19980475 Ver 1_Complete File_19980512

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 4, 1998
Bladen County
DWQ Project 980475
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. David Robinson
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. David Robinson:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 0.01
acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of replacing bridge # 46 at NC 131, as you described in your
application dated May 12. 1998. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this impact is covered
by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will
expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland
fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
i er ly
ston ird, Jr. P.
l
980475.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
RO. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201
May 13, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
E. NoRRIs TOLSON
SECRETARY
M?\Y ? 2i?98 '; ,
Attention: Mr. Davc Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Bladen County, Replacement of Bridge No. 46 over Bryant Mill Pond on
NC 131, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-131(1), State Project
No. 8.1420701. Tl P No. B-3410.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
The Categorical Exclusion was signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FFIWA)
on October 31, 1996. The project involves replacing Bridge No. 46 over Bryant Mill
Pond on NC 131 with a bridge on existing location. The planning document states that
traffic will be maintained using a temporary, on-site detour during project construction
(labeled "Temporary Detour 2 in Figure 2 of the referenced document).
The planning document states that impacts to waters of the United States are
necessary to complete the project. Construction of the new bridge will require a total of
0.14 acre of permanent impacts to wetlands. The on-site detour will cause an additional
temporary impact o? 0.19 acre. Total impacts based on a wetland determination for the
planning document equal 0.33 acre.
Since completion of the planning document, the NCDOT has revised the project
description. The project no longer involves the use of a temporary, on-site detour to
construct the new bridge. "Traffic will be maintained using secondary roads.
NCDOT biologists delineated wetlands associated with the replacement of Bridge
No. 46 over Bryant Mill Pond on April 22, 1998. This delineation was performed in
accordance with the 1987 Grohs ol'Engineers Wetland Delineation 11anual
(Environmental Laboratory. 1987). The wetlands found at this location have a Cowardin

classification of PFOI C (palustrine, deciduous forested wetland that is seasonally
flooded) and a Division of Environmental Management (4th Version) rating of 67.
Permanent impacts total 0.01 acre and impacts to wetlands from mechanized clearing
total 0.01 acre.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate
requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to proceed under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued
December 13, 1996, by the Corps of Engineers (COE). The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
The NCDOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification for an
approved CE will apply to this project. A copy of the CE has also been provided to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), for their review.
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 23 to replace Bridge No. 46 over Bryant Mill Pond on NC 131 with a bridge on
existing location. New bridge construction will impact 0.01 acre of wetlands and an
additional 0.01 acre of wetland impacts from mechanized clearing. Authorization under
the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is also requested.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone] extension 314.
Sincerely,

David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
t
e
NC 131
Bladen County
Bridge No. 46 over Bryant NO Pond
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-131(1)
State Project No. 8.1420701
T.I.P. No. B-3410
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Man ger
Planning and Environmental Branch
/ 3 6
DA
icholas L. Graf, P.E.
I Division Administrator, FHWA
W/r ` G'
DATE
i
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
NC 131
Bladen County
Bridge No. 46 over Bryant Mill Pond
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-131(1)
State Project No. 8.1420701
T.I.P. No. B-3410
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.

c
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
C
0
-el
"to
?
o SEAL
0
I10
"7'401 Net,
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Grim s, P E., Unit Head
Consultant En ' eering Unit
Philip S. H s, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

