19980986 Ver 1_Complete File_19981005

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
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 7, 1998
Robeson County
WQC 401 Project # 980986
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridges 20 and 22
over Big Marsh Swamp, as you described in your application dated September 29, 1998. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. 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. Also 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. 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 the 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). 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 which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. 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 Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Wrest d, Jr. P.E
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
980986.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
/ -
?
401 IllED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 29, 1998 j;
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington. North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinato:
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Robeson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 20 and 22 over Big Marsh Swamp
on SR 1916, TIP No. B-2862, State Project No. 8.2461301, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1916 (4).
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion for the subject project.
Bridge No. 20 will be replaced at its existing location with a new bridge approximately 32
meters (105 feet) long. Bridge No. 22 will be replaced in its existing location with a triple barrel,
3.0 x 1.8-meter (10 x 6 feet) reinforced concrete box culvert. Both structures will have a clear
roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 feet). Improvements to the existing approaches will be
necessary on each end of the structures. Traffic will be detoured along SR 1915, US 301, and
SR 1006 during construction. Construction of the proposed project will have approximately
0.13 acres of permanent impact to jurisdictional wetlands.
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 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.

r
tf you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick at [phone] ext. 315.
Sincerely,
MJA
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
WDG/plr
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
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 Engineci
Mr. W. S. Varnedoe, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
1 ?
Robeson County
SR 1916
Bridge Nos. 20 & 22 over Big Marsh Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(4)
State Project No. 8.2461301
T.I.P. No. B-2862
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., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
111g 0&
DATE
"
cholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
UZ 2. L/
DATE
Robeson County
SR 1916
Bridge Nos. 20 & 22 over Big Marsh Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(4)
State Project No. 8.2461301
T.I.P. No. B-2862
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1996
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
o Q F? o
S.
o °
°
0
°
oa(?? aQ? Q n
?? va ?tltleb?e
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gail 64mes, P. nit Head
Consultant Engineermg Unit
Philip S. H&;, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Robesdn County
SR 1916
Bridge Nos. 20 & 22 over Big Marsh Swamp
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(4)
State Project No. 4.2461301
T.I.P. No. B-2462
Bridge Nos. 20 and 22 are 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 final
design stages.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Nos. 20 and 22 will be replaced in their existing locations with a bridge and a culvert. During
construction traffic will be detoured off-site along SR 1915, US 301, and SR 1006.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $649,640 . The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $528,000 including
$24,000 for right-of-way and $500,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1916 is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The proposed
project occurs in rural Robeson County approximately 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 mi) south of Saint Pauls.
Land use within the study corridor includes an abandoned landfill and natural bottomland vegetation.
Household trash was found throughout the study corridor.
Near the bridges, SR 1916 has a 5.5 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 1.2 meter (4 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope up toward the bridges. The horizontal alignment is tangent. The
roadway is situated approximately 2.4 meters (8 ft) above the creek bed.
The traffic volumes were 900 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1995 and projected to be 1300 vpd for the
design year 2020. The volumes include I% truci -tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired (DT)
vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers per hour (55 mph).
The existing bridges were built in 1950 (Figure 3). For Bridge No. 20, the superstructure consists of
five timber joist spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt
wearing surface. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with
timber caps. For Bridge No. 22, the superstructure consists of four timber joist spans. Bridge deck
construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure
consists of creosote timber pile end bents and interior bents with timber caps.
The overall length of Bridge No. 20 is 26.5 meters (87 ft) and of Bridge No. 22 is 21.3 meters (70
ft). Clear roadway width for both bridges is 5.9 meters (19.2 ft). The posted weight limit for Bridge
No. 20 is 9979.2 kilograms (11 tons) for single vehicles and 19501.2 (21 tons) for tractor trailer
trucks. The posted weight limit for Bridge No. 22 is 9072.0 kilograms (10 tons) for single vehicles
and 16,329.6 (18 tons) for tractor trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 20 has a sufficiency rating of 17.9 and Bridge No. 22 has a sufficiency rating of 13.0,
compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridges during the period from April 1, 1992 to
March 31.,..199,5.
Utilities located in the proposed project area include a sanitary sewer line in the northwest quadrant
and underground stormwater lines. There are no overhead utilities nor any utilities attached to the
bridges.
