19970861 Ver 1_Complete File_19971002

A _... r
US 264-NC 45
WS10-ID Bridge No. 29 Over Scranton Creek
Hyde County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-264(6)
State Project No. 8.1080501
T.I.P. No. B-3193
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
OCT ` 21997
28 -7 2? -
DATE H. Frank in is , P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE Nicho as L. Graf, P.E.
ti? Division Administrator, FHWA
US 264-NC 45
Bridge No. 29 Over Scranton Creek
Hyde County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-264(6)
State Project No. 8.1080501
T.I.P. No. B-3193
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1997
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams 400,10*.09000(
Project Engineer
SM
7521
(7Jdmes Wang, Ph.D., P.E.ysgllS•?
President
NwWu
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Proje ngineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
US 264 - NC 45
Bridge No. 29 Over Scranton Creek
Hyde County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-264(6)
State Project No. 8.1080501
T.I.P. No. B-3193
Bridge No. 29 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1998-
2004 Transportation Improvement Program. Figure 1 shows the location of the bridge. No
substantial impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classed as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, Stream Crossinq Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage, and Precautions for General Construction in Areas which may be used by the
West Indian Manatee In North Carolina, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. Construction of the project will take place in such a manor as to avoid instream activities
between February 15 and September 31 to avoid interfering with fish reproduction.
3. This project is part of The NC-2 Mountains- to- Sea Bicycling Highway and will be
designed to include AASHTO standard bicycle safety accommodations.
4. A survey for the presents of the sensitive jointvetch will be conducted during the next
flowering season (July through September), prior construction.
5. The approach fill for the on-site detour will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with native vegetation. If undercutting is necessary for the on-site detour the
material will be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
6. Borrow / waste areas will not be located in wetlands. Compensatory mitigation will be
required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 29 over Scranton Creek on US 264-NC 45 will be replaced with a new bridge as
shown in Figure 2. The new bridge will have a clear roadway width of 9.6 meters (32 ft.)
including a 7.2 meter (24 ft.) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft.) shoulders on each side and a length
of approximately 91 meters (300 ft.).
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 ft.) travelway with 2.4 meters (8 ft.)
shoulders. The approach work will extend approximately 140 meters (460 ft.) north and south of
the proposed bridge.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by a temporary on-site detour bridge located on
the east side of the existing bridge. The detour bridge will require an approximate length of 88
meters (289 ft.)
The estimated cost based, on current prices, is $1,850,000 including $100,000 for right-of-way
and $1,750,000 for construction. the estimated cost of the project as shown in the NCDOT 1998
- 2004 T.I.P. is $1,100,000, including $100,000 for right-of-way and $1,000,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 264-NC 45 is classified as a rural minor arterial route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The road intersects SR 1156 approximately 274 meters (900 ft.) north of
the bridge, and intersects SR 1154 approximately 219 meters (720 ft.) south of the bridge. This
section of US 264-NC 45 is part of the "NC-2 Mountains-to-Sea" bicycle route.
The approach from the north consists of a 700 meter radius (2.5 degree) curve that lies
approximately 183 meters (600 ft.) before the bridge. The approach from the south is direct.
The project vicinity consists of primarily pine forest and marshland. The roadway at the bridge
is approximately 3.7 meters (12 ft.) above the bed of Scranton Creek.
The existing roadway approaching the bridge is 6.7 meters (22 ft.) wide with 3.0 meters (10.0 ft.)
shoulders.
The projected traffic volume for US 264-NC 45 is 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1998 and
3,200 vpd for the design year 2018. These volumes include 2 percent truck-tractor semi-trailers
(TTST), 6 percent dual-tired (DT) vehicles, a design hourly volume of 10 percent, and a
directional volume of 55 percent. The speed limit is not posted at the project site, but is
assumed to be 90 km/h (55 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1955 (Figure 3). The overall length of the bridge is
approximately 91 meters (300 ft.). The clear roadway width is 7.9 meters (26 ft.) and the width
between the rails is 9.0 meters (29.4 ft.). The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete
deck with an asphalt wearing surface on steel 1-beams. The substructure consists of reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles and timber end bents.
The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 25.6, based on a rating of 100 for a new structure.
The posted weight limit is 25,401 kilograms (28 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross weight
for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
No accidents were reported on US 264-NC 45 near Bridge No. 29 during the period from July 1,
1993 to June 30, 1996.
Power lines cross the creek parallel to the roadway on the upstream (east) side of the bridge.
Underground telephone lines exist on both sides of the roadway and are aerial over the creek.
An underground 250 mm (10 in.) water line crosses the creek on the west side. An underground
fiber optic cable exist on the east side of the project. Minimal utility impacts are anticipated.
One Hyde County school bus crosses the bridge on a daily basis.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No off site detour routes are available for roadclosure.
The alternatives studied for the replacement of Bridge No. 29. included a new bridge with a
length of approximately 91 meters (300 ft.) and a clear roadway width of 9.6 meters (32 ft.),
including a 7.2 meter (24 ft.) travelway and 1.2 meter (4 ft.) shoulders on each side. The
approach roadway for each alternate included a 7.2 meter (24 ft.) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft.)
shoulders.
The alternates studied (shown in Figure 2) are as follows:
Alternate A (Recommended): Replace Bridge No. 29 at the existing location with a temporary
on-site detour bridge on the east (upstream) side. The approach work will extend approximately
140 meters (460 ft.) north and south of the proposed bridge. The detour bridge will require a
length of 88 meters (289 ft.).
Alternate B: Replace Bridge No. 29 on new alignment approximately 12 meters (40 ft.) east of
the existing bridge with 1750 meter (1 degree) reverse curves on the south approach. Traffic
flow will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The approach work will
extend approximately 366 meters (1200 ft.) north and 335 meters (1100 ft.) south of the
proposed bridge.
Other Alternates:
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by US 264-NC 45.
Due to the cost associated with relocating the 250 mm (10 in.) waterline and the channel
located to the southwest side of the existing bridge the west side was not considered as a
suitable location.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternates studied based on current prices are as follows:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Temp. Detour Structure and Approaches
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Construction Easements/Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
$ 55,200 $ 55,200
$ 618,100 $ 618,100
$ 238,300 --
$ 239,400 $ 565,700
$ 371,000 $ 370,000
$ 228,000 $ 241,000
100,000 200,000
TOTAL $1,850,000 $2,050,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate A is recommended because it provides the best alignment, has the lowest cost and
the least overall impact to the Brackish Marsh and Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest.
Bridge No. 29 will be replaced on existing alignment with a new bridge. The new bridge will have
a length of approximately 91 meters (300 ft.).
Traffic will be maintained by an onsite detour on the east side of the existing bridge. The detour
bridge will have a length of approximately 88 meters (289 ft.).
A 9.6 meter (32 ft.) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy and AASHTO Standard Bicycle Safety
Accommodations. This will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft.) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft.) shoulders
across the structure.
A 7.2 meter (24 ft.) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft.) shoulders will be provided on the proposed
approaches. Where guardrail is warranted a 3.4 meter (11 ft.) shoulder will be used.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 50 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 91 meters (300 ft.). The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province in rural
Hyde County approximately 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) north of the town of Scranton, North
Carolina (Figure 1).
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Scranton, 1983); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey field
