20010222 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

eµ STATE s?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0l v-zzZ
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3358 Onslow No. 91 SR 1509 ill Goodwin
B-3362 Person No. 11 US 158 /tennis Pipkin
B-3324 Davidson No. 460 SR 1318 /Dennis Pipkin
B-3142 Columbus No. 12 NC 242 Jeff Ingham
B-3148 Columbus No. 248 /\.) SR 1740 ?Jeff Ingham
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
Xriber 12, 1997 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room "x''470):
These scoping meetings will be held back to back ling at 2:00 P. M. for B-3358 and
B-3362. The remaining project meetings will begin at 2:30 P. M. in the order shown above.
These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project, so all attendees should plan to arrive
at the beginning of the 2:00 P. M. or 2:30 P. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments

a . srArt'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICI IAEI. F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 9, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION:
SUBJECT
Dear Sir:
Mr. Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
State Project No. 8.2430501; TIP No. B-3148.
010222
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Replacement of Bridge No. 248 on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp in
Columbus County; Federal-Aid No. MABRZ-1740(1)
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in June 1999. The project involves replacing
bridge No. 248 on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp, Columbus County. The 140 foot bridge
structure will be a placed along the same alignment and location as the existing bridge.
The approach work will consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 12-foot
lanes with 8-foot shoulders. Total project length will be approximately 350 feet.
Guardrail will be installed where warranted. During construction, traffic will be detoured
along US 74/76 and NC 211. Project construction will permanently impact 0.17 acres of
wetlands.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
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 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
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, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Quality (DWQ), for their review. A copy of this document is also being provided to the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) for their review. The DOT is requesting that
the WRC provide comments to the COE concerning permit requests.
Bridge No. 248 is located on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp in Columbus County.
The deck and railings of the bridge are composed of concrete. The substructure is
composed of timber. The bridge railings and the substructure will be removed without
dropping these components into Waters of the US. There is potential for the components
of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the US during construction.. The total
temporary fill would be 104 cubic yards in a worst case scenario. In a worst case
scenario, the resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is approximately
32 cubic yards. Careful applications of Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition may result in a lesser impact. This bridge demolition has been classified as a
Case 3 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment). "There are no special
restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
i% c P? t,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
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. David 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

010222
A.
B
C
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3148
8.2430501
MABRZ-1740(1
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 248 on SR 1740 over Friar
Swamp in Columbus County. Bridge No. 248 will be replaced with a bridge
approximately 140 feet in length at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. The cross section of the proposed bridge will
consist of two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders.
The total project length will be approximately 350 feet. Traffic will be detoured
along US 74/76 and NC 211 during construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 248 has a sufficiency rating of 46.5 out of 100. The deck and
superstructure of this 48-year old bridge are in poor condition. For these reasons,
Bridge No. 248 needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
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 driveway 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. Channeling 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
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to 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
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Od Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
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.
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 not inconsistent 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 not inconsistent 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 UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the 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.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 575,000
Right of Way $ 19,000
Total $ 594,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2025
TTST
Dual
1400 VPD
3000 VPD
2%
2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
Travelway - two 12-foot lanes
Offsets - 3 feet on the bridge
8-foot shoulders on the approaches
Design Speed:
60 mph
Functional Classification:
Rural Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division 6 Office concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridge in place and detouring traffic along US 74/76 and NC 211 during
construction.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 248 is located on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp in Columbus
County. The deck and railings of the bridge are composed of concrete. The
substructure is composed of timber. The bridge railings and the substructure will
be removed without dropping these components into Waters of the United States.
There is potential for the components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck is approximately 32 yd.
3
4
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
-
unique on any unique or important natural resource? 1 X
F
(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
F]
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X ?
(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 (HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
-
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? 1 X
F
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(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)? ? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? F-1 X
5
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? -
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? ? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F-1 X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
-
human health and environmental effect on any minority or 1 X
F
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 F1
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? F-1 X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
F-1
and/or land use of 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,
therefore
in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X 7
,
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? ? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? ?
X
6
(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 and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? F-1 X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F1 X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? F-1 X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act F-1 X
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
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
None required.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3148
State Project No. 8.2430501
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1740(1)
Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 248 on SR 1740 over Friar
Swamp in Columbus County. Bridge No. 248 will be replaced with a bridge
approximately 140 feet in length at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. The cross section of the proposed bridge will
consist of two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders.
The total project length will be approximately 350 feet. Traffic will be detoured
along US 74/76 and NC 211 during construction
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Wayne lliott
Project Planning Unit Head
i ,-z r- 99
Date Kar T.O hner
Project Planning Engineer
N
1737
of 7
?? 11 nln / , ? ? Y
\ t ?j` .\
en k_
E.eryreI
e
I10 44
' MallsDoro I` /• ] Ru
0
170 ;_* 1 211
f au if Cerro Gordo Cnadoourn S?--J Lak ` Bolton freeman Oelca'
/ Waccamaw,/? ' / ' Brun Swi[M M, V-SIT sandy f
? °/? L ud U M ??, U S
Cnerry Grore /IU (JL'.? , / - a
Clarendon /
90A)
MOll?e Id Dix
p 1LnkvT.M1nr
?` Iron Mill NaMina a
't
? 901 'r Ian Will
` t a
r ?
` Puewar ? a
? l
rte- al '
I.
I
.
1947