NC 131
Bladen County
Bridge No. 46 over Bryant Mill Pond
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-131(1)
State Project No. 8.1420701
T.I.P. No. B-3410
Bridge No.46 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during fmal
design stages.
3. The temporary, on-site detour bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction
contour and revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
4. Any plans to modify the Bryant Mill Pond dam as part of this project will be coordinated with
the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) to determine
applicability of a dam safety permit.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
r
Bridge No.46 will be replaced in its existing location with a bridge. During construction traffic will
be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located west of the existing bridge.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $826,500 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $330,000 including
$30,000 for right-of-way and $300,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING. CONDITIONS
NC 131 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
proposed project is located approximately 6.1 kilometers (10 mi) south of the town of Tar Heel in
Bladen County (Figure 1). The study corridor is located primarily on the dam forming Bryant Mill
Pond in the floodplain of Black Swamp and its tributary, Reedy Meadow Swamp. The southern
portion of the study corridor is dominated by residential development and associated horse pastures.
North of the study corridor, agricultural land dominates the landscape.
Near the bridge, NC 131 has a 7.2 meter (24 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders. The
roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment consists of a 300 meter
radius (6 degree) curve on the bridge and continuing on the south approach for approximately 200
meters (660 ft). The roadway is situated approximately 3.4 meters (11 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 3000 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 7100 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include 4% truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1948 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of five timber joist
spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with no wearing surface. The
substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber caps.
The overall length of Bridge No. 46 is 25.9 meters (85 ft). Clear roadway width is 7.3 meters (24
ft). The posted weight limit is 25,401.6 kilograms (28 tons) for single vehicles and legal gross weight
for tractor-trailer trucks.
Bridge No.46 has a sufficiency rating of 47.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995.
Telephone lines cross the stream on both sides of the bridge and electric lines cross the stream east
of the bridge. Fiber optic lines are located west of the bridge and are assumed to be in the existing
right-of-way. There are no utilities attached to the bridge.
There are a total of four school bus crossings of the bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives were considered for replacement of the bridge on existing location. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A design exception will be
required. A relocated alignment would result in excessive cost and less desirable horizontal alignment.
Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 11.6:1, an off-site detour is not feasible (see Section VIII).
Temporary, on-site detours were considered east (Temporary Detour 1) and west (Temporary Detour
2) of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located west
(Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge because this detour would avoid any possible
involvement with the earthen dam located east of the existing bridge.
2
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 131.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of
the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
' The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
1

. Alternate A
with on-site
detour
(Recommended) Alternate A
with off site
detour
Structure Removal $13,000.00 $13,000.00
Structure $234,500.00 $234,500.00
Roadway Approaches $108,680.00 $108,680.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $108,820.00 $108,820.00
Engineering and Contingencies $85,000.00 $85,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $27,000.00 $27,000.00
SUBTOTAL $577,000.00 $577,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour No. 2 $249,500.00 NA
TOTAL $826,500.00 $577,000.00
VI. RECD MENDED IMPROVEME
S' Bridge No. 46 will be replaced in its existing location with a new structure approximately 28 meters
(92 ft) in length having a clear roadway width of 12.0 meters (40 ft). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary on each end of the bridge. Traffic will be maintained with a temporary,
on-site detour west of the existing bridge (Temporary Detour 2) during construction. An off-site
detour is not reasonable at this location due to its length of 14.3 kilometers (8.9 mi) of indirectional
r travel and the volume of traffic using NC 131 (3000 vpd in 1995 and 7100 vpd projected for 2020).
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended alternate
provides a design speed of 80 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour). Due to the proximity of the
dam to the east of the existing roadway and residences to the west of the existing roadway an
alternate alignment does not appear feasible at this location.
VIII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 3000 vpd and
an average of 14.3 kilometers (8.9 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing NC 41, NC 410 and NC 87
(See Figure 1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately $2,883,600 during the twelve
month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $249,500 resulting
in a benefit-cost ratio of 11.6:1. This ratio indicates justification to maintain traffic on-site during the
construction period.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping (Tar
Heel, NC), National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly
Soil Conservation Service) soils mapping (USDA 1990), and 1995 aerial photography (scale 1:1200)
furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on April 9, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by improvements were
walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted within a study corridor
approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width symmetrical to the existing alignment. However, impact
calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and temporary construction easements.
Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and
water quality protection in Bryant Mill Pond and associated waters of Black Swamp.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
4

classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas are characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitats used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Menhinick 1991; Hamel 1992). Recreational fishing
potential was obtained from Fish (1968). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Bladen County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence
of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.

