20010141 Ver 1_Complete File_20010130

4 S
dM ?AT?o?
r'? s(BL+
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JAN 3 0 2001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 24, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Bell
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
„4p11Ssav
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Lenoir County, Replacement of Bridge No. 66 on US 70 over Southwest
Creek. TIP No. B-2149, State Project No. 8.1200601, Federal Aid Project
No. BRSTP-70(36).
Please find attached the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) and the
Natural Resources Technical Report for the referenced project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 66 over
Southwest Creek on US 70 in Lenoir County. The bridge will replaced in existing
location with the same elevation as the existing bridge. The existing bridge width is 28.1
feet, the proposed width is 39.0 feet. Traffic will be detoured across the median to the
westbound lanes of US 70 during construction. The total project length is 2300 feet and
the right-of-way width is 207 feet.
Bridge No. 66 in Lenoir County is composed of concrete rails, concrete deck,
timber joists on I-beams, and timber caps on timber piles. The rails, joists, I-beams and
substructure will all be removed without dropping components into the water. The deck
(composed of a 5 inch reinforced concrete slab) will be removed by sawing techniques
and removed without dropping, but depending on the structural integrity of the concrete
could result in as much as 59 cubic yards of temporary fill.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction. No direct surface
water impacts are anticipated since existing and proposed structures and supports are
situated above the normal surface water level. It is anticipated that bridge demolition and
construction will be from the top down. Since widening the bridge will increase
impervious surface, stormwater drainage from the bridge will be directed off the bridge
and into the stream buffer at non erosive velocities as per requirements pursuant to the
Neuse Buffer Rules. Approximately, 30 square feet of Neuse Buffer will be filled as a
result of project construction.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Programatic Categorical Exclusion" (PCE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
NCDOT requests these activities be authorized under a Nationwide Permit in accordance
with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 09 April 2000, by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing seven copies of the application to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Bruce O. Ellis at [phone].
Sincerely,
c-g '
O"William D. Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. C.E. Lassiter, Jr., P.E., Division 2 Engineer

L
c?
Z '
7
71
m
W -
0
o
col
r
It
- Lt.,.?lll I? T
ZE
0
00
?MM
z
x
m n c

?'
0 ?
0 o x
, z
'

z
T
I?
f=
I
m
I
?I n
I ?
I
?I Il
k I y1 I
I iz 1 11
[ ? I I ?
I 1 W z
? I I I m
? I I it m
I I I
I I I
I I I m
I I I ?
T' i I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
----1_ ?I rem
I
?I
101
I 1?I
2 "_-c Mp ,
?I'I II I
I I?I I i I
I I
It
r
I
x
?I

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2149
State Project No. 8.1200601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-70(36)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 66 on eastbound
US 70 over Southwest Creek in Lenoir County. The new structure will be a
bridge approximately 49 meters (160 feet) long and 11.6 meters (38 feet) wide
at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The bridge
will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes plus a 3 meter (10 foot) offset on the
outside lane and a 1.2 meter (4 foot) offset on the inside lane. Approaches will
include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including
a 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulder. Shoulders will be wider at the bridge and
will widen to at least 3.4 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. Traffic
will be maintained using a median crossover detour and one lane of US 70
westbound during construction. The length of this detour alignment will be
approximately 675 meters (2215 feet). Guardrail on the detour bridge (Bridge
No. 73) will be replaced to meet modern standards.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 66 has a sufficiency rating of 49.1 out of 100. The structure is
a two lane bridge with 8.5 meters (28.1 feet) of bridge roadway width. Current
standards specify a width of 11.6 meters (38 feet). The bridge is currently not
posted. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither practical nor feasible.
"Do nothing" is not a practical alternate because it would require the eventual
closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. For these
reasons, Bridge No. 66 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Tyne II Improvements
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 driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
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.
Approvals for changes in access control.
2
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information and Commitments
Bridge No. 66 is located on US 70 approximately 3 miles east of Kinston (see
Figure 1). US 70 is a four-lane divided facility with partial control of access and a
median width of approximately 12.2 meters (40 feet). Bridge No. 66 accommodates
eastbound traffic while a parallel bridge (No. 73) serves westbound traffic.
Bridge No. 66 is to be replaced at the existing location with a new bridge
approximately 49 meters (160 feet) in length. The new bridge will provide two
3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes plus a 3 meter (10 foot) offset on the outside lane and a
1.2 meter (4 foot) offset on the inside lane.
The accommodation of traffic during the construction period is of special
concern. The only reasonable method of handling traffic is to construct a median
detour (one-lane eastbound). This would involve utilizing Bridge No. 73, resulting in
two-lane two-way traffic on the existing westbound lanes. Peak hour volumes on
Friday and Sunday afternoons will be approximately 1000 vehicles per hour (one-
way) during summer months. An analysis of these volumes by the Traffic
Engineering Branch indicates that no significant traffic delays will result. In order to
minimize interference with traffic, the following measures should be implemented.
Construct the median detour at a time that will not interfere with the flow of
peak traffic on Friday and Sunday afternoons.
2. Establish an availability date that will result in removing the existing bridge
in early September immediately following Labor Day. Divert eastbound
traffic onto the median detour at this time.
Construct the new bridge during a 7 to 7-1/2 month period, with a
completion date of May 1 of the following year. This will probably be a
reasonable contract time period assuming that the bridge is to be cored slab.
4. After project completion, remove the median detour during non-peak hours.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Kelly's Mill, a historical site eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
is located south of Bridge No. 66. In order to avoid any effect on this historic
property, widening of Bridge No. 66 is expected to be within the existing
right-of-way.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 875,000
Right of Way (Easement and Utilities) $ 25,000
Total $ 900,000
4
5
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 10,700 VPD
Year 2018 - 32,000 VPD
TTST - 6%
DUAL - 4%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 2.4 meter (8 feet) wide including a 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulder, shoulders will be widened at the bridge and where
guardrail is required
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Principal Arterial
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the bridge
in place and shifting traffic onto Bridge No. 73 during construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type 11 actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists Q& of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
5
I
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? - --
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
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 N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
6

