19981267 Ver 1_Complete File_19981222

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AFT WX
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATuRAL REsouRCEs
December 31, 1998
Stokes County
DWQ Project # 981267
(T.I.P. No. B-2868)
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those
listed below, to conduct survey activities associated with the replacement of Bridge
No. 127 over Snow Creek in Stokes County (B-2868), as you described in your
application dated 18 December 1998 (received 22 December 1998). After reviewing
your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3127. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 6 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any
other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including
(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit
expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills
for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must
follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this
letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B
of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
December 31, 1998
Stokes County
DWQ Project # 981267
(T.I.P. No. B-2868)
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney
or Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786.
ncere17
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
981267
w? 1
ST 7Z
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA a
DEPAPUMENT OF TRANSPORTATION V
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, "1 SIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
December 18 -1 98 M
DFr 2 2 19%
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office HIFrl,?rlrs 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer 41
NCDOT Coordinator

F. NlorRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
u?Q
SUBJECT: Stokes County, Replacement of Bridge No. 127 over Snow Creek on SR
1673 (Phillips Road); Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1673 (1), State Project
No. 8.2640601, TIP No. B-2868.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 26 November 1996. The
project involves replacing Bridge No. 127 over Snow Creek on SR 1673 (Phillips Road).
The bridge will be replaced along the existing roadway alignment, with minor alignment
improvements (see Figure 2 of referenced document). During project construction, traffic
will be maintained using SR 1652, SR 1674 and SR 772 as the off-site detours. The
planning document states that no jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject
project.
As noted in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) prepared for the subject project,
foundation investigations will be needed for this projecte
ticipated that this activity
may be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide Pe rvey Activities). This
work would not require notification if not for the fact thoject lies i
n a mountain
trout county. Joe Mickey with the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) wrote in a
letter to Frank Vick of the NCDOT, that based on their knowledge on the range of trout in
the project area, this project will not impact trout waters.

9
Al..
These permits are necessary for survey work and bridge construction within Snow
Creek. The DOT is also requesting that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission provide
comments to the Corps of Engineers concerning these permit requests. The DOT
understands that written concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for 401
Water Quality Certification (No. 3127) is not required for the Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 6 request. General conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certitication for
Nationwide Permit 6 will be followed.
As noted, copies of the CE will be distributed with this applications. The DOT
hereby applies for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6, Nationwide Permit 23 and
appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification.
Thank you for your attention to this project. If you have any questions or need any
additional information, please contact Mr. Jared Gray at [phone], extension 329.
Sincerely,