sheet of Hyde County (1994); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory Map (Scranton, 1995); USFWS list of protected species and Federal
Species of Concern (1997); and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats (1996); NCDOT aerial photography of the project area
(1:1200); North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) water resource data;
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed critical habitat information.
Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project area on November 6, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 30.4
meter (100.0 foot) wide right-of-way limit, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the
length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without
specific replacement structure design information (pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was
assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area," "project
area," and "project corridor' denote the specific area being directly impacted by each
alternative. "Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) radius of the
project area.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as flat with gently sloping banks along the
major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 1.5 meters (5.0 feet).
According to the soil survey field sheet for Hyde County (SCS, 1994), the area is mapped as
Lafitte mucky peat, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded. Lafitte mucky peat is listed as a
hydric soil. This soil type was confirmed in the field. No other published soil data was available.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Tar-Pamlico River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Scranton Creek is a perennial tributary to the Pungo River in the Tar-Pamlico River drainage
basin. Scranton Creek flows west through the proposed project area. On the day of the field
investigation, the creek was greater than 1.5 meters (5.0 feet) deep. Within the project area,
Scranton Creek has a classification of Class SC NSW by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Class SC indicates saltwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife. NSW indicates Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The stream index number for Scranton Creek is 29-34-24-(2).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Hyde
County (1987) indicates the project area lies in Zone A5, which is in the area of the 100 year
flood boundary where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined.
The NCDEM has sampled the macroinvertebrate community throughout the state. Benthic
macroi nverteb rates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample
based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. There is no benthic macroinvertebrate data from
Scranton Creek.
5
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. There is no
NCIBI data from Scranton Creek.
No waters classified by NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within the project vicinity.
The County Manager in Hyde County indicated that the project area is not within a protected
watershed.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. There are no NPDES permitted dischargers located in the project vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, stormwater runoff from US 264 appears to be
the main source of water quality degradation as no commercial or agricultural areas are within
the project area.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures in the
creek channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will increase
sediment loads. Although flow is very slow in these areas, additional sediment loading can
further reduce flow and result in a decrease in oxygen levels. The water temperature should not
be affected as only a small number of trees will be impacted. The NCDOT, in cooperation with
NCDEM, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. The following are
methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• strict adherence to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
during the life of the project.
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams.
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings.
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along streams.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a
system used by NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow
6
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined
through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other
documentation (Conant 1958; Farrand 1993; Robbins et al. 1966; and Whitaker 1980).
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated,
estuarine fringe loblolly pine forest, and brackish marsh. Dominant faunal components
associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description. Many
species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may
not be mentioned separately in each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders and utility
line easement (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders are dominated by
fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white clover (Trfolium repens), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium cemuum), panic grass (Panicum spp.), and plantain
(Plantago spp.).
The northeast and southeast quadrants contained disturbed wet areas under the utility line
easement. The area in the northeast quadrant contained cattails (Typha spp.), goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), plumegrass
(Erianthus spp.), flatsedge (Cyperus spp.), and black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). The
area in the southeast quadrant contained black willow (Sa/ix nigra), cattails, goldenrod,
groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), black needlerush,
and sawgrass.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Although no animals were observed in these areas
during the site visit, raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several
species of mice (Peromyscus spp.), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus
migratodus), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), common grackle (Quisca/us quiscula), green
treefrog (Hyla cinerea), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), and Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis sirtalis) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest
This forested community occurs in all quadrants of the bridge. The dominant canopy trees
include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rub?um), and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). The understory consists of red maple and black cherry (Prunus sero6na). The
shrub layer includes wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and groundsel tree. The herbaceous layer
includes common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), saw greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and goldenrod. Some sawgrass, cattails, and black
needlerush are interspersed in this community from the adjacent marsh. The soil consisted of a
7
black (10YR 2/1) fine sandy loam. Hydrologic indicators included water stained leaves and
standing water.
On the day of the site visit, a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and Eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) were observed. Animals previously listed in the Man-Dominated Community
Section may also be found in this community along with the whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), cotton
mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), barred owl (Strix varia), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Carolina chickadee (Pares carolinensis),
Eastern phoebe (Sayomis phoebe), rough-winged swallow (Ste/gidopteryx ruficollis), fence
lizard (Sceloporus undu/atus), ground skink (Scincel/a lateralis), Northern black racer (Coluber
constrictor constrictor), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
Brackish Marsh
This community is found in all quadrants adjacent to the estuarine fringe loblolly pine forest
community. The marsh is dominated by black needlerush and also contains sawgrass, wax
myrtle, and groundsel tree interspersed throughout the area. The soil consisted of a saturated
black (10YR 2/1) silty loam with a high organic content. Hydrologic indicators included standing
water and sediment deposits on the vegetation.
On the day of the site visit, a belted kingfisher (Megacery/e alcyon) and a great blue heron
(Ardea herodias) were observed. Other animals which may also be found in this community
include the muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), pied-billed grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps), mallard (Anas p/atyrhynchos), marsh wren (Cistothorus pa/ustris),
common yellowthroat (Geoth/ypis trichas), Eastern mud turtle (Kinostemon subrubrum
subrubrum), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Scranton Creek. Within the project area
the creek is approximately 85.3 meters (280.0 feet) wide. On the day of the field investigation
the creek was slow moving. The water was colored with tannins and the creek bottom was not
visible. The substrate, which consists of sand, was visible in the shallow areas along the edge
of the creek. The depth of the creek was greater than 1.5 meters (5.0 feet).
Vegetation along the creek consisted of black needlerush, sawgrass, wax myrtle, and groundsel
tree. On the day of the site visit, grass shrimp (Palaemonetes spp.), and killifish (Fundulus
