HomeMy WebLinkAbout19970060 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19960127
r~'.d
".. .:--...
401 \$SUED n 'f f-i f' ,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARlJ\ND B. GARRETI JR.
GOVERNOR r,o, BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
Januaryl6, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
RECEIVED
JAN 2 7 J997
tNVIRONME~! ~~ SGIENCfS
'/j
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D, Smith, P,W,S,
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Warren County, Replacement of Bridge No, 15 over Little Fishing
Creek on SR 1509, Federal Project No. BRZ-1509(3), State Project
No, 8,2410501, T.I,P, No, B-2872,
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No, 15 will be replaced at its existing location with a 43 meter (140 foot)
long bridge, Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during construction,
No jurisdictional wetland communities will be affected by the proposed project.
~ ~
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 77 15(b), Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, bu op.o' ceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appen IX A(B-23). Th provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulat ns will b ed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this
project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review,
G)
~.r ....."1...
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms, Alice N, Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307,
~ffiJ
H. Franklin Vick, P,E" Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV Iplr
cc: w/attachment
Mr, Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers , Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P,E, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P,E" Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William 1. Rogers, P,E" Structure Design Unit
Mr, Tom Shearin, P,E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D, A. Allsbrook, P,E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr, William T. Goodwin, Jr., P,E" P & E Project Planning Engineer
.I
..
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. : B-2872
State Project No. : 8.2410501
Federal-Aid Project No. : BRZ-1509(3)
A. Proiect Description: (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 15 on SR 1509 over Little Fishing Creek in
Warren County. The bridge will be replaced with a 43 meter (140 foot) long bridge at the
existing location. The new bridge will have a 7.8 meter (26 foot) clear deck width which
will provide a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travel way with a 0.6 meter (2 foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during construction.
B. Pu(pose and Need:
Bridge No. 15 has a sufficiency rating of35.7 out of 100. The deck of Bridge No.
15 is only 6.2 meters (20.2 feet) wide. The existing bridge is posted at 10 tons for single
vehicles and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons Bridge No. 19 needs
to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
I
.
~
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and! or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
1. Channelizing traffic
J. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
c.
Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and! or fill)
a.
b.
@
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
2
.A.
"
~j
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.
II. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEP A
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Proiect Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed and
properly maintained throughout project construction.
3. The existing bridge will be dismantled from the top down.
4. Measures will be taken to keep paint chips and asphalt from the existing bridge
from falling into the creek during the bridge removal process.
5. Pilings from the existing bridge will be cut off at the streambed or natural ground
elevation. Turbidity curtains or other appropriate means will be used to restrict the
movement of any sediment disturbed during this process.
6. The new bridge will be designed with no bents in the creek. If possible, the new
bridge will have pile bents. The deck of the new bridge will be evaluated during
design to determine if deck drains over the creek can be eliminated.
7. If any in-stream work should be required, a final survey for Tar River spiny
mussel will be conducted before construction begins. The NC WRC will be
notified of the survey results. If the surveyor discovers endangered mussels,
3
.......
.
NCDOT (as an agent of the Federal Highway Administration) will initiate formal
consultation proceedings.
8. The old concrete footings, retaining walls, and debris found around and under the
existing bridge will be left in place unless shifting or removing parts of it will
aid in the construction of the new bridge and/or provide a larger water opening.
9. Mr. Tim Savidge ofNCDOT-Planning and Environmental Branch, Mr. David
Cox of NC WRC, and Mr. John Alderman ofNC WRC will be contacted by the
Resident Engineer when the contractor is ready to begin project construction.
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
$
$
$
500,000
33.750
533,750
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2018
300 VPD
600 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with at least 1.2 meter
(4 foot) shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where
guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
100 krn!h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
SR 1509 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed detour route.
4
,)
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be
completed. If the project consists mm:. of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not
need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or D
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed ~
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? D
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of pennanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1/3) acre
and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize X
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use ofU. S. Forest Service lands? D
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted D
by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water D
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQw)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any D
of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks D
(UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
YES
(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)?
D
(11 )
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? D
5
NO
X
X
D
X
X
x
X
X
NO
X
X
..
(12) Will aU. S. Coast Guard permit be required? D X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing D
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel D
changes? .x
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or D X
land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? D X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the D
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? D X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and! or land D
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local D X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and! or
Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in D
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? D X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing roads, D
staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or D
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
6
....
..
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws 0
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CUL TURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or 0 X
listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges , 0'
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in 0 X
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation ReQuired for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)
Response to question 2 on page 5 - Endangered Species
Little Fishing Creek, in the project area, is suitable habitat for the Tar River spiny mussel
and the Dwarf wedge mussel. Special project commitments and coordination with the USFWS
have resulted in a determination that this project is not likely to adversely affect the Tar River
spiny mussel or the Dwarf wedge mussel. [See attached memo from USFWS.]
7
,.
,
..
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. : B-2872
State Project No. : 8.2410501
Federal-Aid Project No. : BRZ-1509(3)
Proiect Description: (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 15 on SR 1509 over Little Fishing Creek in
Warren County. The bridge will be replaced with a 43 meter (140 foot) long bridge at the
existing location. The new bridge will have a 7.8 meter (26 foot) clear deck width which
will provide a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travel way with a 0.6 meter (2 foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be maintained on existing secondary roads during construction.
Cate~orical Exclusion Action Classification:
(Check one)
Approved:
10-3(- '"
Date
10- 3/,'1'
Date
IO.31-r~
Date
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
~o/ ~-
Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
uJq'fl1~ glo7f
Projec{Planning Unit Head
~~~"""" ""
~,,~~ CARa III"
~ ~'<'-~ ......... ~~ ""...
