20080966 Ver 1_Reports_20080613

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
080966
Replacement of Bridge No. 25
on SR 1206 (Russell Union Road) over Smith Creek
in Warren County, North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program
Project Number B-4664
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
April 2004
I
P.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
1.2 Purpose
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Qualifications
1.5 Definitions
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Physiography
2.2 Soils
2.3 Water Resources
2.3.1 Hydrologic Unit/DWQ Subbasin Number
2.3.2 Water Resource Characteristics and Best Usage
Classification
2.3.3 Water Quality Data
2.3.4 303(d) List
2.3.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
2.3.6 Anadromous Fish and Trout Habitat
2.3.7 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
2.3.8 Discussion of Likely Impacts to Water Resources
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Community Types
3.1.1 NHP Natural Communities
3.1.2 Observed/Likely Occurring Terrestrial Fauna
3.1.3 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities and
Ecological Relationships
3.2 Aquatic Communities
3.2.1 Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Aquatic
Communities and Ecological Relationships
3.2.2 Fisheries Information and Construction Moratoria Dates
for Anadromous Fish Or Trout
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
10
10
11
12
12
13
14
14
15
16
17

3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts 17
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS 17
4.1 Waters of the United States 17
4.1.1 Wetlands 18
4.2 Permit Issues 19
4.2.1 Wetland Avoidance 20
4.2.2 Minimization of Wetland Impacts 20
4.2.3 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts 21
4.2.4 Identification of Potential Mitigation Sites 21
4.2.5 Bridge Demolition into Waters of the United States 22
4.2.6 Buffer Rules 22
4.3 Protected Species 22
4.3.1 Federal Listed Species 22
4.3.2 Federally-Protected Species 22
4.3.3 Federal Species of Concern 25
5.0 REFERENCES 27
TABLES
Table 1.0 Soil Descriptions 6
Table 2.0 Stream Channel Classification 8
Table 3.0 Bioclassification of Benthic Macroinve rteb rates near the Project
Study Area 9
Table 4.0 Community Types Within Project Study Area 12
Table 5.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts Within the Project
Study Area 18
Table 6.0 Federally Protected Species for Warren County 23
Table 7.0 Federal Species of Concern for Warren County 26
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Terrestrial Communities
Figure 3 GPS Survey and Soils
APPENDICES
Appendix A USACE Wetland Data Forms
Appendix B DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets
Appendix C USACE Intermittent Channel Evaluation Forms
Appendix D DWQ Stream Classification Forms
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 25
on SR 1206 (Russell Union Road) over Smith Creek (see Figure 1).
This Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is intended to provide detailed descriptions of
the natural systems located within the project study area. Specifically, the tasks performed for
this study include: 1) an assessment of natural resource features within the project study area,
including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species habitat, jurisdictional surface
waters and wetlands, and water quality issues; 2) mapping of specific resources, including plant
communities, jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands; 3) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs and conceptual
mitigation needs.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to thoroughly characterize the environmental conditions within the
project study area (see Figures 2 and 3 and Section 1.5, "Definitions") in order to provide
guidance for NCDOT's bridge replacement planning process. Included in this characterization
are descriptions of the vegetative communities, protected species habitat (if present), terrestrial
and aquatic fauna, determination of the extents of jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of
the United States, evaluation of potential impacts as a result of construction, and a discussion of
permits potentially required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), and any other relevant agencies prior to project
construction.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information pertaining
to the project study area was gathered and reviewed.
A United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle (1:24,000) of the project
study area and its vicinity was consulted to determine physiographic relief and to assess
landscape characteristics. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map was consulted before commencing field studies. Warren County
1
•
does not have a published or an on-line soil survey. However, the Warren County Soil and
Water Conservation Office was contacted on February 11, 2004 for baseline information on
soils and pertinent information on the area.
A copy of an aerial photograph mosaic supplied by NCDOT provided the boundary of the project
study area and an overview of baseline features. This photograph served as the basis for
mapping plant community patterns. Plant community patterns were identified from available
mapping sources and verified in the field. Primary components of each community were
examined and the species composition of each was recorded. Plant community descriptions
are based on the classification system developed by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
applicable. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et aL (1968).
The most current list of federally protected species for Warren County was provided by the
USFWS and was reviewed prior to initiation of field studies (list date January 29, 2003, updated
on-line on February 23, 2003). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
was consulted for documented presence of federal-listed and state-listed species before
commencing the field effort.
Surface waters intersecting the project study area were visited and evaluated to ascertain
physical characteristics. Water quality information for streams and tributaries within the project
study area was obtained from Warren County Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
information. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing published data.
DWQ provides water resources information on the project study area in the Roanoke River
Basinwide Assessment Report (May 2000) and the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan (July 2001).
Wildlife distribution and habitat use were determined through field observations, evaluation of
habitat-type distributions, and a review of supporting literature (Peterson 1980, Burt and
Grossenheider 1980, Martof et aL 1980). Techniques used to document terrestrial fauna
include visual observations, identification of bird songs and calls, and identification of tracks and
scat. Dip nets and visual observations were used to document aquatic life. Consultation with
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) provided information on designated
proposed critical habitats for aquatic species. Locations of NHP-listed element occurrences and
significant natural communities are layered in the GIS database.
2

Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three-parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology) as outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual (DOA 1987). Wetland values for representative areas within the project
study area were evaluated using the Fourth Version of the Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina (Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources 1995).
1.4 Qualifications
The project study area was visited and visually surveyed for significant features. Jurisdictional
wetlands and surface waters were field delineated on January 20, 2004. The jurisdictional
delineation has not yet been reviewed by the USACE. The fieldwork for this investigation was
conducted by Rummel, Klepper and Kahl (RK&K) personnel, namely Ms. Elizabeth Workman,
Mr. Pete Stafford, Mr. David Ward, and Mr. Jim Cooper under the supervision of Dr. Kevin
Nunnery.
Ms. Workman, who has a Bachelor's degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, is an
Environmental Specialist responsible for the preparation of environmental documents, natural
resource investigations, permitting/regulatory requirements and assistance in field surveys. Mr.
Pete Stafford has a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Biology with four years of fieldwork
experience in wildlife habitat restoration and endangered and threatened species habitat
analysis. He also specializes in soil evaluations for wetland delineations. Mr. David Ward has a
Bachelor's degree in Geography and specializes in Geographic Information Systems and Global
Positioning Systems. He assists with natural resource investigations in the field. Mr. Jim
Cooper has a Master's degree in Wetland Ecology and is a licensed soil scientist. He has over
three and a half years of experience in wetland delineations, 401/404 permitting, wetland and
stream channel restoration, and other relevant areas of expertise. Dr. Kevin Nunnery is the
Project Manager and an Environmental Project Scientist who has a Ph.D. in Wetland
Restoration Ecology and is a licensed soil scientist. His responsibilities include design,
coordination and execution of wetland, stream and natural resource evaluation efforts.
1.5 Definitions
The project study area and calculated impact totals are based on the NCDOT pre-determined
study area; actual impacts will be restricted to construction limits and will be less than those
shown for the project study area. The project study area is approximately 2,600 feet long and
550 feet wide at its widest point at approximately 300 feet north of Bridge No. 25. Special
3

concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, streams and
riparian buffers, wetlands and water quality protection. The project study area lies within the
Roanoke River drainage basin (see Figure 2).
The project vicinity, an area extending 0.5 mile on all sides of the project study area, is a
mixture of stream reaches, natural forest vegetation, agricultural fields, residential sites,
roadways and rights-of-way (see Figure 1).
The project region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project study area occupying the central position. The project region includes
portions of John H. Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston/Roanoke River and extends into Mecklenburg
County, Virginia.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project study area are discussed below with respect
to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence
the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations
or management concerns. Water resources within the project study area present important
management limitations due to the need to maintain natural flow and water quality. Excessive
soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the
availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic
communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Physiography
Warren County is in the eastern Piedmont physiographic province. Bridge No. 25 is located in
northwestern Warren County with elevations ranging from 230 feet above mean sea level (MSL)
along Smith Creek to 260 feet above MSL in the higher sections of the project study area. Land
use in the vicinity consists of agriculture in the western portion of the county, and residential
development around the Lake Gaston in the eastern portion of the county.
2.2 Soils
Pacolet series is not listed as a hydric soil in Warren County. The Pacolet series consists of very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in material weathered mostly from
4
acid crystalline rocks of the piedmont uplands. Slopes commonly are 15 to 25 percent but range
from 2 to 80 percent. Pacolet sandy loam soils are on 2 to 6 percent slopes of the piedmont
uplands and consist of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils. The surface layer
consists of 0 to 3 inches of brown sandy loam, with few fine distinct yellowish red mottles.
Wedowee series (34B) is not listed as a hydric soil for Warren County. It consists of very deep,
well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in residuum from weathered crystalline
rock of the piedmont plateau. These soils are on narrow ridges and on side slopes of uplands.
Slope is commonly less than 25 percent but ranges from 0 to 60 percent. Wedowee sandy loam
soils occur on 6 to 10 percent slopes with moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soils on
side slopes of the piedmont. The surface layer consists of 0 to 4 inches of dark grayish brown
sandy loam.
Chewacla series (70C) is listed as a hydric soil in Warren County, although some phases of it
may not be flooded for long periods and may not be hydric. It is a nearly level, very deep,
somewhat poorly drained soil with moderate permeability found on floodplains. The surface
layer consists of 0 to 4 inches of very strongly acidic, brown loam.
Wehadkee series (43A) is listed as a hydric soil in Warren County. It is a nearly level, very
deep, poorly to very poorly drained soil found on floodplains. The surface layer consists of 0 to
8 inches of moderately acidic, grayish brown fine sandy loam.
Three soil mapping units are found within the project study area. Each unit's description, slope,
and hydric status are included in Table 1.0. Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under
conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by
the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best
usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship
to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also
discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
5
Table 1.0 Soil Descriptions
Field
Hy
d dric
is
Legend Description Taxonomic Class Slope or B)*
(A
34B Pacolet sandy
loam Typic Kanhapludults 2 to 6 percent slopes No
70C Wedowee sandy Typic Kanhapludults 6 to 10 percent Yes-B
loam slopes
Chewacla and Fluvaquentic 0 to 2 percent
43A Wehadkee soils Dystrochrepts slopes, frequently Yes-A
flooded
"A-map units that are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component
8-map units with inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots
2.3.1 Hydrologic Unit/DWQ Subbasin Number
Various state and federal agencies use different systems for organizing and numbering
watersheds. A nationally uniform hydrologic unit system was developed in 1974 by the USGS
Office of Water Data Coordination. This system divides the country into 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units and 2,149 cataloging (hydrologic) units based on surface
hydrologic features. Each unit is defined by an 8-digit number. Under the federal cataloging
system, Smith Creek's hydrologic unit is 03010106.
By contrast, DWQ has a two-tiered system in which the state is subdivided into 17 river basins,
and each basin is subdivided into subbasins. The Roanoke River Basin is subdivided by DWQ
into ten subbasins. The project study area is located within subbasin 03-02-07. The entire
Roanoke River Basin encompasses a 3,503-square mile watershed that straddles the North
Carolina/Virginia border, and is drained by 2,213 miles of streams and rivers. Two major river
systems encompass the basin in North Carolina, the Dan River and Roanoke River systems.
The headwaters of the Dan River and its tributaries are located within the northwestern
piedmont near Stokes and Rockingham Counties. The Roanoke River exits Lake Gaston in
North Carolina and flows towards the southeast until its confluence with the Albemarle Sound.
The basin includes 42 municipalities with a total population of 335,194 people, according to the
2000 census data. Approximately 66 percent of the land in the basin is forested and about 22
percent is cultivated cropland. Within the basin is important habitat for anadromous fish,
including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), as well as black bear (Ursus americanus), bobcat
6
(Lynx rufus), large populations of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 14 species of waterfowl,
and 220 additional bird species.
Subbasin 03-02-07 is 75 percent forested and wetlands. Nearly 11 percent of the area is
surface water including 13,400 acres of Lake Gaston. Several registered animal operations are
located in this subbasin. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers.
2.3.2 Water Resource Characteristics and Best Usage Classification
Three stream channels were identified in the project study area. They were Smith Creek and
two unnamed tributaries to Smith Creek (Tributaries 1 and 2). Best usage classifications and
stream index numbers (SIN) are assigned to each stream and segment, starting with a node
common to a main river in the basin and adding additional nodes to allow for all streams and
segments to be uniquely identified. Stream index numbers were used to keep streams and
segments in downstream order. Smith Creek was assigned the SIN 23-10. Best usage
classifications follow Classifications and Water Quality Standards, published by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in May of 2000. Classifications are assigned to
waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of
various streams or segments of streams in the basin. Smith Creek has been assigned a best
usage classification of "C" by the DWQ, which reflects water quality conditions and potential
resource usage. The "Division of Water Quality's Red Book of Rules" defines class "C" as
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Sources of water pollution, which preclude any of these
uses on either a short-term or long-term basis, shall be considered a violation of the water
quality standard.
No water classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project study area. Smith
Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River or a National Wild and
Scenic River.
Table 2.0 includes additional information on the stream features found in the project study area.
7
Table 2.0 Stream Channel Classification
Perennial/ Average Average
Channel Best Usage
Intermittent Width (feet) Depth (feet)
Smith Creek C Perennial 30 4
Tributary 1 (UT to Smith Creek C Intermittent* 2 0.3
located at south end of project
study area)
Tributary 2 (UT to Smith Creek C Perennial* 3 0.7
located just west of Bridge No. 25)
'Tributaries 1 and 2 scored a 23. ib and 31, respectively, on the uvvu s Stream c;iassiricarron r-orm, rnoicarnng rnat
they are at least intermittent channels. After the DWQ field verification of these tributaries and Smith Creek, their
status may be reconsidered.
Smith Creek varies in width and depth due to changes in channel geometry. However, it
averages approximately 30 feet in width and 4 feet in depth. Its banks are steeply sloping, and
range from approximately 10 feet high near the bridge to approximately 5 feet high as distance
increases away from the bridge. Smith Creek flows north across Warren County, into
Mecklenburg County, Virginia, and into Lake Gaston/Roanoke River. The waters of Smith Creek
are turbid and slow-moving.
Tributary 1 is located at the south end of the project study area and is associated with Wetland
A. It is approximately 2 feet wide and 4 inches deep. Leaf litter, hydrophytic vegetation, and
sediment are in the channel although flow is evident. Few moderate to strong stream features
were noted, as per the DWQ Stream Classification Form, just inside the project study area.
Tributary 2 is located just west of Bridge No. 25 and is associated with Wetland B. This tributary
becomes an obvious channel at the eastern edge of Wetland B, where a beaver dam was
breached. A portion of the channel flows away from and back to the beaver pond and is
included in the linear feet of impacts stated in Table 5.0 and shown on Figure 3. The channel
near Bridge No. 25 is approximately 3 feet wide and 9 inches deep. The channel contained leaf
litter and strong flow as per the DWQ Stream Classification Form. Strong stream features, such
as riffle-pool sequences and channel sinuosity, were noted along with eroded banks.
8
2.3.3 Water Quality Data
Benthic macroinvertebrates, especially aquatic insects, are used as indicators of environmental
water quality in streams and rivers. Analysis of faunal assemblages is one way to assess water
quality. Different kinds of stress will often produce different benthic macroinvertebrate
communities. Increasing levels of pollution gradually eliminate the more sensitive species,
leading to lower species richness, or diversity. Guidelines and quality control procedures for
sampling benthic m acroi nve rteb rates are outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures Guide
compiled by the DENR Biological Assessment Group. The Basinwide Monitoring Program
managed by the DWQ monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for sensitive
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)]. A taxa richness value (EPT
S) is calculated. Taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a
poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. One benthic monitoring
station (B-1) located at US 1 and Smith Creek, approximately 5 miles downstream of the project
study area, received a bioclassification rating of Fair in 1999. Table 3.0 gives the site location,
site number and bioclassification rating. An EPT S value of 12 was reported for this site, which
was the same as the EPT S value in 1989.
Table 3.0 Bioclassification of Benthic Macro!nvertebrates near the Project Study Area
Site Site # Date S/EPT S Bioclassification
Smith Creek at US 1 B-1 1999 12 Fair
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted at the project study area using a sweep net
and cursory survey methods to find aquatic species within Smith Creek and associated
tributaries. Since surveys were performed in the winter, environmental factors may have
affected the amount of species found. Collected species included mayflies (Ephemeroptera),
stoneflies (Plecoptera), a dobsonfly (Megaloptera) and midges (Diptera).
2.3.4 303(d) List
The DWQ's Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters 303(d) list is a comprehensive
public accounting of all impaired waterbodies occurring within the state. An impaired waterbody
is one that does not meet water quality uses, such as water supply, fishing, or propagation of
aquatic life.
9
Smith Creek, from its source to the North Carolina/Virginia state line (approximately 10.4 miles),
is listed as 303(d) impaired waters by the DWQ. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were lower
here than at any other tributary site in the Roanoke River Basin. Approximately 25 percent of
the samples were less than the standard 5.0 milligrams per liter. Additionally, iron
concentrations in Smith Creek are very high. Almost 86 percent of more than 50 samples
exceeded the water quality standard over the past five years. Impacts to this stream are from
non-point sources of pollution. There are no NPDES dischargers in the subbasin.
2.3.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Based on the location, scope, and nature of this bridge replacement project, consultation for
essential fish habitat (EFH), pursuant to 305 (b)(2) the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, is not necessary for this project. Warren County does not include water
bodies in which EFH species are found.
2.3.6 Anadromous Fish and Trout Habitat
The Roanoke River Basin is identified as an anadromous fish spawning area. Anadromous fish
live in salt water, but swim upstream to fresh water areas to spawn. Since the project study area
is upstream of the Roanoke Rapids dam, no anadromous species occur in Smith Creek.
2.3.7 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
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 discharges within this subbasin.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater,
snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition. Land use activities such as land development,
construction, mining operations, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems,
landfills, roads and parking lots are contributors of non-point source pollutants. In agricultural
and construction areas, sediment and nutrients are major polluters. Land clearing and plowing
disturbs soils leaving them susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams.
Sediment is the most widespread cause of non-point source pollution in North Carolina.
Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via
runoff to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
10
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
Impacts to Smith Creek are predominantly non-point sources of pollution. More voluntary
implementation of BMPs on agricultural lands is needed in order to substantially improve water
quality in the watershed. Funding is available through numerous federal and state agencies for
farmers to restore and/or protect water quality on their land.
2.3.8 Discussion of Likely Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction. Probable construction activities may result in (but may not be limited
to) clearing of streambank vegetation, removal of the riparian canopy, disturbance of the
channel substrate as a result equipment operating in the stream, application of fertilizer and
pesticide during construction area revegetation, and pavement installation.
Specific impacts to water resources as a result of project construction activities include (but may
not be limited to) the following:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation of the receiving waters downstream of the crossing
and increased erosion in the project area,
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal,
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction,
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal,
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas and local
fertilizer application during construction,
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff,
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles, and
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
11
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project study area, as well as the relationships between fauna
and flora within these communities. Descriptions of the terrestrial plant community systems are
based on descriptions by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where applicable. Some variations
between actual field surveys and Schafale and Weakley descriptions are noted in the plant
community sections. Natural land disturbances such as fire, hurricanes, and tornadoes result in
uneven-aged vegetative stands or a patchy mosaic within even-aged communities.
Anthropogenic disturbances such as logging, farming, selective cutting, and road construction
have also contributed to the present landscape. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
3.1 Terrestrial Community Types
Four plant communities were identified within the project study area and are shown in Table 4.0.
Acreage impacts for each terrestrial community were derived from aerial photography and GIS
mapping. All terrestrial community area figures are based on the mapped project study area
boundaries and are approximate. These communities total approximately 25.42 acres, which
does not include impervious surface or open water (see Table 4.0).
Table 4.0 Community Types Within Project Study Area*
Land Use Project Study Area
(acreage) Percentage of Project Study
Area
Maintained/disturbed areas 9.16 36%
Successional areas 3.81 15%
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 7.64 30%
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 4.81 19%
Total 25.42 100%
'These plant communities are mapped in Figure 2.
Maintained/Disturbed Areas
Maintained/disturbed areas lie on either side of the existing bridge along Russell Union Road
and surround residential properties northwest of Bridge No. 25. Approximately 9.16 acres (36%)
of maintained roadsides, open field, and residential areas lie within the project study area.
12

