20010328 Ver 1_Complete File_20010306

° 010323
? s
"4011SSUED"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael F. Easely P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ACTING SECRETARY
January 30, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 _ Sail
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 i
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Stokes County, Bridge No. 70 on SR 1400 Asbury Road over Big
Creek; Federal Aid No. MABRZ-1400(3); State Project No.
8.2640701; TIP No. 13-3245.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion project-
planning document prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
and signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on January 19, 1999. The
project involves replacing Bridges No. 70 over Big Creek on SR 1400 with a new triple
barreled culvert, with each barrel of the culvert measuring 3.7 meters (13 fee y
meters (10 feet). In the realignment of the road a 8.2 meters (27 feet) extension of 24 inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe will be needed on an existing pipe that is located at the
curve to the north of the bridge. The approaching roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24
feet) travelway, and a total shoulder with of at least 1.8 meters (6 feet). The new roadway
will be at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge and will be
aligned to the west of the existing road. The new approach roadway will extend a distance
of approximately 245 meters (800 feet) on the south approach, and 215 meters (700 feet)
on the north approach. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 50
km/h (30 mph). The total project length will be approximately 275 meters (900 feet).
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not-
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
A

Volume;61, Number 241. In addition to the NWP 23 for the placement of the culvert, a
NWP 14 is being requested for the extension of an existing drainage pipe. This pipe is
located under the existing road to the north of Big Creek and will need to be extended
when the road is realigned to the west. The pipe extension was not addressed in the C.E.
document, therefore it can not be covered in the NWP 23. This is why a NWP 14 is being
requested for the pipe extension.
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 and 14. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review. In compliance with Section 143-
215.3D(e) of the NCAA we have enclosed a check for $200.00 to act as payment for
processing the Section 401 permit application.
There are two jurisdictional streams that will be impacted from the construction of
the project. The tributaries are Big Creek and a unnamed tributary that runs into Big
Creek. The best usage classification for Big Creek is "C-Tr". Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation
and agriculture. The supplemental classification Tr (Trout Waters) refers to freshwaters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The classification of
this water as a trout stream is recognized as a trout-stream by the Department of Water
Quality only. The Wildlife Resource Commission does not recognize this stream as a
trout supporting stream. These streams are located in the Roanoke River drainage
basin. Big Creek is approximately 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide and has a water depth of 15-
30 centimeters (6-12 inches). The banks. of Big Creek in the project vicinity are fairly
steep and well defined in most places with an average drop of 1.2 meters (4 feet) from the
top of the bank to the water's edge. The banks of Big Creek in the project vicinity are
slightly eroded and scoured from previous elevated flow volumes. Visual observation of
water in the creek revealed that it appears to carry a notable amount of sand and silt. The
substrate in the creek is predominantly comprised of sand and silt. The unnamed tributary
that will have the pipe extension added to it is a maintained farm ditch. It has minimal
habitat that is suitable to support aquatic life. It is approximately 0.3 meters (1 foot) to 0.6
meters (2 feet) wide. It ranges in depth of 0.4 meters (1.3 feet) to 0.8 meters (2.6 feet)
from the top of it's bank to the substrate of the bed. There is some vegetation growing in
the bed. Stream impacts that will result to Big Creek total 78 feet as a result of the
culvert placement. Stream impacts to the unnamed tributary as a result of the pipe
extension total 27 feet. Total stream impacts as a result of the construction of this
project will be 105 linear feet. There are no wetlands located within the project
area. The stream impacts are detailed in a project drawing located in the permit
application.
The following paragraph describes potential impacts of the demolition of Bridge
No. 70 to Waters of the United States during the construction of Project B-3245.

Bridge No. 70 is located on SR 1400 over Big Creek in Stokes County. It has
three spans totaling 96 feet (29 meters) in length. The superstructure is composed of a
steel plank deck on I-beams. The substructure is composed of timber caps and piles.
Therefore, no components will be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition
(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.). It is recommended by the Endangered Species coordinator at NCDOT that
construction of this project be scheduled such that clearing and grubbing operations do
not take place during the period from November 15 to April 01. This is due to the
occurrence of the spinymussel similar to the Tar spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansanna),
in the Dan River approximately 12 miles downstream of the project crossing.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
implementing and properly maintaining all Best Management Practices (BMP's) to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Clay Willis at [phone], Extension 334.
Sincerely,
!`L'-a
William D. Gilmore, PE, 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, Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS

l?l o Z
?y
?
?

. Of N
-
f!
C
CC t 31
-
C
I
-
,
-
T
JL?; ?r'? W 3U
? o
?
ao . ! ._ Y m
.- ?8 my

r .c ? c V ''-' w Y

c

Hz
H
w
'
o?
U
?
ts.

J
I
i
W
F
rA??A
vl
z d

N?
?x®
p
z
?

1 Q

.00
w 0
UO V)
-q
0
?
??
?
z

® w
U w
z
b
b
I
1 `
I ?
I j
1 Y
I ?
U
U `
m
I
I
i
i
I?
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
N
Z
O

N ?
W
N
W
2
N
W
a C
?
o
a 3

Q I ?
ciz 3 ?
0 -

a?i ?' o I
N I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

' I z?

?

