19920772 Ver al_Complete File_20100726

I 0
I
ANUS f?fjlw
u?7tll?r ?:
ST TE
Jnr .? ?rh
tZ
?rW ?.un. r•d4 +4
a??heas. a+srs
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON October 14, 1992
SECRETARY
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Categorical Exclusion Approval for Federal Aid Project: SR 1497,
Bridge No. 81 over Peters Creek, Stokes County, Federal-Aid
Project BRZ-1497(2), State Project 6.503254, TIP Project B-2637
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project, The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 771.115(b). This project, located in one of the 25 western North
Carolina Counties, falls under the discretionary authority of the Corps.
Any work performed near streams in a trout county requires a letter of
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission before a
Department of the Army Permit can be issued. This concurrence will be
obtained during the permitting process. The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the
construction of the project.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
DOT will apply directly to DEHNR for that permit when plans have been
developed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
LJW/plr
Attachment
cc: Mr. John
Mr. John
Mr. C. W.
Mr. J. T.
Mr. A. L.
Mr. D. B.
Sincerely,
• .aM
L. ad, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Leggett, P. E.
Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Waters
'An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
SR 1497
Bridge No. 81 over Peters Creek
Stokes County
Federal-Aid Project #BRZ-1497(2)
State Project #6.503254
T.I.P. No. B-2637

ti
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

???x 9z - I I/ JAe
to
L. Ward, P. E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
_ 11
Y?V am/
A
poi o as G
Division dministrator, FHWA
SR 1497
Bridge No. 81 over Peters Creek
Stokes County
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1497(2)
State Project #6.503254
T.I.P. No. B-2637
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:

' C A
%.• R0? '..
'
'
Ja s A. McInnis Jr.
f
.?
.••••?
'
pFESS%?
2 '.
??
Pr ject Planning Engineer ?
•QQ
SFA(. _
6976

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E. ,.,/111111„?,
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
SUMMARY
SR 1497
Bridge No. 81 over Peters Creek
Stokes County
Federal-Aid Project #BRZ-1497(2)
State Project #6.503254
T.I.P. No. B-2637
1. Type of Action
Bridge No. 81 over Peters Creek has been included in the North
Carolina Department of Transportation 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a
"categorical exclusion".
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Division of Highways proposes to relocate the
subject bridge approximately 180 feet south of its present location.
3. Environmental Commitments
Due to the presence of the federally endangered plant species
small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) in the project
vicinity, the erosion and sedimentation control guidelines required for
construction near High Quality Waters (HQW) will be followed during
construction of this project.
Before the contractor can begin work, the plants will be flagged
within the project area. The flagging needs to be done in April or May of
the designated construction year.
Individual plants of small-anthered bittercress will be shielded by
fencing to prevent damage during construction. If this proves
impractical, the plants will be marked with flagging or stakes placed
nearby.
Prior to construction, the NCDOT Environmental Unit will meet with
NCDOT field personnel and the contractor to discuss the importance of
avoiding impacts to this endangered species.
The Division Engineer will monitor construction of the project to
insure no impacts to the small-anthered bittercress occur during
construction.
A Nationwide Section 404 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers will be required for this project.
Stokes County is a designated "Trout" county. A letter of
concurrence will be required from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission before a Department of the Army permit can be issued. This
letter will be obtained during the permitting process.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Best Management
Practices will be utilized for the design and construction of this project
to minimize impacts to the natural environment.
16
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L
I.
II.
III.
IV.
PAGE
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................... 1
A. General Description ... ... ..................... 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ............. 1
C. Characteristics of the Existing Facility ........... 1
1. Cross-Section Description ..................... 1
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ............. 1
3. Speed Limit ................................... 2
4. Bridge Structure .............................. 2
5. School Buses ................................ 2
6. Access Control ................................ 2
7. Traffic Volumes .............................. 2
8. Accident Analysis ............................. 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 2
A. General Description .. ... ....................... 2
B. Summary of the Proposed Action ..................... 2
1. Cross-Section Description ..................... 2
2. Structure ..................................... 3
3. Right of Way ................................ 3
4. Access Control ................................ 3
5. Intersection Treatment ........................ 3
6. Design Speed .................................. 3
7. Cost Estimates ................................ 3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................... 3
A. Alternatives Considered ............................ 3
B. "No Build" Alternative ............................. 5
C. Rehabilitation of Existing Structure ............... 5
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED ............. 5
A. Social Impacts ..................................... 5
B. Cultural Resources ................................. 6
1. Historic Architectural Resources .............. 6
2. Archaeological Resources ...................... 6
C. Environmental Impacts .............................. 7
1. Biological Resources .......................... 7
a. Plant Communities ........................ 7
1. Uplands ............................. 7
2. Wetlands ............................ 9
iii