1874
North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
COLUMBUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 248 ON SR 1740
OVER FRIAR SNVAMP
B-3148
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
a --4 Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
Detour Route
?1
sTnre :tio
I . A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 21, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 248 on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp,
Columbus County, State Project 8.1431401,
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-242(2), B-3148, ER
98-7737
Dear Mr. Graf:
On November 12, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
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 g?3
Nicholas L. Graf
11/21/97, Page 2
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: `H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
a iSWE
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.TAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
25 June, 1999
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
Teryn Smith, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT. Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed repiacemer:
of Bridge No. 248 on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp in Columbus
County. TIP No. B-3148, State Project No. 8.2430501; Feder,`
Aid No. MABRZ-1740 (1).
ATTENTION: Karen Orthner, Project Manager
Bridge Replacement Uni.
.r.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and descriptions of
the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses of probable impaci ,
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information on
wetlands and federally protected species is also provided, ,vith respect to regulatory concerns that
must be considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto
disk format.
c: Hal Bain, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: B-3148
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 248 ON SR 1740
OVER FRIAR SWAMP
COLUMBUS COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3148
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2430501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. MABRZ-1740(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-314',
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
TERYN SMITH, NATURAL SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
JUNE 25, 1999
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... ........................................................... I
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................... ........................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology I
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ........................................................... ...........................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................ ...........................................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics .................................................................. ........................................................... 3
2.2 Soils ................................................................................................ ............................................................ 3
2.3 Water Resources .............................................................................. ........................................................... 3
2.3.1 Best Usage Classlftcation ................................................................................................................... 3
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ....................................................................................... 4
2.3.3 Water Quality .......................................................................... ........................................................... 4
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ..................................................4
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... ............................................................ 5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................................................. ............................................................ 5
3.1 Biotic Communities ........................................................................ ............................................................ 6
3.1.1 Disturbed Roadside ................................................................................................................... r:
3.1.2 Cypress-Gum Swamp-Blackwater Subtype .............................................................................. 6
3.1. 5 Aquatic Communitv ....................................................... ........................................................... 6
"
3.1.6 Wildlife ........................................................................... ...........................................................
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... ............................................................ 7
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts .................................................................. ........................................................... .
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ...................................................................... ............................................................

