19970131 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970214

". .of....

"'<;'TAr;,::,,~
i'~'-".'" ~..
f.. ~ff\~"f.
~?:~~

,,~.......,

970181

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR 1'.0. BOX 2520\. RALEIGI\. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY

January 31, 1997

ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chie[ Northern S~ction

.,/""..- \'\
~-> \'\ '
.r/~ (~. \\ '
\(, \')~'
. \ \ '.. ../
. \\"
'\'..

. ~'v~~,/
~

".'"

\\

U.S. :\rmy Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Rakigh. NC 27609

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Wilson County. Replaccment of Bridge No. 62 ovcr Contentnea Creek on
SR Il-l-l. TIP No. B-3085. State Project No. 8.23-l1501. Fcderal Aid
Project No. BRZ-ll-l-l(-l).

Attach~d for your infonnation is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance \vith 23 CFR 771.115( b). Theretore. \ve do not
anticipate requesting an individual pcrmit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13. 1996:
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.-l and appendix A (C) of these
regulations \vill be followed in the construction project.

We anticipate that 401 peneral Watcr Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to'this project. and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources. Division
of Water Quality. tor their review.

@

2

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.

~f{;tf

H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

HFV /plr

cc: wi attachment
Mr. Eric AIsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William 1. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
wlo attachments '
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. E. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Philip S. Harris, P.E., Planning & Environmental

, ,

I,

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Wilson County
SR 1144
Bridge No. 62 over Contentnea Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1144(4)
State Project No. 8.2341501
T.I.P. No. B-3085

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL mGHW A Y ADMINISTRATION

AND

N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

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

fI:;p I,

I/jJ7/1?
.
DATE

I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Wilson County
SR 1144
Bridge No. 62 over Contentnea Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1144(4)
State Project No. 8.2341501
T.I.P. No. B-3085

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

November, 1996

Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.

..

ctU2~~('J

LIsa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates

For North Carolina Department of Transportation

PlQJ~ m-

Philip S. Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Wilson County
SR 1144
Bridge No. 62 over Contentnea Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1144(4)
State Project No. 8.2341501
T.I.P. No. B-3085

Bridge No. 62 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".

I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Manaaement Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.

2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design stages.

II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Bridge No. 62 will be replaced in its existing location with a bridge. During construction traffic will
be detoured on NC 42, NC 581, SR 1142, and SR 1204.

The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $404,350. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $355,000 including
$30,000 for right-of-way and $325,000 for construction.

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS

SR 1144 is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System The proposed
project occurs in rural section of Wilson County, approximately 9.3 kilometers (5.8 mi) northwest
of the town of Lucama. Land use surrounding the study corridor is predominately forest land,
interspersed with large tracts of natural vegetation contiguous to Contentnea Creek.

Near the bridge, SR 1144 has a 6.7 meter (22 ft) unpaved roadway width with no shoulders. The
roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the bridge
with 120 meter radius (14.5 degree) curves to the north and south. The roadway is situated
approximately 5.2 meters (17 ft) above the creek bed.

2

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The traffic volumes were 100 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 400 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (ITST) and 2% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kilometers per hour (55 mph).

The existing bridge was built in 1960 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of three steel girder
floor beam spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber
caps.

The overa11 length of the bridge is 32.3 meters (106 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.2 meters (17.1 ft).
The posted weight limit is 8164.8 kilograms (9 tons) for single vehicles and 11,793.6 kilograms (13
tons) for tractor trailer trucks. SR 1144 is unpaved.

Bridge No. 62 has a sufficiency rating of 40.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.

One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1 , 1992 to March
1, 1995.

There are no utilities located in the proposed project area.

School buses do not use this bridge.

IV. ALTERNATIVES

Two ahernatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 62. Each alternate consists of replacing the
existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 7.2 meters (24 ft) and a length of
35 meters (115 ft). The approach roadway will consist ofa 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter
(4 ft) shoulders and will be paved for 30 meters (100 ft) from each end of the bridge.
The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:

Alternate A with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A
design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph) would be provided. A design exception would be
required. Temporary, on-site detours were considered west (Temporary Detour 1) and east
(Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 0.11: 1, an on-site
detour is not reasonable (see Section VIII).

Alternate A with off-site detour (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge in its existing location.
Traffic would be detoured on NC 42, NC 581, SR 1142, and SR 1204 during construction (see
Figure 1). The roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the
existing bridge grade. A design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph) would be provided. A
design exception would be required.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Alternate B: involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft) east of the existing
roadway alignment. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge
grade. A design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph) would be provided. A design exception
would be required.