spp.) were observed in the creek. Animals such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina),
Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and yellow-bellied turtle (Chrysemys scripta
scripta) may reside along the waters edge. Oyster (Crasostrea virginica) shells were found
along the creek bank. The water within the project area was slow moving and contained no
riffle areas, thus it was unlikely to find a diverse macroinvertebrate community. Due to the
depth and siltation of the creek, the macroi n vertebrate community would be restricted to the
shallow areas along the edge of the creek. On the day of the site visit, no macroinvertebrates
were found from dip netting.
8
According to Chad Thomas, District 1 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), fish sampling data from 1987 indicates the following fish species were
found in Scranton Creek: black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), chain pickerel (Esox niger),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and white perch (Morone americana). Scranton
Creek is a tributary to Pungo River and the 1987 fish sampling data indicates the following fish
were found in Pungo River: warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), gizzard shad (Dorosoma
capedianum), bowfin (Amia calva), longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), flier (Centrarchus
macropterus), yellow bullhead (Icta/wus natalis), brown bullhead (Ictalurus milas), white catfish
(Ictalurus catus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus).
According to Mr. Thomas, blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) and alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengos), anadromous fish, are found in the Pungo River. Data from Scranton Creek
shows no occurrences of these fish within this creek. However, Scranton Creek is a tributary to
the Pungo River, so a possibility exists these fish may be found in this creek. A construction
moratorium will be necessary if it is determined that the herring exists within this creek. The
construction moratorium would occur during the spawning period which occurs between
February 15 and September 31. Final determination will be with the NCWRC and National
Marine Fisheries.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. The NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type for
each alternate.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 29 Man- Estuarine Brackish Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Fringe Marsh Community Total
Impacts Community Loblolly
Pine Forest
*Alternate A 0.29 (0.72) 0.11 (0.27) 0.15 (0.38) 0.21 (0.52) 0.76(l.89)
Temporary 0.29 (0.72) 0.03 (0.08) 0.27(0.67) 0.19 (0.47) 0.78(l.94)
Alternate B 1.64 (4.05) 0.03 (0.08) 0.38 (0.95) 0.21 (0.52) 2.26 (5.60)
NOTE: " Recommended
9
Impacts to the Terrestrial Communities
The estuarine fringe loblolly pine forest, brackish marsh, and the man-dominated communities
serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The loss of these habitats will result in
the displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities are likely to
occur to terrestrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way,
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Alternate A will result in the least overall
permanent impact (0.76 hectare/1.89 acres), as well as the least impact to brackish marsh and
estuarine fringe loblolly pine forest combined (0.26 hectare/0.65 acre).
Impacts to the Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Scranton Creek. Alternate A (which
includes a temporary detour) will result in the most stream bottom disturbance: 0.40 hectare
(0.99 acre). (This represents worst case conditions; actual disturbance area will be less.) The
new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase sediment loads in
the creek in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters as applicable. Since Scranton
Creek is potentially anadromous fish spawning habitat, the NCDOT's Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to for this project. The purpose of
these guidelines is to provide guidance to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway
stream crossing structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
Wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Scranton Creek is surrounded by tidal
marsh and forested wetlands throughout the project area. Investigation into wetland
occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
Permanent wetland impacts due to the recommended alternate A may be up to 0.15 hectare
(0.38 acre).
10
Temporary wetland impacts due to the recommended alternate A may be up to 0.27 hectare
(0.67 acre).
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 0.40 hectare
(0.99 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the replacement of Bridge
No. 29.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States".
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that it will be subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.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 USACOE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), will also be required. This certificate
is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is
required.
The subject project is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the Division of Coastal Management
(DCM). DCM is the lead permitting agency for projects located within its jurisdiction. CAMA
directs the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and designate Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) in which uncontrolled development might cause irreversible
damage to property, public health and the natural environment. CAMA necessitates a permit if
the project meets all of the following conditions:
• it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
• it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act;
it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by CRC.
According to Mr. Terry Moore, District Manager of the Washington field office, Bridge No. 29 has
Public Trust Inland Waters east of the bridge, Joint Waters west of the bridge, and coastal
wetlands within the area, therefore CAMA and or dredge and fill permits will be required for the
project.
Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to wetlands exceeding one acre will be required by both the USACOE and
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Wetlands will be delineated prior to
11
submittal for permit application. Mitigation for impacts to surface waters may be required by the
USACOE and NCDWQ. A final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. rest with
USACOE and NCDWQ.
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Solid waste will be
disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures". The Contractor will observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be
placed into any existing land disposal sites that is in violation of state or local rules and
regulations. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside the right-of-way and
provided by the Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining borrow sites,
delineating wetlands in borrow sites and obtaining written concurrence on delineated wetlands
in borrow sites from the Corps of Engineers. Borrow material will not be stockpiled or disposed
of adjacent to or in areas where they may runoff with stormwater into streams and
impoundments. Where it is absolutely necessary to store materials adjacent to streams, they
will be stored above the mean high-water mark in such a manner that they would not runoff with
stormwater. Disposal of waste and debris will not be allowed in areas under the Corps of
Engineers regulating jurisdiction. In the event that COE jurisdictional areas cannot be avoided,
the Department will be responsible for mitigation.
The Contractor will maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the construction
phase and until the completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures
specified, in a manner that will effectively control erosion and siltation into areas under the
Corps of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, streams and impoundments.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline due either to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for Hyde
County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction,
are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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 fourteen federally protected species for Hyde County as of the May 2, 1997
listing. These species are listed in Table 2.
12
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR HYDE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
American alligator)
Canis rufus EXP
Red wolf)
Caretta caretta T
(Loggerhead sea turtle
Charadrius melodus T
(Piping lover
Che/onia mydas* T
Green sea turtle
Dermochelys conacea E
Leatherback sea turtle
Eretmoche/ys imbricata E
Hawksbill sea turtle
Falco peregnnus E
(Peregrine falcon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus T
Bald eagle)
Lepidochelys kempii E
Kem 's ridle sea turtle
Picoides borealis E
Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Trichechus manatus E
Manatee
Aeschynomene virginica T
Sensitive 'ointvetch
Amaranthus pumilus T
Seabeach amaranth
NOTES:
Indicates species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range)
T Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range)
T(S/A) Denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (species which are threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and are listed to protect these species)
