19980675 Ver 1_Complete File_19980714

AST Tr
yd ? "•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
June 30, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 'Y
Wilmington Field Office JUL P. O. Box 1890 f 4 OR
Wilmington, North Carolina 2 8402-1 880
W4 GRl1??o
ATTENTION: Mr. Mike Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

E. NoRRis TOLSON
SECRETARY
980675
SUBJECT: Green and Pitt Counties, Replacement of Bridge No. 50 over Little
Contentnea Creek, TIP No. B-1204, State Project No. 8.118060 1,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-903 (1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion for the subject
project. Bridge No. 50 will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 50 feet south of
the existing roadway alignment. The existing structure will be used for maintenance of
traffic during construction. The new bridge will be approximately 30.0 feet wide and
70 feet long. The roadway grade of the new bridge will be approximately the same as the
existing bridge. Replacing the bridge at its existing location is not feasible due to the
length of the off site detour, I L4 miles.
Construction of the proposed project will have approximately .15 acres of permanent
impact to wetlands. No federally protected species, High Quality Waters, Outstanding
Resource Waters, WS-l, or WS-II waters will be impacted. After construction is
complete, the existing bridge and approaches will be removed and restored to pre-
construction contour. These areas will be revegetated with native tree species at 320
stems per acre.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
?01
2
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 will apply to this
project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P. E., Division 02 Engineer
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
NC 903
Greene and Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 50 over Little Contentnea Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-903(1)
State Project No. 8.1180601
T.I.P. No. B-1204
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
r
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
b
AT
,I" 0
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
l'Z. 9/
DATE
NC 903
Greene and Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 50 over Little Contentnea Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-903(1)
State Project No. 8.1180601
T.I.P. No. B-1204
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
qi?sa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
N.C' '
0
a
SEAL
0 8
1a ?0
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
.
14
11 Gail rimes, E , Unit Head
Consultant Engin g Unit
PUQP-_? ?_- =
Philip S. arris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
NC 903
Greene and Pitt Counties
Bridge No. 50 over Little Contentnea Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-903(1)
State Project No. 8.1180601
T.I.P. No. B-1204
Bridge No. 50 is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion'.
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRO NT i OM UTMENTS
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 final
design stages.
3. The existing bridge and approaches will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated with native tree species at 320 stems per acre.
II. S AC ARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 50 will be replaced immediately south of its existing location with a bridge. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,381,000 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $994,000 including
$44,000 for right-of-way and $950,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 903 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System The
study corridor occurs in a rural area near the Greene and Pitt County line, approximately 6.4
kilometers (4 mi) west of Ayden (Figure 1). Land use is primarily rural residential, agricultural, and
forest land in the study area .
Near the bridge, NC 903 has a 6.1 meter (20 ft) wide pavement width with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the
bridge with a 130 meter radius (13 degree) curve approximately 15 meters (50 ft) from the bridge to
Q
the east. The west approach consists of a 1400 meter radius (1.25 degree) curve approximately 3
meters (10 ft) from the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 10 meters (30 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 3% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DT). The speed limit is posted at 72 kilometers per hour (45 mph) at the bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1936 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of five reinforced
concrete girder spans. Bridge deck construction is a cast in place concrete floor deck with an asphalt
wearing surface. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete spill thru end bents and four r
