-are well defined without a significant transition zone
between them. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit both communities for
shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
Riparian Fringe
This stream bank community is composed of river oats, green ash, Chinese privet, ironwood, tulip
poplar, spice bush, tag alter, American beech, sycamore, and Christmas fern.
Maintained/ Disturbed Community
The maintained/ disturbed community includes both the road shoulders and the surrounding fields
along SR 1973 and i§ present along the entire length of the project. Flora within this community
include shortleaf pine, broom sedge, fescue, chickweed, narrow leaf plantain, and wild garlic. Less
maintained areas consist of Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry species, tulip poplar, and poison ivy.
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by agricultural field planted in rye grass.
Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate all the biotic communities discussed. The
maintained/ disturbed community dominates the project area. Nearly all the forested parcels within
the project area have received some degree of impact by human activities. Generally, the community
boundaries are abrupt, with little transitional area between them. Forested tracts and drainageways
6
provide habitat for species requiring a forest community, and also provide shelter and movement
corridors for other species of wildlife within the project vicinity.
Mammals that commonly exploit habitats found within the project area include: Norway rat, gray
squirrel, hispid cotton rat, chipmunk, house mouse, least shrew and eastern mole. The house mouse is
found in association with human activities where it finds food and shelter in barns, houses,
restaurants, and warehouses. It does equally as well in weedy and overgrown fields. Eastern moles
excavate extensive tunnels and feed upon earthworms, insects, and plant material. The Virginia
opossum, and raccoon are very adaptive mammals that will frequent these habitats for foraging
opportunities. The eastern cottontail and woodchuck, will utilize the open fields and disturbed
habitats to forage on herbaceous vegetation.
Avian species likely to utilize habitats in the project area include: mourning dove, American robin,
Carolina chickadee, Carolina wren*, and house sparrow. These species will take advantage of feeders
and nesting sites provided by human settlement. The barn swallow can be seen flying over fields and
open areas in search of flying insects and builds its nest in a seldom used building or under a bridge.
The American kestrel will forage on small birds and mammals in this community. Forested areas
provide habitat for the blue jay , red-bellied woodpecker, northern flicker, downy woodpecker, and
the yellow-bellied sapsucker*.
Reptilian species that would occur in the project area include the eastern box turtle, five-lined skink,
eastern garter snake, and black racer. The copperhead serves a predatory role by feeding on small
vertebrates.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Neatman's Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource influence the faunal composition
of aquatic communities. No submersed or emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within this
section of Neatman's Creek.
Fauna associated with the aquatic communities include various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Prey fish including shiners and creek chub provide foraging opportunities for redbreast sunfish,
bluegill, and warmouth. Invertebrates that would be present include crayfish, and the nymphal and
larval stages of mayflies* and caddisflies*. The bullfrog, pickerel frog, and northern water snake are
common permanent residents in this community.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present
within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 60.0 ft. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
7
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Riparian Fringe 0.14
Maintained/ Disturbed 1.44
Total 1.58
These impacts are based on the construction of the proposed new right of way section. They do not
include the impacts associated with the removal of the existing bridge and the adjoining alignment.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and foraging habitat for
various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 61 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat for
faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this
project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two important
issues-Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of the United
States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate and intrastate
surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are
considered "wetlands' under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into waters of the
United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory provisions
under Section 40 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Neatman's Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). No wetlands are associated with the flood plain of Neatman's Creek in the project
area. Based on the entire project right-of-way width, the impacts to Neatman's Creek have been
determined to be 60.0 ft. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
8
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the
United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or department's
application for the categorical exclusions and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may results in a discharge into waters
of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a
Section 404 Permit.
Since the proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a
nationwide permit by the COE is conditional upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resource
Commission (WRC).
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally- protected, be subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
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. As of 15 January 1999, the FWS lists
the following federally-protected species for Stokes County (Table 2). A brief description of each
species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Stokes County
Scientific Name . Common Name Status
Cardamine micranthera small-anthered bittercress Endangered
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered*
Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"*" denotes no specimen from Stokes County found in the past twenty years.
9
Cardamine micranthera (small-anthered bittercress) E
Family: Brassicaceae
Federally Listed: 21 September 1989
Flowers Present: April - May
Small-anthered bittercress is a slender, erect, perennial herb with fibrous roots. This herb has single
(rarely more) simple or branched stems. - The stem leaves are alternate, mostly unlobed, crenate, and
cuneate. The flowers which are borne in April and May have four white petals, six stamens, and small,
round anthers.
Small-anthered bittercress is found in seepages, moist woods, and on stream banks along a few streams
in Forsyth and Stokes counties. North Carolina populations are presently confined to Little Peter's
Creek, Peter's Creek, Elk Creek, and another unnamed tributary to the Dan River in Stokes County.
This herb can be found on gravelly sand bars and in the moist soil of rock crevices. Small-anthered
bittercress occurs in soils of the Rion, Pacolet, and Wateree series, where slopes are 25 to 60 percent.
Areas that are fully or partially shaded by shrubs and trees are preferred.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Small-anthered bittercress is usually found along stream banks. A plant by plant survey for the small-
anthered bittercress was conducted on 12 May 1998 by NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge and Shannon
Simpson. One species of bittercress (Cardamine bulbosa) was located; however, no small-anthered
bittercress plants were found. Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species
and unique habitats has no record for the presence of small-anthered bittercress within the project
vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the small-anthered bittercress.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 06 June 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows 3-6 ft tall from a cluster of carrot-
like tubrous roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and only branch above mid-stem. The leaves are
rough feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves of the sunflower are
opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad
flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and arranged in an
open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina. These sunflowers grow best in full
sunlight or light shade in clearings and along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland
woods. Common soils that this species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-
loams, often with a high gravel content and always moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large
herbivores are considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
The project area does not provide habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Terrestrial communities
include highly maintained road shoulder, agricultural field, and heavily forested riparian fringe.
Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats has no
10
record for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect Schweinitz's sunflower.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four Federal Species of Concern listed for Stokes County. Federal Species of Concern 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. Federal Species of
Concern are defined as those species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species
were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and
Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly
Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of
rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable for each species in the study area. This species list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Stokes County
Scientific Name Common Name B. State Status Habitat
Noturus eilberti Orangefin Madtom E Yes
Speveria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR No
Juglans cinerea Butternut W-5* No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C No
Indicates Watch List- "Any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the
state but not warranting active monitoring at this time" (NCNHP).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, thus it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
11
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires that all federal agencies or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of economic
resources. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but the area to be
converted is void of agricultural uses. Therefore, no further consideration of impacts to farmland is
required.
12
• r
N
L1:1997
hmr,ING RQCX a cJ18 ' s?`h"'?
STATE PARK , )I
2081 2018 1 om
1 993 ' 4
/ /
8
Quaker 1997 , 2 X19 ` 19N F? 1094
C-ap • ` , o Snoais 1 g--'2 ? r•' ?
.5 b. 7a
2019
2026
s 1 ?'??: 0 ?• p . 1
1 G-5 1 10,3 1 C-C-s