School buses cross the bridges a total of six times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives were considered for replacement of the bridges in their existing locations. Utilizing
the existing roadway provides the best alignment and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would
result in excessive cost and undesirable horizontal alignment. During construction traffic would be
detoured on SR 1915, US 301, and SR 1006 (see Figure 1). The detour length is approximately 4.0
kilometers (2.5 mi). Temporary, on-site detours were considered east (Temporary Detour 1) and west
(Temporary Detour 2) of the existing bridge. A benefit cost ratio of 0.68:1 indicates that an on-site
detour is not reasonable (see Section VII.).
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridges. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1916.
Investigation of the existing structures by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridges is not feasible due to their age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternative studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Alternate A
with on-site
detour Alternate A
with off-site
detour
(Recommended)
Structure Removal (2) $21,516.00 $21,516.00
Bridge $192,640.00 $192,640.00
Culvert $68,400.00 $68,400.00
Roadway Approaches $146,280.00 $146,280.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $112,344.00 $112,344.00
Engineering and Contingencies $88,000.00 $88,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easement / Util. $20,500.00 $20,500.00
SUBTOTAL $649,680.00 $649,680.00
Temporary On-Site Detour $340,000.00 NA
TOTAL $989,680.00 $649,680.00
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 20 will be replaced in its existing location with a new bridge approximately 32 meters
(105 ft) in length. Bridge No. 22 will be replaced in its existing location with a triple barrel, 3.0 x 1.8
meter (10 ft x 6 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. Both structures will have a clear roadway width
of 8.6 meters (28 ft). Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary on each end of the
structures. During construction traffic will be detoured on SR 1915, US 301, and SR 1006, a distance
of 4.0 kilometers (2.5 mi).
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the construction
period. A twelve month road closure period is anticipated. The off-site detour roadway and bridges
are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 900 vpd and an
average of 4.0 kilometers (2.5 mi) of indirectional travel utilizing SR 1915, US 301, and SR 1006
(See Figure 1). The detour route would involve an at-grade railroad crossing at SR 1915 and an at-
grade railroad crossing at SR 1006. Neither of these crossings currently has signals or gates. There
are no other suitable, off-site detour routes available in the immediate area. The cost of additional
travel would be approximately $243,000 during the twelve month construction period. The estimated
cost of providing an on-site detour is $360,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.68:1. This ratio
does not indicate justification to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Material 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
(Saint Pauls, NC), U. S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly USDA Soil Conservation Service) soils
information (USDA 1978) 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 April 3, 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 centerline of each
alternative. However, impact calculations are based on the approximate right-of-way and temporary
construction easements. Special concerns evaluated in the field included potential habitat for
protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection for Big Marsh Swamp.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NBP) (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
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
(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 stream and tributaries
was derived from available sources (DEM 1993). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to
4
C
support existing data.
A USFWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Robeson 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.
Robeson County is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina.
Topography is characterized as nearly level, with elevations in the study corridor ranging between
44 meters and 46 meters (145 ft and 150 ft) (USGS Saint Pauls, NC quadrangle).
The study corridor is located within the Black Creek Formation which is cretaceous in age. The
Black Creek Formation is composed of clays and characterized as gray to black, lignitic, and
containing thin beds of fine-grained micaceous sand. Thick lenses of cross-bedded sand, with
glauconitic, fossiliferous, clayey sands occur in the upper strata (DNRCD 1985).
There are two soil types within the study corridor, the Johnston soil series (Cumulic Humaquepts)
and an unmapped, unnamed, urban fill complex. The Johnston series is a nationally-listed hydric soil
(USDA 1991) and is very poorly drained, usually found in flood plains. Permeability is moderate,
available water capacity is high, and shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water table in
these soils is at or near the surface. The unnamed, urban fill complex is associated with the
abandoned landfill and is characterized by sandy fill lacking horizon development.
WATER RESOURCES
The study corridor is located in the Lumber River Drainage Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03040203). Bridge Nos. 20 and No. 22 cross Big Marsh Swamp approximately 13 kilometers (8 mi)
downstream from its origin and approximately 10 kilometers (6 mi) above the confluence of Big
Marsh Swamp and Gallberry Swamp. Big Marsh Swamp has been assigned Stream Index Number
14-22-2 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 (DEM 1993). Big
Marsh Swamp has been assigned a best usage classification of C Sw. A Class C designation indicates
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. A Class Sw designation refers to swamp waters characterized by low
velocities, low pH, low dissolved oxygen levels, and high organic content.