EXP Denotes Experimental (experimental, non-essential endangered species are treated as
threatened on public lands for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on
private lands.)
The American alligator is a large (1.8 to 3.7 meters / 6 to 12 feet long) rough-backed reptile
with a broad, rounded snout. Its fourth tooth on the lower jaw fits into a notch in the lower jaw.
13
This distinguishes the American alligator from the American crocodile which has its fourth tooth
exposed when the jaw is closed. American alligators are sexually mature at about 6 or 7 years
of age. Nesting occurs in late spring or early summer when females produce approximately 35
to 40 eggs. American alligators inhabit fresh to slightly brackish river systems, canals, lakes,
ponds, swamps, bayous, and coastal marshes.
The American alligator is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section
7 consultation.
The Red wolf is a medium-sized, wild canid which resembles the coyote but is larger and more
robust. Its legs and ears are longer than the coyote's. The red wolf s coloration is similar to that
of the coyote, but the tawny element is more pronounced, and the pelage is usually somewhat
coarser. Prey studies indicate that the diet of the red wolf will include whatever small to
medium-sized animals occur in abundance within the area in question.
The present Red wolf population exists primarily in captivity. The Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge has approximately 25-30 adult and yearling red wolves in the wild and the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park in Tennessee has approximately 15 animals in the wild due to
reintroduction programs. The last red wolves were found in coastal prairie and marsh habitat
because this was the last area in which the animals were allowed to remain. Any habitat area in
the southeastern United States of sufficient size, which provides adequate food, water and the
basic cover requirement of heavy vegetation, should be suitable for the Red wolf. Telemetry
studies indicate the Red wolf home range requirements vary from about 25 to 50 square miles.
Due to the broad habitat requirements for the red wolf, habitat does exist in the project
area. However, since the only Red wolves in the wild in North Carolina exist within the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the project area is outside of their home
range, no red wolves would be expected in the area. A search of the NCNHP database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the Red wolf.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The loggerhead sea turtle is characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. The carapace and
flippers are a reddish-brown color; the plastron is yellow. Adults grow to an average weight of
about 200 pounds, although some specimens may occasionally reach 1000 pounds. The
species feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish and other marine animals.
The loggerhead is typically found at sea and may enter bays and lagoons, as well as be found
nesting on beaches.
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species; no beaches are within the
area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed
project will not impact the loggerhead sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
14
The piping plover is a small, stocky shorebird resembling a sandpiper. The plover is pale
brownish above and white below. A black band across the forehead over the eye, and a black
ring around the base of the neck are distinguishing marks in adults during the summer, but are
obscure during the winter.
The piping plover nests on sand beaches. They prefer to nest in sparsely vegetated areas that
are slightly raised in elevation (like a beach berm). These birds are primarily coastal during the
winter, preferring areas with expansive sand or mudflats for feeding in close proximity to a
sandy beach for roosting.
Habitat does not exist in the project area for this species since no tidal flats or sandy
beaches are in the area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
construction of the proposed project will not impact the piping plover.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about four feet and a weight of 440 pounds.
It has a heart-shaped shell, small head, and single-clawed flippers. The adult carapace is
smooth, keelless, and light to dark brown with dark mottling. The plastron is whitish to light
yellow. Adult heads are light brown with yellow markings. Adult green turtles feed mainly on
marine algae and grasses in shallow water areas.
Green turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs,
bays, and inlets. Open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are required
for nesting.
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species. A search of the NCNHP
database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the green
sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The leatherback sea turtle is the largest of all sea turtles and is easily distinguished by its
leathery skin. Adults generally weigh from 640 to 1300 pounds. The neck and limbs are thick
and feebly retractable. The triangular - shaped carapace is covered with a layer of rubbery skin
rather than horny shields. The head and neck are black or dark brown with a few white or
yellow blotches.
The leatherback sea turtle is typically found at sea. They require sandy nesting beaches
backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so that the crawl to dry sand is not too far. The
preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough seas.
15
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species since no beaches are
within the area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of
this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the
proposed project will not impact the leatherback sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The hawksbill sea turtle is a small to medium-sized turtle having an elongated oval shell with
overlapping scutes on the carapace, a relatively small head, and flippers with two claws.
Barnacles are often present on the carapace and plastron. General coloration is brown with
numerous splashes of yellow, orange, or reddish-brown on the carapace. Adults weigh
between 95 to 165 pounds. Hawksbills feed on the bottom and forage close to shores and
reefs.
The hawksbill sea turtle is found in rocky areas, reefs, shallow coastal areas, lagoons or
oceanic islands, and narrow creeks and passes. Nesting occurs on almost any undisturbed
deep sand beach in the tropics.
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species. A search of the NCNHP
database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the
hawksbill sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The peregrine falcon is a bird of prey having long pointed wings, dark blue or slate barred
underparts, pale bluish bill, yellow cere and feet, black top of head and cheeks contrasting with
a white throat and sides of neck. The tail is long, narrow, blue-gray and rounded with narrow
black bands and a broad subterminal bar is tipped white.
Historically, the peregrine falcon was a cosmopolitan species ranging from Alaska and
Greenland south through the Americas to Argentina. However, worldwide populations were
reduced during the 1950's and 1960's due to the use of DDT. The peregrine falcon nests on
cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, pinnacles, and in the hollows of old trees or in old nests of eagles,
hawks, and ravens. In winter, the peregrine falcon forages in coastal ponds and mudflats.
Habitat is present in the project area. However, no peregrine falcons were observed
during the site visit. In Hyde County, the peregrine falcon would most commonly be
observed at Lake Mattamuskeet or Ocracoke during the winter. A search of the NCNHP
database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the
peregrine falcon.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Adult bald eagles have white heads and tails, a brownish body, and yellow bills, eyes and feet.
The juvenile birds have a dark brown body, tail, and head irregularly blotched with white. The
overall length of the bald eagle ranges from 860-1090 millimeters (34-43 inches), and the wing
span averages approximately 530 millimeters (21 inches). Bald eagles usually lay eggs
16
between mid-January and mid-March. The bluish-white eggs are laid two to a clutch and
incubation lasts approximately 36 days.
The bald eagle forages along the coast, along rivers and large lakes. Nests are located in the
forks of tall trees and are usually remote from human activity. Nesting sites are usually less
than 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) from feeding areas and are located adjacent to a clear flight path
and open view of the surrounding area. The bald eagle typically feeds on fish; however,
waterfowl, muskrats, rabbits, and squirrels are not uncommon items of their diet.
Habitat is present in the project area. However, no bald eagles or nests were observed
during the site visit. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences
of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of
the proposed project will not impact the bald eagle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is small and has a heart-shaped, unusually broad, keeled
carapace which is serrated behind the bridge. It has a triangular-shaped head with a somewhat
