20010861 Ver 1_Complete File_20010504

?.STATZ
o 1 o_3 co
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARmTT JR.
SECRETARY
October 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
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 /Dennis 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 r;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
November 12,-1997 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (lZ:oili 470):
These Scoping meetings will be held back to back bcgiiining?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

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVER\OR
April 12, 2001
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attention: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Columbus County, Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp
on NC 242; State Project No. 8.1431401; Federal Project No. BRSTP- 242(2);
TIP No. B-3142.
Dear Mr. Timpy:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requests authorization from
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23
to replace Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp on NC 242. There will be permanent wetland
impacts of 0.79 ac (0.32 ha). The project has a let date of August 2001.
Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp on NC 242 will be replaced with a new 150 ft (46 m)
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
Approach work for the bridge replacement will include resurfacing and widening the roadway to
two 12 ft lanes with 8 ft shoulders. The total project length will be approximately 1100 ft.
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1540, SR 1414, and US 76 during construction.
Another alternate considered involved replacing the bridge on a new alignment west of
the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during construction. Due to
the quantity and quality of wetland resources at the project site, this alternate was not considered
reasonable. In addition, the cost of providing an on-site detour was estimated to be
approximately $250,000.
The project lias been described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Action Classification
Form signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 28 September 1999. The
project is being processed by the FHWA as a CE in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but
proposes to proceed under a Section 404 NWP 23 in accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874,
65916, issued December 13, 1996.
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: lIMV..DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
There have been changes in the anticipated wetland impacts of the proposed project since
the CE was completed. The CE states that 1.0 ac (0.4 ha) of wetlands will be impacted. A total
of 0.79 ac (0.32 ila) will actually be impacted by the proposed project. As described in the CE,
the NCDOT will construct a bridge instead of a culvert.
A riverine coastal bottomland wetland is the dominant community of the project study
area and will be impacted due to the proposed approach work for the subject bridge replacement.
NCDOT anticipates permanent wetland impacts of 0.79 ac (0.32 Ila). At Site 1, it is anticipated
that 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) will be impacted permanently, 0.10 ac (0.04 Ila) due to fill and 0.08 ac (0.03
ha) due to mechanized clearing. At Site 2, it is anticipated that 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) will be
permanently impacted, 0.09 (0.036 ha) due to fill and 0.09 (0.036 ha) due to mechanized clearing.
At Site 3, it is anticipated that 0.25 ac (0.10 ha) will be permanently impacted, 0.10 ac (0.04 ha)
due to fill and 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) due to mechanized clearing. At Site 4, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of
wetlands will be permanently impacted, 0.02 ac (0.008 ha) due to fill and 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) due to
mechanized clearing. At Site 5, it is anticipated that 0.06 ac of wetlands will be permanently
impacted, 0.02 ac (0.008 ha) due to fill and 0.04 (0.016 ha) due to mechanized clearing. Permit
drawings of the wetland sites are attached.
Bridge No. 12 has six spans totaling 132 ft (40 in) in length. The deck and bridge railings
are composed of concrete. The superstructure contains timber bents with concrete caps. The
bridge railings and bents will be removed without dropping their components into waters of the
United States. There is potential for components of the deck and caps to be dropped into waters
of the United States. On the Impact Summary Sheet attached to the permit drawings (sheet 9 of
9), the temporary fill in surface waters is 0.0 ac, however, it should be noted that the resulting
volume of temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and caps is approximately 117 yd3
(89.5 1113).
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 NWP 23 to replace
Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp on NC 242. Written concurrence for 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) from the N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is generally not
required for the Section 404 NWP 23 as long as NCDOT adheres to all conditions of the general
certification for Section 404 NWP 23. NCDOT requests written concurrence for the NWP 23 on
this project.
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this project,
please contact Ms. Jill Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 329.
Sincerely,
A?4& 4?' /? /? - /'J
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/jjh
TIP No. B-3142 April 12, 2001
Application For Section 404 NWP 23 2 of 3
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P. E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. T. R. Gibson, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
TIP No. B-3142 April 12, 2001
Application For Section 404 NWP 23 3 of')
`i
I?k
Sr,
s 'Jill

(24 2)

t
.JCliaduourn
i,3 C Crr? G ordo

.;

r• l l
TO -cl-,
r'
r
t'

?

V G

ra-
i

rry ? ?
AMD
?''7•
Liii h'L
S1;•11•r, i ROJ L T >','P.1'i31 iJl .T:-.31,12
MT 1 oy 9
;li-E3 WET LAND DOUNDil.RY

'.I'E.TLAM1)

DENOTES FILI- IN
4'ETLAN'D

//;
?p?
%/ P NOTES
I
N'
F.11-l.
/
/
/ _
c-
I'
LiE t!O I'EF FILL )•.N

(POND)
U ENOTF5 TEI PORARY
llc_?/a FILL Iti WETLAND
/• D ENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTE; TEMPUW "i'
u_?li?:_/t/,a F1....(.. J; SURFACE 1,!ATER
r. a 1.. r. ES j 1 ZE
FLO`! DIR :CTION
_.,. [,` .... TOP OF
-fF
---- •• -- lc-:IJGE OF WATER
Pf;UP. [.It1IT CI CUT
PROP. LIMill OF FILL
FIIGHT OF WAY
NATURAL GROUND
PFQPERTY L.INF:
- -TD'r'-- T Ef `P. 01"AINAGE
EAGEt•iCiit'I
-PDT -- - PERMANENT DRATHf\.GE
EEAS'.?SENT
- ERE3--- EXIST. ENDAN.GE.RF?)
A;TIMAL BOUN '. i'
-EPB..-- E X"IST. ENDA' IGLRE 0
PLANT L3i)UN0i=,9'(
__.__0_._-..___ ?;1TrR SURFACE
L.EGL..N1)
X X LIVE STAKES
POULDEI,
.: ¢.:1-4 1-1 COIR FIBER ROLLS
C--) AD,iACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARC:EI.. NWIDE:R
PROPOSED [111, [:)GE
_ r
PROPO'bED BOX CUi_VERT

- y PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(GhSF;I?f! LINES DENOTE
EXIST NC STP,UCTUf i.S)
S:(NGL E: T' EE

WOODS L AE
' f!'ViINAGE INLET

RICO WAD

VANE
r
?'??!, I?IP RAP
RIF, Rop ENERGY
DISS 'ATOfi BASIN
i
T
Li'!l;;.FE;'c ZONE: BUFI= ZONE
Ja bT'
JLY s1i -?illcill No. 12 ovi ul
S.Td:tB N Qj. XT -3.143141 B-3142
SKEET 2 OF

C;
C1
e?
r

rf? i?j

?i
C,i L d
t? F--
f•-
k -i

LLI

-4
U_I
r;
M
?.
(;i j t j
.? i
C.
1`.
'- tt ht? ? t
V,7
e - ,t,? C r c,°;
Q i
r y t •.?
,
~?'f V7
w 'r7 .r,1
c
Cl ? `rr
CS f
t?1
V ?y
1
t
{1
1a?
t:-1
r- S

?- `-/
? i

?j,
4 .1
i i ?t ! C l ?,i ! , I ? } r ? 1 ' ? r j. ` `° Y ?.:?-? ?-,1 ? r y
7 r 4: ! tt}} v
1 tJ} r q? 1 N t. y r tL?? ;?,1 f '? f `?; Ir•, ? • ???
. r ?' >< { •? , r t.Y i [r ;..! r-? 1 ,•1 rte., "e? ` .1
f r' t ?'Ma: 1 [, ?, ? 1 ' i J r, l r e t. 1 y r l
!` ? ,r'??j `f tit' r` {,tli. k ,fir I ?' ~? ?,t`: ?•.{F.? .,
r r 111. 1„- I ,?. r ? S 1 ,?,'?i _ " .?? r rf ? ? •) -,? ?yl / 1 1c?? ? ?
y `
1 -7 77-
77
L-Li
r.- _,,J l ?., '• . ?.1 t'. t ? - { ? j t'?' J ' r ? [ 1 ;'. ? + ltq Y
? I k xI r?,l ?. 'C 1
c - '1.. ! In 1 tJ.'?' , r/! :'. 1? r ?..I ?, `1 s ''' t? J' I'-. j ?,'?• I
L? i ,41 ' + ?' ? I I ': ?. j tt ? f '? '•t-1. ?' ' i??•?,1
y t 4
L LI
C? 1 ? f U) , ? ?? L ?' c
. ( ? ?-? t , ? (' , a 1 } , ?i 1 °- F jr. i ". r ! ?- .l S i •; 1. ?1 ,? E'`
r ? r 1
1-?
r?
?,, , ?r:? !' •? I' _ j •1.. ,? i I 'JS M1 ,? ,-tit UO
r _
4-: l,k ? u .?•r,2 ? -I
V It
t rr' , f r j I I
ii o
L: .2
I rr ? I • L
A; i'• ? i t• y " _ C? _t-l C/
F` t 3'
ti
' [ aj `•;•t 1 '. ? ? tai ? , ?, a+r a
'r -t [. ?•;i. '' F. 1. rr I' If -
F-,
C?
ti
Cl
1''J
0.,
`y t
.Y
. r?r?1 cEj LINT: s'. li ?:o U-
14
4
u ?` y
J \1 t
a \
LLI
s, `\
_ l ry \t E
.y 41\ ?r tI?

i ?
?t I
6
i
t
I
i
w•I
0
a
4? f
f
a ?
X41, I l?
j C
"I
I}$gi
` a
l ?„ I
L.
L I,
t` 1
lJ?)
uul
L ?
ce
i-+
I?IN
1
l'
tY C?j
c? t _1
t
/ l
r ....
i
I

r
-All
C1
ci1? =Jr.?
L l I t:G t' 1
ltJ
L,)jF.
w c) )_ LtJ
C C7 _:
t' ? L7
1Ay In
J '' I
?e,7 C r ?ty f?{
cy

r.
f yl

t
t
?` ??` R1 il'rC(
,
i ??t' ' 1\T
Li I ?

'k
I A
4
"N
Job
a
\a
4
Iw 4 ?/
l z.

h? d C \, r

[[t
p
?
4 f7 '
NS

r. ,
1ri

\ S l r
/i

'rC

a

r F-1
r 1 e`
., W
!
iY

4
L

bSi '
x
?
r?
Ir
,-S+ lwx.. E

tl ?OJ
.. •?i? G I LI

G
r. t

?$ sit
c ` N-11
B
?i.a
U) ?