V.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
b. Wildlife .................................
2. Physical Resources ............................
a. Soils ....................................
b. Surface Water Resources ..................
3. Protected Species .............................
a. Federally-Protected Species ..............
b. State-Protected Species ..................
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................
a. Permit Requirements ......................
b. Wetland Mitigation .......................
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation . ............
6. Traffic Noise and Air Quality Analyses ........
BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION .........................
APPENDIX
TABLES
Table 1 - Potential Impacts to Upland Plant Communities..
Table 2 - Fish Species Known to Inhabit Peters Creek ....
Table 3 - Federally Protected Species Listed for Stokes
County ...................................
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Geographic Location and Studied Detour Route
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 4 - 100 Year Flood Plain Map
iv
PAGE
9
11
11
11
12
13
16
16
16
16
17
17
18
9
10
13
SR 1497
Bridge No. 81 over Peters Creek
Stokes County
Federal-Aid Project #BRZ-1497(2)
State Project #6.503254
T.I.P. No. B-2637
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
Bridge No. 81 is located in Stokes County. The bridge is located on
SR 1497 (Hart Road), 0.35 miles west of its intersection with SR 1451 (see
Figure 1). SR 1497 is classified as Rural Local in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not part of the Federal-Aid
System.
This report presents the results of a study of four possible
alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 81 on SR 1497 over Peters Creek (See
Alternatives Considered on page 3 and Figure 2).
No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
has been classified as a "categorical exclusion".
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The existing bridge was reassembled in its present location in 1960.
The bridge consists of a one span timber deck on a Steel Pony Truss on
reinforced concrete end abutments (see Figure 3).
The proposed project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.), with a cost estimate of
$445,000. The updated cost estimate as of October 1991 is $ 402,800.
This estimate does not include the section to be built by State forces, as
shown in Figure 2. Right of way and construction are scheduled to begin
in fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Paving of SR 1497 was begun
by division forces in the summer of 1992. This bridge project will be
coordinated between the NCDOT Division 9 Office and the NCDOT Highway
Design Branch in order to prevent duplication of bridge approach
improvements (see Figure 2).
C. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Cross-Section Description
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1497 is a 20-foot gravel
roadway. The one-lane bridge has a clear roadway width of 11 feet.
2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Rolling terrain exists along SR 1497. In the project area, the
vertical alignment is fair and the horizontal alignment is poor.
There is a 57° curve at the southern approach to the bridge and a 33°
curve at the northern approach. These curves have a design speed of
less than 30 mph.
2
3. Speed Limit
At the present time, no speed limit is posted along the subject
section of SR 1497. The current operating speed of SR 1497 in the
vicinity of the existing bridge is less than 25 mph.
4. Bridge Structure
The existing structure is situated 17 feet above the river bed.
The overall bridge length is approximately 62 feet. The clear
roadway width is 11 feet.
The posted weight limit is 9 tons for single vehicles and 16
tons for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 81 has a sufficiency rating of 16.6, compared to a
rating of 100 for a new structure. The remaining life of the bridge
is estimated to be five years.
5. School Buses
Four school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
6. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
7. Traffic Volumes
The current traffic volume is 300 vehicles per day (VPD). By
the year 2010, traffic volumes are expected to increase to 500 VPD.
8. Accident Analysis
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the existing
bridge during the period from January 1987 through August 1990.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge on SR 1497 over
Peters Creek with a two-lane structure on new location south of the
existing structure (see Alternative 3, Figure 2).
B. Summary of the Proposed Action
1. Cross-Section Description
The proposed cross-section on the approaches to the bridge will
consist of 20-foot pavement with 4-foot grassed shoulders. The
bridge clear width will be 30 feet. This additional clear width is
due to the proximity of the intersection of SR 1512. The additional
width will improve sight distance.
3
2. Structure
The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 81 is a bridge
approximately 114 feet long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet.
3. Right of Way
It is anticipated that the majority of the required right of way
will be donated. From approximately 60 feet east of the proposed
bridge structure to approximately 60 feet west of it, a right of way
width of 70 feet will be required. Elsewhere along the approaches,
60 feet of right of way will be required.
4. Access Control
No control of access is proposed along the project.
5. Intersection Treatment
All intersecting roads (SR 1512) will be at grade and stop sign
controlled.
6. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for the project is 30 mph. The design
speed reflects the geometric design of the roadway in the vicinity of
the bridge and is consistent with the adjoining sections of SR 1497.
However, this design speed will require a design exception because
the statutory speed limit on the unposted road is 55 mph.
7. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for the recommended alternative are as
follows:
Roadway $210,840
Structures 164,160
R/W & Utlities 27,800
Total $402,800
This estimate does not include section to be built by NCDOT
Division Forces as shown in Figure 2.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternatives Considered
In order to determine the best method of replacing Bridge No. 81 on
SR 1497 over Peters Creek, preliminary studies were conducted in the
project area to investigate the costs and impacts of several alternatives.
The studies reviewed the utility, capacity, safety, and cost-effectiveness
4
of the various alternatives. The effects of the alternatives in relation
to the disruption on the local community, the relocation of families and
businesses, and effects on the natural environment were also considered.
Four alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 81 were considered (see
Figure 2). The following is a description of those alternatives:
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 involves replacing the existing structure at the
same location by closing the road and detouring the traffic by
existing secondary roads (see studied detour route in Figure 1). The
replacement structure would be 100 feet in length and 24 feet in
width. This alternative will not provide an acceptable horizontal
roadway alignment.
A possible detour route is shown in Figure 1. Approximately 1.5
miles of additional travel would be required for through trips.
The maximum travel distance, without the existing bridge, from
the eastern side of Peters Creek to the western side is 11.9 miles.
Alternative IA
Alternative lA is identical to Alternative 1 except that a
temporary detour structure approximately 80 feet in length would be
constructed approximately 34 feet south of the existing structure
(essentially along the alignment of Alternative 2).
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 involves replacing the existing bridge with a
structure 100 feet in length and 24 feet wide. This bridge would be
on new location approximately 34 feet south of the existing
structure. This alternative will not provide an acceptable
horizontal roadway alignment.
Alternative 3 (Recommended)
Alternative 3 consists of replacing the existing structure with
one 114 feet long and 30 feet wide on new location approximately 180
feet south of the existing structure. The additional structure width
is due to the proximity of the intersection with SR 1512. The extra
width will provide greater sight distance. This alternative would
improve the horizontal alignment, although this alternative has a
design speed of 30 mph. With this alternative, the construction of
the approach work on the northern side of Peters Creek will require
some coordination between the NCDOT Highway Design Branch located in
Raleigh and the NCDOT Division 9 office located in Winston Salem. As
shown in Figure 2, the majority of the approach work on the western
side of Peters Creek will be built by Division Forces. Portions of
roadway no longer in use will be abandoned, except for where needed
for property access.
5

The estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
1 1A 2 3
(Recommended)
Roadway** 114,000 182,500 155,500 210,840
Structures" 144,500 192,500 144,500 164,160
R/W & Utilities 23,000 23,800 24,400 27,800
Totals $281,500 $398,800 $324,400 $402,800*
*This estimate does not include section to be built by NCDOT
Division Forces as shown in Figure 2.
**There estimates include Mobilization and Misc.
B. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1497. Therefore, a "no build" decision is not considered feasible and
is not recommended.
C. Rehabilitation of Existing Structure
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
IV. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONSIDERED
The bridge replacement will not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human or natural environment with the use of NCDOT Best
Management Practices. Rather, the project is expected to have an overall
positive impact, since the replacement of an inadequate bridge will result
in safer traffic operations.
A. Social Impacts
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are
no publicly-owned parks, historical sites, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
No impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way
acquisition will be limited. No residents or businesses will be relocated
by the project.
6
No impact on public facilities or services is expected. The project
is not expected to impact social, economic, or religious opportunities in
the area. No residences or businesses will be relocated by the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts on farmland of
construction and other land acquisition projects. To comply, the US Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to identify the location of important
farmland soils in the vicinity of the proposed project.
The SCS indicates that each alternative under consideration will
impact Prime Farmland soils. Alternatives 1 and 2 would affect less than
an acre, while Alternative 3 would affect 1.4 acres of Prime Farmland. Due
to the small amount of farmland that will be affected, regardless of the
alternative selected, the project's impact is not significant.
Modern soil surveys are underway in Stokes County, but information is
not available to permit the SCS to complete the Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating (Form AD-1006).
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
An architectural survey of the area of potential effect of the
proposed project was conducted by the architectural historian on
the staff of the Department of Transportation. The survey identified
no properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. There are no buildings in the area of potential
effect. One house located beyond the end of the project does not
possess the special significance necessary for listing in the
National Register. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred with these findings.
The bridge is a Pratt pony truss, which was reassembled in its
present location in Stokes County in 1960. It was assessed for
eligibility to the National Register in 1979 and was determined not
to be eligible.
2. Archaeological Resources
The SHPO was contacted regarding possible impacts on
archaeological sites by the project. According to SHPO, no known
archaeological sites will be affected by the project. Therefore, an
archaeological survey of the project area was not performed. No
archaeological impacts are anticipated.
C. Environmental Impacts
1. Biological Resources
A biological assessment was conducted of the site on August 28
and 30, 1991 in order to evaluate the potential impacts of the
proposed improvements on the natural resources in the project area.
a. Plant Communities
Plant communities are subdivided into two categories,
uplands and wetlands, based on jurisdictional differences. In
the following discussions only the dominant plants in each
strata are discussed, as a complete treatment of the flora would
be prohibitively lengthy.
1. Uplands
Four upland community types were identified during the
field studies: hardwood forest, old field, riparian
forest, and agricultural field.
Hardwood Forest
A small strip of hardwood forest is found within the
study area adjacent to the northern side of SR 1512.
Dominant canopy species found here include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tuli ifera), red oak ( uercus rubra), hickory
(Carya sp.), an ox elder (Acer ne un o .
The mid-story and shrub layer is composed of saplings
of the canopy species, and flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina), redbud Cercis
canadensis), tree-of-heaven (Ai ant us altissima ,
ac erry (Rubus sp.), and bears oot (Poly mni'a uvecalia).
The ground cover consists mainly of seedlings of the
canopy and mid-story species, and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), and grapevine
(Vit ssi p.).
Old Field
An old field community is located within the study
area between SR 1512 and Peters Creek. Dominant species
include dog fennel (Eupator?ium ca illifolium), horseweed
(Eri eron_ canadensis), goldenro So ida o sp.), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisii olia), cocklebur Xant ium strumarium),
diodia (diiois virginiana), and knotwee Po ygonum
pensylvanicum).
8
On the fringes of this community, bordering SR 1512
and SR 1497 and interfacing with the forested communities,
beggar's ticks (Bidens pol le iiss), verbesina (Verbesina
alternifolia and V. occi ed ntalis), phaseolus (P aseo us
po ystac ios), agastac e A astache scro hulariae o is ,
evening primrose (0enothera tennis , partridge pea Cassia
fasciculata), and poFeweed P ytolacca americana) are
Tou?icn .
Riparian Forest
M