- II
1 1 I /` .\ o? a Q c?
'II I k ?
°'` CLWw

.J I I r I ?
? rao
1 1 I I ;
, W
- I 1 rI ,? '?

z

?x® ® z

®® U ? ?
® W

U W
z

I
/r

I I II {
?I I 1 J W J
Jlt' F

I .
I I
1 I II WoW
Q
Z :3

k?
I I I I? t??
`c J > C> Z

T

0
I I
w
J

z
4
Z -4
zOQ U
N F®w ? Qom ?I
®®0
CCn ® MI
U ® W
1: :S2
w
z
O
N
CD co
Lij
C?j
cci>
V)
V
V La
i
?0 O O 0
0 Qo ?
0 0 0 0

it

l

M ?

W

J

;i z

R
i
z
;
-J -j
CD Z6 (3
Q w jz
® Z E , 1 LT.
\ w > 0
lag z w
\ w
\ \
\ C5 Ld
\ \ \ ` a
s
zrA
W
®? w
/Z rA
l
0
z
N
O
(6
U

N

N
C C
WU
-o
a> ?
r- to
O m O O
m -C
?U
a
N
(n
F- C U
m tp N$ a0
h
N O
r
Q.
W U E
IL

W Q? N

Q
LL C U C)
C O m
?..
o
_
W LL

U) (Q _
C O V r
O N
O NIt
O
(0 O
Z O O
Lt, "

Q N 0= O
C - O U O
c U N ? :6 O
U

co

U
a °
o
-, 6 ?,. 0
.
CL L) 0
Z
Q W C

LL
?
0
N
v 0
H Z
O
N U p
N ''
LL
>
U
m
(L
7 N CV C)
? U) x
to N
r N

O

C
O
O
M O
+
?

N +
O N

O
(n H

U)
J
Q
w O
(/5 Z
L
L N ~O
H
Q et
Z
O r
t- W
Q (n N
F- r M m Q
0 Lli
= Z O W
U)
(7500
<2LL C-) 8 ? 004LD. _I
?- O W N U) co
ti `.L a*
O Z O Z W "-
_OF f-p O
cn U>
w>_?w,o- 0
00 0 O
U a z
Z W
0
m ?
W
W
2