These areas have been subjected to severe anthropogenic changes such as regular mowing or
maintenance. Vegetation within these areas varies greatly depending on the location within the
project study area. In residential areas, ornamental trees and shrubs are combined with various
residential grass species. The open field contains species such as broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus) and fescue (Festuca spp.), and are lined with eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana).
Successional Areas
A successional upland area less than five years old lies southeast of Bridge No. 25. Vegetation
consists of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), American holly (ilex opaca), American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings.
Blackberry bushes (Rubus spp.) are scattered throughout. This area includes approximately
3.81 acres (15%) of the project study area.
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
A mature Piedmont Bottomland Forest community, following Schafale and Weakley (1990), is
located around Smith Creek. Another area of bottomland forest community that includes
Wetland A was logged approximately 5 years ago. Vegetative species consist of young sapling-
size American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum, and blackberry. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
cover the ground in the less dense areas. Approximately 7.64 acres (30%) of the project study
area is occupied by the Piedmont Bottomland Forest.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mixed Hardwood Forest stands surround the Piedmont Bottomland Forest and are found on
drier slopes mainly between the road and residential areas. Vegetation consists of loblolly pine,
American holly, American beech, river birch, and Japanese honeysuckle. Approximately 4.81
acres (19%) of the project study area are occupied by the mixed pine/hardwood forest
community type.
3.1.1 NHP Natural Communities
There were no NHP-identified significant natural communities within 3 miles of the project study
area.
13

3.1.2 Observed/Likely Occurring Terrestrial Fauna
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may utilize all biotic communities previously
discussed. Generally, the community boundaries are abrupt, with little transitional area between
them.
Maintained roadsides, powerline easements, successional areas, and residential communities
adjacent to forested tracts provide forage and cover areas and support early successional
species. Forested areas provide forage and cover for wildlife dependent on mature forests with
mast-producing hardwoods. Many opportunistic species use both habitats to satisfy nutrition
and shelter requirements. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), beaver (Castor
canadensis), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were seen in the project study area. The
following species were observed while in the field: Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), wood duck (Aix sponsa), barred owl (Strix varia), and bull frog
(Rana catesbeiana) tadpoles.
Bird species expected within and around the project study area include the great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and red-winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Game birds species found on and in the surrounding areas are
the wild turkey, common bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).
Mammals expected include the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes fulva), mink (Mustela vison),
and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Reptiles expected in this area are eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), and the rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
3.1.3 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities and Ecological Relationships
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the acreage of each plant
community present within the project study area; actual impacts within construction limits will be
less. Forest impacts from construction such as bark damage, soil compaction, root system
damage, and spilled petroleum could also occur.
14