hooked beak with large crushing surfaces. Adults weigh between 77 and 93 pounds and have
a carapace length of 22 to 28 inches.
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is usually found in the nearshore and inshore waters of the
northern Gulf of Mexico. They are often found in salt marsh habitats. The entire population
nests on approximately five miles of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostional in the state of
Tamaulipas, Mexico.
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species. A search of the NCNHP
database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact Kemp's
ridley sea turtle.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Red-cockaded woodpecker is a small (18 to 20 centimeters / 7 to 8 inches long) bird with
black and white horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and a large white cheek patch. The
male has a small red spot or "cockade" behind the eye.
The preferred nesting habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker is open stands of pines with a
minimum age of 60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred for nesting;
however, other mature pines such as loblolly may be utilized. Typical nesting areas, or
territories, are pine stands of approximately 81 hectares (200 acres), however, nesting has
been reported in stands as small as 24 hectares (60 acres). Preferred foraging habitat is pine
and pine-hardwood stands of 80 to 125 acres with a minimum age of 30 years and a minimum
diameter of 25 centimeters (10 inches). The Red-cockaded woodpecker utilizes these areas to
forage for insects such as ants, beetles, wood-boring insects, caterpillars, as well as seasonal
wild fruit.
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no stands of old growth
pines within or adjacent to the study area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no
17
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the construction of the proposed project will not impact the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about 10 feet long and
weigh 1000 pounds. They have no hind limbs, and their forelimbs are modified flippers. The
tails are flattened horizontally and rounded. Manatees feed on aquatic vegetation and
sometimes even shoreline vegetation.
The manatee inhabits both salt and fresh water of sufficient depth (1.5 to 6.0 meters)
throughout their range. They have been encountered in canals, rivers, estuaries, and saltwater
bays. Between October and April, manatees concentrate in areas of warmer water.
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. However, the creek is of sufficient depth to support a manatee. The
manatee is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North Carolina with recorded
occurrences being greatest during the months of June through October. The USFWS
prefers that in-water construction be completed from November through May. The
construction of the proposed project will not impact the manatee if project construction
adheres to guidelines outlined in Precautions For General Construction In Areas Which
May Be Used By The West Indian Manatee In North Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Sensitive jointvetch is an annual plant in the bean family native to the eastern United States.
It typically reaches heights of one to two meters in a single growing season. The stems are
single, sometimes branching near the top, with stiff or bristly hairs. The leaves are even-pinnate
with entire, gland dotted leaflets. Each leaf consists of 30 to 56 leaflets. The flowers are yellow
streaked with red and grow in racemes. Sensitive jointvetch flowers from July through
September and occasionally into October.
Sensitive jointvetch grows in the intertidal zone where plants are flooded twice daily. The plant
seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation. Bare to
sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a habitat feature of critical importance to this plant.
Habitat does exist within the project area since sensitive jointvetch is found within tidal
marsh. A survey will be conducted for the sensitive jointvetch during the flowering
season (July through September). A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant on Atlantic ocean beaches. The stems are fleshy and
pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves. The leaves are clustered toward the tip of the
stem and have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowering occurs in July and continues until
the death of the plant in late fall.
18
Seabeach amaranth is found on the upper beach and lower foredune of coastal barrier islands.
The species is an effective sand binder, building dunes where it grows.
Habitat does not exist within the project area since no beaches are within the area. A
search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project
will not impact the seabeach amaranth.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) 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 of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species
or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by
the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT
activities. Table 3 includes listed FSC species for Hyde County and their state classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
HYDE COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Laterallus jamaicensis SR Yes
(Black rail)
Trichostema sp. 1* C No
Dune blue curls
Notes:
* Indicates the species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any FSC within the
project vicinity.
19
State Protected Species
Organisms which are listed by NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given
to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 4 includes state protected
species for Hyde County.
TABLE 4
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR HYDE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
Common Name Present
Egretta caerulea SC No
(Little blue heron)
Egretta thula SC No
(Snowy egret)
Egretta tricolor SC No
Tricolored heron
Lampropeltis getula sticticeps SC No
Outer Banks kin snake
Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi SC Yes
Carolina salt marsh snake
Plegadis falcinellus SC No
(Glossy ibis)
Rynchops niger SC No
Black skimmer
Stema nilotica T No
Gull-billed tern
Eleocharis halophila T Yes
Saltmarsh s ikerush
Lilaeopsis carolinensis T Yes
Carolina rasswort
Notes:
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of state protected species
within the project vicinity. The NCNHP database showed the occurrence of the southern
twayblade (Listera australis), which is on the North Carolina Plant Watch List, 1.6 kilometers
(1.0 mile) north of the project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the project area for five federally protected species (red wolf, peregrine
falcon, bald eagle, manatee, sensitive jointvetch), one species listed as threatened due to
20
similarity of appearance (American alligator), one FSC (black rail), and three state protected
species (Carolina salt marsh snake, saltmarsh spikerush, and Carolina grasswort). No
individuals were observed at the time of the site visit.
VIII. CULTURAL EFFECTS
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended and 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 the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form, dated January 16, 1997 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy
of the SHPO concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated November 22, 1996, stated that there are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Therefore, the SHPO recommended that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the
SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment, provided that current NCDOT standards and specifications are used.
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. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
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.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
21
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Since the bridge will be replaced at the 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 the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required. The project is
located in Hyde County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not increase or decrease the traffic volumes in the area. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. 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 air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) 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.
Hyde County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The approximate 100
year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
22
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America.
Chanticleer Press, New York, New York.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Feb. 1996. List of Rare Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1996.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Preston, R.J. and V.G. Wright. Identification of Southeastern Trees in Winter. North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Soil Survey Field
Sheet of Hyde County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
23
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2, 1997. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region,
Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map.
Scranton Quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1983. Topographic map - Scranton quadrangle.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
24