Eli,

Cl
i
(V
5 ??? 6ttif' ??
S " n,l
C?-J4?I
i
c

?C
-1 -1

??
4'
1a ? to
I
r C]
f
I
? t?l
?•?
?„ L)

`
-1 r
LINE; A'I S*r,,)21+ tL-
C\!
Lj1
t-•i
U)
U1
r.l
" Q Lu
l 1 ??? _I
t,.i 1
u.i
c•
C7 i
ltl lU
L] C:J
c +
C L
+? 8p
n r ?z?
ra
F `Q 4?
too r?
c;
f?? V
w
Frl,
c? c
?1 t-,
?.3
TI;
422
Ir i
i
?) 1
CJ
11
ll

I i
1 j
C r t FF

1 ?.

r
I Y ..
I
•? ` p
_ r

+ til A

CT? ji' ? 1 j`? ` pb
M1 G + 1 p
16
ri
1 ! `r f
•?`.. _ ? K' Leh ..y ' "
7 . ?.
1 ry.
i I r?ti 1??
u
rjtry ,i l
? w
7
.• r?
^??sz Vis :)Nll 11

1
I a ?.
I '1
!I ?
C
A
l 1 ?,•
1
I1 C)f `
k•i/ t
a, L J
1
fc
'lr

i`'
.•r

p• 1
'
r) r

y. ? .7 r t y

i
P Imo, J r.

f.
.f
f
0
Ld
r!
r'1
Lo (? I
1, 10 h-
C?
Ltt l?J
Cl [J
a«
lira
f-
P. V ?
>r,
C'a •4.1
f ?
,.a
t `?
'\ "

C')
1
cl-

q
E
r y

o I
i ;'
.
lJ ?
I
?
I
eU
_
`

ire

t
1
1 1
.
. i I.:;l

f 4 ?i ? 1y ?z ° I
0 //
x'x
e r
- l
I
i N
?
.

ly °I u?
I I: ,I
`ils

•1
1
UJ
N
r ?a
ISIL) Ld
?- h• 3
n r)
is
L! I LU
O C7
n o
u a
a +u
-u` C1.._
?v
t> ? t n' E
_t
R? r
r,.)
F-I
i
?J
PROPER-! Y 0W1\1ER
NAME nPD ADDRESS
PACE L NO. OW NER'S NA ADDRESS
( i Gridy M. Wj.3.1lnin:,orn 1'11. Groon ?S-?rc)ot ?
-2215 G;,ffnoy, HIC 2934. th

- lFil Groc.rI Str-e c t
;1 --71 3 0
tJC 2 9s.i1
?
rUft'nc;
f 1
y,
C? Enrl Hilbua ;i 205 Mo roor Struct
dl
)
Ch
NC 2
8
.
li
ourn,
,
1
?'/-t ?? ?:c:r,r e to bra lsor i '• 0. Eiox ` G a
N C 2f r;31
i o Go
- (Ic)
,
,

POT"'TeR, ST
0.1V PiC 242
STAFF. 1.^. 'i,CV '% .1431.101 11-3142
:i UEET 8 of 9
3-
i
1
t
A^ ?
L ` IJ

U
N

I y,.
U U)I
I ?
I L
GI
C
? i
v

rl r) S.
Y
U 1_
`
7
) C;
u

U 7 ? .
rY c> 'y

• c

9
I ii_ ?
" Q' Cam.:11 Ia
Id

'
t"
t 1
1 _? i?
I
I L
r M

f 4 ? ti 1

CL ?? v3

F •- r
-- •
i
re
-o ?
c

,U
C? G"J
G7
C
0
o
to ,"

I
?
I li
I --
'I

-I
-
__
-
.
I I
I
I I
? 1

V(
U
.
I
U t
?
C? fj O O O

I ?
I.
I
o rn o rv cn -II
_ O _ C
O O O u

is z z II
II
11

?
CJ o
N o
U ut
N v
h o
CJ ui
'D C,
n u)
n .?
")
f + + + f + + ; + ?

rD
N
c?
N
N
N
CJ
ry ..
-
:1
CP
N -

II

c,
r,

0
U
J
p
U
0
,
0
0
co
a
h l.. F Fy (a C\;
' C 'n f ~
I
I (n1
I?
, ?f
Q
V
i?
?o
d
'u
III 0
d
I
I ?
F
J
(.7
U
r)
1? J
?o

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 12, 2001
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Attention: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Subject: Columbus County, Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp
on NC 242; State Project No. 8.1431401; Federal Project No. BRSTP- 242(2);
TIP No. B-3142.
Dear Mr. Timpy:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) requests authorization from
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23
to replace Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp on NC 242. There will be permanent wetland
impacts of 0.79 ac (0.32 ha). The project has a let date of August 2001.
Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp on NC 242 will be replaced with a new 150 ft (461n)
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge.
Approach work for the bridge replacement will include resurfacing and widening the roadway to
two 12 ft lanes with 8 ft shoulders. The total project length will be approximately 1100 ft.
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1540, SR 1414, and US 76 during construction.
Another alternate considered involved replacing the bridge on a new alignment west of
the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during construction. Due to
the quantity and quality of wetland resources at the project site, this alternate was not considered
reasonable. In addition, the cost of providing an on-site detour was estimated to be
approximately $250,000.
The project has been described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Action Classification
Form signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 28 September 1999. The
project is being processed by the FHWA as a CE in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but
proposes to proceed under a Section 404 NWP 23 in accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874,
65916, issued December 13, 1996.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHCNE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW DOH.DOT STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
There have been changes in the anticipated wetland impacts of the proposed project since
the CE was completed. The CE states that 1.0 ac (0.4 ha) of wetlands will be impacted. A total
of 0.79 ac (0.32 ha) will actually be impacted by the proposed project. As described in the CE,
the NCDOT will construct a bridge instead of a culvert.
A riverine coastal bottomland wetland is the dominant community of the project study
area and will be impacted due to the proposed approach work for the subject bridge replacement.
NCDOT anticipates permanent wetland impacts of 0.79 ac (0.32 ha). At Site 1, it is anticipated
that 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) will be impacted permanently, 0.10 ac (0.04 ha) due to fill and 0.08 ac (0.03
ha) due to mechanized clearing. At Site 2, it is anticipated that 0.18 ac (0.07 ha) will be
permanently impacted, 0.09 (0.036 ha) due to fill and 0.09 (0.036 ha) due to mechanized clearing.
At Site 3, it is anticipated that 0.25 ac (0.10 ha) will be permanently impacted, 0.10 ac (0.04 ha)
due to fill and 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) due to mechanized clearing. At Site 4, 0.15 ac (0.06 ha) of
wetlands will be permanently impacted, 0.02 ac (0.008 ha) due to fill and 0.13 ac (0.05 ha) due to
mechanized clearing. At Site 5, it is anticipated that 0.06 ac of wetlands will be permanently
impacted, 0.02 ac (0.008 ha) due to fill and 0.04 (0.016 ha) due to mechanized clearing. Permit
drawings of the wetland sites are attached.
Bridge No. 12 has six spans totaling 132 ft (40 m) in length. The deck and bridge railings
are composed of concrete. The superstructure contains timber bents with concrete caps. The
bridge railings and bents will be removed without dropping their components into waters of the
United States. There is potential for components of the deck and caps to be dropped into waters
of the United States. On the Impact Summary Sheet attached to the pen-nit drawings (sheet 9 of
9), the temporary fill in surface waters is 0.0 ac, however, it should be noted that the resulting
volume of temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and caps is approximately 117 yd3
(89.5 in 3).
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 NWP 23 to replace
Bridge No. 12 over Porter Swamp on NC 242. Written concurrence for 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) from the N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is generally not
required for the Section 404 NWP 23 as long as NCDOT adheres to all conditions of the general
certification for Section 404 NWP 23. NCDOT requests written concurrence for the NWP 23 on
this project.
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this project,
please contact Ms. Jill Holmes of my staff at [phone], extension 329.
Sincerely,
?ga/
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/jjh
TIP No. B-3142 April 12, 2001
Application For Section 404 NWP 23 2 of 3
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P. E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. T. R. Gibson, P. E., Division 6 Engineer
TIP No. B-3142 April 12, 2001
Application For Section 404 N WP 23 3 of')
1 -0 4
'; ?`) .?ili ?LSrs` ill ?t,? 1,j11b ?•? r'
Barilsv
t t1. r ? L 5?.,1 /? !I
s: FFtr ki(iiiIi Chadt;ourii r).
Ct?rrr, Gordo
r
r/tS' •T`` J ?._ l I 1 ?. ' I ~ ,-? { #`:? • °' '? _ ?F? r S. fr M} ,, ?..

T "Y.r.Lt` i 6 yr i Yy nn ?jx^,
SI'?ITi; %iCIJeCT r'P.1,31iJ1 E-3:42
1 o.F 9
. ,'rl't.B._ • ?? .' 41ETLFid[? ElOUNDl?^Y

?;,Z- - DENOI ES FILL IN
4;'ETLAN0
U-7N RTES F11-1- IN
( 7l% %i.i Siif147A,,E: WATER,
Dra,OTZ FILL Itd
SURFACE HATER
(POiJC))
jGilO T[-5 TFi-(PORARY
1 FILL IN SOUTLANU
j? ,7
%I DEMOTES EXCAVATION
f
'l? IN WETI_AN'
% ,/I,1 UE:NOYES TEMPORARY
/l F1Ll. Ii' SURFACE li,iiTER
FILE O I Ls t',.CHANI.ZED
L_?..~_r. " Yt CLc(;'il,iG
- FLOW 0IFt1 CTION
TO' O F31"NK
WF. --•-- (EDGE OF MATER
C _ - .. PftOP. LIMIT CI CU7
PROP. LIt ill' OF FI! .l.
--- PAM;'. RIGHT OF WAY
- - t!G - - N JURAL GROUND
- - `:? - PROPERTY LINT:
-Tr
1"'--
MEh"I DItAIt:(tGE
EASr=t•i:=:iJ•I
--PD -- PERMANENT DRAINAGE:
EAS'.i SENT
EXIST. END N.'G?:.RF 1
AN11MAL BOUNM . (
-EPB-•-- EXIST. END,;'(GLRE0
PLANT QE!UM R'(
l.:ATER SURFACE:
L.EGL*N1)
;(„v
xX LIVE : TAKES
r,
POULUEi;
...,? C;nIR F'IDER ROLLS
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEI.. NUMBER
PftO ,oS D f;luo;c-

PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(iJ(;SHi.r? LINES DENOTE
EXISI NC CTRUC,rul ['.s)
C
SI:NGLE: TI RFE
WOODS L-:,v:
DRAWN E INE.E;'1'
f;Ol)-l WAD
` VANE
??` [?IP RAP
?h }1
L RIP RAP ENERGY
DISS;,'ATOZ BASIN
U!It=FEl" ZONE: GUF,iEft ZONE
• . ..f r', r,/ .ter
101, 12 0 vl?ytl

R
?lJ.i? Xs. R. ?SI If".ir fiMl)
ON NC 249
PRClj. CT j,'M431,101 P-3142
SKEET 2 Ol

1\ .
F'.
C)
?j.
C
C?
h
U
?5 f
i3
1
V.
r-
±e

LO
LIJ pp 1 ?-

W :

C7 z i V.1

LLI < 1
l -1
1
4

?I '?
i o
_ e :'
f f. _
??•"?:
L 1 All
r?? .1 JUG

c,

LLI

.-a
U_I
v!
I l

,., e y t e (-1 C? ,v

1 .?
t
i•4'}
.,y
(' 1

f,

? ?
C ..?; St =1
F?
Q ? 't)
t. G1

I a ? ?I
i +' t • :I ? .I_J ?' , ,Ytita rl?{J,. Y 1 fr, ? - . t }: ?y
1 n? - ?'. (1 1' I ::! ? Jl? z ? r? J ? FT X6'1
•°.t•r i ' t ft 2. rro r J {. I r v ' ,a-t t4 '_ "?_? t. 1
JI ii.? i t+ r i J p n lr F i• 1
J,! a Jl i f S K I ?+ IJ !+ l
t ; , ' ' it _. ? ' •` 1 ? ? , i-5 '? -.•?+t I 1 .f ? l ': . "' ? ") ? rr f y,'1
r T r
i 4T
•' y Tw
. lx. ,1 K r- y J t/r y 'U, O 1' I 1 r'.? tEf tJ !.1
?.Lj
M i -; a r-, q; 7, I F ,1 tt
Cf)
ol?
r
I- r r (
'r, F i - ' ? ? ? I ? !• 1' 1 r i t'
C_ W ;t {? r i' j." rr`. 4
C.') i ) i CI) a "t R ` I (? C:'f
DI
1' ` t a I { ? .1 r) '.:J 1 rl i, :•? ?i ? Mti}, 41 ii t J : ?+? °
I? IjS r `tl 1 1 1 Sr. . 'la, I, r art J °`I.
r ? is I ? J, IC ? : (I J ,• ' fr ';' ?•' y ,
J i' Y: •C
4Y ` I ip r ?J _?'1 W
l
CCt'
c•1 f ' r 1
1
r?r YrJ[ 1
1 rF 1
r '-
1.::.
J -- i

rt--
Ii
Fes-!
1
r?''r'1
0-
tr: ,
(
E f
t-t
G i')
F
D,
h
+4?
E?
`.1
C;'
.4`
. M6tTCH UNI: S i A 25+ 'o `L
c
-r? --R
i
I f \
e All.
C '??r rr. g b J? ?
r a,
LLI
U)
41'\?
l n Ni
j? ? ? 1'•
j4 ?J 1
I , oil.
N\\?
p.?
IrQ SAY
it ? \
J rp ? ?
N .-A
J
?-1
L) 1
C?
ca ? y
!!1 I b? I
a,
A 4I R,
f
G,I
a
R
f r. i
1 ,°I
e
v.(
w,
?i,> GI U?)
', G I
"4 4
iY?L? nC
?5-
a

i-
,y
` I
r

r J
b 1- f:N t ?. i ?;

•

.y?
f ".
C71
UI
r.?
r l ?Y
U r-. oil'
u; I
co cn F-..
1 ?U1
U I U
??? Ltl
? I L7
?a
Y
(.1
?l
t
c?
vtj
f ws;
s

i Y
i L
t
ref ° .. ,r ci)
\Y. C J

, V
1 _I ?
? ? k7 r ; Q..i

44.