A narrow strip of riparian forest borders Peters Creek
on both of its banks. Dominant canopy species found here
include box elder (Acer negundo), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), hickory (Carya sp.), and black locust
Ro inia pseudo-acacia).
The mid-story and shrub layer are composed primarily
of saplings of the canopy species and alder (Alnus
serrulata), ironwood (Car inus caroliniana), red muTTberry
(Morus rubra), hazelnut Cory us americana), and spicebush
(Lin era enzoin).
The ground cover is sparse and consists of seedlings
of the canopy and mid-story species, and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera 'a ioniccaa), greenbriar (Smilax sp.),
grapevine (Vitt sp.), ), and poison ivy (Toxico ec -ndron
radicans). On the banks of Peters Creek an on exposed
grave and sand bars, such species as Christmas fern
(Pol stichum acrostichoides), impatiens (Im atiens
ca ensis joe-pye weed Eu atorium fistulosum , and
car ina flower (Lobelia car ina is are found.-
Agricultural Field
Agricultural fields are found within the project area
at both the eastern and western termini. At the time of
the field investigations, these fields were being harvested
for tobacco.
Potential Impacts To Uplands
Potential impacts to upland plant communities are
calculated based on an average right of way width of 60
feet for each alternative. These "impact footprints" will
result in the direct removal of vegetative cover within
those zones. Impacts to upland plant communities are shown
in Table 1 below.
9
Table 1: Potential Impacts" To Upland Plant Communities
COMMUNITY Alt. 1A** Alt. 2 Alt. 3
(Recommended)
hardwood forest 12,000 sq ft 12,000 sq ft 6,600 sq ft
old field 6,000 sq ft 6,000 sq ft 2,400 sq ft
riparian forest 10,200 sq ft 10,200 sq ft 5,400 sq ft
agricultural field 1,500 sq ft 1,500 sq ft 40,200 sq ft
"Until final design is completed these impacts must be
considered only as preliminary estimates.
"Impacts for this alternative are from a temporary detour
and will eventually revegetate.
Based upon these impacts, the least permanent damage
to natural communities is affiliated with either
alternative 1 or 3, depending on the ability of these
communities to rebound from temporary vegetative removal
and soil disturbance.
2. Wetlands
No vegetated wetland communities occur within the
impact zone of the subject project. Peters Creek, from
bank-to-bank, is classified as "Waters of the United
States" and will be discussed as a jurisdictional wetland
under the section IV.C.4. titled Jurisdictional Wetlands on
page 16.
b. Wildlife
The various community types found within the study area
have the potential to support a myriad of vertebrate animal
species. Common mammals that may be found within the study area
include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus), gray
squirrel (Sciurus caroliniensis , raccoon Procyon lo_ tor),
Virginia opossum (Didel is virginiannaa), and numerous species of
small rodents. Comp ete fisting s of mammals that may be found in
this region are reported in Webster et al., 1985.
Bird species that are likely to inhabit the project area
include downy woodpecker (Picoides pubes?cens), blue jay
(C anocitta cristat ), common crow (Corvus Brach rh nchos),
mockingbird (Mimus ofXglo_ttos), ca Fa al (Car i n a is
cardinalis), belted kingfisher (Cer?le alc on), northern flicker
Cola tomes auratus), Carolina chic kadee Parus carolinensis),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), chipping sparrow (SSpize?a
asserina), song sparrow MMe osPiza mew), and Ameri'ca n robin
Tur us mi ratorius). Complete listings of birds that may be
foul in this region are reported in Potter et al., 1980.
10
Reptiles and amphibians are difficult to identify in the
field because they are small, quick, and avoid capture. Common
reptiles and amphibians that may be found within the study area
include numerous species of lizards, snakes, salamanders, frogs,
turtles, and toads. Complete listings of reptiles and amphibians
that may be found in this region are reported in Martof et al.,
1980.
No attempt to identify fish species was made during the
field studies, however, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission provided information from a 1982 fish population
census of Peters Creek. Thi s information is presented in Table
2 below.
Table 2: Fish Species Known` to Inhabit Peters Creek
Common Name Scientific Name
stoneroller oma anomalum
Calm ost
mountain redbelly dace ?
P oxh inus oreas
roseyside dace C i? n omuu nduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis a toce a us
redlip shiner Notes c i cus
crescent shiner Notropis cerasinus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
Roanoke hogsucker Hypentelium roa- ne
black jumprock Moxostoma cervinum
snail bullhead Icta u runneus
margined madtom Noturus insiT
redbreast sunfish LPL mss auritus
fantail darter EtheostomaTabellare
johnny darter Et eostoma ni r-' um
shield darter Perch na elp tata
-Data from NC Wildlife Resources Commission 1982 census.
Potential Impacts To Wildlife
Direct impacts to vertebrate fauna will result from the
removal of habitat associated with project construction.
Organisms utilizing this habitat will be displaced into new
areas, increasing the likelihood of inter- and intraspecific
competition for resources. Fossorial organisms are likely to be
eliminated due to earth moving activities. Habitat
fragmentation is also an unavoidable consequence of constructing
a roadway on new alignment. Possible implications of habitat
fragmentation include changes in dispersal patterns of both
plant and animal species, creation of "edge' ecotones which
provide new habitat for pioneer species, and increased mortality
rates to mobile species due to vehicular kills.
11