1

Phy,siography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. This portion of the Coastal
Plain is underlain by the Black Creek Formation, which is Cretaceous in age. The Black Creek
Formation is composed of clay, and characterized as gray to black, lignitic, and containing thin beds
and laminae of fine-grained micaceous sand and thick lenses of cross-bedded sand, with glauconitic,
fossiliferous clayey sand lenses in the upper part (DNRCD 1985). Topography in this portion of
Bladen County is characterized as nearly level to gently sloping, with steeper slopes along the Cape
Fear River and its tributaries (USDA 1990). Elevations in the study corridor range from
approximately 35 meters (115 ft) above sea level along the creek to approximately 37 meters (120
ft) along the roadbed (USGS Tar Heel, NC quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by the Dorovan muck series (Typic Medisaprists) in the
floodplain and Autryville loamy sand (Arenic Paleudults) in the uplands of the southern portion of
the study corridor. Dorovan muck is a hydric series which characteristically consists of very poorly
drained, nearly level (0 to 2 percent slopes) soils found in floodplains and is frequently flooded for
extended periods (USDA 1990). Autryville loamy sand is a well-drained soil characteristically found
on broad, smooth flats of uplands (0-3 percent slopes) (USDA 1990). Extensive fill material has been
placed in the floodplain in the northern portion of the study corridor as part of the dam structure
impounding Black Swamp and Reedy Meadow Swamp near their historic confluence.
WATER RESOURCES
The study corridor is located within the Lumber River subbasin (USGS hydrologic unit 03040203)
of the Pee Dee River Basin. Bridge No.46 crosses Black Swamp near its historic confluence with
I
Reedy Meadow Swamp. Black Swamp flows from the Bryant Mill Pond dam in a westward direction
for approximately 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) before entering Big Swamp. Big Swamp continues
downstream in a south southwestward direction for approximately 31.0 kilometers (19.3 mi) before
entering the Lumber River. Black Swamp and Reedy Meadow Swamp have been assigned Stream
Index Numbers 14-22-7 and 14-22-7-1, respectively, by the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management (DEM). A spillway pool and small excavated pond are also present within the study
corridor.
Be Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C Sw has been assigned to Black Swamp (and Bryant Millpond) from the Cape Fear
River boundary to Big Swamp (DEM 1993). A best usage classification of C Sw has also been
assigned to Reedy Meadow Swamp from its source to Bryant Mill Pond. The designation C denotes
that appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an
infrequent or incidental basis. The Sw designation is used for swamp waters characterized by low
velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I, or WS H waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area. Black Swamp is not designated as a North
Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and Scenic River. There
are no permitted point source dischargers within or upstream from the study corridor (DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989).
The species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There are
no BMAN sampling stations in the Black Swamp drainage.
Black Swamp is a second order stream, with origins on the broad flats forming the Lumber River and
Cape Fear River drainage divide in western Bladen County. The creek is approximately 6 meters (20
ft) wide below the spillway pool, and is approximately 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5 ft) in depth. The
bank slopes are variable in height, but are generally less than 0.9 meter (3 ft) in height and are
composed of sand and silty material. Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is apparent in the creek
channel, but a large amount of organic debris (i.e., pilings, branches, leaves) was apparent within the
stream.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
6

construction-related activities. The temporary detour will utilize two corrugated steel pipes to
maintain flow. Adverse impacts can be minimized by implementing the NCDOT Best Management
' Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, during construction.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present flow rates,
thereby protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES

Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. None of the communities
are representative of mature natural communities; all exhibit some level of disturbance. Two
community types, bottomland forest and wet successional land are located in the floodplain. The
other two community types, upland disturbed forest and upland urban/disturbed land, are located on
I upland slopes and along the road and dam fill. The plant communities are described below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), and includes American holly (Ilex opaca)
and red bay (Persea palustris). The shrub layer is well-developed and dominated in places by the
invasive exotic Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Other prominent shrubs include sweet gallberry
(Ilex coriacea) and dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris). Cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and laurel-leaf
greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) are found throughout the community.
Wet Successional Land
This community is represented by a regenerating clear-cut stand of former bottomland hardwood
' forest. This regenerating clear-cut is dominated by scrub-shrub growth of species including red
maple, Chinese privet, American holly, and sweet bay (Magnolia virginica) with dense, intertwining
greenbriers and blackberries (Rubus spp.). Herbaceous vegetation is scattered throughout the
community and includes woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), rushes (Juncos spp.), broomsedge
(Andropogon sp.), netted chain-fern (Woodmrdia areolata), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea). A small maintained area frequently inundated by the millpond waters is also included
' in this community, and includes supplemental horticultural plantings along the edges.
Upland Disturbed Forest
This community occurs adjacent to the existing road, on the slope above drainage, and may have
resulted from fill. Dominant trees are American holly and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Shrubs include horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), red maple, red bay, dog-hobble, and sweet
' gallberry. Vines are prevalent and include common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Upland Urban/Disturbed Land
This community consists of disturbed and maintained areas including the residential areas, horse

