HomeMy WebLinkAbout19930839 Ver 1_Complete File_19930924DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
October 28, 1993
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199202345 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
North Carolina Department ; a
of Transportation I.
Division of Highways 1(mv I :
Planning & Environmental Branch 09 GROUP
Post Office Box 25201 SECTION 1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for your inquiry of September 17, 1993, regarding your plans to
replace Bridge No. 48, on N.C. Highway 58, over Silver Lake, adjacent and
below the headwaters of Toisnot Swamp, in Wilson, Wilson County, North
Carolina (State Project No. 8.1340401 and TIP No. U-2573B).
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your proposed work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished
in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided you receive a
Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM). You should contact Mr. John Dorney,
telephone (919) 733-1786, regarding water quality certification. This
NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State
or local approval.
1
-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the NWP authorization is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during
the 2 years, the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is
modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and
conditions of the NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will
remain authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the
date of the NWP's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary
authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or
revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mrs. Jean B. Manuele, Raleigh
Field office, telephone (919) 876-8441, Extension 24.
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
'?,fr . John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
d M 5FArr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
September 17, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Wilson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 48 on NC
58 over Silver Lake; State Project No. 8.1340401;
Federal Aid Project M-9684(1); TIP No. U-2573B.
Attached for your information 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 with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate request' individual
permit but propose to proceed under ationw de Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) ssued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The p visions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(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 Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-9770.
Sincerely, lanager
B. 0` uAssistan Planning and Environmental Branch
w
BJO/rml
Attachment
cc: G. Wayne Wright, Chief Regulatory Branch
Jean Benton, Regulatory Field Office
John Dorney, NC DEHNR DEM
John Parker, NC DEHNR DCM/Permit Coord.
Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch,
Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer- Design,
A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit,
John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit,
Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer,
C. A. Gardner, Jr., PE, Division 4 Engineer
R. J. Booker, III, PE, Proj. Planning Engineer, P & E
Branch
Wilson County, Bridge No. 48
on NC 58 over Silver Lake
State Project No. 8.1340401
Federal Aid Project M-9684(1)
TIP No. U-2573B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
g /70? ?3
ate L J. Ward, P. E., Manage
Planning and Environmental
Branch, NCDOT
Q /c c? 'lit
?? t• U /JS%L C
D Ate
Nicholas L. raf, P. E.
r_?Division Administrator, FHWA
i
Wilson County, Bridge No. 48
on NC 58 over Silver Lake
State Project No. 8.1340401
Federal Aid Project M-9684(1)
TIP No. U-2573B
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Unit Head
?ZN CARt?("?''
?'•.••'EESSI0'••.,
.Q ?
SEAL '
6944
??.fNCrr?EE`? : ??
K. J. BOOKer, 111
Project Planning Engineer
.X
Wilson County, Bridge No. 48
on NC 58 over Silver Lake
State Project No. 8.1340401
Federal Aid Project M-9684(1)
TIP No. U-25738
The Silver Lake Bridge was originally included in Federal Aid Project
8.1340401 which included widening NC 58 to a five lane curb and gutter
facility and replacing the Silver Lake Bridge. The project now has been
divided into two projects due to funding constraints. The first project,
which will utilize all state funds, is the widening of NC 58 to a 5 lane
curb and gutter facility from the Wilson city limits to the Silver Lake
Bridge (U-2573A, a State EA/FONSI completed in March 1993). The second is
the replacement of the bridge over Silver Lake, U-25738 will utilize
federal funds. 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
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. Best Management Practices will be utilized to
minimize any possible impacts.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Silver Lake Bridge should be replaced to the east using the
existing structure to carry traffic during construction. When complete,
the new eastern section would carry traffic until the west half is built.
A 68-foot curb and gutter section is recommended to be carried across
the bridge to match the recommended proposed cross section on NC 58.
Fourteen-foot outside lanes are recommended to provide for joint use by
bicycles on this section of the signed bike route, bicycle safe rails are
recommended for the bridge. The section is proposed to taper to the
existing two lane cross section north of the bridge at SR 1314.
The estimated cost to replace the structure based on current prices
is approximately 1.1 million dollars.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 58 is classified as an urban principal arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal Aid Urban
System.
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 58 has a 22-foot pavement with
6-foot unpaved shoulders. (See Figure 2).
2
The structure has a length of 129 feet with a 28.1-foot total
horizontal clearance. The bridge has three main spans at approximately 42
feet per span and has reinforced concrete deck and girders and vertical
concrete abutments. The bridge is situated on a horizontal tangent.
The bridge was built in 1956 and has a sufficiency rating of 58,
compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The bridge presently
does not have a posted weight limit.