V •/
1 c i ? ti
+\ ? ???\ ! 1 I ? [7 •.. ill 1?/r
? a '• ``E C __ ? a /., rr
1
?r
? chi •!"?_
/r~'?'• l.d?J' Q I' ] sit
t I
•`J Ijh
7 •N
P
i° t-vacH LIt!f_
U) ?

N ?;r 1
r:
\?? tI

1

571 21+r0 tt- "\
'lr
C)
CJ
0-u i1 N
u
m LLI
F" I
U)

t
?11
r?
LJ V! -?
uic, F,. ht
c>
Lti L:j
Ci
o v ??
e 1
4 Y
fl Y \1?
i.
i;
k
II !'.
f
z f.
r ? -
W
r(j
I
_I_. J
G? > t'1

J !

jii
U H

CY? yc?
?i L.;r
r Y
s
l
l/ 1 /,?
f
G
?? ?
G 11

<• ?f\2.
lam! r (` a ,

c ?
I
•?,._..? ?' `fir' ?`,,
7
0
i

CI
t?
t
r

Q
ahJ?'_J fJ:11tsJ.J
f
?r
l:J
F
1 !F '
? t

ar .!.
.. ? I1. _
.f• I
R K
I

nt
5
K
a'
jgg
sep?
'iC
,
?

i?
tF:r ? fq%;
r t,
i.'Iry I \?
tl }
f? it

1

L d
F-<

I U,
I
1
l
t\
?\cJ
'r
??+5? t?1.S JNI`1 }J?.Lt?6J ????
?f

rr ? r.

r _1
r-'-s
Cl
U1
r=,
1T ((1 "I
burr; t '
(L 1
U1 I
? lilLi
i-
O
C I
x49 •\\
r?
f
,I
!! i j
R { ;
F?j
4y,
'\ 'Ir

2 t
C1
.h r z

k
1 ??
in /
\ry
CL1 f
E

i
=n(
.. k
?I
•n :
, n
J
.

I
C_. 1
l

Q?•;E 7 j

?r I 41..

i
?
,

ci

al
n
t ?Mnl "? t
?
L I . 3 E %C
r1`
I t
fa
:I n,
I C? J'I

r

I ie I ? •:-S_
?

I^I CO
C ?C

F
11-J
4:? A E f-i G:??
f;.

EZ_J

E ?: J f<=_7

v
`r'r f•

?- I
cI
UJ
N
T C'1
l11 CC
L:l
U7 . _I
111 u
n
?I
n a
q+
N
V
? q

?n
? J
UJ j
LO
n
c
Fes'` ?:/
I
N
Fl
A
" C•
r F,
)tJ
(a f.
y c:
r?
?a
Yj
fry ? .
F?
F
1.J
PR0PFFI TY 0V!1\1 R
NAI,,IE ^ND ADDRE=SS
PAR%C-EL 1\10. Ov1NE:R'S NAME: AD[=?i?C::SS
( i Grr du r?. 4'Ia.l.J.ltanSUr"r 1?')]. GrF,on S ?roo t
141C 29 34F,--21 8
Gk,f f'noy
,
Gr,nd; P1, 1111.11Urn, are 101 Groor, Szr•oe;'c
NC 2 s ;i--21
GUf f'r?o
, y,
3`) Earl H11bur';i 205 More or Stro,-. Chzid"Oourn
28-131
N'
,
.,

:::nre ti-Gla lse r' 0, B 9,
Cc r - o Gol-do, NC 20,'-, 3!.

P1,11). 12 0 Y- E
fay]=?.:?. Oll 2,1
STATE M'?WZr,7 ;,8LI431401 11-3132
?
I `'
cn -

N

x:
U
f!'
lei I C?
ry 1.
h i

N
lL ?
_.
v

U f)

f;

c .n

y CT ?1) rj
r
N 0.`5
l) lli c? E- 1
x

tJ

P-e
\ F 1
r
1 ? 1 I ?U I o \? \`" ? `1
.?
y r

II
I {
G ?'j

I
Cam{ II

M
Q?
VO
v
M
-off
r+-
4
0
^v
r
V
ID
d
'u
0
d
f
t
0
0..
L?
L
o
PROJECT COMMITMENTS -
Replacement of Bridge No. 12
MAY
on NC 242 over Porter Swamp
Columbus County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-242(2)
State Project No. 8.1431401
T.I.P. No. B-3142 0 1 0 8 61
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Bridge Maintenance Unit
NCDOT will rehabilitate Bridge No. 178 on SR 1504 for its utilization
while detouring traffic off-site during construction.
Division Six Construction Office
NCDOT will strengthen SR 1504 and SR 1414 with 11/2 inches of asphalt for
their utilization while detouring traffic off-site during construction. SR 1504 will
be strengthened from the intersection with NC 242 to the intersection with SR
1414. SR 1414 will be strengthened from the intersection with SR 1504 to the
intersection with US 76.
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Six Construction
NCDOwill adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 12.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Six Construction Office
NCDOT-will adhere to construction guidelines outlined in "NCDOT
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" during construction.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
September 20,1999
Page 1 of 1
4 ?'(l!
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3142
State Project No. 8.1431401
Federal Project No. BRSTP-242(2)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. The bridge will be replaced with a 150-foot long
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The proposed cross section will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. Approach work for the bridge replacement will include resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. The total
project length will be approximately 1100 feet. Traffic will be detoured along
SR 1504, SR 1414, and US 76 during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 12 has a sufficiency rating of 17.4 out of 100. The deck and
substructure of this 52-year old bridge are in poor condition. For these reasons,
Bridge No. 12 needs to be replaced.
C. 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)
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 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
O 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.
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 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 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:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 23,000
Bridge No. 178 Rehabilitation* $ 10,000
Detour Rehabilitation* $ 175,000
Total Cost $ 933,000
*Rehabilitation Costs:
In order for the off-site detour to be utilized, Bridge No. 178 will be
rehabilitated to accommodate current traffic on NC 242 during construction. In
addition, the designated detour portions of SR 1504 and SR 1414 will be
strengthened with 1 ''/s" of asphalt prior to construction.
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1500 VPD
Year 2025 - 2700 VPD
TTST - 5%
Dual - 4%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The roadway approaches will consist of two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot
shoulders.
Design Speed:
60 mph
Functional Classification:
Rural Major Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division 6 Office concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridge in place and detouring traffic along SR 1504, SR 1414, and US 76 during
construction.
3
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 12 has six spans totaling 132 feet in length. The deck and
bridge railings are composed of concrete. The superstructure contains timber
bents with concrete caps. The bridge railings and bents will be removed without
dropping their components into Waters of the United States. There is potential
for components of the deck and caps to be dropped into Waters of the United
States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and caps
is approximately 117 yd3.
Recommendation Analysis:
Two alternates were considered for the replacement of Bridge No. 12.
Alternate One (recommended) involved replacing the bridge at approximately
the same location as the existing bridge while detouring traffic along
surrounding roads during construction. Alternate Two involved replacing the
bridge on new alignment west of the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on
the existing bridge during construction.
Due to the quantity and quality of wetland resources found at the project
site, Alternate Two was not considered reasonable. In addition, the cost of
providing an on-site detour was estimated to be approximately $250,000.
Replacing the bridge in place while detouring traffic off-site (Alternate One)
would reduce the amount of wetlands effected by the project considerably.
Therefore, Alternate One was recommended.
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 or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve 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
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the 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? X
(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? X
(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? 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
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
5
(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
(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
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the

bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? ?
X
(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 project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/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
(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 ?
of 1965, as amended? X
(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 System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? 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.)
Items 1 and 4 - The estimated area of wetland impacts for this project is one
acre. However, estimated impacts are derived using proposed right-of-way limits.
Project construction does not usually require the entire ROW width; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
B-3142
8.1431401
BRSTP-242(2)
Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. The bridge will be replaced with a 150-foot long
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The proposed cross section will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. Approach work for the bridge replacement will include resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. The total
project length will be approximately 1100 feet. Traffic will be detoured along
SR 1504, SR 1414, and US 76 during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification
Approved:
- Zo -q'
Date
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)

Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
y-zo-99 1Pg !,s2- ez7/,'o 794
Date Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
J-26-77
Date
Karerf Orthn6r, Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II (B) projects only:
;Y1AQ "
Date
C
Kvision Administrator
ederal Highway Administration
15 12
•.1
t
Braswell '
1.4 Bridge
1504 ?Ilidrtuon
Crossroad: r No. 178 j 1414 O
.9 1.2 1524 cv
') N 1503 1565 7 , a 1525
/ • - 1504 1 T 1.
3
to
0 /? Bridge 1414
1501 Mt. Mora'
Porter 1454 Ch 1
I a SwOarmp ° _
-' e ?? r:
1501
1566 . / ? \ . ? 1415
1 •?,'t' z ' ' a °
15_00 a / 1404 CSX 1414
1.
1500 403 .5 " J ,1415 1415
O POP. 218 - S? 1413 5 ?t? i
1.2
h
1411 1410 1415 1413
,yam E teen l0 1410
s : ) ) - ) W iteville- 2 1415 .
l" t 11_ Hdlebora IS -) Rw•e'
130 r `+ 1? L•ki 6 Bolton Freeman Oelcor 1412 ?.
Fur Blull to Gordo CAedbouin Wcc•m•w?,a,M Sandy 7
/1 8runs"Ick Waccanrau,
C r 0 10 rio U M ; U 1410 141' -tL r 1'
CAwry Grove q0 r--I--, •
Clarendon lT
, 7 Schulkms ? 1004
v +1 - r/ 'S\ta^er rand 1415 2 a
1" r ollre Id Doc
C 1415
Lake
N.kme l •
Iron Hill 9 "
904 I) IeA B u•Aill ,
?/
? Puewey ? •
0 0 0 - 0 *--- Detour Route
+. North Carolina
z Department Of Transportation
P'
Planning & Environmental Branch
COLUMBUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 12 ON NC 242
OVER PORTER SWAMP
B-3142
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
r STAR
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 #12 on NC 242 over Porter Swamp,
Columbus County, State Project 8.2430501,
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1740(1), B-3142,
ER 98-7736
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??
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: VO' F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
e? SV Vt n?
rr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1AMEs B. HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
August 20, 1999
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Memorandum To:. Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
From: Chris Murray, P.W.S.
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. TIP No. B-3142: Federal Aid
Project No. MABRZ-242(2); State Project No. 8.1431401.
Attention: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information
concerning waters of the United States and protected species is also provided.
c: File
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 12
On NC 242 over Porter Swamp
Columbus County
TIP No. B-3142
State Project No. 8.1431401
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-242(2)
Natural Resources Technical Report
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
CHRIS MURRAY, P.W.S.
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
AUGUST 20, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................... .................1
1.2 Purpose ........................................ .................1
1.3 Methodology ................................... .................1
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Biologist ................. .................3
2.0 Physical Characteristics ................................ .................3
2.1 Soils .......................................... .................4
2.2 Water Resources ................................. ................ 4
2.2.1 Subbasin Characteristics ..................................... 4
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics ....................... ................ 4
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification .................... ................ 5
2.2.4 Water Quality ............................. ................ 5
2.2.5 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .........................6
3.0 Biotic Resources .................................... ................ 7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................... ................7
3.1.1 Disturbed Community ...................... ................ 8
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest ..................... ................ 8
3.1.3 Riverine Coastal Bottomland Wetland .......... ................ 8
3.2 Faunal Component ............................. .................9
3.3 Aquatic Communities ............................ ...............10
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ............. ............... 10
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues .................................. ...............12
4.1 Waters of the United States ....................... ............... 12
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .. ............... 12
4.1.2 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S ....... ............... 13
4.1.3 Permits .................................. ...............14
4.1.4 Mitigation ................................ ............... 14
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ....................... ............... 14
4.1.4.2 Minimization ..................... ............... 14
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ............ ...............15
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ........................................ 15
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................. ............... 15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern .................. ............... 19
5.0 References .......................................... ...............21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Topographic Map ........................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities .......................... 11
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Columbus County ..................... 16
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Columbus County ..................... 20
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is 18 in (60 ft) and the
proposed ROW is 24 m (80 ft). Two alternates are proposed for this project:
Alternate 1-Replace the existing Bridge No. 12 with a bridge approximately 46 in (150
ft) in length at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction. Project
length is approximately 229 m (750 ft).
Alternate 2-Replace the existing Bridge No. 12 with a bridge approximately 46 m (150
ft) in length on new alignment to the west of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The existing bridge will be
removed after new alignment is completed. Project length is approximately 701 in (2.300
ft).
Bridge No. 12 has six spans totaling 40.2 in (132 ft) in length. The deck and
bridge railings are composed of concrete. The superstructure contains timber bents with
concrete caps. The bridge railings and bents will be removed without dropping
components into waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck and
caps to be dropped into waters of the U.S. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck and caps is approximately 135 m' (177 yd')
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to
these resources. Recommendations are made for measures, which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing design concepts.
If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Cerro Gordo, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project
study area (1:1200) and Soil Survey of Columbus County (USDA, 1990). Water resource
as
oc

I O? `? 'oJ

76 t\ \ ?\ L 'or\
\

-
? Y• 4
_ 11ti ? -
WiHlamson
S .. „ -'• -~ - ,t _ J ° Crossroads

- -r? . .rrr. / 90

.f
- +. 1
A )?
? ?