reinforced concrete post and beam interior bents. i
The overall length of the bridge is 68.9 meters (226 ft). Clear roadway width is 7.4 meters (24.2 ft).
There is no posted weight limit.
Bridge No. 50 has a sufficiency rating of 6.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Fifteen accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31, 1995. The total accident rate during this period was 441.18 accidents per 100 million
vehicle kilometers (MVK). The total accident rate for two-lane, undivided rural North Carolina routes
for the period from 1992 through 1994 was 124.74 accidents per 100 MVK. Five of the accidents
occurred near the SR 1004 intersection and only one occurred on Bridge No. 50.
Telephone and electric lines are located on the north side of the eastbound approach and on the south
side of the westbound approach to the bridge. A fire hydrant is located on the north side of the
westbound approach to the bridge. Fiber optic lines are also located southwest of the bridge and
assumed to be within the existing right-of-way. There are no utilities attached to the bridge and no
aerial utilities cross the stream at this location.
School buses do not cross this bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 50. Each alternative consists of replacing the
existing bridge with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length of
70 meters (230 ft). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter
(8 ft) shoulders, 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved.
The alternate alignments studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A with on-site detour: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A
2
design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph) would be provided, requiring a design exception.
Traffic would be maintained with a temporary, on-site detour located south of the existing bridge
(Temporary Detour 1).
Alternate A with off-site detour involves replacing the bridge in its existing location. The roadway
grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge grade. A
design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph) would be provided, requiring a design exception.
Traffic would be detoured on SR 1335, SR 1343, SR 1114, and NC 903 during construction, for a
distance of 18.3 kilometers (11.4 mi) (see Figure 1). Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 5.97:1, an off-
site detour is not reasonable (see Section VIII.).
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft) south of
its existing location. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
roadway grade of the new bridge would be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge
grade. A design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph) would be provided, requiring a design
exception. One business relocation would be required with this alternate.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but would eventually necessitate closure
of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic service provided by NC 903.
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.
3
¦
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
r
Alternate A
with on-site
detour Alternate A
with.-off-Ate
.detour . Alternate B
(Recommended)
Structure Removal $34,036.60 $34,036.60 $34,036.60
Structure $450,800.00 $450,800.00 $450,800.00
Roadway Approaches $167,462.00 $167,462.00 $349,016.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $197,701.40 $197,701.40 $251,147.40
Engineering and Contingencies $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $165,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $35,500.00 $35,500.00 $131,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,010,500.00 $1,010,500.00 $1,381,000.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $619,300.00 NA NA
TOTAL $1,629,800.00 $1,010,500.00 $1,381,000.00
VI. RECOMMENDED RAPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 50 will be replaced 15 meters (50 ft) south of the existing alignment with a two-lane
bridge. The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length of 70
meters (230 ft). The roadway grade will be approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge
grade. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
Although it is less costly to replace the bridge in its existing location, a temporary, on-site detour
would be necessary. An off-site detour is not reasonable at this location due to its length of 18.3
kilometers (11.4 mi) of indirectional travel and the volume of traffic using NC 903 (3000 vpd in 1995
and 7100 vpd projected for 2020). A temporary, on-site detour would increase the cost of the project
to $1,629,800 versus $1,381,000 for the recommended alternate.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended alternate
(Alternate B) provides a design speed of 60 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour). Due to the
4