An impact may occur to aquatic species from increased loads
of sediments during construction and\or new pollutants from
roadway runoff. Sedimentation of a waterway can have serious
impacts to many organisms. Suspended sediments reduce the amount
of light available to photosynthetic organisms which are the
base of the food chain. Sediments may also clog the gills of
fish and the filtration mechanisms of many filter feeding
organisms. Sessile organisms will be the most heavily impacted
of the aquatic species. Strict adherence to Best Management
Practices and erosion and sedimentation guidelines will be
utilized during the design and construction phases of this
project in order to minimize impacts to aquatic organisms.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
Soils are an important feature in any area as their makeup
often dictates what types of vegetation may occur there. Draft
soils maps provided by the SCS indicate that the soils found
within the project area are of three series; Masada,
Riverview\Taccoa, and Pacolet. None of these series are
classified as being hydric nor supporting hydric inclusions by
the SCS.
Most of the soil profiles in the project area (with the
exception of the riparian corridor) have been previously
disturbed by man's activities, including agricultural tilling
and road grading. For this reason, in these areas, no soil
samples were taken in the field to ground truth the Series or
identify the presence of hydric soil characteristics.
b. Surface Water Resources
The project area falls within the confines of the Roanoke
River Basin. Peters Creek traverses the project area and flows
southwest, eventually draining into the Dan River. These waters
are classified as class "C" by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). This
classification reflects "best usage" of these waters and is
defined as suitable for "aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture." Water
quality standards applicable to this classification are set
forth in 15 NCAC 2B .0200, Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina. These
waters are also given the supplemental classification "Tr" which
indicates that they are "suitable for natural trout propagation
and maintenance of stocked trout."
Stokes County is designated a "Trout County" by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Any work
performed near streams in a Trout County requires a letter of
concurrence from the NCWRC before a Department of the Army
permit can be issued. This concurrence will be obtained during
the permitting process.
12
Data collected by DEHNR as part of their Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network is not available for Peters
Creek, however, samples taken from the Dan River near the Town
of Francisco show a trend of improved water quality for the
period 1984-1990.
Potential Impacts To Surface Water Resources
Impacts to water resources can have far reaching effects,
both spatially (distance from the initial disturbance) and
temporally (up the food chain). Potential impacts to water
resources include the following:
- Increased sedimentation from construction and\or erosion.
- Scouring of stream beds due to the channelization of
streams.
- Alterations of water level due to interruptions or
additions to surficial and\or groundwater flow.
- Changes in water temperature due to the removal of
vegetative cover.
- Changes in light incidence due to the removal of vegetative
cover.
Best Management Practices and erosion and sedimentation
guidelines will be followed during the design and construction
phases of this project in order to minimize impacts to water
resources. Although Peters Creek is not classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW), Erosion and Sedimentation control
guidelines applicable to such waters will be followed for the
protection of an endangered species (see page 15).
No waters classified as Designated Public Mountain Trout
Waters, High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, nor
any segments of rivers classified under the federal Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act or the state Natural and Scenic Rivers Act,
will be impacted by the proposed project.
3. Protected Species
Plant and animal species with federal protection statuses of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under the Federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-1543).
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with
the North Carolina status of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) are protected by the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (GS 113-331 to 113-337) and by the State of North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 (GS'
196:106-202.12 to 106-202.19).
13
a. Federally-Protected Species
Information was collected from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) regarding the potential presence of federally protected
species within the study area. The USFWS list three federally
protected species as potentially occurring within Stokes County.
Table 3
Federally Protected Species Listed for Stokes County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Spreading avens Geum radiabum E
Schweinitz's sunflower He cant us sc weinitzii) E
Small-anthered bittercress Cor omine micrat era E
E - Endangered
spreading avens (Geum radiatum) E
This federally endangered plant is a member of the rose
family and is described as an erect, hirsute, perennial herb
with leaves arranged in a basal rosette, and the inflorescence,
a few flowered, indefinite cyme. Yellow, actinomorphic flowers
appear from June to October. Geum radiatum is distinguished
from other southeastern avens by its arge yellow flowers and
