20071582 Ver 1_Monitoring Reports_20020215

-~
4
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 54 ON NC 66
OVER PINCH GUT CREEK
STOKES COUNTY
TIP NO. B-4282
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1641101
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-0066(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4282
1~0~NvR~n ~'PO
~~ ~~
y
~ .
D
A
9Ar~~HT OF iR ANSeO~~P
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
January 2002
Prepared by:
8000 Regency Parkway
Sufte 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
~, Phone: [phone]
- i ~~ ' ~ ~-. _ • '' ~ ~~ ~- Fax: [phone]
www. buckengineering.com

r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... . 1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................. . 2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ............................................................. . 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Regional Characteristics ..................................................................................... . 5
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................................... .5
2.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................. . 6
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ...................................................................... . 6
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ........................................... . 6
2.3.3 Water Quality ........................................................................................ . 6
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ....................... . 7
2.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers ............................... . 7
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................................... . 7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 8
3.1 Biotic Communities ........................................................................................... . 9
3.1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Community ......................................................... 9
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest .................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Upland Forest ....................................................................................... 10
3.1.4 Agriculture ............................................................................................ 10
3.1.5 Aquatic Community ............................................................................. 10
3.1.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ................................................................................ 11
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts .................................................................................... 12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ............................................................................... 14
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................ 14
4.1.2 Permits ................................................................................................ 14
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition ................................................................. 15
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .................................................. 15
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ............................................................................... 16
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .................................................................. 16
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .......................... 17
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................18
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 20
i

1
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities .................................... 11
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Stokes County ................................................. 16
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Stokes County ................................................. 17
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities Within Project Area .................................13
ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project (Replacement of
Bridge No. 54 on NC 66 over Pinch Gut Creek, Stokes County). The purpose of this
report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed
right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are
provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of
the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and
effective manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the
context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project crosses Pinch Gut Creek (Figure 1). The project calls for
the replacement of Bridge No. 54 on NC 66 over Pinch Gut Creek in Stokes County. The
project description will be added at a later date.
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigation. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized
in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Hanging Rock, Pilot Mountain)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) quadrangle map (Hanging Rock, Pilot Mountain)
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1 in = 100 ft)
• USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Stokes County,
North Carolina (1995)
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World
Wide Web by NCDENR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
list of protected and candidate species (February 26, 2001 list), and from the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files
were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and
locations of significant natural areas.
1

c
General natural resource surveys and federally protected species surveys were
conducted along the proposed alignment by biologists from Buck Engineering PC on
August 2, 2001 and September 12, 2001, respectively. Water resources were identified
and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy
follows Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Potter
et al. (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation techniques.
Techniques included qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities,
active searching, and identification of characteristic wildlife signs (sounds, scat, tracks,
and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were also conducted. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina (Division of Environment Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified
based on the classification scheme of Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by
the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project
vicinity" is defined as an area extending 0.6 mi (1.0 km) on all sides of the project area,
and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e. [61.8 sq. mi (163.3 sq. km)]. "Study area" denotes
the area that was covered during the natural resource surveys. The study area limits are
shown in Figure 2, and were derived from aerial maps provided by NCDOT.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Gregory W. Price, Senior Biologist
Education: MS, Biology, Appalachian State University, 1989
BA, Biology, Appalachian State University, 1985
Experience: Senior Biologist, Buck Engineering, Cary, NC, 2000 to present.
Senior Engineering Technician, City of Durham, NC, 1997 to 2000
Biology Instructor, Wake Technical Community College, 1993 to 1997
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality, 1991 to 1997
Environmental Technician, NC Division of Environmental Management,
May 1990 to September 1991.
Biology Lab Instructor/Research Assistant, Appalachian State University,
August 1985 to May 1989.
2

Summer Naturalist, Duke Power State Park, June 1985 to August 1985.
Expertise: NEPA investigations; Section 7 field investigations; wetland and stream
delineation and mitigation; water quality/biological monitoring of streams
and lakes, environmental education.
3

