19970502 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970604

"

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt. Jr.. Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr., P.E.. Director

.AVA

DEHNR

June 19, 1997
Warren County
WQC 401 Project #970502

APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification

Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

, ,

Dear Mr. Vick:

You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 0.35 acres of
wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement #35 at SR 1306, as you described in your application
dated 30 May 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Cenification allows you to use Nationwide Pennit Number
23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
pennits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stonnwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA pennit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any'tlf the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which confonns to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This cenification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.

Attachment

cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Reiio~al Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files

970502.ltr

Division of Water Quality . Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch. 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh., NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer . 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

.,

r~.'"

it
~,l
,ii~ "

'~.; .'

f

,

t

~,
"ji{
/Jt/
~:[JJ~t
,~.,

,.A

.. -. .

,'';';;~~~
/~~itff }1~Yr. e
\~~:~j 12/)/-
\;Z,:,.~'~'-~_:~:..i .~.~.'"
'_.._.~.

err ~,,::rJ
I V; \ - ,-. ut-.-
, . :',,JV

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

lAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
\..,,)\'II'.:'-:,)R r,o, BOX 25201. RAUIGII. N,C 27,,11-5201 SECRETARY

May 30, 1997

.1/(/(/
. ~ !~! '

!.Q9
"/

US Almy Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Otlice
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road. Suite 120
Rah:igh. North Carolina 27615 /

\
ATTENTION: Mr. Michad D. 'Si'nith, P,W,S.
Chief: North Section

Dear Sir:

Subject: Warren County, Replacement of Bridge No. 35 over Hawtree Creek on
SR 1306, Federal Project No. BRZ-1306(2), State Project No. 8.2410401,
T.!.P. No. ~-3060.

Please find enclosed thre~CoPies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 35 will be replaced at its existing location with three barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert. Each barrel of the culvert will measure 3.0 meters
(10 feet) by 3.0 meters (10 feet). Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads
during construction. Construction of the proposed project may impact approximately
0.14 hectares (0.35 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands.

'.

The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.1 15(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.

We anticipate a 401 General Certitication will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.

@

~

I -

')

II' you havl: any qu~stions or need additional information pl~asl: call Ms, Alice N. Gordon
at 13:1-7:)44 Ext. 307.

Jl1JdI

H. Franklin Yick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

HFY/plr

cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division ofWata Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P,E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P,~'I Hydraulics Unit'
Mr. William J. Rogers, 'E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P,E., Division 5 Engineer
.," I
Mr. William Goodwin:P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer

'-,\,
'(

~,
;",
~!.

. r" '..

s.

r

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM

TIP Project No, :
State Project No, :
Federal-Aid Project No, :

B-3060
8.2410401
BRZ-1306(2)

A Proiect Description:

NCDOT will replace Bridge No, 35 on SR 1306 over Hawtree Creek in Warren
County, The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a three barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert, Each barrel of the culvert will measure 3,0 meters (10 feet) by 3,0
meters (10 feet), The approach roadway will be 6,6 meters (22 feet) wide with shoulder
widths of at least 1,2 meters (4 feet), Shoulders will be increased to at least 2,1 meters
(7 feet) where guardrail is warranted, The elevation of the approach roadway will be raised
approximately 1,0 meter (3 feet) to prevent the roadway from being overtopped by the
25-year design storm, Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during
construction, (See Figure I),

;. .

B. Purpose and Need:

Bridge No, 35 has a sufficiency rating of36,5 out of 100.0 and an estimated
remaining life of 5 years, The deck of Bridge No, 91 is only 6,2 meters (20,3 feet) wide,
The existing bridge is posted at 12 tons for single vehicles and 21 tons for Truck-tractor
Semi-trailers, Nor these reasons the existing bridge needs to be replaced,

C: Proposed Improvements:

I
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:

,
Type II Improvements

1 , 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)

1

....

1

~

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
1. 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

3, Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.

c,

Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)

"

a.
b,

@

4, Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities,

5, Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.

6. 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,

2

..

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,

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 NEP A
process, No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process
has been completed,

D, Special Proiect Information

Environmental Commitments:

1 , 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
Right of Way
Total

$ 325,000
$ 42.000
$ 367,000

Estimated Traffic:

Current
Year 2020

500 VPD
1100 VPD

3

.

Proposed Typical Roadway Section:

The approach roadway will be 6,6 meters (22 feet) wide with shoulder widths of
at least 1.2 meters (4 feet). Shoulders will be increased to at least 2,1 meters (7 feet)
where guardrail is warranted.

Design Speed:

Based on initial design, it appears that the design speed will be approximately
80 km/h (50 mph). A design exception may be required due to low design speed.

Functional Classification:

SR 1306 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System,

Division Office Comments:

The Division Office recommends SR 1306 be closed during construction and
traffic be detoured along SR 1305, US 158, SR 1314 and SR 1309 during construction
(See Figure 1), Local traffic will likely utilize SR 1312, although it is unpaved,

E, Threshold Criteria

If any Type II actions are involved in the project, t}1(! following evaluation must
be completed, If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following
checklist does not need to be Completed,

ECOLOGICAL

YES

NO

(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any D X
unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally 0
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? D 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 lX~
to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?

4

(5) Will the project require use ofU. S, Forest Service lands? D X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely D X
impacted by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters D X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States D X
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage D
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any D X
"Area ofEnvir~mental Concern" (ABC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act D X
resources?
(12) Will aU. S, Coast Guard permit be required? D X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing D X
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel D X
changes?

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

YES

NO

(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?