7

pasture, road, shoulder, and dam Weedy grasses and forbs dominate the road shoulders, and
horticultural species supplement remnant native trees in residential areas. Routine mowing maintains
the herbaceous vegetation at a short stage.
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. Construction of the
proposed alternative and temporary detour is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts
to plant communities. A summary of potential plant community impacts which could result from
construction activities is presented below.
Table 1. Estimated plant communitv impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp Detour 2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.04 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.17)
Wet Successional Land 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.02)
Upland Disturbed Forest 0.01 (0.02) 0.00(0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Upland Urban/Disturbed Land 0.27 (0.68) 0.07 (0.18) 0.25 (0.62)
TOTAL: 0.33 (0.84) 0.07 (0.18) 0.33 (0.81)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A will total 0.33 hectare (0.84 ac). These
impacts are restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approach segments. None of these potential impacts infringe upon undisturbed, mature natural
communities. The bottomland hardwood forest represents the least amount of relatively natural
community type present; anticipated impacts to bottomland hardwood forest due to Alternative A are
less than 0.04 hectare (0.11 ac).
The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Temporary on-site detour alternatives exhibit a minor variation in
potential impacts to plant communities. Temporary Detour 2 will impact more bottomland forest than
Temporary Detour 1.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor consists of residential areas and disturbed areas adjacent to a millpond.
Forest edges and residential areas within the study corridor provide habitat for ecotonal species and
species adapted to anthropogenic landscapes including songbirds such as Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and brown-headed
cowbird (Molothrus ater), as well as opportunistic mammals such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
The pasture provides habitat for birds such as eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), brown-headed
cowbird, and starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and mammals such as cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) and
house mouse (Mus musculus). Reptiles and amphibians that may occur within terrestrial habitats of
the study corridor include southern toad (Bufo terrestas), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Aquatic
Bryant Mill Pond is reported to contain recreational fisheries for largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus),and chain pickerel (Esox
niger) (Fish 1968). In Black Swamp below Bryant Millpond, limited recreational fisheries are
available for redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), warmouth, and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
(Fish 1968). Additional nongame fish populations expected to inhabit Black Swamp include eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), eastern mudminnow
(Umbra pygmaea), and swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme). Stream bank surveys did not yield
any shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel presence at the bridge site.
The millpond, spillway pool, and small pond provide suitable habitat for semi-aquatic reptiles and
amphibians such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia),
yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimize potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed bridge replacement. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts
to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
9
SPECIAL TOPICS
Surface waters within the project area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Bryant Mill Pond is
characterized as lacustrine and limnetic, with unconsolidated bottom, and permanently flooded due
to impoundment (Ll UBBh). The open waters of the lacustrine system are not within the potential
impact corridors for any of the alternatives. The spillway pool and excavated pond are also open
waters, but due to their small size, these waters are characterized as palustrine, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded waters (PUBIT). The open waters of Black Swamp are an integral part
of the bottomland community, and are not separated as a distinct unit. Bridging will minimize impacts
to surface waters of Black Swamp.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on the three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands occur within the floodplain associated
with Black Creek. Two wetland types have been identified: the bottomland hardwood forest
community exhibits characteristics of palustrine forest, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
wetlands (PFOIA). The wet successional land exhibits characteristics of palustrine scrub-shrub,
broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded wetlands (PSS1A). The following table summarizes
potential impacts to wetlands which could result from in-place bridge replacement and temporary
detours.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED IMPACT '
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp Detour 2
PFO 1 A 0.04 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.17)
PSS 1 A 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.02)
TOTAL: 0.05 (0.14) 0.00 (0.00) 0.08 (0.19)
Minor jurisdictional impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. None of the lacustrine habitat
present within the study corridor will be impacted by Alternative A or the temporary detours.
Temporary Detour 2 will impact more wetland than Temporary Detour 1 (0.08 hectare versus 0.00
hectare, respectively). Impacts associated with the selected detour alignment will be temporary;
impacted wetlands will be restored following project completion.
10 1
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another federal agency or department
where:
(1) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water
quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States.
Final decisions concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
Any activities associated with constructing, repairing, modifying, or removing dams requires filing
a statement concerning the proposed activity with the appropriate DEHNR Regional Office or the
Division of Land Resources. Any plans to modify the Bryant Mill Pond dam as part of this project