i
i

P UNGO
_ wsrwq _ JY ?
I?
R I V E /3'
IS,J?
???'e_d MI ??., aryl Cry __
4Creek
>
I a3 feown .

c
3RIDGE N 8
(INSET) -
SCRANTON 1
13W ? I ,
ti
w

'"'/ i
1 /llu.lr?r - A
lk
i
?5 164 H J`IJi,? t \z 94 ` ?R?'ll f-alrf?ll lake
/ E_ n elhud \?
JY /S - allamuskvel peke t
lend.9 -?l'whM h 1
' c Middletown \
canton
L
)esdville $ledewdle 164 yehr?'1 • \
New Hollwd ?
f /5 ? r n
C r$wtn Quarter Gull Rock(N,, k, pElul,
\
R- Raw
Sr•'ANq?1Ae1?11'
I
NAM WILDLIFE 01114E
- 1
',GREAT 1 : MvN ~ \
\ Y FREE FERRY'
. \ r
\ \ \ c'? 2' c?C011E d
ocrecok \ !
7
el?w North Carolina
Department of Transportation
SLAPPUDIvIsion of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 29
-OVER SCRANTON CREEK
ON US 264-NC 45
TIP NO. B-3193
0 500m I kilometer
SCALE 1:30 000 (INSET) FIG. I

U

? N
I
Hyde County
Bridge NO. 29
B-3193
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
FIGURE 3
HYDE
COUNTY
B-3193
x 3
R,gN1,?N -
6 Pilin 1^l? _ -..
11561
- -P Ay

BM 2. ZONE A5
(EL 8) aee _ --
G
II _
9 may! Piling, Scral tOn _J - .- .-

C? t. ZONE A5
"
BM Scram + ' (EL 8) 4 t.

2
ZONE A5
- (EL 8)
BRIDGE NO.
?3 -
/ ttt3 t
-
ZONE A5 j I 4-
I GEL 8)
'x4
i
1
/I513i,• h xy
B M, "I
100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
SCALE 1:24000
0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEE'
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
FIGURE 4
Fcdcral Aid n TIP # County H J 9 E
CONCURRENCE FORNI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-6?Fi AGE g2lDGE tJo. 'ZJ v,4 ae, 2Z(,4 • rte- 4r-., oyfw.
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
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there arc no properties over fifty, years old within the projects area of potential cr;ccts.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the projects area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each prooerrv, properties
identified as arc considcred not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is ncccssan-.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential cffccts.
Siencd:
CC??- ?, t c to `? 7
Rcpresc ati c,?'NCD0T D to
FH%vA, for the Division A nistrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, S' PO Da e
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list %%ill be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A&46i •
Division of Water Quality
now
James B. Hunt, Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
JAN 2 3
T, : Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality C (? 13 ?•?W _ _ . ?,?:' ;? "'" 4
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated November 5, 1996, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wang Engineering Company, Inc. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following generic environmental commitments for
design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ 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), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure. If an on-site
detour or bridge/approach road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be removed to
pre-construction contour and revegetated with native vegetation. Tree species should be planted
at 320 stems per acre.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by
the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than directly flowing into
the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. 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 will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed one
acre. Smaller impacts may soon require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycledrl01/o post consumer paper
Mr. Joe Westbrook Memo
January 16, 1997
Page 2
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2806.DOC
opol?
so %
m
V Ec E Ecb+' Ecf% E? EUJ
E Ez E E
CD
zm£ zm zm£ zm£ zm zm? a: zm{ zm{ zm? zm£
C 8 ?[
m m
m $ E E CL
z J J J -?
H I?-
F-
uii i 3 3 3 s _Q in tin in tin
N C z N N N N ?? z z z z
3 V U Q V U v Z N
N V N N
? U
10 N •-• •-• ? N N
Q N N7 O Q N O
N x u7 N d CV aD
d v z v cn
3 C cn co
C C? a0 N
J
H 0 N c x
1 d: cc ? Z
Go
N
Y G Y X m
m a E s U U`
Z N c? N t;n 7 z 9 r m m
a: a
N U = Q D
in fn Z Z
C
C V 0 0 U
d y ac ¢ ti iz ¢ a ¢ a: ¢ ¢ m
Ln
C m m Of M U O O O
t` n Of O O <
O CM Z Z Q Q ¢ N ¢ Q 2
J N N N N N N N N N
a
Z
ppp ^ ?p r
1?0 rz iA N ad .p Ol co
Q (7 LN ? N Ip 40
?p
Z m
C03 R m ?f
F m o5 a5 a5 OS a5 Ch a5 a5 Cb a5