D

X

5

D .
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or X
business?
(17) Ifthe project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the X D
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? D X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land D X
use of any adjacent property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local D X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X D
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic D X
volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing X []
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or D X
environmental grounds concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local X []
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO

(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?

D

X

6

(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(t) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
Section 4(t) of the U. S, Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?

[]

x

(28) 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?

D

x

F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E

(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below, Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)

(1) Response to question 2 on page 4 - Endangered Species.

The dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is found in the Neuse
and Tar River systems in North Carolina. There are no records of dwarf wedge
mussels in the Roanoke River Drainage, This section ofHawtree Creek does not
contain typical habitat, but was surveyed for mussels on November 3, 1995 and no
examples of dwarf wedge mussel were found, Therefore this project will not affect
the dwarf wedge mussel,

The Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is endemic to the Tar
River Drainage, and therefore would not be found in Hawtree Creek, a Roanoke
River Drainage stream. A mussel survey of the project area was conducted on
November 3, 1995 and no examples of this species was found in Hawtree Creek.
Therefore project construction will not affect the Tar River spinymussel.

(2) Response to question 4 on page 4 - Wetland Impacts,

Wetland impacts for this project are estimated to be 0,35 acres; based on
preliminary designs and raising the roadway grade 1,0 meter (3 feet), The exact
amount of wetland impacted may be less, depending on how much the roadway
grade needs to be raised to allow the roadway to remain in service during a 25-year
design storm, Final wetland impact amounts should not exceed the current estimate,
These wetland impacts are unavoidable due to the flooded conditions in the
immediate project area.

7

.

..

G, CE Approval

TIP Project No, :
State Project No, :
Federal-Aid Project No, :

B-3060
8.2410401
BRZ-1306(2)

Proiect Description :

NCDOT will replace Bridge No, 35 on SR 1306 over Hawtree Creek in Warren
County, The bridge will be replaced at the existing location with a three barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert. Each barrel of the culvert will measure 3,0 meters (10 feet) by 3,0
meters (10 feet). The approach roadway will be 6,6 meters (22 feet) wide with shoulder
widths of at least 1.2 meters (4 feet), Shoulders will be increased to at least 2,1 meters
(7 feet) where guardrail is warranted. The elevation of the approach roadway will be raised
approximately 1,0 meter (3 feet) to prevent the roadway from being overtopped by the
25-year design storm, Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during
construction, (See Figure 1),

Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:

(Check one)

TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)

Approved:

~Cf.~

2...-1 t-<[(

Date

Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch

Z-I&-'16
Date

Wtt~ he. Fll.-It
Project lannIng Umt Head

d.:1k1~
Date

~~-;(~~
Project Planning Engineer

\\,'111111'",
......,'~~ CARa"ltt"
$' O't-~.o...ooo..'f.M. ""...
... ~ o. l":.SSI .;Y.d ~
:: ~o.,,~~ 10"..' '"
:: (" &:,J 'if." o. -::
:: Q...... ' ~ ~ ~
= SEAL:
::z 21077 1 ci
-:. ~ . ').
-;<(--.......<,<:')1 l":.<~~l~~j
'=- ~ "":rG'N~~""...~ ,'"
;,~ - t 4t ......... ~~' "
""" r. GOO\"t'"
"""""11"'\

For Type II (B) projects only:

'71?1/qlh ~ c;'13 f1<;;L

~ Divisio Adnumstrator
~ Federal Highway Administration

8

..

m~.~~(~"
Ii '-~ I ~~r ~)

Jl......A. ,~. ...... .....~. __.......,

..
..
..
..
..
..

,~

..

@

~
-

.....
......

319

~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT A TION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH

.

.

.

WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 35 ON SR 1306
, OVER HAWTREE CREEK
B . 3060

[Studied Detour Route

:FIG. 1

..

('1~"'"

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCaio, Secretary

Divisioo of Archives and History
William S. Price. Jr., Director

August 31, 1995

Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442

Re: Bridge No. 35 on SR 1306 over Hawtree Creek,
Warren County, B-3060, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1306(2), State Project 8.2410401, ER 96-
7196

Dear Mr. Graf:

On August 29, 1995, 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 proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend t.hat
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.

, 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 1.06, codi!ied at 36 CFR Part 800.

.......

109 East Jones Street · Raleigh. North Carolina 27601.2807

@

.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions 1
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.

Sincerely,

kQ~~

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

DB:slw

cc: ~F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

t

,

Replacement of Bridge No. 35 on SR-1306 Over
\ Hawtree Creek, Warren County

TIP No. B-3060
State Project No. 8.2410401
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1306(2)

j/

.~ ~

Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3060

"

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT

MARK HARTMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
30 January 1996

, '

,

(/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
1.2 Purpose
1.3 Methodology. . . .
1.4 Terminology and Definitions,
1.5 Investigator's Credentials
2.0 Physical Resources . . . . . .
2. 1 Soi Is . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Water Resources. . . . .
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
2.2.3 Water Quality . . . .
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
3.0 Biotic Resources . . . . . .
3.1 Terrestrial Communities.. ....
3.1.1 Disturbed. . . . .. ....
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
3.2 Aquatic Communities. . . .;.'. .
3.2.1 Hawtree Creek . . . ;"'. .
3.2.2 Wetland. . . . . . . . .
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics . . . . . . .
4.1 Waters of the United States. .
,./ 4 ':/1. 1 Character is tics of \'letlands and Surface Waters
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
4 . 1. 3 Permi ts . . . . '.' .
4.1.4 Wetland Avoidance.
4.1.5 Impact Minimization
4.1.6 Wetland Mitigation
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species

5.0

References

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Area Map

Table
Table
Table
Table

LIST OF TABLES
1. Soils in the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities . . . 8
3. Federally-Protected Species for Warren County, 13
4. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Warren

County . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 15

1
1
. 1
1
3
3
. 3
4
, 4
. 5
5
. 5
5
6
6
7
7
8
, 8
8
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
15

17

, '

. 2

i

1

1.0

INTRODUCTION

The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project in Warren County (Figure 1).