W.D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
wdg/jg
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC, Asheville
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Stokes County
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1673 (Phillips Road)
over Snow Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1673(1)
State Project 8.2640601
T.I.P. No. B-2868
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1 zs /4va'l-
uz;--7
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
111X4
DATE icholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Stokes County
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1673 (Phillips Road)
over Snow Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1673(1)
State Project 8.2640601
T.I.P. No. B-2868
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date
Project Manager
CA% N,
a SEAL
14509
., i? •......•• O e
11,1011161101
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
/ Z? 4??Z? /',
. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., it ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. B dwin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stokes County
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1673 (Phillips Road)
over Snow Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1673(1)
State Project 8.2640601
T.I.P. No. B-2868
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Design plans will be forwarded to the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer when
they are available in order that they may complete their evaluation of potential effects
upon as yet unrecorded archaeological sites.
Stokes County
Bridge No. 127 on SR 1673 (Phillips Road)
over Snow Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1673(1)
State Project 8.2640601
T.I.P. No. B-2868
Bridge No. 127 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 127 will be replaced at the existing location (with minor alignment
improvements) as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement
structure consists of a bridge 33 meters (110 feet) long and 8.4 meters (28 feet) wide.
This structure width will accommodate two 3-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter
(2-foot) shoulders on each side, as well as 1.2-meters (4-feet) for curve widening.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width, to
provide two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side
throughout the project limits. Curve widening of 1.2 meters (4 feet) is anticipated due to
the roadway curvature.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 1) will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $654,000. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $350,000 ($330,000 -
construction; $20,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the east central portion of Stokes County, approximately 5.6
kilometers (3.5 miles) north of the Town of Danbury (see Figure 1). Development in the
area is rural in nature.
SR 1673 (Phillips Road) is classified as rural local in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated
bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1673 has a 5.8-meter (19-foot) pavement width with 1.8-
meter (6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is generally rolling
throughout the project area. Approaching from the west, the roadway consists of a sharp
curve to the right which ends at the structure, then continues along a tangent across the
bridge, extending approximately 50 meters (165 feet) to the east. The roadway is situated
about 5 meters (16 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 400 VPD is expected to increase to 700 VPD by the year
2020. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted in the project area; however, 32
kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) curves exist east and west of the site.
Bridge No. 127 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of end bents with timber caps and a mudsill. The existing
bridge was constructed in 1962 (see Figure 3).
The overall length of the structure is 34 meters (111 feet). The clear roadway width is 6.1
meters (20 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 11.8 metric tons (13 tons) for
single vehicles and 14.5 metric tons (16 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 127 has a sufficiency rating of 25, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered to be in fair condition.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure; however, there are overhead
power lines on the north side of the roadway through the project area. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
One accident resulting in one injury has been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 127
during the period from April, 1992 to April, 1995. This accident resulted in a non-fatal
injury and occurred 100 meters (330 feet) east of Bridge No. 127.
SR 1673 is not a designated school bus route.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 127 were studied. Each alternative consists of
replacing the bridge with a bridge 33 meters (110 feet) long and 8.4 meters (28 feet)
wide. This structure width will accommodate two 3-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter
(2-foot) shoulders on each side, as well as 1.2-meters (4-feet) for curve widening. The
approach roadway will consist of 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width and 1.8-meter (6-
foot) shoulders on each side. Typical sections of the proposed approach roadway are
included as Figure 4 and Figure 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative I (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment (with minor alignment improvements). Improvements to the
approach roadway will also be necessary for a distance of approximately 100 meters (330
feet) to the west and 120 meters (400 feet) to the east of the proposed structure. This
alternative would provide a design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (31 miles per hour),
and traffic will be detoured on an off-site detour during placement of the bridge. The off-
site detour will be approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles) in length (see Figure 1).
Alternative 1 is recommended because it is less costly to construct and has less impact on
the ecosystem than Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the
study corridor approximately 30 meters (100 feet) south (downstream) of the existing
crossing. Reconstruction of the roadway approaches will be required for approximately
100 meters (330 feet) to the west and 120 meters (400 feet) to the east of the proposed
structure. This alternative would provide a design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (31
miles per hour), and traffic would be maintained on the existing roadway during
construction. The construction of Alternative 2, although producing a more desirable
roadway alignment for this immediate area of SR 1673, will cause additional damage to
the surrounding environment and is more costly to construct than Alternative 1. The
alignment for Alternative 1 is consistent with the existing alignment of the majority of SR
1673, and an off-site detour is available.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1673.
The NCDOT Division 9 Engineer concurs that an off-site detour will be the best
alternative during bridge replacement.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches
Structural Removal
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
$355,728.25 I $395,728.25
NA NA
$14,811.75 $14,811.75
$80,000.00 $90,000.00
$29,000.00 $33,000.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 127 will be replaced at its existing location (with minor alignment
improvements), as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a bridge 33 meters (110 feet)
long and 8.4 meters (28 feet) wide. Improvements to the existing approaches will be
necessary for a distance of about 100 meters (330 feet) to the west and 120 meters (400
feet) to the east of the structure. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended
alternative.
A 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and
1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure
4). Curve widening of 1.2 meters (4 feet) is anticipated due to the roadway curvature.
An 8.4-meter (28-foot) clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy
and curve widening requirements. SR 1673 is classified as a rural local; therefore,
criteria for a rural local was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 6.0-