will be coordinated with the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
to determine applicability of a dam safety permit.
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), proposed endangered, and
proposed threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Bladen County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list):
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) -T(S/A)
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - E
Pondberry (Southern spicebush) (Lindera melissifolia) - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open
pine or pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). No RCWs have been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor (NHP files).
This project is not expected to affect RCWs due to the absence of suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) and foraging habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 30 years) within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Shortnose sturgeon - The shortnose sturgeon is a bottom-feeding fish that occurs in Atlantic
seaboard rivers from the St. Johns River, Florida to eastern Canada. The sturgeon is anadromous,
spending most of the year in brackish estuarine environments and moving into freshwater only when
spawning (Gilbert 1989). Spawning sites have been described as freshwater swamps, or freshwater
areas with fast flow and rough bottoms that are associated with main-stem rivers, or major estuaries.
The proposed bridge replacement occurs below a mill pond dam on Black Swamp. The stream
channel is narrow and shallow with little, or no rooted vegetation. The waters of Black Swamp do
not provide habitat suitable for foraging or spawning. Additionally, this species has not been
documented from the Lumber River basin. It can be concluded that project construction will have no
impact on the shortnose sturgeon.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American alligator - American alligator is listed as threatened based on the similarity in appearance
to other federally-listed crocodilians; however, there are no other crocodilians within North Carolina.
American alligators can be found in a variety of freshwater to estuarine aquatic habitats including
swamp forests, marshes, large streams and canals, and ponds and lakes. American alligator has been
documented from Bryant Mill Pond; however, this project is not expected to have adverse long-term
impacts on this species.
12
Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study corridor. Construction activities may
temporarily displace any American alligators in the vicinity; however, no long-term impact to
American alligator is anticipated as a result of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
American chaffseed - This is a perennial root-parasitic herb (Kral 1983). Flowers are arranged on
a spike-like raceme and bloom from April to June. Chaff-seed occurs in grass/sedge assemblages with
moist acidic sandy loams or sandy peat loams. These assemblages typically exist in moist pine
flatwoods, savannas, bog borders, and open oak forests. According to NHP files, this species has not
been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect American chaffseed because typical habitat is not present within
the study corridor. The road side margins within the study corridor are regularly maintained and
generally well-drained and do not provide habitat for American chaffseed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Pondberry (Southern spicebush) - Pondberry is a deciduous shrub with a limited distribution
occurring in two portions of the southeastern United States, the Mississippi Valley and the coastal
plain of the Carolinas (USFFWS 1993). Within the two portions of its range, pondberry is known to
occupy different habitats. While pondberry is known from hardwood depressional areas with perched
water tables in the Mississippi Valley, in the Carolinas pondberry occurs along margins of sink holes,
ponds, and depressions in pinelands (USFWS 1993). Within North Carolina, potential habitat for
pondberry is described as: 1) shallow ponds with a sandy substrate, especially sites containing the
shrub pondspice (Litsea aestivalis); and 2) Carolina bays containing a combination of pond cypress
(Taxodium ascenders) with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and red maple (Leonard 1995).
This project is not expected to affect pondberry because typical habitat is not present within the study
corridor. No sink hole depressions, Carolina bays, or suitable ponded depressions were noted within
the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Rough-leaved loosestrife - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial that typically
occurs along the ecotone between long-leaf pine savannas and wetter, shrubby areas, where lack of
canopy vegetation allows abundant sunlight into the herb layer (USFWS 1994). There is no typical
habitat for this species within the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect rough-leaved loosestrife because suitable habitat is not present
within the study corridor. The roadside margins within the study corridor are regularly maintained
and generally well-drained and do not provide habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
13
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Bladen County:
Common Name
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Bachman's sparrow
Mimic glass lizard
Southern hognose snake
Carolina gopher frog
Atlantic pigtoe
Yellow lampmussel
Belle's sanddragon
(=varieagated clubtail dragonfly)
Boykin's lobelia
Carolina asphodel
Carolina bogmint
Carolina grass-of-parnassus
Carolina spleenwort
Chapman!s sedge
Pineland plantain
Pondspice
Resinous boneset
(=Pine barrens boneset)
Sandhills milkvetch
Savanna indigo-bush
(=Carolina leadplant)
Spiked medusa (=Eulophia)
Spring-flowering goldenrod
Venus flytrap
Wavyleaf wild quinine
White wicky
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii N
Aimophila aestivalis N
Ophisaurus mimicus N
Heterodon simus N
Rana capito capito N
Fusconaia masoni Y
Lampsilis cariosa Y
Progomphus bellei Y
Lobelia boykinii N
Tofieldia glabra N
Macbridea caroliniana Y
Parnassia caroliniana N
Asplenium heteroresiliens N
Carex chapmanii N
Plantago sparsiflora N
Litsea aestivalis N
Eupatorium resinosum N
Astragalus michauxii N
Amorpha georgiana var. confusa N
Pteroglossaspis ecristata N
Solidago verna N
Dionaea muscipula N
Parthenium radfordii N
Kalmia cuneata N
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et
seq. ).
NHP records indicate that no state-listed plant or animal species have been recorded within 3.2
kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
14