5
There are no High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-11
waters within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. Big Marsh Swamp is not designated as a
North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and Scenic River.
There is a permitted discharge site on Big Marsh Swamp, the St. Pauls waste water treatment plant,
located at the junction of Big Marsh Swamp and the Seaboard Coastline railroad, approximately 11
kilometers (6.5 mi) upstream from the study corridor (DEM 1991). The St. Pauls waste water
treatment plant has a permitted flow of 0.5 mgd.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1991).
Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. No BMAN
stations are located in the Big Marsh Swamp drainage.
Big Marsh Swamp is a braided creek system in the study corridor. The two project bridges span
channelized drainages of the system Channels in Big Marsh Swamp at Bridges No. 20 and No. 22
are broad and shallow, each measuring approximately 12.2 meters (40 ft) in width and approximately
0.9 meter (3 ft) in depth. The channels appear to have been dredged to stabilize flow at this crossing.
Banks within the study corridor are gradual, ranging from 0 to 0.9 meter (0 to 3 ft) in height. The
banks are composed of soil which support grasses, shrubs, and forest vegetation. The channel bed
substrate is a combination of sand and a sand- gravel mix. Organic debris within the channel includes
stumps, old pilings, trees, branches, and leaves. Aquatic vegetation is extensive, consisting of both
emergent and submergent species. Flow was slight and exhibited low turbidity at the time of this
survey.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Adverse impacts will be minimised 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 replacements will allow for continuation of the present flow rate
thereby protecting stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor. One of these
communities, bottomland hardwood forest, represents a natural community. The other two
communities, disturbed wet flat and upland urban/disturbed, represent areas that have sustained
substantial disturbance. Communities are described below.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Wet areas in the floodplain of Big Marsh Swamp support bottomland hardwood forest vegetation.
The canopy is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweet
bay (Magnolia virginiana), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciJlua). The midstory/shrub layer is characterized by sapling growth of red
maple, green ash, sweet bay, and sweetgum. Slightly higher areas within this community support
cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Laurel-leaf greenbrier
(Smilax laurifolia) is present throughout the area. Resurrection-fern (Polypodium polypodioides)
and mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinum) are found on some of the larger oaks.
Disturbed Wet Flat
Wet areas surrounding the upland zones used for the landfill are revegetating with successional
wetland species. The canopy is dominated by black willow (Salix nigra) and tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The dense midstory/shrub layer is characterized by sapling growth of the canopy trees
as well as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Urban/Disturbed Land
This community includes disturbed roadside margins, powerline right-of-ways, and disturbed areas
associated with an old landfill. Successional grasses and herbs characterize much of these areas. The
abandoned landfill is located in the northwest portion of the study corridor and was created by the
town of Saint Pauls. Portions of the landfill have little or no vegetation, and other areas support
regenerating woodland. Canopy vegetation in the regenerating areas consists mainly of china-berry
(Melia azedarach). The midstory/shrub layer contains china-berry, red maple, and American holly
(Ilex opaca). Ivy (Hedera helix), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and blackberries
(Rubus spp.) were found throughout this site.
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are based on the amount of each community present within
the proposed right-of-way and temporary construction easements. Construction of the proposed
alternative or temporary detour is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to the plant
communities in the study corridor. A summary of plant community impacts which could result from
construction activities is presented below.
Table 1. Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED RvfPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.43 (1.06) 0.31 (0.77) 0.26 (0.65)
Disturbed Wet Flat 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Urban/Disturbed 0.37 (0.92) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
TOTAL: 0.81 (2.00) 0.31 (0.77) 0.26 (0.65)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of Alternative A will total 0.81 hectares (2.00 ac). These
impacts are restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridges and roadway
approach segments. Approximately one-half of these impacts will occur in bottomland hardwood
forest within the study corridor.
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 minor variations in
potential impacts. Temporary Detour 1 will impact slightly more of the bottomland hardwood forest
than Temporary Detour 2.
Terrestrial
The study corridor consists of contiguous bottomland hardwoods surrounded by small areas of
disturbed uplands. These areas provide necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for
wildlife species adapted to non-fragmented bottomland hardwood habitat.