Project Study Area

Robin -
\
\ Bay

t MO

r.

??pp
4
-

O
3 '
° -
31 r `C°rr' a
_
= 90 +
-
~
Porter SNrn •
!O
o G rdo
L?MM?w
too F& M
I ch 4
1/Q1 ..,too
i
L------ r -?
?97 '•
Ch 1
_
7100 90
• ? F •b:, as ? ? M .rr . Cem
0
0
J l
n
i
r

run,-
3
information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) (1993, 1994). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and
candidate species (May 13, 1999) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Chris Murray and Jared Gray on January 5, 1999. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using
one or more of the following observational techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bound by proposed ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region
is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map centered on
the project.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Christopher A. Murray. P.W.S.
Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
B.S. Zoology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Certification: Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1130
Experience: North Carolina Department of Transportation 1995-present
Environmental Investigations, P.A. 1992-1994
Environmental Services, Inc. 1991-1992
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, NEPA Investigations, and Protected Species Surveys
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Columbus County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in a rural area
of Columbus County surrounded by isolated houses, farm land, upland forests, and
swamp forests. The project study area is located approximately 21-23 m (70-75 ft) above
mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
Two mapped soil units are located in the project study area and include Foreston
loamy fine sand and Johnston Loam, frequently flooded. These soil units are discussed
below:
Foreston loamy fine sand is a moderately well drained soil on smooth uplands and
Carolina bay rims. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper part of the subsoil
and rapid in the middle and lower parts and in the underlying material. The available
water capacity is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water
table is at a depth of 0.6 to 1.1 m (2.0 to 3.5 ft) during the winter and spring. Foreston
loamy fine sand is a non-hydric soil.
Johnston loam, frequently flooded is a very poorly drained soil along major
drainageways on floodplains. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer
and rapid in the underlying material. The available water capacity is moderate. The
seasonal high water table is near or above the surface from early in winter to late in
spring. Johnston loam, frequently flooded is a hydric soil.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Lumber River
watershed (Subbasin 03-07;51) of-the Lumber River Basin. With a drainage area of
1.043,300 ac, the Lumber River watershed is the largest of the four watersheds in the
Lumber River Basin. Sediment is the most widespread cause of impairment to stream
water quality and biological integrity of the basin.
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics
The project crosses Porter Swamp, a blackwater stream. These systems typically
have variable flow regimes with floods of short duration and periods of low flow. The
water tends to be acidic, low in mineral sediment, colored by tannins, and low in nutrients
(Schafale and Weakly, 1990). The main channel width of Porter Swamp along NC 242 is
approximately 18 m (60 ft) and has been straightened and channelized. The depth could
not be estimated at the project but exceeds 2 m (7 ft). The substrate of the stream near the
bank was comprised of organic muck, sand, and clay.
5
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The best usage classification of Porter Swamp (DWQ Index Number 14-27) is Class C
SW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. SW is a supplemental classification
intended to recognize those waters that generally have naturally occurring very low
velocities, low pH and low dissolved oxygen. No water resources classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-I1), or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. Porter
Swamp has been identified as an impaired freshwater stream and is classified as not
supporting classified uses. The source of impairment has been identified as non-point
source pollution.
2.2.4 Water Quality
The DWQ initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the
17 river basins within the state of North Carolina. In order to accomplish this goal, the
DWQ collects biological, chemical, and phvsical data for basinwide assessments and
planning.
Specific river basins within North Carolina are intensively sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrates. The macroinvertebrates are a good indicator of water quality because
of their sensitivity to subtle environmental changes, mobility (as compared to fish),
diversity, and relatively long life cycle. The overall species richness and presence of
indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River basins are
reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and facilitate the NPDES
permit review.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) monitors ambient
water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates
organisms that are sensitive to water quality conditions. Criteria have been developed to
assign bioclassifications based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT S). A BMAN monitoring site is
located on Porter Swamp at SR 1503, which is approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) upstream
of the project study area. The site received a bioclassification of Poor in September 1991.
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers located throughout
North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are
no NPDES sites located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream of the project study area.
6
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of nonpoint source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters.
Farm land is located along the northern portion of the project study area. Land
clearing and tillage may render soils susceptible to erosion, which in turn can cause
stream sedimentation. Pesticides and fertilizers can be washed from fields into the water
resources. Cleared land from forestry practices is located along the southern portion of
the project study area. Clearing of trees through timber harvesting and construction of
logging roads can produce sedimentation.
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. Land
clearing and grubbing activities from project construction will directly result in soil
erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity in Porter Swamp. These effects
may extend downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality.
The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. An increase in water temperature results in a decrease in
dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation also
stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters must
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with
DEM and DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects
which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
There is potential for components of Bridge No. 12 to be dropped into waters of
the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
bridge removal is identified in Section 1.1. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this
bridge.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of
the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion if exposed soils
are revegetated and streambanks stabilized with native vegetation. Wooded buffers
effectively trap organic nutrients and sediments before they reach water resources. This
will increase long-term water quality and provide wildlife habitat.
Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study area.
Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage must be adhered to for this project. These guidelines are applicable for all
projects crossing perennial or intermittent tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic
map) located below the fall line. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to
NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway stream crossing
structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*)
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used
by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985;
Rhode et al. 1994).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: disturbed
community, mixed hardwood forest and riverine coastal bottomland wetland.
3. 1.1 Disturbed Community
This community encompasses two types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder and agricultural field.
Roadside shoulders are land parcels in which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing,
early successional state. These areas appear to be regularly mowed and may receive
frequent herbicide application. This habitat is located directly adjacent to NC 242
throughout the project. Species observed here include fescue (Festuca spp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Japanese honeyscukle (Lonicera
japonica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Carolina geranium (Geranium
carolinianum), vetch (Vicia sp.), and wild onion (Allium vineale). A corn field (Zea
mays) is located along the northern project limits.
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest
This upland forest tract is dominated by species common throughout the coastal
plain of North Carolina. Plants observed here include willow oak (Quercus phellos).
laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), water oak (Q. nigra), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria). wax
myrtle (Mvrica cerifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracinua), red maple (Acer rubrum).
high bush blueberry (Vaccinium corvmbosum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Vines and epiphytes located here
include greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides), yellow
jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and dewberry (Rubus sp.).
3.1.3 Riverine Coastal Bottomland Wetland
This wetland tract is the dominant community throughout the project study area.
Several variations of this community exist depending on its successional stage, flooding
regime, and level of prior disturbance. This forested community is located in the upper
reaches of the swamp and is irregularly to seasonally flooded. Overbank flooding,
surface and groundwater flow perpendicular to the stream channel are likely sources of
hydrology. The forested, mature stands exhibit a closed canopy with well developed herb
and shrub layers. Dominant plants vary with the type of sediments and subtle changes in
elevation as well as frequency and duration of flooding.
Hardwood Forest, Irregularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include laurel oak,
sweet gum, red maple, high bush blueberry, horse sugar, wax myrtle, swamp chestnut oak
(Q. michauxii), coastal dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), swamp dog hobble (L.
racemosa), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), pepperbush, red
bay (Persea borbonia), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), privet (Ligustrum sinense), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), netted chainfem (Woodwardia areolata), sedge (Carer sp.) and
bamboo vine (Smilax rotundifolia). The hydrology-in this variation ranged from
saturated to the surface to a flooding depth of 10 cm (4 in).
9
Hardwood Forest, Regularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include giant cane,
red maple, sweet gum, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), sedge, red bay,
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), cypress (Taxodium distichium), Virginia magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana), willow oak, American elm (Ulmus americana), overcup oak (Q.
lyrata), and winterberry (Ilex verticillata). The hydrology in this variation ranged from a
flooding depth of 10 cm (4 in) to more than 30 cm (12 in). Many of the larger trees
exhibited buttressed trunks and stained water marks.
Disturbed herbaceous, irregularly flooded: This variation is dominated by herbs, likely
attributed to recent land clearing activities. Plants located here include sedge, seedbox
(Ludwigia spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), plume grass (Erianthus sp.), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), St. John's wort (Hypericum sp.), giant cane, cypress
seedlings, crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), silverling
(Baccharis halimifolia), bamboo vine, cat tail (Typha latifolia) and broomsedge
(Andorpogon sp.).
3.2 Faunal Component
Much of the wildlife in the project study area likely use various communities for
forage, cover, and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the
edges of forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
The raccoon* (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats
to moist upland forests as well as urban areas. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus) are occasionally observed along broken areas of mixed young forests and
abandoned fields. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on
adjacent roadways. The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed
or open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting
habitat. Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they
primarily feed on woody perennials. Mammals commonly occurring in bottomland
forested habitats include star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), cotton mouse
(Peromyscus gossypinus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), and mink (Mustela vison).
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates) and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), southern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) and dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata)
are commonly found under logs, leaf litter or rocks in bottomlands. The barking treefrog
(Hyla gratiosa) inhabits low wet woods and swamps in the lower Coastal Plain. Little
grass frogs (Limnaoedus ocularis) prefer streams in bottomland sites. The snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), are known to inhabit
freshwater bottomlands. Several aquatic snakes inhabit bottomlands and include the mud
10
snake (Farancia abacura), rainbow snake (F. erytrogramma), redbelly water snake
(Nerodia erythrogastrer), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), brown-
headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), and Carolina chickadde* (Parus carolinensis) are
commonly observed in mixed hardwood forests throughout the southern coastal plain.
Turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura) and red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis) were
observed flying above the project area. The Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus)
and mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos) were observed along the roadside shoulder. The
barred owl (Strix varia), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern parula
(Parula americana), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) are often observed
in wet, deciduous woods. The white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) inhabits the edges of
bottomlands where it feeds on insects.
3.3 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type. coastal plain perennial stream is located in the
project study area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the
water influence the faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Perennial streams
support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water. Porter
Swamp provides habitat for chain pickerel (Esox niger), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crvsoleucas), madtom (Notorus sp.) and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources _
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community in the functional design (Table 1). Project construction will result in the
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are
derived using the proposed right-of-way (ROW) limits outlined in Section 1.1. Project
construction does not usually require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
11
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
New Alignment In Place
Removal
Disturbed Community 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) 0. 1 ha (0.4 ac) 0.3 ha (0.7 ac)
Mixed Hardwood Forest <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac)
Riverine Coastal Bottom. Wetland 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) 0.2 ha (0.6 ac)
TOTAL (see note) 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) 0.8 ha (1.9 ac) 0.5 ha (1.3 ac)
Notes:
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community
due to rounding of significant digits.
-Alternate 1 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts associated with the
removal of existing Bridge No. 12 and adjacent roadway approaches in approximately the
same location for new replacement bridge.
-Alternate 2 New Alignment values indicate permanent impacts to the new bridge and
roadway approaches on new location.
-Alternate 2 In Place Removal values indicate permanent and temporary impacts
associated with the removal of Bridge No. 12 and adjacent roadway approaches.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. The riverine coastal bottomland wetland habitat is an ecologically
important habitat that will be affected by all or some of the following construction
impacts: the permanent placement of fill, temporary placement of fill, and the removal of
existing fill. It is recommended that areas that receive temporary fill and where existing
bridge and adjacent roadways are removed (i.e. Alternate 2) be graded down to normal
elevation and revegetated with native flora.
Clearing and conversion of the wetland habitat for roadway development affects
nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. Temporary and permanent
impacts will displace animals from this area as they search for additional habitat.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals (shrews, snakes, etc.) from
construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls should be maintained during the
entire life of the project. Construction runoff and highway spills may result in mortality
to aquatic species inhabiting Porter Swamp.
12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--waters of the United States and protected and rare species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a).. Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands"
under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into
waters of the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the
statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Wetlands
Porter Swamp is considered jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. This system is thoroughly described in Section 2.2.1. Potential
jurisdictional wetland communities were examined pursuant to the 1987 U.S. Army Corp.s
or Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The manual is a technical guideline for
wetlands. According to the manual, an area is considered a wetland if three parameters,
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrologic characteristics concurrently exist.
Based upon the results of the field investigation, the project area contains jurisdictional
wetlands.
Two systems are currently being used in North Carolina to describe or rate
wetlands: a classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) and a numerical
rating system developed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM, 1995). The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in describing concepts
and terms used in classifying wetland systems. The DEM rating scale gauges wetland
quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with 100 being the highest value) that
emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife
habitat, aquatic life values, and recreation/ education potential. The DEM rating may be
revised when a wetland delineation is conducted at the project study area. A description
of the wetland sites, Cowardin system classification and DEM rating are presented below.
Hardwood Forest. Irre ug larly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include laurel oak,
sweet gum, red maple, high bush blueberry, horse sugar, wax myrtle, swamp chestnut
oak, coastal dog hobble, swamp dog hobble, giant cane, titi, pepperbush, red bay,
fetterbush, privet, elderberry, netted chainfern, sedge and bamboo vine. The clay loam
soil at this site exhibited a soil color of I OYR 4/2 with 7.5 YR 4/6 mottles in the A layer.
Observations of wetland hydrology include inundation, saturation within 30 cm (12 in)
13
and drainage pattern in wetland. This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PFO1 C
and a DEM rating of 79.
Hardwood Forest, Regularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include giant cane,
red maple, sweet gum, black gum, sedge, red bay, woolgrass, cypress, Virginia magnolia,
willow oak, American elm, overcup oak, and winterberry. The clay loam soil at this site
exhibited a soil color of l OYR 4/1 with 2.5 YR 3/4 mottles in the A layer. Observations
of wetland hydrology include inundation, water marks and drainage pattern in wetland.
This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PFO IF and a DEM rating of 79.
Disturbed herbaceous, irregularly flooded: Plants located here include sedge, seedbox ,
soft rush, plume grass, buttonbush, St. John's wort, giant cane, cypress, crossvine,
goldenrod, silverling, bamboo vine, cat tail and broomsedge. The clay loam soil at this
site exhibited a soil color of l OYR 3/1 with 7.5 YR 2.5/3 mottles in the A layer.
Observations of wetland hydrology include inundation, saturation within 30 cm (12 in)
and drainage pattern in wetland. This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PEM2C
and a DEM rating of 54.
4.1.2 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands.
Impacts are summarized in Table 2. The amount of wetland and surface water impacts
may be modified by any changes in the project design. Both temporary and permanent
impacts to the coastal plain bottomland wetland are clearly summarized in Table 1.
Porter Swamp is proposed to be bridged. Approximately 24 m (80 ft) of Porter Swamp is
located in the ROW of Alternate 1 and the New Alignment and In Place Removal
associated with Alternate 2.
There is the potential that components of the deck of Bridge No. 12 will be
dropped into waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck associated with Bridge No. 12 is 135 m' (177 yd').
This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than
those outlined in BMPs.
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands perform in an
ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing
storm water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and
downstream areas. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and inorganic
nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows through them. The presence of
wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
14
4.1.3 Permits
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for
minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other authorities. A
nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP
rules satisfies the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Forty
NWPs referenced by a number currently exist. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities permitted
by the federal government comply with state water quality standards. The DWQ may
require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills or substantially
modifies waters or wetlands. North Carolina developed General Certifications (GCs) that
satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the USACE NWPs. Water Quality Certification
No. 3107 corresponds to NWP 23.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts.
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
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 and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measure 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.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
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. Impacts to the
wetland could be minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths; (2)
15
installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction; (3) strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands and (4) reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. Alternate 1 has reduced wetland
impacts when compared to Alternate 2. Alternate 1 is the preferred alignment based on
environmental issues.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for 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. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetland will require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h) and fill or alteration of more than 450 linear m (150 linear ft) of streams
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0506(a) and
(h). If these acreage and linear thresholds are exceeded from project construction.
NCDOT will follow these regulations.
If Alternate 2 is chosen, the removal of Bridge No. 12 and its adjacent roadway
and the subsequent grading down to normal elevation and revegetation with native flora
could serve as on-site mitigation for the construction of the new alignment.
4.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the 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, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of May 14, 1999, there are five federally-protected
species listed for Columbus County (Table 2). A brief description of each Endangered or
Threatened species characteristics and habitat follows.
16
Table 2. Federally protected species for Columbus County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(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
i
Endangered=a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Threatened=a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance=a taxon that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for protection. These
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation. This includes the American alligator.
* indicates the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
short-nosed sturgeon
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small species of sturgeon which occurs in coastal
rivers and estuaries with soft vegetated substrates. It prefers deep channels with a salinity
less than sea water. Although generally considered anadromous, because of the
avoidance of high salinities, this species has been described as intermediate between fully
anadramous and potamodromous.
Adult short-nosed sturgeons are commonly reported in shallow water (2-10 m) in
summer and in deeper water (10-30 m) in winter. At spawning time, however, the fish
may move considerable distance upstream if unimpeded by dams. Spawning sites have
been described as freshwater swamps, or freshwater areas with fast flow and rough
bottoms. In the southern portion of its range, short-nosed sturgeon spawning occurs from
January to April.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Fred Rhode was contacted on August 13, 1999 regarding the potential presence of
short-nosed sturgeon at the project study area. He stated that Porter Swamp is too
stagnant and too small a stream to provide suitable habitat for the short-nosed sturgeon.
A review of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
observations of the short-nosed sturgeon in the project vicinity. Impacts to this species
will not occur from project construction.
17
American alligator
Animal Family: Crocodilidae
The American alligator is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other
rare species and is listed to protect these species. The American alligator is not
biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Potential habitat for the American alligator does exist in the project study area; although
no individuals were observed during the site visit. A review of NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known observations of the American alligator in
the project vicinity.
Waccamaw silversides
Animal Family: Atherinidae
Date Listed: April 8, 1987
The Waccamaw silverside, is a small (growing to about 2.5 in), slim, almost
transparent fish with a silvery stripe along each side. Its body is laterally compressed, the
eyes are large, and the jaw is sharply angled upward. This fish spawns from April through
June, but spawning reaches its peak when water temperatures are between 68 and 72 F.
Fully developed larvae form small isolated schools by early May. No parental care of the
young has been noted. The silversides reach sexual maturity by the following spring.
spawn, and then shortly thereafter most of the adults die off. A few may survive a second
winter.
Known only from Lake Waccamaw and the upper Waccamaw River in Columbus
County, the silverside is found in the upper Waccamaw River only during periods of high
water and is not a permanent resident. The species' population is estimated to be in the
millions. The critical habitat for this species is Lake Waccamaw in its entirety to mean
high water level, and Big Creek from its mouth at Lake Waccamaw upstream
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) to where the creek is crossed by County Road 1947.
Constituent elements include high quality.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The project study area is not located near Lake Waccamaw or the upper
Waccamaw River. A review of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no known observations of this species in the project vicinity. Impacts to the Waccamaw
silversides will not occur from project construction.
red-cockaded woodpecker
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 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
18
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, 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 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 200.0 ha
(500.0 ac). 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 (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-50.0 ft)
high. They can be 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
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, in the form
of old growth pine forests, is not located in the project study area. There were no pines of
sufficient size and density located in the project study area or nearby vicinity. A review
of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
RCW within 1.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to this species will not
occur from project construction.
rough-leaved loosestrife
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled
leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers, which usually occur in threes or fours.
Fruits are present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North
and South Carolina. 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), pine flatwoods, and pocosins. The areas it occurs in are fire
maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands
and prefers acidic soils.
19
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife does not exist as there are no
ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand in the project
study area. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal
the presence of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
Impacts to this species will not occur from project construction.
Cooley's meadowrue
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: February 7, 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
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. Fruits mature from August to September.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs and savannahs. It also grows
along fireplow lines, roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline rights-of-way
that provide the hydrology necessary to support this species. Cooley's meadowrue needs
some type of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Plants often found growing with
the meadowrue include tulip poplar growing with cypress and/or Atlantic white cedar.
Cooley's meadowrue only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project study area is comprised of disturbed habitat, mixed hardwood forest,
and riverine coastal bottomland wetland. There are no wet bogs or savannahs at the site.
The disturbed community at the project area is regularly maintained and is a xeric, upland
site. Therefore, there is no suitable habitat for this species located in the project study
area. A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not indicate
the presence of Cooley's meadowrue within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. No
effects to this species will occur from the construction of this project.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. Twenty-four FSC are listed for Columbus County
(Table 3).
20
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Columbus County.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Habitat
Status
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC No
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowh SR No
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii SC (PT) Yes
Carolina pygmy sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T No
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamensis Sc No
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC (PT) No
Waccamaw lance Elliptio sp. 5 Not No
pearlymussel Available
Waccamaw spike Elliptio wacamawensis T No
Waccamaw fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati T No
Pee Dee lotic crayfish Procambarus lepidodactylu.s Not No
Available
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus T (PE) Yes
Cape Fear threetooth Tridopsis soelneri T Yes
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. T No
confusa
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii W] Yes
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula C-SC No
Harper's fimbn Fimbrysrylis perpusilla T No
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana I No
savannah cowbane Oxypoli.s ternata W 1 No
Carolina grass-of- Parnassia caroliniana E No
parnassus
pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora F.. No
swamp forest beaksedge Rhynchospora securrens Not No
Available
spring-flowering Solidago verna E No
goldenrod
wireleaf dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius sensu T No
stricto
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra C No
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 flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species are
very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Special Concern
(SC) species require monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations
adopted under provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act.
21
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. Proposed Candidate
(PC) are species which have been formally proposed for listing as Candidate but has not
yet completed the legally mandated listing process. Watch Category 1 (WI) includes rare
species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appear to be
relatively secure at this time. Watch Category 2 (W2) includes species with questionable
taxonomy, including taxa of dubious validity and taxa under study and potentially to be
named.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal
the presence of these species or unique habitats in or near the project study area. Surveys
for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were these
species observed during the site visit.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.'
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 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, MS.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program. Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, NC.
22
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1993. Lumber River Basin-Basinwide Assessment
Report Support Document. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1994. Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 1999. Stream Classifications Internet Home Page.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford. A.E.. H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Rhode. F.C.. R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Marvland. & Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale. M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (3rd Approx.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County. Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill,
NC.
°
"' U.
x
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
12 August 1999
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Unit
SECRETARY
From: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist ;?
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Protected species surveys for rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulaefolia) and Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) for
the following TIP No: B-3142.
Attention: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Jim Hauser conducted surveys in the project
study area for the federally endangered rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulaefolia) and Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Species descriptions and
biological conclusions follow.
Roughed-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Family: Primrose (Primulaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered, 1987
Best Search Time: late spring through mid summer (late May - early June)
Distribution: Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills of
North Carolina and South Carolina.
Habitat: Typical habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is the ecotone between high pocosin
and longleaf pine (or oak) savannas that contain sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight.
Roughed-leaved loosestrife sometimes occurs in low pocosin openings where light is
abundant at ground level. Other habitats where this species is found include ecotones of
Characteristics: Cooley's meadowrue is a tall herb to 1 m or more in flower. Its slender
stems are erect in sunny locations and lax or sprawling when shaded. The leaves are
ternately divided and the leaflets are about 2 cm long, narrow with entire margins or
rarely with two or three lobes near the tip. The entire plant is glabrous with no hairs or
glands. Male and female flowers occur on separate plants in loose few-flower clusters at
the top of the plant. The flowers lack petals and the sepals fall off early. The male
flowers have numerous pale lavender stamens. The female flowers have several separate
spindle-shaped carpels which develop into narrowly ellipsoid, ribbed, one-seeded fruits 6
mm long, each tipped with a persistent linear style.
Threats: Loss of wet savanna / bog habitat, through succession, clearing for agriculture,
forestry, mining, development and highway construction are all threats to the survival of
Cooley's meadowrue.
Biological Conclusion: _ No Effect
Areas of suitable habitat within the project study area were surveyed on 23 June 1999. A
plant by plant survey was unsuccessful. No Cooley's meadowrue plants were located.
The NCNHP records were checked via ArcView that was last updated in January 1999.
At that time, no populations of Cooley's meadowrue were known from the project study
area. This project will not affect Cooley's meadowrue.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding
protected species at this project site.
cc: David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head
Tim Savidge, Protected Species Coordinator
I,Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
File: B-3142
o
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 12
on NC 242 over Porter Swamp
Columbus County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-242(2) 01086 1
State Project No. 8.1431401
T.I.P. No. B-3142
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Bridge Maintenance Unit
NCDOT will rehabilitate Bridge No. 178 on SR 1504 for its utilization
while detouring traffic off-site during construction.
Division Six Construction Office
NCDOT will strengthen SR 1504 and SR 1414 with 11/2 inches of asphalt for
their utilization while detouring traffic off-site during construction. SR 1504 will
be strengthened from the intersection with NC 242 to the intersection with SR
1414. SR 1414 will be strengthened from the intersection with SR 1504 to the
intersection with US 76.
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Six Construction
NCDOT` will adhere to the Best Management Practices (Burs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 12.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Six Construction Office
NCD01'will adhere to construction guidelines outlined in "N OT
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" during construction.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
September 20, 1999
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3142
State Project No. 8.1431401
Federal Project No. BRSTP-242(2)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. The bridge will be replaced with a 150-foot long
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The proposed cross section will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. Approach work for the bridge replacement will include resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. The total
project length will be approximately 1100 feet. Traffic will be detoured along
SR 1504, SR 1414, and US 76 during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 12 has a sufficiency rating of 17.4 out of 100. The deck and
substructure of this 52-year old bridge are in poor condition. For these reasons,
Bridge No. 12 needs to be replaced.
C. 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)
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
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
O 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.
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 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 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:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 725,000
Right of Way $ 23,000
Bridge No. 178 Rehabilitation* $ 10,000
Detour Rehabilitation* $ 175,000
Total Cost $ 933,000
*Rehabilitation Costs:
In order for the off-site detour to be utilized, Bridge No. 178 will be
rehabilitated to accommodate current traffic on NC 242 during construction. In
addition, the designated detour portions of SR 1504 and SR 1414 will be
strengthened with 1 ''/2" of asphalt prior to construction.
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1500 VPD
Year 2025 - 2700 VPD
TTST - 5%
Dual - 4%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The roadway approaches will consist of two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot
shoulders.
Design Speed:
60 mph
Functional Classification:
Rural Major Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division 6 Office concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridge in place and detouring traffic along SR 1504, SR 1414, and US 76 during
construction.
3
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 12 has six spans totaling 132 feet in length. The deck and
bridge railings are composed of concrete. The superstructure contains timber
bents with concrete caps. The bridge railings and bents will be removed without
dropping their components into Waters of the United States. There is potential
for components of the deck and caps to be dropped into Waters of the United
States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and caps
is approximately 117 yd3.
Recommendation Analysis:
Two alternates were considered for the replacement of Bridge No. 12.
Alternate One (recommended) involved replacing the bridge at approximately
the same location as the existing bridge while detouring traffic along
surrounding roads during construction. Alternate Two involved replacing the
bridge on new alignment west of the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on
the existing bridge during construction.
Due to the quantity and quality of wetland resources found at the project
site, Alternate Two was not considered reasonable. In addition, the cost of
providing an on-site detour was estimated to be approximately $250,000.
Replacing the bridge in place while detouring traffic off-site (Alternate One)
would reduce the amount of wetlands effected by the project considerably.
Therefore, Alternate One was recommended.
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 or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve 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
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
4
(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? X
(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? X
(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?. 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
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? a
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
5
(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
(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
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ?
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(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 project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/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
(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
of 1965, as amended? X
(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 System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? 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.)
Items 1 and 4 - The estimated area of wetland impacts for this project is one
acre. However, estimated impacts are derived using proposed right-of-way limits.
Project construction does not usually require the entire ROW width; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No
Project Description:
B-3142
8.1431401
BRSTP-242(2)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. The bridge will be replaced with a 150-foot long
bridge at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The proposed cross section will include two 12-foot lanes and 3-foot
offsets. Approach work for the bridge replacement will include resurfacing and
widening the roadway to two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. The total
project length will be approximately 1100 feet. Traffic will be detoured along
SR 1504, SR 1414, and US 76 during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
T-2O-CIq
Date