meter (20-foot) travelway with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders across the structure, and will
allow for 1.2 meter (4 feet) of curve widening (see Figure 5). The design speed is 50
kilometers per hour (31 miles per hour).
A temporary off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period. The off-site detour will be approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles) in length (see
Figure 1).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 33 meters (110 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum
slope in order to facilitate drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to the
existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height of the new structure may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 1, 1996 to verify documented information and
gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by
a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to
1) search for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or
prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats;
4) identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse)
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-
dominated and Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Dominant faunal components associated with
these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are
adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be
mentioned separately in each community description.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
This forested community occurs in the northwest and southwest quadrants as well as
surrounding the fields in the northeast and southeast quadrants. The dominant canopy
trees include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). The understory consists of
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Cornus florida), white oak (Quercus albs)
saplings, and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima). The shrub layer includes blackberry
and the herbaceous layer includes common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and fire pink
(Silene virginica).
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and the fields in the
northeast and southeast quadrants. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and
regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders and the
fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum offcinale), wild onion (Allium cernuum), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
plantain (Plantago rugelii).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside man-dominated and forested areas. The
forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby
the project area. The forested areas adjacent to Snow Creek and associated ecotones
serve as valuable habitat, providing all the necessary components (food, water, protective
cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in the disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although only a Northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and turkey vulture
(Catharses aura) were observed during the site visit, several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), Eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the
American robin (Turdus migratorius) are typical to these disturbed habitats.
Although no animals were observed in the forested habitats, animals previously listed
may also be found in this community along with the whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), the raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), American toad
(Bufo americanus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata).
Aquatic:
Snow Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. Vegetation along the banks includes sycamore, ironwood, and blackberry.
Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) are typical to these
communities. Due to the large size and depth of Snow Creek, macroinvertebrates such as
mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae would
be confined to the shallow rocky areas and snag habitats along the creek banks. The
macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel would be dominated by midges (chironimid
larvae) and segmented worms (oligochaetes). No current fish sampling data are available
from The Wildlife Resources Commission for Snow Creek. Data collected in 1964 and
reported by the Division of Inland Fisheries (Fish 1968) indicate that, at that time, Snow
Creek's ecological classification was "E/C robin-warmouth" indicating the presence of
robin, other centrarchids, and creek chubs.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes
along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 213.4 meters (700 feet).
According to the Soil Survey of Stokes County, this portion of Stokes County contains
soils from the Rion-Pacolet-Wateree association which are characterized as gently
sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or
predominantly clayey subsoil. This map unit is found on narrow to very narrow ridges
and side slopes. This map unit was confirmed in the field. The soils in the project area
are mapped as Riverview and Toccoa soils, Rion, Pacolet, and Wateree soils, and Masada
sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded. The Riverview and Toccoa soils map
unit consists of a very deep, well drained Riverview soil and a very deep, well drained to
moderately well drained Toccoa soil which are found on flood plains. The Rion, Pacolet,
and Wateree soils map unit consists of very deep, well drained Rion and Pacolet soils and
a moderately deep, well drained Wateree soil found on side slopes. Masada sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded is a very deep, well drained soil found on high
stream terraces.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses Snow Creek and lies within the Dan
River drainage basin.
Snow Creek is a perennial tributary within the Dan River basin. The creek flows south
through the proposed project area with a width of 14.3 meters (47.0 feet) at Bridge No.
127. The creek has a Class WS-IV rating from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM). This best usage classification indicates the
following: these waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately
to highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharges of
pollution are required; and these waters are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
agriculture, and other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for
Stokes County (1988) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, which is in the special
flood hazard area inundated by the 100-year flood where no base flood elevations have
been determined. The NCDEM Classification Index number for Snow Creek is 22-20-
(5.5).
The NCDEM maintains a macroinvertebrate sampling station within the project area.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom
substrates of rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool
as benthic macro- invertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria
have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to
each benthic sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been
developed for different ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina.
Data for Snow Creek taken in August 1993 at SR 1673 indicated a bioclassification of
"Good/Fair".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The scores derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody
and may not necessarily directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable
to high elevation trout streams, lakes or estuaries. No NCIBI data was available for Snow
Creek.
No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within the
project vicinity.
The Stokes County Watershed Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit the
exposure of watersheds in Stokes County to pollution. The Critical Area is the area
adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed. The Protected Area is the area
adjoining and upstream of the critical area in a WS-IV watershed. The Watershed
Protection Map indicates that the project area is within a Protected Area.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Snow Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Undetermined
Current Flow Swift
Channel Width 14.3 meters (47.0 feet)
Water Depth 0.6 meters (2 feet)
Water Color Turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation American sycamore,
ironwood, blackberry