w
V

existing horizontal alignment, both within and outside the project area, a major relocation or possible
rerouting ofNC 903 would be required to improve the design speed to 72 kilometers per hour (45
miles per hour). The Division Office is opposed to rerouting NC 903 along SR 1110. Since the
alignment of the recommended alternate is compatible with the alignment of the remainder of NC 903
the additional costs are not justified.
VIII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 3000 vpd and
an average of 18.3 kilometers (11.4 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1336, SR 1335, SR 1343,
SR 1125, SR 1114, and NC 903 (See Figure 1). The cost of additional travel would be approximately
$3,700,000 during the twelve month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site
detour is $619,300 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 5.97:1. 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 the applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping
(Ayden and Hookerton, NC), U. S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
mapping, Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service) soils
information (USDA 1974), and 1993 aerial photography (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The principal investigator for natural resources was Kevin Markham with Environmental Services,
Inc. Mr. Markham received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Marine Biology from the University of
North Carolina, Wilmington. He has eight years of experience in coastal ecosystems evaluations,
wildlife surveys, wetland delineations, mitigation planning, and threatened and endangered species
issues.
The site was visited on March 28, 1996. Communities likely to be impacted by proposed
improvements were walked and visually surveyed for important features. Surveys were conducted
within a study corridor approximately 91.4 meters (300 ft) in width, symmetrical to the existing
alignment. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and temporary
construction easements. Special concerns were evaluated including potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Little Contentnea Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army
a
Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat
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 r
(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 1991, DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Pitt and Greene Counties
was obtained prior to initiation of field studies. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing this investigation. i
Pitt and Greene Counties are located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. Topography is
nearly level with short slopes bordering the first bottom or terrace landforms. Elevations in the study
corridor vicinity range from approximately 20 meters (65 ft) just northeast of the study corridor at
the intersection of SR 1110 and SR 1113, to approximately 6 meters (19 ft) along the creek bottom _
(USGS Ayden/Hookerton, NC quadrangles). The study corridor is located in the Yorktown
geological formation and is underlain by fossiliferous clay (DNRCD 1985).
Soils in the study corridor are Alaga loamy sand (Typic Quartzipsamments), Alpin fine sand (Typic
Quartzipsamments), and Tuckerman fine sandy loam (Typic Ochraqualfs) (USDA 1974 and USDA
1980). The Alaga and Alpin series consist of excessively drained soils on the stream terraces. The
seasonal high water table reaches 1.5 meters (5 ft) below the surface. The Tuckerman series is poorly
drained soil found on stream terraces. The seasonal high water table is at or near the surface. The
Tuckerman series is on the national list of hydric soils (USDA 1991).
WATER RESOURCES
The study corridor is within the Neuse River Drainage Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020203.
Bridge No. 50 crosses Little Contentnea Creek approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 mi) above the
confluence with Contentnea Creek in Pitt County . Little Contentnea Creek flows from north to south
within the study corridor. Little Contentnea Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-86-26
by the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM).
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
6
R
classification of C Sw NSW has been assigned to this segment of Little Contentnea Creek (DEM
1993). 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 incidental or infrequent basis. The Sw designate indicates swamp waters
characterized by low velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content. The
NSW designation requires limitations on nutrient inputs to these waters.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-H waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. There is one permitted point source
discharge into Little Contentnea Creek upstream from the project area. The site is located east of the
town of Farmville, NC, and is permitted for z 0.5 MGD (DEM 1991). Little Contentnea Creek is
not state designated as a Natural and Scenic River, nor is it nationally designated as a national Wild
and Scenic River.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There are no
BMAN sampling stations in the vicinity of the study corridor.
Little Contentnea Creek originates in southeastern Wilson County approximately 56 kilometers (35
mi) above the study corridor. The stream is approximately 10.7 meters (35 ft) in width at the bridge.
The stream meanders slightly within a steep-sided channel. A slow to moderate flow of water
approximately 1.4 meters (4.5 ft) deep traverses a substrate of mud and sand. The existing bridge
spans the main body of the channel.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT B=
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. Bridge replacement will maintain continued flow and protect stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Three distinct plant communities occur within the study corridor. Two of these communities, small
stream swamp and upland mixed pine-hardwood forest, represent natural communities. The third
community, urban/disturbed land, represents residential and urban sites and areas that have received
7
a
large amounts of disturbance. Communities are described below.
Small Stream Swamp
The floodplain of Little Conternnea Creek within the study corridor is characterized as a coastal plain
small stream swamp (blackwater subtype). A narrow zone adjacent to the creek is dominated by bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum) and tupelo gum (Nyssa aquatica). As the floodplain grades upslope,
canopy domination shifts to loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracijlua), and river birch (Betula nigra). The midstory/shrub layer is composed of
ironwood (Carpimis caroliniana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and horse sugar (Symplocos
tinctoria). The herbaceous layer consists of sparsely distributed cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and
Virginia chain fern (Wooduvrdia virginica).
Upland Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
This community is located on upland ridges within the study corridor. The canopy is dominated by
loblolly pine, red maple, and post oak (Quercus stellata). The midstory/shrub layer is dominated by
flowering dogwood (Comm lorida). Greenbriers (Smilax spp.) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) are present.
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes vegetation along disturbed roadside margins, parking lots, home sites, and
powerline right-of-ways. Vegetation in these areas is composed of a variety of species such as red
maple, devils' walking stick (Aralia spinosa), cane, crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), and blackberries
(Rubes spp.), as well as other early successional grasses and herbs. Residential areas have augmented
native vegetation with planted ornamentals.
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the proposed right-of-way or temporary easement required. The following table
summarizes potential impacts which could result from proposed alignments.
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED BAPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temp. Detour 1
Small Stream Swamp 0.02(0.06) 0.06(0.15) 0.04(0.09)
Upland Mixed Pine-Hardwood 0.10(0.24) 0.23(0.56) 0.09(0.22)
Urban/Disturbed Land 0.48(1.18) 1.19(2.94) 0.13(0.32)
TOTAL: 0.60(1.48) 1.48(3.65) 0.26(0.63)

