20000855 Ver 1_Complete File_20000627

1
.,
}e.r STAit o4,,
JI'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 19, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION
SUBJECT
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
000855
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
NO W
_ 2720
WERAr'0S e= ...,,;
`°'ATER (HOOT''
Stokes County, Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998 over Town Fork Creek;
Federal Aid No. MABRZ-1998(1); State Project No. 8.2640901;
TIP No. B-3247.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on August 1998. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek on SR 1998, Stokes County. The bridge
replacement involves replacing the existing bridge with a triple barreled culvert. Each
barrel of the culvert will measure 2.7 meters by 2.4 meters (9 feet by 8 feet). The new
culvert will be placed such that the roadway will be at approximately the same elevation.
Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction. The new approach
roadway will have a 6.6-meter (22 foot) travelway with shoulder widths of at least 1.8
meters (6 feet). Shoulder width will be increased to at least 2.8 meters (9 feet) where
guardrail is warranted. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
project.
Since bridge demolition was not discussed prior, this cover letter will address and
classify bridge demolition and removal. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BD&R) will be followed and adhered to (see BMP-
BD&R attachment). The following paragraph describes potential impacts of the
demolition of Bridge No. 46 to Waters of the United States during the construction of
Project B-3247.

Bridge No. 46 is located on SR 1998 over Town Fork Creek in Stokes County. It
has three spans totaling 101 feet in length. The bridge deck is composed of timber and
steel. The abutments and interior bents are composed of mass concrete. No part of the
substructure is located in Waters of the United States. Therefore, Bridge No. 46 will be
removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States during
construction. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition
(see BMP-BD&R attachment).
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, a copy of
this document is also being provided to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
for their review.
Comments will be provided by the WRC concerning this project following receipt
of this letter and application. WRC will forward their comments directly to the COE. If
you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Jeffrey
Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
1A,,.J-c' Aa,.. , ?-- ?;,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC, Eastern Mountain Coordinator
FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case I - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
• Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Paee 3 of 3
? 1 '?11f
.? i''70)
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORMWp? 'ty
TER.QlU1lITY
TIP Project No.: B-3247
State Project No.: 8.2640901
Federal-Aid Project No.: MABRZ-1998 (1)
A. Project Description: 0 0 0 8 5 5
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998 over Town Fork Creek in Stokes
County. The bridge will be replaced with a triple barreled culvert. Each barrel of the
culvert will measure 2.7 meters by 2.4 meters (9 feet by 8 feet). The new culvert will be
placed such that the roadway will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing
bridge. The new approach roadway will have a 6.6-meter (22-foot) travelway with
shoulder widths of at least 1.8 meters (6 feet). Shoulder width will be increased to at least
2.8 meters (9 feet) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing
secondary roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 46 has a sufficiency rating of 39.4 out of 100. The deck of Bridge No.
46 is only 7.3 meters (24 feet) wide. Bridge No. 46 is posted at 14 tons for single vehicles
and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. For these reasons Bridge No. 46 needs
to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights

C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
2
r
D
12. Acquisition of land for Hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 425,000
Right of Way $ 13,000
Total $ 438,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1025 VPD
Year 2020 - 1900 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will have a 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide travelway with at
least 1.8 meter (6 foot) shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased to at least 2.8 meters
(9 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
50 km/h (30 mph)
The design speed is limited by a sharp curve on the north approach to the existing
bridge. The design speed will not reach the desirable level of 100 km/h (60 mph). A
3
design exception will likely be required due to the design speed not meeting the
minimum acceptable design speed.
Functional Classification:
E
SR 1998 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed method for
detouring traffic during construction.
Other Alternates Considered
One other alternate was considered and rejected. An alternate to improve the
horizontal alignment was evaluated. This alternate improved the design speed by only 10-
mph, but cost nearly 50% more than the recommended alternate did. This slight
improvement in design speed at considerable extra cost is not reasonable.
Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or ? X
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed ? X
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1 /3) acre ?
and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize X
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted ? X
by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ? X
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW) ? -
4
M•

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

low-income population? ?
X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
X ?

(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land ?
use of any adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local ? X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or ?
Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in X
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
5
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes`? I_ X_
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X U
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) and
will all construction proposed in association with the bridge X
replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or El e
nvironmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or X
listed on the National Register of Historic Places? -
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ?l X
important to history or pre-history ? ?J -
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, ?
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined ? X
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1966,
as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in ?
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question no. 8 - Trout County
Stokes County is one of the designated mountain trout counties, but Town Fork Creek
does not support trout populations. The NCWRC has indicated that replacing the existing bridge
with a culvert will be acceptable as long as the culvert is placed such that the culvert bottom is
below the streambed and does not impede fish passage. This is standard practice as long as site
conditions allow.
•
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-3
State Project No.: 8.2640901
Federal-Aid Project No.: MABRZ-1998 (1)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998 over Town Fork Creek in Stokes
County. The bridge will be replaced with a triple barreled culvert. Each barrel of the
culvert will measure 2.7 meters by 2.4 meters (9 feet by 8 feet). The new culvert will be
placed such that the roadway will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing
bridge. The new approach roadway will have a 6.6-meter (22-foot) travelway with
shoulder widths of at least 1.8 meters (6 feet). Shoulder width will be increased to at least
2.8 meters (9 feet) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be detoured on existing
secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
8-10-18 ???? --,-,v. 4Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
1--71' o
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
N
Quokw 1\ 1997 ?.2
G? • G? : 997 GOP Shook
.S 1 .9
\ t ;?
2019 ?
' 1J ` J 1996 1r'r 19966 I 1994
\ 2. 4
, ? ? `? t 1Qai5 a?
• ?, 1 Mt. Olive
i KING
POP. s'128
l1 1t_-?
. ?, t -?-

?x n ov I il
5 6? al
T ; arm to
'N 1

19`5
1 ?
• l \6
C
7 3
19
20,-

• Mountain Ytsw
•
1971 L
• 6,--1972 N 1970
• 1
.0
J
I 197,
• 1970 / ;-
49
j 1966 J h
? ? ' ? ti 1955
I
is,

. -
,
,Z7
-1114?CAAOlINA1 2 3' \ \ , a 19 ?`; -
SanoyR, \ .
F, nc, co villa 1962
6 3 7
tthal
Moor. Iatonvflla 1959
6 Sprfn! 1 _.
._ ? an0 f dbr0 ' ?
of Mounts
Cao Mae f t S
I S T I' K ,5 \\,FT- ^? Studied Detour Route
alt I0? ! W.Inut Pi .1171
Stokes County
Replace Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998
Over Fork Creek
B-3247
Figure One
,,6iI;bWT4e",,?
o North Carolina Department of
N• "; ; Transportation
z Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch

e "? SrAir °
t
A.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
March 18, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 46 on SR 1998 over Fork Creek, Stokes
County, B-3247, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-
19980 ), State Project 8.2640901, ER 97-8358
Dear Mr. Graf:
On February 25, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the following property is located within
the project's area of potential effect:
Joseph Edwin Johnson Farm (SK 345), northwest corner of junction of SR
2006 and SR 1998. This property was included on the state study list on
October 13, 1988.
We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the Johnson
Farm for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the immediate bridge project
vicinity. There is a high probability that prehistoric archaeological sites will be
affected by the proposed bridge replacement. We recommend that an
archaeological survey be conducted prior to project implementation.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
109 East Joncs Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??,?
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Fecleral.40 # MABRZ-1998(1) TIP # B-3247 CounrY: Stokes
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998 over Fork Creek
On May 28, 1998, representatives of the
E] North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
F] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
© Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
[, there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
D there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
E] there are properties over fifty years old within the projects area of potential effects. but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the proper
identified as Farm #1 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of it is necessary. W.b. - n+6' .14t.A5-K F&r-, 1'4 l.t*-tnsL iuFs+lc.