(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 AND ECONOMIC 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) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
7
4
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES
YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl x
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for x
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Not Applicable
8
I
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2149
State Project No. 8.1200601
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-70(36)
Project Descri tp ion:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 66 on eastbound
US 70 over Southwest Creek in Lenoir County. The new structure will be a
bridge approximately 49 meters (160 feet) long and 11.6 meters (38 feet) wide
at the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The bridge
will provide two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes plus a 3 meter (10 foot) offset on the
outside lane and a 1.2 meter (4 foot) offset on the inside lane. Approaches will
include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including
a 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulder. Shoulders will be wider at the bridge and
will widen to at least 3.4 meters (11 feet) where guardrail is required. Traffic
will be maintained using a median crossover detour and one lane of US 70
westbound during construction. The length of this detour alignment will be
approximately 675 meters (2215 feet). Guardrail on the detour bridge (Bridge
No. 73) will be replaced to meet modern standards.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE 11(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
1-27-17 Wea y h? L /,
Date Project Planning Unit Head
:7 7/1 7
Date Proje Vanni;g E ineer
9

N
J
r \ ', i
institute Dawmn
n[ar%
•L Gran [a
CSS N-
C-11 M- 70
IJ
L E N O I
[un Is
t 2se
ink Hill
West
Crossroads
•2
ISi6 1817 "/
a
1803
` 2? 1931 • 21820 1819
'S
?? • a 1 c32J 1803 / .
t 1 ? ?
ll Dupr+sevilk r1 ? 1.3 t Cenwe 1808 ?•
eey-
- , KELLY
- - - POND 1, ??Nq
309 131 1` , . o rV
I o
FAU G I
Harveytowr? /
a /
y 70
JNSTO
POP. 25,758 55 FA
11 l ? /
`` In 55 ` I I'I tl
i 2. 0 Q I
r +i
BRIDGE NO. 66 R/V
2 o ER
,L
Wyse Fork h3
? W1"
1929
1.0 ,
1902 ,?
?8 `
>
. 6 O r r /?
> * 1973 /
I /s I .7 .
1913
?_ _ 191 a /
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
LENOIR COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 66 ON US 70
OVER SOUTHWEST CREEK
B-2149
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure I
0 miles 1 miles 2
r
M.w r.?' ?!
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 27, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 66 on US 70 over Southwest
Creek, Lenoir County, B-2149, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-70(36), State Project
8.1200601, ER 96-8365
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On March 26, 1996, 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, Kelly's Mill (LR 1203) is located within
the general project area. This property was determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places on August 10, 1990, in conjunction with a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers project; however, boundaries have not been established for this
property.
There are several other structures over fifty years of age within the general project
area, including Bridge 66, which was constructed in 1933. These do not appear
eligible for the National Register, and no further historic architectural survey is
recommended.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1??
?V
Nicholas L. Graf
3/27/96, Page 2
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.
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,
6"
)??141
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slwcc: 'Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
I