~ ~ "'~ ~~ssld..u -1 ~
$ fj,C) ~I ~~ -:.
.. ~ Q...... ~ . ::
= f ~,=~I 'A::
= U~.-:~l:::~ ~
:: ~. 21.): ( ;"', ::
;~\ <'J l' ...~::~
.. ,..... ". ^', ('.... . . "
-:. '..'.:~ 1.~'IVGI"'o::." ':....~. .:'
~ 'it "... t'" ',,,,~ . \. "
"., '~l ..tl:.......'~. ...-.....:'.. ,....
" ., r. Gr"(.\) . "
1111,' \J oJ ",.,.'
"'11""'\\
a...}~:( "'~#-.
Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
tt-- 31-~
Date
J)~ c~ Olr' & I/Jk J Pi:
f Division~inistrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
.
.
'::----------_._---~
-,.
I
.
I
.
/
.
/
.
/
.
/
.
I
IIt~' ~\
/.' '1
\ "
~~~~'
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Warren County
Replace Bridge No. 15 on SR 1509
Over Little Fishing Creek
B-1872
IStudied Detour Route
.
Fi ure One
.
.
..
~i(\ t~
l~~ ~:t~. ,
~/
.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 14, 1995
Nicholas L Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 1 5 on SR 1 509 over Little Fishing
Creek, Warren County, B-2872, Federa,l Aid
Project BRZ-1509(3), State Project 8.2410501,
ER 96-7198
Dear Mr. Graf:
On August 29, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. .
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
Tht;' above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
@
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
,
~~
~~
Deputy State Historic Preservation fficer
DB:slw ./
/
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
V'
"
.,!.....J u........ V I C1v'- I I.'-' l.. '''--'
October 28, 1996
.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E.
SUBJ: B-2872, Bridge Replacement in Warren County
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your
October 1, 1996 letter for the replacement of bridge No. 15 on SR
1509 over Little Fishing Creek, Warren County, North Carolina. Our
comments are provided in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Our records indicate that the dwarf-wedge mussel has only been
documented in Shocco Creek in Warren County, while the Tar
spinymussel has been documented in Little Fishing Creek in Warren
County, but not present near the proj ect location. We have
reviewed North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
eight proposed project commitments for the Tar spinymussel and
request that the Service also be notified of any final survey
results conducted for in-stream work, as stated in commitment no.
6.
Based on NCDOT's implementation of these identified commitments,
the Service concurs that this project is not likely to adversely
affect the Federally-endangered Tar spinymussel, or any other
Federally-listed species or their formally designated critical
habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal listing under
the Endangered Species Act, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered
in this review; (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with our agency.
SinCerelYj ,
-?'1/. If-{ { (01-
Mike Wicker
Acting Supervisor
FWS!R4:CMartino:cm:10-2B-96:919!B56-4520:WP51\NCDOT\B2B72.NE
t "lIldT. ff'
t
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RAlEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
September 30, 1996
~IEl\IORANDlThI TO:
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge enit
A TTE:\"TION:
Bill Good\vin, Project :Manager
FROl\I:
Tim Sa\.idge, Environmenbl Biologist
Emironment.ll Unit
Sl-BJECT:
Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the Federally
Endangered Tar spiny musse~ relating to Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #- 15 Over Little Fishing Creek on
SR 1509, Warren County, State Project # 8.24.10501, TIP #
B-2872.
REFERE:\CE:
Section 7 Field Meeting l\Iinutes, September 25, 1996
prepared by Bill Good\\in
The referenced meeting minutes summarized the construction pro\.1sions discussed
and agreed upon at the tield meeting held on September 23, 1996. These emironmental
Commitments \\ill be adopted by ~CDOT during the construction phase of this project.
BIOLOGICAL COl'iCLUSION: Xot Likely to Adversely Affect
If pl'O\isions mentioned in the referenced report are strictly adhered to, it can be
concluded that construction of this project is not likely to impact the Tar spiny mussel.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Barn, Emironrnental Supet'\1sor
File Section 7 Aquatic species issues
File B-2872
@
.. ,...... .
Replacement of Bridge No. 15 on SR-1509 Over
Little Fishing Creek, Warren County
TIP No. B-2872
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1509(3)
state project No. 8.2410501
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2872
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
MARK HARTMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
4 January 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Methodology. . . . . .. .., ....... 1
1.4 Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Investigator's Credentials . . . . . 4
2.0 Physical Resources. . . . . . . . ., ......... 4
2.1 Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 4
2.2 Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.4 summary of Anticipated Impacts. . . . 6
3.0 Biotic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Terrestrial Communi ties ., ............ 7
3.1.1 Disturbed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2 piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. . . . . 8
3.2 Aquatic Communities. . .o'. . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 summary of Anticipated Impacts ., . . . . 10
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics . . . . . . . . ., 11
4.1 Waters of the United states. . . . . .. 11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters11
'4.1.2 summary of Anticipated Impacts. . . . . ., 12
4.1. 3 Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 12
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation . . ., 13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species. . . . . . .. .,. 14
4.2.1 Federally-protected Species . . . . . . ., 14
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species. 16
5.0
References
. . . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Area Map . . . .
Figure 2. Aerial photo of project site
. . . .
. 2
. 3
Table
Table
Table
Table
LIST OF TABLES
1. Soils in the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities . . . 10
3. Federally-protected species for Warren County. ., 14
4. Federal Candidate Species for Warren County. . ., 16
.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project in Warren County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of the SR 1509
bridge over Little Fishing Creek. The proposed right-of-way
(ROW) for the project is 18.0 m (59.1 ft). The two alternatives
proposed for this project are described below (Figure 2).
Alternative 1 - In-place replacement of the bridge with an off
site detour and a total project length of 150.0 m (492 ft).