{f,, ht's 1w tw- elm.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
Sinned:
e?
Represe
CDOT
5-Za•9w
Uate
/I k L??, -L(?/; u 12 ?,/ e)
FHW, r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
- qI?x
-?_
jt\
Representative, SHPO Date
/ d?
Date
State istoric Preservation Officer
V
Ifa survey report is prepared. a final cup) of this form and the attached list will be included.
? yr
,z
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 20, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998 over Town Fork Creek,
Stokes County, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1998(1),
TIP B-3247, State Project 8.2640901, ER 97-8358,
ER 98-8853
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
?GEiVFO
2 6 1998
Thank you for your letter of March 30, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation concerning the above
project.
During the course of the survey no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were located
within the project area. Due to the absence of archaeological resources, Dr. Glover has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw/
cc: ?H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
G. Glover
Preservation Officer
109 East Jenes Street • Raleigh, North I :ina 27601-2807
g47
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 46
ON SR 1998 OVER TOWN FORK CREEK
STOKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. B-3247
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2640901
FAP NO. MABRZ-1998(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BY:
Resource Southeast, Ltd.
1513 Walnut Street, Suite 250
Cary, NC 27511
January, 1998
P.N. 94028.36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................... 1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................1
1.3 Study Area .....................................................1
1.4 Methodology ...................................................1
1.5 Topography and Soils ............................................. 2
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................................. 4
2.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................................... 4
2.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .................................. 4
2.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ......................... 5
2.2 Aquatic Communities ............................................. 5
2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............................ 6
2.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................................... 6
2.3.2 Aquatic Communities ....................................... 7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES ................................................. 8
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics ..................................... 8
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .............................. 8
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ...................................................10
4.1 "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues ..................... 10
4.2 Permits .......................................................10
4.3 Mitigation .....................................................11
4.4 Rare and Protected Species ....................................... 11
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species .................................. 11
4.4.2 Federal Species of Concern .................................. 13
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 13
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................ 15
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................17
TABLE
Table 1 - Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial & Aquatic Communities ..................... 7
Table 2 - Federally Protected Species for Stokes County ............................. 11
Table 3 - North Carolina Status of Federal Species of Concern in Stokes County ........... 14
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Alternates and Terrestrial Communities
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Photographic Record
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over To«n Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted for use as a supplement to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) document.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 46 on SR 1998 over Town Fork
Creek in Stokes County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The existing bridge is a 7.7 x 30.8 meter
(25.3 x 101 foot) dual lane structure with a timber deck on I-beams with concrete bents and
abutments. It was built in 1965. The existing roadway approaching the bridge is a 5.8 meter (19.0
foot) two lane undivided facility with shoulders of variable width ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 meters
(1.0 to 10.0 feet). The existing right of way width is 18.3 meters (60 feet).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 46
with a new three barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. Two alternates are being considered for
the project. Alternate One replaces the existing bridge in place and detours all traffic off-site
during construction (Figure 2). No temporary crossing would be built. Alternate Two proposes
to build the new structure west of the existing bridge, with traffic being maintained on the existing
bridge during construction (Figure 2). The right of way width for the project will remain the same
as the existing right of way of 18.3 meters (60 feet). The existing bridge will be removed
following construction. The proposed project length is less than 365 meters (1,000 feet).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. Identification and estimation of the likely
consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources are also presented in this report.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. It may become necessary to conduct additional field investigations should design
parameters and criteria change.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of Stokes County, approximately
1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) southwest of Quaker Gap, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project site
lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey (USGS)
King quadrangle map (1986); United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) Soil Survey of Stokes County (1995); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (King, 1994); USFWS list of protected and candidate species
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over To%n Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998

(1997); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (1997); North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality (NCDENR, DWQ), formerly NCDEM, water resources data; and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed critical habitat information. Research using
these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on September 10,
1997. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques including active searching and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using the 18.3 meter (60.0 foot) wide
right of way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for aquatic
impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less,
but without specific replacement structure design information the worst case was assumed for the
impact calculations.