1.1 Project Description

The proposed project involves the replacement of the,SR 1306
bridge over Hawtree Creek. The proposed right-of-way (ROW) for
the project is 18.0 m (59.1 ft). The four alternatives proposed
for this project are described below.

Alternative 1 - In-place replacement of the bridge with an off-
site detour and a project length of 100 m (328 ft).

Alternative 2 - In-place replacement of the bridge with an on-
site detour north of the existing structure and a proj~ct length
of 250 m (820 ft). f

Alternative 3 - In-place replacement of the bridge with an on-
site detour south of the existing structure and a project length
of 250 m (820 ft).

Al terna:ti VEt 4 - In-place replacement 0 f the bridge with an of f-
site detour and a project length of 100 m (328 ft). This
alternative differs from Alterna~ive 1 in that it includes
raising the roadway grade by 1.0 m (3.3 ft), resulting in a
project footprint approximately 2.0 m (6.6 ft) larger than
alternate 1 on each side.

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. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of anticipated
impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of
existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and
criteria change, additional field investigations may need to be
conducted.

1.3 Methodology

Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the
study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map
(Hollister quad), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map (Hollister
quad), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200), and
soils information obtained from the Warren County office of the

,=~. lS-!
I' f:i:J,f '\ -. " ;~II-
.1. .;' 't)~", i
b r::'.",\:, / -, ,. ,
"7~~~" I
~.C'~"\ l~ ,;.~. ·
, ~...t4ft . l'lf.. 'fl"'.'-,,, '
~1"11""'A" .,.. tOft S '
... ~",'.d
t 1,'1""'\ ... r-=-
-, -:-~.,- ,.\:.. .... EN,
"~ I....~.
~:u..." c,..,~,. /
, j (10ft"" ~, .. M,,'
-" . ...
t . ~ 10". ,j. ';\.
.~, L it'
O'_t ~ ..;. to
," . ..
~---~. .,-
"''IIIM ,"-'
. .
.

~....
.. .
.-0:. ...
.~ ...

..

..
..
..
..

4.7

., 304 ..

.. .
. .

@

t,

~

;o;ORTII CAROWIA DEPARTME~'T OF
TRANSPORT A TION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PlMiNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
OR^:'\Cfl

WARREN COUmY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. :IS ON SR 1306
OVER HAWTl'IEE CREEl<
B.JOeO

2

FIG, 1

3

\
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Water resource
information was obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from
the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
(Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Warren County, 1992).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.

General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Mark Hartman and Tim Savidge on 5
December 1995. Plant communities and their associated wildlife
were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Cursory studie~;for aquatic organisms were
conducted using a hand held dip neti"tactile searches for benthic
organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured during
these searches were identified and then released. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
cr iter ig..- prescr ibed in the "Corps 0 f Engineers Wetland
Delinea't.ion Hanual" (Env ironmen tal Labora tory, 1987).

1.4 Terminology and Definitions"

For the purposes of this document, the following terms are
used concerning the limits of natural resources investigated.
Project study area (study area) denotes the area bounded by the
proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.8 km (0.5 mil on all sides of the project study area.
Project region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map (163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mil], with the
project as the center point.

\ \

1.5 Investigator's Credentials

Investigator: Mark A. Hartman, Environmental
Biologist, NCDOT
Education: M.S. Degree, Biology, Tennessee Technological
University, Cookeville, Tennessee
Expertise: Aquatic Ecology, Natural History

2.0 Physical Resources

The project region lies in the Piedmont physiographic
province. The elevation of the study area is approximately 67.1
m (220.0 ft). Soil and water resources, which occur in the study
area, are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
, ,

, .,

.

4

\
di~ectly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.

2.1 Soils

The Warren County Soil Survey is in progress; therefore,
soil mapping is currently unavailable for the project area.
Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types which may
occur in the project area based on an examination of aerial
photographs, topographic maps, NWI maps and a knowledge of area
soils (C.D. Cole, Warren County NRCS, 1995). The soils along the
Hawtree Creek floodplain probably fall into the Chewacla and
Wehadkee map units. These soils have slopes of 0-2%, and are
frequently flooded. The Chewacla component is somewhat poorly
drained and the Wehadkee component is a poorly drained hydric
soil. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are mapped together in an
undifferentiated map unit due to the manner in which the soils
intersperse on the landscape. Permeability of these soils is
moderate, and the seasonal high wate~table is within a depth of
0.3 m (1.0 ft).

t'\

Other potential soils include Altavista fine sandy loam (0-
3% slope, rarely flooded), Dogue fine sandy loam (0-3% slope,
rarely JJ.ooped), Riverview fine sandy loam (0-3% slope,
occasionally flooded), State fine sandy loam (0-3% slope), and
Wahee sandy loam (0-3% slope). These soils are found on river
/
terraces and are usually one terrace above the actual floodplain,
or on berms adjacent to stream channels.

Table 1. Hydric Soils Potentially Present in the Project Area.