Wetlands -
None
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Snow Creek has well defined
banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in
the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE. Approximately 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) of jurisdictional surface water
impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 127.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists two federally protected species for Stokes County as of August 23, 1996. These
species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
(Common Name) Status
Helianthus Schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Cardamine micranthera
(small-anthered bittercress) E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship
to the proposed project are discussed below.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 6/6/91
Flowers Present: September - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows approximately 1.0 to
2.0 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually
solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color.
The leaves are opposite on the lower stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate,
pubescent, and have a rough and thick texture. They are 18 centimeters (7 inches) long
and 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) wide. The 5.5-centimeter (2-inch) broad flowers are borne
from September until frost. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small, upwardly
arching heads of yellow flowers. The fruit is a gray-black achene approximately 5
millimeters (0.2 inch) long and are glabrous with rounded tips. Based on its similar
morphology to H. laevigatus and H. microcephalus it is difficult to positively identify
this species prior to flowering.
Schweinitz's sunflower is found only in the piedmont of North and South Carolina with
13 known populations occurring in North Carolina. Growing best in full sunlight or light
shade, it occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay
loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in
open habitats such as the edge of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and
pastures. Natural fires and large herbivores are considered to be historically important in
maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers. Today, disturbances such as mowing,
controlled burning, and logging help maintain its open habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat exists in the project area for this species. Following inspection of
herbarium specimens and field guide photographs of Schweinitz's sunflower, all roadside
margins and woodland fringes were searched visually for plants with sunflower
characteristics. No individuals of the genus Helianthus were observed during the search
performed on May 1, 1996. NCDOT staff biologists performed a survey of all suitable
habitat during this species' flowering time on October 22-24, 1996. No individuals were
observed in the study area as a result of this survey. A search of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that construction of the proposed project
will not impact Schweinitz's sunflower.
10
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera)
Status: E
Family: Brassicaceae
Listed: 9/21/89
Flowers Present: April - May
The small-anthered bittercress is an erect perennial herb with fibrous roots and one
simple or branched stem(s) growing 20 to 40 centimeters (7.9 to 15.7 inches) tall. The
leaves are 1 to 5 centimeters (0.4 to 2.0 inches) long, 0.5 to 2.0 centimeters (0.2 to 0.8
inch) wide, scalloped, with one pair of small lateral lobes or leaflets. The stem leaves are
alternate and mostly unlobed, 1 to 1.5 centimeters (0.4 to 0.6 inch) long, scalloped and
wedge shaped. The flowers have 4 white petals, six stamens, and small round anthers.
The small-anthered bittercress is found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars,
along stream banks, and in wet woods near streams. The habitats occupied by this
species are all fully to partially shaded by trees and shrubs typical of moist soils of the
upper piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat exists in the project study area for the small-anthered bittercress.
Following inspection of herbarium specimens and field guide photographs of small-
anthered bittercress, the stream banks were visually searched for the presence of this
species. The search was performed on May 1, 1996, during the reported flowering
season. No individuals of this species were observed in or adjacent to the study area
during the site visit. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that construction of the proposed project will not impact the small-anthered
bittercress.
Federal Species of Concern:
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are
defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing. Table 3 includes FSC species listed
for Stokes County and their state classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Noturus gilberti
(orangefin madtom) E No
Speyeria diana*
(Diana fritillary SR Yes
butterfly)
Juglans cinerea
(butternut) WL Yes
Monotropsis odorata
(sweet pinesap) C Yes
* Indicates no specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
NC Status: E, SR, WL, and C denote Endangered, Significantly Rare, Watch List,
and Candidate, respectively.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979
(G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no
known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) or
the project site.
Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which
the construction activity occurs.
Of the three community types in the project area, the man-dominated community will
receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Table 4 details the anticipated
impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
12
TABLE 4
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL
AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 127 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1 0.15(0.37) 0.05(0.13) 0.02(0.05) 0.22(0.55)
Alternative 2 0.47(1.17) 0.21(0.53) 0.02(0.06) 0.71(1.76)
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4 meter (80 toot) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Snow Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) of
stream bottom. The new replacement structure construction and approach work will
likely increase sediment loads in the creek in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important
part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of best management practices and the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Permanent impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of a culvert or
supporting structures in the creek channel. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
(Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help
decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States". In addition, the project is located in a
designated "trout" county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and provide it to the Corps of
Engineers.
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
13
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. However, a final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include
test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR
14
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project
has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to
comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office. There are properties over fifty years old within the project's
area of potential effects, but based on the historical information available and the
photographs of each property, the property identified as property #1 is considered not
eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation is necessary (see Appendix) .
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to
architectural resources, is required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated June 19, 1996 (see
Appendix), stated the following:
"There are no recorded sites in the immediate project area;
however, the area east of Snow Creek contains a high probability
for the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites. As soon as
they are available, please forward information concerning the
location of the proposed bridge replacement, on-site detour
structures, approach work, and new right-of-way so we can
complete our evaluation of potential effects upon as yet unrecorded
archaeological sites."
When available, design plans will be forwarded to the NCSHPO for continued review of
potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the
proposed project's area of potential effect.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local
importance that will be impacted by construction of the recommended alternate.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within
these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
15
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR),
Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and
the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section
revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Stokes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
16
!+ d
ip , ?• ,'r;`. ?q
r
1651
1. ; tf to 1650
\
1651 1649
658 5
1657
1742
a
ry ?5
Snow ?
Creelr 1652
660 .3
1659