FJ

X. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that for federally
funded, licensed, or permitted projects, having an effect on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 9, 1996 the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that there are no properties,
including Bridge No.46, in the area of potential effect (APE) listed in or eligible for the National
Register (see Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated there are no known archaeological sites in the
proposed project area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected. They recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix for SHPO letter). Therefore,
the NCDOT has not conducted nor will conduct any archaeological work in connection with this
project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe bridge.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
15
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge in its existing location, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during demolition but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title
23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Bladen County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridge is
located in an Approximate Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the approximate limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as
well as the 100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not
anticipated that this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and
floodway nor on the associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
16

1
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Resources (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map of
North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
e

Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Lumber River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 17 pp.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Agency Draft Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants
of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technical Publication R8J-TP 2. 1305
PP.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
17
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Bladen County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 179 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 56 pp.
Leonard, S. 1995. Monitoring, Management, and Restoration of Pondberrry (indera
melissaefolia) in North Carolina. Final Report. 12 pp.
18
U
N^ 14G
Niw ll
No.
+".\'_ While

O
v
POP. III
LAKF

JI.

A ?1a77

'?l\ .:.
DAM4 + "'
'DUBLIN
POP. 417
O

1L

?a So'ufiv ?
•VV
I'A
r?
li 1 !i
N

UMBER

TON 41 I t
•` 10] .I?ol
Lig 41
.7
AP 07
. TO L IA PAS \ >.
9 11?Z VY
Z .b ., z
LLQ4 1176
?
?
Y

N 1 '
9 Ili t
0 0
1.L44. ?
3 PAPS :R
y"
{S% ?Y• A•
V4f4r+'
JJ2
a\ 119l.
1
: \
?
+ :
..
n ,l ?Oj4
1.7 its 1144 q
?
?P LLQ-o LIP7
\
to 2 1,
` .1144
1 4
°
ylt
CIO !;
1.3 G ?
1 '1 a 1110

L111
144i
11
34 LULL luamp 0
m /
.e ? yN i
J 77 J 0
ll14.
Y

? f

A
11Y1 ° AR
>
SINGLET
LLU ? +
1 fr' 1

O ^
y [
T _ l 1100
, POND
?l? b
lilt
'S4 u 141 ?

