Loading...
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 ??