large terminal lobe on the basal leaves. This species is native
to high mountain balds, often occurring on steep rock faces,
narrow ledges, and associated gravelly talus exposed to full
sunlight. No suitable habitat for this species will be impacted
by the build alternatives.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) E
Schweinitz's sunflower is a member of the family Asteraceae
and is a rhizomatous, perennial herb that bears yellow flowers
from late summer to early fall. The genus Helianthus is
represented by at least 24 species in North Caro ina using the
taxonomy of Radford, Ahles, and Bell, 1968), many of which are
difficult to differentiate. H. schweinitzii is differentiated
from two similar species H. laevi atus an H. microce halus by
its tuberous root system an narrow, revolute eaves with
undersides that are densely, soft pubescent and resin-dotted.
This plant is native to a small portion of the Piedmont of
the Carolinas, and is currently known from only ten locations in
North Carolina. The historical habitat of this species was the
Piedmont prairie, open prairie lands maintained by natural fires
14
and the grazing of large herbivores such as bison and elk. As
this habitat has disappeared, the sunflower has been outcompeted
by other species and its numbers reduced. A sun loving plant,
this species is most likely to occur on rocky, dry soils in
clearings and edges of forests. Highway and powerline rights of
way often provide the maintained clearings required by this
species.
Suitable habitat areas within the
walked and visually surveyed on a plant
species of the genus Helianthus were of
surveys. Yellow flowered composites sui
(Bidens pof lie iss), bearsfoot (P?olYmn* u
(Ver?ina alternifolia and V. occidental
a Fund ance, owever none of thiese specie!
with the subject plant. Based upon this i
project, as currently designed, will ha,
federally endangered plant.
small-anthered bit
Small-anthered bitterc
member of the mustard famil
north-central North Carol,
Virginia. At the time of 1
plan for this species (Nov
populations of this plant i
occurring in Stokes Count
micranthera was first desc
materia collected in 1939.
herb with an erect stem (s
system. Small, 4-petaled,
Basal leaves are rhombic i
wide) occasionally with a p
leaves are alternate and I-
to broadly cuneate and neve
Cardamine micranth
similar reT t ve, C. r
orbicular (as opposed 1
fruits, and non-claspin
two different types of
1) seepages, wet rock 4
2) in association with
shade of spicebush (L
adjacent to small strea
pct limits were
lant basis. No
sd during these
beggar's ticks
ia), and verbesina
sere found in
readily confused
cation, the subject
impact on this
ess (Cardamine micranthera) E
ess is a low-growing (20-40 cm high)
known only from a few counties in
is and adjoining south-central
ie circulation of the draft recovery
mber 16, 1990), a total of eight
are known to exist, four of these
North Carolina. Cardamine
ibed by R.C. Rollins rom p ant
The plant is a slender, perennial
metimes branched) and fibrous root
hite flowers appear in early spring.
shape (1-5 cm long and 0.5-2 cm
it of small lateral lobes. The stem
.5 cm long. Leaf bases are truncate
cordate-claspinq.
s best disti
i fol i a. by i
ong) anthers,
i leaves. This
tats within ii
es, streambank!
?s and rushes I
benzoin) on
hed from its most
aller and nearly
filler flowers and
ire plant occurs in
limited range;
and sandbars, and
ticularly in the
tland terraces
Peters Creek is known to support at least one population of
Cardamine micranthera upstream from the project site (Alan
Wea0 ey, pers. com ) and provides suitable habitat for this
species in the vicinity of the project. Plant-by-plant visual
surveys of the streambanks within the project area were
conducted on August 30, 1991. On the north bank of Peters
Creek, within the alignment of Alternative 3, a small
i
15
population (less than ten individuals) of plants with the same
vegetative morphology as Cardamine micranthera were found just
above the water line. Wit out repro uctive structures present,
it is extremely difficult to positively identify the plants.
However, Alan Weakley of the NHP made tentative identification
as Cardamine micranthera.
Additional surveys were performed by NCDOT Staff Biologists
and Alan Weakley on April 28 and May 6, 1992. Specimens of the
small-anthered bittercress were positively identified and their
locations marked, both on the ground and on plan sheets.
Minor modifications to the project design have been made to
avoid direct impacts on the small-anthered bittercress. No
individual plants of this endangered species will be disturbed
as a result of project construction.
The small-anthered bittercress grows at the waters edge,
sedimentation from construction may harm the plants. Therefore,
erosion and sedimentation controls required for construction
near High Quality Waters (HQW) will be followed during
construction of this project.
In April or May of the year construction begins, before
construction begins, fencing will be placed around individual
plants or groups of plants to prevent disturbance during
construction. If fencing is impractical, plants will be marked
with flagging or stakes.
Prior to construction, the NCDOT Environmental Unit will
meet with NCDOT field personnel and the Contractor to discuss
the importance of avoiding impacts to this endangered species.
Construction of the project will be monitored by the Division
Engineer, or his representative, to insure no impacts to the
small-anthered bittercress occur.
Based upon the biological assessment conducted on behalf of
the small-anthered bittercress, the project, with the proposed
protective measures, is not likely to adversely impact the