1657 i
1647 A
i
• 6 1674
•%? 1655 1654
?71641 ?7S FAS 3641
r' ,8
?- 1 31
17/ 49 ?Py ry 1642
h ,2
Delta 1644 1641
1643
1674 1645
1646
restonville FAS ,
4 e ` ? 1.9 .9 \ iua 1735
1664 ,Ir
T 1652 a
1677
1655 1746

Cb 1656
7
1675 1
7
772
70 .
8 ?

1665
1b 70 .
1
5
1674 1673 :-
O '0
1N
1679
1 1672 0 ? 1678
,> Dodgetown
1671 .3
!? 1652 B-2868 FAS .0
0 1669 ? A'
1670 17 C7
artman 1696 ` 1 695 ?, "
7r N `? 8 169
1701 1697 16 1694 ? 1686
b

1652

1752
Q
9 1697 1.0 1690
772 169
-
I
N. C IN?T 1695
6 d Rd 2 4
r r any ii
Fr nci co Lawsonvill 1
89 6 a
Weslflel 6 A ?
66 Moore 4 Prest ills
Spri r
b k
' s ? ? ? 6 illerd
P ilot Mountain 7 Mr
Gap a ws 5 rl
S T O K le 6 6 311 LEGEND
• ?? alto 10 8 Wain Pi a al
er ov
52 mento 5 Studied Detour Route
di ?"s O
I '"T
FIGURE 1
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 127 ON SR 1673
OVER SNOW CREEK
B-2868
0 kilometers 116 kllometere 312
0 miles 1,0 , 0 miles 2.0
Stokes County
Bridge No. 127 On SR 1673
Over Snow Creek
B-2868
SIDE VIEW
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 3
a
o w ?
m C°)
d a
E ? ? " a W CS
a
c fs+
i
a
q `i
z
z
u
0 r
o w O
U O co

?y?
U
?
z c0
C?
U o m w
x
o Cn W
EE x ?
W q 'V
aa o
H z a
w
E -ra w
°
N Y z
Fa C7 O
>

Cke
> a
U
LU
H
E x E z
N
Ol 1V/ C OC

z z

F? y ` J
W tiJ a
o
C
N N pp
oZ
Q 80
k
N
oc tX
CL
? p
CL W LLJ
Cv
Q CL a
Q r...

Q J
Q
.?

o

E A E x 0
P
C a G Q
4 V) •
co c

-: O
i4 O

u
?
w
O
Co ICS
C
i
a to W
?+
10
0
w
6 LO
F
v 0
z
a
w
I ?D z u
l7 m a> O O m
z q ° W V ` 110
i z C?
U o 0o
C W U) fTa
'? •? ' o °
c z c?

D C

ZE- P H

W
>
. ? o
A

u,
c
W
OC

D
GC
N

O

O
H
V
W
N
J
V J
U
CL O

U
E 0
?? ad
LL

0 Z
cti L, ?
G 0 ~
U
u. Q p O
N

II II
U
ui

Z C)%
C
04
Q C),
? N
N
0
?

w '
E _ U

D .
o tLO

N
/r w
J ??r N? QO c?
/,Q (j
ZONE X

Ci?'
BRIDGE NO. 127
__.. S?EppPPp
= 1671
OTIS
O
1 IU q0
(• OOS
RO
li
I!
U
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning L Environmental Branch
STOKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 127 ON SR 1673
OVER SNOW CREEK
B-2868
FIGURE 6
H-? r
\ \
zl
a`

91ch"
b'Zg(?o 8
BOARD OF EDUCATION POST OFFICE BOX 50
ERNEST T. LANKFORD DANBURY, N.C. 27016-0050
Chairperson [phone]
POLLY J. GOOLSBY [phone] (FAX)
Vkm-Chakperson
DAVID J. BURGE
TERRI C. FOWLER
YVONNE M. RUTLEDGE
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
AUMINIA I MA1 IUIV
DR. G. FRANK SELLS
Superintendent
DR. RONALD J. CARROLL
??++ Associate Superintendent
App22m6
y
L' F?VInON?Ji?
Ref. NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge on SR 1673 over Snow Creek, Stokes County;
T.I.P. No. B-2868
Dear Mr.Vick:
I have received your request for concerns on the Bridge Project referenced above. A
survey was conducted among the schools that might be impacted by the project. It has been
determined that this project will have no impact on our school's bus routes. We currently have no
school buses crossing the bridge on SR 1673. If you require any further information please let me
know. -
Sincerely,
cc: Dr. Frank Sells