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
y-ZO-99 W? h2- e7/,o #-
Date Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
q_26- f7 ?naA c4?1 [yr
Date Kare Orthn r, Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II (B) projects only:
?p1.""
Date
C
Kvision Administrator
ederal Highway Administration
N
h ;.
1512 t
Braswell
t1i

1504
Ilid
W ?a Bridge ,?
mson
i
Craasroods
No. 178
' 1414

?r. C
.9 1.2 1524 rv
N 1503
l
1505 p 1525

•
-
-- 1•O
/
/" .? i 1504 1.3

Bridge 1414
1501 NO. 12 q Mt. Morl h- -
?-" Porter •
/ ? 1454 Ch
G
fo I
v
,• I Swamp
Ch."'
1501 /
1566 .
/ F 1415
,? t? 2 ' ?
a

1500 14.04 CSx 1 a t a

15

5
/140 ,
1 h
00 3 • 1415 1,116

O POP. 218 `S? 1413 ?t? •?
5 1 2 /
-/•. /*/
/
/
10
E •;re ?-.

'I 2 5 ? r ] 7 • \ -1 1H11EVIII!
r
' Rie e'

130
CCnadooun * d
Fair Bluff Cerro Gordo
S I, kaki 6 Bolton Freeman Delco,'
Sandy
WacCamaw?
k
/1 Brunawme
7 ?
C I: 0 10I 'L w U
Cherry Grove qp r-?--,
' Q
,
Waccamam r'
M U S 4
•
-
` Clarendon
T 1 /
1
q ? Sidney $ch.- a
Pond _
C` 7LakeTabor
l
N
a
ims
a
iron Mill
? 5
` 904 1)
Su` q
,
hdl
lah
?
1 4
Pneway J

a

--0-0 0 -- 1 Detour Route
1411 1410 .n 1415 1413 -1
lJ 1
1410
2 1415
1412 1.7
8 1410 141'
O 1004 '"`
?' t 2 4
1415
+,. North Carolina
z Department Of Transportation
'z?Nn Planning & Environmental Branch
COLUMBUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 12 ON NC 242
OVER PORTER SWAMP
B-3142
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure I
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

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 #12 on NC 242 over Porter Swamp,
Columbus County, State Project 8.2430501,
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1740(1), B-3142,
ER 98-7736
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 $
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,
;Wyz LeJ
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 1/4. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
l}ate w? J?? q
J J ? M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
August 20, 1999
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott. Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
From: Chris Murray, Y.W.S.
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. TIP No. B-3142: Federal Aid
Project No. MABRZ-242(2): State Project No. 8.1431401.
Attention: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information
concerning waters of the United States and protected species is also provided.
c: File
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 12
On NC 242 over Porter Swamp
Columbus County
TIP No. B-3142
State Project No. 8.1431401
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-242(2)
Natural Resources Technical Report
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
CHRIS MURRAY, P.W.S.
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
AUGUST 20, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................... .................1
1.2 Purpose ........................................ .................1
1.3 Methodology .................................... ................1
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Biologist .................. ................3
2.0 Physical Characteristics ................................. ................3
2.1 Soils ........................................... ................4
2.2 Water Resources ................................. ................ 4
2.2.1 Subbasin Characteristics ..................... ................ 4
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics ....................... ................ 4
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification .................... ................ 5
2.2.4 Water Quality .............................. ............... 5
2.2.5 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resourcc? ......... ................6
3.0 Biotic Resources ..................................... ............... 7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................... ................7
3.l .1 Disturbed Community ....................... ............... 8
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest ...................... ............... 8
3.1.3 Riverine Coastal Bottomland Wetland ........... ............... 8
3.2 Faunal Component .............................. ................9
3.3 Aquatic Communities ............................ ...............10
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources .............. .............. 10
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues .................................. ...............12
4.1 Waters of the United States ........................ .............. 12
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ... .............. 12
4.1.2 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S ........ .............. 1
4.1.3 Permits ................................... ..............14
4.1.4 Mitigation .................................. .............. 14
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................ .............. 14
4.1.4.2 Minimization ...................... .............. 14
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ............. ..............15
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ......................... .............. 15
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................... .............. 15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ................... .............. 19
5.0 References ........................................... ..............21
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Topographic Map ........................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities .......................... 11
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Columbus-County ..................... 16
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Columbus County ..................... 20
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 12 on NC 242 over Porter
Swamp in Columbus County. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is 18 m (60 ft) and the
proposed ROW is 24 m (80 ft). Two alternates are proposed for this project:
Alternate 1-Replace the existing Bridge No. 12 with a bridge approximately 46 m (150
ft) in length at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction. Project
length is approximately 229 m (750 ft).
Alternate 2-Replace the existing Bridge No. 12 with a bridge approximately 46 m (150
ft) in length on new alignment to the west of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The existing bridge will be
removed after new alignment is completed. Project length is approximately 701 m (2.300
ft).
Bridge No. 12 has six spans totaling 40.2 in (132 ft) in length. The deck and
bridge railings are composed of concrete. The superstructure contains timber bents with
concrete caps. The bridge railings and bents will be removed without dropping
components into waters of the U.S. There is potential for components of the deck and
caps to be dropped into waters of the U.S. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck and caps is approximately 135 m3 (177 yd')
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to
these resources. Recommendations are made for measures, which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing design concepts.
If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Cerro Gordo, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project
study area (1:1200) and Soil Survey of Columbus County (USDA, 1990). Water resource
( O `fir
\ 1
?? \ 1 e
79
.°. -.w -+..? ter-
.
w1wamson
Crossroads
+
--i? - ter. ??. 90
1 I
o '- ' _ lIII
Project Study Area
_-
D
Robin \
\\\ Bay
ti
-
90
t Mo
T .v ? I
• _ - _
90
Pdt. S?rrn 1• 9° 4 r".
Ce To G rdo
t00 Faith l y6hthour
I ? 4
Q I10J too
/ L_------ - -J
?7/
ch
90 _
84 Cem
--------- ---
0
L
J /
n
0
i