1=iaure 1. Vicinity Map of TIP No. B-4282, Stokes County
1545
X44 :~ '-":=-~ 1467 ..~ ,
. ~ ,~ ~~ ` ~"_.., .~ 1465
1403 ~ _.
_
14b ~ .-
` f~ ~`
i X
~, r' ~. ~ T '~ . (7
~Y , ~ ..
` cs+ .1213 ~ 7 {,~f.- 14 1 ~ 14 4
"~. ~ ,
~ t~ ;. 12~~ ~ ~ .~ ", ~~ 147 ~ ~• ~,
~ "~ ;
,. ~.
`.i ~. r 1 ~
f ` ` GJi G~~f _ .... ,. ~ `.
"_ .._ c Jf
_` 12-14 ~ •,' ~ 1
i47
x.21
~" 1474
f'" ~ .5 •2 •8
`'' _.,~ ~- ~, ~ 110 ~2 v ~~. a 14
~J ,~ . ~t \` 1191 "-~..
4

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below as they
relate to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management concerns due to the need. to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and
the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Stokes County lies primarily in the Piedmont physiographic region. A small range
of mountains, the Sauratown Mountain Range, is in the central part of the county.
Elevations in the county range from 2,579 ft (m) at Moore's Knob to 590 ft (m) along the
eastern border where the Dan River leaves the county. The project area lies in the Dan
River drainage in the northwestern part of the county. Project area elevations average
940 ft (287 m).
2.2 Soils
There are three soil types located in the project area. A brief description of each
soil type is provided.
• Masada sandy cla~loam 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (MaC2) is a well drained
soil found on high stream terraces across the Piedmont. Permeability is moderate
and depth to the seasonal high water table is greater than 72 inches. The surface is
a yellowish brown sandy clay loam about 10 inches thick and the shrink-swell
potential in the subsoil is moderate. The greatest limitation is severe erosion that
has removed a large amount of topsoil combined with the moderate slope. The
Capability Unit is Ne.
• Pacolet sandy clay loam 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded (PcD2) is a very deep
and well drained soil found on side slopes and very narrow ridges throughout the
Piedmont. It has a surface layer of 8-inch yellowish red sandy clay loam. The
depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. This soil has moderate permeability and
low shrink-swell potential. The Capability Unit is VIe.
• Riverview and Toccoa soils 0 to 4 percent slopes occasional flooding (RtA) map
unit consists of very deep and well drained soils found on floodplains throughout
the Piedmont with the Toccoa series positioned closer to the stream. Permeability
is moderate in the Riverview series and moderately rapid in the Toccoa series and
depth to the seasonal high water table is between 36 to 60 inches below the
5

surface. The surface layers for both soils are 8-inch thick dark brown loam
variations and the subsoil has a low shrink-swell potential. The main limitations
for this map unit are wetness and flooding and the Capability Unit is IIw.
Although present on the floodplain, these soils are not present on the North
Carolina Hydric Soils List (NRCS 1995).
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical
characteristics likely to be impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey),
best usage classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resources. Probable
impacts to surface waters are also discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Roanoke River Basin.
There is one water resource in the project study area. NC 66 crosses Pinch Gut Creek, a
tributary to Dan River.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ, which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for
Pinch Gut Creek (DWQ Index No. 22-9-1, 9/1/57) is classified as C Tr. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. The Tr (Trout waters) subclassification is a supplemental
classification intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 miles [mi] (1.6
kilometers [km]) of the project study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Pinch Gut Creek at NC 66 is approximately 30 ft (9 m) wide and is approximately
1 ft (0.3 m) deep. The creek has substrate composed primarily of sand, gravel, and
cobble.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and
non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are based upon published
resource information and field study observations.
6