sue, "401 I88UED"
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum To:
From:
Attention:
Subject:
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
January 23, 2001
Clay Willis, Permit Specialist
Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist
Robin Young, Project Manager
Mussel survey for proposed replacement of bridge
no.70 over Big Creek on SR 1400; Stokes County. B-3245.
The proposed action calls for.the replacement of bridge No. 70 over Big Creek on
SR 1400. A spinymussel was recently discovered in the Dan River in Stokes County.
This species is similar in appearance to the James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) as
well as the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansanna), both of which are federally
Endangered. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering the spinymussel
from the Dan River to be an Endangered species. Big Creek flows into the Dan River
approximately 12 miles downstream of project crossing. The confluence of Big Creek
and the Dan River is 546 ft. downstream of the NC 89 crossing of the Dan River, which
is the furthermost downstream point of the river that is currently known to be occupied by
the spinymussel. However, based on habitat evaluation the section of the river below NC
89 likely supports the spinymussel.
The project site was visited on October 16, 2000 by NCDOT Environmental
Specialists Tim Savidge, Logan Williams, Sue Brady, Clay Willis, NCDOT Division 9
Environmental Officer Diane Hampton, FWS biologists John Fridell and Mark Cantrell
and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) biologists Chris McGrath and John
Cecil. Big Creek was surveyed for mussel fauna and potential habitat. Survey
methodology involved wading using view buckets. Water clarity and depth were optimal
for this type of surveying. A total of 4.5 man-hours were spent in the creek from a point
approximately 300 yards downstream of the existing crossing to approximately 300 yards
upstream. No mussel fauna (Unionidae) was observed during the site visit and the creek.
is degraded at this location by sedimentation and unstable banks. Additionally, WRC
biologists Chris McGrath and John Cecil surveyed Big Creek approximately 100 yards
upstream of the Dan River confluence and found only 1 notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta) in 2 man-hours of survey time. They noted a point source discharge and
streambed excavation as sources of habitat impairment (Pers. comm.)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
. The survey results indicate that this species is not present in Big Creek in the
project vicinity. This creek does flow into a reach of the Dan River that is likley occupied
by the spinymussel. With implementation of proper erosion control for protected
species and given the distance of the project from potentially occupied habitat, it can
be concluded that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the
spinymussel in the Dan River. It is also recommended that construction of this project
be scheduled such that clearing and grubbing operations do not take place during the
period from November 15 to April 01.
United States Department of the Interior
3 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
d ' Asheville Field office
l ISO Ziuicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 9, 2001
Mr. Willi, urn D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
project Z?t;velopment aozd Environmental Analysis Bmch
North Carolina Departt'nent of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, b north Carolina 276991548
Dear Mr. CAlmare:
Subject: Mussel Survisys for the Proposed Reptac=ent ofBridge NO- 70 Over Big Greek can
Sit 1400, T11' No. B-3245, Stokes County, North Carolina
As rcquvacd by the North Carolittta Department of Transportation, we have reviewed the subject
proposed project and biological conclusion and are providing the following comments in
accords n with the provisions of Section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C, 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.(".. 661-667e).
Recent surveys on the Ilan River have documented the presence'of the Tames River spiny mussel
(Pleurrob.ana callina) in several locations. Big Creek is a tributary to the Dan River, and the area
impacted by the subject project was surveyed for the presence of mussels on October 16, 2000_
Survey rf salts indicate no mussel fauna in the stream at the location of the elect. Additionally,
the direct impacts of ffhe subject project will be approximately 12 miles from Big Creek's
confluenm:e with the Dan River. Also includedin the biological conclusion are recommendations
to avoid or reduce impacts to mussel fauna. These include the following:
1.. Implementing proper erosion control for protected species and
2.. Not condu.oling clearing and grubbing from November I5 to April 1.
Based one survey results, the physical distance from, the main stem of the Dan River, further
protectioar. provided by implementation of the above recommendations, and strict adherence to
erosion and sedimentation control during all phases of the project, we concur with your
Conclusion of "not likely to adversely affect" for the James River spiny mussel. In view of this,
we believe the requirements udder Section 7(c) of the'Act are fulfilled, However, obligations
under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified section that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered., (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) anew spe=cies is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified suction.
We understand that the proposal for the crossing of Big Creek invaives replacing the existing
bridge wifti a culvert. NVe oppose this action and strongly recommend replacing the existing
bridge wilt a bridge. A. bridge would ensure the natural functions of the flood plain, maintain
fish passage (especially during low flows), and maintain a riparian travel corridor for terrestrial
animal movement,
If you havc questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3,939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 4.2-01-276.
Sincerely,
,1 .'9 J?
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Eric Plismeyer, tl.u. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls
of The Nettle Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
Mr. Chris )McGrath, Mountain Project Leader, North Carolina Wildlife Rcsources C'Oumis-SIOn,
31'i Morgan Branch Road, Leicester, NC 28748
Ms, Cynthia Van Der `Viele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27iti99-1621
Ms, Robin Young, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
De.partmemt of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Stokes County,
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1400
Over Big Creek
Federal Aid Project MABRZ - 1400(3)
State Project 8.2640701
TIP Project B-3245
'010328
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
I - Iq-R9
Date
D
,07
..fir William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
,,qrNicholg L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Stokes County,
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1400
Over Big Creek
Federal Aid Project MABRZ - 1400(3)
State Project 8.2640701
TIP Project 13-3245
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 1999
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
,i
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
.
r
Wayne liott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0 ?N GARO ,*'
6K ,
??a OFESS/p?%••9 ??
SEAL
_? 21077 =?
Stokes County,
Bridge No. 70 on SR 1400
Over Big Creek
Federal Aid Project MABRZ - 1400(3)
State Project 8.2640701
TIP Project B-3245
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 70 in Stokes County. This bridge carries SR 1400 over Big Creek (see Figure 1). NCDOT
includes this bridge in the 2000-2006 Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify
this project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no notable environmental
impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 70 on new alignment, to the west of the existing bridge,
as shown in Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the existing bridge with a new triple
barreled culvert, with each barrel of the culvert measuring 3.7 meters (13 feet) by 3.0 meters (10
feet). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway, and a total shoulder
width of at least 1.8 meters (6 feet). The new roadway will be at approximately the same
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 50 km/h (30
mph).
The estimated cost is $ 1,190,675 including $ 40,675 for right of way acquisition and
$ 1,150,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 2000-2006 Draft TIP is
$ 548,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT is expected to need a design exception for this project; due to the design speed
for the recommended alternate being 50 km/h (30 mph). The speed limit on SR 1400 is 55 mph
by statute.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Standard Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be implemented and maintained