Mitch Smith
Director of Operations
Stokes County Schools
"Projecting A Vision For The 21 st Century"
M EpuW Oppo-ty Employ-
? . 2 E 8
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY \\???s\9//
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 20 • DANBURY, NC 27016 ^ E /
pR
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Z
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation NIGi?:.`
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201 'got
v7vrt;`?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
This letter is in response to your questionnaire dated April 1, 1996
concerning the bridge replacement project over Snow Creek on SR# 1673
Sheppards Mill Rd. I'm sorry for the delay in the response, I just
received this document this last week.
1. Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning
goals? Yes
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this
project? No
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project?
None that I know of.
4. Are there any sensitive properties (parks, public lands,
playgrounds, etc.) in close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing?
No
5. Are there any proposed commercial or residential developments
within the project area? No
6. Are tax maps available for the area surrounding the proposed
project? Also, are County topographic maps available for the project?
Tax maps and orthophotography are available. The county uses USGS
maps for topographical information.
7. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for
the project area? Yes
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local
emergency routes such as fire, rescue, etc.? Yes, this road is used
as shortcut to NC 772 by emergency vehicles.
9. Is there a land use plan or master plan available for Stokes
County? Yes, we have a land use guide.
10. What are the existing and future zoning classifications in the
area surrounding the project? RA (Residential and Agricultural) is
the current zoning classification. I do not foresee any major zoning
phanges for that area in the near future.
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the
project planning process? No
If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.
Respectfully,
David Sudderth
Planning Director
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Stacy Baldwin
?EHNR
e- o
8- zsgo
o9
Z') ?O
5--Zg 89
6 -3 X03
? -3a z2
From: Eric Galamb f
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Faual Opportunrfv Affirmativo Action Fmnlovar 5(74, rgrvHnri/ l M nrxt-rrx,a imnr nnnw Y '?1
r1:.'. :?? `r:Pr;ii7r'?lt Or ?1e '.I1%'I''?t`I'
ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Posi Offce Box 33726
Raleigh. Nornn Carolina 27636-3726
In Reply Refer T_c:
FWS/AES/RANC
April 10, 1996
I T
f3 - Z Lo C) °i
Z40) -5 q
Z? 4 -2--
" zq 7 O
?P- 1 c 1??5
T3-Z0) 51
3 - 3f.
5-?;c 2.
't? -3r-l
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-2580, 2590, 2609,
2859, 2868, 2942, 2970, 2989, 3003, 3022, 3044)
Dear Mr. Vick:
calls or p
counties.
This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as initial =oiling comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in
their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
f the re lacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
P
The service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following' recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
'Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the lanning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts) :
G??
_.F' Za a and. ne ?_r :-e rr._:posE? rojECC ic?_^;
`isru?s..on of the
1.. Nn analvsis of the alternatives to tie proposed protect that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to-
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Chatham, Forsyth, Hoke, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland, and Stokes counties. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to•be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
c"Mu'_-tive effects
_ .ta .ojec? and
u= =a ; er act --on and
'tnterrelazed actions are those t:-"t are Pait Of a L_Y _q
?:. action for their j',stification;
epena on the urger a-- private acti•-rities (not
Cumulative impacts of `uture State and will b a considered as
d' Federal agency involvement, that
requiring
part of future section 7 consultation); potential effects;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of p
of the manner in which the action may affect an listed
ociated habitat including project proposals to
6. A description
species or ass
reduce/eliminate adverse effects; project is
Based on evaluation criteria, a determination tof whether the hreatened and endangered
7' not likely to adversely affect or may affect species. species for which the Service has
Candidate species are those plant and animal Sthe ESA,
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endanqereedcieor threatened under the Endangered
receive no statutory protection under Species
d to informally confer with the Service on actions
(ESA). Although cae require
kel to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may es r
Federal agencies are i nca?d on ttossupport species
li y proposed critical habitat. Species of concern dos at the present time.
or modify a
liforsting which the proposSeal or species which do nnot warra t llistingo at but could
Species of Concern receive no statutory Protection under the ESA, laces
the ecome species candidates in the the full protection if additional. scientific information ecom
ma li a new survey
b they are gered or threatandened. neces Formal
available indicating of the ESA, rudent
p
or their
project corridor is unknown. cto hcandidate it s species be
1
if its status in the adverse iimpmp
for the project to avoid any a Program should be contacted for
information The"North Carolina Natural H
inf on species under State protect ion.
inf Please
appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project.
The Service progress made in the planning process, including
continue to advise us of the this project.
your official determination of the impacts of
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
Sincerely yours,
fo n H efner
ld Supervisor
j
FWS/R4/y,Doak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96.SCP
'52EE?
V 08Ca;
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Stokes County
Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed In the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them. `
Insects
Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana) - C2
Fishes
Orangefin madtom (Noturus ilberti) - C2
Plants
Butternut (Jualans cinerea) - C2
Sweet pinesap (Monotroasis odorata) - C2"
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
L
?lA
ggcH ? ?0
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 15, 1996
411J,
C
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
3- i9 89
.3-zs8 p
x-3003
B'ZS'9 a
B-zab g
Xv Ed
R4
& Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Forsyth, Iredell, Mecklenburg, and
Stokes Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of April 1, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office. We handle project reviews and requests
of this nature for the western part of the state, including the above-mentioned counties.
Our Raleigh Field Office will provide scoping comments for the projects in Chatham,
Randolph, Richmond, and Scotland Counties. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information you provided, the following bridges will be replaced: Bridge
Number 79 on SR 2700 over South Fork Creek (Forsyth County); Bridge Number 178 on
SR 1907-over Morrison Creek and Bridge Number 27 on SR 2342 over an unnamed creek
(Ire dell County); Bridge Number 91 on SR 2417 over the West Branch of the Rocky River
and Bridge Number 108 on US 29/NC 49 over the Southern Railroad (Mecklenburg
County); and Bridge Number 127 on SR 1673 over Snow Creek (Stokes County).
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts the proposed bridge
replacement projects could have on federally listed species and on Federal species of
concern and (2) the potential impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project
areas.

