19960051 Ver 1_Complete File_19960124

1. 9' _--

Qawr ww
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DMSION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETf JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December , 1995
40'l 1 -*--
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
96oof?
RECEIVED
JAN 2 4 1996
EWIROM ENTAL SCIENCES
?.JAN24
NETL?4N0<Gt?CUp? .r.'i
ER UfiLITY SEGT;O,?!
SUBJECT: Caswell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 3 over North Hyco
Creek on SR 1562, State Project No. 4.5482129, T.I.P. No.
V-0037
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report
for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 3 will be replaced at its
existing location with a bridge 75 meters (240 feet) long and 10 meters
(32 feet) wide. The bridge has been closed for four months due to its
dangerous condition. Traffic will continue to be detoured on existing
roads during construction truction of the proposed project will
affect less than 0.1 a e of juri tional wetland.
The project is be' processed by t Federal Highway
Administration as ategorical Exclusi in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). There ores` we do not antici to requesting an individual
permit, but propose to '
11 roceed under a ationwide Permit in accordance
with 33 CFR Appendi A (B-23). The p visions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A(C) of thes regu 11 be followed in the construction
of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) 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, Department of Environmental Management, for their
review.
Kawn*
December 20, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please
call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
ZFsincer ly,
. anklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
ANG/rfm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Ronald G. Lucas, P. E., Planning and Environmental Project
Planning Engineer
t
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. V-0037
State Project No. 4.5482129
Federal-Aid Project No. N/A
A. Project Description: This project includes the
replacement of Bridge No. 3 on SR 1562 over North Hyco
Creek in Caswell County.
B. Purpose and Need: Two spans on Bridge No. 3 have dropped
approximately one foot due to scour caused by recent
flooding. Bridge maintenance cannot repair the existing
structure. The bridge has been closed for 4 months due
to its dangerous condition. Bridge No. 3 needs to be
replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
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 driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
1

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94 a
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuatgrs
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings..
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of.new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
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
2
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
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 qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
OTHER INFORMATION
Existing cross-section: Two lane undivided roadway;
Travel lanes are 3.6 m (12 ft.) wide
Proposed cross section: Two lane undivided roadway;
Travel lanes are 3.6 m (12 ft.) wide
3
J
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Proposed structure: 75 m (240 ft.) long bridge with 10 m
(32 ft.) deck width consisting of two
3.6 m (12 ft.) lanes and 1.2 m (4
ft.) shoulders; 3.2 m (10 ft.)
vertical clearance for navigation.
Estimated Cost: Construction - $ 1,800,000
Right of Way - $ 50,000
Estimated Traffic: 1995 - 350 vehicles per day
2015 - 600 vehicles per day
Schedule: Right of Way Acquisition: 1995
Construction: Jan. 1996
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project
on any unique or
(2) Does the project
federally listed
species may occu
YES, NO
have a substantial impact __1 X
important natural resource.
involve habitat where
endangered or threatened ? X
r?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of x
U. S. Forest Service lands?
4
V
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YE NO
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a LAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
5
0
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YE NO
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in F X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation F x I
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase in traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal,
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
6
4
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CULTURAL RESOURCES
YE NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
This is an emergency project. This project is not
included in the current (1996-2002) T.I.P. Replacement of
this bridge is necessary to allow traffic on SR 1562 to cross
North Hyco Creek.
7
:;
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. V-0037
State Project No. 4.5482129
Federal-Aid Project No. N/A
Project Description:
This project includes the replacement of Bridge No. 3 on
SR 1562 over North Hyco Creek.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
/l -3o -,U c7L -? O
Date *i-, anager
Planning & Environmental Branch
D #e Project Planning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
Fo e II(B) projects only:
Date -/t*.?ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
"stew.. ante SS If 5
I Pelham (oi cote
29 S urler 17
r C A W L y ?I
Leash'
Ca sville Yanceyvill r s
r S ? I.
locust Hil I 6
k r ?,, Frol
Mdtsvillt owars
? f I
dg It 8Msra' \ + II 1 ProsDec r
.??777
?'
5 .9 +
4 1552 h 1553
Semora ?
? I
"
N
l 1608 'S? `?' 6 II ?0 S?F
10
?, ?' sr ? ? 1314
N BRIDGE NO. 20 J
sr 1
t
??y? BRIDGE NO. 32
House BREAKWATER ?