Lp` \
3 ?J y ,fa \ Il a 1 T ?

14°75,

y 117 1 !1 1174

?+ `? 1114 .0 1003

L.
4
1.L?.

TO LUMBERTON OL
1 Iw
-?? 151

n :!i
'e Ins R
?
?
01

1713
? LW
I q
141 0 to
T A
' 1.0
•s
? '••? llu
1131 ?
•
• LLI-
Grove Ch.
SorldV

'

, ti 171•
J]jQ'a3-? IIO ti .p
1113 IIW \ 1 '1 t + •1731
•J R(chordw
utter '? J II!'1'1- 1 Y 's
,T 114
.s
N 1Zii \
w 7 e
•, ``ty FQ ?

0
1. .O mlle4 'f'1AJ'
?p
S?
?
Ip
ma LIJU
0 1 . o 3,0 u7., a ,
- v euoa4e040 1.4 ? 1.7
.1
`
Source: County Road Maps, :j:
e: Wj •7 ;i
'7' POP. 1,k10 1147
11A
IBM
NCDOT, 1880 i?:•.
`F'•h p
...Y•'. Tr
WL4 ,
fri
1l l
13 h r •J 11]7 +• ?
Q
U LU7 ! i
1177 ,e
k
"1 117 111 I Lot ?
1Z
Studied Detour Route Site Location Map Figure: 1
Bridge # 46
NC131 Over Bryant Mill Project:
Pond (Black Swamp)
N
Bladen County,
C
B-3410 Date: AUG 1996

LL)
y'? O
r 5 a
N
f
o i.. .. z O 0 Q cs :03
:3PEz Z V O
o t .4
dY, .,.7L? C z m m
m
V
Z
J
® ,µ:1 D o
Pa ` -t
[ 1
O
a
a
H

I
I

I
BRIDGE NO. 46
BLADEN
COUNTY
B-3410
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
? d
i
i
c? 3 ??`?
???b6?
G?'?q LL!
/ ??pD
l
A M STATt o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ? ? ? . ??e'?iatlo ?(? _Q
Deputy State i ortc resn fficer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 46 on NC 131 over Bryant Mill Pond, Bladen
County, B-3410, ER 96-8573
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the general
area of the project. We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify
and evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
' cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
I
I
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
_01
Q3
Federal Aid # UhrP - 131 I . TIP # E? ' 3410 County ?11APF-ol
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description Rf, 1kmf, 69+vGF- OP. 4 mN NL 131 vvgo- ! RyA r OiLL POND
?,tywQ? frtiouP x t ?
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 are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there arc no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rcvrescn •e, NCDOT
'I , 111%,
)ate
Vtlv/??
w,K, fair the Division Admidikrator, or other Federal Agency Date
iu
Representative, SHPO

511911? to
State Historic Preservation Officer/ r B
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this Corm and the attached list will be included.
IJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
' Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
A moll f
James B. Hunt, Governor p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary I July 26, 1996

' Mr. Phil Harris, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
' P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Re: Proposed Bridge Replacement
' Bridge No. 46 along NC 131
over Bryant Mill Pond
Bladen County, NC
Dear Mr. Harris:
we have completed our review of the above referenced proposal.
' In as much as this project is in the planning stages, it is
difficult to comment on specific items. The information below will
perhaps provide some information to be included in the final
design.
From the erosion and sediment control standpoint, the actual
project site would seem to be a typical project with no unusual or
elaborate erosion and sediment control problems anticipated. The
typical DOT standards for similar projects should be applicable.
It was my understanding from our previous telephone conversation
' that three options are being considered for detours. These options
are to construct a detour immediately upstream of the existing
route, construct a detour immediately downstream of the existing
route, or utilize existing routes in the area. This office has no
preference as to which option is selected and would anticipate that
typical esosion and sediment control standards w(.)uiu sPPly iL c??c
new detour options are selected. It should be noted that there is
' an area of standing water between the dam and the bridge that may
make a detour in this area very expensive.
' Since this office also has responsibility for dams, potential
impacts of the project on the dam were considered. The Bryant Mill
Pond dam is exempt from the Dam Safety Law, due to the height being
less than 15 feet. This dam is further considered as a low hazard
' structure. It is not felt that the proposed project will
significantly impact the dam, due to its location upstream from the
bridge. Consideration should be given to potential impacts to the
' dam if excessive vibration of pile driving equipment is
anticipated.
' Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 N%f C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
' Voice 910-486-1541 mwxrwramil?lllillIl 500% recycled/100/. post-consumer paper
Mr. Phil Harris, PE
Re: Proposed Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 46 along NC 131
over Bryant Mill Pond
Bladen County
Page 2
This office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. The comments are very general, but without design
drawings, it is difficult'to address specific issues. If there are
further questions or if we can provide additional comments at a
later date, please feel free to get in touch.
S'ncerely,
Joser)h E. Glass, P.E.
4 C-
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
JEG\
u