Unit Symbol Specific Map Unit Slope Class
43 Chewacla and Wehadkee 0-2% H
544A Altavista fine sandy loam 0-3% HI
55A Dogue sandy loam 0-3% HI
52A Wahee sandy loam 0-3% HI
Note: "H" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
"HI" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or
which have wet spots.

2.2 Water Resources

This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water
bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.

.

5

\
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics

Water resources located within the study area are part of
the Hawtree creek sub-basin of the Roanoke River drainage. One
body of water, Hawtree creek and its associated wetlands, will be
impacted by this project. Hawtree Creek, a direct tributary to
Gaston Reservoir on the Roanoke River, is a small, low gradient
stream impounded in the project vicinity by beaver activity, Due
to impoundment, depth and width of the stream is highly variable.
Depth in the main channel is approximately 2 meters, and width is
about 6 meters. Substrate in Hawtree Creek consists of fine
silt-covered sand. The surrounding wetlands are caused by the
impoundment of the creek and its tributaries by beaver (Castor
canadensis) as evidenced by recently chewed stems.

2.2.2 Best Usage Classification

Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DE~I). Hawtree Creek is
a class C stream. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture. No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WSI or WSII), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
occur ~~thf.n 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project site.

2.2.3 Water Quality

/

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by OEM 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. No BMAN
sites are located on Hawtree Creek.

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 on Hawtree Creek.

2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts

Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the
environment, Any action which affects water quality can have an
adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although these actions may
be temporary during the construction phase of the project,
environmental impacts from these processes may be long term or
irreversible. Replacing an existing structure in the same
location with a road closure is almost alwayi,the preferred
, '

J

6

\
environmental approach. Replacement of an existing structure
confines the most severe physical impacts to the point of the
bridge replacement. Bridge replacement on a new location, or the
construction of a temporary on-site detour, usually results in
more severe impacts over a much larger area:

Project construction may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of
disturbed soils.
Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water
temperature due to increased sediment load and riparian
vegetation removal.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and
changes in surface or ground water drainage patterns.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as
fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize;these and other impacts to
water resources in the study area. /

NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection
of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
unneces,~ary, contamination by toxic substances should also be
strictly enforced.

/
3.0 Biotic Resources

Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences 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. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur,
in each community are described and discussed. Identifications
and nomenclature of vascular plants were made following Radford
et al. (1968). Fauna observed during field investigations are
designated with an asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and
animal species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only.

3.1 Terrestrial Communities

Two major terrestrial community types are present within the
project vicinity. The major type present within the study area
is Piedmont Upland Forest, with two variations of this community,
hardwood dominant and loblolly pine dominant, :?ccurring. The

7

third community type in the study area is a highly maintained or
disturbed roadside community.

3.1.1 Disturbed - Roadside Community

The roadside shoulders present along the paved sections of
the project are dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.), crab grass
(Digitaria spp), and plantain (Plantago spp.).
Wildlife found in this community type is limited and
consists primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species. Other
animals may use this area as a corridor for travel between less
disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Birds potentially
found in disturbed habitats include Carolina chickadee (parus
carolinensis), eastern bluebird* (Sialia sialis), common crow*
(Corvus brachyrynchos), mourning dove (Zenadia macroura), rufous-
sided towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), European starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) and American kestrel* (Falco sparverius).
Mammalian species likely to frequent disturbed habitats include
raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia op~ssum (Didelphis virginiana),
white-tailed deer (Cdocoileus virgiriianus), eastern cottontail
(sylvagus floridans), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).

3.1.2 p~dmont Upland Forest

The dominant community within the study site is Piedmont
Upland Forest. This community type is best described closely
resembling Schafale and Weakley's (1990) Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest. In the project area, all four quadrants contain upland
habitat.

The Northeast quadrant is dominated by hardwoods and has an
open understory and a diverse herb layer. The canopy is made up
of tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak (Quercus
alba), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The understory consists
mainly of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), red cedar ,\
(Juniperus virginiana), holly (Ilex opaca) and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Other plant species present included greenbrier
(Smilax spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and grape (Vitis spp.). The herb
layer included pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata) crane-fly orchid
(Tipularia discolor), grape fern (Botrychium virginianum) and
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) .

The other quadrants are dominated by mature loblolly pine
with a sparse understory. Understory species include tulip
poplar, red cedar, blueberry (vaccinium spp.), blackberry (Rubus
spp.), and Christmas fern. In the Southwest quadrant, the forest
grades sharply into a ten-year-old cut-over dominated by loblolly
pine, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), blackberry, and
greenbrier. ' ,

I j

8

\

Since the Piedmont Upland Forests in the study area border a
sizeable wetland, they should harbor a diverse fauna which may
include many species which are semi-aquatic, in addition to
exclusively terrestrial species. Amphibians and reptiles likely
to be found in this area include upland chorus frog (Psuedacris
triseriata), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata),
American toad (Buto americanus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Avian species which may frequent this habitat type include tufted
titmouse (parus bicolor), downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens),
pileated woodpecker* (Dryocopus pileatus), barred owl (Strix
varia), yellow-bellied sapsucker* (Sphyrapicus varius), rufous-
sided towhee, swamp sparrow* (Melospiza georgiana), American
woodcock* (Scolopax minor), great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
and belted kingfisher (Mergaceryle alcyon). Mammalian species
likely to frequent this area include raccoon, Virginia opossum,
white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, hispid cotton rat, and
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). ./

3.2 Aquatic Communities

i

Hawtree Creek and an associated wetland will be impacted by
the pr9~s~d project. Faunal composition of the aquatic
communities reflects the physical characteristics of the water
bodies and condition of the wat~r resources. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
aquatic communities.