Due to the limited extent of infringement of natural communities, the proposed replacement will
not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. However, a
small loss of forested habitat will occur due to construction activities of the limited right-of-way.
This loss will impact wildlife and their habitat, including the loss of potential nesting and foraging
areas and displacement of wildlife populations.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic faunal community of Smith Creek and Tributaries 1 and 2 depends largely on
stream physical characteristics such as size, water quality, and the adjacent terrestrial
community. Variation in habitat influences the diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates,
crustaceans, amphibians, and fish that occur there. RK&K staff was limited on the amount of
aquatic macroinvertebrate search that was performed due to icy conditions and deep waters.
Using a sweep net search through leaf packs and a visual search of submerged tree branches,
the following benthic macroinvertebrates were collected: mayflies, midges, dobsonflies, and
stoneflies.
The deep, slow-moving waters of Smith Creek and faster-moving shallower waters of
Tributaries 1 and 2 provide favorable habitat for a variety of frogs, toads, salamanders, snakes
and turtles. Larger frogs, like the bullfrog and green frog (Rana clamitans) can be found along
the banks of Smith Creek. Other amphibians and reptiles likely occurring within the project study
area include the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), redbelly water
snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta).
Small fish that inhabit Smith Creek and Tributaries 1 and 2 may include the following: eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), creek chubsucker
(Erimyzon oblongus), spottail shiners (Notropis hudsonius), and eastern silvery minnow
(Hybognathus regius). Larger fish species that can be found in Smith Creek are the yellow
bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus).
15

3.2.1 Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Aquatic Communities and Ecological
Relationships
Impacts to the aquatic community of Smith Creek and possibly Tributaries 1 and 2 will result
from the replacement of Bridge No. 25 and/or improving the alignment of Russell Union Road.
Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic community composition by
reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to
aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth, and
• Loss of benthic mac roi nve rteb rates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment
load.
Stringent erosion control and best management practice measures (Control of Erosion, Siltation,
and Pollution - NCDOT, Specification for Roads and Structures) should be implemented to
protect water quality for aquatic organisms. Some measures are outlined below:
• Use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff during
construction. Regular maintenance and inspection for these structures is recommended to
insure effectiveness.
• Elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams and tributaries
will help reduce the potential for petroleum contamination or discharges of other hazardous
materials into receiving waters.
• Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites to help alleviate sediment loading and reduce runoff.
Increased runoff from new roadway surfaces can be partially mitigated by providing for
grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching.
• Avoid direct discharges into streams whenever feasible. Runoff should be allowed to filter
through roadside vegetation in order to remove contaminants and to minimize runoff
velocities.
Please also refer to Section 2.3.8, "Discussion of Likely Impacts to Water Resources," for
additional information regarding anticipated impacts to aquatic resources as a result of project
construction.
16
a
3.2.2 Fisheries Information and Construction Moratoria Dates for Anadromous Fish or
Trout
The Roanoke River Basin is identified as an anadromous fish spawning area. However,
anadromous fish species do not occur within the project study area, which is upstream of the
Roanoke Rapids dam. No anadromous fish moratoria on construction will be required for this
project.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Please refer to Section 3.1.3 for a discussion of anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities
and Sections 2.3.8 and 3.2.1 for a discussion of anticipated impacts to aquatic communities as
a result of project construction work. Please also refer to Table 4.0 for a listing of community
types within the project study area.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
NWI mapping and Cowardin et al. (1979) descriptions were used to preliminarily determine the
types of wetlands within the project study area. The NWI areas around Smith Creek were
classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved, deciduous with temporary flooding (PF01 A).
This classification is characterized by woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall or taller and is
common along rivers and in the mountains. Palustrine forested areas normally have an
overstory of trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. Wetlands
in this class generally occur on mineral soils or highly decomposed organic soils. Vegetation
tolerates long periods of surface inundation. Surface water is present for brief periods during the
growing season, but the water table is below the soil surface for most of the season. Plants that
grow both in uplands and wetlands are characteristic of the temporarily flooded regime.
Through field surveys, USGS topographical maps, consultation with Warren County Soil and
Water Conservation Service, and NWI mapping, jurisdictional wetlands were delineated,
flagged, surveyed per GPS methodology, and the areas subsequently calculated. Field surveys
occurred on January 20, 2004. The jurisdictional delineation is pending USACE field verification.
Table 5.0 shows the amount of jurisdictional wetland and stream impacts within the project
study area. Impacts were calculated based on the boundary of the project study area provided
by NCDOT.
17

Table 5.0 Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts
Within the Project Study Area
Wetland A 1.38 acres
Wetland B 0.62 acre
Smith Creek 752 linear feet (0.47 acre of open water)
Tributary 1 (UT to Smith
Creek) 19 linear feet (<0.01 acre of open water)
Tributary 2 (UT to Smith
Creek) 252 linear feet (0.03 acre of open water)
4.1.1 Wetlands
Wetland values for representative areas within the project study area were determined using the
Fourth Version of the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. This
system rates the value of wetlands based on ability (characteristics such as hydrologic regime)
and opportunity (fulfilling a given value such as removal of pollutants). Six categories are
evaluated and a rating is determined. The categories are 1) water storage, 2) bank/shoreline
stabilization, 3) pollutant removal, 4) wildlife habitat, 5) aquatic life value, and 6)
recreation/education. See Appendix A for wetland and upland COE Data Forms and Appendix B
for DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets.
Wetland A
This wetland is a recently cutover, currently regenerating bottomland hardwood community
located southwest of Bridge No. 25. Vegetation consisted of red maple, black willow (Salix
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum,
broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), soft rush (Juncus effusus), blackberry, Japanese
honeysuckle, and Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum). The hydrologic indicator noted
was saturation in the upper twelve inches of the soil. The soil unit is mapped Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils. Soil matrix color was a relatively uniform 10YR3/1 from 0 to 18+ inches below
the soil surface. Mottling, sulfidic odor, aquic moisture regime, and low chroma colors were also
noted and indicating hydric soil conditions. This wetland received a DWQ rating of 64.
Wetland B
This wetland is a bottomland hardwood community located west of Bridge No. 25 along
Tributary 2. It has been altered by beaver activity. A small area on the northwestern portion of
18