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...................................................... n
............................................................ c
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................ ............................................................ R
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .............................................................................. 8
4.1.3 Permits .................................................................................... ............................................................ 9
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ................................................................................................ 9
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ............................................................. .......................................................... 10
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................................... .......................................................... 10
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........... .......................................................... 14
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................. ..........................................................17
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities ................. ............................................................ 7
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Columbus County ................ .......................................................... 1 I
Table 3. Federal species of concern for Columbus County ................. .......................................................... 15
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation
of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to
inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way
boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature
and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with
recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the
proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and effective
manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the existing
preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria change, additionni
field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project crosses Friar Swamp northeast of the town of Union Chapel on
SR 1740 (Figure 1). The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 248 on SR 174u ove:
Friar Swamp in Columbus County. The existing cross section is a 7.6 m (25 ft) wide bridge. The
proposed cross section is 8.5 m (28 ft) wide if the design speed is <45 mph and 9.1 m (30 ft) wide
if the design speed is >45 mph. The current right-of-way for this project is ditchline to ditchlim,
and the proposed right-of-way is 24.4 m (80 ft) for permanent alignments and 18.3 m (60 ft) for
temporary detours. The current structure is a reinforced concrete floor with timber joists. The
proposed structure is a new 43.0 m (140.0 ft) reinforced concrete bridge. Project length depends
on the Alternate chosen. There are two alternates being considered for this project.
Alternate 1: Replace the existing Bridge No. 248 with a bridge approximately 43 m (140 ft) in
length at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
Traffic would be detoured along surrounding secondary roads during construction. Project
length would be approximately 91.4 m (300 ft).
Alternate 2: Replace the existing Bridge No. 248 with a bridge approximately 43 m (140 ft) in
length at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
Traffic would be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour alignment
located west of the existing bridge. The temporary detour will require a temporary bridge
approximately 24 m (80 ft) in length. Project length would be approximately 228.6 in (750 ft).
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
`-
1 Buckhead
1737 a
\ 1740 \ 5 1876
31
\ 1802
?/ \ t 2 1601
1 1748 \ 1740 _
r ?
\
Un4n Ct-,,pel 1674
,?•?
1739
1740
cr / ? I /
74
1735 76
v
173S '
G. E
2;5 17557.
t/
LAKE WACCMAA ?c
POP. 961
110 IJI 111
1 `
.j. Evergreen `
]0
1i} 'Nhiteville ,\ = = 1 c47
a Is Oro 15 ?-_.. CF--'?-?.? d Oelco
Flu 81 ff Cerro Gordo Ch adhourn. 5 - IaME ° Bolton Freeman
! Waccamaw !
L,,,,
I
runsw,c
B k µ i, urnulr Sano '
C 0 0/,'L uo
0 U M U S /
^herry Grove 11
v Clarendon.
? V JW6e Tub MOUIe Id Doc ,
r
?; Iran Ndl Sahlna ,
I
? 3p11 ?.' Bugnul
Ian `, a
Fuew,y North Carolina
` -' IT, - - a Department Of Transportation
? or? Planning & Environmental Branch
1 w`
-47
COLUMBUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 243 ON SR 1740
- OVER FRIAR SWAMP
B-31-43
} Tt 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
e 1 t Figure I
`Jr 0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
2
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Lake Waccamaw).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of Columbus County, North Carolina (1984).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps of
Columbus County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service list of protected and candidate species (15 January 1999) and from the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files
were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of
significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biologists Logan Williams and Teryn Smith on 14 December 1998. Wate;
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows
Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991). Potter
et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial
photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved
general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment
based on vegetative communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted and
tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured during
these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory,
1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of
Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme
of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as
an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region" denotes