The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1144.

Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

V. ESTIMATED COST

The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:

Alternate A Alternate A Alternate B
with on-site with off-site
detour detour
. (Recommended)
Structure Removal $11,337.30 $11,337.30 $11,337.30
Structure $176,400.00 $176,400.00 $176,400.00
Roadway Approaches $81,730.00 $81,730.00 $199,430.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $80,532.70 $80,532.70 $112,832.70
Engineering and Contingencies $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $75,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / $4,350.00 $4,350.00 $2,700.00
Util.
SUBTOTAL $404,350.00 $404,350.00 $577,700.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $352,100.00 NA NA
TOTAL $756,450.00 $404,350.00 $577,700.00

VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS

Bridge No. 62 will be replaced in its existing location with a new bridge having a clear roadway width
of7.2 meters (24 ft) and a length of35 meters (115 ft). Traffic will be detoured on NC 42, NC 581,
SR 1142, and SR 1204 during construction, a distance of6.3 kilometers (3.9 mi). The design speed
is 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph), requiring a design exception.

3

4

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.

VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION

It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended alternate
(Alternate A) provides a design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour). Due to the
existing horizontal alignment, both within and outside the project area, a major relocation of SR 1144
would be required to improve the design speed to 88 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour). Since
the alignment of the recommended alternate is compatible with the alignment of the remainder of SR
1144 and projected 2020 traffic volumes are low (400 vpd), the additional costs are not justified.

VIII. TRAFFIC DETOUR

The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the construction
period. A twelve month road closure period is anticipated. The off-site detour roadway and bridges
are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.

A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 100 vpd and an
average of 6.3 kilometers (3.9 mi) of indirect iona 1 travel utilizing NC 42, NC 581, SR 1142, and SR
1204 (See Figure 1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately $42,120 during the twelve
month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $372,100, resulting
in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.11: 1. This ratio does not indicate justification to maintain traffic on-site
during the construction period.

IX. NATURAL RESOURCES

Methods

Material and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including the applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Lucama, NC), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils
information (USDA 1983) and 1994 aerial photography (scale 1: 1200) furnished by NCDOT.

The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
ISsues.

The site was visited on March 12, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the centerline of
each alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and

I
I
I
I
I
I--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

temporary construction easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat
for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection for Contentnea Creek.

Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats
used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.

A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Wilson County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence
of federal- or state-listed species were consulted before commencing field investigations.

PhysiOif&J>hy and Soils

Wtlson County is divided between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North
Carolina. The landscape of the study corridor is characteristic of Eastern Slate Belt region of the
Piedmont with strongly sloping topographic relief. Elevations within the study corridor range
between approximately 46 and 58 meters (150 and 190 ft) (USGS Lucama, NC quadrangle).

There are two soil mapping units within the study corridor, the State loamy sand (Typic Hapludults)
and the Nason silt loam (Typic Hapludults). The State and Nason series are well drained soils found
on low ridges on stream terraces. Permeability is moderate with moderate shrink-swell potential
(USDA 1983). There are no hydric soils mapped within the study corridor.

WATER RESOURCES

Waters Impacted

The study corridor is within the Neuse River Drainage Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020203).
Bridge No.62 crosses Contentnea Creek approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) downstream from
Buckhorn Reservoir, and approximately 17.7 kilometers (11.0 mi) upstream from Wiggins Mill
Reservoir. This section ofContentnea Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-86-(1) by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).

5

Best Usage Classification and Water Quality

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. The section of
Contentnea Creek containing the study corridor has a best usage classification of WS- V NSW (DEM
1993). The WS-V designation indicates that these waters are protected as water supplies which are
located upstream and draining into Class WS-IV waters. There are no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or treated wastewater discharges required with this WS- V designation.
However, appropriate management requirements may be required as deemed necessary for the
protection of downstream waters. This designation also includes usage of these waters for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an incidental or infrequent basis. The NSW
designate indicates that Contentnea Creek is classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters, and requires
limitations on nutrient inputs (DEM 1993).

No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (l mi) of the study corridor. Contentnea Creek is not designated as a
North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated a national Wild and Scenic River.