throughout project construction. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and
properly maintained during project construction.
Foundation investigations will be conducted on this project. The investigations 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 the creek.
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
likely be applicable for this project.
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 Section
404 Permit.
Once construction of the new culvert and approaches are complete, the existing bridge
will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be
planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1400 as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The surrounding area is wooded with a scattering of home sites and farm
fields mixed in.
Near Bridge No. 70, SR 1400 is a two lane paved road, 5.5 meters (18 feet) wide with
grassed shoulders. The vertical alignment in the immediate area is poor, and the horizontal
alignment in the area is only fair, with a design speed of less than 50 km/h (30 mph).
NCDOT built Bridge No. 70 in 1972. The bridge has an asphalt surface on a steel plank
deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles for the bents and
end bents. The deck of Bridge No. 70 is 5.5 meters (18 feet) above the streambed. Water depth is
approximately 0.6 meters (2.0 feet) in the project area. The bridge is 29.3 meters (96 feet) long
with a 7.3 meter (24 foot) roadway width. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic and is currently
posted at 19 tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for Truck-tractor Semi-trailer (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 70 is
35.3 of a possible 100.0.
The current (1998) traffic volume is 700 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to 1300 VPD
by the design year (2020). These traffic volumes include an estimated 2% dual-tired vehicles
(dual) and 2% truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST). No speed limit is posted in the project area,
therefore it is assumed to be 55 mph by statute.
Traffic Engineering Branch accident records indicate no accidents were reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 70 during a recent 3 year period.
The Stokes County School Bus Transportation Coordinator has indicated that there is one
school bus that cross this bridge twice per day. Detouring traffic off-site would cause some
delays in school bus operations, but would not make school bus operations impossible.
2
V. ALTERNATES
Alternate One - replace the bridge in-place with a new reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic
will be detoured along existing roads during construction.
Alternate Two (Recommended) - replace the bridge on new alignment to the west of the
existing bridge with a new reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing bridge during construction.
An alternate that would replace the bridge along the existing alignment and provide a
temporary on-site detour was judged to be impractical. This alternate would retain the existing
poor alignment and would also have a greater cost than either of the considered alternates.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue
deteriorating until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Engineering & Contingencies
Total Construction
Right of Way & Utilities
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Alternate One Alternate Two
Recommended
$ 219,000 $ 285,000
430,000 674,000
19,000 19,000
107,000 172,000
775,000 1,150,000
39,000 40,675
$ 814,000 $ 1,190,675
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 70 on new alignment, to the west of the existing bridge,
as shown in Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the existing bridge with a new triple barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert, with each barrel measuring 3.7 meters (13 feet) by 3.0 meters
(10 feet). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway, and a total
shoulder width of at least 1.8 meters (6 feet). The new roadway will be at approximately the
same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The new approach roadway will extend a distance
of approximately 245 meters (800 feet) on the south approach, and 215 meters (700 feet) on the
north approach for the proposed structure. The completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 50 km/h (30 mph).
3
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it is the most reasonable and feasible alternate
for replacing Bridge No. 70. Alternate 2 improves the alignment of SR 1400 in the area of the
Big Creek crossing. Both the horizontal and vertical alignment will be improved, but not enough
to alter the design speed rating for the alignment. Alternate 2 does not have significant
environmental impacts, and allows traffic to be maintained on-site.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing Bridge No. 70 on new alignment to
the west of the existing bridge would be preferable from his perspective. This would improve the
alignment of SR 1400 and allow traffic to be maintained on-site during construction.
Construction of Alternate 2 will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain
or associated flood hazard.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this type and magnitude.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area.
B. Architectural and Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that there are no known
architectural or archaeological sites in the project area and no unknown architectural sites are
likely to be found. Therefore, SHPO has recommended no architectural surveys be conducted in
connection with this project. (See SHPO memo dated March 18, 1997.)
4
However, the project area may contain prehistoric archaeological resources and the
SHPO asked that the project area be surveyed by NCDOT archaeological staff prior to project
implementation.
During inspection of the study area, no previously unrecorded archaeological sites
considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were located. No
additional archaeological investigations are required. (See SHPO memo dated May 21, 1998.)
C. Natural Systems
REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Stokes County is located in the northwest part of North Carolina in the Upper Piedmont
Physiographic Province. Topography is composed of a land surface that can be characterized as
gently sloping to steep with moderately steep to abrupt breaks occurring along the floodplains of
permanent streams. The project area is located approximately 323 to 348 meters (1060 to 1140
feet) above mean sea level (msl). Land use in the project area and nearby vicinity consists
primarily of agriculture in the areas with flatter topography and in the floodplain of Big Creek.
The hillsides and steeper slopes are dominated by mixed woodland communities. Scattered
single family residences are also located within these land use types in the project vicinity.
Soils
The 1995 USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey for Stokes County
indicates that there are four soil types located in the project area.
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area.
Map Unit Symbol Specific Mapping Unit % Slope
PcC2 Pacolet sandy clay loam 8-15
PcD2 Pacolet sandy clay loam 15 - 25
RpE Rion, Pacolet and Wateree soils 25 - 60
RtA Riverview and Toccoa soils 0-4
• Pacolet sandy clay loam is a well-drained, moderately permeable soil found on upland
areas. It is found on very narrow ridges and sideslopes throughout the county.
• Rion, Pacolet and Wateree soils are very deep to moderately deep, well-drained soils on
sideslopes throughout the county.
Riverview and Toccoa soils are very deep, moderately well to well-drained soils on
floodplains throughout the county.
None of the four above-referenced soil types are classified as hydric or non-hydric with
inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots according to the USDA-Soil Conservation Service (1991)
WATER RESOURCES
Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Roanoke River Drainage Basin.
The main water resource in the project study area, Big Creek, is crossed by Bridge No. 70.
Construction of the new structure will necessitate the crossing of this water resource. One
additional intermittent channel is located just outside the project area of Alternate 2. It is a
branching unnamed tributary to Big Creek and crosses SR 1400 northeast of Bridge No. 70.
Rivers and streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly the Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the
same rating as the stream they branch from. Big Creek is located in sub-basin 01 of the Roanoke
River [DEM Index No. 22-9] and is classified as "C-Tr". Class C refers to waters that are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life propagation and survival, and wildlife.
All freshwaters are classified to protect these uses at a minimum. "Tr" is a supplemental