The 1997 traffic volume of 6400 vehicles per day (vpd) is expected to
increase to approximately 11,600 vpd in the year 2017. The projected
volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-tired
vehicles (DT).
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 48 were studied as
follows:
Alternate 1 (recommended) would involve replacement of the existing
structure with -a 68-foot face to face section. Traffic would be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the east half of
the new structure. Traffic would then be shifted to this new structure,
the existing bridge would be removed and the western half of the new
structure would be constructed. This process would eliminate the need for
a temporary detour during construction. With this alternative the
elevation of the bridge would be raised to improve the deficient vertical
curve south of the bridge.
Alternate 2 would involve widening and rehabilitation of the existing
structure. This also would involve a 15 mile detour of traffic during
construction, and the vertical curvature would remain as it is.
The "do nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
NC 58.
The alternative of replacing the bridge on the west side of the
existing bridge was eliminated due to the close proximity of development
and the location of the dam on the west side.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternative are as follows:
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
(recommended) widen
Structure $ 648,000 $ 484,000
Roadway Approaches 241,000 247,000
Structural Removal 30,000 N/A
Engineering/Contingencies 131,000 119,000
Right of Way, Utilities 53,300 53,300
1,103,300 903,300
x,
i
3
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 48 should be replaced using staged construction of the
existing bridge to allow for maintenance of traffic during construction of
the east half of the new structure.
The recommended improvements will include about 0.3 mile of roadway
approaches. A 68-foot face to face of curbs cross section is recommended
for the approach on the south side (U-2573A). The 68-foot cross section
leaving the bridge to the north begins to taper back to the 22-foot
roadway completing the taper at SR 1314, approximately 1400 feet north of
the bridge.
An alternate to replacing the structure was to rehabilitate and widen
the existing bridge. An economic analysis indicated the cost of replacing
versus widening and rehabilitation was approximately $200,000 more. The
replacement of the structure was recommended to obtain the longer life a
new structure would give, also it would allow correction of the deficient
vertical curve just south of the bridge. The new structure would be
slightly raised to accommodate the design.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations. Without replacement, the bridge would act as a potentially
hazardous restriction at the end of a five lane cross section.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
With the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, the
bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on the
quality of the human or natural environment. The project will not impact
any 4(f) property. There are no publicly owned parks, recreational
facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges in the vicinity of the
project.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The
project is not expected to affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
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
if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
4
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an
opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) was surveyed by the N. C.
Department of Transportation staff. No properties over fifty years old
were found, and therefore no properties in the APE are eligible for the
National Register.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the
National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is
required.
An archaeological assessment of projects U-2573A and U-2573B resulted
in the location and preliminary documentation of the archaeological
remains of three sites.
Based on the determination that these sites are not significant, the
project recommendations are that no further investigation is necessary.
A bottomland hardwood system associated with Silver Lake was the only
plant community identified in the project area. Silver Lake is an
impounded waterbody, part of the Toisnot Swamp system. Approximately 0.4
acre may be impacted by subject project. Vegetation associated with this
system is comprised of river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus
caroliniana), red maple (Acer rubrum) and black willow (Salix nigra .
Overcup oak ( uercus lyrata) forms a small component. Knotweed (Polygonum
sp.), and broom panic grass (Dichanthelium scoparium) comprise the
herbaceous component.
Subject project spans Toisnot Swamp located in the Tar River basin.
Toisnot Swamp itself has been impounded to create Silver Lake. Now a
reservoir, it serves as an active water supply for the City of Wilson.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
Classifications of WS-III, and NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) have been
assigned to waters of Toisnot Swamp and it's unnamed tributaries. WS-III
indicates a water supply segment with no categorical restrictions on
watershed development or discharges and is suitable for all Class C uses.
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture. The
supplemental classification "NSW" indicates waters needing additional
nutrient management (particularly fertilizer run-off) due to their being
subject to eutrophication.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long
term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates. No specific data is available for
Toisnot Swamp.
5
No waters classified as WS-I, WS-II Outstanding Resource Waters or
High Quality Waters will be impacted by the proposed project, nor are any
of these resources located within 1 mile of the project area. No National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permits have been issued within
the project area.
Wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material into
these wetlands as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Associated with bridge replacement is approximately 0.4 acre of
jurisdictional wetlands which may receive impacts from project
construction. These wetlands are categorized as palustrine forested,
broad-leaved deciduous communities (PF01) as defined by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Wetland communities were identified in the project corridor on
the basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation and the
presence of hydrology or hydrological indicators.
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion and is
likely to come under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23.
This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a
category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions
are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps).
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide permits are
authorized, according to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE (1989). Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
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.
The USFWS lists several federally Endangered species for Wilson
County, as of March 9, 1993 (Table 1).
Table 1 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Wilson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Picoides borealis
A adonta heterodon
R us mic auxii*
COMMON NAME
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Dwarf wedge mussel
Michaux's sumac
STATUS
E
E
E
E-Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all its range.
A brief description and habitat requirements for the above listed
species are summarized below.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal ly: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chatham, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare,
Duplin, Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Hyde,
Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir, Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico, Pender,
Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell,
Wake, Wayne, Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in
Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. Now found only in
coastal states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma
and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations are found
in the sandhills and in the southern coastal plain. The few populations
found in the piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics
of former populations.
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white except for small
red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back is black and
white with horizontal stripes and the breast and underside is white with
streaked flanks. There is a large white cheek patch surrounded by the
black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A
forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory,
and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are equal to greater that 60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is from 100 to 200 acres, this acreage must
be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
7
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually
in trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease.
Cavities are located in colonies from 12-100 ft above the ground and
average 30-50 ft high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of
running sap that surrounds the tree. This is used as a defense against
possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one
breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The eggs are laid in
April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size is from 3 - 5
eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
No suitable habitat exists in the project area for the red-cockaded
woodpecker. Subject project will not impact the species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf-wedged mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Nash, Wake,
Wilson.
Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River,
Canada to the Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations
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.
The dwarf-wedged mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5cm
to 3.8cm in length. It's Shell is distinguishable 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.
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of larval
mussels to a host fish. It is not known what the host fish is but
evidence suggests that it is either an anadromous or catadromous species.
This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated
water to survive.
Toisnot Swamp has been impounded to create Silver Lake and does not
provide suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. Subject project will
not impact the species.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) E
P ant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28,
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Columbus,
Orange, Richmond, Robeson,
1989
Davie, Durham, Franklin, Hoke, Moore,
Scotland, Wake, Wilson.
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain
and lower piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This
species is believed to be extirpated in South Carolina. It is currently
known from only 21 populations in North Carolina and Georgia. In North
8
Carolina populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond,
Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows
0.2 to 1.0 meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis
supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are
each 4 to 9cm long, 2 to 5cm wide, acute and acuminate. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bear!
small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are
greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to
6mm across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It
usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle
that it is often associated with.
Marginal habitat exists along bridge approachways. A plant by plant
survey was conducted within the impact zone on August 19, 1992. The plant
is in fruit at this time of year and is clearly visible. No individuals
were seen. Subject project will not impact the species.
In addition, the USFS provided information on the following Candidate
species which may occur in the study area. Candidate species are not
legally protected 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. These species are
mentioned here for the purpose of information, as they may be listed under
a protected status at a later date. The habitat column indicates the
availability of suitable habitat in the project area.
Table 2 Federal Candidate Species
Wilson County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS HABITAT
Henslow' s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii C2 No
Atlantic pigtoe Fuscona a masoni C2 No
Carolina asphodel Tofie is C2 No
C2-Candidate 2: A taxon for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing
as Endangered or Threatened at this time.
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the State
9
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979, administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture. The NCNHP files lists no
occurrence records of state protected species in the study area.
The USFWS provided information on several Candidate (C) species that
may occur in Wilson County. Only one of these species, the state
Threatened Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) is afforded state protection
at this time. No surveys were conducted for this species.
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of Wilson County. The County has a comprehensive plan, the
Wilson County Land Development Plan 1985 - 1995 which describes the
County's policies and goals regarding growth and development. The County
also enforces a zoning ordinance, though only portions of the County have
actually been zoned.
The project area can be characterized as rural, consisting of low
density residential development, most fronting directly onto NC 58, with
some small businesses scattered throughout the length of the project.
Most of the project area is zoned R-20, Residential, which permits
single family residential development on one-half acre lots. A B-1,
Highway Business district is located at the roadway's intersection with
SR 1313.
The Farmland Protection Agency Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition or
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils
are generally those which consistently produce the highest crop yield with
a minimum of input of energy and economic resources. Prime and important
farmland soils which have been converted to non-agricultural uses are
exempt from the requirements of the Act. The land to be acquired for
right-of-way throughout the project length has been converted from
agricultural uses, through the planning activities of the county
government. Therefore, further consideration of potential impacts to
farmland is not required.
Wetland and Water Quality
The project will intensify short-term siltation and sedimentation
during wet weather periods in the immediate area of proposed construction
of temporary connectors and permanent bridge approach slabs. Potential
adverse effects on affected resources will be minimized by the
contractor's use of applicable measures of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 650, Subpart B (23 CFR 650.B) and/or Article 107-13
("Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution") of NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. These regulations include an
erosion and sedimentat of control program developed by the North Carolina
Division of Highways, adopted by the NC Board of Transportation, and
approved by the NC Sedimentation Control Commission. In view of these
measures and project scope, accidental discharge of dredged or fill
materials into the Toisnot Swamp is not likely.