We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should evaluate
possible impacts to the following federally listed species and/or Federal species of concern
(these include aquatic animal species known from a particular stream system for one of the
proposed bridge projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers):
FORSYTH COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenberg(Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
IREDELL COUNTY
Bog turtle 1(C emmy muhlenberg_ii) (Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Schweinitz's sunflower aielianthus schweinitzii) (Endangered) - This plant species is
generally found in woodland borders, especially along roadsides or banks that are
mown or bush-hogged regularly. It also occurs in gladelike openings in .woods.
Michaux's sumac us c auxi' (Endangered) - This plant species grows in sandy or
rocky open woods associated with basic soils.
r i anus) (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
Georgia aster ( to ,geag
dry open woods along roadsides, woodland borders, old fields, and pastures.
Heller's trefoil (Lotus he le ') (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.
STOKES COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Orangefin madtom oturus lgt berti) (Federal species of concern) - This fish species
occurs in montane warm-water streams; juveniles and adults inhabit swift riffle
areas. Ideal habitat for this species consists of streams with low silt levels, relatively
high local gradient, and predominantly small cobble substrate.
Sweet pinesap onotropsis dorat) (Federal species of concern) - This species is
generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact areas should
be addressed in any environmental document prepared for these projects. Please note that
the legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative
with regard to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the
Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal
species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered
or threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to give you advance
notification and to request your assistance in protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation of the various bridge replacement
alternatives and structures (e.g., replacement at the existing location versus upstream or
downstream of the existing structure); (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sedimentation during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., protecting riparian vegetation whenever
possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you
keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In any future correspondence
concerning them, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-061.
Sincerely,
r ,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor

Q-(, 0^
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY a
Z J
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 t3 ' Zip ?J
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 -2
4 Z
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 9, 1996 -P 2
" -9 7°

Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

50'
?GE1
O
MAY 1 6 1996 `
y DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
LORONME??A
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1996 subject: "Request for Comments
for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Piedmont North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.,
,?C. Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-01 i 3

May 9, 1996
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
These bridges are located within counties or communities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. Count Stream Type Firm
27 SR 2342 Iredell Trib-Third Ck Approx 5/80
91 SR 2417 Mecklenburg W.Br. Rocky R Detail 2/93
31 NC 73 Richmond Buffalo Ck Approx 9/89
359 SR 2911 Randolph Richland Ck. Approx 7/81
127 SR 1673 Stokes Snow Ck. Approx 9/88
147 SR 1953 Chatham Rocky River Approx 7/91
79 SR 2700 Forsyth S Fork Muddy Ck Detail 1/84
178 SR 1907 Iredell Morrison Ck. Detail 9179
108 US 29 Mecklenburg None-No Fl Haz 2/82 **
52 SR 1406 Randolph Uharrie R. Approx 7/81
34 SR 1404 Scotland Lumber R. Approx 12/88
34 SR 1104 Hoke Lumber R Approx 3/89
• * within city of Statesville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
** within city of Charlotte jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categorical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
May 9, 1996
Page 3 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Stokes County
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph and Chatham
Counties
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Forsyth•,County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Mecklenburg County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Iredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)
- 17-- . Pl?n,ninn A Environrr.enx?l
\1 Highway Building
DEPAKTMENT Or 1 t,t vSFOKIAi 01N
.r:.? ??p B. GARRETr JR.
GOVERNOR PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 30,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Pl and Environmental Branch
FROM: C {is B. Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 127 on SR 1673 over Snow Creek,
Stokes County, TIP No. B-2868
This memorandum is in response to your request for comments on the above project.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this project. This
section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated bicycle
route. At present we have no indication that there is an unusual number of bicyclists on this
roadway.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact us
regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/pp
4Q-
JUN v 4 1996
:>!GN OF --?
;WAYS
G? r'L"ViRON?
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
0