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor" denote the specific area being directly impacted by each alternative.
"Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the project area.
Photographs of the project area are located in Appendix A.
1.5 Topography and Soils
Stokes County lies primarily in the Piedmont physiograpl& region, with a small mountain range,
the Sauratown Mountain Range running through the central portion of the county. The
topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping
banks along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 275 meters (900 feet)
above mean sea level.
According to the General Soil Map for Stokes County (USDA-SCS 1995), the project area is
located within the Riverview-Toccoa-Chewacla soil association. The Riverview-Toccoa-
Chewacla association is described as nearly level and gently sloping well drained, moderately well
drained, and somewhat poorly drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil or
that have a loamy surface layer and loamy and sandy underlying material. These soils were
formed in recent alluvium. This soil association consists of 50 percent Riverview soils, 40 percent
Toccoa soils, and 10 percent Chewacla with some other soils to a minor extent.
The major map units within the project area include the Riverview and Toccoa soils (0 to 4
percent slopes) which are found on flood plains and are occasionally flooded. The Toccoa soils
are generally found closer to the streams and between areas of the Riverview soils and the stream.
The Riverview and Tocca soils are non-hydric (USDA-SCS 1991) but may contain inclusions of
hydric Chewacla soils.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 2
The Riverview soils are a dark yellowish brown loam with a depth to bedrock of more than 150
cm (60 inches). Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high. The erosion
hazard is slight and the shrink-swell potential of the subsoil is low.
The Toccoa soils are a dark brown fine sandy loam with a depth to bedrock of more than 150 cm
(60 inches). Permeability is moderately rapid and available water capacity is moderate. The
erosion hazard is slight and the shrink-swell potential of the subsoil is low.
The Chewacla soils make up 10 percent of the entire soil association and are often found
intermingled with the Riverview soils in the part of the unit that is farthest from the stream. The
Chewacla soils are sandier and wetter than the major soils. These soil types were confirmed in the
field by taking soil borings. Chewacla soils are listed as a hydric soil (USDA-SCS, 1991).
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 3
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on the
system used by NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow the
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). More recent nomenclature is used when
appropriate. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations,
evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation (Webster et al. 1985;
Potter et al. 1980).
2.1 Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are Man-dominated and
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Figure 2). Dominant faunal components associated
with these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many species are
adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but may not be
mentioned separately in each community description.
2. 1.1 Man-Dominated Community
This community includes the road shoulders where herbaceous species dominate and the areas
directly adjacent to them that are narrow strips of trees and shrubs, but are disturbed such that
they cannot be classified into a natural community type (Figure 2). Many plant species are
adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the
road shoulders are dominated by sprangletop (Leptochloa sp.), wild strawberry (Fragaria sp.),
wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata),
foxtail (Setaria sp.), and paspalum (Paspalum sp.). Adjacent trees and shrubs that occur between
the shoulder and either agricultural areas or maintained lawns include Virginia pine (Pines
virghdana), red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), hazelnut (Corylus americana),
sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and juvenile specimens of southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), and black cherry (Prunus
serotina).
Fauna associated with the Man-dominated community might include song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthabnus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), hispid cotton rat (Sign:odon hispidus), and least shrew (Cryptotis parva).
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over To«n Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 4
2.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This community occurs directly adjacent to the bridge and along the creek (Figure 2). It is
bordered by pastures and planted crops such as tobacco and corn. Overstory species consist of
river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore, yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black walnut
(Juglans nigra), and black cherry. The understory and shrub layer is thick and includes dogwood
(Cornus f7orida), yellow-poplar, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black walnut, red mulberry
(Morus rubra), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The thick herbaceous layer consists of
cane (Arundinaria sp.), blackberry (Rubes argutus), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefoha),
greenbriar (Smilax sp.), and sunflower (Helianthus sp.).