There is one permitted discharge site on Contentnea Creek approximately 16 kilometers (10 mi)
downstream from the study corridor (DEM 1989). This permitted discharge site (DEM Site 24) is
the Wilson waste water treatment plant discharge site, with a permitted flow of 12.0 mgd (DEM
1989). The proposed project is not expected to adversely impact the discharge site.

The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macro invertebrates (D EM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There are no
BMAN biological monitoring stations in close proximity to the study corridor (DEM 1991).

Stream Characteristics

Within the study corridor, Contentnea Creek is broad and deep, measuring approximately 16.8
meters (55 ft) in width with a depth of approximately 0.9 meter (3 ft). The channel meanders slightly
within the study corridor. Channel banks are gradually sloped and range from 0 to 0.9 meter (0 to
3 ft) in height. The banks are composed mainly of sand, with grass and shrub vegetation present.
The creek bed is composed ofa sand/gravel composite with silt covering. Organic debris within the
creek includes trees, branches, and leaves. No aquatic vegetation was apparent within the study
corridor; flow was swift and exhibited moderate turbidity at the time of this survey.

Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources

Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT

6

"

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Best Manaiement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during
construction.

No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow rates,
thereby protecting stream integrity.

BIOTIC RESOURCES

Plant Communities

Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. Two of these communities,
mixed pine-hardwood forest and hardwood terrace, represent natural plant communities. The other
two communities, identified as agricultural land and urban/disturbed land, result from some level of
disturbance. The plant communities are described below.

Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
This community contains upland areas on slopes and ridges with forest cover. Dominant canopy
species include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white oak (Quercus alba), turkey oak (Q. laevis),
cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua).
The midstory/shrub layer contains sapling-sized specimens of canopy species, in addition to American
holly (I/ex opaca). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), and blackberries (Rubus spp.) occur throughout the area.

Hardwood Terrace
The hardwood terrace community is characterized by upland hardwood forest vegetation on the
stream terrace adjacent to Contentnea Creek. The canopy is dominated by white oak, sweetgum, and
red maple, with river birch (Betula nigra) prevalent along the creek banks. The mid story/shrub layer
contains American holly, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), water oak (Q. nigra), and sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana). Common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) was found throughout this
community.

Agricultural Land
This community includes cropland areas actively under agricultural use. Agricultural land is located
on uplands in the southern portion of the study corridor.

Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes roadside margins within the study corridor. Successional grasses and herbs,
maintained by routine mowing, dominate these areas.

Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities

Anticipated impacts on plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant

7

~

8

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

community present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements.
Construction of either of the proposed alignments or temporary detours is not expected to result in
substantial adverse impacts to plant communities in the study corridor. A summary of plant
community impacts which may result from construction activities is presented below.

Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temporary Temporary
Detour I Detour 2
Mixed Pine-Hardwood 0.28 (0.69) 0.70 (1.72) 0.21(0.52) 0.20 (0.49)
Forest
Hardwood Terrace 0.02 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00)
Agricultural Land 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.16) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
UrbanlDisturbed Land 0.07 (0.18) 0.22 (0.55) 0.02 (0.04) 0.04 (0.10)
TOTAL: 0.37 (0.91) 0.98 (2.43) 0.25 (0.60) 0.24 (0.59)

Improvements associated with Alternative B extend over a greater distance than improvements
associated with Alternative A. As a result, Alternative B will impact approximately 0.61 hectare
(1.52 ac) more ofthe plant communities within the study corridor. The majority of the impacts for
either alternative are mixed pine-hardwood forest.

The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit a minor variation in
potential impacts to plant communities within the study corridor. Each alternative will impact nearly
the same amount and relative proportion of plant communities. Impacts to plant communities as a
result of either detour alignment are temporary.

Wildlife

Terrestrial

The study corridor consists of a large contiguous tract of mixed pine-hardwood forest surrounded
by agricultural and disturbed areas. The contiguity of the forest along Contentnea Creek provides
necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals and birds adapted to this forest
community.

Expected mammalian species include muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), southern short-tailed

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

shrew (Blarina carolinensis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridanus),
and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).

Expected avifaunal species include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Chuck-will's-widow
(Caprimulgus carolinensis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe), great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos) and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor).

Aquatic

This portion ofContentnea Creek is considered good for fishing (Fish 1968). Expected recreational
fisheries species include chain pickerel (Esox niger), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Additional nongame
species may include species margined madtom (Noturus insignis), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae), blue-spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus),
and tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi).