2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by DWQ, is part of an ongoing
ambient water quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water
quality.. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (El?'I')] and a taxa richness (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes
tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight
in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the
effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical
pollutants as sediment. There are no Benthic monitoring stations on Pinch Gut Creek
in or above the project area.
2.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
Point source discharge is defined as "a discharge that enters surface waters
through a pipe, ditch or any other well-defined point of discharge. The term applies to
wastewater and stormwater discharges from a variety of sources" (DWQ, 2001). Point
source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. No registered point source dischargers are located in or
directly upstream from the project study area.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater, snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition (DWQ, 1998). Many types of land-use
activities serve as sources of non-point source pollution, which include land development,.
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with non-point source pollution. Other sources of pollution include fecal
coliform bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be
washed off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters.
The major non-point sources in the project study area appear to be from crop
production and road runoff.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides in revegetation,
7

and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to
result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and groundwater flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further
reduced by limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately
following the completion of grading.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative
animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the
text with an asterisk (*).
8

3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora
and fauna described within biotic communities utilize resources from adjacent
communities, making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define.
There are five communities located in the project area: disturbed/maintainedcommumty,
upland forest, floodplain forest, agriculture, and aquatic community (Figure 2).
3.1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Community
This community is located on both sides of NC 66 and SR 1471 (Smith Road), in
abandoned fields (south side of SR 1471), and along powerline clearings and maintained
road access areas located in the project area. It encompasses habitats that have recently
been or are currently impacted by human disturbance. Because of mowing and periodic
clearing, this community is kept in a constant state of early succession. This community is
made up of a diverse community of grasses, herbs, and vines including fescue (Festuca
spp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), foxtail grass (Setaria spp.), goldenrod (Solidago
spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Heal-all (Prunella spp.), sunflowers (Helianthus spp.),
coreopsis (Coreopsis spp.), beggar ticks (Bidens spp.), tick-trefoils (Desmodium spp.),
partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum), evening
primrose (Oenothera biennis), Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild grape (Vitis spp.), asters (Aster spp.), Joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium jzstulosum), ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), morning glory (Ipomoea
spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and cross-vine (Bignonia capreolata).
Staghorn sumac (Rhus typha), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and saplings of sweet gum
(Liquidambar styracif lua), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) were also present. Transitions of this
community with other communities (upland forest and floodplain forest) also exist.
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest
Dominant woody vegetation in the floodplain forest community include river
birch, sycamore, tulip poplar, black walnut (Juglans nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
and yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima). Vine species consist of poison ivy, trumpet
creeper, Virginia creeper, green-brier (Smilax spp.), and wild grape. The herb community
is composed of microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
panic grasses (Panicum spp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), Asiatic dayflower
(Murdannia keisak), dayflower (Commelina communis), and water-hoarhound (Lycopus
virginicus). A floodplain forest community consisting predominantly of river birch,
spicebush, microstegium, and trumpet creeper exists east of NC 66 and south of Pinch
9

3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora
and fauna described within biotic communities utilize resources from adjacent
communities, making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define.
There are five communities located in the project area: disturbed/maintainedcommumty,
upland forest, floodplain forest, agriculture, and aquatic community (Figure 2).
3.1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Community
This community is located on both sides of NC 66 and SR 1471 (Smith Road), in
abandoned fields (south side of SR 1471), and along powerline clearings and maintained
road access areas located in the project area. It encompasses habitats that have recently
been or are currently impacted by human disturbance. Because of mowing and periodic
clearing, this community is kept in a constant state of early succession. This community is
made up of a diverse community of grasses, herbs, and vines including fescue (Festuca
spp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), foxtail grass (Setaria spp.), goldenrod (Solidago
spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Heal-all (Prunella spp.), sunflowers (Helianthus spp.),
coreopsis (Coreopsis spp.), beggar ticks (Bidens spp.), tick-trefoils (Desmodium spp.),
partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum), evening
primrose (Oenothera biennis), Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild grape (Vitis spp.), asters (Aster spp.), Joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium jistulosum), ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), morning glory (Ipomoea
spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and cross-vine (Bignonia capreolata).
Staghorn sumac (Rhus typha), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and saplings of sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) were also present. Transitions of this
community with other communities (upland forest and floodplain forest) also exist.
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest
Dominant woody vegetation in the floodplain forest community include river
birch, sycamore, tulip poplar, black walnut (Juglans nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
and yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima). Vine species consist of poison ivy, trumpet
creeper, Virginia creeper, green-brier (Smilax spp.), and wild grape. The herb community
is composed of microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
panic grasses (Panicum spp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), Asiatic dayflower
(Murdannia keisak), dayflower (Commelina communis), and water-hoarhound (Lycopus
virginicus). A floodplain forest community consisting predominantly of river birch,
spicebush, microstegium, and trumpet creeper exists east of NC 66 and south of Pinch
9