On the day of the visit, a frog, possibly a chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), was observed in the
herbaceous layer. Also of note was a basket in the creek that was tied to the bridge and contained
two crayfish. Additional species that might utilize the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
habitat include downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), American toad (Bufo aniericanus), spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer), green frog (Rana clamitans), queen snake (Regina septenivittata), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
2.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Town Fork Creek. Within the project
area of Bridge No. 46, Town Fork Creek flows east and is approximately 4.5 to 10 meters (15 to
30 feet) wide. On the day of the field investigation the water had a high sediment load and the
flow was high due to a recent heavy rain event (See Photos Nos. 3 and 4). The depth of the creek
was approximately 0.15 to 0.30 meters (0.5 to 1.0 feet) along the bank then became deeper
toward the middle of the creek. The substrate of the creek is primarily composed of rock, gravel,
and sand.
Vegetation along Town Fork Creek includes river birch, yellow poplar and sycamore in the
canopy and an extremely dense understory of giant cane, red maple, catbriar and Chinese privet.
The only aquatic animals seen on the day of the site visit were crayfish. Other animals such as the
American toad, Spring peeper, green frog, eastern box turtle, queen snake and rough green snake
may also reside or forage within this aquatic community or along the waters edge. A cursory
survey for clams and mussels was conducted along the banks of the creek. No evidence of the
presence of clams or mussels were found. Macroinvertebrates such as larvae of the mayfly
(Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) would be expected to be
found within the snag habitats and within the riffle areas in the creek. The macroinvertebrate
fauna within the channel may be dominated by chironomid larvae (midges) and oligochaetes
(segmented worms). On the day of the site visit a search for macroinvertebrates was conducted
by turning over rocks and digging in the sediment, but none were found. The depth and flow
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over To%n Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 5
volume of the creek is low, however it could support small minnow populations, though none
were observed on the day of the site visit.
2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts (Table 1). However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to note that construction
impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site and that NCDOT
best management practices (BMPs) are implemented.
Impacts by Alternate One are primarily to areas previously disturbed including both Terrestrial
and Aquatic Communities.
2.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The Man-Dominated and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial communities serve as shelter,
foraging, and nesting habitat for several species of wildlife. The loss of these habitats will result in
the displacement and mortality of fauna species in residence. Individual mortalities may occur to
terrestrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources (Table 1) reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation
of portions of these communities. Alternate One for Bridge No. 46, which replaces the bridge in
place with a culvert and detours traffic off-site during construction, will impact 0.38 hectares
(0.96 acres) of terrestrial communities (Table 1). Alternate Two will impact the Man-Dominated
community 0.58 hectares (1.44 acres) and the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial community 0.08
hectares (0.20 acres).
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Toµn Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 6
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Man-Dominated Piedmont/Low Aquatic Total
Mountain Alluvial
Forest
Alternate 0.30 (0.76) 0.08 (0.20) <0.01 (0.02) <0.39 (0.98)
One
Alternate 0.58(l.44) 0.07 (0.18) <0.01 (0.02) <0.67 (1.66)
Two
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on right of way limits extending 18.3 meters (60 feet).
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above,
calculations were based on the worst case scenario.
Values given are in hectares (acres).
2.3.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Town Fork Creek. The Alternate One
replacement of Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek with a three barreled culvert will result in
up to 18.3 meters (60 feet) linear or <0.01 hectares (0.02 acres) disturbance of stream bottom
whether the bridge is replaced in its current location or at the alternative site just west of the
existing bridge. Since the construction dimensions will remain the same at either location, the
area of disturbance will be equal at both sites. This represents worst case conditions; actual
disturbance area will likely be less. In addition, impacts to the adjacent man-dominated and
forested communities can have a direct impact on aquatic communities. Construction of the
culvert and approach work as well as the removal of trees will likely result in an increase in
sediment loads and water temperature and a decrease in dissolved oxygen in the short term.
Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber, entering the waterways and impacting aquatic organisms. These factors can
potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of invertebrates
which inhabit these areas. Best management practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface
waters should be strictly enforced to minimize potential adverse impacts due to this project.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 7
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Upper Roanoke River drainage basin flowing from the state of
Virginia.
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Town Fork Creek flows east through the proposed project area with a width of 4.5 to 10 meters
(15 to 30 feet). Town Fork Creek drains into the Dan River. This section of the creek is classified
as C by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
Class C indicates freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife. The Classification Index number for this portion of the
creek is 22-25-(0.5) and was classified on September 1, 1957.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Stokes
County (1989) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood elevations have been
determined.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The DWQ uses benthos data as a tool to monitor water quality as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. According to Ms. Nancy
Guthrie, the DWQ does not have any benthic macroinvertebrate data for Town Fork Creek within
the project area. Ms. Guthrie also indicated that there was no data available for any nearby
locations that would give reliable information about the water quality at this site.
The Stokes County Watershed Map indicates that the project area is not within a Critical Area.
No waters classified by the DWQ as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within the project vicinity.
Point-source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers located in the project vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, storm water runoff from SR 1998 may cause
water quality degradation along with agricultural and residential runoff. No commercial sites are
within the project area.
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures or a culvert
in the creek channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will
increase sediment loads and removal of trees which provide shade along the banks will likely
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Tomm Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 8
result in an increase in water temperature. Sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a
decrease in oxygen levels. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a
sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection
of surface waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the
project
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along the streams
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creck
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 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 jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as wetlands do not occur within
the project area around Town Fork Creek. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project
impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual.
Construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Alternate One will
impact up to 18.3 meters (60 feet) of linear stream channel or 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of
jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 46.
with a culvert. Discussions with Eric Alsmeyer of the USACOE, indicate that categorical
exclusion projects where no wetlands are impacted do not require USACOE on-site visits for
approval. In accordance with this policy, the USACOE has advised that it will not make a site
visit this time.
4.2 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USACOE 1344), a
permit is required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of
the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project will be
subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any
activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in
whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Since no jurisdictional
wetlands will be impacted by this project, no section 404 permit is required. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACOE.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, is also generally
required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters
for which a federal permit is required. This certification requirements is not anticipated for this
project, however, DWQ has the final discretionary authority.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over To%%n Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998
10
4.3 Mitigation
Since this project is covered by Nationwide Permit No. 23 and no wetland impacts are
anticipated, mitigation should not be required by the USACOE or the DWQ. Mitigation for
impacts to surface waters of less than 46 linear meters (150 linear feet) is generally not required
by the USACOE or the DWQ.
4.4 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to either
natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for
Stokes County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for
Stokes County as of the November 4, 1997, listing (Table 2).
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Cardamine micranthera E
(Small-anthered bittercress)
Helianthus schweinitzii E
(Schweinitz's sunflower)
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range)
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998
11
Cardamine micranthera (Small-anthered bittercress) E
Family: Brassicaceae
Date Listed: 9/21/89
Distribution in NC: Forsyth and Stokes
The small-anthered bittercress is an erect, slender perennial herb with fibrous roots and most often
a single stem. Height ranges from 20 to 40 cm (8 to 16 inches). Basal leaves are 1 to 5 cm (0.4
to 2.0 inches) long and 0.5 to 2.0 cm (0.2 to 0.8 inches) wide, crenate, and have one pair
(occasionally two) of small lateral lobes or leaflets. Stem leaves are alternate, mostly unlobed, 1
to 1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 inches) long, crenate, and cuneate. Flowers are subtended by leafy bracts,
have four white petals, six stamens, and small round anthers. Anthers are about 0.5 mm (0.02
inches) long, and the petals are 1.2 to 2 mm (0.05 to 0.08 inches) wide. Flowering and fruiting
occur in April and May.