species. The USFWS has concurred with this finding (see letter
dated September 17, 1991, in Appendix). Therefore, the
requirements of Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act have
been met.
In addition to the above mentioned species, the following
species that may occur within the project area have been given
the unprotected federal status of 'Candidate":
orangefin madtom (Noturus ilberti)
bent avens (Geum eniculatum
butternut (Juglans cinerea
These species are mentioned here for the purpose of
information, as they may be listed under a protected status at a
later date. Geum eniculatum has a state-protected status and
will be discussed in the following section.
16
b. State-Protected Species
Information was collected from the USFWS and the NHP
regarding the potential presence of state-protected species
within the project area. In many cases, information regarding
the distribution and habitat requirements for these species is
incomplete. If individuals of any state-protected plant species
are found within the impact zone of the project, NCDOT will
notify appropriate agencies that may wish to relocate the
plants. The following state-protected species is reported to
potentially occur in this area:
bent avens (Geum geniculatum) T
Bent avens is known to occur in high elevation forests,
streambanks, and seepage slopes in the following counties:
Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell, and Watauga. While it is possible
that this plant may occur in Stokes County, the subject project
does not provide suitable habitat to support this species.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
The placement of fill material into "Waters of the United
States", as defined at 33 CFR 328.3, falls under the jurisdiction of
the US Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are a subset of "Waters of
the United States", and thus fall under the same purview. In order
for areas to qualify as jurisdictional wetlands, they must meet three
criteria relative to vegetation, soils, and hydrology (Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Based upon this
methodology, no vegetated wetlands are present within the project
limits. However, Peters Creek qualifies as "Waters of the United
States", and thus falls under Corps jurisdiction.
a. Permit Requirements
in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
permit authorization will be required from the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for the discharge of fill material into
"Waters of the United States". Directly related to the Corps
permit, is the 401 Water Quality Certification administered by
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Management. This
certification must be granted before the Corps approves action.
b. Wetland Mitigation
Generally, no compensatory mitigation is required when no
vegetated wetlands are involved. However, the Corps reserves
final discretionary authority in these matters. When mitigation
is required, NCDOT will develop a suitable mitigation plan in
accordance with the policy outlined in the 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement between the Corps and the US Environmental Protection
Agency (Page and Wilcher, 1990). This policy advocates the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands as a primary
concern and requires that practicable alternatives be fully
evaluated before compensatory mitigation will be discussed.
17
5. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The area of the drainage basin for Peters Creek at this location
is approximately 32 square miles. It was reported that in the past
50 years, both the north and south approaches of the bridge have been
overtopped. SR 1512, which intersects SR 1497 approximately 150 feet
from the north end of the bridge, has also been inundated several
times in the past 50 years.
The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 114
feet in length. The length of the new bridge may be increased or
decreased to accommodate peak discharges as determined by final
hydrologic study and hydraulic design. The roadway grade of the
proposed structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this crossing.
Stokes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. However, Peters Creek is not included in the
detailed flood study for Stokes County. The approximate 100-year
flood plain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The flood
plain in the area of crossing is mostly rural and wooded. The
proposed replacement bridge will not have any significant effect on
the flood plain, and it is not anticipated that an environmental
permit will be required.
6. Traffic Noise and Air Quality Analyses
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Stokes County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to
this project.
The project study consid
replacement of the existing b
existing alignment and two al
location. All alternatives cro
the low density of development
receptors are expected to appr
Bred three alternatives for the
ridge; one alternative along the
ternatives south of its present
ss areas that are undeveloped. Due to
and low future traffic volumes, no
)ach or exceed their noise abatement
criterion. Hence, the traffic noise and air quality impacts from the
proposed project will not be significant.
If vegetation is disposed of 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. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements in
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (highway
traffic noise) and Part 770 (air quality) and no additional reports
are required.
18
V. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project. Accordingly, the project is classified as a categorical
exclusion.