uS -nn- _
information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) (1993, 1994). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and
candidate species (May 13, 1999) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Chris Murray and Jared Gray on January 5, 1999. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using
one or more of the following observational techniques: active searching and capture,
visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bound by proposed ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region
is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map centered on
the project.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Christopher A. Murray, P.W.S.
Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
B.S. Zoology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Certification: Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1130
Experience: North Carolina Department of Transportation 1995-present
Environmental Investigations, P.A. 1992-1994
Environmental Services, Inc. 1991-1992
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, NEPA Investigations, and Protected Species-Surveys
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Columbus County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in a rural area
of Columbus County surrounded by isolated houses, farm land, upland forests, and
swamp forests. The project study area is located approximately 21-23 m (70-75 ft) above
mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
Two mapped soil units are located in the project study area and include Foreston
loamy fine sand and Johnston Loam, frequently flooded. These soil units are discussed
below:
• Foreston loamy fine sand is a moderately well drained soil on smooth uplands and
Carolina bay rims. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper part of the subsoil
and rapid in the middle and lower parts and in the underlying material. The available
water capacity is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal high water
table is at a depth of 0.6 to 1.1 m (2.0 to 3.5 ft) during the winter and spring. Foreston
loamy fine sand is a non-hydric soil.
Johnston loam, frequently flooded is a very poorly drained soil along major
drainageways on floodplains. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer
and rapid in the underlying material. The available water capacity is moderate. The
seasonal high water table is near or above the surface from early in winter to late in
spring. Johnston loam, frequently flooded is a hydric soil.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Lumber River
watershed (Subbasin 03-07;51) of -the Lumber River Basin. With a drainage area of
1.043.300 ac, the Lumber River watershed is the largest of the four watersheds in the
Lumber River Basin. Sediment is the most widespread cause of impairment to stream
water quality and biological integrity of the basin.
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics
The project crosses Porter Swamp, a blackwater stream. These systems typically
have variable flow regimes with floods of short duration and periods of low flow. The
water tends to be acidic, low in mineral sediment, colored by tannins, and low in nutrients
(Schafale and Weakly, 1990). The main channel width of Porter Swamp along NC 242 is
approximately 18 in (60 ft) and has been straightened and channelized. The depth could
not be estimated at the project but exceeds 2 in (7 ft). The substrate of the stream near the
bank was comprised of organic muck, sand, and clay.
5
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The best usage classification of Porter Swamp (DWQ Index Number 14-27) is Class C
SW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. SW is a supplemental classification
intended to recognize those waters that generally have naturally occurring very low
velocities, low pH and low dissolved oxygen. No water resources classified as High
Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area. Porter
Swamp has been identified as an impaired freshwater stream and is classified as not
supporting classified uses. The source of impairment has been identified as non-point
source pollution.
2.2.4 Water Quality
The DWQ initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the
17 river basins within the state of North Carolina. In order to accomplish this goal, the
DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical data for basinwide assessments and
planning.
Specific river basins within North Carolina are intensively sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrates. The macroinvertebrates are a good indicator of water quality because
of their sensitivity to subtle environmental changes, mobility (as compared to fish),
diversity, and relatively long life cycle. The overall species richness and presence of
indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River basins are
reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and facilitate the NPDES
permit review.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) monitors ambient
water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates
organisms that are sensitive to water quality conditions. Criteria have been developed to
assign bioclassifications based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT S). A BMAN monitoring site is
located on Porter Swamp at SR 1503, which is approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) upstream
of the project study area. The site received a bioclassification of Poor in September 1991.
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers located throughout
North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are
no NPDES sites located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream of the project study area.
6
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of nonpoint source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with nonpoint source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters.
Farm land is located along the northern portion of the project study area. Land
clearing and tillage may render soils susceptible to erosion, which in turn can cause
stream sedimentation. Pesticides and fertilizers can be washed from fields into the water
resources. Cleared land from forestry practices is located along the southern portion of
the project study area. Clearing of trees through timber harvesting and construction of
logging roads can produce sedimentation.
2.2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. Land
clearing and grubbing activities from project construction will directly result in soil
erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity in Porter Swamp. These effects
may extend downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality.
The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. An increase in water temperature results in a decrease iii
dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation also
stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters must
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with
DEM and DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects
which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
There is potential for components of Bridge No. 12 to be dropped into waters of
the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
bridge removal is identified in Section 1.1. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this
bridge.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of
the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion if exposed soils
7
are revegetated and streambanks stabilized with native vegetation. Wooded buffers
effectively trap organic nutrients and sediments before they reach water resources. This
will increase long-term water quality and provide wildlife habitat.
Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study area.
Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage must be adhered to for this project. These guidelines are applicable for all
projects crossing perennial or intermittent tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic
map) located below the fall line. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to
NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway stream crossing
structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (* )
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used
by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985;
Rhode et al. 1994).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: disturbed
community, mixed hardwood forest and riverine coastal bottomland wetland.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
This community encompasses two types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder and agricultural field.
Roadside shoulders are land parcels in which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing,
early successional state. These areas appear to be regularly mowed and may receive
frequent herbicide application. This habitat is located directly adjacent to NC 242
throughout the project. Species observed here include fescue (Festuca spp.), crabgrass
(Digitaria spp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolatd), Japanese honeyscukle (Lonicera
japonica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Carolina geranium (Geranium
carolinianum), vetch (Vicia sp.), and wild onion (Allium vineale). A corn field (Zea
mays) is located along the northern project limits.
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest
This upland forest tract is dominated by species common throughout the coastal
plain of North Carolina. Plants observed here include willow oak (Quercus phello.s).
laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), water oak (Q. nigra), horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), wax
myrtle (Mvrica cerifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum).
high bush blueberry (1'accinium corvmbosum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). Vines and epiphytes located here
include greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoide.s), yellow
jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and dewberry (Rubus sp.).
3.1.3 Riverine Coastal Bottomland Wetland
This wetland tract is the dominant community throughout the project study area.
Several variations of this community exist depending on its successional stage, flooding
regime, and level of prior disturbance. This forested community is located in the upper
reaches of the swamp and is irregularly to seasonally flooded. Overbank flooding,
surface and groundwater flow perpendicular to the stream channel are likely sources of
hydrology. The forested, mature stands exhibit a closed canopy with well developed herb
and shrub layers. Dominant plants vary with the type of sediments and subtle changes in
elevation as well as frequency and duration of flooding.
Hardwood Forest, Irregularly larly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include laurel oak,
sweet gum, red maple, high bush blueberry, horse sugar, wax myrtle, swamp chestnut oak
(Q. michauxii), coastal dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), swamp dog hobble (L.
racemosa), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), pepperbush, red
bay (Persea borbonia), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), privet (Ligustrum sinense), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), netted chainfem (Woodwardia areolata), sedge (Carer sp.) and
bamboo vine (Smilax rotundifolia). The hydrology in this variation ranged from
saturated to the surface to a flooding depth of 10 cm (4 in).
9
Hardwood Forest, Re ularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include giant cane,
red maple, sweet gum, black gum (yVyssa sylvatica var. biflora), sedge, red bay,
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), cypress (Taxodium distichium), Virginia magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana), willow oak, American elm (Ulmus americana), overcup oak (Q.
lyrata), and winterberry (Ilex verticillata). The hydrology in this variation ranged from a
flooding depth of 10 cm (4 in) to more than 30 cm (12 in). Many of the larger trees
exhibited buttressed trunks and stained water marks.
Disturbed herbaceous, irregularly flooded: This variation is dominated by herbs, likely
attributed to recent land clearing activities. Plants located here include sedge, seedbox
(Ludwigia spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), plume grass (Erianthus sp.), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), St. John's wort (Hypericum sp.), giant cane, cypress
seedlings, crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), silverling
(Baccharis halimifolia), bamboo vine, cat tail (Typha latifolia) and broomsedge
(Andorpogon sp.).
3.2 Faunal Component
Much of the wildlife in the project study area likely use various communities for
forage, cover, and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the
edges of forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
The raccoon* (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats
to moist upland forests as well as urban areas. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus) are occasionally observed along-broken areas of mixed young forests and
abandoned fields. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on
adjacent roadways. The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed
or open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting
habitat. Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they
primarily feed on woody perennials. Mammals commonly occurring in bottomlan_ d
forested habitats include star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), cotton mouse
(Peromyscus gossypinus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali), and mink (Mustela vison).
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates) and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), southern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) and dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata)
are commonly found under logs, leaf litter or rocks in bottomlands. The barking treefrog
(Hyla gratio.sa) inhabits low wet woods and swamps in the lower Coastal Plain. Little
grass frogs (Limnaoedus ocularis) prefer streams in bottomland sites. The snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), are known to inhabit
freshwater bottomlands. Several aquatic snakes inhabit bottomlands and include the mud
10
snake (Farancia abacura), rainbow snake (F. erytrogramma), redbelly water snake
(Nerodia erythrogastrer), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), brown-
headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), and Carolina chickadde* (Parus carolinensis) are
commonly observed in mixed hardwood forests throughout the southern coastal plain.
Turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura) and red-tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis) were
observed flying above the project area. The Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus)
and mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos) were observed along the roadside shoulder. The
barred owl (Strix varia), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern parula
(Parula americana), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) are often observed
in wet, deciduous woods. The white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) inhabits the edges of
bottomlands where it feeds on insects.
3.3 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type. coastal plain perennial stream is located in the
project study area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the
water influence the faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Perennial streams
support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water. Porter
Swamp provides habitat for chain pickerel (Esox niger), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), largemouth bass (Micropteru.s salmoides), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crvsoleucas), madtom (Notorus sp.) and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community in the functional design (Table 1). Project construction will result in the
clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are
derived using the proposed right-of-way (ROW) limits outlined in Section I. I. Project
construction does not usually require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
11
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
New Alignment In Place
Removal
Disturbed Community 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) 0. 1 ha (0.4 ac) 0.3 ha (0.7 ac)
Mixed Hardwood Forest <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac)
Riverine Coastal Bottom. Wetland 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) 0.2 ha (0.6 ac)
TOTAL (see note) 0.4 ha (1.0 ac) 0.8 ha (1.9 ac) 0.5 ha (1.3 ac)
Notes:
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community
due to rounding of significant digits.
-Alternate 1 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts associated with the
removal of existing Bridge No. 12 and adjacent roadway approaches in approximately the
same location for new replacement bridge.
-Alternate 2 New Alignment values indicate permanent impacts to the new bridge and
roadway approaches on new location.
-Alternate 2 In Place Removal values indicate permanent and temporary impacts
associated with the removal of Bridge No. 12 and adjacent roadway approaches.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of`
project construction. The riverine coastal bottomland wetland habitat is an ecologically
important habitat that will be affected by all or some of the following construction
impacts: the permanent placement of fill, temporary placement of fill, and the removal of
existing fill. It is recommended that areas that receive temporary fill and where existing
bridge and adjacent roadways are removed (i.e. Alternate 2) be graded down to normal
elevation and revegetated with native flora.
Clearing and conversion of the wetland habitat for roadway development affects
nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. Temporary and permanent
impacts will displace animals from this area as they search for additional habitat.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals (shrews, snakes, etc.) from
construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls should be maintained during the
entire life of the project. Construction runoff and highway spills may result in mortality
to aquatic species inhabiting Porter Swamp.
12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--waters of the United States and protected and rare species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a).. Waters of the United States
include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands"
under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into
waters of the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the
statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Wetlands
Porter Swamp is considered jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. This system is thoroughly described in Section 2.2.1. Potential
jurisdictional wetland communities were examined pursuant to the 1987 US. Army Corps
or Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The manual is a technical guideline for
wetlands. According to the manual, an area is considered a wetland if three parameters,
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrologic characteristics concurrently exist.
Based upon the results of the field investigation, the project area contains jurisdictional
wetlands.
Two systems are currently being used in North Carolina to describe or rate
wetlands: a classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) and a numerical
rating system developed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM, 1995). The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in describing concepts
and terms used in classifying wetland systems. The DEM rating scale gauges wetland
quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with 100 being the highest value) that
emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife
habitat, aquatic life values, and recreation/ education potential. The DEM rating may be