?P?r~'? Zy?'?'?c
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook Kl . "'e- .1-4/w
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group 14, replace Bridge 29 on US
264-NC 45 over Scranton Creek, Hyde
County, B-3193, State Project
8.1080501, ER 97-7779
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of November 5, 1996, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We look
forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project
area so we can make our survey recommendation.
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 a??
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Joe Westbrook
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordi r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 6, 1997
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 29 on US 264-NC 45 over Scranton Creek, Hyde
County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3193.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided regarding potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We recommend replacement of the existing structure with a bridge, on-site with an off-
site detour. If widening bridge approaches or an on-site detour is necessary, this should be done
so as to minimize wetland impacts. We also request that there be no in-stream work between
February 15 and September 31 to avoid interfering with fish reproduction.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC requests NCDOT routinely
minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements.
The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of
the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
Any channel relocations should be done using state-of-the-art stream relocation techniques and
should be coordinated with the NCWRC.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project.
dog ???-??kT?,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY C r ! V
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ?
P.O. BOX 1890 ?? ?
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
March 3, 1997
Special Studies and -h
ILI
Flood Plain Services Section
:
Z
?1 .
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
MAR J 7 1991
C'WItt01??
This is in response to your two memorandums of November 5, 1996, requesting our scoping
comments on the replacements of "Bridge No. 63 on US 264 - NC99 over Cuckold's Creek,
Beaufort County, State Project 8.1150901, TIP No. B-2806" and "Bridge No. 29 on US 264 -
NC 45 over Scranton Creek, Hyde County, State Project 8.1080501, TIP No. B-3193".
Complete information on these projects was not received in our office until late January.
Comments on these bridge replacements are to be used in Planning and Environmental
Studies (Categorical Exclusions).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which include
waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed projects would
not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project. Enclosed are our
comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
Planning Division
Enclosure
March 3, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Bridge No. 63 on US 264 - NC99 over Cuckold's Creek, Beaufort County, State Project
8.1150901, TIP No. B-2806" and "Bridge No. 29 on US 264 - NC 45 over Scranton Creek,
Hyde County, State Project 8.1080501, TIP No. B-3193
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed projects are located in Beaufort and I lyde Counties, both of which
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 260 of the
February 1987 Beaufort County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Bridge No. 63 is shown
within the 100-year flood plain, with the 100-year flood (base flood) elevation determined to be
9 feet above mean sea level (m.s.I.). Based on a review of Panel 355 of the February 1987
Hyde County FIRM, Bridge No. 29 is also shown in the 100-year flood plain with the base flood
elevation being 8 feet above m.s.l. However, in both of these instances, the flooding source is
coastal storm surge. Therefore, the bridge replacements should not have any significant affect
on the respective base flood elevations. However, we suggest that your agency contact the
respective counties to ensure compliance with their flood plain ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Mike Bell, Washington Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone], Extension 26
Please contact Mr. Bell if you have questions regarding Department of the Army
authorization requirements, as he is the point of contact for both project locations.
t-t fi VA", c lc Joe- 0 a,3ibro,) k
?Ye,w SEAT[ °?
P
4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P. O. Box 850 SECRETARY
Edenton, NC 27932
Phone [phone] - FAX [phone]
November 26, 1996
Project: 8.1080501 (B-3193)
County: Hyde
Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 29 on US 264 over Scranton Creek
MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick P. E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: D. R. Conner, P. E.
Division Engineer z 1996
?Iv/S/
BY: C. E. Lassiter, Jr, P.E. C6 e 1**) qP H/GN` ?'v
Division Construction Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Scoping Comments
Pursuant to vour memo dated November 5, 1996, please find below comments the division
has regarding this proposed project:
1. Will a construction moratorium be in place for androgenous fish?
2. If project is subject to construction moratorium, we suggest that the project be let and
the availability date be set prior to end of the moratorium. This would allow for the
prospective contractor to mobilize and be ready to begin work as soon as possible.
3. Make sure the environmental permits are in place prior to letting to avoid any
potential construction delays and subsequent claims.
4. Will the bridge replacement be staged or will a traffic shift be required?
5. If staged construction is utilized, what types of traffic control will be necessary such
as remote signal?
6. Is there a possibility a surcharge for the bridge approaches and traffic shifts will be
necessary to overcome the lack of lateral support of adjacent material?
6)
y
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
November 26, 1996
Page 2
7. All environmental permits should reflect a method III Clearing and Grubbing limits
to account for erosion control and potential utility conflicts.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
DRC, CEL, Jr.,; tf
cc: R. E. Capehart, P. E.
B. R. Leggett
L . ?NrY Sc
ti

T N
One Academy Street BOARD OF EDUCATION
Dick Tunnel], Chairman
P. O. BOX 217 Earl D. Pugh, Jr., Vice-Chairman

,*(n3n (Quxrfff,,N(9 27885 Margaret 0. Garrish
Marylou S. Harris
,gym
7.
Office [phone] Fax [phone]
John L. Mullen
DR. RONALD L. MONTGOMERY
Superintendent
ADMINISTRATIVE STAWvember 7, 1996
Katrina G. Rickard
Joyce W. Carewan
Linda C. Lockamy H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Gads Potts Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
III R
aleigh, N.C. 276115201
Dear Mr. Vick:
r
r' 'Ilk
Cv n?
?r Yll'r
In response to your letter dated November 5, 19W, we have only one bus that crosses
the Bridge No. 29 on US 264 on a daily basis, and one occasionally on early release days.
With this being NCDOTs 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program for acquisition of
right-of-way in 1998 and construction in 1999, there may be an increase of bus use by the
construction date (1999).
Sincerely,
CNS:bis
"CHILDREN
FIRST'
Chester N. Spencer
Director of Transportation
Hyde County School Bus Garage
"Building The Future Today"
1??
A . Rl
. r ? AUG 1 51997
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P. 0. Box 850
Edenton, NC 27932
Phone [phone] - FAX [phone]
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
August 14, 1997
Project: 8.1080501 (B-3193)
County: Hyde
Description: Bridge No. 29 on US 264 over Scranton Creek Along US 264/NC 45
Subject: Review of Categorical Exclusion Document
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Wang Engineering Company
119 West Maynard Road, Suite 208
Cary, NC 27511
Dear Ms. Williams:
Di,k.ision One has completed its review of the Categorical Exclusion Document for this
project. We concur completely that the recommended improvements as addressed by
Alternate `A' are most appropriate for the project location. Our concurrence is based upon
consideration for alignment, lowest impact to the local ecosystem, lowest cost, and concern
for driver safety and expectations during and after construction.
We recognize that an offsite detour is unavailable or at least politically imprudent. The "do
nothing" alternative is not truly an alternative at all, given the fact that a US highway route
would eventually be shut down as the existing bridge deteriorated further. Alternative `B'
is the most "friendly" option to travelers during construction but worsens the permanent
alignment, costs more, and has a much larger "footprint".
The Division has very significant concerns over Environmental Commitment No. 2 on
page one of the DE Document. This extremely restrictive commitment precludes instreatn
activities between February 15 and September 31, or a total of 7-1/2 months! The
temporary bridge would have to be constructed one FalUWinter and the subsequent new

M
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
August 14. 1997
Page
bridge substructure the following Fall/Winter. Removal of the temporary bridge could be
significantly delayed as well with such a restrictive instream construction moratorium. The
Division recommends that the time restrictions be limited to a period covering actual
peak movements of anadromous fish and that floating turbidity curtains or steel sheet
piling, as applicable, be utilized to allow substructure work to continue throughout
most of the calendar year. Further negotiation between the Department and the various
resource agencies will be required regarding this matter.
Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information or clarification of the
preceding comments.
Respectfully,
D. R. Conner, P. E.
Division Engineer - Division One
R. E. e. Jr., P.
Division Construction En
DRC; REG,Jr./tf
cc: Mr. R. E. Capehart. P. E., w/atta.
Mr. B. R. Leggett, w/atta.
Mr. M. R. Turner, wiatta.