r
s
w
r
L
Most of the anticipated impacts will occur within urban disturbed land for both replacement
alternatives. However, Alternative B will result in greater habitat impacts than Alternative A. In
addition, encroachment into the small stream swamp community is greater in Alternative B than
Alternative A. These are sensitive areas of potential habitat value for wildlife.
The off-site detour alternative is not expected to result in impacts to plant communities due to the
utilization of existing roads. Impacts associated with the temporary on-site detour are minimal.
The study corridor is largely composed of urban/disturbed land interspersed with areas of contiguous
forest in the floodplain and adjacent slope of Little Contentnea Creek. Forested floodplains bordering
Little Contentnea Creek are expected to support wildlife species adapted to riparian forest habitat as
well as species adapted to ecotonal and anthropogenic landscapes.
Animals likely to utilize the study corridor include mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagusfloridanus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Avian species likely to occur
in the study corridor include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), as well as several species of diurnal and nocturnal
raptors. Reptiles and amphibians that may be expected include American toad (Bufo americanus),
spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus).
Little Contentnea Creek supports excellent fishing for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Fish 1968). Nongame
species expected within the study corridor include species such as golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas).
The creek and floodplain terrace also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for aquatic fauna.
Amphibians such as eastern newt (Notophthalmas viridescens), several frog species (Rana spp. and
Hyla spp.), and toads would use the pools for breeding during spring wet periods. Various species
of invertebrates and aquatic animals, in addition to minnows, would be expected to be found in the
stream itself.
9