3.2.1 Hawtree Creek

Hawtree Creek probably supports a variety of aquatic species
adapted to both lotic and 1entic environments. Although several
species of Unionids are known from Warren County and could
inhabit Hawtree Creek, no mussels were found when study area was
surveyed by DOT biologist Tim Savidge on 3 November 1996. ,I
Aquatic plants observed include spatter-dock (Nuphar luteum) and
duckweed (Lemna spp.) Possible piscine inhabitants include
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus tunduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), crescent shiner (Luxilus cerasinus), eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides).

3.2.2 Wetland

The wetland associated with Hawtree creek is a piedmont
alluvial forest which has been inundated due to damming of the
creek by beavers. Vegetation found in this wetland area includes
spatter-doCk, duckweed, duck-potato (Sagittaria latifolia),
arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), soft

I 1

9

\
rush (Juncus effusus), rose (Rosa palustris), common cat-tail
(Typha latifolia), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), and black willow (Salix nigra).. The wetlands
adjacent to Hawtree Creek provide a safe spawning and nursery
area for most of the fish which inhabit the creek. In addition,
wetland areas provide a refuge for all life stages during high
water events. The close proximity of the wetlands to upland and
wooded habitats allows many species of amphibian access to prime
spawning habitats.

3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts

Construction of the subject 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 impacts to the natural res9urces in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.

Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relati~fr aqundance of each community present in the study area.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. /Table 2 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed ROW width of 18.0 m (59.1 ft) and a project
length of 100.0 m (328 ft) for alternative 1, or 250 m (820 ft)
for alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Often, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.

Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Alternatives

, \

Community 1 2 3 4
ha (ac) ha (ac) ha (ac) ha (ac)
Disturbed - Roadside 0.07 0.22 0.22 0.15
(0.16) (0.54 ) (0.54) (0.38)
Piedmont Upland Forest 0 ( 0 ) 0.13 0.13 0.13
(0.31) (0.31) (0.31)
Total 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.28
(0.16) (0.85) (0.85) (0.69)

Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as
nesting, feeding, and sheltering habitat for various species of
wildlife. The habitat reduction associated with bridge
, "

I " .

10

replacement concentrates wildlife into smaller refuge areas, thus
changing competition between species and causing increased
starvation, predation and susceptibility to disease. Alternative
1 will have the least impact on the natural communities within
the project area. Although the current maintained roadside
shoulder will most likely be destroyed, a similar community will
be present after completion of the project. Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4 all require disturbance of relatively undisturbed
communities. The construction of an on-site detour as described
for alternates 2 and 3 will destroy tracts of Piedmont Upland
Forest. Alternative 4 will destroy more habitat than alternative
1 due to the greater project width and length needed to raise the
roadway grade.

Negative impacts to the aquatic communities from
alternatives 1 and 4 could be relatively small with the proper
protective measures. Alternatives 2 and 3; however, would
require the placement and removal of a temporary structure. The
in-stream work required for a temporary structure would greatly
increase temporary, and possibly permanent perturbations of
stream structure and fauna.

Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative from a natural
resourc.~ B~rspective. It poses the least risk to aquatic
organisms and it will cause less disturbance to both terrestrial
and aquatic communities, as it involves replacing the bridge in-
place and does not include an on~site detour.

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS

This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected
species, and Waters of the United States.

4.1 Waters of the United States

Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad catego~y of
"Wa ters 0 f the Uni ted States, II as de fined in Section 33 of the
Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in
33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas 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).

4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters

Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
Hetlands will be impacted by all four alternatives. Wetlands are

I '. .

11

pre~ell~ on both sides of Hawtree Creek, upstream and downstream
of the project. These wetlands have a Cowardin (1979)
classification of PEM1Fh which indicates a palustrine, emergent,
persistent, semi-permanently flooded, impouhded \"retland. A soil
sampl~ taken north of the bridge had a color of 10iR 4/2 from 0-6
inches and 2.5i 4/2 from 6-18 inches. The soil texture was loamy
sand. Soils of this color are often indicative of a wetland.
Hydrophytic vegetation present includes spatter-dock, duckweed,
duck-potato, arrow-arum, bulrush, soft rush, common cat-tail,
button bush, tag alder, river birch, sweetgum, swamp chestnut
oak, and black willow. The wetland areas along Hawtree Creek
were inundated when the site was visited, and there was evidence
of drift lines and stained leaf litter.

:he Nor~h Caroli~a DE~ has instituted a numerical rating
syste~ fro~ 0-100 to gauge wetland quality. :his rating system
is hea,'v"ily' weighte,j to\....ards \~'ate.::- s~,eirage, pollutant removal,
bank/shoreline stabili:aticn and aq~atic life value aspects of a
\,;e':la:...j cClr:.o."11u~i t'j. Other '.vetland ar.t.::-ibutes considered are
wildlife habitar. and rec.::-eational, educational, and economic
value. The wetlands on Hawtree Creek have a numerical rating of
90, in~ca~ing a high quality wetland.

4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands

The replacement of the bridge in place with an off-site
detour, alternative 1, will disturb the least amount of wetland
area. This alternative will directly impact 0.07 ha (0.16 ac) of
the Hawtree Creek wetlands. The on-site detours proposed in
alternatives 2 and 3 will each directly impact a total wetland
area of 0.40 ha (0.99 ac). Alternative 4 will directly impact
0.14 ha (.35 ac) of the Hawtree Creek wetlands. These impact
estimates include only wetlands directly disturbed by \'
construction within the right-of-way.