1 ..` STAY o
J t r'?p/?. D
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Offi er
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 127 on SR 1763 over Snow Creek, Stokes
County, B-2868, ER 96-9089
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
On June 5, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to view the project aerial
photograph. Based upon our review of the aerial, there is a barn and a house on
opposite sides of SR 1673 in the vicinity of the bridge. We recommend that an
architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the barn and house for National
Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
There are no recorded sites in the immediate project area; however, the area east of
Snow Creek contains a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
archaeological sites. As soon as they are available, please forward information
concerning the location of the proposed bridge replacement, on-site detour
structures, approach work, and new right-of-way so we can complete our
evaluation of potential effects upon as yet unrecorded archaeological sites.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Federal Aid # y` V-7. W l3 t TIP # Za4b County 7rolt.s4;.
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-t%Pt'kzof, g>ztoFE nl.. 127 mN $R Ie'1'? or>?2 Srle?.I
G2at=t- P1LtPCrS ?ZOttP X
On JN•u.13 ITI[, , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A seeping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fit- years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G Nvithin the project's area of potential effects.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the projects area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as P-fc(L # I are considered not eligible
for National Register an no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:

Represent OT Date
10

FHwr49or the Divisioh Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Represcntative,'S HPO
b/z y/Y6
Srate Historic Preservation Officer /
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy oCtliis t'onn and the attached list «ill be included.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Date Of Land Evaluation Reouest
08/12 '_ -
Name Of Protect Federal A ency Involved
SR 1673, Stokes County, TIP B-2868 I FHW1
Proposed Land Use I County And State
-?iiahway, Two Lanes Stokes County, TIP B-2868, NC
PART 11 (To be completed by SCSI Date Re uest Received By S
8 ?r8/ cv?(.J _
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? r Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parrs of this form). (5' o
Major Crops/ Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
CC) Acres: \A-O,, -I 401 % rJ?, 3
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System
S?o? eS Gam. ?? /V D N/C 1 Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
a N 7 "7
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: \4\ S3\ %49•16
Date Land Evalua ton Returned By SCS
9 31 q 6 W Z3[4J,
FART I11 (To be completed by Federal A
enc
) Alternative Site Rating
g
y
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site A
0 Site 8
1 .7- Site C Site D
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect) 0
C. Total Acres In Site 0 1 . 1
PART IV (To be completed by SCS)- Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted p
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
. Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
g'"( ??
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Paints ,
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 G7
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use I /?f
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area I ---
6. Distance To Urban Support Services I I I I
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average / I I 5
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services I
10. On-Farm Investments 170
I
i /
I
l l. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 1
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 1
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS i 160 I (,,o
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
I
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 i
I otal Site Assessment (From Parr V( above or a local
sire assessment) 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above-2, lines) 260 I --
!'•Nas A Local Sit: Assessment Usea?
Site Selected: I Date Of Seiecnon
Yes ` No El
Reason ror Selec•ion.
SEP 0 5 1996
----------------------------
MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Unit , sVedby
`n? mokel
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., District 7 Fisheries Biologist Joe
DATE: June 14, 1996
SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT to replace bridge No. 127 with a triple 4.0
meter x 3.7 meter reinforced box culvert on SR 1673 over Snow Creek, Stokes
County, TIP No. B-2868.
After reviewing the plans, it is our position that Alternative 1 should be the route of
choice because of less impact to the surrounding environment. Based on our knowledge on the
range of trout in the project area, this project will not impact trout waters. Therefore, we do not
object to the project as proposed, however, we would like to offer the following suggestions to
lessen impacts to aquatic resources:
1. The center box culvert bottom should be a minimum of 1 foot below the bottom of
the two adjacent cells to concentrate the stream channel during low flow periods.
2. The construction of the box culverts should not cause a widening of the creek at the
outlet and inlet ends. These areas should be no wider than the average width of the
stream channel taken immediately upstream from the site.
3. Native shrubs and trees should be planted along the banks of the temporary culvert
once it is removed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding this permit, please contact me at 910/366-2982.
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC Mt. Region Habitat Conservation Program 0//'K
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
?. 7 rK ?v7c r .:Lt-? ? ivy Lt--) 6Q- c
r