` J s MARINA , / 1
1560 {lG0 .?
%
?• ?. r-?°. } a 1392 119 ?GC? t
BRIDGE NO. 3 ? ';? ?.._ .., ?1 0?.oa ; ]' r "? '• .
}? 77
:. 1313
f" ' ?.• BRIDGEA
.1562 ? '--_:}? __..
• 1607
f
f 112 f? //?
'O 1561 r -o'o
QJ ° 1311
Z F-
Osmond = Z
p ::)
p
? 0,0
JIU
_I Z
LLI O
?I
-:3: (f)
d7 L
LLl
U I (L
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 3,
ON SR-1562 OVER NORTH HYCO CREEK
CASWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. V - 0037
FIG. 1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GowmoR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
Januarv 5, 1996
1?IENIORA\NDt-M TO:
FROM:
Robert Hanson, P.E._ Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
Logan Williams Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARLAN D B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Investigation for proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 3 on SR 1562 over North Hyco Creek, Caswell
County; TIP B-3548; State Project No. 8.2480601.
ATTENTION: Ron Lucas, Project Manager
The following report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE). A completed ecological check list for Type II PCE is also
included. This report contains information concerning water resources, biotic resources,
Waters of the United States, mitigation, permits and federally-protected species.
Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 3 over the North
Hyco Creek section of Hyco Lake (Figure 1). The proposed project has approaches of
approximately 365 m (1200 ft). The bridge length is 73.0 m (240.0 ft) and was built in
1966. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is 18.0 m (60.0 ft). The proposed ROSS' is not
planned to change. The proposed cross section for this project has a 9.7 m (32.0 ft) bridge
deck width with two 3.6 m (12.0 ft) lanes and 1.3 m (4.0 ft) shoulders. The project calls
for 3.6 m (12.0 ft) lanes and 0.6 m (2.0 ft) paved shoulders on the approaches. The only
action proposed involves road closure and replacement of the bridge on existing location.
Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: US Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Leasburg), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map of
Caswell county. Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DE1L\T_ 1993) and from the
Environmental Sensitivity Base map of Caswell Co. (NTC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis 1992). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species in the study area was obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service 15
-r
(FWS) list of protected and candidate species and the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NIP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General fi eld surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologist Logan Williams on 11 October 1995. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observational techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars),
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds. scat, tracks and burrows). Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then released. Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the `Corp of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (EnNironmental Laboratory, 1987).
Water Resources
The project crosses the North Hyco Creek (DEH\R Index No. 22-58-(1) ) section
of Hyco Lake (Figure 1). North Hyco Creek is located in the Roanoke River Basin. North
Hyco Creek originates in south Caswell Co. and flows in a northeasterly direction
approximately 29 km (18 mi) to its confluence with South Hyco Creek where it the
becomes the Hyco River. The river is dammed to create Lake Hyco, a 3,750 ac man-
made reservoir used for cooling by Carolina Power and Light Co.'s Roxboro Steam Plant.
Hyco River eventually flows into the Dan River in Virginia. The creek is approximately
365 in (1200 ft) wide in the project area. The creek has a mud substrate and is
approximately 4.8 in (15.0 ft) deep in the project study area.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Z-ianagement (DETM).. The DE NM classification of North Hyco Creek from
its source to Hyco Lake is Class "C". Class "C uses include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Neither High Quality
Waters (HQNN), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAV? is managed by the
DEM 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. BMAN data taken from Hyco
Creek has a bioclass rating of good to fair. Best Management Practices (BMP's) and
sedimentation guidelines should be administered and maintained for the duration of
the project.
.1545 `
X543
a
1_
P L•8
1319 %.UtnIts 1
r
1318
•p'
`- RY. ?
\ 1.321 1,
.5
11370
48
1318 •''
.9 1317
•4 -1552 h 1553 '
Semora -
FA S R Y I.._------
1 .2 ? • ?, •6 ?p?R
ror 1 ?
1608
'sr 1314
j
BRIDGE NO. 20
` !k •V
•3 tiC BRIDGE NO. 32
House BREAKWATER ;
J .S MARINA
1560
139 2 r„
119 ?? x •? •?
Bridge No. 3_
W5 2.7
1313 -+ •s ? ;{ ? ?
'.'' t.. BRIDGE A .