an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e.
[163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].
3
2.0 Phvsical Resources
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Columbus County lies in the Southern Coastal Plain and Atlantic Coast Flatwoods
physiographic regions of North Carolina (Figure 2). The Surry Scarp separates these regions. 1 i
Southern Coastal Plain region is west of the scarp, and the Atlantic Coast Fiatwood region is eas,.
Project area is located in the Atlantic Flatwood region where elevations range from 45 to 94 feet
above sea level. Ground water supply is plentiful throughout the county. It is near the surface i.:
most places, particularly during the wet season.
2.2 Soils
There is one soil type located in the project area. Johnston loam, frequently flooded (Js) is
a very poorly drained soil located along major drainageways along floodplains throughout the
county. Slopes are less that I percent. Typically the surface layer is black loam in the upper part
and very dark grayish brown sandy loam in the lower part. Permeability is moderately rapid in the
surface layer and rapid in the underlying material. The available water capacity is moderate and
the seasonal high water table is near or above the surface from early in winter to late in spring.
The main limitations of this soil are wetness, flooding, ponding and low strength. This soil is
listed as hydric for Columbus County.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with
their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources
are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin.
There is one water resource in the project study area. SR 1740 crosses one perennial stream, Friar
Swamp (Figure 2).
4
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality
conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as
the streams to which they flow. The classification for Friar Swamp and its tributaries [DEM Index
No. 15-2-6-3, 12/1/63] is CSw. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The Sw (Swamp Waters)
subclassification is a supplemental water classification including waters that have low velocities
and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. No registered point
source dischargers are located in or directly upstream from the project study area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project
study area.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The unnamed tributary to Friar Swamp, at SR 1740, is approximately 24.4 m (80.0 ft)
wide and ranges in depth from 0.9-1.2 m (3.0-4.0 ft). The substrate in the study area is composes
of muck. The riparian community includes dominant species such as bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), water gum (Nyssa aquatica) and swamp
rose (Rosa palustris).
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources and nonpoint
sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource
information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data provide insight into the
value of water resources within the project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for
aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
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 macro invertebrates 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 a taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also
calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The
two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness
values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of
5
such physical pollutants as sediment. There is no BMAN monitoring station on Friar Swamp
at or above the project area.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are
likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during
the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream
activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the
biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and
flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present
land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the
common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk
6
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described from biotic communities utilize resources from different communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define. There are two communities
located in the project area. These communities are discussed below.
3.1.1 Disturbed Roadside
This community is located on the north and south sides of the existing bridge and will be
impacted by both alternatives. It is bordered by the road and the cypress-gum swamp community.
Because of mowing and the use of herbicides this community is kept in a constant state of early
succession. The dominant species in this community are fescue (Festuca sp.), mugwort (Artemisia
vulgaris), climbing hydrangea (Decumaria Barbara) and wild onion (Allium canadense).
3.1.2 Cypress-Gum Swamp-Blackwater Subtype
This community surrounds the existing bridge. It will be impacted by the detour
alternative. The canopy is dominated by bald cypress, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), black alder (Ilex verticullata), water gum (Nyssa aquatica) and water ash
(Fraxinus caroliniana). The subcanopy is composed of red maple (Ater rubrum), American holly'
(Ilex opaca), privet (Ligustrum sinense), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and Virginia willow
(Itea virginiana). The shrub layer consists of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), pokeberry
(Phytolacca americana), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), bamboo (Smilax laurifolia), swamp azalea
(Rhododendron viscosum) and swamp rose. The vine layer is dominated by Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinuni), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
cross vine (Anisostichus capreolaia), climbing hydrangea (Decumaria Barbara) and climbing
hempweed (Mikania scandens). The ground layer is composed of mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris),
southern lady's fern (Athyrium asplenioides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), netted
chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), wintercress (Barbarea verna) and panicum (Panicum
scoparium).
3.1.5 Aquatic Community