Stream bank surveys yielded relic shells of freshwater mussels and Asian clam (Corbiculajlumminea)
in muskrat middens. Several hundred relic shells of the Asian clam were present on stream banks in
the study corridor, indicating that this exotic species is abundant in Contentnea Creek. Freshwater
mussel shells were relatively less common in the middens, with eastern elliptio complex (Elliptio
"complanata'), Carolina lance (Elliptio angustata), and Carolina fatmucket (Lampsilis radiata
conspicua) represented. Several shells of pointed campeloma (Campeloma decisum), an aquatic
snail, were also found.

Semiaquatic reptile and amphibian species are expected to utilize the aquatic habitats in this area.
Expected species include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), southern leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala), and redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster).

Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife

Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimi7.e potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts
to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimi7.ed by the
implementation of the NCDOT Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.

9

SPECIAL TOPICS

Waters ofthe United States

Surface waters within embankments of Contentnea Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Contentnea Creek exhibits
characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded systems
(R2UBH). There are no vegetated wetland areas within the project corridor.

Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, the proposed project is not expected to impact jurisdictional
wetlands.

The following table summarizes the amount of jurisdictional area within study corridor alignment
alternatives and temporary detours.

Table 2. Estimated waters ofthe United States areas.

ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)

WATERS TYPE

Alternative A

Alternative B

Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2

R2UBH

0.03 (0.08)

0.04 (0.09)

0.02 (0.04)

0.01 (0.02)

Approximately the same amount of riverine waters are present within both alternatives and both
detour alternatives. Bridging Contentnea Creek will minimize impacts to surface waters.

Permits

A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States 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:

(I) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations 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,

(2) 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.

10

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CW A requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States.

Final decisions concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.

Mitigation

Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.

PROTECTED SPECIES

Federal Protected Species

Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.c. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Wilson County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list):

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Dwarfwedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - E

Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). The nearest RCW record
is a site located approximately 5.1 kilometers (3.2 mi) east of the study corridor. Six cavities were
reported at this site in 1975, but no live RCWs were sighted (NHP records). Subsequent surveys
have not located any RCWs at this site.

This project is not expected to affect RCWs because no suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized pine or
pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) is present within the study corridor.
Mixed pine-hardwood forest represents potential RCW foraging habitat; however, pine is not a
canopy dominant withing any of the area to be impacted. Therefore, no foraging habitat will be
impacted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Michaux's sumac - Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub. Small
male and female flowers are produced during June on separate plants; female flowers are produced
on terminal, erect clusters followed by small, hairy, red fruits (drupes) in August and September.
Michaux's sumac tends to grow in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or
other disturbances, and may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways. NHP records

11

Common Name
Henslow's sparrow
Atlantic pigtoe
Carolina asphodel

Scientific Name
Ammodramus henslowii
Fusconaia masoni
Tofieldia glabra

Potential Habitat
N
y
N

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

indicate that Michaux's sumac was documented at a site approximately 5.0 kilometers (3.1 mi)
northwest of the study corridor in 1958. A subsequent survey in 1986 failed to locate Michaux's
sumac at this site.

This project is not expected to affect Michaux's sumac because roadside margins within the project
area are regularly maintained and do not provide habitat for sumac.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Dwan wedge mussel- This mussel species typically inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities
and substrates varying in texture from gravel and coarse sand to mud with little silt deposition (Moser
1993). Several intensive mussel surveys were conducted in Contentnea Creek and tributaries between
1991-1993 in association with environmental documentation for the proposed Buckhorn Reservoir
expansion. This species has been well documented in Turkey and Moccasin Creeks upstream from
Buckhorn Reservoir, but has not been documented within Contentnea Creek or tributaries
downstream from Buckhorn Reservoir.

This project is not expected to affect dwarf wedge mussels because this species is not known to occur
within the project area. Intensive surveys by the WRC and experts contracted by the City of Wilson
failed to locate any evidence of dwarf wedge mussel in Contentnea Creek downstream from
Buckhorn Reservoir.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Wilson County:

State Protected Species

Plant and animal species which the state lists as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et
seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).