The habitat of the small-anthered bittercress consists of seepages, wet rock crevices, streambanks,
sandbars, and wet woods along small streams. The area is usually partially to fully shaded and
occupied by trees and shrubs typical of moist soils of the upper Piedmont. This plant is extremely
rare, with only nine small populations currently known to exist.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The small-anthered bittercress is native to the Dan River drainage of the North Carolina
and Virginia Piedmont. Habitat does exist for this species along Town Fork Creek at the
project site. A field survey must be conducted during the flowering time of April to May to
determine if this species occurs in the project area.
Helianthus sclnveinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 5/7/91
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Davidson, Gaston, Mecklenburg, Montgomery,
Randolph, Rowan, Stanley, Stokes, Union.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1.0 to 2.0 meters (3.3 to
6.6 feet) tall with a tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-
stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing
to alternate above. They are lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough, thick texture. The yellow
flowers have small heads and bloom from September until frost. The nutlets are approximately
3.3 to 3.5 mm (0.13 to 0.14 inches) long and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the Carolinas. It occurs in open
habitats such as edges of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures. Soils are
usually moist to somewhat dry clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over ToNvn Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998
12
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Man-Dominated community provides some characteristics of the habitat needed for
this species. A search for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted, including the project and
project impact limits on the day of the visit. No individuals or communities of this species
were located. The NCNHP database shows no recorded occurrences of this species in the
vicinity of the project.
4.4.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979;
however, the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 3 includes listed FSC species for Stokes County and their state classifications.
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any FSC within the project
vicinity.
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is not present for Schweinitz's sunflower; however, habitat is present for the federally
protected species, small-anthered bittercress. A field survey should be conducted during
flowering time to search for the species. Habitat does not exist for any of the federal species of
concern noted for Stokes County.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over To%n Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 13
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN IN STOKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
Common Name Status
Noturus gilberti E No
Oran efin madtom
Speyeria Jana SR No
Diana fritillary)
Monotropsis odorata C No
Sweet inesa
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 14
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
ANDREA M. WARFIELD, Program Manager (B.S., Education, Mansfield University; B.S.,
Biology, Minor: Chemistry and Mathematics, Mansfield University): Ms. Warfield has had
sixteen years of combined management and operations experience with responsibilities including
hiring, training, supervising personnel, policy formulation and implementation; budget
development and execution; and company operations. She has demonstrated excellent technical
ability and superior problem solving skills in the management of large task order contracts. She
has served on numerous steering and task force committees in Virginia, North Carolina and
Maryland, providing guidance for the successful implementation of public participation programs
designed to inform and support alternative impact studies.
FRANK PRICE, P.E., R.L.S., Project Manager (B.S.CE, Civil Engineering, North Carolina
State College, 1969; M.S.C.E., Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1969;
Certificate in Planning, Georgia Tech, 1964; Certificate in AASHTO Management, University of
Mississippi, 1987): Mr. Price has over 34 years of engineering, planning and management
experience, and over 30 years of experience with the NCDOT as a project engineer, unit head,
program manager and engineering manager. He has served as project planning engineer on
numerous highway projects throughout North Carolina. Mr. Price has managed the planning and
environmental development of transportation projects for Resource, NCDOT, and other private
consulting firms.
KENNETH IL ROEDER, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Scientist, (Ph.D., Forestry, Minor:
Soils, North Carolina State University; M.S., Forest Genetics, Concentration: Statistics,
University of Florida; B.S., Forest Resources Management, SUAT College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, and Syracuse University): Mr. Roeder has over 20 years of Natural
Resource Assessment experience dealing with NEPA/SEPA and Section 401/404 Clean Water
Act compliance of Transportation and other private and public sector projects. Mr. Roeder's
technical areas of expertise include wetland delineations, permitting, and mitigation planning, soil
studies, ecology, threatened and endangered species studies, feasibility studies, environmental
impact studies, natural resource assessments, biomass productivity and yield, statistics, and field
research. Mr. Roeder's experience also includes agency coordination, public involvement and
public hearings.