The proposed action will not result in substantial loss of habitat for terrestrial fauna. The general
vicinity of the study corridor has been disturbed by the construction of small businesses, residences, !
and farms, and the wildlife in the area is considered opportunistic and adaptable to changes. The
primary impact of this project would be short-term disturbance during construction, resulting in
temporary displacement of terrestrial species. 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.
r
SPECIAL TOPICS
Surface waters within the embankments of Little Contentnea Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The creek
downstream from the bridge is characterized as riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom,
permanently flooded waters (R2UBH).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of ?.
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor. The
small stream swamp community exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, deciduous, temporarily V
flooded wetlands (PF06A). -
The following table summarizes impacts to wetlands which will result from the bridge replacement
alternatives and temporary detour.
Table 2. Estimated Wetland Impacts.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED IMPACTS
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Alternative B Temp. Detour 1
PF06A 0.02 (0.06) 0.06 (0.15) 0.04 (0.09)
Alternative A will result in fewer wetland impacts than Alternative B. Potential impacts due to the
temporary on-site detour are minimal. In addition, impacts to wetlands will be temporary. Bridging
of Little Contentnea Creek will minimize impacts to surface waters.
10
I
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 finished 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 ofthe 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.
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.). There are no records of occurrence of any federal protected species in Greene
County. The following federal protected species are listed for Pitt County (August 23, 1996; USFWS
list):
Manatee (Trichechus manatus) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - T
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - E
AM
Manatee - The manatee is a large aquatic mammal that may wander from Florida during summer to
as far north as coastal Virginia (USFWS 1993). NHP records show no known occurrences of this
species within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. r
This project is not expected to affect West Indian manatee due to small size of Little Contentnea
Creek and the lack of suitable aquatic vegetation for foraging. Vagrant manatees visiting the Neuse
system would not be expected within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bald eagle - Nest sites typically occur in large live or dead trees, predominately pine or cypress,
located near feeding grounds. Eagles are opportunistic hunters and scavengers, typically foraging r
along large bodies of water with nearby perching snags (Hamel 1992). Suitable habitat is not present
within the study corridor. NHP records show no known occurrences of this species within 1.6
kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor.
This project is not expected to affect bald eagles due to the lack of foraging and nesting opportunities
in Little Contentnea Creek and lack of documentation of bald eagle from nearby areas. Construction
activities may temporarily displace any bald eagles foraging in the vicinity; however, no documented
nesting activity will be disrupted. _
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) - Primary nest sites for RCWs include open pine stands greater
than 60 years of age with We 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 suitable nesting
habitat is present within the study corridor. The mixed pine-hardwood community within the study
area does not meet stand-size or contiguity criteria. NHP records indicate that RCWs have not been
documented within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. i
This project is not expected to affect RCW nesting because no suitable nesting habitat (stand-sized
pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 60 years) or suitable foraging habitat
(stand-sized pine or pine-hardwood forest containing pines greater than 30 years) are present within
the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Tar spinymussel - Preferred habitat of the Tar spinymussel includes relatively fast-flowing, well-
oxygenated, circumneutral water over a silt-free, uncompacted, gravel/coarse sand substrate (USFWS
1992). Tar spinymussel has not been documented from the Neuse River Basin despite several
intensive surveys (WRC records). No suitable habitat for this species exists within the study corridor.
A review of NHP records indicates that no known population of this species occurs within 1.6
kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor.
12
r
L
This project is not expected to affect Tar spinymussel because the study corridor is located outside
the drainage basin from which this species is documented.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The August 23, 1996 USFWS list also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. The
following are listed as FSC for Pitt County:
Common Name
Henslow's sparrow Scientific Name
Ammodramus henslom Potential Habitat
N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus N
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Y
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa Y
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra N
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata N
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis Y
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. 106-202.12
et seq.). NHP records indicate that no state-listed species have been documented within 1.6
kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor.
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.
Six properties over fifty years of age, including Bridge No. 50 are located within the area of potential
effect (APE). The properties and bridge were evaluated and determined to be not eligible for the
National Register. 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. 50, in the APE listed in or eligible for the National Register (see
Appendix for Concurrence Form).
In their April 22, 1996 letter, the SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites in the
13
a
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 r
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.
M. 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. One business relocation is expected
with implementation of the proposed alternative (see Relocation Report in Appendix).
r
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior
to construction of federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance,
• Relocation Moving Payments, and
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplements
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist
displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where
displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing -
Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible
and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
14
W,
L_:
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-
646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program
is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to
live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this
purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of the displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample
time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of replacement housing that meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally
less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of
replacement property will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and
will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist
owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced would receive an explanation
regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase ofreplacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if
possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed
in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expenses Payment Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs of
moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations
acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will
participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings, such as attorney's
fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased
interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental expenses may not exceed $22,500
(combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive payment, not to exceed $5,259, to rent a replacement
dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a
replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when
the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOTs state or federally-assisted
construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided
15
for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment
received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for
the purposes of determining eligibility of the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under
the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last resort housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available, or when
it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the
federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of
implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
This program would be implemented, if necessary, as mandated by state law.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
Since the project will consist of replacing an existing bridge, 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.
Greene County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program The bridge is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The Flood Boundary and Floodway Map is included in the
Appendix. This map indicates the limits of the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains as well as the
100-year floodway. Since the proposed bridge will be an in-kind replacement, it is not anticipated
that this project will have a significant adverse impact on the existing floodplain and floodway nor
on the associated flood hazard to the adjacent properties and buildings.
16
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
17
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Ms. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1988. Water Quality Progress in North Carolina,
Report no. 88-02 (305B). Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Water Quality Section. Raleigh.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Neuse River Basin, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. N.C. Geological Survey.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh. 312 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 34 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast
Region, Atlanta, GA. 13 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, 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.
18
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, NC. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. Soil
Conservation Service. 73 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980. Soil Survey of Greene County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 53 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation
with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Pannell, and W.C. Biggs Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19

l f0
7. ) , 1 • , 9 S ?? ? ? _ 111 W.1
•
• ° :li MW
_
/sue ! -
-??. .f,?'? ? ,S ) f
/ ' r;'! to II
41
° ? Ir v
r,r N