NHP records indicate that no state-listed species are known to occur within the study corridor.
However, a Carolina fatmucket shell was found in a muskrat midden within the study corridor during
the site visit. This species is listed as state Special Concern. Other state-listed freshwater mussel
species have been documented at a site in Contentnea Creek within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi) upstream
from the study corridor as well as a site approximately 5.8 kilometers (3.6 mi) downstream from the

12

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

study corridor, and may be expected to occur within the study corridor as well. These state-listed
freshwater mussels include the state-Threatened triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) and
squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus), and the state-Special Concern Carolina creekshell (Villosa
constricta). Impacts to these species will be avoided/minimized to the greatest extent possible and
notification to the NHP will be given prior to construction.

x. CULTURAL RESOURCES

This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.

In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No.62, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).

In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.

Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 1 06 is required.

XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic volumes are low and other connecting
roadways in the immediate vicinity are available.

The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.

13

14

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.

No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.

No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.

There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.

Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge in its existing location, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.

This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.

Noise levels could increase during demolition but will be temporary. Ifvegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.

An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.

Wilson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as the
100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated that
this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor on the
associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.

On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

REFERENCES

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.

Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Water Quality Section, Raleigh.

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.

Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.

Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA 13 pp.

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, lR. Bailey, and lR. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.

Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh. 227 pp.

Moser, G.A 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA 52 pp.

Radford, AE., H.E. Ahles, and C.R Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.

\

15

16

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1983. Soil Survey of Wilson County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 112 pp.

Webster, W.D., Parnell, IF. and Biggs, W.e., Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

~-(
\)~
CO

:y...
....c:,
~

-"b .

,
I
;
e

!:!

...
o
-:s:.
"1-
c.I'
.-\
o
"1-

("l
o
Co
"1-
.-\
,..(,

\ \
'. \
....\.,
\.
\
\.

~

2 0 mile.
1.0 I

10 2.0 3.0'""
o . Road Maps,
Sourca: couon~ 1990
NCD "

o

-.0

KENLY
1'Ol'.I,433
Site Location Map
Bridge # 62
SR 1144 Over k
Contentnea cre~C
Wilson County,
B-3085

AUG 1996

r Route
Studied Detou

Figure:

e-e-e

Project:

Date:

- .....,

l

If-I
.

. ~:.: ~~:.

;j.'-.~

----------

":'
0 m
~' oJ
j
~ 5 w
~ Z ...J
es' ~ 2 ~ oct
U
" <> ~~~ VI
<'z ~ ~ 0
~oE" .~:::III) ..
oJ:=~ o 000
~<... zzoo
too ~8z'?
tJ,izz
j5~~Z~ o om
D: ffi ~
~ .~ ~ a m>-
Z. " o.
..,. I.D
en
~ ~
-
a:
VI

....::.....

L.
i
"
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-..
--~
('l

I,t,

. iCi
~ f
g ....lIi.-,.
__ l1'~;Q.r......
""'I,j. .~ ~~H/C: ;;;I
_ ,.;... n 1a:...;., "~~~'.- --

a

III

. --;,-

'I' ...~

Il:i:.l = to G"

to"';,

B

- -

III II CI
--- ,-----s._

_...,...,~.

BRIDGE NO. 62
i WILSON
I COUNTY
B-3085

I
I
UOOKING NORTH

I
LbOKING SOUTH
I

SlE VIEW

FIGURE 3

I
I
~

~

lruoy

I
I

1143

<~

I
I
I

UJ
~
<(
~
V')

I I

tn Hwy
I .42

------

6
~
I II~
Q5
~

I
I
II

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

April 22, 1996

MEMORANDUM

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

F:n
ltJ

1m.'..'.......::
tJ
t71.'
EJ
~
8
ill
B
~
g
ill
9
o
B
ill
B
o
o
m
m

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

TO:

FROM:

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation

David Brook ~~y( ~~tL--
Deputy State Hist~lc Preservation Officer

Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 62 on SR 1144 over Contentnea Creek, Wilson
County, B-3085, ER 96-8570

SUBJECT:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.

We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.

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.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

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

DB:slw

cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett

109 East Jones Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

@

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Federal Aid # ~rz.z.. \\44(4-)

CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

TIP # Pl. ";1.17

County IN \~~~~

Brief Project Description U-l"l.AU .rz.IOG-& N', ~~ 1'1'1 ~ 1\44 "'~t- c,rJl~NT"tJ6b. ~
("e.I~ UouP ~I)

On ~ representatives of the

../ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
../ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other

reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
-L Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other

All parties present agreed

../ there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.

../ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.

there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project' s area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.

../' there arc no National Register-listed properties \yithin the project" s area of potential effects.