AMY S. MORGAN, Staff Scientist (M.S., Ecology, Minor: Water Resources, North Carolina
State University; B.S., Biology and Science Education, North Carolina State University): Ms.
Morgan has six years of environmental monitoring and research experience in hydrology and
wetland settings. She has extensive experience in groundwater-surface water interactions in
coastal hydrogeologic settings. Ms. Morgan's other areas of technical experience include site
remediation, wetland delineation, monitoring well design and installation, data logger
programming, plant identification, soil classification, ecology, project design and implementation
and water quality monitoring (including work with the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida).
Ms. Morgan has experience working with both federal and state government agencies, the private
sector and non-profit agencies.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 15
LISA S. WARLICK, Staff Scientist (B.S., Natural Resources, Concentration: Ecosystem
Assessment, Minor: Zoology, North Carolirna State University): Ms. Warlick has experience in
conducting research and field work for habitat assessments, inventories, and land management.
She has field skills in soil classification, forest and wetland plant identification, and terrestrial
vegetation measurements. Additionally, Ms. Warlick has experience with federal and state
governments working with insect monitoring and control, and in molecular botany and
reproductive and developmental toxicology laboratories.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 o%,cr Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 16
6.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Justice, W. S. and C. R. Bell. 1968. Wild Flowers of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey and J. R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Murphy, T. R., D. L. Colvin, R. Dickens, J. W. Everest, D. Hall and L. B. McCarty. Weeds of
Southern Turfgrasses. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, Athens.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Computer DataBase List of Rare Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1996.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Upper
Roanoke River Basin. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of
Stokes County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the
United States. Misc. Pub. No. 1491.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacemnit
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 17
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). United States Fish and
Wildlife Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region,
Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. National Wetlands Inventory Map - King, NC.
United States Geological Survey. 1986. Topographic map - King quadrangle.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
Proposed Bridge Replacement
TIP No. 3247; P.N. 94028.36
January 1998 18
FIGURES
1 ?'O Q?{w \ 1997 2
997 Gap shook
v Z 2019 .,S
,? ? - ' ? 1994
}' 19c6 I
,956
?. ' 2.4
' J 1955 of
NO. 46
O 1958. 1°`? \$
1. Olive . ! 1973
Mountain Vww .r
1971 , •??,
x=1972 N 1970
NG\ I 1.0 > I 197-
5,123 \ 1970 /
I\ f h
1 t cEo `? • • ti 1955
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FIGURE 1 URCE
SITE LOCATION MAP RESO 11P NO. 8-3247 SOUTHEAST, LTD.
BRIDGE NO. 46 REPLACEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
0
ON SR 1998 1513 TAU= S7RE . SURE .^50 o CARY, NC 27511
[phone] o PAZ (919) 4W-Q270
STOKES COUNTY, NC
NCDOT HIGHWAY MAP
MAP PROVIDED BY NCDOT
N
LLI
cr-
0
LL.
0 (f)
Q W
wZ
Q =
z?
of o
W
? U
J J
Qa
o?
O U)
O w
CL ?-
1--
W
: U
W Z
U
N a- 0) H
M LLJ 0) Z
m ?
O
D d. V U
z Zw
LL ZOO
LLJ F -
V)
D
m
U ?
Q
Q
r?
0
0
N
W
J
Q
U
N
F-
V)
w
O
LL-
J
Q
D
J
J
Q
Z
a
to z
w
F- O
20 m
Q O
Z
O
Q 0 O
1 m
Z o
w Q d LLJ
LLJ
J H
LLJ
OMTZO
:H
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
"rip B-3247; P.N. 94028.36
Photo No. 1
SR 1998, Town Fork Creek Bridge - Facing North
rnoto No. z
SR 1998, Town Fork Creek Bridge - Facing South
Photo No. 4
Town Fork Creek - Looking West
Stokes County Bridge No. 46 over Town Fork Creek
TIP B-3247; P.N 94023.36
Photo No. 3
Town Fork Creek - Looking East