Alternative 2 - In-place replacement of the bridge with an on-
site detour east (downstream) of the bridge and a total project
length of 400.0 m (1312 ft).
1.2 purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of anticipated
impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of
existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and
criteria change, additional field investigations may need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the
study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
maps (Hollister quad) I National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
(Hollister quad), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200), and soils information obtained from the Warren county
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Water resource information was obtained from the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from
the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
(Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Warren CountYI 1992).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats.
. ,
.
/
.
/
.
/
.
/
,
/
. .
:;
@
:\ORTIi CAROLINA DEPARTME-'iT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVlSION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND E.'lVIRONMENT AI.
BRANCH
WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 15 ON SR I~09
OVER LITTLE FISHING CREEK
B-Z812
\Studied Detour Route'
--- --~ --..----- -
.
.
.
]
o
0;..
AG. I
I.
~
r
~
4
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Mark Hartman and Tim Savidge on 5
December 1995. Plant communities and their associated wildlife
were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms were conducted
using a hand held dip net; tactile searches for benthic organisms
were administered as well. organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are
used concerning the limits of natural resources investigated.
Project study area (study area) denotes the area bounded by the
proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area.
project region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi)], with the
project as the center point.
1.5 Investigator's Credentials
Investigator: Mark A. Hartman, Environmental
Biologist, NCDOT
Education: M.S. Degree Biology, Tennessee Technological
University, Cookeville, Tennessee
Expertise: Aquatic Ecology, Natural History
2.0 Physical Resources
The project region lies in the Piedmont physiographic
provence. The elevation of the study area is approximately 61 m
(200 ft). Soil and water resources, which occur in the study
area, are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils
The Warren County Soil Survey is in progress; therefore,
~oil mapping is currently unavailable for the project area.
Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types which may
occur in the project area based on an examination of aerial
photograpijs, to~ographic maps, NWI maps and a knowledge of area
soils (C.D. Col~, Warren County NRCS, 1995). The soils along the
~
~
~
5
Fishing Creek floodplain probably fall into the Chewacla and
Wehadkee map units. These soils have slopes of 0-2%, and are
frequently flooded. The Chewacla component is somewhat poorly
drained and the Wehadkee component is a poorly drained hydric
soil. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are mapped together in an
undifferentiated map unit due to the manner in which the soils
intermingle on the landscape. Permeability of these soils is
moderate, and the seasonal high water table is within a depth of
0.3 m (1.0 ft). Other potential soils include Altavista fine
sandy loam (0-3% slope, rarely flooded), Dogue fine sandy loam
(0-3% slope, rarely flooded), Riverview fine sandy loam (0-3%
slope, occasionally flooded), state fine sandy loam (0-3% slope),
and Wahee sandy loam (0-3% slope). These soils are found on
river terraces and are usually one terrace above the actual
floodplain, or on berms adjacent to stream channels.
Table 1 . Soils in the project Area.
Unit Symbol specific Map Unit , Slope Class
43 Chewacla and Wehadkee 0-2% H
544A Altavista fine sandy loam 0-3% HI
55A Dogue sandy loam 0-3% HI
52A Wahee sandy loam 0-3% HI
Note: "H" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils
as a major component.
"HI" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or
which have wet spots.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage standards and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water
bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources located within the study area are part of
the Fishing Creek sub-basin of the Tar River drainage. Two
bodies of water will be impacted by this project. The first, a
small pond with a surface area of approximately 0.20 ha (0.5 ac)
is present in the northwest corner of the project (Figure 1).
The eastern edge of the pond is approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft)
from the centerline of the existing road. A fringe of wetland
approximately 1.0 m (3.3 ft) wide borders the pond. This water
resource will only be directly impacted by alternative 2. The
second body of water is Little Fishing Creek. Little Fishing
~
~
~
6
Creek is up to 4.0 m (13 ft) wide and from 0.1 to 1.0 m (0.3 to
3.3 ft) deep. Flow is about 50% pool, 50% run/riffle, and sand
and gravel substrates predominate. Little Fishing Creek will be
impacted by either alternative.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Little Fishing
Creek is classified as C with a supplemental classification of
NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters). Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. NSW refers to
waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. No High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WSI or WSII), or
outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of
the project site.
2.2.3 Water Quality
"
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. . The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes
in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass
of these organisms are reflections of water quality. No BMAN
sites are located on Little Fishing Creek.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted
dischargers on Little Fishing Creek within the bounds of the
project region.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the
environment. Any action which affects water quality can have an
adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although these actions may
be temporary during the construction phase of the project,
environmental impacts from these processes may be long term or
irreversible. Replacing an existing structure in the same
location with a road closure is almost always the preferred
environmental approach. Bridge replacement on a new location or
a detour bridge usually results in more severe impacts. Physical
impacts will be most severe at the point of the bridge
replacement~
~
"
-
7
Project construction may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of
disturbed soils.
Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water
temperature due to increased sediment load and riparian
vegetation removal.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and
changes in surface or ground water drainage patterns.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as
fuel and oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to
water resources in the study area.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection
of Surface Waters, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds .0024
NCAC Title lSA, Sedimentation Control Program, should be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. High
Quality Water (HQW) standards should be adhered to throughout
construction of this project due to the presence of North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Proposed Critical
Habitat (PCH) designated waters within the project area.
Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic
substances should also be strictly enforced.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (l990) where I
possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur,
in each community are described and discussed. Identifications
and nomenclature of vascular plants were made following Radford
et ale (196B). Fauna observed during field investigations are
designated with an asterisk (*). Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are provided for each plant and
animal species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The major community type present within the project area is
piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. A maintained roadside
community is also present and tends to grade sharply into the
forest community on the east side of the bridge. On the west
side, the roadside community grades into an early
~
.~
-
.