revised when a wetland delineation is conducted at the project study area. A description
of the wetland sites, Cowardin system classification and DEM rating are presented below.
Hardwood Forest, Irregularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include laurel oak,
sweet gum, red maple, high bush blueberry, horse sugar, wax myrtle, swamp chestnut
oak, coastal dog hobble, swamp dog hobble, giant cane, titi, pepperbush, red bay,
fetterbush, privet, elderberry, netted chainfem, sedge and bamboo vine. The clay loam
soil at this site exhibited a soil color of l OYR 4/2 with 7.5 YR 4/6 mottles in the A layer.
Observations of wetland hydrology include inundation, saturation within 30 cm (12 in)
13
and drainage pattern in wetland. This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PFO1 C
and a DEM rating of 79.
Hardwood Forest, Regularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here include giant cane,
red maple, sweet gum, black gum, sedge, red bay, woolgrass, cypress, Virginia magnolia,
willow oak, American elm, overcup oak, and winterberry. The clay loam soil at this site
exhibited a soil color of l OYR 4/1 with 2.5 YR 3/4 mottles in the A layer. Observations
of wetland hydrology include inundation, water marks and drainage pattern in wetland.
This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PFOIF and a DEM rating of 79.
Disturbed herbaceous, irregularly flooded: Plants located here include sedge, seedbox ,
soft rush, plume grass, buttonbush, St. John's wort, giant cane, cypress, crossvine,
goldenrod, silverling, bamboo vine, cat tail and broomsedge. The clay loam soil at this
site exhibited a soil color of IOYR 3/1 with 7.5 YR 2.5/3 mottles in the A layer.
Observations of wetland hydrology include inundation, saturation within 30 cm (12 in)
and drainage pattern in wetland. This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PEM2C
and a DEM rating of 54.
4.1.2 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands.
Impacts are summarized in Table 2. The amount of wetland and surface water impacts
may be modified by any changes in the project design. Both temporary and permanent
impacts to the coastal plain bottomland wetland are clearly summarized in Table 1.
Porter Swamp is proposed to be bridged. Approximately 24 m (80 ft) of Porter Swamp is
located in the ROW of Alternate 1 and the New Alignment and In Place Removal
associated with Alternate 2.
There is the potential that components of the deck of Bridge No. 12 will be
dropped into waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck associated with Bridge No. 12 is 135 m3 (177 yd3).
This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than
those outlined in BMPs.
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands perform in an
ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing
storm water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and
downstream areas. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and inorganic
nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows through them. The presence of
wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
14
4.1.3 Permits
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The USACE, which
administers the permit program under CWA §404, established nationwide permits for
minor activities, specialized activities, and activities regulated by other authorities. A
nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule. In other words, compliance with the NWP
rules satisfies the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Forty
NWPs referenced by a number currently exist. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities permitted
by the federal government comply with state water quality standards. The DWQ may
require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills or substantially
modifies waters or wetlands. North Carolina developed General Certifications (GCs) that
satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the USACE NWPs. Water Quality Certification
No. 3107 corresponds to NWP 23.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts.
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
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 and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measure 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.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
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. Impacts to the
wetland could be minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths; (2)
15
installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction; (3) strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands and (4) reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. Alternate 1 has reduced wetland
impacts when compared to Alternate 2. Alternate 1 is the preferred alignment based on
environmental issues.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for 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. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetland will require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h) and fill or alteration of more than 450 linear m (150 linear ft) of streams
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0506(a) and
(h). If these acreage and linear thresholds are exceeded from project construction,
NCDOT will follow these regulations.
If Alternate 2 is chosen, the removal of Bridge No. 12 and its adjacent roadway
and the subsequent grading down to normal elevation and revegetation with native flora
could serve as on-site mitigation for the construction of the new alignment.
4.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the 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, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of May 14, 1999, there are five federally-protected
species listed for Columbus County (Table 2). A brief description of each Endangered or
Threatened species characteristics and habitat follows.
16
Table 2. Federally protected species for Columbus County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(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
1 Endangered=a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Threatened=a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance=a taxon that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for protection. These
species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation. This includes the American alligator.
* indicates the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
short-nosed sturgeon
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: March 11. 1967
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small species of sturgeon which occurs in coastal
rivers and estuaries with soft vegetated substrates. It prefers deep channels with a salinity
less than sea water. Although generally considered anadromous, because of the
avoidance of high salinities, this species has been described as intermediate between fully
anadramous and potamodromous.
Adult short-nosed sturgeons are commonly reported in shallow water (2-10 m) in
summer and in deeper water (10-30 m) in winter. At spawning time, however, the fish
may move considerable distance upstream if unimpeded by dams. Spawning sites have
been described as freshwater swamps, or freshwater areas with fast flow and rough
bottoms. In the southern portion of its range, short-nosed sturgeon spawning occurs from
January to April.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Fred Rhode was contacted on August 13, 1999 regarding the potential presence of
short-nosed sturgeon at the project study area. He stated that Porter Swamp is too
stagnant and too small a stream to provide suitable habitat for the short-nosed sturgeon.
A review of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
observations of the short-nosed sturgeon in the project vicinity. Impacts to this species
will not occur from project construction.
17
American alligator
Animal Family: Crocodilidae
The American alligator is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other
rare species and is listed to protect these species. The American alligator is not
biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Potential habitat for the American alligator does exist in the project study area; although
no individuals were observed during the site visit. A review of NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no known observations of the American alligator in
the project vicinity.
Waccamaw silversides
Animal Family: Atherinidae
Date Listed: April 8, 1987
The Waccamaw silverside, is a small (growing to about 2.5 in), slim, almost
transparent fish with a silvery stripe along each side. Its body is laterally compressed, the
eyes are large, and the jaw is sharply angled upward. This fish spawns from April through
June, but spawning reaches its peak when water temperatures are between 68 and 72 F.
Fully developed larvae form small isolated schools by early May. No parental care of the
young has been noted. The silversides reach sexual maturity by the following spring.
spawn, and then shortly thereafter most of the adults die off. A few may survive a second
winter.
Known only from Lake Waccamaw and the upper Waccamaw River in Columbus
County, the silverside is found in the upper Waccamaw River only during periods of high
water and is not a permanent resident. The species' population is estimated to be in the
millions. The critical habitat for this species is Lake Waccamaw in its entirety to mean
high water level, and Big Creek from its mouth at Lake Waccamaw upstream
approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) to where the creek is crossed by County Road 1947.
Constituent elements include high quality. "
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The project study area is not located near Lake Waccamaw or the upper
Waccamaw River. A review of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no known observations of this species in the project vicinity. Impacts to the Waccamaw
silversides will not occur from project construction.
red-cockaded woodpecker
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 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
18
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, 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 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 200.0 ha
(500.0 ac). 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 (12.0-100.0 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30.0-50.0 ft)
high. They can be 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
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, in the form
of old growth pine forests, is not located in the project study area. There were no pines of
sufficient size and density located in the project study area or nearby vicinity. A review
of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
RCW within 1.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to this species will not
occur from project construction.
rough-leaved loosestrife
Plant Family: Primulaceae
Federally Listed: June 12, 1987
Flowers Present: June
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial herb having slender stems and whorled
leaves. This herb has showy yellow flowers, which usually occur in threes or fours.
Fruits are present from July through October.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain and sandhills of North
and South Carolina. 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), pine flatwoods, and pocosins. The areas it occurs in are fire
maintained. Rough-leaved loosestrife rarely occurs in association with hardwood stands
and prefers acidic soils.
19
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife does not exist as there are no
ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins on moist to
seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand in the project
study area. A review of the NHP rare species and unique habitat database did not reveal
the presence of rough-leaved loosestrife within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
Impacts to this species will not occur from project construction.
Cooley's meadowrue
Plant Family: Ranunculaceae
Federally Listed: February 7, 1989
Flowers Present: late June-July (best mid July)
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. Fruits mature from August to September.
Cooley's meadowrue occurs in moist to wet bogs and savannahs. It also grows
along fireplow lines, roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline rights-of-way
that provide the hydrology necessary to support this species. Cooley's meadowrue needs
some type of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Plants often found growing with
the meadowrue include tulip poplar growing with cypress and/or Atlantic white cedar.
Cooley's meadowrue only grows well in areas with full sunlight.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project study area is comprised of disturbed habitat, mixed hardwood forest,
and riverine coastal bottomland wetland. There are no wet bogs or savannahs at the site.
The disturbed community at the project area is regularly maintained and is a xeric, upland
site. Therefore, there is no suitable habitat for this species located in the project study
area. A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not indicate
the presence of Cooley's meadowrue within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. No
effects to this species will occur from the construction of this project.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. Twenty-four FSC are listed for Columbus County
(Table 3).
20
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Columbus County.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Habitat
Status
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SC No
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowh SR No
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii SC (PT) Yes
Carolina pygmy sunfish Elassoma boehlkei T No
Waccamaw killifish Fundulus waccamensis SC No
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SC (PT) No
Waccamaw lance Elliptio sp. 5 Not No
pearlymussel Available
Waccamaw spike Elliptio wacamawensis T No
Waccamaw fatmucket Lampsilis fullerkati T No
Pee Dee lotic crayfish Procambarus lepidodacrylus Not No
Available
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus T (PE) Yes
Cape Fear threetooth Tridopsis soelneri T Yes
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. T No
confusa
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii Wl Yes
Venus flytrap Dionea muscipula C-SC No
Harper's fimbrv Fimbrysryv is perpusilla T No
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana T No
savannah cowbane Oxypoli.s ternata W 1 No
Carolina grass-of- Parnassia caroliniana E No
parnassus
pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora E No
swamp forest beaksedge Rhynchospora securrens Not No
Available
spring-flowering Solidago verna E No
goldenrod
wireleaf dropseed Sporobolus teretifolius sensu T No
stricto
Carolina asphodel Tofreldia glabra C No
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 flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species are
very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Special Concern
(SC) species require monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations
adopted under provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act.
21
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. Proposed Candidate
(PC) are species which have been formally proposed for listing as Candidate but has not
yet completed the legally mandated listing process. Watch Category 1 (W 1) includes rare
species whose status in North Carolina is relatively well known and which appear to be
relatively secure at this time. Watch Category 2 (W2) includes species with questionable
taxonomy, including taxa of dubious validity and taxa under study and potentially to be
named.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal
the presence of these species or unique habitats in or near the project study area. Surveys
for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were these
species observed during the site visit.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 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, MS.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program. Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of'the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, NC.
22
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1993. Lumber River Basin-Basinwide Assessment
Report Support Document. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1994. Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 1999. Stream Classifications Internet Home Page.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Rhode, F.C.. R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Marvland. & Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (3rd Approx.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Soil Survey of Columbus County. Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of- the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill,
NC.
e„a ST/Vr°
ww
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
12 August 1999
SECRETARY
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Unit
From: Dale W. Suiter, Environmental Biologist ?2
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Protected species surveys for rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulaefolia) and Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) for
the following TIP No: B-3142.
Attention: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter and Jim Hauser conducted surveys in the project
study area for the federally endangered rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia
asperulaefolia) and Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi). Species descriptions and
biological conclusions follow.
Roughed-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Family: Primrose (Primulaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered, 1987
Best Search Time: late spring through mid summer (late May - early June)
Distribution: Rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills of
North Carolina and South Carolina.
Habitat: Typical habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is the ecotone between high pocosin
and longleaf pine (or oak) savannas that contain sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight.
Roughed-leaved loosestrife sometimes occurs in low pocosin openings where light is
abundant at ground level. Other habitats where this species is found include ecotones of
Characteristics: Cooley's meadowrue is a tall herb to 1 m or more in flower. Its slender
stems are erect in sunny locations and lax or sprawling when shaded. The leaves are
ternately divided and the leaflets are about 2 cm long, narrow with entire margins or
rarely with two or three lobes near the tip. The entire plant is glabrous with no hairs or
glands. Male and female flowers occur on separate plants in loose few-flower clusters at
the top of the plant. The flowers lack petals and the sepals fall off early. The male
flowers have numerous pale lavender stamens. The female flowers have several separate
spindle-shaped carpels which develop into narrowly ellipsoid, ribbed, one-seeded fruits 6
mm long, each tipped with a persistent linear style.
Threats: Loss of wet savanna / bog habitat, through succession, clearing for agriculture,
forestry, mining, development and highway construction are all threats to the survival of
Cooley's meadowrue.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Areas of suitable habitat within the project study area were surveyed on 23 June 1999. A
plant by plant survey was unsuccessful. No Cooley's meadowrue plants were located.
The NCNHP records were checked via ArcView that was last updated in January 1999.
At that time, no populations of Cooley's meadowrue were known from the project study
area. This project will not affect Cooley's meadowrue.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding
protected species at this project site. _
cc: David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head
Tim Savidge, Protected Species Coordinator
z,-Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
File: B-3142