classification referring to those waters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout. However, a discussion with fisheries biologists at the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) revealed that Big Creek has been classified as trout waters by the
DWQ only. Their agency does not recognize Big Creek as a waterbody which provides suitable
trout habitat. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the project area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DWQ and
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long-term
trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms
are reflections of water quality. There are no monitoring sites located in the vicinity of the
project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. No registered point source dischargers are located within a 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 miles) radius of the project area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or
no defined point of discharge. No current or recent land clearing appears to have been done in the
project area or nearby vicinity. The agricultural fields appear to have been cleared and planted in
some form of crop rotation for quite some time. Therefore, turbidity and sedimentation from
agricultural runoff and erosion are the most likely sources of non-point source water quality
degradation in the project vicinity.
6
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Big Creek is located within the approximately 9,248 sq. kilometers (3503 sq. miles)
Roanoke River Drainage Basin in the state of North Carolina. At the time of the 07 April 1998
site visit, the creek had a gently flowing current with an approximate width of 6.1 meters (20
feet) and water depth of 15 - 30 centimeters (6 - 12 inches). The banks of Big Creek in the
project vicinity are fairly steep and well defined in most places with an average drop of 1.2
meters (4 feet) from the top-of-bank to the water's edge. The shorelines of Big Creek in the
project vicinity are slightly eroded and scoured from previous elevated flow volumes and
velocities. Visual observation of water in the creek revealed that it appears to carry a notable
amount of sand and silt. The resulting substrate in the creek is predominantly comprised of sand
and silt. No sizable areas of gravel or stone were noted in the creekbed in the project area. No
areas of jurisdictional wetland were identified in the project area during the site visit.
Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are
likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream activities
and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the
biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna
and flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities
7
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present
land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published
range distributions) are also cited.
Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities which are difficult to define.
All land use types were characterized and approximately delineated during the 07 April
1998 site visit. The majority of the project is contained in maintained/disturbed communities.
Maintained/disturbed communities are areas where human disturbance has prevented the natural
succession of plant communities by activities such as mowing, tilling, and the use of herbicides.
These areas include agricultural fields, residential yards, and existing road right-of-way.
Three types of undisturbed vegetation communities are located in or adjacent to the
project area. The first type is classified as a "Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest". The dry-mesic
oak-hickory forest community is located along the relatively steep sideslope of a hill leading
down to Big Creek. This area probably was not cleared for agricultural use due to its steep
gradient. On the southwest side of Bridge No. 70, Alternate 2 runs through this community type.
The second vegetation community type is classified as a "Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest". This community is comprised of the forested riparian buffer running along either side of
Big Creek and will be impacted by either project alternate. The third vegetation community is
located northwest of Bridge No. 70 and is classified as "Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest -
Piedmont Subtype". The southern edge of this community is located in the proposed. Alternate 2
right-of-way. The intermittent channel which is tributary to Big Creek runs through this
vegetation community.
Disturbed/Maintained Areas
At the time of the 07 April 1998 field investigation, the agricultural fields west of SR
1400 were fallow. However, remnant plant stalks revealed that they were planted in tobacco last
year. Other common species noted in the fields were dandelions, early winter cress, thistles,
cocklebur, chickweed and bittercress. The agricultural fields on the east side of SR 1400 were
fallow, but remnant corn stalks were noted from last year's crop. The same common weedy
species were noted in these fields as those in the tobacco fields across the road. The existing road
right-of-way is comprised of a disturbed roadside shoulder community. It is dominated by
fescues and is routinely mowed and maintained. The residential yard areas are also dominated by
common lawn fescues.
8
Undisturbed Vegetation Communities
The dry-mesic oak-hickory forest community was noted in the southern extent of the
bridge replacement project area. It is located on a relatively steep hillside and ends at the toe of
slope in fallow agricultural fields. This vegetation community contains several dominant species
including beech, white oak, red oak, yellow poplar, redbud, Christmas fern, dutchmen's
breeches, and blackberries.
The piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest community is located in the riparian zone
along Big Creek. The majority of this vegetation community has been historically cleared in the
floodplain for agricultural use, but a narrow remnant band of vegetation approximately 6.1
meters (20.0 feet) wide remains along the creek. This remnant vegetation zone is primarily
comprised of mature, common, riverine woody species. Dominant species in this area consist of
American sycamore, river birch, evening primrose, blackberries, greenbriar, Japanese
honeysuckle, and violets.
The mesic mixed hardwood forest - piedmont subtype is located along the northern extent
of the proposed bridge replacement routes. It is comprised of a mixed pine-hardwood forested
community uphill of Big Creek and its floodplain. The aforementioned intermittent channel,
which is tributary to Big Creek, runs through this community. Dominant species in this area
include short-leaf pine, American sycamore, red oak, red maple, silky willow, blackberries, and
Japanese honeysuckle.
Wildlife
During the 07 April 1998 site visit, evidence of several wildlife species was noted. White-
tailed deer tracks were noted throughout the agricultural fields, and raccoon tracks were noted
along the banks of Big Creek. A covey of Northern bobwhites was flushed from a patch of early
winter cress along the edge of the fallow tobacco fields and mesic mixed hardwood forest. A
dead black racer was also noted on a dirt farm road through the tobacco fields. Other species
observed during the site visit include the American crow, gray catbird, song sparrow and red-
tailed hawk.
Due to the large expanses of fallow agricultural fields in the project vicinity, wildlife
utilization of the project area is expected to be low. Some species that may be expected to inhabit
or forage in the open habitat types along the river include the striped skunk, Eastern cottontail,
various birds of prey, swallows, eastern meadowlark, killdeer, numerous mice and voles, least
shrew, eastern mole, and various snakes.
The proximity of forested areas uphill to the north and south may provide cover for a
wider variety of common woodland species. Numerous bird species favor hardwood forest
communities or forest/field edges. These include a wide range of songbirds such as titmice and
chickadees, wrens, numerous thrushes, vireos, warblers and sparrows, rufous-sided towhee, song
sparrow, field sparrow, American goldfinch, and purple finch. Other bird species typically found
in forest/field ecotones include the brown-headed cowbird, northern cardinal, mourning dove,
9
mockingbird, common grackle, and tyrrant flycatchers. Owls may also inhabit the woodland .
areas near Big Creek and forage in the agricultural or open fields at night. These species may
include the barred owl, eastern screech owl, and great horned owl. Several woodpeckers and
sapsuckers indigenous to Stokes County favor the mixed hardwood forested communities such as
those found in the project area.
Several amphibian and reptile species may be found in the moist woodland and alluvial
forest community. These include the slimy salamander, marbled salamander, red salamander,
woodhouse's toad, common gray treefrog, chorus frog, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard,
five-lined skink, broad-headed skink, ground skink, and various snakes.
Aquatic Community