2.4

t• J `? 1953 of 1973 '• 193s 9

• ? ?
y
1 c _
1 ? 1975 ?
1
=' ` 197 1577
1973

v ' Mountain View

1,.71
\ 1970 19 N
c
%
1??'z?
!
19C.^
.
ee .
Y?9 Q
,
1.0
I y
19^
\
Z
\
C
S
7
1970 `o

O 1S_A 9 -?
t9?b `? l io=r, l
1cog 1 a• .,, .., 1

'A North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
a Analysis Branch
Stokes County
Replace Bridge No. 61 on SR 1973,
Over Neatman's Creek
B-3374
Figure 1

,-9 'VW

f" 11
r S?
4
?a. '1 ?
-
•
b.•
?:di' t1Y

• .??ll ?=3i[

41
Yag.
?'MI } s
-t l : R

J
.t
r
•
?
s
o- ?
v

rD

N

.3

? ?da3e ? sr.

gTS _ yH?'?
nG1J -
n

7 _
c

fJ
Looking -nnorth across
Bridge No. 61
lLookino, south across
Bridge No. 61
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Stokes County
Replace Bridge No. 61 on SR 1973,
Over Neatman's Creek
B-3371
Figure Three

SiAiE - ?-
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
December 30, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 61 on SR 1973 over Neatman's Creek,
Stokes County, B-3374, Federal Aid Project
MABRZ-1973(2), State Project 8.264100 1, ER
98-7861
Dear Mr. Graf:
On December 3, 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, the only property over fifty years old
within the project's area of potential effect is a farm with a house and several
tobacco barns. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT
evaluate the farm for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area, but it has
never been surveyed. Due to the presence of a wide and well drained floodplain, it
is likely that prehistoric archaeological sites are located within the area of potential
effect. We recommend that the area be surveyed prior to project implementation to
determine the location and eligibility of any archaeological resources that will be
affected.
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.

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.
SinEe ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

A -V
Federal Aid # MABRZ-1973(2) TIP # B-3374 County: Stokes
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 61 on SR 1973 over Neatman's Creek
On May 28, 1998, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
C] Scoping meeting
® Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area- of potential effects. but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as Fulp House and barns is considered not eligible for the National Register
and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
f,A-
S'-26-g6
CDOT
Date
FHWA, "re Division Ad nistrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative. SHPO
I ^`
V
c Preservation Officer I Y / Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this.forrn and the attached list will be included.
..? STATE.,
?TTv
W "'I
•?+4 wnwvA?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of-Transportation
FROM: David Brook J?? ,
Deputy State Mistori Pfreservation Officer
DATE: April 10, 2000
RE: Archaeological Study, Replacement of Bridge No. 61 on SR 1973 over Neatman's Creek, Stokes
County, TIP B-3374 Federal-Aid No. MABRZ-1973(2), ER 98-7861 and
ER 00-8933
Thank you for your letter of February 21, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Gerold Glover for
the above referenced project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D:
31 SK216 and 31 SK217&217**
Neither of these archaeological sites retain sufficient cultural material or integrity to yield information important to
prehistory or history.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We concur with the author's
recommendation that no additional archaeological investigations are warranted in connection with this project as
currently proposed.
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.
cc: Roy Shelton, FHWA
Tom Padgett, NC DOT
Gerold Glover, NC DOT
Location
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Mailing Address
507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 276994617
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994619
515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
515 N. Blount -St.. Raleigh NC 4618 Mad Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] • 733-8653
(919) 733-73,42 • 715-2671
[phone] 715-4801
[phone] 715-4501
P North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Pipkin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co ator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 5, 1997
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements, Davidson, Guilford, Forsyth, and Stokes
counties, North Carolina, TIP Nos. B-2951, B-3179, B-3330, B-3332, B-
3333, B-3374, B-3324.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
conducted site visits as need and have the following preliminary comments on the subject
projects. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our stanaard recommendations are as
follows:
j 1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
f _.. r
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 5, 1997
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
t
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 5, 1997
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-2951 - We have no specific comments.
2. B-3179 - We have no specific comments.
3. B-3330 - We have no specific comments.
4. B-3332 - We have no specific comments.
5. B-3333 - We have no specific comments.
6. B-3374 - It is unlikely that this stream supports trout. We have no specific
comments.
7. B-3324 - We have no specific comments.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Project Development Engineer, Bridge Replacement Unit
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator le-??
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 27, 1999
SUBJECT: B-3374 over Neatman's Creek on SR 1973, Stokes County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
above referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
This project will not impact trout waters, therefore, we have no objection to the project as
proposed provided that concrete box culvert construction guidelines 1 - 4 for RCBC's outlined in
the December 5, 1997 memo from David Cox are implemented.
Th-anik yoga f-r the oppo:t• pity to review and comrncut on this bridge replaccmerit if j'cu
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
cc: David Cox, WRC