10
Traffic and Construction Noise
Significant traffic and construction noise impacts are unlikely to
occur since existing traffic will be moved no closer to any existing
receptors in the project area. Construction noise impacts on adjacent
properties will not be major in view of existing ambient noise levels
precipitated by NC 58 traffic and the absence of developments in the
project area. Also, construction activities are usually conducted only
during daylight hours along projects of the nature of this one.
Therefore, traffic noise reports are considered unnecessary and noise
assessment requirements of 23 CFR 772 should not apply to this proposed
action. Additional highway traffic noise reports consequently are
unnecessary.
Air Quality
The project is located in the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Wilson County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply to this project.
It is noted the impact on air quality will be insignificant. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770, and no additional reports are
required.
1.6 1745 1789 603 i
4.6 1001
/ 1981 1 X1744 ^ b i
St ckland f? b 1982 1785 Np
n 7 1 ft:? ---- / l 174
_ro Broads 1 981 -?
1993 9 `fir'
tle -? 1991 .4 b Rocky Mni-^'
r -
?. F 3 1741
BPS .7 ?-174
97 V
ry is 1940 Winstead
127 7 Crossroads ° 1327 1340 ?
1946 100.1 t --198-5-
.8 4 r' 1939 Mt. Zion \
1993
1.2 •7 \ y y ,i •? ? 1 1335 Ch.?
1947 1' 1981 / N 1 ?.
not 1937
T?!5. 1 93s Cliftonyille ! ? 1
J J 11? ??
g r? . / 1315 1-443 c 1.0 1336
1001 1984 \ \
1.2
1941 .U / l 2 oisnot 0
\
1314 13-3 4
4 N _
b 1001 3J Swamp ?.1 SILVER I _ PELM
OP. 1,
LAKE > 332
/ •/ 131
1942
`Z
/ 6 135.5 ` J 13?7
1601 1 Newh
,00
---
RIDGE NO. 48 - - LAIC - - -
Dunn
1 ?Q WILSON rossroads
Shiloh -
Ch. -may ?? v o -
} -- TG\
\ WILSON
Wilson POP. 34,424
Airport'' 71
\ 11s' n C
Ej I Cn
264
Lamm 121
2.6 r
TOI NOT
lp RESV. ;8. 1
AY
S wo Jf
58
w
6
>= PAS ?F Py
-i
s
CV) r N
1- O M
LO -tt O
N O *-
? d'
c7
r L
d
CO m
S
d
Q.
N
11 C)
MONO
O
? IS
O
co.
i
t) ?
ui
,a. I I CO
U cn `r
N 4-- cab
r 4-? ?
O T
T
v
d-
T
C'9 T T
T
N
I
O N
O
to
LO
LO to
d-
? o
T r -> 4p
oc to
c C9
T
N
O
LJ?N
<CO N
T
?
M
W
t6
CD
I
O T
(V)
N U
0 z
Q
e,
v- I
v-
N
O M
T T..
N ?
T ? r
a
c
c
c
c
c
cc
L
0
? T
(•) r N
1? O O
In ?t O)
N O T
T L
C
CL
C)
Co
(1) co
cy) CD
oz:
E
CD 0
IS
C
N
U)
co cu
L E
V ?
?
,r
'
LLI
a
CD
rr
U T-- rn ?
N 4-
O
N r•
N
m
ti
U') N N
rn v
(D
(D
CD
h
L M
QJ?
4-
T? r ? Q
(n cm (D
N
co
LO LJ
A N
? N
? `vl LTA
L
1
m ?? N
U)
w
.1
(lT
J
L
U
1
?
o
co
Z
e
C7)
fl- T
CO
(D
CO I
10
?'
N C7
4- r
M
co
e7t'
v
N 47
r-1
CC
U
O
O
O
C
c
}
RS
L
D
(O ?
4-
N CV)
• y
AAT( ?v..
r?.J...
Y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 22, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Silver Lake Bridge on NC 58, Wilson
County, U-257313, 8.1340401, M-9684(1), ER 93-
9095
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
EiV?
O
UUC2 6 1993
G ?3
22 DIVISION OF
G HIGHWAYS
Thank you for your letter of June 23, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the information provided to us and understand that no
structures over fifty years of age are located in the area of potential effect. Based
upon the information provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
and our files, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's determination
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are in the area of potential
effect.
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 of 1966 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.
Sincerely,
,/DaJid'Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
cc: VL. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??