This community consists of Friar Swamp. Aquatic insects found in this community include the
water strider (Gerris spp.), riffle beetle (Psephenus herricki), crane fly (Tipula spp.), stream
mayfly (Ephemeroptera) and black-winged damselfly (Calopteryx maculata). Fish species that
may utilize this swamp include mud sunfish (Acantharchus pomotis), white catfish (Ictalurus
catus), longnose gar (Lipisosteus osseus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), blackbanded sunfish
(Enneacanthus chaetodon), bluespotted sunfish (E. gloriosus), creek chubsucker (Erimvzon
oblongus), eastern mosquitofish *(Gambusia holbrooki), ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus)
and sawcheek darter (Etheostoma serrifer). Other aquatic animals likely to be found in streams in
the project area are fragile ancylid (Ferris.sa fragilis), buffalo pebblesnail (Gillia altilis), mussels
(Elliptio spp.), red-bellied water snake *(Nerodia erythogaster) and banded water snake (Nerodia
fasiata).
7
3.1.6 Wildlife
The cypress-gum swamp provides habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals. Birds
often associated with swamp communities include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus),
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), red-shouldered hawk *(Buteo lineatus), red-
bellied woodpecker *(Melanerpes carolinus), song sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) and northern
cardinaT. Yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata) and common yellow throat (Geothlypis
trichas) may also be found in this community. Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), red-eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Carolina wren and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) may also frequent
this area.
Mammals that may frequent the swamp community include white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). In addition, white-tailed deer *(Odocoileus
virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may also forage in or near this community.
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Spring peeper
*(Myla crucifer) and northern cricket frog *(Acris crepitans) breed in semipermanent pools during
the spring. Rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), worm snake (Carphophis c:moenus), ring-necked snake
(Diadophis punctatus) and queen snake (Regina septemvittata) may be found here as well. Th:'
box turtle (Terrapene carolina) may also be found in the swamp commune
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resource,
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well, along with recommendations to
minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial 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 2
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 lengths described in section 1. 1,
and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 m (80.0 ft) for the bridge replacement and 18.2
m (60.0 ft) for the on-site detour. However, project construction often does not require the entire
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area ha (ac)
Bridge Replacement* On-Site Detour**
Cypress-Gum Swamp -- 0.41 ha (1.0 ac)
Disturbed Roadside 37 sq m (400 sq ft) 0.06 ha (0.14 ac)
8
Total Impacts 37 sq m (400 sq ft) 0.47 ha (1.14 ac)
*Permanent Impacts
**Temporary Impacts
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Friar Swamp will result from the replacement of
Bridge No. 248. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e.
substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic
community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats.
Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment
load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMP's.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain
particular significance because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This
section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to
project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action
that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial
or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are wetlands in the project area in the form of the
cypress-gum swamp. Vegetation includes bald cypress, ebony spleenwort, water gum and swamp
rose. Wetland impacts for Alternate 1 are approximately 0.0 ha (0.0 ac); and for Alternate 2 are
9
approximately 0.41 ha (1.0 ac) [Table 2]. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated
based on the linear feet of the stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way.. Physical
aspects of surface waters are described in section 2.3.1. 80.0 linear feet of Friar Swamp will be
impacted by the bridge replacement and 60.0 linear feet will be impacted by the on-site detour.
Bridge No. 248 is located on SR 1740 over Friar Swamp in Columbus County.
The deck and railings of the bridge are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of
timber. The bridge railings and the substructure will be removed without dropping components
into Waters of the United States. The is potential for components of the deck to be dropped into
Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck is approximately 32 cubic yards.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a
result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulator;
agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resource:;
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting 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 that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the
council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
• (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.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. 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 to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The
issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
10
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing
the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths,
fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each anc':
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required te:
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nationwide
Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 45.7 in (150.0 linear ft) of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of
11
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 15 January
1999, the FWS lists six federally protected species for Columbus County. A brief description of
the characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding
potential project impacts follows Table 2.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Columbus County.
C.roramonName a Scientaftc=Name t:?'?;'?A :?xt;- s,, Status;y??ti ?n!
Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S/A)
Waccamaw Silverside Menidia extensa Threatened
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Rough-Leaved Loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Cooley's Meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "Threatened Due to Similarity of'Appearance/Threatened (S/A)" denotes a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for the rarr
species' protection. T(S/A) are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon) Endangered
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small species of fish that occurs in the lower
sections of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats. 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.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are unobstructed by
dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully. It is an anadromous species that spawns
upstream in the spring and spends most of its life within proximity of the rivers mouth. At
least two entirely freshwater populations have been recorded, in South Carolina and
Massachusetts.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project area is located on a small stream that has a relatively low depth. The habitat
for the shortnose sturgeon is larger streams with minimum depths of 2 meters. The depth at the
project area is between 0.9 and 1.2 meters. In addition, Friar's Swamp is not listed as an
anadromous fish stream. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was checked and
there were no records of existing populations of shortnose sturgeon in the project area. No habitat
12
for shortnose sturgeon exists in the project area. Thus, no impacts to shortnose sturgeon will occur
from project construction.
Alligator mississppiensis (American alligator)Threatened(S/A)
Animal family: Alligatoridae
Date Listed: 04 June 1987
The American alligator is a large reptile with a broad snout, a short neck, heavy body and
a laterally compressed tail. Adults are blackish to dark gray.
The alligator inhabits freshwater marshes and swamps in the coastal plain of North
Carolina from the southern boundary of the Albemarle sound throughout the coastal plain of
eastern and southeastern North Carolina.
There is habitat for this species in the form of a cypress gum swamp and a coastal plain
perrenial stream in the project area. However, the American alligator is not subject to Section 7
consultation and is not biologically threatened or endangered and a biological conclusion is not
required.
Menidia extensa (Waccamaw silverside) T
Animal Family: Atherindae
Date Listed: 4/8/97
The Waccamaw silverside is a small, slender, nearly transparent fish with a silvery
stripe on its side. It has large eyes and a jaw that is sharply angled upwards. The body is
laterally compressed. This fish is also commonly called the "skipjack" or the "glass
minnow".
The Waccamaw silverside is found only in Lake Waccamaw and Big Creek from its
mouth 0.4 miles upstream to where county road 1947 crosses it. The upper Waccamaw river in
Columbus County serves as a habitat for the Waccamaw silverside during times of high water.
The required habitat for the Waccamaw silverside to survive are high quality, neutral pH water
with a clean sandy substrate. Waccamaw silversides inhabit the surface over shallow, dark
bottomed areas. Spawning occurs in April through June and peaks when water temperatures reach
68-72 degrees. The major threats to the Waccamaw silverside are not from the taking of species,
but from activities that affect water quality and substrate quality through nutrient loading, siltation,
or a change in temperature.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Friar Swamp is not habitat for the Waccamaw silverside. The silverside is only found in
Lake Waccamaw, Big Creek and the Waccamaw River. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database was checked and there were no records of existing populations of Waccamaw
silverside in the project area. No habitat for Waccamaw silverside exists in the project area. Thus,
no impacts to Waccamaw silverside will occur from project construction.
13
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
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
palustris), 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 habitat for the RCN's'.
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 arc
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies fror.
3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 in (30-50 ft) high. They can o
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The mature, open pine stands that the RCW needs are not present in the project area. The
pines around the project site are few and are contained in the mixed pine-hardwood community.
In addition, this community is not contiguous to other stands of older pines that would enable it to
be foraging habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was checked and
there were no records of existing populations of RCW in the project area. No habitat for RCW
exists in the project area. Thus, no impacts to RCW will occur from project construction.
Lysimachia asperulaefolia (rough-leaved loosestrife) Endangered
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: 12 June 1987
Flowers Present: June
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 0.3 m (I ft) to 0.6 m (2 ft)
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.
14
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: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for this species in the form of moist flats does not occur in the project
area. The NCNHP database show in previous records of this species occurring in the project area.