' ?
1r
?r
•
J

'mss 'o ti
1 `1)I v ,p
11dr `? •f J - ti
sail,
cf
? I J 7]
.
l C

,s Id 1
0 '
2.7 % SR 1125
1) 7
" !a
C y r'' t
'w
ry '
g? 13
`l
a?P 1? .?
1]i! Q4,
^
7.1
C.n
WIII" 1'.`llc, \

!!! '1Lti
] ?? {b)
Ron
u rrb , Vr ? .d
'?v a 11
? 1

it .r
?, on
?• Y t/Wr
Qu
-
•«• i?
t ?

, ,.7 i

.?27 ? ,,d •!t

r .9 .} r, °.r) °? •

5 .?.Z!
, 1C(!

eV
1.
ilu HALF MOON / -i--
? .
? •(?L 'o .a ?
.
'/ d
117 till POCOSIN

` •., '° ? ?1d1
"4V ::y
. 'io I?la. ?
llv
,? v?, l
?? • Ja ! ti: 1141 4!4
?
?•\ ^111'. •^ r, V.
..

?O?.ul
o .l,ft
?
.1 FASO,
i
R
t?
l
•h(!
kT/..,?'
?•+i
'

?,i
? ? Rodo!!
1)
o . 1.7,(

S -
?t ?l. rA I.I
5 '1
T
'''2.;•SL ?•'
?. wTSa _ •
-Zl
i?;p
1L2j ? 0
1 '.
S 1? p
v 1iiZ \o ,o . rA{
'Lft t »
• Ir '.?t ,.? L
/`
es .r LI'>t"
L

1L11 1.7 1E
•" I ville J!11 .? ! .!