4.1.3 Permits

Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from
the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States."

A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 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
c3uthori:es activities undertaken, assisted,<,authori:ed,
r:":!\JL!t:ed, funded or fina!1ced in \"rhole, or p'art, by another
?eJeral agenc'j or department wtlere thae agency or department has

. ". .

12

\ \
determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:

(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither
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.

A North Carolina OEM Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for
any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into waters of the United ,States.
, '

4.1.4 Wetland Avoidance

"I
>~I

The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental
Quality~/(ChQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to maintain af? restore the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR) (1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.

Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes. Impact to the study site wetlands is
unavoidable. Alternative 1 will impact the least wetland area.

4.1.5 Impact Minimization

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

, . " .

13

\
proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. All four
alternatives will destroy some wetland area. Alternative 1 will
destroy the least jurisdictional wetland area and will have a
smaller deleterious effect on both terrestr1al and aquatic
communities present within the study area. Therefore alternative
1 should be considered unless an on-site detour or grade
adjustments are absolutely necessary.

4.1.6 Wetland Mitigation

Additional means to minimize impacts to the waters and
wetlands crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of BMPs for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas; reduction or
elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff
velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
prudent pesticide and herbicide management; minimization of in-
stream activity and litter and debris control.

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoide~~n9/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 occurred. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of
the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.

Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum
Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of the Army. The final decision on permit
requirements will be made by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).

4.2 Rare and Protected Species

Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in,
the process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coex~st 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.

",
, \

, , t fI

14
\
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species

Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Warren County (Table 3). A brief
description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.

Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Warren County

Scientific Name
Alasmidonta heterodon

Common Name

Status

dwarf wedge mussel

E

Elliptio steinstansana
"E" denotes Endangered
extinct throughout
range) .

Tar River spiny mussel E
(a species that is in danger ot becoming
all or a significant portion of its

/1
"
"

Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
D~,$tr~pution in N.C.: Franklin,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren,

mussel)

Endangered

Granville, Halifax,
Wilson.

The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is
olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is
bluish to silvery white.

Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the
Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked,
and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This mussel is "
sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants
and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated
water to survive.

Biological Conclusion:

No Effect

The NHP has no records of this mussel anywhere within the
Roanoke Drainage, nor within the project region. In addition,
the habitat present is not likely to support the dwarf wedge
mussel due to its requirements for a silt-free streambed and well
oxygenated water. Surveys for this mussel were completed to
determine its presence or absence within the project area by
NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge on 3 November 1995. No dwarf wedge
mussels were found within the study area. Therefore project
construction will not affect the dwarf wedge'\,mussel.

,\

, t t l

15

\
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spinymussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 29 July 1985
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash,
Pitt, Vance, Warren.

The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in
Nash County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be
found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin and of the Swift
Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.

This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom is composed of
uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be
relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of
freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.

The Tar River spinymussel is a yery small mussel. This
mussel is named for its spines which" project perpendicularly from
the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12 spines
can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in texture.
The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).

Biolog~al~concluSion No Effect

The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
Drainage, and therefore would not be found in Hawtree Creek, a
Roanoke River Drainage stream. A survey for mussels conducted at
the study site on 3 November 1995 by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge
showed no evidence of this species in Hawtree Creek. Therefore
project construction will not affect the Tar River spinymussel.

4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species

There are 4 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Warren
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently
exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened, Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the
North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.

\ '

, CI"

16

\
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species' state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status
of these species may be upgraded in the future.

Table 4. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species for Warren
County

Scientific Name

Aimophila aestivalis

Fusconaia masoni

Elliptio lanceolata

Lotus purshianus var.
helleri *
H*" No specimen found in Warren County in twenty years.
i
/'

A review of the N.C. Natural ~eritage Program data base of
rare species and unique habitats revealed no records for any of
the above listed species in the project study area. Surveys for
these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of~he~~ species observed. Therefore, project construction
will not have an affect on these species.

Common Name NC Status Habitat
Bachman's sparrow SC no
Atlantic pigtoe T no
Yellow lance T no
Heller's trefoil C yes

"

. I t t

17

5.0 REFERENCES

American Ornithologists' Union.
American birds (6th ed.).
Press, Inc.

1983. Check-list of North
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979,
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pub. FWS/OBS-
79/31, Washington, D.C. 103 pp.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands
delineation manual. Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982.
distributional survey of Nort~ Carolina mammals.
North Carolina Museum of Natural ~istory.

A
Raleigh,

I '

LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. Natural Heiitage Program list of the
rare animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.

Martof, ~.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
.~.' 1/
1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press. "

Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.

NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.

NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in
North Carolina streams: benthic macro invertebrate dat~, base
and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990.

NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications, and water quality standards
for North Carolina river basins. Raleigh, Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.

NCWRC. 1990. Endangered wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.

Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's
endangered, threatened and candidate plant species. Raleigh,
North Carolina Department of Agriculture.

Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The Univers~ty of North Carolina
Press. ~,

"

... (, llo ,...

18

\
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. CI~ssification of the
natural communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service. North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States., U,S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program. J

\-lebster, W.O., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.

.;:~ 1/

,
,

"
"~:',

"

.~, ~

)AMIS B, HUNT )R,
GOVIRNOR

STATE or NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1'.o.I\OX25201, RALEll;11. N,C 27611'5201

1\, SAMUU, HUNT III
SEUUTARY

July 27, 1995

MEMORANDUM 'TO:

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab

FROM:

H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Review of Scoping Sheets for Warren County, SR 1306,
Replacement of Bridge No. 35 over Hawtree Creek,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1306(2), State Project
No. 8.2410401, TIP No. B-3060

SUBJECT:

Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is s,cheduled for August 29, 1995 at 10:30 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.

Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141, Ext. 238.
WTG/p 1 r ::; ()~~(, 'lfJL

Attachl1!l!nt ~~{I.li u- l3 . II ^ (I) , I L

,!)/1ch)'1 ,~l,~ \ ^' n lhi . c.t.",.i iJ(oI,J ,JYf(O"'!'Il(C[f ,:01,'
/ : / ftW II,'" IV-'" /
, J' ',~ [ r'Jt,
tI(,I/n'1 , 'j -( .' . f1 )1\' ~J / ,1 ('t ,,) !r: ". '

/ (tr:f ;t,d,~+,'V.' i2:1 ~~

Ii' JI. d. ~- r J: 1c..J",. /. I / l- /%.7VL,
"~I I I! vr l vW ' Jr.iy/yv i.; j(t tv r~' -l' rL-<I'. / ]1 ,j
..1,' I,fl:;,~i. c,':t ~~ / "~ff-" " ,'J /~ L. \ ~n t I 1, \ I), '.~, y:" "v~ jJYf
11 :1 I '1. 1\ :..1 J\. \1 I' f y'i) ~\ (, lJfl.tl - ,,; I J '
/i1V I+,~' j}(VN. ),f;\"V,~ \ 11,," - ~,' G)
I 1/ I j. \IIk,',\ /\ ,~j
.n .\n"fJNr.;,v" (Y:\lP' ,

....

.....

BRIDGE PRO.TECT SCOPI:\G SHEET

7 20i95
DIVISION: __Iiy(:,_ _____..u_'_,____
COF:-\TY: __\\'~n~~IL_____,__
ROCTE: ___ 5J.LtJQQ..__ _'_,___u_

TIP PROJECT: __-13-3060_,______
F. A. PROJECT: ---.BRZ:l3-6(~_____
STATE PRO.Tl-:CT: 8.2410401

DESCRIPTIO1\" :

Bridge No. 35 over Hawtree Creek. on SR UO~.__________

~;3

~ :"" '. ,'"
~~I'\ ~.:} ROADWA'I CLASSmCATION

1, C ~ CONSTRUC:tON COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTENGENCIESl ,.....",..".., "", $ 7,770,000
~i-I"" Af ~. fSRIGHT OF ~A Y COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILmES. A.'ND ACQillsmON), $ 7,':'':'0,000

I ,J, TOTAL COST ...........,............",............,.."...........,......",......,......,.." ,..,'...."".., $ ??')O,OOO
n , tltt1r::.)
::.,,1Yb

PROJECT PURPOSE:

replace obsolet~ brid~

PROJECT u.s.a.s. QUAD SHEET(S): Warren ton Ouad

local route

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST,..,..".... ....""......",'"......,....,,,.....,........,.... ,. $ 250,000
TIP RIGHT OF \VA Y COST "..'......,. .."...."........,....,.."..........,..",......."...."""..", $ 15,000..,
PRIOR YEARS COST """"....."",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,....,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,, """ ".."..".." ,."".... ""..,........, $ 0.000

TIP TOTAL COST ......,..".."""..",."."""""""""".""."",,,,,,,,.,,,,,..,,.......,,..,,,..,,,""""..",,,, $ 265.000

I
""'.
~.'.>I".

WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR @(CIRCLE ONE)

IF YES, BY \VHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT':' $

OR %

2 (if,L I tfp~ TRAFFIC: CURRENT
t TIST %
f;~') ., ~1n
p-
/I . ' EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION:
?D~ h. (17
t PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION:
ftf 1'~,~ (1 {)

~()O

VPD; DESIGN YEAR
DUAL %

lit)O
,

"Z.PZ-u VPD

two lane shoulder section

two lane shoulder section

!vIETHOD OF REPLACEMENT
. 1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ----m-----------------------------------O

- W c\ """ /.0'"1- ~J 1 2 ExlSTIN G LOCATION - ON -SITE DETOUR ___mm__m__________m_____m__m_O

!.tJ.\Je,.~ 3, RELOCATION OF STRUCTIJRE ____mumuh____mumn___hm_mmUn'_______ 0

~ {V' ~ <k:r1U{ ~1,4, OTHER _____________mn________ 0
If ~b EXL.'^IS"TIe"'Ni A 'fS'TR"I'tc ~R~JE41
u u rlJi :1 LENGTH 23,2 METERS WIDTH .-..5~_ METERS
~ ~L ;J Vf,5/Jr~ lor-Jon 76,CL FEET -1~9__ FEET
-r - ~. PRdPOSED STRUCTIJRE: LENGTH METERS WIDTII ___ METERS
ffiET ffET

.... .

.,." ~~-
!
,. "

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
J

.~ ;!
. . .. ..
~--,'.,.
"'OOd . '-
. .
.

..
..
..
..
..
..

.