SAS/plr
t+
J
P
it
+
f
f
t
{
I
i
?i
M
+
I 1
•
?-- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
low ,7

IASI s
IDGE NO. 8148.
r",.
%ft -A
i", 1-
A
•
.
n
Da
4 B
Fr nN co Lawson
6
stfiel A
Prost
e
s prinas
"
an
t
1
r-
w .
t
lot in t
, Nan :
s
?
a rai? J
Gap ?.
.
. M

T
O K I
`.
' bNt? IU 8 Wdm
cov
Kin
52 ermant o

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

%ZJF'7-'Vj PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
STOKES COUNTY
SR 1497
BRIDGE NO. 81
PROJECT B-2637
0 miles 2
r FIG 1
t

Q
W
Q
z
w

o
A
? w
a
a
*-? N CO ?
H

H
Q H
a H
? ?--?
?

r

0 FA
A
l

•

A

BRIDGE NO. 81
STOKES COUNTY
B-2637
NORTH APPROACH

SOUTH APPROACH
' yNv ? 1509
1448
i
;o
o ZONE A
a, NE j
Q L
•., :•;•• ,CID
SON 1
Q 1447
1453
1497
•.•, l
PROJECT AREA
1452 /
Z 1115 -?
(n / / %:•:
? 1511 '?'''•'•
lo,
SO
??? ?? L A`N 1 r ?
198]
r
1514
I
• 1
?N_STOKES ?,^ ? /
1003N- Ad00
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Uate Ur Lana rvaiuation rteauest plan. 22, 1991
Name Of Project Fsoerai Agency Imrolved
Replace Bridge No. 81 over Peter Creek FHWA
Proposed Lana Use County And State
Bridge and a oroach Stokes Co. NC
PART I I (To be completed by SCS) Oate Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
()f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
M lAsior Croo s/

Nerve Of Land Evaluation System Used arnnble Land In Gowt. Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Nance Of Local Site Assessment System Amount rmlattd As Oefined in FPPA
Acres: %
Oats land valuation Returned By SCS
Alternative Site ate
PART 111 (To bs completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site a Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
8. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percents Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Nigher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scaleof0to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria nWese uferHe are owlained /a 7 CPR 658.S/b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By Sate And Local Government
6. Distance From Urban Builtup Area •
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Avers
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
8. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
1. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
2 Compatibility With Existin A 'cultural Use
TAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PA$ T VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr W above or a local
site assessmenrl 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above ? lines) 260

;its Selected:
Oate Of Selection Was A Local Site Aannment Used?
Yes ? No ?
lesson For Seiecuon:
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE: SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
September 17, 1992
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Graf:
¦
TAKE
PRIDE IN
AMERICA ?¦
Subject: Replacement of Bridge Number 81 on S.R. 1497 over Peters Creek,
Stokes County, North Carolina
This is in response to your letter of August 13, 1992, regarding the
subject bridge replacement and the potential impacts to a federally
endangered plant species, small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine
micranthera), that could occur as a result of the project. These
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
As stated in our July 28, 1992, letter regarding this project (to
Mr. Randy Turner of the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
[NCDOT] staff), we appreciate the measures proposed by the NCDOT to avoid
direct impacts and to minimize any secondary impacts to this species.
Specifically, NCDOT has modified the proposed bridge design by
eliminating the temporary drainage easements on the west side of the
creek. NCDOT also will require the contractor to stay within the
proposed right-of-way limits (35 feet either side of bridge centerline)
and will fence or mark plant locations with flagging to prevent
accidental damage during construction. Finally, NCDOT will follow
stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures to minimize any
secondary impacts to this species as a result of this project.
Ms. Janice Nicholls of our staff visited the project site on August 2,
1992, with Ms. Janet Shipley and Mr. Jay McInnis of NCDOT's staff. They
went over the design changes and reiterated the need to clearly flag
plant locations on both the north and southwest sides of the proposed
bridge. They also discussed meeting with the contractor and project
engineer prior to construction to stress the importance of staying within
the designated right-of-way (the plants on the northwest side are only
16 feet beyond the right-of-way).
We have reviewed the information provided in your August 13, 1992, letter
and Mr. L. J. Ward's August 10, 1992, letter (which you provided as an
enclosure) with regard to the subject bridge replacement. Based on the
information regarding the design changes and the protection measures
proposed by NCDOT (flagging all plant locations, meeting with the
contractor prior to construction, and implementing stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures during and immediately after
construction), we concur with the finding that the proposed bridge
replacement project is not likely to adversely impact Cardamine
y _ micranthera.
* In view of the above, the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are
fulfilled for the S.R. 1497 bridge project. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner which was not considered in this review, or (3) a
new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
Again, we appreciate NCDOT's efforts to protect this federally listed
species.
Sin rely,
J
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Rr. Randy Turner, Planning and Environmental Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
t