Expected mammalian species include marsh rabbit (SyWagus palustris), golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttalli), bobcat (Fells rufus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Expected avifaunal species are typical of bottomland hardwood communities. Species of note include
hooded warbler (lilsonia citrina), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), great crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus crinitus), summer tanager (Aranga rubra), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyaus americanus),
wood duck (Aix sponsa), and barred owl (Strix varia).
Big Marsh Swamp is considered fair for recreational fishing for redfin pickerel (Esox americanus),
warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), flier (Centrarrhus macropterus), and various sunfishes (Lepomis spp.)
(Fish 1968). Nongame species expected include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek
chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), and eastern mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki).
Reptile and amphibian species are expected to be common is this area. Amphibians such as marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus),
southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer)
may utilize ephemeral pools with the floodplain for breeding. Other semi-aquatic species expected
to utilize the aquatic habitats of the bottomland include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
pickerel frog (Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), mud snake (Farancia abacura), redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), eastern
n'bbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed improvements will
not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Maintenance of regular flow and stream integrity will minimise potential downstream impacts to
aquatic habitat by the proposed replacements. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimised by the
implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
SPECIAL TOPICS
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).
Surface waters within embankments of Big Marsh Swamp are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3).
The study corridor is within a braided creek system with widely fluctuating areas overflowing into
the adjacent bottom land forest. The system appears to have been channelized at each of the bridges.
For this reason, surface water impacts have been included with the bottomland hardwood wetlands.
Based on the three parameter approach, two jurisdictional wetland systems have been identified,
corresponding to the bottomland hardwood forest and disturbed wet flat plant communities.
The bottomland hardwood forest exhibits characteristics of palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous, seasonally flooded wetlands (PFO1 C). The disturbed wet flat exhibits characteristics of
palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduousibroad-leaved evergreen, seasonally flooded wetlands
(PFOl/3C). Wetland hydrology in both of these communities is maintained primarily by seasonal
inundation from stream channel flow.
Table 2. Estimated wetland impacts.
WETLAND TYPE ESTIMATED IMPACT
in hectares (acres in parentheses)
Alternative A Temp. Detour 1 Temp. Detour 2
PFOI/3C 0.01 (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
PFO1C 0.43(l.06) 0.31 (0.77) 0.26 (0.65)
TOTAL: 0.44(l.08) 0.31 (0.77) 0.26 (0.65)
Impacts to wetlands as a result of Alternative A will total 0.44 hectare (1.08 ac). These impacts are
restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments.
Temporary on site detour alternatives each impact nearly the same amount of wetlands. Temporary
Detour 1 will impact 0.05 hectare (0.12 ac) more wetlands than Temporary Detour 2. Bridging will
mininn a impacts to surface waters; however, minor impacts are expected as a result of a bridge
replacement with a reinforced concrete box culvert.
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
10
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.
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project.
Species with 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 Robeson County (August
23, 1996 USFWS list):
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
N ichaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T(S/A)
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). NHP records indicate
that the nearest reported sightings of this species are approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5 mi) northwest
of the study corridor, and 8.0 kilometers (5.0 mi) southwest of the study corridor. Suitable habitat
was not found within the study corridor.
This project will not 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 (pine or pine-
hardwood forest containing pines greater than 30 years) within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux's sumac - N ichaux's sumac is a densely pubescent, deciduous, rhizomatous shrub that
grows in disturbed areas where competition is reduced by periodic fire or other disturbances; this
species may grow along roadside margins or utility right-of-ways (Weakley 1993). NHP records
indicate that in 1982 this species was present at a site approximately 4.8 kilometers (3.0 mi) east of
the study corridor. This population has not been relocated in subsequent surveys of the same area.
Although roadsides and utility right-of-ways may sometimes provide suitable habitat for Michaux's
sumac, within the study corridor these habitats are located on fill material placed across Big Marsh
Swamp. This project is not expected to affect Michaux's sumac because roadside margins within the
study corridor are the result of linear fill through a swamp, regularly maintained, and do not provide
habitat for Michaux's sumac.
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. NHP records indicate that
this species has not been documented within 2.4 kilometers (1.5 mi) of the study corridor.