'\j

@

~

"J
""J

319

~

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH

WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 35 ON SR 1306
OVER HAWTREE CREEK
B-3080

FIG. 1

.....' ~

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES B. HUNT JR. DNISION OF HIGHWAYS GARlAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O, BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N,C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY

October 24, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO:

Project File

Bill Goodwin, P,E.ih-
Project Planning Engineer

~~
~ -,,> ~h
~~ ~J' ~
\~ A~"
'.::;;
., <'"\I)
" ~
,

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No, 35 on
SR 1306 over Hawtree Creek, Warren County, Federal Aid
Project No, BRZ-1306(2), State Project No, 8.2410401,
TIP No, B-3060

A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on August 29, 1995. The following
persons were in attendance:

David Cox
Debbie Bevin
Eric Galamb
Betty Yancey
Sid Autry
Lanette Cook
Darin Wilder
Jerry Snead
Ellis Powell
Lisa Shapiro
Alice Gordon
Bill Goodwin

NC WRC
SHPO
DEM
Right of Way
Location and Surveys
Program Development
Program Development
Hydraulics
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental

The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and through
correspondence prior to the meeting.

Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There is an underground telephone cable along
the north side of SR 1509, No other utilities were found in the project area,

(j

<<.10.

.,-,...~ ,. ..:...:......,-..-

2

This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be approximately
80 km/h (50 mph), The roadway approaches will have two 3,3 meter (11 ft) travel lanes and a
graded shoulder width of at least 1.2 meters (4 ft), the shoulder will be wider where guardrail i~
warranted.

Mr. Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that the existing roadway is overtoppe
as frequently as once every ten years, In order to maintain the existing level of flood service, the
existing bridge can be replaced with a double-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. Each bam
of this culvert should be 3,7 meters (12 feet) by 2.7 meters (9 feet), To improve the level offlol
service, the roadway can be raised approximately 1 meter (3 feet). This would require a triple-
barrelculvert, with each barrel measuring 3.0 meters (10 feet) by 3,0 meters (10 feet), This
improvement would allow the roadway and culvert to contain a 25-year design storm, If an on-
site detour is required, it would use three 1800 mm (72 inch) pipes,

Mr. Eric Galamb ofDEM indicated that Hawtree Creek is classified as Class C.
Implementation of standard erosion control measures was requested, Also replacement in-place
with road closure was suggested. Mr. Galamb asked that there be no weep holes in the bridge
deck over standing water, if a bridges is the chosen replacement structure, Mr. Galamb also ask
that anyon-site detour be completely removed, to pre-existing natural ground; and be replanted
with appropriate native tree species, In addition, Mr, Galamb asked that ditches not be used to
dewater the area if dewatering is required,

Mr. David Cox ofNC WRC indicated that Hawtree Creek may contain one or more
species of endangered mussel. Mr, Cox agreed with Mr. Galamb's suggestion that replacement
place with road closure was preferred. Mr, Cox also emphasized that ditches are not to be used
dewater the area if dewatering is required

Following the meeting, Mr. Cox checked the NC WRC's database of species occurrence
and found no record of any federally endangered mussel being found in the project area. No
special project considerations will be required regarding mussels,

Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known architectural or archaeological sites in the immediate project area, and no unknov
sites are likely to be discovered. Therefore, no architectural or archaeological survey will be
required,

Four alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 35 over Hawtree Creek.

Alternate One - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place. The
existing structure and SR 1306 will be closed to through traffic during construction,
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1309, SR 1314, US 158 and SR 1305,

Alternate Two - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour structure located
just north of the existing bridge,

3

Alternate Three - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour structure located
just south of the existing bridge.

Alternate Four - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place. The
existing structure and SR 1306 will be closed to through traffic during construction,
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1309, SR 1314, US 158 and SR 1305, Roadway
elevation will be increased by 1.0 meters (3,0 feet),

Construction cost estimates for this project are as follows:

Alternate One Alternate Two Alternate Three Alternate Four
Construction $ 250,000 $ 375,000 $ 400,000 $ 325,000
Right of Way $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Total $ 265,000 $ 390,000 $ 415,000 $ 340,000

The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in February 1997
and construction to begin in June 1998.

WTG/plr

Attachment

cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants

("'" .~

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Revised

10/23/95

TIP PROJECT: B-3060
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-13-6(2)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2410401

DMSION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:

Five
Warren
SR 1306

DESCRIPTION:

Bridge No. 35 over Hawtree Creek. on SR 1306

PROJECT PURPOSE:

replace obsolete bridge

PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Warrenton Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICA nON: local route

CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENOINEERING AND CONTINGENCIES) ............................. $ 250,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, um.rrms, AND ACQUISmON) .............,..... $ 15,000

TOTAL COST ..."...,....,.,........"........".,.,..........,...,..,.".,......"".....,...,..",....,.,.,.....",..,............"."". $ 265,000

TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ..,..,...,.................................,................,........................,.................. $ 250,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 15,000

PRIOR YEARS COST ...........................................................................,........................................ $ 0,000

TIP TOTAL COST ........................,.........................................,.........................,....,...................... $ 265,000

WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ~(CIRCLE ONE)

IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR %

TRAFFIC: CURRENT 500
TIST 1 %

VPD; DESIGN YEAR
DUAL 2 %

1100

VPD

EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section

PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section

METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. ItXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE -----------------------------------------8
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -----------------------------------------0
3, RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------- 0

4, OTHER

-------------------------- 0

EXISTING STRUCTURE:

LENGTH 23.2 METERS
-1QJL FEET

WIDTH 5.8 MErERS
19.0 FEET

PROPOSED STRUCTURE:

double barreled reinforced concrete culvert, each barrel 3.7 meters
(12 feet) by 2.7 meters (9 feet)

"

.. -.. . . . ... . . . .

..
..
..
..
..
..

t
I.

, ,

~
t
'j
~.

@

,i
"

~

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH

WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 35 ON SR 1306
OVER HAWTREE CREEK
B - 3060

FIG. 1