Signed:

~~/tr;OT

.v114 /'~"
Date

. istrator, or other Federal Agency

5/lu/<?t

Date

UPjM t\ ~):hM)
Representative, SHPO

s~
Dat

f/.
State Historic Preservation Officer

1'6

If a suryey report is prepared, a tinal copy of this fonn and the ullm;hed list will be inchu.h:d.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment I
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management

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

~~.~A
~ - - ~~

- - -

DEHNR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

April 15, 1996

MEMORANDUM

To:

From:

Phil Harris
Eric Galambc2J
Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects

Subject:

The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
repl acem ents:

A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HOW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.

B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.

C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.

D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.

E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.

.

Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee

bridges.sco

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An tqual Ooportunrtv Affirmative Action tmployer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

I

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF

Regulatory Branch

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WilMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 11, 1996

I

I

I

Action ID No. 199601562

I

I

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

I

Dear Mr. vick:

I

Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.

I

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.

I

Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with ~e 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.

I

I

I

Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to makA a determination regarrii.ng the Perieral
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.

I

I

Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field 'Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.

I

I

I

I

I

-2-

I

I

Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington ~egulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.

I

Sincerely,

~~~

I

David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager

I

Copies Furnished (without enclosure)

I

Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - ~egion IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

I

Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516

I

Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and wildlife Snhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

March 27, 1996

MAR 2 b 1996

Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611

Subject:

Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)

Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.

Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.

The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.

Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
~o ~ne maximum exten~ prac~icable as ou~lined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.

We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.

In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):

1.

A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;

I

2.

I

An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;

3.

A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;

I

4.

The extent and acreage of waters of the U.s., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Enqineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.s.
Army Corps of Engineers;

I

I

s.

The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;

I

I

6.

Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;

I

7.

Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.

I

The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):

I

I

I

1.

A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;

I

2.

A description and accompanvinq map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;

3.

I

A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;

4.

I

An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:

a.

Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;

I

b.

A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;

I

I

I

I

I

I

c.

Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;

I

d.

Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);

I

5.

Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;

I

6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse, effects;

I

7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.

I

Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under state protection.

I

I

I

I

The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.

I

~
\)

visor

I

I

Attachments

I

cc:

NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA

I

I

FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP

I

I

.~

0> ,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRITARY

June 23, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO:

Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab

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

Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge
No. 62 on SR 1144 over Contentnea Creek in Wilson
County,B-3085

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 July 25, 1995 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.

FROM:

SUBJECT:

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 John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.

JW/pl r 030Yo7

Attachment &~ ~ (r- t,J,S l/,-- AJ5 ~

2. 7 -06-{t)

/:~ no c.lilJ /1 ~
.' "V1~J) S. .~ ~ (.....frtl J
L /lilM/ I^. Mi.,t>', .{- u},', i-!
(,110 / ~ '\ I \J })/!J;-"-' I~' !1~

,/] t'(,-() <- /cJ{......

G)

BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET

DATE: 6-22-95

TIP PROJECT B-3085

DIVISION 4

STATE PROJECT 8.2341501

COUNTY Wilson

F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1144(4)

ROUTE SR 1144

PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Replace Obsolete Bridge

SPECIAL FUNDING: Will there be special funding participation by municipalities,
developers, or others?
YES NO X

STRUCTURE DATA

EXISTING
BRIDGE NO. 62

LENGTH 32.3 meters;
106.0 feet

WIDTH

5.5 meters
18.1 feet

TRAFFIC

1995 Traffic
2020 Projected Traffic

100 VPD
400 VPD

DUAL 2%
TTST 1 %

DHV 10%
DIR 60%

COSTS

TIP Estimate

TIP Construction Cost
TIP Right of Way Cost

$
+ $

325,000
30,000

TIP Total Cost

$

355,000

CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route

--- -

./

"\

,...' C\/ "-
ui

.:--..

\

rn

,

" l ~\
- - \

I

RJa
Ri~
fl
t

\

\

10

......

.

~

\

.
\
.
\
.
\

----

Hawra
~

North CaroUna Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch

WILSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 62 ON SR 1144
OVER CONTENTNEA CREEK
B-3085

o kilometers 1.6
I I
o mlles 1.0

kilometers 3.2
I
miles 2.0

Figure 1

-"" ~\
- \ \ '-
'- ~ ~

/ I~----'~ \~ /
-' ~ '\ ~
, ~'I --,
---, -

I
,

!)

'- /

I
Cem'-1 _-

!, 13-
. '" -

"-..

II-W'. /~