Federal Aid T EA5 1 TIP , L-2-1?jj County L*o ??
On nex-6trl; q _, representatives of the,
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
_ North Carolina State Historic Preservation O n-ce (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
- area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's'area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
proje-..'s area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential e;iect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
? s aG
Repretntative, NI CDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section Da
- L??d? i?
FHW or the Divisi n Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
p1'Ia A V4 ?- 1Y?AQ 'b-15 1110
Representative, SHPO Date `
Stat istoric Preservation Officer Date
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

y?.t 5LATt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TZANSPORTATION
IAMEs B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 2520L RALEI(iH. N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRFTT )K.
G(,\rr.No i? SECREIAKY
21 January 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Mark Hartman, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Investigation for proposed replacement
of bridge No. 66 on US 70, Lenoir County; TIP No. B-2149;
State Project No. 8.1200601; Federal Aid No. BRSTP-
70(36).
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Manager
Project Planning Unit
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the development of a
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project: water resources,
biotic resources, wetlands, and federally protected species. The proposed project calls
for the replacement of bridge No. 66 over Southwest Creek on US 70, Lenoir County.
The bridge will be replaced in place with the same roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic will be detoured across the median to the westbound lanes of US 70
during construction. Total project length is 700 m (2300 ft) and right- of-way (ROW)
width is 63 m (207 ft).
A field investigation was conducted on 15 August 1996 by NCDOT biologist
Logan Williams to assess natural resources at the project site. Water resources were
identified and described. Plant communities were surveyed, and wildlife populations
were predicted using general qualitative habitat assessments. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources (1993), and information concerning federally-protected species
was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (23 August 1996). Potential
jurisdictional wetlands were identified and evaluated based on criteria established in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987).
Re J