.1562 J
e
' 1607
2 ?Oy 1102 1561.p
1311
Osmond °
O =)
p North Hvco Creek U O
- `JIU
-? z
w
:3,0 a)
¢iw
U n.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
HYCO LAKE BRIDGES
PERSON - CASWELL COUNTIES
6193 0 mile 3/4 Fig l

BRIDGE NO.3 CASWELL COUNTY
F
1.
t'

i
j }
i

Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section briefly
describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant flora
and fauna which occur in each community are described and discussed.
Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities have been identified in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed community and a bottomland hardwood forest. Many faunal species
are remarkably adaptive and may inhabit either of the communities discussed.
llaintained\Disturbed Community
vlaintained0isturbed lands are intensively managed by human activities which
preclude natural plant succession. The roadside shoulder comprises this community in the
project study area.
Roadside shoulders, maintained by mowing, give rise to a rich assemblage of
herbaceous plants. Lawn grass (Festuca spp.) and bermudagrass (C3nodon dactvlon) are
prevalent with some encroachment of boneset (Eupatorium sp. ), mock strawberry (Fra
*Riniana)and lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.).
_Viaintainedldisturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones
for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals associated
with ecotones are least shrew (QMototis parva), hispid cottonrat (Siarnodon his'dus) and
eastern cottontail rabbits (Svlviiagus floridanus).
Open areas adjacent to forested communities and lakes support a myriad of bird
life. European starhng* (Sternus vul?), Carolina wren` (Thryothorus ludotiicianus),
robin* (Turdus migratorious), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), northern cardinal*
(Cardinalis cardinalis), common grackle* Qj iscula qW cula) and turkey vulture*
(Cathartes aura) were observed in the project study area. In addition, meadowlark
Sturnelia ma a) and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) may utilize this community by
perching on telephone wires or fences adjacent to the maintained community where they
forage for insects. The red-tailed hawk* (Buteo iamaicensis) is an important predator
known to forage in this community preying on rats, mice and other rodents. A number of
birds including Canada goose* (Branta canadensis) and great blue heron* (Ardea herodias)
were observed on the open water near the proposed project.
The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), inhabits open, sunny situations
usually in close proximity to trees. The ubiquitous American toad (Bufo americanus) is an
example of an amphibian that may inhabit disturbed areas.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
A hardwood forest is located along the shore of the lake and will be impacted by
the proposed project. Dominant canopy species include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
and swee tgurn (Liauidambar styraciflua). The understory consists of ironwood (C us
caroliniana red maple (Acer rubrum) and black willow (Salix Wg; ). Tag alder (Alnus
serrulata) grows in thickets along the shoreline of the lake. The sparse understorv consists
of sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) and various graminoids.
The bottomland forest provides excellent habitat for an assortment of birds and
mammals. Birds often associated with these communities include, white-throated
sparrow*(Zonotrichia albicollis), song sparrow*(Melospiza geor6m ) and northern
cardinal. fellow-tamped ,?varbler*(Dendroica coronata), hooded warbler (Wilsonia
dgina), Prothonotary warbler (Prothonotaria citrea) and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea) may also be found in this community during certain seasons of the year. A bird
of prey commonly found in bottomlands and alluvial forests is the barred owl (Strix varia).
The barred owl preys on rodents, insects, small birds, frogs and sometimes fish.
Mammals which may frequent the bottomland forest include white-footed mouse
(Peromysscus leuco us) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). In addition, white-tailed deer
(Odocoiieus ij?anus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may also forage in or near
this community. The Virginia opossum (Didelphis tiirginiana) is likely to be found in
wooded bottomlands adjacent to streams, swamps and lakes which are located near
meadows and fields, where they find shelter in hollow trees or similar dry refuges.
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the bottomland forest.
Spring peeper (Hula crucifer) and northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) are frequently
found in bottomland hardwood forests and swamps. The spring peeper breeds in
semipermanent pools during the spring. The northern cricket frog live in vegetation along
the edge of the lake. The spotted salamander (Ambystoma macuiaium) and the slimy
salamander (Plethodon utinosa) are common in bottomland forests which are not subject
to frequent flooding. The rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake (Carph9phis amoenus)
and ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) are found throughout the state especially in
moist forested communities. Snapping turtle (Chelydra seraentina) and box turtle
(Terrapene caroiina) may also occur in this community. Copperheads ( _ ' trodon
contortrix), which are important predators of small manunals, may occur in the project
vicinity.