Gut Creek. This community lies in the floodplain of Pinch Gut Creek and its confluence
with a major tributary that is located just east of the project area. The floodplain forest
community most closely resembles a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest as
described in Schafale and Weakley (1990).
3.1.3 Upland Forest
The upland forest community is located along steep slopes and ridges on the west
side of NC 66, south of Pinch Gut Creek. The dominant canopy includes a mixture of
chestnut oak (Quercus montana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus
alba), hickories (Carya spp.), tulip poplar, red maple (Ater rubrum) and black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica). A few white (Pinus strobus) and Virginia (Pinus virginiana) pines
were scattered in the open canopy areas. The subcanopy and shrub species include
chestnut oak saplings, flowering dogwood, American chestnut (Castanea dentata)
saplings, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), hornbeam, basswood (Tilia americana),
hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), cucumber tree
(Magnolia acuminata), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), American holly (Ilex opaca),
maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), smooth
hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.). The herbaceous
and vine components include tick-trefoils, maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedantum),
spleenwort (Asplenium spp.), Christmas fern, clubmoss (Lycopodium spp.), violets (Viola
spp.), poison ivy, green-brier, Virginia creeper, and wild grape. The upland forest
community most closely resembles a Chestnut Oak Forest as described in Schafale and
Weakley (1990). This community is typically found in the Blue Ridge region and is very
rare in the Piedmont. However, Stokes County contains most of the few examples of this
community type in the North Carolina Piedmont (NCNHP, 1998).
3.1.4 Agriculture
Croplands (tobacco) exist along both sides of NC 66 at the intersection of SR
1471 (Smith Road).
3.1.5 Aquatic Community
This community consists of Pinch Gut Creek. Aquatic insects found in this
community from the cursory survey included mayflies (family Heptageniidae), stoneflies
(families Perlidae and Capniidae), caddisflies (family Hydropsychidae), craneflies (Tipula
spp.), dragonflies (Boyeria spp.) and hellgrammites (Corydalus cornutus). Crayfish were
also found in this community.
3.1.6 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich
ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals
and birds associated with ecotones and upland forests are least shrew (Crypototis parva),
10

southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus),
eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse
(Baeolophus bicolor), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula). The agriculture community also provides good habitat for
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Aquatic wildlife
is addressed in Section 3.1.4.
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed 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. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the
project lengths described in Section 1.1 where they intersect with the natural
communities, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of [ ]for the bridge
replacement and another [ ]for the on-site detour. However, project construction
often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Community Area of Impact
acres (hectares)
Disturbed/Malntained
Flood lain Forest
U land Forest
A 'culture
TotalIm act
11

3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Pinch Gut Creek will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 54. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance
of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and
the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in
the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMP's.
12

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates that regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters of
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 .U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are no wetlands in the project area.
Physical aspects of surface waters are described in Section 2.3.2.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
the stream that are located within the proposed right-of-way. A combined length of [ ]
of Pinch Gut Creek and [ ] of streambed may be permanently or temporarily
impacted by the proposed bridge replacement.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit 23 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 that 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
14

t
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's
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 54 is located on NC 66 over Pinch Gut Creek in Stokes County.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction
to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
15