.`
WATER RESOURCES
One water resource, Southwest Creek, will be impacted by project construction.
This creek is a-direct tributary to the Neuse River, with the confluence approximately 6
km (4 mi) downstream from the project. Within the project area Southwest Creek is a
typical coastal plain blackwater stream, and is approximately 15 m (50 ft) wide and 3-6
m (10-20 ft) deep.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage classification for unnamed
tributaries is the same as that applied to the named section into which the unnamed
tributary flows. This classification scheme allows for protection of waters downstream
from unnamed and intermittent streams. The Best Usage Classification for Southwest
Creek (DEM index 27-80) is C with the supplemental classifications of Sw and NSW.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Sw (Swamp water) is a supplemental
water classification and includes waters which have low velocities and other natural
characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. NSW (Nutrient Sensitive
Waters) refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. No High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macro invertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macro invertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN sites occur within the project area. The closest BMAN site is located
on the Neuse River, approximately 11 river km (6.6 river mi) upstream from the
confluence of the Neuse River and Southwest Creek. This site was last sampled in
July 1990 and received a rating of good.
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 permitted
dischargers within the project area.
Potential impacts to water resources include increased sedimentation from
accelerated soil erosion, decreased dissolved oxygen, and temperature instability. The
latter two impacts are attributed to the removal of stream-side vegetation.
Sedimentation and substrate disturbance occurring during bridge or culvert
construction can significantly reduce water clarity. In order to minimize impacts to
water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. This would include:
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharges into the water bodies
and minimization of activities conducted in streams.
• installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth berms to control runoff during
construction.
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites will reduce
runoff and decrease sediment loads.
• elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains or adjacent to streams which
would reduce the potential of accidental discharge of toxins into water bodies.
Some degree of water quality degradation is probably inevitable from project
construction due to the necessity of streambank and substrate disturbance. However,
impacts can be minimized through adequate planning which emphasizes the reduction
of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed areas from the kinetic energy of
falling and flowing waters. Use of BMPs will also help to ensure that impacts to water
quality are temporary and localized rather than long-term and extensive.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources within the project area include both terrestrial and aquatic
communities, with their associated flora and fauna. One terrestrial community, a
disturbed/maintained transportation corridor community, will be impacted by project
construction.
The transportation corridor community consists of areas along roadways which
have been heavily impacted and maintained by human development activities. Such
areas extend out approximately 15 m (50 ft) on both sides of the existing roadway and
border young upland forests outside the ROW. Included also in this community are the
disturbed alluvial forests bordering Southwest Creek which have been greatly
degraded in size and structure. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with
frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community in an early successional
state. Dominant vegetation in the project area is almost exclusively herbaceous and
includes horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), wild lettuce (Latuca sp.), goldenrod
(Solidago altissima), beggar lice (Desmodium paniculatum), greenbrier (Smilax bona-
nox), trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), and
ragweed (Ambrosia spp. ). Also in this area are small and occasionally medium-sized
saplings of slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula nigra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Wildlife found in this community type is limited and consists primarily of wide-
ranging, adaptable species. Other animals may use this area as a corridor for travel
between less disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Aquatic and amphibious
species take advantage of the semi-permanent waters contained in roadside ditches.
Many crayfish species (Decapoda) are able to occupy ditches, that are seasonally de-
watered, by burrowing into moist soil near the temporary water source. These ditches
also support amphibian reproduction and are likely used by southern cricket frogs
(Acris gryllus), and green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea). Some fish find suitable habitat in
these ditches, and may even find refugia in the form of pools in which to wait out low or
no flow events. Piscine species such as the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki), and the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) are able to survive the low
oxygen conditions which accompany the warm, stagnant water which occur in these
ditches. Reptiles commonly found in disturbed habitats include the eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and black racer (Coluberconstrictor). Birds potentially
utilizing disturbed habitats include American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), common crow (Corvus brachyrynchos), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), European starling
(Sturnus vulgaris) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Mammalian species likely
to frequent disturbed habitats include eastern cottontail (Sylvagus floridanus), white-
footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).
Southwest Creek is a coastal plain blackwater river community which is
characterized by a sandy, silty substrate and warm, clear, tannin stained water. Flow
varies seasonally and with precipitation intensity. Occasional overbank flooding occurs
during storm events, scouring the channel and depositing debris material. This stream
is very low gradient and generally slow flowing. Scattered woody debris occurs within
the channel and along the shoreline. Dominant fauna found in these rivers or along the
shoreline includes a variety of aquatic and semiaquatic species. No fish were
observed during the site visit, but the river could provide habitat for resident species
such as shiners (Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), carp (Cyprinus carpio),
and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Amphibians and reptiles expected to
occur in this community include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentaria), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), and northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon). A great blue heron * (Ardea herodias) was sighted during the field
investigations.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
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 area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed ROW width of 63 m (207 ft) and a project length of 700 m (2300 ft).
Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
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. A total of 1.1 ha (2.6 ac) of roadside
shoulder community will be destroyed by project construction. However, this
community will be replaced by an equivalent community through re-vegetation at
project completion. Estimated impact is derived using the entire proposed ROW width
of 63 m (207 ft) and a project length of 700 m (2300 ft). Often, project construction does
not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
WETLANDS AND PERMITS
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Field surveys revealed that no wetlands are present in the project area. Hydric
soils and hydrophytic vegetation are not present in the project area, and there was no
evidence of surface or subsurface saturated conditions. There will, however, be
impacts to surface waters resulting from project construction. Approximately 46 m (150
ft) of stream will potentially be impacted by project construction. Estimated impacts are
derived using the entire proposed ROW width of 63 m (207 ft) and a project length of
700 m (2300 ft). Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification is also required. A North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States.
Z
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
4.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are currently, in the process
of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human
development. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was obtained from the FWS list of protected and
candidate species (23 August 1996). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
4.3.1 FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Two protected species are listed by the FWS as occurring in Lenoir County
(Table 1). A brief description of the characteristics and habitat of each federally-
protected species follows Table 1.
U
_Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Lenior County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint vetch T"
"E" Endangered species: a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
"T" Threatened species: a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) ENDANGERED
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12.0-100.0 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
Nesting and foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist
within the project area. No pine forests of the proper age and density were
encountered which could provide nesting or foraging habitat for red-cockaded
woodpeckers. A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of rare and
protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of red-cockaded woodpeckers in or
near the project study area.
i
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive joint vetch) THREATENED
Family: Fabaceae
Date Listed: October 1991
Flowers Present: late July - August
This plant historically ranged along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina north
to Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This annual legume can obtain a height of 1-2 m in a single growing season. It
has single stems that may branch near the top. The leaves are 2-12 cm long,
even-pinnate, with entire, gland- dotted leaflets. The flowers are irregular, legume-like,
and 1 cm across. The yellow, red streaked flowers grow in racemes. Fruits are
produced from late July to early October and are loment with 6-10 segments. Fruits
turn dark brown when it is ripe.
The sensitive joint-vetch is found in river banks, swamps, and freshwater tidal
marshes, close enough to the ocean to be influenced by tidal fluctuations and far
enough upstream to live in fresh or only slightly brackish water. Soil disturbance is
important in getting seeds planted and away from birds and insects. Some
observations suggest that seedlings may only germinate in disturbed soils and/or plant
material that has been deposited on the bank. Soil disturbance increases the
reproductive success of Aeschynomene by covering and protecting exposed seeds
from washout and predation. Full sun and bare substrates are thought to significantly
enhance germination.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Potential habitat within the project area was surveyed for sensitive joint-vetch on
15 August 1996 by NC DOT biologist Logan Williams. No plants were found. In
addition, a search of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no populations of the sensitive joint-vetch within the project area. The subject
project will not affect this species.
4.3.2 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
Table 2 lists Federal Species of Concern (FSC) species for Lenoir County, the
species state status (if afforded state protection) and the absence or presence of
suitable habitat for each species in the study area. FSCs are species of concern which
may or may not be listed in the future, but are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act 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), Special Concern (SC), or
Candidate (C) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection or monitored under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern, Lenoir County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC HABITAT
STATUS
Procambarus medialis Albemarle crayfish SR y
Amorpha georgiana var georgiana Georgia leadplant E n
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap C-SC n
A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no records for the above listed species in the project study
area. Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed.
M. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File R-2149