LM 1 0
r ..1 .,\
•
C • ?j
```+? ,.Y/ ? r

i?l7! 1 '1•'tt ?
ArORrv

^/
Id17 v ' Y 1!?P !!QI I? f, P } ?•e.Jar I m
6
? !!1! 1.5 .9 Scu/Nklon
? 11E1M •'' LEI.. 1lRl 7 ! , f?R
uu. - :yrl ;t, 1{ s s 3 4L4 1111 \ ?'1Zt
* tsiz 17] 1! O ? " li! IBM
` .4, 1 w 1•2 ILIM 3 •d v Im 4?
1 t
f4po
r l1110 s \.C. 1
1 _ to,n++a .I lAP UPS iE4 44Q
7 1 C t ... ?
r !!it 1SL1 !!1 .t cot % ? :NI •? lhrl 6 `'44'.
svr
HOOKEarorl 0 7 1 5
. rot. 46° s 11er 1
141E CPi LVS i? L'lR v,? •,r`. e r .A
y 41 lilt I r 'y 1tR1 !
? {? la
r R o
un V Let) f "1 •? ' r1t? ?t1 -14, 411h
117 1l74 flit i f
? 101 ? i 1 1 ? d
d{ v ? ,° ?? 1 RHfy ? :IArrr ?? •1ClR ?/
?o
t ?
o I.o orrwe:
1. .0 3.0 k- \ . , rA5 l U \ '.
5ourca: County Road Maps,
t
NCDOT, 7980 r.7
?
?' `\._ . ?? ? X11 Nr
1 <tt, 'o
O ?y
Studied Detour Route Site Location Map Figure: 1
Bridge # 50
NC 903 Over Project:
Little Contentnea Creek
Greene /Pitt Counties, NC
B-1204 Date: AUG 1996
BRIDGE NO. 50
PITT/GREENE
COUNTIES
B-1204
LOOKING EAST
3
i
i
=i
LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW
F?GURE 3

lil

I
„og

j- zOA-
f Rqo a0

r ?
9 2.
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 (?)A '??
Deputy State His ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 50 on NC 903 over Little Contentnea Creek,
Greene/Pitt Counties, B-1204, ER 96-8560
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1996, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structure
of historical or architectural importance within the general area of this project:
Bridge 50 was constructed in 1936
We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify and evaluate any
structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
a
Federal Aid # 131uirP - 0103 11 TIP # ii-1204 County fr"eAf- /Pt7T
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description WL A&f, VA,
44.094L ( WLIM Z, 04L*tAP 'Al Jo. do IN N(i?oy /VEL WrLe, 46t`1rgArW"

On MAI 1 , 1114' , representatives of the

./
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highnay Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Othcr
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All panics present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's arcs of potential effects.
V there arc 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 arcs of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as P ca # l - are considered not eligible
for National Regi ter and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potcntial effects.
Signcd:
?u
Rrnrrsi
M," 1111(,
DOT lute
/, 5/m/2
)r the Divisio Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
ativ , SHPO _ Da e
)1",L VL"D
tate Historic Preservation Officcr
G
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list will be included.
r
RELOCATION REPORT
ED E.I.S. [D CORRIDOR M DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE.
r
PROJECT: 8.1180601 COUNTY GREENEIPITT Altemate Of Altemate
I.D. No.. B-1204 F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-903 1 ALIGNMENT B
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: BRIDGE NO. 50 ON NC 903 OVER CONTENTNEA CREEK

. .. ... ... .
ATIIVUKTt DISPL?AGiI . ; ;
tNCON1E LHL ....
Type of
016 Owners Tonants Total Mnorkin 0.15M 15-25M 26-35M 36-SOM 60 UP
Residential

t3usinessee
Farms _
1
1
0
:::: .,VALUE of pyIIgLEMIa :Mt
IMAK104 AVAiI:A w-:

NOn-Profit Owners Tenants for Salo For Rant
war s 0-1110 o-tow 8 ar100
11NseMl?lt?L{a?I,Ii11?tONO: MW ib&ttia 110.01 Zia-?eo
Yrr No Ex pWn an"YEP a m ma. 40-nm 230400 40-Mm zeo.aoo
X I. VO opedal relocation Services be nsceneryl TO.10ar 800400 M400w 400400
X 2. WIN schools or 0lUd" be affect by 100 ur "O up 188 ur M UP
. dlit>la??frleflt?
AL .,...
`
X 3. YOU business services 31111 be available after

pr+gect?
.............
OIAARIf?: R6s rtitl Ntinit?er
To
X 4. Will any bttelness be uisplacee K So. L JIM= GERVIM W L STR,L BE AVA11 ABLL AMR
Indicate on. typo. estimated nurmer of ?ROJRCT 8244 MM IS OM'V ONZ J1VW 1,66 UI NO
emlployeea, minorities, etc. A1l8CTM aYTM AXdf 104 M•.
X S. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. source for available housing (let). 4. CONYEINIZINT STORE (NO NAM); AMAU - 2-3 ><k0%0YA6.
X 7. VVI11 additional houalrlg programs be needed?
X 8. 8100 Last Resort Hotting be con8ldered? 14. PMVJVAnPA CIMSMIM ADS, MALTORS.
X 9. Are two large. disabled, alt!", ere.
farnlles?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for prt OW
"•" 11. Is public hotWng available?
' 12. Is It fall there wU be adequsts D89 housing
housing available d nV ralocMlon period?
X 13. WO tMra be a prodem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are ttu bd* buslneas sites available (list
source).
15. N=W mon is estimated to complete

V-R CHA IC 6-1 g.? a SiG
Relocation Date
- AMoved by