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 1.0 ac (0.4 ha) of wetlands;
• And/or more than 150 ft (45.7 m) of streams.
The impacts from this project do not meet the minimum mitigation thresholds.
Therefore, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 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 development. 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a 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 February 26, 2001, the USFWS lists three federally protected species for
Stokes County. These species are listed in Table 2. Brief descriptions of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species are included in Appendix A.
Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were found for one protected species and
"Unresolved" for two species.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Stokes Count
Commarl Name Scientific Name ' "Status
James spinymussel Pleurobema collina Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
Note:
16

M
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrence of federally protected species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study
area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Stokes County
(Table 3). Federal species of concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the
status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration.
Federal Species of Concern are defined as species that are under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), 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 NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists the FSC, the state status of these species (if afforded state protection),
and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This species list
is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Ta61e 3. Federal Species of Concern for Stokes County _

t .

..
n ~ -
r
tu
NC St Habitat
~
.
Common Name tifir Name
~Scie a
s.
t..
s ~ :
~ .
~"CE5EIIt
:
Orangefin madtom . ~ .. ~ ~.. ~ "'° Noturus gilbe~. _
rti
E
~ J . ,
Yes
_-
.
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana SR Yes
Butternut Juglans cinerea WS No
Sweet Pinesap Monotropsis odorata C Yes
Note:
C A Candidate is any species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora
or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
SR A Significantly Rare species is not listed as "E", "T", or "SC", but which exists in the state in small
numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
WS A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat;
populations may or may not be known to be declining.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrence of FSC species within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) the project study area.
17

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
NCDEHNR. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina.
Division of Environmental Management.
NCDENR. 2001. Draft Basin-Wide Assessment Report of the Roanoke River Basin.
Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Cazolina. "Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (27 Ju12000).
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Potter E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Cazolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services. http://web.ral4.fws.gov (22 March
2001).
18

Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
19

. ..
APPENDIX A
Descriptions of Federally Protected Species found in Stokes County, NC
Pleurobema collina (James spinymussel)
Animal Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: July 22, 1988
Endangered
The James spinymussel is aoblong-shaped freshwater mussel believed to be
endemic to the upper James River system in Virginia and West Virginia. The adult shell
reaches to 2 inches in length and has 0-6 short spines on each valve. This mussel inhabits
stream sites that vary in width from 10 to 75 feet and depth of '/z to 3 feet. It requires a
slow to moderate water current with clean sand and cobble bottom sediments.
Reproduction is similar to that of other freshwater mussels, with known hosts to be
cyprinids such as bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), mountain redbelly dace (Phoxinus
oreas), rosefin shiner (Lythrurus ardens), satinfin shiner (Cyprinella analostana), and
stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Shallow medium-sized creeks with slow to moderate flowing water and clean
sand and cobble substrates are readily available in the project area. Surveys by a qualified
NCDOT biologist of the study area are pending. It is currently unknown if this mussel
inhabits the study area.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on July 25, 2001. No populations of this species have been
reported in the project area.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: May 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually 3 to 6 feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to
several fuzzy purple stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves
are 2 to 7 inches long, 0.4 to 0.8 inch wide, lance-shaped, and usually opposite, with
upper leaves alternate. Leaves feel like felt on the underside and rough, like sandpaper,
on the upper surface. The edges of the leaves tend to curl under. Flowers are yellow
composites, and generally smaller than other sunflowers in North America. Flowering
and fruiting occur mid-September to frost. This plant grows in clearings and along the
20

LEGEND
Floodplain Forest .DOT Bridges
Agriculture Streams
® Upland Forest Roads
,~
Disturbed/Maintained Property Boundary
N
W E
S ~
~4
`,,,,
.r
. - a Go .
;~~y \ ~

66 \
_,
.~
Figure 2
Terrestrial Vegetation Communities
Within Project Area
SCALE
150 0 150 300 Feet