8
successional/irregularly maintained area. Within the project
area, there is also a small pond with a fringe of wetland
approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) wide.
3.1.1 Disturbed - Roadside and Early Successional Piedmont
Alluvial Forest
The roadside shoulders present along the paved sections of
the project are dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.) and other
grasses. On the west side of the bridge, the roadside community
grades sharply into an infrequently maintained, disturbed Early
Successional Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Flora found in this area
is mainly scrub/shrub and includes Joe-pye-weed (EUpatorium
fistulosum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)I blackberry
(Rubus spp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), privet (Ligustrum spp.),
American elm (Ulmus americana), and river birch (Betula nigra).
Wildlife found in this community type is limited and
consists primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species. other
animals may use this area as a corridor for travel between less
disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Birds potentially
found in disturbed habitats include Carolina chickadee (parus
carolinen~is), mourning dove (Zenadia macroura), rufous-sided
towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and European starling (sturnus
vulgaris). Mammalian species likely to frequent disturbed
habitats include raccoon (Procyon lotor), virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), eastern cottontail (sylvagus floridans), and hispid
cotton rat (sigmodon hispidus)
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The dominant community within the study site is Piedmont
Alluvial Forest. This small, usually heterogeneous, community
type is sited along river and stream floodplains, and is ,
seasonally or intermittently flooded. The area surveyed had an
open understory and a diverse herb layer. The canopy was made up
of loblolly pine (pinus taeda), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), willow oak (Quercus phellos), red maple (Acer
rubrum), river birch, and sweet gum. The understory consisted
mainly of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), holly (Ilex opaca)
and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Other plant species present
included greenbrier (SmilaX spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), grape (Vitis spp.), partridge berry (Mitchella
repens), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), river oats
(Uniola latifolia), and wild ginger (Asarum canadense).
The Piedmont Alluvial Forests harbor a diverse fauna which
may include many species which are semi-aquatic, in addition to
exclusively terrestrial species. Amphibians and reptiles likely
to be found in this area include upland chorus frog* (psuedacris
1 4It
~ ..
9
triseriata), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata)I
American toad (Buto americanus), green frog (Rana clamitans),
eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Avian species which may frequent
this habitat type include tufted titmouse (parus bicolor), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), barred owl (Strix varia),
yellow-bellied sapsucker* (Sphyrapicus varius), rufous-Sided
towhee, turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura), black vulture*
(Coragyps atratus)I great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and belted
kingfisher* (Mergaceryle alcyon). Mammalian species likely to
frequent this area include raccoon, Virginia opossum, white-
tailed deer, eastern cottontail, hispid cotton rat, and muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, a,Piedmont Perennial stream and
a pond, will be impacted by the proposed project. Faunal
composition of the aquatic communities reflects the physical
characteristics of the water bodies and condition of the water
resources. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource
also grea~ly influence aquatic communities.
Little Fishing Creek probably supports a variety of small
fish species. The presence of a riffle/pool current regime,
gravel cobble and sand substrates, and woody debris creates
diverse habitats for aquatic organisms. Several species of
Unionid are known from Warren County and could inhabit Little
Fishing Creek. The Tar River spiny mussel (Elliptio
steinstansana) occurs in Little Fishing Creek downstream of the
Warren/Halifax County border. The dwarf wedge mussel is found in
similar habitats elsewhere in the Tar River basin. Atlantic
pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), notched rainbow (Villosa constricta),
yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), and common elliptio*
(Elliptio spp.) mussels can all be found in Little Fishing Creek.
possible piscine inhabitants could include American eel (Anguilla
rostrata), rosyside dace (Clinostomus tunduloides)I bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and johnny darter (Etheostoma
nigrum). The carolina mudpuppy (Necturus lewisi), an aquatic
salamander, is also known to occur in Little Fishing Creek within
the project vicinity.
Little Fishing Creek is listed in the NC Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) Natural Heritage Areas Priority List (1995) as an
important aquatic habitat. The list includes North Carolina's
most significant natural areas I and each site is rated as to its
significance. Little Fishing Creek has a site significance of
"B". This rating indicates that the site is of statewide
significance, and contains ecological resources that are among
the highest quality occurrences in North Carolina; however, there
I
, (
10
may be better quality representations or larger populations
elsewhere in the nation, including possibly a few within the
state (NHP 1995).
The pond will provide habitat for the Eastern mosquitofish*
(Garnbusia holbrooki), small sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and bass
(Micropterus spp.). In addition it could provide habitat for
various turtles and juvenile amphibians. The wetland fringe of
the pond provides a safe spawning area for fish and amphibian
species. vegetation found in this wetland area includes soft
rush (Juncus effusus), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and button
bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near thes~ resources have the potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed ROW width of 18.0 m (59.1 ft) and a project
length of 150.0 m (492.1 ft) for alternative 1, or 400.0 m
(1312.3 ft) for alternative 2. Often, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
community Alternative 1 Alternative 2
ha (ac) ha (ac)
Disturbed - Roadside 0.04 (0.10) 0.18 (0.45)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.11 (0.28) 0.64 (1.59)
Total 0.15 (0.38) 0.82 (2.04)
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as
nesting, feeding, and sheltering habitat for various species of
wildlife. Alternative 1 will have the least impact on the
natural communities within the project area. Although the
current roadside shoulder will most likely be destroyed, a
similar community will be present after completion of the
project. The construction of an on-site detour (alternative 2)
(
( 1 OW
11
will destroy a larger tract of Piedmont Alluvial Forest than
alternative 1. This alternative will reduce available habitat
within the construction area. Habitat reduction concentrates
wildlife into smaller refuge areas, thus changing competition
between species and causing increased starvation, predation and
susceptibility to disease.
Negative impacts to the aquatic communities from alternative
1 could be relatively small with the proper protective measures.
Alternative 2; however, would require the placement and removal
of a temporary structure. The in-stream work required for a
temporary structure would greatly increase temporary, and
possibly permanent perturbations of stream structure and fauna.
Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative from a natural
resources perspective. It poses the least risk to aquatic
organisms and it will cause less disturbance to both terrestrial
and aquatic communities, as it involves replacing the bridge in-
place and does not involve an on-site detour.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected
species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United states
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the
Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in
33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology.
Wetlands will only be impacted by alternative 2. The only
wetland present is a fringe around the pond in the northwest
quadrant of the project. Hydrophytic vegetation present in this
inundated area includes soft rush, tag alder, and button bush.
No soil sample was taken.
The North Carolina OEM has instituted a numerical rating
system from 0-100 to gauge wetland quality. This rating system
is heavily weighted towards water storage, pollutant removal,
I ~
.. I' .
12
bank/shoreline stabilization and aquatic life value aspects of a
wetland community. other wetland attributes considered are
wildlife habitat and recreational, educational, and economic
value. The wetland pond fringe area has a rating of 35.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The replacement of the bridge in place with an off-site
detour (alternative 1) will probably not disturb the wetland
which fringes the pond. The on-site detour proposed in
alternative 2 will impact the pond and approximately 0.02 ha
(0.04 ac) of the wetland fringe. This impact estimate includes
only wetland directly disturbed by the construction; however I
much more wetland might be affected due to changes in pond water
levels and siltation from either project alternative.
4.1.3 Permits
,
,
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from
the CaE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 eFR 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 the pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency' or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina OEM Section 401 Water Quality General
certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for
any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge into waters o'f the United States.
~
.. ,. .
13
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United states,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts I rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR) (1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the
United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) snd the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset
unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes. Alternative 1 would avoid impact to wetlands
within the project area.
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, ROW
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Alternative 1
will not destroy any jurisdictional wetlands and will have a
smaller deleterious affect on both terrestrial and aquatic
communities present within the study area. Therefore alternative
1 should be considered unless an on-site detour is absolutely
necessary.
Additional means to m1n1m1ze impacts to the waters and
wetlands crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of BMPs for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas; reduction or
elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff
velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
prudent pesticide and herbicide management; minimization of in-
stream activity and litter and debris control.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values
, ~
_ a. ..
14
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has occurred. compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of
the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum
Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and protected species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in,
the process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). other species may
receive a~ditional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of March 30, 1994, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Warren County (Table 3). A brief
description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally-protected species for Warren County
Scientific Name
Alasrnidonta heterodon
Elliptio steinstansana
"E" enotes En angere
extinct throughout
range) .
Alasrnidonta beterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
Common Name
Status
dwarf wedge mussel
Tar River spiny mussel
(a species that is in anger 0
all or a significant portion of
E
E
becom~ng
its
1 ' ,
~ ., -
15
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a
distinguishable shell noted by two lateral teeth on the right
half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is
olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is
bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the
Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked,
and stony Creeks of the Tar River system. This mussel is
sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants
and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated
water to survive.
Biological Conclusion:
Unresolved
Habitat suitable for the dwarf wedge mussel is present
within the project site. The NHP has no records of this mussel
at the project sitei however this section of Little Fishing Creek
has not been surveyed extensively. surveys for this mussel must
be completed to determine its presence or absence within the
project area. It is anticipated that these surveys will be
completed,in the spring of 1996.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar river spiny mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 29 July 1985
Distribution in N.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Nash,
Pitt, Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in
Nash County. populations of the Tar River spinymussel can be
found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin and of the Swift
Creek Drainage Sub-Basin.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well
oxygenated, circumneutral Ph water. The bottom is composed of
uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be
relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of
freshwater fish to act as an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar River spinymussel is a very small mussel. This
mussel is named for its spines which project perpendicularly from
the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as 12 spines
can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in texture.
The nacre is pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
Biological Conclusion
undetermined
The Tar River spinymussel is present in Little Fishing
Creek, but is not known to be present within the project region.
. . ,
" ." '"
16
The creek is considered by the NCWRC to be a PCH for this
species. As this portion has not been surveyed extensively for
mussel populations, a survey is necessary to determine the
presence or absence of this species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed species
There are 4 federal candidate (C2) species listed for Warren
County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently
exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. -,organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the
North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the state Endangered
species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species state
status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status
of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 4. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected species for Warren
County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC no
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T yes
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T yes
Lotus purshianus var. Heller's trefoil C yes
helleri *
"*" No spec~men ~n Warren County ~n twenty years.
A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage program data base of
rare species and unique habitats revealed records for the
Atlantic pigtoe and yellow lance mussels in the project study
area. surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed.
J_ . . __
.. t.'
17
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union.
American birds (6th ed.).
Press, Inc.
1983. Check-list of North
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands
delineation manual. Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982.
distributional survey of North Carolina mammals.
North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
A
Raleigh,
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the
rare animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in
North Carolina streams: benthic macroinvertebrate data base
and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards
for North Carolina river basins. Raleigh, Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's
endangered, threatened and candidate plant species. Raleigh,
North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
... ~ . ~
.,. .' ..
18
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, NCDEHNR.
u.s. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource conservation
Service. North Carolina Agriculture Experiment station.
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United states., u.s.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina ~ress.
,oil: .. --t
JAMES B, HUNT JIt
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r,o, BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N,C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SIClUIARY
July 27, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
Mr. Eric Galamb
OEM - OEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM:
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for Warren County, SR 1509,
Replacement of Bridge No. 15 over Little Fishing Creek,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1509(3), State Project
No. 8.2410501, TIP No. B-2872
SUBJECT :
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for August 29, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141, Ext. 238.
WTG/pl r 03V30Y
L ,/L.,,- (I /,1/ 2'1-/7-25
Attachment (/tItXi, I) 1\ \ /V\ L f-
, ?J{ I/WI"P 5 f {, ^ I tlk / J I .k..y ~ ~ rdt,\ kA Ir> frgp-- .
- Vi," /.Jiif k&., (~ 0"; J, I If .1
1/ '-11 I) ( I.. r 1-.11 '1 (/ t - () c _I.., .U< -t'
/j'tNi , T('l'~ ,.{fe' . ' <k ~~~ JJ~ wJ;'~
- -' Cv;tl~' uy\ - ". " , J\tUL(1'" I / J 11
,~ ( '" '-, ~ ta~ (i,\~I'tj W!~;: ~ ,w---t . kl1 ~f { ~(" ,1~'
~ \ 1 /ttv-t jWov ~ ,-<h J (s '~;. (i)
c ;J -) (J
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPIl\G SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-2872
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1509(3)
ST ATE PROJECT: _8.2419J_OL_________
7/21'95
DI\'ISIOT\: __EJYE________
COl1'.'TY: _\l~'\lsRE~_____
RennE: _.liRJ~92.___._.____
DESCRIPTION:
BRIDGE NO.1S OVER LITTLE FISHING CREEF-:.. O~ SR 1509
PROJECT PCRPOSE:
REPLACE QJ:3S0LEJE BRIDGE
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): HOLLISTER OUAD
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: LOCAL ROUTE
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTENGENCIES) .
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION. UTILmES, A"ID ACQ1TISmON)
"" $ ?,??O,OOO
" $ ??"lO.OOO
TOTAL COST .,.,,'''''''''''''''''''''''''' ,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,
$ ?no,ooo
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ,,",,'"''''',,'',''''''' ' "",, " "," , ,,",,"""'"''''''',,''' $ 345.000
TIP RIGI-IT OF WAY COST """""""""." ,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, """ '"'''''''''' """",'" $ 30.000
PRIOR YEARS COST ,,,",, ""'" ,,,,,.,,,,,,,,, " "" " """ " " "",",, """ " "."." "",, " """ ,,,,,,,,.,, .""""."".,, $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ."",,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,."."""...,.,,,,,,.,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,.....,,,,,, $ 375,000
~1~lV t. 4 ~~OSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: n\'o LANE SH.QllL,J2EB, SECTION
/'lee \dt""Js METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
~ no l'
~i '~ lL~ I. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE --------------m-------n-------------uJa"
VV--.
\ 1 2, EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR ------u----------------------n-------nO
ftt)~ M.~ ,q 3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE n______nn_____U____nm___m_______mn___mm__ 0
hJ "1 q~
EXISTING STRUCTURE
~H ~ t;o
117 I 1""'1
),,7 11~)
11r~ ~
\~!
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR@(CIRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR
~/O
TRAFFIC: CURRENT
TIST
:;;0
VPD~ DESIGN YEAR
DUAL %
000
.,"'-t-O
C-V VPD
%
EX1STING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION:
1WO LANE SHOULDER SECTION
4, OTHER
___ n_nu___________________ 0
LENGTH 357 METERS
.llL FEET
WIDTH _~ METERS
20 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
LENGTH
METERS
FEET
WIDTIl
METERS
FEET
'.
~..~.
.t.~
,. ----- -.
~~._._._._---_._._._._.
~
.
/
.
/
.
/
.
. .
@
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 15 ON SR 1509
OVER LITTLE FISHING CREEK
B-2872
o
--- -
... - -- -
FIG. I
*
'~
,'I'
f;;
"
(.
.,
':'
.':';'
*.
i
I
."
\
'60~ I ~S JO ~P!S ~S~M. ~lp SUOI13 ~Iq13:J :J!~do l~qy pun01S1~pun 1m S! ~1~q1 '60~ 1 ~S JO S::lp!S
q~oq Suo{l3 S::lIq13:J ~uoqd::lI~~ pUn01S1::lpUn ~113 ::l1~q1 '~~13U1~~I13 p::l11~J::l1d ::lql Sl! P::l~:J~I~s S! ::l~13U1::l~I13
q:J!qM. uo Su!pu~d~p '~:J::lfOJd S!q~ 10J qS!q o~ wn!p~w ::lq II!M. s~:J!lJuo:J A~!I!~i1 '(qdw Z9) qd){ 001
AI~~13W!X01dd13 ~q II!M. p::l::lds uS!S~P ~q1 's~!un :Jp~::lW U! p::lu8!s::lp ::lq II!M. i:J~f01d S!q1
'8U!~~::lW ::lq~ o~ 10pd ~:Ju~puods~UJo:J
qSn01q~ PU13 8u!~::l::lw Su!do:Js ::lq~ ~13 ~p13W S~U~WWO:J JO ,(mwwns 13 S! 8u!M.OIloJ ::lq1
I13~U::lWU01!AU3 PU13 SU!UU13Id
I13~U::lWU01!AU3 PU13 8U!UU13(d
u8!s::lO A13M.p130~
u8!s:::lO ~lm:Jru~s
S:J!ln131pAH
~u::lwdOIM::lO W131S01d
~u::lwdopA~O W131S01d
SA::lA.ms PU13 UO!~13:JOl
A13 M. JO ~q8!)1
W30
OdHS
;)'MM. ;)N
U!MPOOD II!8
uOPlOD ::l:J!IV
uosq!D 13PU::lID
I1::lMOd s!Il3
P13::lUS A.u::lf
l::lPI!M. up130
){OO;) ::lll:::lU131
A.r~nv P!S
A:::l:JU13 A All~8
qW13(13D :J!l3
U!M8 ::l!qq::lO
XO;) P!A130
:::l:JUllPU::lllll U! :::ll::lM suos1::ld
8u!M.OIloJ :::lq1 . ~661 '6Z ~snSnv uo PI::lq SllM. ~:J:::lf01d ~:J::lfqns ::lq~ 10J SU!~::l::lW Su!do:Js V
ZL8Z-8 'oN dIl
'1O~01VZ'8 'oN P:::lf01d :::l~ll~S '(()60~1-Z1I8 'ON ~:J:::lf01d
PlY Ill1::lp::l.1 'A~UnO;) U::lll13M. '){:::l::l1;) 8u!qsl,1 :::l{nn1::lAO 60~ 1 ~S
uo ~l 'oN :::l8P!l8JO ~U:::lW:::l:JllId:::l~ 10J SU!l:::l:::lJt\18u!do:JS
: 1;) 3f 8flS
1:::l:::lU!SU3 SU!UUllId P::lf01d
~ '3' d 'U!M.POOD II!8
: Jt\1 O~.1
"......~~... .~IIWI'M ~1
fBOt'l!l~9'W~'
.... ..*'
~
:::lI!.1 P:::lf01d
:01 wn.~0Jt\13W
~661 '9 l:::lqO~:JO
A'llV.L3'lD3S lOZS-119LZ ':)N 'HQI31VCI 'lOLSL X09 '0''' 'llON'll3^OQ
(If llnruvD 'g ONVnlVD SAVMHDIH ::10 NOISIAIO (If J.NnH 'g s3wvf
NOIlVllIOdS~ :fO lNmlCIVd3.0
VNIlOWJ HDION ::10 :IIV1S
~-
~~
'Of~ll1S pU'B S~1 Sfl 'OI~ll1S '60~ll1S 8UOI'B p~lnol~p ~q II!M ~!y'B1l
'UO!l~rulSUO~ 8u!mp ~!y'B1l q8n01ql Ol p~SOp ~q II!M 60~ 1 lIS pU'B ~mpruls 8u!ls!x~
~ql '~~'Bld U! P~~'BId~l pU'B P~^OW~l ~q II!M 38P!lq ~U9S!X~ ~ql - ~uO ~lUUJ~lIV
')j~~1:J 8u!qS!d ~rn!11~^0 ~ 1 l~qwnu ~8P!lq 8uP'Bld~1 10J p~l'Bnl'BM ~q II!M S~l'BUl~lI'B OMl
" 'p~l!nb~l
~q II!M Sh~A.mS I'B~!8010~'B4~1'B 10 I'B1np~l!4~1'B OU '~lOJ~l~ql 'P~l~^O~S!P ~q Ol hI~)j!1 ~1'B S~l!S
UMOU)jun OU pU'B ''B~1'B P~fOld ~l'B!P~WW! ~ql U! S~l!S I~~~80IO~'B4~1'B 10 I'Blnl~~l!1l~.rn UMOU)j OU ~1'B
~l~qll'Bql p~l'B~!PU! (OdHS) ~~!yO U09'BA1~S~ld ~!lOlS!H ~l'BlS ~quo U!Mg ~!qq~O 'SJ!\I
'UO!l'BW10JU! S!4UO lq8!1 U! 'p~sn ~q s~ms'B~W IOllUO~ UO!SOl~ pU'B I!OS MOH l'B4l
p~)jS'B XO:J 'lJ!\I ')j~~J:J ~U!qS!d ~ln!1 U! s~!~~ds p~lS!l ~l'BlS JO S~~U'BlSU! OMl punoJ ~q 'l~MMOH
''B~J'B l~~fOJd ~ql U! punoJ 8u!~q pssnw p~J~8u'Bpu~ hIl'BJ~P~J hU'B JO p10~~J OU punoJ pU'B
s~::)u~Jlm~o s~!::>~dsJo ~S'Bq'Bl'Bp S,:JlIM:JN ~ql p~)j~~q::> XO:J '1J!\I '8U!l~~W ~qll1U!MOlIOd
's~U!I~P!nD UO!l'B~OI~lI W'B~JlS s ,100:JN ql!M ~~U'B!Idwo~ U! ~q
PInoqs )jJOM UO!l'B~OI~J W'B~JlS hU'B l'Bql p~lOU OSI'B XO:J '1J!\I 'p~JJ~J~Jd S'BM ~lnsop p'BOJ ql!M ~~'BId
U! lU~W~~'BId~ll'Bql uO!ls~88ns s,qW'BI'BD 'JJ!\I ql!M p~~J8'B XO:J 'JJ!\I 'I~ssnw p~J~8u'Bpu~ JO s~!~~ds
~JOW JO ~UO U!'BlUO~ h'BW )j~~J:J 8u!qS!d ~rn!1l'Bql p~l'B~!PU! :J1IM :JNJO XO:J P!^'BO 'JJ!\I
'sl1u!ld'BS pU'B S~SS'BJ8 ~l'B!ldOJdd'B ql!M P~lU'BId~J ~q pU'B ~punoJ8
I'Bml'BU 8U!lS!X~-~Jd Ol 'P~^OW~l hl~l~Idwo~ ~q JnOl~p ~l!S-UO hU'B l'Bql p~)jS'B OSI'B qW'BI'BO 'JJ!\I
'~Iq!ssod J! l~l'BM ~ql U! P~~'BId ~q Slu~<t ou l'Bql pU'B 'J~l'BM 8U!PU'BlS J~^O )j~~p ~8P!lq ~ql U! s~Ioq
d~~M ou ~q ;::l1~qll'Bql p~)jS'B qW'Bf'BO 'JJ!\I 'P~ls~88ns S'BM ~msop p'BOJ ql!M ~~'BId-u! lU~W~~'BId~J
OSIV 'p~lS~nb~J S'BM s~ms'B~w IOJlUO~ UO!SOl~ p1'BpU'BlS JO UO!l'BlU~W~ldwl 'M!l!SU~S lU~!JlnN
':J SS'BIJ S'B p~y!SS'Bp S! )j~~J:J 8u!qS!d ~In!1l'Bql P~l'B~!PU! J!\I30JO qW'BI'BO ~!l3 'lJ!\I
'~lnpruls 8u!lS!X~ ~ql JO lS~M ~4l Ol P~lO~~f~,se~fl U'B~ ~JOl~rulS
,u'BJodW~l 8uOI ('Y OL) l~l~W 1 Z 'B 'p~J!nb~J S! mOl~p ~l!S-UO U'B Jl '~8'BU;'B..J.."".'.'..,.:;)..~.ti. t...!t.. !.~~1JJ. o. titU:;)!P'B18
%("0 wnw!u!w 'B ql!M ~lnpruls 8u!ls!x~ ~ql S'B uO!l'B^~I~ h'BMp'BOJ ~ .:;)MEJPC01dd'B l'B
l{!nq ~q U'B~ ;:unpruls M~U ~ql '~8P!lq 8u!lS!X~ ~ql ~~'Bld~J Ol p~l!nb~J ~q m ,8ubrt'lfbvl) SJ~l~W
fv hPl'BW!xOJdd'B ~mpruls M~U 'B l'Bql p~l'B~!PU! l!Ufl s~!In'BJphH ~quo p"U~/~gf 'JJ!\I
I
I
I
\
'P~lU'BJJ'BM S! 1!'BJpJ'Bn8 ~J~qM J~P!M
~q Il!M J~Plnoqs ~ql '(y v) SJ~l~W z' 1 lS'B~I l'B JO 4lP!M J~Plnoqs p~p'B18 'B pU'B S~U'BI l~^'Bll (y 11)
l~l~W f'f OMl ~^'Bq Il!M s~q~'BOJdd'B h'BMp'BOJ ~ql '~P!S q~'B~ uo l~SlJO (y Z) J~l~W 9'0 pU'B S~U'BI
I~^'BJl (y I I) J~l~W f'f OMl ql!M '~P!M (y 9Z) Sl~l~W S'L ~q II!M ~Jnpruls p~sodoJd ~ql
, hl!I!q!S'B~J
pU'B SlSO~ ~l'BUl~ll'B 8U!ll!W1~lgp U! JOP'BJ lU'B~g!ll8!s 'B gq Il!M ~Iq'B~ ~!ldo l~qg ~ql . 60~ 1 lIS
JO lS~M (l~gJ 09) SJglgW SI hIgl'BW!xOJdd'B pgl'B~OI s~u!I J~Mod ~s'Bqd ~I8u!s OSl'B ~1'B gJ~ql
z;
....
3
Alternate Two - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour structure located
just west of the existing bridge.
Construction cost estimates for this project are as follows:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
Alternate One
$ 500,000
$ 30,000
$ 530,000
Alternate Two
$ 900,000
$ 30,000
$ 930,000
A third construction alternate, replacing the structure just east of the existing bridge on
new location; was found to be unfeasible due to a bend in the creek just downstream of the
existing bridge. An alignment with an acceptable design speed could not be achieved within
reasonable proximity of the existing bridge.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in May 1997 and
construction to begin in May 1998,
WTG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
.~ -
"
." , <,
. ....
" ~
.'
".~
;' .
,
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Revised
10/2/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2872
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1509(3)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2410501
DMSION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
FIVE
WARREN
SR 1509
DESCRlPTION:
BRIDGE NO.15 OVER LITTLE FISHING CREEK. ON SR 1509
PROJECT PURPOSE:
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): HOLLISTER QUAD
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: LOCAL ROUTE
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND CONTENGENCIES) .................,...,....,.. $ 500,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTIIl11ES, AND ACQUISmON) .........,......... $ 30,000
TOTAL COST "............,...".,.........""....",........""..,..,."",'..,.,......'"..",...,..". """""..., ,..,.....,...,,,.., $ 530,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ..........,......,..,................,........,....,.............................................,..'.., $ 345,000
TIP RIGlIT OF WAY COST ,..........,....,..,......,......,..........,......,."..........,................,..,,,..,,............ $ 30,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ,.",...........,...,..,......,..,..."..,."",.,......"....,"'"."....".."..",.""",....,....,.."...."., $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ..........,..................,.....".............,...........,..,,'"".......,..,,,....,,,,,,.,,...,..,,,,..,.,,,.,... $ 375,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR @<CIRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 300
TIST 1 %
VPD; DESIGN YEAR
DUAL 2 %
600
VPD
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: TWO LANE SHOULDER SECTION
'~ -
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: TWO LANE SHOULDER SECTION
METHOD OF R,f:PLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ____m_______m___________m__mm___]g
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR _________________________m__m____m_O
3, RELOCATION OF STRUCTIJRE ____n_________m__m_m____mmm_____m____m__ 0
4. OTHER
----------~--------------- 0
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
LENGTH ~ METERS
llL FEET
LENGTH ~ METERS
~ FEET
WIDTH 6.1 ' METERS
20 " FEET
WIDTH 7,8 METERS
26, FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
r-
wY
/P'
j
1
..
~
~._._._-_.-.-._._._---
/
~
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
~
I
.
./
. .
@
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENtAL
BRANCH '
WARREN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 15 ON SR 150~.
OVER LITTLE FISHING CREEK ....'.'
8-2872
[Studied Detour Route
.
.
.
o
P'I
-'"
FIG.
rJ/