Frm? M a RAW." n m
a . bete
QWW1 A 1 Copy: State RelWKbn Agent
2 Copy Ana RsWaW OMm
i
r
k
r
l
20d 6669 :0N X31 Flog I r1tJ3 QNH 9N i NNN?d Q I nr : c T nH1 qF, . 61?-Ito f
1
RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. ED CORRIDOR [3 DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1180601 COUNTY GREENEAT.
I.D. NO.: 8-1204 F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-903 '
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: BRIDGE NO. 50 ON.NC 903

North Carolina Department of Transpoltstlon
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
Of Altel"I'la e
,:, . 'tiTIMATEP:?IlPtJICE6S?::" . ...
INCOME ty
Type of
Forma
Non-Profit
PPAWIM -Vc.7-answws.
WNM spedN relDCaecn secvkes be necassi
2. WIN schw* or dNS•ches be affect by
dwacwwv
3. WIN Ovalness services x211 be av&kW. after
Prof
4. Will any business be dtpboo if 30,
Indcme site, type. esfnwtW nun w of
enployeee, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocallon cause a howinp shmiape?
s. Sour" for avaW* housing, (list).
?. VwN addtlonlal nouft KWome be nftded?
8. 8hOW Last Resort Moiling be coWderso
U. Are there lar+pe, daabud, elderly, at.
famlMes?
10. Wit Public housing be needed for proleet2
11. Is MUC housing avauabu?
1
2. Is it too mere VNN be adegUea DSS housing
I housing available duftrg relocation putod?
13. WIN fm be a problem of h&A*V WMn
financial means?
14. Are sultable buslflese afte aVaUsda (NSt
source).
15. Number menlht esftoW fo compute
14.4 `??ICI 0 ??
Minc?itiw 0-1l5M 1

:
Z tow S 0.100
20
4 160.260 20
00
.
1y 160.20
40-MM 260400 4040M
260400
T0?00M 400400 ?? 400-i00
100 up 400 up 100 ur
TOt/1l, .
(fts? wd Ntlbfbirl
NO RELOCATION INVOLVED ON THIa ALIGNMENT.
?tiGt1S ?
MAow bVI X11
JAN 9 %*
vt qt it AS? awl 00A

1 cow sac Ri ew4 `
2 Copy Arw R"M tlon
r
?0d 6660 :0N 731 NOb 1(1143 QNH 9N 1 NNH-Jd : Q 1 6.' ! ? T nHl qr, n?-r ?n r

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ffllxm?'
Health and Natural Resources YA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor '
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary [D E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galamb4
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]
M Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
¦
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 11, 1996
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
Dear Mr. Vick:
50'
.YMfYO....
,, YYYID Y4IY
v ?n
Q? .I
p _.
NG & E`1
Reference your letter dated March 13, 1996, requesting comments regarding
the potential environmental impacts associated with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Group XI Bridge Replacement Project,
Bridge No. 50 on NC Highway 903 over Little Contentnea Creek, at the Pitt
County and Greene County line, near Scuffleton, North Carolina, TIP B-1204.
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 the 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 rPaardina the Fedpra1
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.
Q
-2-
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Henry Wicker, Washington Regulatory Field office,
telephone [phone], extension 25.
Sincerely,
1 kL "u-'?
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 Branch
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 Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
r
f
N
rQt? NT United States Department of the Interior
o?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 38726 O
CH ] Raleigh. North Carolina 27636.3726
March 27, 1996 r
IU MA 2 ? 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick DIvISICN C:,
Planning and Environmental Branch HIGHWAYS
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201 ??''?RONME??P
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-1204, 2514, 2533,
2818, 2861, 2862, 2873, 2964, 3011, 3035, 3085, 3274, 3392, 3410)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of March 13, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of fourteen bridges in various Eastern North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
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;
I
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
r
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 Enaineers 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. Techniques 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 accompanyinq 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;
r
l
I
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.
Si core y yo s, r
L
11
' `,14. \A1sbn Lan
Acting ie Supe visor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
NMFS
FHWA
USACE
EPA
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:3-26-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BMAR96.SCP