Thus, construction of this project will have no effect on this species.
Thalictrum cooleyi (Cooley's meadowrue) Endangered
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: February 7, 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
Historical records show populations of Cooley's meadowrue in the southeastern coastal
plain in North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Present populations are limited to nine locations it
North Carolina and one in Florida. Known North Carolina populations are found in Columeu__
Pender, and Onslow counties.
Cooley's meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial plant with stems that grow to one meter in
length. Stems are usually erect in direct sunlight but are lax and may lean on other plants or trail
along the ground in shady areas. Leaves are usually narrowly lanceolate and unlobed, some two or
three lobed leaves can be seen. The flowers lack petals, but staminate ones have yellowish to
white sepals and lavender filaments about 5 to 7 millimeters long. Pistillate flowers are smaller
and have greenish sepals. Fruits are narrowly ellipsoidal achenes, 5-6 mm long. Fruits mature
from August to September.
This plant is found in moist to wet bogs, savannas and savanna-like openings, sandy roadsides,
rights-of-ways, and old clearcuts. It is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain its
habitat. All known populations are on circumneutral, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils
of the Grifton series. It only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Habitat for Cooley's meadowrue is found in the areas on the project where the cypress-
gum swamp meets the disturbed roadside community. These areas are moist and sunny. A survey
for Cooley's meadowrue will need to be conducted during its flowering season in mid July 1999.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four federal species of concern listed by the FWS for Columbus County (Table
3). Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
15
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to
change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are
defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered
Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This species
list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be upgraded
in the future.
Table 3. Federal species of concern for Columbus
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SR
Rafinesque's big eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesguii SC
Carolina pygmy sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamensis S__
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC
Waccamaw lance pearlymussel Elliptio sp. S FSC
Waccamaw spike Elliptio waccamawensi., T
Waccamaw fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati T
Pee Dee lotic crayfish - Procambarus lapidodactylus SR
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullum T
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri T
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. confusa T
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii W 1
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula C-SC
Resinous boneset Eupatorium resinosum T-SC
Harper's fimbry Fimbristylis perpusilla T
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana C/PT
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata W 1
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caroliniana E
Pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora E
Swamp forest beaksedge Rhynchospora decurrens C
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna E/PT
Wireleaf dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius sensus stricto T
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra C
Threatened (T) are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species or once-native species of fauna or
flora whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined to be in
jeopardy. Special Concern (SC) species are any species which requires monitoring but which may
be collected and sold under regulations. Significantly rare (SR) species are very rare in North
16
Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Proposed Threatened (PT) are species
which have been formally proposed for listing as Threatened, but has not yet completed the legally
mandated listing process. Candidate (C) species are very rare in North Carolina, with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. Watch
Category 1 (W1-rare but relatively secure) includes species which have declined sharply in North
Carolina, but which do not appear yet to warrant site-specific monitoring.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows one occurrence of
FSC species in the project study area. Friar Swamp is classified as an NHP Natural Community-
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater Subtype).
17
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand. Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh. N.".
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1988. Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review
1983-1986. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams: Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and
Candidate Plant Species. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Raleigh, N.C.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
18
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA, 1982. Soil Survey of Columbus County North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
117 1

Y 'M

?
Y . ?
r
?
..?: 1 o
I
?
Y
' '
rti '1 r
?

t

1 a

y .r
II
f

•? t
f

I

, ` 111 1
?.1 J
l

L A1
4 S, r

,S ' ? rt1

i y

tt
?
G

,; 41 y

? f
r ,

a ` ' ••
fla
r 4
f
r, p
?
,
?

I

??711 Zr9 i
IV
O"

IJ 'D Y'rr .y `1ys • '41
O ep ,?
1
O Con `o C -q 2
o two
41
cy+ ?•
QQ 0 o n
0
U
0
) I'j
w Oo
(IQ
to d

~
O
rt

r't' h /1 ?3. L& I..
?"1
r
?
•
i ??ty+•
eY !R

t 4 , 41'? I . 111.
f 1.

1•

r?
?f
r S /.N ?•1„ r76J1 ??i°j .t;?7Fk??F-' t7` ? ?, ?iy? ?!d ? ,
?r 1
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 Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
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 apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge 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