State of North Carolina 401ISSIJE
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
[D EHNFi
To: Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality L L 6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated November 5, 1996, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wang Engineering Company, Inc. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following generic environmental commitments for
design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ 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), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure. If an on-site
detour or bridge/approach road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be removed to
pre-construction contour and revegetated with native vegetation. Tree species should be planted
at 320 stems per acre.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by
the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than directly flowing into
the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. 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 will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed one
acre. Smaller impacts may soon require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer SM recycle&10% post consumer paper
.00
Mr. Joe Westbrook Memo
January 16, 1997
Page 2
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2806.DOC

? C ?C?I
lO = W 4 V
? 2- -8
,CV ?
C
r tS /0 0 ? ? o S a
ID ? ?
ID U
ID ? 9
ID .7 p ? 9 Q
E
E CL, m 00
to °
E M tD Z
N 2°
E m?
N>
E t1 W
m O
E C. m:
t0 O
E O. CD
w 2°
E m>
9 C
o M Co, 10°
W
E 11 tD -03 °
ro>
E G, 0
t0 .2
E G, 0 0
m Z
E
v m m m m
Z tD -S Z tD $ Z m S Z m?s Z (D -.G O-S Q y CD 0 G Z m{ Z 0 G
c
td 8 y
to

O
m E E E LL a O
m m
> Z J J J °

C
O
U U) Q Z U) Z
) S
Q y Z
U Z
U U)
U ch
U N
U N
U Z U z
U Z
U U
cn U) U) U)

E o
Z
?
N
-
•NN ..
^ ^

7 m
O
Q
N Ui
O
c0
l0
a.0

c a
f
C7 N N
a? 1
^
'T C6
i° Z V
co co 6 O)
0 Q?
`? C N

c
° c
N c
N r?
N o
N c
N c
t
.$
N
°
O J
x
U

0

a
a
a

?

n

E

E

E

=

z

O

H

O

O
-? cc cc m v U
0

E

m

m

E

n.
E

a

m

m

y

CD

Y
E
U

m
m
U CO
04
m
Z
E In
b U U) A cc
n c z ? U m m

N °x

8 c

_ two m

Q

N 3

N
(D
(D
N z z
c
A
m
CL ?
m m m m m m m m m
a g x m Q T- cr m cc: cr ¢ m Cr_

° rn
rn
70

p

_
^

a0

T

p
O to
v
()
Z

O
p

tp
Ov
to
C
c
N
Q
U
Z
Z
?
cr
2
w
L
Q
cc
a:
cm U) N U) U) Ol C/) U) U)

Z
O

tNp

N

t?
N
7
tD
0)
t7
m
z
. O
N O Np No
h f7
m Cl)
tp+f ?
e) °?j
co N
C\j
C t2
CM t0
cN7
6 d1 m c?
m c
m m m m m ?
m m
r ?
`r 14 Altai
4V
?17V?f
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRET1- JR.
GOVT RNO'R P.O. BOX 25201. RAITIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201 SICKHARY
November 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, Cooper Building
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager J
Planning and Environmental Branch /
SUBJECT: Request for Scoping Comments
Replacement of Bridge No. 29 on US 264 - NC 45 over Scranton Creek
Hyde County, State Project 8.1080501, TIP No. B-3193
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has retained Wang Engineering
Company, Inc. to prepare the Planning and Environmental Study (Categorical Exclusion) for the
replacement of the subject bridge. The bridge is included in NCDOT's 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for acquisition of right-of-way in 1998 and construction in 1999.
This letter is to obtain your comments concerning the environmental impacts and scope of work
that should be performed with this bridge replacement project. Pertinent design data is as follows:
Classification:
Traffic Projection:
Posted Speed:
Existing Bridge:
Proposed Bridge Typical Section:
Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Possible Off site Detour Availability
Rural Minor Arterial
Construction 1998 - 2000 ADT; Design year 2018 - 3200 ADT
Not posted but assumed 90 km/h (55 mph)
Length - 91 meters; Width -- 7.9 meters; Built - 1955
Travelway - 7.2 meters; Shoulders - 2.4 meters; Total -- 12 m.
Travelway - 7.2 meters; Shoulders - 2.4 meters
None
Attached for your review and comments is the vicinity map and contour map for the subject project.
Please provide your comments by December 8, 1996.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of the planning process. If additional information is needed to
assimilate your comments, please contact Mr. Joe Westbrook, NCDOT Planning and Environmental
Branch at [phone] or Ms. Pamela R. Williams, Wang Engineering at [phone].
HFV/pw IV??'I X r? 3y ?? l 1/ /V4
Attachments fle Ct V1,
1
Ctl,
? 1
J .?ffiyaro._ 1(
Lake JC/ ? ?
1 Kde
r jrp
H Uus al ??
:`? ?nf'a` Fauliel

-'-? ? ES affamurARe. LRMe
Undtae
`
;
Scranton
1
d
Ic-

dlt
<
? 64
7

< adesv
Sl
1
Naw Not land
45 + Cull Roci t
Swan Quarter W&O"Ai a
?S Rare Bat/
reANW/Aa1?R
NA r't V Il Uri ROUGE r 1
rr' aI.NF
\

?? ea

`
\ \

Ocraco

North Carolina
eq?w Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 29
OVER SCRANTON CREEK
ON US 2647NC 45
HYDE COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3193
0 500m I kilometer
SCALE 1:30 000 (INSET ) FIG.
r_
dhard \"'
:.46. N r .
etown \
\t
u \
t\t
?0
FREE FERRY
us ,Sig
z o?M
T

HYDE
COUNTY
B-3193
---PiFing?G_ - ====1 -- - r
BM
z` - - r G?
29
BRIDGE NO.
Gy-
'°"
+ 'SA[7 FraS^ :?>? •`".?1?tx '? C;.i'' _ LJ ?1"'_dae.? ?r3 03^L w- .;i?i?- -r ' -

4` e' Nr a i1/3 . t?BM 6C23II` ?t Lw+ s? r?Twh S r r. + # ...? r
'Alf
jig
"tQ
ez?
41
Bml
3
Y
SCALE 1:24000
1 0 1 MILE
_i
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEF
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929