7

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ILFUMA,
Health and Natural Resources AYA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor •
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E3 E H N P1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galambo
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water-Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Ooocrtunity Affirmctive Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO April 11, 1996
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199601562
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
50;
RID M11
C.'
r
03
PQ?
O'c? UMfN aU\? `t,J``
G9 G&E
Dear Mr. Vick:
Refezence your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates excavation and/or discharge
of excavated and/or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities
on the aquatic environment before a final permit decision can be made.
Federal permit authorization of fill activities within waters of the
United States pursuant to Section 404 requires that the project be water
dependant and/or that no practicable alternatives are available. Our initial
emphasis for review of NCDOT projects focuses on anticipated impacts to waters
and/or wetlands. However, if degradation to other aspects of the natural
environment (e.g., critical habitat of endangered species) is considered to be
of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be
chosen as preferred. In all cases, and in accordance with !'he 1990 Mitigation
Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps, unavoidable impacts to wetland resources must be addressed prior to
the final permit decision.
Based upon our review of the documentation you provided, much more
information is needed for us to make a determination regarding the Far1Pra1
permit requirements. Specifically, you should provide project plans which
describe the proposed work and indicate all impacts to waters of the United
States, including wetlands, associated with this project. Wetland impacts
should be described in terms of size, location, and type. This includes
temporary and permanent approach fills, and any borrow/waste activity that may
impact waters and/or wetlands.
Once this information becomes available, please provide it to the
Washington Regulatory Field Office for our review. As your planning process
continues, please be reminded that avoidance and minimization of impacts to
waters and wetlands should be undertaken to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, a compensatory mitigation plan must be developed and approved
prior to the issuance of a Department of the Army permit.

-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. rf you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
7,D4
' 4-w,-
David M. Lekson, P.W.S.
Field Office Manager
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
' Mr. Thomas Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section - Region IV
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 3ranch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife 7nhanceme_nt
post Office Sox 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

QPP??ENT OFT F
H
o`` tim
vi 9
7 ?
ARCH 3 1a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 27, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
GE?V\
O
MAR 2 b 1996
GIVISIG'V U.
HIGHWAYS
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planting process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outiinea in the clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project including a
discussion of the project's independent utility;

2. An analysis of the alternatives to the proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
' area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
' Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
' adverse effects;
6. Tec}iniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
' wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
' project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,
Cumberland, Duplin, Durham, Greene, Pender, Pitt, Robeson, Scotland, Wayne, and
Wilson counties. Habitat requirements for the Federally-listed species in the
project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site.
If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field
surveys for the species should be performed, and survey methodologies and results
included in the environmental documentation for this project. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the environmental
' document regarding protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate
with the degree of environmental impacts):
1. A specific description of the proposed action to be considered;
' 2. A description and accompanvinq map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
' 3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
' 4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
' Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
' interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
State, and private activities in the project and cumulative effects
area;
C. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification;
d. Cumulative impacts of future State and private activities (not
requiring Federal agency involvement, that will be considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
species or associated habitat including project proposals to
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to their survival
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy
or modify proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include those species
for which the Service does not have enough scientific information to support a
listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing at the present time.
Species of Concern receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
available indicating they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate species or their
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP