20001555 Ver 1_Complete File_20001212

A _t

®1555
C1Er i 2 2000

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
November 27, 2000
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy, M.S.
NCDOT Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Bladen County, Bridges No. 57 and No. 53 on SR 1760 over
Brown Marsh Swamp; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1760(3); State
Project No. 8.2420501; TIP No. B-2922.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion project-
planning document prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
and signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on August 6, 1997. There is
also a project environmental consultation form attached, that explains one change in the
Categorical Exclusion from the design plan of a RCBC to a bridge. The project involves
replacing Bridges No. 57 and 53 over Brown Marsh Swamp on SR 1760 with two new
bridges. Both bridge replacements are on the same alignment and roadway elevation as
the existing bridges. The new structure for Bridge No. 57 will be 13.4 meters (44 feet)
long. The new structure for Bridge No. 53 will be 45.7 meters (150 feet) long. Approach
work will consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot)
lanes with 1.8 meter (6 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The
total project length will be approximately 275 meters (900 feet). Traffic will be detoured
along secondary roads during construction.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Volume 61, Number 241.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
Brown Marsh Swamp is the only jurisdictional wetland that will be impacted by
the bridge replacements. The best usage classification for Brown Marsh Swamp is C Sw.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification Sw
(Swamp Waters) refers to waters which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. The calculated wetland impacts
on the project total 0.58 acres. These impacts are detailed in a project drawing located in
the permit application. A large portion of the 0.58 acres of wetlands are drainage ditches
that lie at the toe of the existing slope. These ditches were included in the wetland
delineation to be a part of the jurisdictional wetland of the adjacent Brown Marsh
Swamp.
Bridge No.'s 53 and 57 are located on SR 1760 over Brown Marsh Swamp in
Bladen County. Both existing bridges are composed of a concrete deck on timber joints
with timber caps and piles. There is potential for components to be dropped into Waters
of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
these bridges is 54 cubic yards. All temporary fill material will be removed from the
creek as part of the bridge removal process. The substructure will be removed without
dropping components into the water. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case
3 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
implementing and properly maintaining all Best Management Practices (BMP's) to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Clay Willis at [phone], Extension 334.
Sincerely,
Ltzi t
^-' William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. T.R. Gibson, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Dave Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
c
o?

• REVISIONS
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
4
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN FIYDRAUUCS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
N
g

d

-L- POTs. ttn
WOTS

e- -7 in
r

--u %v Fow Ra w BS7

_ f
?1
w
a ' Lu
t
J a LAj
TYRONE RAY COBB
w 290 PG 992
TRACT S
V
>6)
SBaJ9 `\
STA. 10+40.00 U BEGIN STATE PRO.IECT B
DATUM DESCRIPTION
THE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT
IS BASED ON THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BY
NCGS FOR MONUMENT 'ENTRANCE 2"
WITH HAD 83 STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OF
= NORTHING:2772455118ffU EASTIKx 2104474T970ffD
r THE AVERAGE COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT
(GROUND TO GRID) IS. 99994965
THE N.C.LAMBERT GRID BEARING
LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FROM
"ENTRANCE 2" TO •L- STATION 10+40M IS
S 50. 50'514 " E 7080553'
ALL LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NGVD 29
T/Mt, lypF
VIA n
?y O
RELATION TO PAVEMENT
CH SLAB
EE SHEET NO, 6
XXX FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
REVISIONS
__-..ter
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
------------------------------------------
__________________________________________
---------------------- ___-----___
N
a
v
?z
?i
d
N
?y
T-
L? WOODS•
Z •
v
i

TY
De22
Tom-
CLASS 'B' RIP RAP
OUTLET PROTECTION
EST. I TON
EST. 5 S.Y. F/F
10 LINEAR FT
CC SHOULDER BE
W/ELBOWS• GUTTER
2GI FLAT GRATE
U ELBOWS
2U PYK TAPER WOOD F D A

TYPE
- -

10 LINEAR
SHOULDER
GUTTER
n
IN WETLANDS 15' CS
W/ELBOWS
RAP
CLASS 'B' OUTLET PROTECTION
_ EST ]TON

:
EST. S S.Y. F/F
O
/ h
TYRONE RAY COBB
DO 290 PG 992

TRACT i
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
?=2322___
kW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
SHEER NO.
ENGINEER
\ sETA1L ((11
\ \ oCUT BASE DITCH
s?a,r
\ 3` oircn
Sboa
La? Mh.0 = LO Ft.
EIP B = S.D F t.
® DENOTES WETLANDS 0.23 ACRES) TO 28+35S GRADE
N
LT/RT
:Y
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING IN WETLANDS 0.25
DENOTES EXCAVATION DGE APPROACH SLAB
IN WETLANDS 0.08 OF -L- SEE SHEET NO. 6
NO.)= TO XXX FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
?N
,a
61
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
A. Project Description:
MABRZ-1760(3)
001555
The project consists of replacing Bridge No's. 53 and 57 on SR 1760 over
Brown Marsh Swamp in Bladen County. The existing Bridge No. 53 is located
approximately 200 meters (650 feet) northeast of Bridge No. 57. The new structure to
replace Bridge No. 53 will be a 2 @ 2.7 meter by 2.1 meter (9 foot by 7 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to replace Bridge No. 57
will be a bridge approximately 42.7 meters (140 feet) in length. Both replacements
will be located at approximately the same location and roadway elevations as the
existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.8 meter (6 foot)
shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total project length will be
approximately 275 meters (900 feet). Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads
during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 53 has a sufficiency rating of 48.4 out of 100. Bridge No. 57 has a
sufficiency rating of 46.2 out of 100. Both structures are two lane bridges with
7.3 meters (24 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design standards specify a
width of 8.5 meters (28 feet). Bridge No. 53 is posted for 27 tons for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 57 is posted for 24 tons for single vehicles and 33 tons for TTST's. The
"Do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as
the existing bridges completely deteriorate. Rehabilitation of the existing
deteriorating bridges is neither practical nor economical. For these reasons, Bridge
No's. 53 and 57 need to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
B-2922
8.2420501
weaving, turning, climbing).

r?
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a: Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes.
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
O repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
2
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity. center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
The "Draft Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at Highway Crossings"
will be followed throughout construction. The guidelines include minimization of in-
stream activities in the months of March, April, and May. The complete guidelines
are attached to this document.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 675,000
Right of Way $ 35,000
Total $ 710,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 900 VPD
Year 2018 - 1,600 VPD
TTST - 1%
DUAL - 3%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 1.0 meters (3 feet) on the bridge
1.8 meters (6 feet) on the approaches
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 3 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridges in place and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during
construction.

4

E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
5

PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
YES NO
N/A
X
X
X
X
YES NO
X
x
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
X

6
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? J X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws, relating to the environmental aspects of the action. X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
7
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl x
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined x
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated. as a component of or proposed for x
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Question 3: The "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" will
be followed throughout construction. These guidelines detail recommendations that allow
for construction that will not impede the migration of anadromous fish species.
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2922
State Project No. 8.2420501
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1760(3)
Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No's. 53 and 57 on SR 1760 over
Brown Marsh Swamp in Bladen County. The existing Bridge No. 53 is located
approximately 200 meters (650 feet) northeast of Bridge No. 57. The new structure to
replace Bridge No. 53 will be a 2 @ 2.7 meter by 2.1 meter (9 foot by 7 foot)
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The new structure to replace Bridge No. 57
will be a bridge approximately 42.7 meters (140 feet) in length. Both replacements
will be located at approximately the same location and roadway elevations as the
existing bridges. The travelway on the bridge will be two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.8 meter (6 foot)
shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total project length will be
approximately 275 meters (900 feet). Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads
during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
t-e 1-2
7-:5 i-97 ,
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
7-3>-97 4lccyhe- L47/,Q7y-
Date Project Planning Unit Head
7-3/97
Date Proj t anning En eer
Date ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9
•? ?N
aQ ?
CLARKTON 80 s
POP. 752 ? 17 1760
??• ..S / f / ,' 1710 N ???"•?•
1764
58 l 1 166 / ' 4 ? • ? - \
a1 e?
a ? O
190 1167 701 • ' ` 41, /' I 1•3 1763
• i0 1.
I Elkton
yr? Amnon ti l 1759 1.9 N • 1 \•
-. +\
kite Oak LADE IN,
LAKE
! S
.10 AT s•w, a 41 - 1757
fin,
l_I i Z? .`Bav T.n e
•`• ?• l
41 [ White . Lyfx
r+=`?_ ? L.A.
`'? Is 1758 . • 1
bethtown; T P?}fFORE57 ?Y • ?+
N to',
soil ?? ?-. ???•`o / •
Oro V '•^ 9 \c. ;
l/ Lisbon ,i 53 Studied Detour Route
w., North Carolina ,
Department Of Transportation
A'
?' Planning & Environmental Branch
BLADEN COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO's. 57 AND 53
ON SR 1760 OVER BROWN MARSH SWAMP
B-2922
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
'
~. •
. - 1777 6 \
v
1710
1139 9
?
? •
,•
1.7 \ 1700
- ,9
1142 ' - " 1
1771
arsh-, lot f
f 1788

1.6
1762 1712 1
' Bluefield 1712
Brown Marsh
Ch. Lit

Rogers 1778

\
c ?? 1761
? 2.9 ?
,
7
'? W+w 1vc?• ??
J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor - Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 30, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New. Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 57. on SR 1760 over Brown
Marsh Swamp, Bladen County,.-B-..2922, ER 97-
7213
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 25, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1??a
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.
Z S4=e ely,
avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw /
cc: H. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett

STREAM CROSSING GUIDELINES
FOR ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE
Anadromous Fish are a valuable resource and
must not be adversely impacted. The purpose
is to provide guidance to the North Carolina
Transportation to ensure that replacement of
highway stream crossing structures will not
movement of Anadromous Fish.
Applicable When:
their migration
of this document
Department of
existing and new
impede the
o Project is in the coastal plain defined by the
"Fall Line" as the approximate western limit
(see attached figure).
o For perennial and intermittent streams delineated
on most recent USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps.
General Guidelines:
o Design and scheduling of projects should avoid the
necessity of instream activities during the spring
migration period. For the purposes of these
guidelines "Spring" is considered to fall between
February 15 and June 15. (In areas where the
shortnose sturgeon may be present, the Cape Fear,
Brunswick and Waccamaw Rivers, spring shall be
defined as February 1 to June 15).
o Bridges and other channel spanning structures
are preferred where practical.
Technical Guidelines:
o In all cases, the width, height and gradient of
the proposed opening shall be such as to pass
the average historical spring flow without
adversely altering flow velocity. Spring flow
should be determined from gage data if available.
In the absence of this data, bankfull flow can be
used as a comparative level. (Reference, "Fisheries
Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological
Criteria", Bell 1973, for fish swimming
limitations.)
o The invert of culverts shall be set at least one
foot below the natural stream bed.
Stream Crossing Guidelines
_ for Anadromous Fish Passage
Page -2-
o Crossings of perennial streams serving watersheds
greater than one square mile shall provide a
minimum of four (4) feet of additional opening
width (measured at spring flow elevation) to allow
for terrestrial wildlife passage.
o In stream footings for bridges will be set one foot
below the natural stream bed when practical.
For crossing sites which require permit review the following
information will be provided as a minimum to facilitate
resource agency review.
o Plan and profile views showing the existing and
proposed crossing structures in relation to the
stream bank and bed.
o Average historical spring flow (or bankfull flow)
for the site.
o How the proposed structure will affect the velocity
and stage of the spring flow (bankfull).
o Justification for any variance from the guideline
recommendations.
b
r`

b

h1 Z
C

9
i
a

I xl
r1 L)
-4 h
?.
lz
c
I
E

S . g . t
1 ` •? i ?? -?fy O Ca•

10

T
a
T
V
4
O
Y
z ti
C L"
F ?
t
D
u
t;
J
r`r' N
o
1
r
L
C C
C i!
N
N
u ?
T
x
,5 C
i
i

17
C
z
4
Q
r.
E
-C
c
n
J
C
s
r'
>i
Physleal Fg1turrs of North Cirollm Slbnlficantly Related to Erosion and Sediment Transport
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
I. D. No. B-2922
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase: Right of way
b. Project Description: Replace Bridge No's. 53 and 57 on SR 1760 over
Brown Marsh Swamp in Bladen County
C. State Project: 8.2420501
Federal Project: MABRZ-1760(3)
d. Document Type: Programmatic Categorical Exclusion 8-97
II. CONCLUSIONS
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR
771. It was determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the
original proposed action. Proposed changes, if any, are noted below in Section III. It has
been determined that anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts were
accurately described in the above referenced documents unless noted otherwise herein.
Therefore, the original Administration Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
There has been one change to the proposed action since the Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE). In the PCE, Bridge No. 53 was proposed to be replaced
with a 2 @ 2.7 meter by 2.1 meter (9 foot by 7 foot) RCBC. During the preliminary field
inspection, the local resident engineer suggested that the bridge be replaced with a new
bridge. A bridge will be easier to construct and maintain than a culvert at this particular
site. Bridge No. 53 over Brown Marsh Swamp Overflow is recommended to be replaced
with a new bridge approximately 13.4 meters (44 feet) in length.
As proposed in the PCE. Bridge No. 57 will be replaced with a bridge. The length of
the new bridge will be approximately 45.7 meters (150 feet), slightly longer than
originally proposed. Both bridges No. 53 and No. 57 will be replaced at their existing
locations and traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
The list of federally-protected species for Bladen County has not changed since the
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion was completed in August 1997. Field
investigations conducted at that time sufficiently address protected species concerns in
the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT ON FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
IV. COORDINATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch personnel have discussed
current project proposals with others as follows:
Roadway Design Engineer: Gary Lovering 5-1-00
a? to -
Permit Specialist: Logan Williams 5-1-00
Date
VI. N. C. D. O. T. CONCURRENCE
/ S-/- o0
Proje elopment gineer Date
Manager of Project Development and Date
Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bladen County, SR 1760 A
Replace Bridge No's. 53 and 57
,
,:. Over Brown Marsh Swamp and Overflow:.
Aid Project MABRZ-1760(3) Federal
rr State Project 8.2420501
TIP No B 2912
?. r• :c gvs'?.t "S:?i• i ? ;, -? ' +_t rh t ?.?.' .1 Ufa' `,5?+?,. 4•?,??sr?: ,° 3'i•.?vii'r ,,.,' ..
In addition to the standard Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23'General r?
Conditions and Special Conditions,' as well;as Section 401 Water Quality Certification a YW C General Conditions, the following special commitments have been agreed to .b'
f , z
the NCDOT ~? 4k
Division 6
The "DraftGuidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage at Highway Crossings . will
be followed throughout construction..._The guidelines include minimization of in-stream
activities from February 15 to June 15
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be used in the removal of
the existing structure
Right of Way Consultation - B-2922
May 2000
SrATr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
24 February 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
FROM: Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 57 and 53 on SR 1760 over Brown
Marsh Swamp. Bladen County; TIP No. B-2922; State
Project No. 8.2420501; Federal Project No. BRZ-1760(3).
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Unit
This report is to assist in the preparation of a Type II Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project. This report contains information regarding water
resources, biotic resources, waters of the United States, permit requirements and federally
protected species within the study area.
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 57 and 53 on SR 1760
at existing location, with traffic detoured on existing roads during construction (Figure 1).
• The existing cross section for Bridge No. 57 is a 7.7 m (25.3 ft) wide bridge. This
structure will be replaced with a bridge 42.7 m (140 ft) long and 8.5 m (28 ft) wide at
existing roadway elevation.
• The existing cross section for Bridge No. 53 is a 8.5 m (28 ft) wide bridge. This
structure will be replaced with a reinforced concrete box culvert or a bridge at existing
roadway elevation (dimensions to be determined at a later date).
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area was
obtained and reviewed. Information sources include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Whiteville), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, NCDOT aerial
photographs of the project area (1:1200), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS),
formerly known as Soil Conservation Service, soil maps (Bladen County, 1990), N.C.
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of
e

i.
i'
i.
t?
i'
as
•? , •2 1.3 :?? I
CLARKTON BO s .
POP. 752
701 ? 1760 1760
• S l /? 1 1710 N
1764
o`er " S \
n 1 c/
„fl 701
1=0 1 167 • 1 3
s?:l-? inn iwny- - 1 Para 1 / ' p E11Qon 9 rte- -
173
L?.=
1710:
1139
1 c1i \
1. 7 1700 ?. • 9
11,12 / \ - - I 1471 I t:
f ?fs?-•-? 701 f , '
• 1788 i 1
1762 1712 ,Z. 1.6
1
Brown Marsh Bluen"eld 1712
t c Ch, uk
N
Royer 1778
\ E t? 1761 • /
f 2.9
Heel
r
7 7
131
t?
B
amr t
1
.I t
t,
I• 3 1
1
t AD bortsOw
• ` 1
u` 11i
87 t
lay
• ` N
?1T:c3
• ? ?' 1001
1757
^?! j
175-:
_ Por=er/ ille
1 756 t-;
a =a: va
4. North Carolina
Department Of Transportation '
P;
Planning S Environmental Branch
BLADEY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO's. 57 AND 53
ON SR 1760 OVER BROWN MARSH SINANIP
B-292'_
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
r -i Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
2
Bladen County (1995), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and
N .C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
A field investigation was conducted on 15 January 1997 by NCDOT biologists Mark
Hartman and Bruce Ellis to assess natural resources at the project site. Water resources
were identified and described. Plant communities were surveyed and wildlife populations
were predicted using general qualitative habitat assessments.
Water Resources
The project study area lies within the Cape+ear--? rainage Basin. One water
body is crossed by the proposed project [Brown Marsh Swamp (DEM Index no. 15-4-1-1-1,
7/1/73)]. Brown Marsh Swamp is a low flow coastal plain stream. The substrate is
composed of sand and gravel with nonturbid water stained with tannin. The channel at the
bridge site is the width of the bridge and the depth could not be determined at the time of
the site visit.
Brown Marsh Swamp has been assigned a. Best Usage Classification by the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which
denotes water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The best usage
classification for Brown Marsh Swamp is C Sw. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Sw
(Swamp water) is a supplemental water classification including waters which have low
velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the DWQ, is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term
trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed
sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and assigned a taxa richness value.
Samples are also assigned a "biotic index" that summarizes tolerance data for all species in
each collection. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of
chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as
sediment. Data is currently unavailable for the project area.
Impacts to water resources are anticipated from project construction. Potential
sources of impacts to water resources include: instream construction, grading, vegetation
removal, pavement installation, and construction related traffic. These activities can result
in increased sediment loads and the runoff of toxic substances such as fuel, oil, and tar into
the swamp. Impacts are best minimized by limiting earth removal activities and
implementing NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project,
where applicable.
Anadromous fish are a valuable resource and their migration must not be adversely
impacted. The proposed project is located in the Coastal Plain and is therefore subject to
3
the guidelines defined in NCDOT's Draft Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage. These guidelines detail recommendations that allow for construction that
will not impede the migration of anadromous fish species including, minimization of instream
activities during the spring migration period.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water supplies (WS-I or WS-II)
or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study
area.
Terrestrial Communities
The biotic communities in the study area can be described as Disturbed and consist
of the highly maintained roadside shoulders grading into Cypress-Gum Swamp. The
roadside is maintained in an early succession state and is dominated by Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon) and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.). With increasing distance from the
roadside maintenance occurs less frequently and diversity is increased accordingly.
Common species in this portion of the disturbed community are: vervain (Verbena
bonariensis), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans); American elm (Ulmus amencana),
mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), (Miscanthus sinesis), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
and daylily (Hemerocallis fulva).
The Cypress-Gum Swamp Community occurs outside the fill slopes of the existing
road. Only the ecotonal fringe of this community will be impacted by project- construction.
The canopy in this community is dominated
from the fringe of ?h this comtmunity)ared black
gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Other species recorded
duckweed (Lemna perpusilla), cattail (Typha latifolia), and burreed (Sparangium sp. ). The
adjacent Cypress-gum Swamp occurs a outside the fill slopes of the existing road. Only the
ecotonal fringe of this community is located within the proposed ROW for the project. The
ssa
swamp canopy is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium
t in other black gum
disturbed
sylvatica). The groundcover includes species present
community.
All of the fauna found in the study area represent highly adaptive genera that can be
found. many different communities. Common species that are likely to utilize habitats found
in the study area include: black racer (Coluber constrictor), snapping turtle (Chelydra
(Acris
Corvgs rufous-sided towhee
serpentina), southern cricket
cottontail (Sylvagus
erythrophthalmus), common
floridanus), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus).
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the
project length of 305 m (1000 ft), and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft).
I
4
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less. Approximately 0.28 ha (0.69 ac) of disturbed
community will be impacted by construction of the proposed project.
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project construction will have a minimal
impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Construction will impact the disturbed
community which is already highly altered from its natural state. Plants and animals found
in this community are generally common throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to
persisting in disturbed areas. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities
should repopulate areas of suitable habitat following project completion.
Indirect effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While, mortality
among more mobile species can be expected from project construction, these effects are
anticipated to be minor, since the existing roadway already serves as an effective barrier
against wildlife migration.
In order to minimize impacts to natural communities in the project vicinity it is
recommended that all cleared areas along roadways and embankments be revegetated
immediately following project completion.
Aquatic Communities
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic community
composition and structure.
Brown Marsh Swamp is characterized by extremely slow flow and water stained with
tannin. Aquatic habitats found within this community are the stream channels, semi-
permanent pools, and permanently inundated pools. An extensive riparian canopy exists
throughout this community, canopy composition is described with the terrestrial
communities. Fauna in this community generally utilize all habitats during some part of the
year. Species adapted to periodic flooding events are found in the highest numbers.
Common piscine species include: redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), bluespotted sunfish
(Enneacanthus gloriosus), and longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus). Aquatic organisms
commonly found in semipermanently flooded bottomlands include; bowfin (Amia calva),
eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki), and
crayfish (Procambarus spp.). This community also supports nonpiscine species such as
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) and brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota).
Piscivorous birds such as belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alycon) perch on low hanging
branches in the riparian canopy and prey on small fish. Relic shells of mussels (Elliptio sp)
were also found in the study area.
Aquatic Community Impacts
Alterations in the aquatic communities will result from the replacement of the existing
bridge structure. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include loss of
5
natural stream substrates, increased channelizatio of water flow, n to wring of stream
channels. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate composition. a additionaquatic
water
organisms, resulting in changes in aquatic community comp ocity. movement through these structures becomes direct, thus culvert increasing thws. ow elme cafes a
result, scouring zones may develop within the channel a
must be exercised during these activities to minimize sedimentation an culvertensure that water
flow will not become restricted or abrasive at either end proposed It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will habitat occur from increased sedimentation, increased light f penetration and loss ability to feed and
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms and filter
obtain oxygen. Increased sediment loads and suspe o d particulates in to in water column
can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth light penetr the water
en and alterations in water temperature. Increased light
column, reduction of dissolved oxyg
penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may also increase water
temperatures. .
In order to minimize impacts to aquutic communities in the project area it is
recommended that instream activities be kept at a minimum.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters
hat RRegister (C R)o art inundated
of the United States," as defined in section 33 of the thcode ose of areas Federal
those
328.3. Wetlands, also defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are o
saturated by surface or ground water at acre ofa vegetation typ cally adapted to life
under normal circumstances do support, prevalence
in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to fill material into these
404
USACE) under section as fall olls rmy
Corp
under the jurisdiction of the U3 . ? S C 13445 of Enginee
the Clean Water Act (CWA).
osed
Approximately 0.21 ha (0.51 ac) of ecotonal wetlands occur of the ex stipg poadway
right-of-way. These wetlands occur outside the existing fIII slopes impacted by
for the entire project length. It is unlikely that these wetlands wetlands will bedirectly ecommended
project construction. In order to avoid secondary impa ?ireco
that NCDOT's BMP's and erosion control devices be installed where app
Permit Requirements
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to izes Waters of the United States resulting from the propose
fu died or finan ed n'who e?ror part,
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
fo ema meat menting thetermined
by has de another Federal agency or department where that agency
the pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
F7
6
(1) 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) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into
waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a CAMA or Section 404 Permit.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE. .
Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. No
federally protected species are listed for Iredell County and four federally protected species
are listed for Bladen County by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as of 23 August 1996
(Table 1). A brief description of these species and habitat requirements follow.
Table 1: Federally protected species for Bladen Countv.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal 'Status

short-nose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T (S/A)
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
southern spicebush Lindera melissifolia E
rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperufolia E
American chaffseed Schwalbea americana E
Note:
•"E"' denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
•"T (S/A) denotes a species threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
species and is listed for trade purposes to protect those species. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
7
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon) Endangered
Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small (1 meter in length) species of fish which occurs
in the lower sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St. John River,
Canada to the Indian River, Florida. It can be differentiated from the Atlantic sturgeon
because of its shorter snout, wider mouth, and the pattern of its preanal shields (the
short-nose having one row.and the Atlantic which has two).
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a salinity less'than sea water.
It feeds benthicly on invertebrates and. plant material and is most active at night. It is an
anadromous species that spawns upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within
close proximity of the rivers mouth. At least two. entirely freshwater populations have been
recorded, in South Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by
dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Brown Marsh Swamp does not provide suitable habitat for the short-nosed sturgeon.
The proposed project is located above Lock No. 1 on the Cape Fear River. Lock No. 1 is
known to be an impedance to the migration of this species (Moser and Ross, 1993). A
search of the NHP database showed no records for this species in the project vicinity.
Therefore; no impacts to this species will result from project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range
and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate
populations occur in the sandhills and southern coastal plain. The few populations found in
the piedmont and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus palustns), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate
8
habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up
to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They
can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The large
incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible
predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring
from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days
later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising
the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal
wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Forested communities located in the project vicinity are dominated by hardwood
species composed are significantly less than 50% pine trees. A search of the NHP
database showed no RCW cavities located in the project vicinity. Therefore, suitable
habitat for this species does not occur in the study area and no impacts to this species will
result from project construction.
Lindera melissifolia (pondberry) Endangered
Family: Lauraceae
Federally Listed: July 31, 1986
Flowers Present: March - early April
The pondberry is currently known from 19 populations in the southeastern United
States. North Carolina is home to only one known population; this population occurs on
private land in Bladen County.
Pondberry is a deciduous, aromatic shrub that has a distinct sassafras-like odor. It
grows approximately 2 meters tall and spreads through stolons. Leaves in the pondberry
are six to sixteen centimeters long and two to six centimeters wide, arranged alternately,
have rounded bases, and droop downward. It has small pale yellow flowers that appear in
early spring before the leaves. The fruit which matures in August or September is a bright
red drupe.
This plant grows in lowland habitats with hydric soils. These sites are generally
flooded at some time during the growing season. It is associated with the margins of sinks,
ponds, and other like depressions. The soils present are sandy with a high peat content in
the subsurface. Areas inhabited by this species show signs of past fire maintenance and
now have shrubby conditions. The plants generally grow in shady areas but may also be
found in areas that receive full sunlight.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
9
Suitable habitat for this species is located on the outer slopes of the roadsides
throughout the study area. Surveys for this species should be conducted during its
flowering season in order to determine its presence in the study area.
Lysimachia aspenilaefolia
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally .Listed: 12 June
Flowers Present: June
(rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
1987.
This. plant which, is endemic to the coastal plain' and sandhills of North and South
Carolina and is currently found in nine locations in North Carolina and is believed to be
extirpated from South Carolina.
This perennial herb has slender stems that-grow,to a height of three to six dm from a
rhizome. The whorled leaves encircle the stem at intervals below the showy yellow flowers,
and usually occur in threes or fours. Flowers are borne in terminal racemes of five petal
flowers. Fruits are present from July through October.
This species occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peat, poorly
drained soil), on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils
overlaying sand. It has also been found to occur on deep peat in the low shrub community
of large Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origins).
The areas it occurs in are fire maintained. It is rarely associated with hardwood stands and
prefers acidic soils.
Biological Conclusion:
Unresolved
Suitable habitat for this species is located on the outer slopes of the roadsides
throughout the study area. Surveys for this species should be conducted during its
flowering season in order to determine its presence in the study area.
Schwalbea americana (American chaffseed) Endangered
Family: Scrophulariaceae
Federally Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late May-early June
This species is known historically from Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia in which it has been
extirpated. The only confirmed North Carolina population is on Fort Bragg military base in
Hoke County.
The American chaffseed is an erect herb whose stems branch only at the base (if at
all) and grow to a height of 3-8 dm. The entire plant is pubescent, with upwardly curving
hairs. The narrow leaves are alternate, lance-shaped to elliptic, stalkless, and 2 to 5
centimeters long. The leaves are three veined and become progressively smaller towards
10
the top. It bears solitary flowers in the axils of the upper most leaves. The purplish-yellow
flowers are arranged into racemes. The fruits are a long narrow capsule, enclosed in a
loose-fitting sack-like structure.
This species occurs in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas,
ecotonal areas between peat wetlands and open grass-sedge systems. Soils are generally
sandy, acidic, and seasonally moist to dry. Fire is important in the maintenance of open
habitat for the American chaffseed.
Biological conclusion:
Unresolved
Suitable habitat for this species is located on the outer slopes of the roadsides
throughout the study area. Surveys for this species should be conducted during its
flowering season in order to determine its presence in the study area.
cc. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor ,
File: B-2922
e^ SWTF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
30 July 1997
Memorandum To Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit'
From: Christopher A. Murray, Environmental Biologist
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
Subject: Federally-protected plant surveys for proposed
replacement of Bridges No. 57'and 53 on SR 1760
over Brown Marsh Swamp in Bladen County. TIP No.
B-2922; State Project No.' 8.2420501; Federal
Project NO. .BRZ-1760(3).
Attention: Jeff Ingham, Project Engineer
Bridge Unit
Reference: Natural Resources Technical Report (NCDOT, 24
February 1997).
The subject project involves the replacement of Bridges No.
57 and 53 on SR 1760 over Brown Marsh Swamp in Bladen County.
This memo addresses a federally-protected species issue for the
above-mentioned project. Biological Conclusions of Unresolved
were issued for pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), rough-leaved
loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), and American chaffseed
(Schwalbea americana). A complete description of these species
was presented in the referenced document.
Habitat for pondberry, rough-leaved loosestrife, and American
chaffseed does exist in the project study area. A plant-by-plant
survey was conducted on 30 July 1997 by NCDOT Biologist
Christopher A. Murray to determine if these species are located in
the project study area. No populations of pondberry, rough-leaved
loosestrife, or American chaffseed were identified in the project
study area. A review of the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) rare
species and unique habitat database, which was conducted before
the site visit, did not reveal any populations of these species
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to
these species will not occur from project construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
0

0
2
CC: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2922

FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Wate(ORW;ri rhThreened and/or e esour a will be Endangered Species
coordinated Twith
Species). All work potentially g t
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will ofpthe ly oto bth ld st thure.
construction of the new structure and demolition and Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
. t. FINAL
9-20-99
Bridze Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
• If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
• If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
• Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3

FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
• In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall. be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall, be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3