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
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 Robeson County:
Common Name
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Bachman 's sparrow
Southern hognose snake
Carolina gopher frog
Awned meadowbeauty
Bog spicebush
Carolina bogmint
Dwarf burhead
Georgia indigo-bush
Sandhills milkvetch
Venus flytrap
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii N
Aimophila aestivalis N
Heterodon simus N
Rana capito capito N
Rhexia aristosa N
Lindera subcoriacea N
Macbridea caroliniana Y
Echinodorus parvulus Y
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana N
Astragalus michauxii N
Dionaea muscipula N
12
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened
('1), 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 seg.).
A review of NHP records indicates that no state-listed species are known to occur within 2.4
kilometers (1.5 mi) of the study corridor. Based on the absence of the documented presence of state-
listed species within the study corridor, no impacts on state-listed species are expected as a result of
this project.
IX. 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. 20 and Bridge No. 22, 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 that 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.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing potentially unsafe bridges.
Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic volumes are low and other connecting
roadways in the immediate vicinity are available.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
13
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 bridges.
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.
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 existing bridges in their existing locations, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality `beutral" 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. An abandoned landfill is located in the
northwest portion of the project area. An investigation of this site was conducted by the NCDOT
Geotechnical Unit on June 20, 1996. Several soil borings were advanced into the fill soils to
determine the presence of hazardous materials. The results show this fill area to consist of 1 to 1.2
meters (3 to 4 ft) of clayey sand soil underlain by a highly organic layer of muck and decomposed
limbs, branches and other vegetation. Minor amounts of surficial trash were also observed in the area.
This "trespass dumping" consists mainly of household refuse and small construction debris. A large
sloped mound is also present on the site. Soil borings were advanced into this mound to determine
the composition. The results show the mound to be composed of a clayey sand soil with no evidence
of waste material involvement. Further investigations into the use of this site show that it once served
14
as a trash receiving point for Robeson County. The mound was constructed so that garbage could
be back dumped into containers. These containers were subsequently transported from this site to the
County Landfill in Rowland, NC. Reportedly, the site has been inactive for over a decade and has
never served as a typical landfill for waste debris. This site is not expected to be affected by replacing
the bridges in their existing locations.
Robeson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The bridges are
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 bridges 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.
15
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 Development (DNRCD). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100
PP.
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 Lumber River Basin. State of North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
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.
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 ofNorth Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
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.
16
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service. Miscellaneous Publication 1491.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. USDA
Soil Conservation Service. 69 pp.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of November
1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 575 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
17
NOS. 20 & 22
LOOKING NORTH

LOOKING SOUTH
i
FIGURE 3
i
d
/ 11
l_ _J
-I
I iOO:(
?l

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 Trans ort?ation? (?,, `'/
FROM: David Brook (;2.i1lJJl?? V cb
Deputy State Hi t ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group XI Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridges 20 and 22 on SR 1916 over Big Marsh Swamp,
Robeson County, B-2862, ER 96-8565
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
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
Federal Aid # I3R7- - Iq ((0' (4 ) TIP # C , - UU L, County
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V r0FL A&& Wf-IPG44 40. 20 "0 ,4,2 ow 5IL 1°I t?
MA9444 ,AAMP (0,040W, &460P -At)
P>t C
On N1M1 11010 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
rcvicwcd 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 propcrtv, properties
identified as are 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:
DOT
°1 ?1-11`
.Date
FHA A for the Division dministrator, or other Federal Agency Date
l1eiusl??kni? ?,- IC, 1?(,
Representative, SHPO ate
State Historic Preservation Officer / Dat6
If a survey report is prcparcd, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list N%ill be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
ID EHNR
April 15, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Phil Harris
From: Eric Galambj`/,?
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 Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
REPLY TO
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
Dear Mr. Vick:
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 Lrhe 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 regardina the Federal
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.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
April 11, 1996
/ / / TITS `\\
50°
.? u o
???n
C.
Q T-
?? cn
-2
J\` J.
J\
y?,IMG & EN?`?
-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,
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 Wildl-fe Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Q?PPtMENT OF rye/yam United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office ` C E I
Post Office Box 33726 V
M4RCH 3 'Ib Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726 ./?
March 27, 1996
MAR 2 b 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick DNISICP4 C;,
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways C?'8'J's HIGHWAYS
P.O. Box 25201 ?'?RONW
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 outlined 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):
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. 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 accompanying 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.
Si "yo `/
F4.1Wklsn Lan \\
Acting fie an
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