Y
Wetland A is more characteristic of a freshwater marsh. However, most of the vegetation
consisted of river birch, loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple, black willow, blackberry, muscadine
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), soft rush, switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Japanese honeysuckle and
kudzu (Pueraria montana). Hydrologic indicators consisted of inundation, saturation in the upper
twelve inches, drift lines, and water-stained leaves. The soil unit is mapped as Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils. The soil matrix color ranged from 10YR3/1 to 10YR4/3 with mottles, which
indicate hydric soil conditions. This wetland received a DWQ rating of 73.
4.2 Permit Issues
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [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
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has
determined that pursuant to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 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
• that the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the NWP No. 23. 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 to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
19
In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and
associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit No. 31
issued by the Wilmington USACE District. Notification to the Wilmington USACE office is
required if this general permit is utilized. NWP No. 33 may be used if temporary structures, work
and discharges (including cofferdams) are necessary for this project. Bridge replacement or
construction over navigable waters used for commerce or that have a maintained navigation
channel may require United States Coast Guard (USCG) authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-
115.
The USACE has adopted through the CEQ a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.2.1 Wetland Avoidance
According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the USACE, 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.
4.2.2 Minimization of Wetland Impacts
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-
way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Acreage of impacts to Wetlands A and B,
shown in Table 5.0, were calculated based on the area within the NCDOT pre-determined
project study area. Actual construction impacts will be less.
20
4.2.3 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the United States, including wetlands, are subject to regulation by the
USACE and the EPA, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, approved March 3,
1899, and Section 404 of the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Permits issued by the
USACE for placement of fill in wetlands are often conditional to mitigation requirements, in
accordance with the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. The objective of this policy is to restore and
maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Waters of the United States.
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. Appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to
the discharge site.
The DWQ requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the United States
(including wetlands, open waters, stream channels, etc.) that exceed 0.10 acre of
wetlands/open waters and/or 150 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. The USACE may
require compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the United States at its discretion. As
shown in Table 5.0, impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters exceed the
aforementioned thresholds; however, once alternatives, right-of-way widths, and specific
numeric impact totals are determined, precise DWQ mitigation requirements can be determined.
Furthermore, the USACE has not yet conducted a field review to confirm RK&K's wetland
delineation, so the impact totals stated in Table 5.0 are subject to change.
4.2.4 Identification of Potential Mitigation Sites
Due to the minimal impacts, mitigation requirements are expected to be minimal. The mitigation
site search was limited to the project study area, in which no on-site wetland mitigation
opportunities were noted. However, potential mitigation to stabilize Smith Creek's banks, which
are undercutting on the east side of Bridge No. 25, may be considered enhancement or
restoration.
21
4.2.5 Bridge Demolition into 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 CFR 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into
surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). According to Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures, the chapter titled "Removal of Existing Structures"
outlines restrictions and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-
BDRs). It includes guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting from
demolition. At this time, bridge demolition has not been evaluated. NCDOT project engineer will
complete bridge materials and fill data at a later time.
In the event that no protected species are found within the project study area, the replacement
of Bridge No. 25 can be classified as a Case 3 by the BMP-BDRs. Case 3 states that there are
no special restrictions other than those outlined in the BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters.
4.2.6 Buffer Rules
The Roanoke River Basin is not subject to vegetated riparian buffer requirements by the state at
this time.
4.3 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.3.1 Federal Listed Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the
USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.3.2 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Table 6.0 shows the
federally protected species for Warren County. According to the USFWS January 29, 2003 list
(updated website February 25, 2003), two federally endangered species, the Tar spinymussel
22
t Illrr ?i, n G I
t'rt
?p?/Cr?r??ird
f ?
(Elliptio steinstansana) and dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), are found in Warren
County. An additional federally threatened species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
(threatened but proposed for delisting) is listed on the NHP website database searched on
February 24, 2004. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was determined for the Tar
spinymussel due to the project study area being outside of its habitat range. A Biological
Conclusion of "Not likely to adversely affect" was determined for the bald eagle due to potential
nesting and foraging habitat in the nearby open waters of John H. Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston;
however, no nests or species were seen during the field visit. A Biological Conclusion of
"Unresolved" was determined for the dwarf wedgemussel due to available habitat in Smith
Creek and Tributaries 1 and 2. A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique
habitats shows no occurrence of federally protected species within one mile the project study
area. Brief descriptions of these species characteristics and habitat requirements are included.
Table 6.0 Federally Protected Species for Warren County
Common Name Scientific Name Status* Biological Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T (PD) Not likely to adversely
affect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Unresolved
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E No effect
"E - Endangered, T - threatened, PD - Proposed for detfsting
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Federally Threatened
Bald eagle adults have a blackish-brown back and breast; a white head, neck, and tail; and
yellow feet and bill. The bald eagle is the only eagle confined to North America, and there are
no other large black birds in North America with white heads and tails. The female bald eagle is
35 to 37 inches, slightly larger than the male. The male bald eagle has a body length from 30 to
34 inches. The wingspan ranges from 72 to 85 inches.
Even though they are fish eaters, they will take whatever prey is available and easiest to obtain.
Bald eagles, which live along the coast and on major lakes and rivers, feed mainly on fish. Bald
eagles fish in both fresh and salt water. Eagles are at the top of the food chain, making them
more vulnerable to toxic chemicals in the environment, since each link in the food chain tends to
concentrate chemicals from the lower link. Because of their size, they have few natural enemies
23
and require a large hunting area. The bald eagle's recovery has lead to a proposal (50 CFR 17)
for delisting it from the Endangered and Threatened List.
The bald eagle lives near major lakes and rivers and feeds mainly on fish. Due to Bridge No.
25's close proximity to John H. Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston, habitat for the baldeagle may be
present. During field surveys, no bald eagle nests or active eagles were seen within the project
study area. Although significant open waters are not found within the project study area,
foraging and nesting habitat may be available along Smith Creek or Wetlands A and B.
Biological Conclusion: Not likely to adversely affect
One sighting (NHP element identification #261361) of the bald eagle occurred approximately 5
miles northwest of Bridge No. 25.
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) -Federally Endangered
The dwarf wedgemussel's shell rarely exceeds 1.7 inches in length. Clean young shells are
usually greenish-brown with green rays. As the animal ages, the shell color becomes obscured
by diatoms or mineral deposits and appears black or brown. The shell is thin but does thicken
somewhat with age, especially toward the anterior end. The anterior end is rounded while the
posterior end is angular forming a point near the posterio-ventral margin. The ventral margin is
only slightly curved. The nacre is bluish-white, appearing whiter in the thickened anterior end.
The most distinctive shell character of the dwarf wedgemussel is the arrangement of the lateral
teeth. There are two lateral teeth in the right valve and one in the left valve.
Individual dwarf wedgemussels are found in large rivers and small streams, often burrowed into
clay banks among the root systems of trees. They may also be found associated with mixed
substrates of cobble, gravel, and sand. Occasionally they may be found in very soft silt
substrates. Stable stream banks with extensive root systems holding soils in place are
preferred. Associated landscapes are largely wooded, especially near streams. Trees near the
stream are relatively mature and tend to form a closed canopy over smaller streams, creeks,
and headwater river habitats. Water quality is good to excellent.
The project study area includes Smith Creek and Tributaries 1 and 2, which could be habitat for
the dwarf wedgemussel. Large slow-moving waters, clay banks filled with tree roots, and
wooded landscapes are habitat features found within the project study area.
24
J
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved (NCDOT will perform a mussel survey prior to
construction).
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Federally Endangered
The Tar spinymussel is one of only three freshwater mussels in the world with spines. It is a
small subhomboidal mussel that grows to approximately 2.5 inches in length. The external shell
of the adult is smooth, orange-brown to dark brown, and ornamented by one or two rows of
short spines, up to 0.2 inches long.
It lives in relatively silt-free uncompacted gravel/coarse sand substrate in fast-flowing, well-
oxygenated stream reaches of the Tar and Neuse River basins. It feeds by filtering food
particles that are suspended in the water. The Tar Spinymussel is restricted to five stream
reaches in the Tar River system in eastern North Carolina.
The project study area is located within the Roanoke River Basin. Therefore, habitat for the Tar
spinymussel does not occur at this site.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
4.3.3 Federal Species of Concern
There are five federal species of concern on the January 29, 2003 USFWS list for Warren
County (Table 7.0). Federal species of concern (FSC) 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. However, the status of
these species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. FSC species
are defined as species that are under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are state-listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are
afforded state protection under the North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
25
Table 7.0 Federal Species of Concern for Warren County
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status* Habitat Presence and description
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC No (old fields, open longleaf pines)
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR No (Tar and Neuse drainages)
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata E No (Tar and Neuse drainages)
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E Yes (most Atlantic drainages)
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri SR-T Yes (open woods over clay soils)
*E - Endangered, SR - Significantly Rare, T - Throughout, SC - Special Concern
26
IL

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation;
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh, North
Carolina. 113 pp.
Bolen, E.G. and W. L. Robinson. 1995. Wildlife Ecology and Management. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall,
New Jersey. 620 pp.
Burt, W.B. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. Peterson Field Guide - Mammals. 3`d ed. Houghton
Mifflin Company, New York. 289 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goblet, and E.T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetland and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS
79/31. U. S. Department of Interior; Washington, D.C. 83 pp.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1995. Fourth Version,
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. DEHNR, Division of
Environmental Management, Water Quality Section; Raleigh, North Carolina. 56 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2001. Roanoke River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality; DENR; Raleigh,
North Carolina.
DENR. 2000. Basinwide Assessment Report for the Roanoke River Basin. Water Quality
Section. Division of Water Quality. DENR: Raleigh, North Carolina. 152 pp.
DENR 2001. The Division of Water Quality Red Book of Rules. Division of Water Quality;
DENR; Raleigh, North Carolina. 112 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. 100 pp.
27

Gregory, J.D. 2001 Hydric Soils and Growing Season: Wetland Delineation Data for North
Carolina. Department of Forestry; North Carolina State University; Raleigh, North
Carolina. 104 pp.
Hunter, M. L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry - Principles of Managing Forests for
Biological Diversity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 370 pp.
Justice, W.S. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Wildflowers of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 217pp.
Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Inland Fisheries Management in North America. American
Fisheries Society, Maryland. 593 pp.
Leithead, H.L., L.L. Yarlett, and T.N. Shiflet. 1976. 100 Native Forage Grasses in 11 Southern
States. Soil Conservation Service; United States Department of Agriculture; U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr., S.P. Hall and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation; Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
Raleigh, North Carolina. 95 pp.
Little, E.L. 1995. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees - Eastern
Region. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York. 714 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. 264 pp.
McCafferty, W. Patrick. 1998. Aquatic Entomology - The Fishermen's and Ecologists' Guide to
Insects and Their Relatives. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Sudbury,
Massachusetts. 448 pp.
28

North Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation. 23 February 2004. Internet list of Element
Occurrences for Warren County. Internet address:
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html
North Carolina Department of Transportation - Division of Highways. 1997. Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Raleigh, North Carolina. 19 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1993. North Carolina Wild Places -
A Closer Look. Division of Conservation Education, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission; Raleigh, North Carolina. 73 pp.
Owen, O. S. and D.D. Chiras. 1995. Natural Resource Conservation - Management for a
Sustainable Future. 6th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 586 pp.
Peterson, R.T. 1980. Peterson Field Guides - Eastern Birds. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company,
New York. 383 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp.
Resource Management Group, Inc. 1999. National List of Plant Species that Occur in
Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2). Dickens Press, Grand Haven, Michigan. 108 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, A.G. Lindquist and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 222 pp.
Russo, M. 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of North Carolina-A Guide to
Assist with Forestry Activities. The Nature Conservancy. International Paper Company.
183 pp.
29
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, DENR; Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). unpublished. Soil Survey of Warren County,
North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USDA. 1998. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 4. USDA, Fort Worth,
Texas. 30 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 29 January 2003. Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern by County in North Carolina.
USFWS; Raleigh, North Carolina. 55 pp.
USFWS. 25 February 2003. Internet update of Federal Protected Species List for Warren
County. Internet address: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/clisttext.htmi
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1982. Middleburg, North Carolina 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
USGS. 1981. John H. Kerr Dam, Virginia - North Carolina 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
USGS. 1974. Bracey, Virginia - North Carolina 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
USGS. 1970. Warrenton, North Carolina 7.5 Minute Quadrangle
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 255 pp.
Winborne, F.B. 1994. A Guide to Streamwalking. Division of Water Resources; North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Raleigh, North Carolina. 35 pp.
30
FIGURES

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROTECT DEV£LOPmENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.25 ON SR 1206
OVER SMITH CREEK
B-4664
VICINITY MAP FIGURE I
i

s
1
t
t
1 ?
}
t
lib 125
?;? {- 29
f
.43
?- t
1214
118
2 i.
321
?-C t
,r
+f 1221 12M Pt . 9
?"• C46
ref • -...-'? '
1224 8 ?"` .. ,, ,?•
y '
L 1 J 5 jam
} f237
1 } { ,ti
., .
12 ? j
121s P24
( 0221 ; 1214 ?
.
{ f 108 t
r , , a 121111 cy -
• fit,--,
.
EI
t
C52
1214 ° ..
..% 1216 1212
s1p ? T ?' 12?a Uti ?
101 1214 f
240
-1 1. a --
.6 122
i?
1
12M
a ?
i
: t
NORUNA
r4r,lAoa
. f22iry
*12
121
50
.
1231
tti. ? m
?„?'-, 1239
APPENDIX A
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
' Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664 Date: 20-Jan-2004
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Warren
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? es (ITo) Transect ID: Wetland A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species (Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species (Lati n/Co m mon) Stratum Indicator
onicera japonica ine - ino en ron u ipi era ree
Honeysuc Ie,Japanese ree,Tulip
u us e u i o ius ru yp a a i o is er
Blackberry attail,Broad-Lea
uncus e usus Herb + a ix nigra Shrub
Rush, o Wi Iow,Black
--
u a is viminea ru + raxinus pennsy vanica

ree
77
ACW
Microstegium,Nepal Ash, Green
iqui am ar s yraci ua Shrub + cer ru rum Shrub
Gum, Sweet Maple,Red

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 9/10 =90.00% FAC Neutral: 4/4 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 24/10 =2.40
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/A Aerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data
- NO Water Marks
NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
NO Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: = 0 (in.) NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Page 1 of 2 WeTorm"
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(9987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664 Date: 20-Jan-2004
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Warren
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 1
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): (see note below)
Map Symbol: N/A Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes (°
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
_ Sandy clay
12-18+ 1 1 4 Few Distinct Sandy clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
YES Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
YES Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Warren County Soil Survey data unavailable
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic. Vegetation Present? es No Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
Remarks:
Page 2 of 2 WetForm''
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
• Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664 Date: 20-Jan-2004
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Warren
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 2
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? es (To) Transect ID: Upland A
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
Hu bus e u r o rus Shrub raxinus pennsy vanrca ru
Blackberry
-
-
- Ash, Green
cerru rum M
F
67 77 onicera/aponrca me 7-77
Maple,Red Honeysuckle, apanese

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 3/4 = 75.00% FAC Neutral: 1/1 =100.00%
Numeric Index: 11 /4 = 2.75
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/AAerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other NO Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
- NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in,) NO Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Page 1 of 2 WeTorm'"
DATA FORM
.ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664 Date: 20-Jan-2004
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Warren
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 2
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): (see note below)
Map Symbol: N/A Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches)
-
- Horizon (Munsell Moist)
---- (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
T-TT 7 R4/6 N/A N/A N/A Clay loam
1 - 4 4 Common Distinct ay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
NO Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Warren County Soil Survey data unavailable
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
Page 2 of 2 WeTormt'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
.' Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Zes' No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? o7o Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ?( Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
ate: 20-Jan-2004
County: Warren
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 3
PFO
Wetland B
Dominant Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Spec ies(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
u us e u i o ius ru iqui am ar s yracr ua ree +
Blackberry Gum, Sweet
i is ro un i o is fine cer ru rum ru
rape,Muscadine Map e,Red
onicerajaponlca Vine FAC- uncus a usus Herb +
Honeysuckle, Japanese Rush, o
137eula nigra ru anicum virga um er +
Birch,River witchgrass
e u a nigra Tree FACW a ix nigra Shrub
Birch, fiver Willow,Black
inus ae a ree uerana o a a Shrub
Pine, ob o ly Kudzu

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBI, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 10/11 =90.91% FAC Neutral: 4/4 = 100.00%
Numeric Index: 28/11 =2.55
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/AAerial Photographs YES Inundated
N/A Other YES Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
- YES Drift Lines

Field Observations NO Sediment Deposits
NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: = 1 (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (]n.) YES Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) YES FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Page 1 of 2 WetForm'"
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND. DETERMINATION
(9987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
)roject/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664 Date: 20-Jan-2004
kpplicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Warren
nvestigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 3
JVILJ
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): (see note below)
Map Symbol: N/A Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
- Few rominent ay
1 - 1 0YR4/3 4 any Distinct ay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
YES Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Warren County Soil Survey data unavailable
L-
VV1-- t LADETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? EsN o Is the Sampling Point within the Wetland? es No
Wetland Hydrology Present? o
Hydric S oils Present? o
Remarks:
Page 2 of 2 WetFormtm
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford
Date: 20-Jan-2004
County: Warren
State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 4
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es No Community ID: Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation:)? es (JTO-) Transect ID: Upland B
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o Field Location:
(If needed, explain on the reverse side)
VEGETATION (USFWS Region No. 2)
Dominant Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator Plant Species(Latin/Common) Stratum Indicator
mo en ron u ipiera ree uercus. a ca a ree -
ree,Tulip Oak, Southern Red
unrperus virginiana ree - arpinus caro iniana ru
Cedar, astern Red orn eam,Amencan
onicera japonica ine FAC- n ropogon virgmicus Herb -
Honeysuckle,Japanese Broom-Sedge

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC:
(excluding FAC-) 2/6 = 33.33% FAC Neutral: 0/2 = 0.00%
Numeric Index: 20/6 = 3.33
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
NO Recorded Data(Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
N/A Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
N/AAerial Photographs NO Inundated
N/A Other NO Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
YES No Recorded Data NO Water Marks
- NO Drift Lines
NO Sediment Deposits
Field Observations NO Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) NO Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches

Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A ()n,) NO Water-Stained Leaves
NO Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) NO FAC-Neutral Test
NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Page 1 of 2 WetForm"
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(9987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4664 Project No: B-4664 Date: 20-Jan-2004
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Warren
Investigators: David Ward; Elizabeth Workman; Pete Stafford State: North Carolina
Plot ID: 4
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): (see note below)
Map Symbol: NIA Drainage Class: Mapped Hydric Inclusion?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color Mottle
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, etc
-
2.5YR416
N/A
NIA - N/A
ay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
NO Histosol NO Concretions
NO Histic Epipedon NO High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
NO Sulfidic Odor NO Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
NO Aquic Moisture Regime NO Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
NO Reducing Conditions NO Listed on National Hydric Soils List
NO Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors NO Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Warren County Soil Survey data unavailable
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? IYes o s te amping Point within the Wetland? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? es o
Hydric Soils Present? es o
Remarks:
Page 2 of 2 WetFormtm
APPENDIX B

W LEI Leal' A
Wetland Rating Worksheet
J
County W Wetland Acreage Wetland Width (Feet)
Name of Evaluator Date
Pro'ect Name 9 - 4 6 4 Nearest Road . 2- f2 6 6 ( Als 5 £ I U fJe'a- ?J )
Wetland. Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake
perennza stream
• radius)
Forested/natural vegetation 0 % -acc.E6ir
• On intermittent stream Agricultural, urban/suburban3?'-%
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface S %
• Other
Soil Series 1k 17? Dominant Vegetation

• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
Peat
(2) //
? l?n t£u S?c?? ??
•?Predominantly mineral _ non-san
(3)
EcA a-S ?-
• Predominantly sandy.
Hydraulic Factors Flooding and Wetness
• Steep topography Semi ermanentl to ermanently'flooded or inundated
• Ditched or channelized Seasonally flooded or inundate
• Tot wetland wl th > 100 feet raternuttently flooded or inundated
• No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Tye ectone) C&,-f oJ£r
-ottomland hardwoo orest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
T? A TTmr
Water storage X 4.00 = I Z
B ank/Shoreline stabilization _Z X 4.00 =
8
Pollutant removal X 5.00 =
ZS-
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 =
Aquatic life value ?e X 4.00 =
Recreation/ Education x 1.00 =
?y
COMMENTS: 3o0'-, .? rJ J U- ?- -> ? 2. AL 3
w /,r
V `
U ,r 300' >lo°?° %G?dre >go?i° 4r•?1. !o.-1?.,.,?tL,T ?Sv '
??/,vL 3 00' 7s0% LnJf( -- 2

l,J-Z.t6, O( ??
County ? a-ro on Wetland Acreage Wetland Width(Feet)
Name of Evaluator Date /-ZO / oq
Wetland Rating Worksheet
Project Name Nearest Road S2 CASs ?( ?(^ o,,`
7 Ai (-(-lf
Wetland. Location Adjacent Land Use (within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or
• On pond or lake radius)
'
• On perennial stream • 70 %
Forested/natural vegetation
• On intermittent stream • Agricultural, urban/suburban ZS %
• Within interstream divide • Impervious surface -_%
Other ?r is 1-4.
o eries Dominant Vegetation
(1) ? c?. rv1.a ? ? ? --
• Predominantly organic - humus, muck or
s?.
'F4 rrL
?
Peat (2) o
c
Predominantly mineral _ non-san
Lj, a L
• Predominantly sandy. (3)
Hydraulic Factors Fl uding-and-1Y ness
• Steep topography Semipermanently to permanently flooded or mun
• Ditched or channelized eason y oo e or mun a
Total wetland width > 100 feet Intermittently flooded or inundated
- No evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one) bJ?L
ottomlanine savanna
Headwates ter mars
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other ? ?Q??>?
T? ATTiV(.-
Water storage - X 4.00 =
Bank/Shoreline stabilization X 4.00 =
Pollutant removal X 5.00 = F -S
Wildlife habitat X 2.00 = 2
Aquatic life value X 4.00 = Q?
Recreation/ Education _-7 - X 1.00 =
COMMENTS: W/; n
0 -?c ? sce'r. Jr
- u/,,, 3 C3, , > I o'
I -44fS _ _d ?i
k%
r'
rn"4. 4. 0, - /0% I,,(•r . ?'? AG

-> /n n

APPENDIX C
ACTION ID

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPLICANT NAME N G 1::) J 7
0r r
DATE
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) 6"1-2f <- ??PJwC?'7 t £ .l
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN "ez,,,0YC-oL COUNTY/CITY
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS S U/7 i1
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
510 Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
5141 Benthic Macro Invertebrates
S? Amphibians PresentfB reeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
IVP Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
?C4
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 5017o closure) O d? ???,
l
l Undercut B anks/Instream. Habitat S tructure
!mi Flow In Channel Al" ! 4^,( /OLJ
D
f Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
tjL.-e Gi N-S ?w Y1d`? jdi ?S
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
une e
SP Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
5 P Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
S Hydrophytic Vegetation inladjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /Y
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? / N Approx. Drainage Area:
nllnnlllniliinrmrlinnlailititalulnnnnlniiillllliunllluiui?nnuniiinulinlVVVii/itulailuiilitiilniliiirllil/n/iaiinuuill/iinlnlmmlmimnllunlii/liullu/inmrniinllmllliilm
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
l/llllllllllllllll/lllll!l/l/1!l/Ill/ll/llll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll//11111/Ill/lllllllllll/lllllll/lllllllllllllllll/l//l/llll/lllll/ll/lllll!Ill/llllllllll/llll!lllllll/ll/ll//l/Ill/l/llll/ll/llllllll/llllll
a
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98
ACTION ID
T, - I q&6 ?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
APPLICANT NAME Ajooe-7
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN 124AAlf tG

COUNTY/CITY
r
'o,
??
DATE
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS J G(/1/L':A
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
A) Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
s P Benthic Macro Invertebrates
/v(2 Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
,t/ r Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
5 P Riffle/Pool Structure
P Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
S P Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure)
5 P Undercut B anks/lnstream Habitat Structure -Al C-
S? Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
S? Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
S (} Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
0 Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? yl ;
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y Approx. Drainage Area:
llllllllllll!l/lllllllllllllllllJllllllllllllllllllll/llllllllllll111111111/Il/llll/lll/!llllllllllll111?//ll/lllllllllll/l/llllllllll/lll/Illlllllllllllllllll/lllll/llll/ll/llll/Il/llllllllllll/lllllllll/l/1/ll/lll/ll/llll/
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of importantfunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
/llllllllll/!l/llll/!1/llllllllllllllll/1/llllllll!/llllllllll/llllllllll11lll!/ll/l/I!l!l/ll/ll/lllllllllll/llllllllllllllllllllllll//!lull//l/l//llllllllll/l!l/lJllllllllllllllllllll/lull!llllllllllll/l1/lull/!llllllll
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
i'''& `Z,

ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME DATE )/ zd /D
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) l b lD `T ??Q ??cC t bl/ y
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN i `-?D COUNTY/CITY
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS C Ln'n
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
P Benthic Macro Invertebrates /? ?? Lys << // 1? fv?
Amphibians PresentBreeding U
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
I/ Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. avel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
?. Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure) /o
Undercut B arks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
/
V Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
/
V Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y / 6
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y / ) Approx. Drainage Area:
l/llll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l/llllllllll/lllllllll/lllllll/Il/lll/lllll//lllllll///l/ll(/lllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l/llllllllllllllllllllll/lllllll!llI/lllll/lllll/Ill/l1//Il/Illll/lll/llll/llllllll/lll
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) 8 Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
llllll/llllllllll!/llllllllllllllllllll//lllllllllllllllllllll/llll!llllllllll//!!ll/ll//lll/lIIIIIIIl1/l/lllll!llllll/lllllllllll/lllllllllllllll/lllllllll!/l!/llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll//ll//llllllllll/llllll/llllll
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98
APPENDIX D

WDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: nc ?? County: Evaluator:'
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: 5,,,;4 Latitude: Signature:
eel-, ?
Date: 11Zo16 7 USGS QUAD: y tS Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Also, .if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed << w--
n;ff--f Rrnm C?irrn?inr?in tr Tvrrain7 ??PS- n 1 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 C
(*NOTE: YBed & Bank Caused By bitching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2°d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flnw[Discharee Present? . 0 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Ti
,qP(`nnfl,grv Field Tnfll(,.atnrC: (C.'irrleoneNumherPerline)
F.
NCDWQ Stream Classification-For
Project Name: River Basin: County:L

Evaluator: Z_91J
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: J atitude: Signature: .
Date: 0zO)1 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1.
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 l } 3
f *Y-g C If Bed & Bank Caured By bitchins And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
nn Tnnn Man And/nr Tn Field) Present? Yes=3- No=?
PRIMARY GE, OMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II Hydrolwy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A, Groundwater
n 7 ( 4
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:,
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
,qpe nd.grv Field Til(11('At(IM: WirrlenneNumber Perrine)
NXDWQ Stream Classification Form ?'-
Project Name: River Basin: / County: LJA1-,-61L_. Evaluator:
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: L/Latitude: Signature:

Date: //-o A ? USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary.
Also, Yf in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
rating system should not be used`
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1.
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 U? 2 3
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPH'OLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: V
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Stronl?
1) Is There A Groundwater 14PI-
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 'J- rir-c,k-
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since . 0 .5 1;5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE• If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Are H dric Soils Present I Sides Of Channel Or In Headcut ? Yes=13 No=O
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:

8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL M y F'A Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: , ZS cc
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
B-4664
8.2411501
33696.1.1
BRZ-1206(5)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Warren County Bridge No. 25 on
SR 1206 (Russel Union Rd.) over Smith Creek. Bridge No. 25 is 53 feet long.
The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 90 feet long providing a
minimum 28 feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 11-foot lanes and
3-foot offsets. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 340 feet from the north end of
the new bridge and 400 feet from the south end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two
11-foot lanes. Five-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (8-foot
shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural
Local Route with a 40 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 25 has a
sufficiency rating of 35.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered functionally obsolete due to deck geometry of 3 out of 9 according to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for
FHWA's Bridge Replacement Program.
Timber structures typically do not last beyond 40 to 50 years of age due to the
natural deterioration rates of wood. In this case the deck boards are decayed at
ends and soft for most of their lengths. Timber joists are decayed with many
having had to be supplemented. Timber caps and piles are decayed in many
areas. The stream has scoured below the timber bulkheads allowing roadway fill
to be lost. This bridge has not had any major rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of a
timber structure is generally practical only when a few members are damaged or
prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber
structures become impractical to maintain and upon eligibility are programmed
for replacement.
Bridge No. 25 carries.200 vehicles per day with 600 vehicles per day projected
for the future. The substandard deck width is becoming increasingly unacceptable
and replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
Components of both the timber superstructure and substructure have experienced
an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by
maintenance activities. The posted weight limit on the bridge is to 10 tons for
single vehicles and 17 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The bridge is
approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of the bridge will result in
safer traffic operations.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type If 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)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
2
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
O 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 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.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Alternative 1
Preferred
Structure $ 239,000
Roadway Approaches $ 253,000
Structure Removal $ 18,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 153,000
En g. & Contingencies $ 111,000
Total Construction Cost $ 775,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 30,000
Total Project Cost $ 805,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 200 vpd
Year 2030 - 600 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found four accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. None were
associated with the geometry of the bridge or its approach roadways.
Design Exceptions: A design exception for a 40 mph design speed will be
required.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 25 is constructed entirely of timber and should be
possible to remove with minimal debris in the water based on standard demolition
practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1718.
Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1957 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour - Bridge No. 25 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
for Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
4

resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR 1217 and SR 1218. The majority of traffic on the road is
through traffic. The detour for the average road user would result in less
than five minutes additional travel time (2.7 miles additional travel). Up to
a 12-month duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that the preference of
an offsite detour but with now stronger evaluation of other project
variables. In this case, Warren County Emergency Services along with
Warren County Schools Transportation have indicated that an offsite
detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 5 has indicated that the condition
of all roads, bridges and intersections along the detour are acceptable
without improvement and concur with the use of the detour.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
Staged Construction - Staged construction was not considered because
of the availability of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment - Given that the alignment for SR 1206 is acceptable, a
new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in
standardized letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure
to be a spanning structure.
Response: Replace structure with a bridge.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality, the Army Corps of Engineers, and N.C.
Marine Fisheries had no special concerns for this project.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
r
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? x
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
F
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? x
(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-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? x
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ?
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? x
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? x
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
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
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? x
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? x
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
x
6
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? ? x
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? x
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ?
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? x
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
7
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? x
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? x
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? x
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? x
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? x
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: The Bald Eagle, Dwarf wedgemussel, and Tar
spinymussel are on Warren County T&E species list.
No habitat was found for the Bald Eagle and Tar
spinymussel. There is marginal habitat for the Dwarf
wedgemussel in Smith Creek. NCDOT Biologists
determined a "No Effect" for these T&E species.
?1,
TIP Project No. B-4664
State Project No. 8.2411501
W.B.S. No. 33696.1.1
Federal Project 'Nn.. BRZ-1206(5)

Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Warren County Bridge No. 25 on
SR 1206 (Russel Union Rd.) over Smith Creek. The replacement structure will
be a bridge approximately 90 feet long providing a minimum 28 feet clear deck
width. The bridge will include two 11-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. The
roadway grade of the new structure will be slightly higher than the existing
structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 340 feet from the north end of
the new bridge and 400 feet from the south end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two
11-foot lanes. Five-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (8-foot
shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural
Local Route using low volume guidelines with a 40 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE H(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
q i o? Wk
D to Bridge Project evelopment U ead
Pr velo ment & Enviro mental Analysis Branch
b'7 o T V oy,
Date ro' ct Development Group Leader
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
U 10(j oF,
9
I aidL6 1\1-k
Date Pro ct Planning ngineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
G. CE Approval
r
ate John F. Sullivan, III, P Sion Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
f

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Warren County
Bridge No. 25 on SR 1206
Over Smith Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1206(5)
State Project No. 8.2411501
W.B.S. No. 33696.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4664
Division Five Construction, Resident Engineer's Office - Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, the Resident Engineer will notify
Warren County School Transportation Office at least one month prior to road closure.
Warren County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at least one month prior to road
closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Natural Environment Unit - Bridge Demolition
The entire bridge is constructed of timber and steel. Therefore, Bridge No. 25 will be removed
without dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
Natural Environment Unit/Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch-
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Marginal habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel does exist in Smith Creek. NEU will determine if
additional surveys are required prior to construction.
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
September 2006
Page 1 of 1

t
• •CromC
121
,9 ? lgpg
1 /? 1?A7 ? f 1
C52
' 1210
12106
1202 - - ^ - , - 1 -J -
.122D '
218 F121522 ? 1212
1219. -
7 f 1210 101
210p f 1221 1219 1217 'a? 3214 !
3217 ,l J1213 C11-
1.7
1201 ; / 108 1 Oins
i '
.2 1218
t
f, 1226 1216 r ta?a
.i
1205 '
! ` - " s t 12M ?'• 125
29
23 - 7
•1 120Cr lk. 1214 ?.
-0 1221
:?!l 12W
• 1234 1218
t. E9e?twy
• '? 1226
?.r
1 128"/ LJ
10
Z o N. 1227 6
1zm x,49 :210
ti 1288
%
C46
C50
U
A
Q ?
1231
?F 1
is 8 co
1224
X 1239
?
- 10 -
09
.1
.
L . 1210
1225

12?
s
4.
L
31
1229
1 t
t s
1
t
s
NORMA
POP. lAw
r
Studied Offsite Detour
/KOr+n' tpo NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

9 P

OF TFI
A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Bt

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 13RANCH
WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 25 ON SR 1206
OVER SMITH CREEK
B-4664
Figure 1