Natural vegetation communities along Big Creek in the project area are limited to the
narrow bands of piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest along the creek's top of bank. Due to the
creek's constant current, narrow width, and high sediment/silt load, there are no littoral or deep
water aquatic vegetation zones. However, numerous fish species may utilize Big Creek in the
project area. Fisheries biologists at the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission provided
the list of fish species in Table 2 that have been recorded in Big Creek (NCWRC, 1998). These
species were obtained from a one-time sampling event in Big Creek above the SR 1504 bridge in
Stokes County in June, 1990. This sampling station is located approximately 16.0 river
kilometers (9.6 river miles) downstream of the project area. The fisheries biologist indicated that
the creek had a high sediment load and was likely unsuitable for any type of trout habitat.
Table 2. Fish species recorded in Big Creek.
Scientific NameCommon Name
Ictalurus nebulosus Brown bullhead
Ictalurus platycephalus
Ictalurus punctatus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Micropterus salmoides
Moxostoma ariommum
Moxostoma cervinum
Moxostoma sp.
Flat bullhead
Channel catfish
Redbreast sunfish
Green sunfish
Largemouth bass
Bigeye jumprock
Black jumprock
Unidentified sucker
Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead chub
Notropis chloristius Greenfin shiner
Noturus spp. Unidentified madtom
Animals associated with the Big Creek aquatic community may include an assortment of
predacious invertebrates including dragonflies, damselflies, and water beetles in backwater areas.
Crustaceans including Cladocera and Daphnia may seek refuge in the slower moving current or
backwater areas as well.
10
Vertebrate species found in Big Creek or the associated intermittent channel may include
a variety of birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Numerous bird species may utilize Big Creek for
forage, nesting, or as a travel corridor. These may include species such as the great blue heron,
mallard, wood duck, and belted kingfisher.
Several reptile and amphibian species may be found in and along Big Creek and the
intermittent channel. These may include the eastern newt, spotted salamander, two-lined
salamander, mud salamander, and spring peeper. Several additional species prefer the constant
flow and source of water from Big Creek including the river cooter, painted turtle, northern water
snake, three-lined salamander, green frog, and pickerel frog.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are also considered.
Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 3
summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the entire proposed
right-of-way width of 24.4 meters (80.0 feet). However, project construction often does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Direct effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not be substantial.
The project study area is currently in a highly altered state, and plant and animals here are well
adapted to disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in the disturbed community are
common throughout North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed habitats.
Similar additional disturbed habitats will be re-established after project construction. Post-project
conditions should be very similar to current conditions. Species adapted to disturbed and edge
habitat will continue to thrive. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to small, terrestrial,
animal species from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
A small portion of the project area is comprised of relatively undisturbed vegetation
communities. Clearing and conversion of these areas for roadway development may eliminate
nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for animal species. The loss of this habitat may displace
animals from this area as they search for additional suitable habitat. This may concentrate
animals into a smaller area and cause degradation to remaining habitat. Increased mortality could
result due to disease, predation, and starvation. Individual mortalities of small animal species are
likely to occur from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
11
Table 3. Potential terrestrial impacts by communi
Community Type Potential Impact Area
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
DISTURBED/MAINTAINED AREAS
Agricultural
Residential Yard
Existing Road Right-of-Way
Total
UNDISTURBED VEGETATION
COMMUNITIES
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Piedmont Subtype
Total
(Existing Location) (West of Existing
Location)
0.17 ha (0.42 ac)
0
0.01 ha (0.02 ac)
0.18 ha (0.44 ac)
0.26 ha (0.64 ac)
0.08 ha (0.21 ac)
0.30 ha (0.76 ac)
0.64 ha (1.61 ac)
0.02 ha (0.06 ac)
0.05 ha (0.13 ac)
0 ha (0 ac)
0.07 ha (0.19 ac)
0.26 ha (0.66 ac)
0.03 ha (0.07 ac)
0.02 ha (0.05 ac)
0.31 ha (0.78 ac)
APPROX. TOTAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS 0.25 ha (0.63 ac) 0.95 ha (2.39 ac)
Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Big Creek will result from the replacement of
Bridge No. 70. These impacts may result from the project's physical disturbance of aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the
overall quality of aquatic habitats. Construction activities will impact the water resources in the
project area, as well as those downstream. Riparian canopy removal during construction can
cause fluctuations in and the destabilization of water temperatures. Increased sedimentation and
siltation is also directly attributable to construction activities. These suspended particles can clog
the feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually
are magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may impact spawning
activities of mobile and sessile organisms. Construction runoff and highway spills may result in
mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources located in the project area.
If the replacement of Bridge No. 70 were to increase vehicular use in the project vicinity,
this may directly lead to the introduction of toxic compounds which may be carried into water
resources via precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. An increase in roadkills may
also result as wildlife crossings become more difficult.
12
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instream construction, revegetation immediately following the completion of
grading activities, and strict adherence to BMP's.
Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and Rare and Protected Species. These issues
retain particular significance because of Federal and State mandates which regulate their
protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory
authority prior to project construction.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action
that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the
growing season.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands includes evidence of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and hydrology as defined by the COE (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). No
jurisdictional wetlands were identified during the site visit.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the
stream that are located within the proposed right-of-way. Both bridge replacement alternates will
impact an area of Big Creek approximately 24.4 meters (80 feet) wide and 10.2 meters (30 feet)
long.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a
result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to
13
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the State
issue or deny water quality certification for any Federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to Waters of the United States.
Since the project is located in Stokes County, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and NC
Wildlife Resources Commission notification procedure must be followed for Mountain Trout
Waters. This action is authorized pursuant to 33 CFR 330.8 and is based on concerns for the
aquatic environment as expressed in the guidelines published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to Section 404 (b) (1). The decision requires that applicants obtain a
letter of approval from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and a letter of concurrence from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District Engineer before discharging any
dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States. However, during a phone conversation
with fisheries biologists from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, they indicated that Big
Creek is not currently recognized by their agency as suitable trout habitat.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the CEQ, a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes. Avoidance of surface water impacts is not possible
in bridge replacement projects of this type.
14
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-
way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. On this project the surface water impacts