Since this project involves replacing the bridge in the existing location with road
closure, actual impacts to terrestrial communities will be minimal. Cumulative impacts to
the maintainedldisturbed community will be less than 1.0 ha (2.47 ac). Cumulative impacts
to the bottomland hardwood forest will be less than 0.1 ha (0.1 ac).
Aquatic Community
North Hyco Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of the water bodies and conditions of the water resource affect faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
A variety of biological organisms utilize the lake community. Although some fish
were observed during the site investigation, none were captured nor identified. The
largemouth bass (TX- icropterus saimoides), bluegill (Leuomis macrochirus) and
pumpkinseed (L. obbosus) are frequently found in piedmont creeks and lakes. No aquatic
amphibians were observed, but the lake and adjacent habitat could support green frog
(Rana clamitans) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) to name a few.
Good habitat for snapping turtle (Chelvdra serpntaria) can be found in the creek
area. Queen snake (Re?, na septemvittata) and northern dater snake (L Terodia si_pedon) are
the snakes most likely to be encountered in the area.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water
quality. Aquatic organisms are generally extremely sensitive to these inputs. Stringent
employment of Best Management Practices is highly advocated during the
construction phase of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic organisms.
Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
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.
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 US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils (low
soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology.
Aquatic Community
North Hyco Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of the water bodies and conditions of the water resource affect faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
A variety of biological organisms utilize the lake community. =although some fish
were observed during the site investigation, none were captured nor identified. The
largemouth bass (N-Licropterus saimoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and
pumpkinseed (L.albbosus) are frequently found in piedmont creeks and lakes. No aquatic
amphibians were observed but the lake and adjacent habitat could support green frog
(Rana clamitans) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) to name a few.
Good habitat for snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentaria) can be found in the creek
area. Queen snake (Regina seQemvittata) and northern water snake (Nerodia si edon) are
the snakes most likely to be encountered in the area.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce water
quality. Aquatic organisms are generally extremely sensitive to these inputs. Stringent
employment of Best Management Practices is highly advocated during the
construction phase of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic organisms.
Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
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.
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 US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils (low
soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology.
including; saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high
water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
One jurisdictional wetland will be impacted by the proposed project. This wetland
is located on the east side of North Hyco Creek and south of SR 1562. The size of the
wetland is less than 0.04 ha (0.1 ac). Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated to
be less than 0.04 (0.1 ac). This wetland is located in a section of the bottomland
hardwood forest. Red maple, ironwood, sweetgum, arrow-arum (Peltandra viralnica),
false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) and black willow are dominant. The soil color is 2.5
YR 51'0. Standing water and water stained leaves were observed during the site
investigation. The DEM has instituted a numerical rating system from 0-100 to gauge
wetland quality. The fourth version of the rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of
water storage, bank'shoreline stabilization pollutant removal, aquatic life, recreational and
educational values of a wetland community. The DEM rating for this wetland is 25.
Permits
Since the project is classified as a ProgramaticCategorical Exclusion (PCE) a
-Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23) is likely to be applicable for proposed
construction. This permit authorizes any activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency or department
has determined pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 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 the office of the
Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application
for the PCE and concurs with that determination. The final permit decision rests with the
COE.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any activity
which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required. State permits
are administered through the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEILNR).
Mitigation
The COE, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), has adopted 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 (40 CFR 150$.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(NIOA) between the Entiironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practical in
terms of cost. existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Some impacts to eaters of the United States will occur as a result of the
proposed project. Consideration should be given to avoid this wetland if project
design is practicable. Because of this wetlands close proximity to Hyco Lake, it likely
serves an important function in pollutant removal from the surrounding landscape
and road.
iYlinimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical 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.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted
by the proposed project include:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median width, ROW widths, till slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
- Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover
during construction.
Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BNiP's for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands.
Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
Compensatory -Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts 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. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
V
Authorizations under Section 404 Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and the COE.
Final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been 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 federallyprotected be subject to
review by the Fish and tiVildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws. As of March 28, 199-5 there are no federally-
protected species listed for Caswell County. A review of the Natural Heritage Program
data base reveals that two unique habitats (Hyco Lake Lltramatic Ravines and a Basic
.Mesic Forest Piedmont Subtype) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study
area. Neither of these unique community types will be impacted by the proposed project.
CC. V. Charles Bruton, Unit Head
Environmental Unit
Hal C. Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Stephanie Briggs, Permit Supervisor
File; B-3548