have been reduce as much as possible by crossing the creek at as slight a skew as is practical
given the roadway geometry and local topography.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
wetlands and Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation
is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide
Permits that result in the fill or alteration of-
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
401 Water Quality Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to
adversely affect a species classified as Federally-protected be subject to review by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate State laws.
Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 14,
1998 the FWS lists two Federally protected species for Stokes County. Table 4 lists these
protected species along with their Federal protection status and State status.
15
Table 4. Federally protected species for Stokes County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal NC
Status Status
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera E E
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E
NOTE: Federal Status
"E" (Endangered) a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range
NC Status
"E" (Endangered) any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence
as a viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy
Cardamine micranthera (Small-anthered bittercress) Endangered
The small-anthered bittercress is a member of the mustard family and one of 13 species in
the genus native to North Carolina. It is an erect, slender, perennial herb with fibrous roots and
one (or rarely more) simple or branched stems growing 2 to 4 decimeters (7.8 to 15.6 inches) tall.
Basal leaves are 1 to 5 centimeters (0.4 to 2.0 inches) long, crenate, and with one (or rarely two)
pairs of small lateral lobes or leaflets. The stem leaves are alternate and mostly unlobed, 1 to 1.5
centimeters (0.4 to 0.6 inches) long, crenate, and cuneate. Flowering and fruiting occur in April
and May. The flowers have four white petals, six stamens, and small, round anthers. The fruit is
silique, 0.8 to 1.2 centimeters (0.3 to 0.5 inches) long, and approximately 1 millimeter (0.04
inches) in diameter. The brown seeds are approximately 1 millimeter (0.04 inches) long.
Small-anthered bittercress habitat consists of seepages, wet rock crevices, streambanks,
sandbars, and wet woods along small streams. The variety of habitats occupied by this species
are all fully to partially shaded by trees and shrubs. Based on available soils information, it is
thought that the species prefers moist soils on steep slopes in the upper piedmont. The small-
anthered bittercress is endemic to the Dan River drainage, but according to the FWS recovery
plan, dated July 10, 1991, all recorded populations are located on Little Peter's Creek, Peter's
Creek, Elk Creek, and an unnamed tributary to the Dan River.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Survey methodology involved the review of land features and habitats on site to
determine if the project study area provides suitable habitat for the small-anthered bittercress.
The entire project area was surveyed on foot by ECO, Inc. biologists Steve Rice and Kelly Rice
with special emphasis given to the forested riparian zone along Big Creek.
16
On May 13, 1996, NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Tim Savidge also conducted
surveys of the project area. The potential impact zones were visually examined for the presence
of the species by wading in the creek. No small-anthered bittercress plants were identified during
this investigation either.
The high level of disturbance in the project area makes the potential for small-anthered
bittercress relatively low. The agricultural fields directly adjacent to the bridge are cultivated on a
regular basis and contain common, weedy species. The banks and riparian zone along Big Creek
have thick herbaceous layers that are also dominated by invasive species such as blackberries and
greenbriar. The only Cardamine species identified during the field survey was Cardamine
hirsuta in and along the agricultural fields. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database was consulted and there were no records of small-anthered bittercress populations in the
project vicinity. Since no small-anthered bittercress plants were observed during the May, 1996
or April, 1998 field surveys, it is not anticipated that the species is present in the project area.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial sunflower species in the aster family. The species is
generally 2 meters (6.6 feet) tall, but can be substantially shorter or substantially taller depending
on environmental parameters. The stem is usually unbranched in its lower portion, but the
terminal one-third of the stem at the inflorescence is freely branched. The stem is usually
pubescent but can be nearly glabrous and is often purple. The leaves are opposite on the lower
stem changing to alternate above. They typically come off the stem at right angles with the tip
often drooping. Lower stem leaves average 10 to 20 centimeters (3.9 to 7.8 inches) long and 1.5
to 2.5 centimeters (0.6 to 1.0 inches) wide. Upper stem leaves average about 5 centimeters (2.0
inches) long and 1 centimeters (0.4 inches) wide. Leaf margins are entire or with a few obscure
serrations and are generally somewhat revolute. The leaves are fairly thick and are stiff in
texture. The upper surface of the leaf is rough and the lower surface is more or less densely
pubescent with soft white hairs nearly obscuring the leaf surface. The heads or "flowers" are
relatively small and are comprised of many small yellow disk flowers. The nutlets are glabrous
and approximately 3.5 millimeters (0.14 inches) long with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in a small area centered around Charlotte, North Carolina.
Soils appear to be an important component of the sunflower's habitat. The soil characteristics
around populations of the sunflower consist of highly weatherable rocks with low amounts of
resistant minerals such as quartz. These soils often have a large percentage of montmorillonitic
clays with high shrink-swell capacity occurring in a landscape of subdued topography. Favorable
soils are primarily derived from mafic rocks, but also can be derived from intermediate or felsic
rocks. Schweinitz's sunflower typically occurs on upland flats and gentle slopes that contain high
clay content and large quantities of slaty rock fragments. It has also been identified in disturbed
land use types such powerline right-of-ways, road right-of-ways, and pastures. The species'
preference for areas with little agricultural value has helped it to persist over the past two
centuries.
17
Biological Conclusion: No effect
A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on November 5, 1998 by NCDOT
staff biologist Logan Williams. Survey methodology involved examination of mapping to locate
areas of potential habitat. These areas were identified in the project area and surveyed by walking
and closely examining all plants in the Asteraceae family. Schweinitz's sunflower was not found
during this survey. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats was conducted on November 30, 1998 and there were no federally protected species
listed in the database for the project area. Given these results it can be concluded that
Schweinitz's sunflower will not be impacted by the proposed project.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of
economic resources. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land that is
classified as a type that is considered as prime farmland. But the area to be converted is small
and along the edge of a cultivated field. The project should have a minimal impact on this piece
of farmland. Other land to be converted by this project is wooded and void of agricultural uses.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will cause
no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a Categorical
Exclusion.
WTG/
18
7c' idld 1d16
1791 - '}T ?j
. 3 a, Q' Asbury 1 4 1 7
\ © l d 13 1420 1
_-21
1,794 1i`"` -?, .. .1. •? 1 ?? ? \ a tz 14
515 O D dn;?
1JL' 1140 1767 1 E` 1416 ; r 14L1_--
1413
_ 1.
_C6 'Acr-
1799
1 . / „
lt?
(WC°?11e7cc 1 dC6 -
79 , 1403 1 1 \ 407 1AC-4
X 1 c' 1 - ?r9 Gr.) 7 - 1 d67
1 E,,7 N i E ?2 i '?J .1 dJ3 .--
._ I ; dOG? c c
16??6 c 1 Ef
y dot
1403
7 nd '' s, . ??? O a C+ 1 d6e
E
1 ?'. e? ' 1 - 1 d00 1 1 '
1 X06 ?J ? i .Y ' 1
?. T? 1 ?jEr? / j' \ S -1213 ?I 0
16,
??jGSAeld 121 d c
.6 ro
? ?? 1211
V 1212 O \ 66
? ? 1 E ? 3 ? .o ? •Ercrr?-
,E15\ , ?, •> tca? 12_•O Gut r -
v? r1?i2
1215 1? c 1217
M. CARLT47 / • `? 1215 1 A216
216
t A Sandv Rrd ._?
Fr ncrsco ? r-F?? 5 \
Lawsonv,Ile 1 • 1 225 1212
esthel Prestonvrue tM ' r
.: f 121 5 6
e 66 go'nts-- -7 1 t Q 212' 1\ 1191
?c?
68 e Dane` u? S rnard 1210 .1 41
:lot Mountain Mar -
Gao _ Meadows 72 I
S T o K Studied Detour Route
4?of C;?o North Carolina Department of
Transportation
= Division of Hicyhwavs
17- b
s ,
. Planning & Environmental Branch

Stokes County
Replace Bridge No. 70 on SR 1400
Over Big Creek
B-3235
Fir_ure One
,e a , r
f ??

T

+x U ;.tb? .t errs t?

n
ti

Looking north acrosli
Bridge No. 70
North Carolina Department of
y i ransportataon
o ?- Division of Highways
?Iannincr & Env iron menta I Branch
Stokes Ooune y
Replace Bridge No. 70 on SR 140
Over Big Creel:
B-3245

Lookinc, south across
Bridge No. 7®

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 21, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge No.70 on
SR 1400 over Big Creek, Stokes County, Federal Aid Project
No. MABRZ-1400131, TIP No. B-3245, State Project No.
8.2640701; ER 97-8356 & ER 98-8927
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Dr. Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation concerning the
above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following property is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion D:
31SK210&210**
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior. We concur with Dr. Glover's recommendation that no additional archaeological
investigation is warranted in connection with this bridge replacement as currently
proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763:
Sincerely,
j' David -Brodk
Deputy State Historic

Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: `'Lubin V. Prevatt
Tom Padgett
Gerold Glover
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, Notch Carolina 27601-2807 i??9
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,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 11H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

?saT t tt t??:
I ?_ S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Division of Archives and History
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 70 on SR 1400 over Big Creek, Stokes
County, B-3245, Federal Aid Project MABRZ-
1400(3), State Project 8.2640701, ER 97-8356
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, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the immediate bridge project
vicinity, although there is a high probability that prehistoric archaeological sites may
be affected by the proposed 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.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
t1?n